It’s a tactic to make sure that they get at least $1 billion for Musk backing out. Could be significantly more. Musk is trying to walk away and pay nothing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter Sues Elon Musk to Force $44 Billion Merger
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And what is wrong with that? because in my opinion people do the same everyday, they purchase a business, a house, a car, investments, they take the word of the seller because the seller is knowledgeable and experienced and thus the buyer trusts what the seller is telling them. The buyer signs on the dotted line and then a few days later finds out not everything is right and that the seller was not quite honest with them and thus the buyer tries to back out of the deal.
Are you basically saying everyone who is caught out like this has no recourse to back out and thus it's a case of tough luck? I bet there has been time(s) in your life where you have backed out of an agreed deal. If it is OK for you and others to back out of deals then it should be OK for Musk to do the same. Or are you saying it's one rule for you and others and another rule for people like Musk?
Hahaha this, plus his new feud with Trump, is just pure entertainment. Dude is a joke.
econ 101. he will get it for cheaper once they reveal the accurate number of bots, which they have not done. there are way more than 5%
What would happen is he would have to liquidate stock and complete the transaction. He would probably lose controlling interest in Tesla but still own Twitter in the end. The worst case is he have to pay Twitter damages but not get to own them and liquidate stock to do it.
And those tweets already managed to make it into the lawsuit, seriously, in a less than flattering way to Musk obviously. It may sound cool on Twitter, but he’s going to get spanked hard where it matters.
Twitter has admitted that the information they provided was not enough to estimate the percentage of bots. This isn't a matter of believing their estimates. It's about verifying them.
I do not see how Musk is going to get 'spanked hard' because any right minded intelligent Judge would be asking Twitter's board one simpe question 'Why did you refuse to give Musk the data he requested?'
Could this be a case of Twitter's board showing it's arogance by saying Musk should have done his own checks into the company before he agreed to the deal and because he didn't it's his own fault and now he needs to pay up.
Anyone who didn’t see this for what it was at the start simply has never done a Deep Dive into the Evil Genius of Elon.
Twitter’s stock price has been impacted by all this. Will have to wait and see how this will finally end!
If Twitter misrepresented the percentage of bot accounts, which I strongly suspect they have given their reported refusal to actually let anyone outside the company see how they calculate it, I'm sure Musk can walk away from the deal. Having the company say "trust us" on this isn't good enough. Maybe it is a ploy to force the company to provide that number.
Is “merger” the correct term here? What is the driving company Twitter is supposed to be merging with?
As promised, Twitter today sued Elon Musk in an attempt to force Musk to go through with the $44 billion purchase of Twitter, reports Reuters. Twitter in the lawsuit accuses Musk of trashing the company, disrupting its operations, and destroying stockholder value.
Last Friday, Musk told Twitter that he was terminating the deal because of "material breach of multiple provisions of the agreement." Musk has said that he does not believe Twitter's claim that fake or spam accounts represent less than five percent of users.
Musk claimed that Twitter did not comply with its contractual agreements because he was not provided with the relevant business information that he requested about spam account data.
After Musk said that he wanted to call off the merger agreement, Twitter chairman Bret Taylor said that Twitter's board was "committed to closing the transaction" and planned to pursue legal action to enforce the agreement.
Musk initially offered to purchase Twitter for $54.20 per share in April, and Twitter accepted the offer. The deal is worth $44 billion, though Musk and Twitter could settle and call off the purchase if Musk pays a $1 billion+ fine and Twitter accepts.
Article Link: Twitter Sues Elon Musk to Force $44 Billion Merger
You are not under standing the fundamentals to the contract. The simplest way would be an analogy. You pay 30K for an option to buy a house with in 30 day. Day 31 comes and you didnt buy the house, you are not getting a penny back from the 30K. The billion dollar is the option. Its all about the terms of the contract, the level of complexity. They where agreed to by a team of lawyers on both side.
From a legal aspect, good faith comes into the equation and due diligence. Its hard to believe Musk and his literal team of lawyers didnt research the company. Also Musk and his comment and post wont help him in the court room, they are actually hurting him. Any competent lawyer would tell Musk to stop, but Musk is Musk. So in a nutshell he is not in a good place legally.
You forgot Chris Lattner, the man credited with developing the Swift language, left Apple for Tesla. Lattner lasted 6 whole months before leaving Tesla for Google.
Can you please clarify exactly what data Twitter refused to supply? Everything I’ve read has indicated Twitter did give him the data, probably more than most Twitter users would prefer.
The Tricky Business of Elon Musk Getting Twitter Fire-Hose Access
Twitter has reportedly given the billionaire access to its full stream of tweets and related user data. Is your privacy in jeopardy?
In this case it might be appropriate to root for the lawyers
Exactly.
It's also not just "plain" defamation as there's actually a clause in the acquisition agreement, signed by both parties, that requires Musk to avoid disparaging Twitter during the acquisition.
Musk has not honoured this requirement to say it politely and the court will view this as a strategy to undermine and lower Twitter's value.
Tweeting the poop emoji at Twitter's CEO and threatening a $0 salary for Twitter's board, among other things, is not going to look amazing in court.
In this case it might be appropriate to root for the lawyers
Oh now that's difficult. You mean they could actually be the good guys here?
The YouTube channel Common Sense Skeptic did this great explainer graphic in one of their videos before Elon backed out of the deal.
Pretty much sums up exactly what's going on.:
TLDR: Musk stands to lose at least 1 billion at this point almost no matter what happens. The idea of him being able to magically wash his hands clean "because bots" is populist b.s. that only a Musk-rat would believe.
Pretty much sums up exactly what's going on.:
TLDR: Musk stands to lose at least 1 billion at this point almost no matter what happens. The idea of him being able to magically wash his hands clean "because bots" is populist b.s. that only a Musk-rat would believe.
Exactly. When you sign a non-contingent contract on a house, you have no recourse to back out and thus it's a case of tough luck.
You are omitting one relatively large detail. Did Twitter commit Fraud? Twitter's SEC filings, and statements given prior to the sale agreement mentioned that 95% mDAU; however several independent sources have shown that the number of bots on Twitter are well in excess of 5%. This is fraud on multiple levels, first and foremost, this is fraud that is actionable by the shareholders, who base the stock value upon the number of live interactions, then there is fraud by filing with the SEC, then there are advertisers who paid Twitter, based upon inflated numbers of potential customers they were promised to have access to; and finally, the stock price that Elon agreed to, was based upon accuracy in the disclosed information.
For example, if I agree to sell you my company and as part of the pre-sales negotiations show fraudulent earnings, properties that I do not own/lease, sales that did not happen, and buildings that have been condemned, without disclosure - I have committed fraud. You do not only have the opportunity to decline the sale; but can take actions against me for the fraud I committed, leading you to invest time and resources to unveil the deceit.
Sorry, but fraud is waaaay too high a bar here. There are a number of different criteria applied when classifying an account as a bot account. Twitter has its definition. Others may have theirs. The real issue here is ads and monetization and this issue is pervasive across all social media platforms. The ad industry basically doesn't trust any of the social media platforms and implements their own metrics for determining the effectiveness of social media campaigns. So in short, monthly active Twitter users is not really a very relevant number. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-m...-bots-isnt-matched-by-advertisers-11652977221.