Thank god he wasn’t born in America.And yet weirdly familiar.
Thank god he wasn’t born in America.And yet weirdly familiar.
Sued? Twitter said that there were only "x%" of bots, and multiple independent bodies found that Twitter mis-represented material facts in the number of bots. This is what we call "fraud". In fact, what will likely happen next is that advertisers, who were promised an engagement platform of reaching potential customers, were in fact, paying inflated prices to advertise to non-entity bots. That is fraud, against multiple advertisers, over years. Share Holders, who were told in SEC filings that Twitter engaged with some number of people on their platform, were lied to.
Yet, somehow all of Twitter's fraud is Musk's fault? If I were to sell you a car, and you found out I lied about the mileage on the car, the year of the car, the accident record of the car, the maintenance issues with the car, and even something as basic as the size of the engine in the car - because of fraud, any contract is NULL and VOID. It's not rocket science.
Reading. It's a useful skill.
Who owes the termination fee (and whether one is owed) doesn't hinge on who terminated the agreement; it hinges on why the agreement was terminated. For instance, if Twitter terminates the agreement so that it can enter into a better acquisition agreement with someone else, it owes the fee. If Mr. Musk terminates the agreement because Twitter's board recommends that shareholders vote against the agreement, Twitter still owes the fee. In the current situation, it seems likely that Mr. Musk would owe the fee unless, e.g., he could demonstrate fraud by Twitter. That said, there are a number of ways that the parties could get out of the deal without owing the fee - e.g., if Twitter's shareholders vote against the deal (while the board recommended they vote for it), Twitter wouldn't owe the fee.The fee is between Musk and Twitter and comes into play if either party decides to cancel the deal. If Musk cancels, he owes Twitter the fee. If Twitter cancels (to accept a richer offer), then they owe Musk the fee. As Musk has signaled his intent to cancel, he owes the fee to Twitter.
What you are referring to is known as a "reverse breakup fee" and is paid by the buyer if they cannot complete the deal due to an outside reason like regulatory intermediation (the SEC or FCC, for example) or third-party financing concerns (like a major financial backer pulling out their financing commitment). I do not know if there is such a fee attached to this deal, but even if there were, it would not be in play because Musk is voluntarily intending to cancel.
I only mentioned education in an effort to show he’s not some multi doctorate holder which a lot of people think he is. He’s not the Stephen Hawking of our generation so let’s not pretend.What degree does Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have?
The $1 billion termination fee comes into play, even if the agreement is terminated by the parties themselves, for specified reasons or under specified circumstances.I think this is false, the fee only comes into play if a third party (like the FTC, SEC, etc.) cancels the deal.
![]()
Elon Musk can't just walk away from his Twitter deal by paying a $1 billion breakup fee
Musk can't just walk away from buying Twitter, despite a $1 billion reverse break fee attached to the deal.www.cnbc.com
My guess is that Twitter gets their $1B and they go after Musk for damages for making a bad faith offer. I think the prospect of discovery might even force Musk into a sizable settlement. Either way I don't think he escapes consequences from Twitter or investors in his other ventures that are certainly feeling like they were mislead regarding the reasons for his sizable share sell-offsI said it from the start. He never intended on buying it in the first place. Why would he. His whole freedom thing was BS.
The number of bots was found to be far above the amount stated (presumably 5%) by whom?Ummm, Fraud? The BoD did not own a substantial amount of shares in Twitter; yet were compensated for representing the Share Holders. The number of bots in Twitter was found to be far above the amount stated by the BoD and Sr. Management - it's THEIR JOB to know how many users are real. When you make financial misstatements with the intent to commit fraud, you have broken many Federal, State and local laws. Not the least would be
This is nothing like Enron.He exposed them, that was enough.
If 20% of the users are bots, my bet is that they make up a huge portion of the traffic. As advertisers pay based on users, Twitter could turn out to be committing the biggest corporate fraud in history. Like Eron.
Musk is “extremely right wing”? You must really be offended by logicI am extremely pleased that he is not going forward with it, there are plenty of extremely right wing people owning media.
And he had babies with 2 women.
Exactly! The first bid for Twitter was rejected and Elon sweeten the pot by waiving the right for due diligence. Then after the whole story about the employee he showed himself to came out suddenly he wasn't too interested in Twitter and the amount of Spam Bots became his interest.Why? Musk WAIVED his right for due diligence. Bots or not bots this is alllll on him.
Lawyers will do Lawyer things, but he'll pay big for this one.