That model works when the parties in power own the business
The board does not own twitter, they only have fiduciary power to act on behalf the interest of shareholders. The merger agreement is strong and legal precedence in such cases has almost always been in favor of the seller , Twitter's probability of winning in court is therefore quite high and they can reasonably expect to force Musk to honor the agreement.
Given this scenario, there will be significant portion of shareholders ( likely the majority) who would want to take the legal route and try and maximize their value, even more so because now the stock is not going to reach same levels anytime soon.
If the board did not honor these expectations, those shareholders have good cause to sue and win an argument that board did not do their job[1] and have to compensate them for lost value in the sale. Loosing such a case(likely) will be catastrophic for the board members.
[1] This construct and limitations on the board is there for good reasons, otherwise a buyer would just bribe the board with far smaller amount than the value of company .
The board does not own twitter, they only have fiduciary power to act on behalf the interest of shareholders. The merger agreement is strong and legal precedence in such cases has almost always been in favor of the seller , Twitter's probability of winning in court is therefore quite high and they can reasonably expect to force Musk to honor the agreement.
Given this scenario, there will be significant portion of shareholders ( likely the majority) who would want to take the legal route and try and maximize their value, even more so because now the stock is not going to reach same levels anytime soon.
If the board did not honor these expectations, those shareholders have good cause to sue and win an argument that board did not do their job[1] and have to compensate them for lost value in the sale. Loosing such a case(likely) will be catastrophic for the board members.
[1] This construct and limitations on the board is there for good reasons, otherwise a buyer would just bribe the board with far smaller amount than the value of company .