This is a little like forcing someone by law to be in a relationship with you. If you could do that, would you even want to? Doesn't sound like a very productive, happy situation to be in to me. Better to just let the person go and move on.
He also called a cave rescuer a paedophile for having the temerity to refuse his over-engineered offer of help, which would have been more of a hindrance under the circumstances. You can't come back from that. Ever.I’m not sure I understand the contempt many people have for Elon.
Sure, he’s eccentric, he’s unique, but he has single-handedly revolutionised how space travel and payload delivery to space is conducted. Not to mention his furthering of battery technologies and renewable energy.
I wish all billionaires were as capable and forward-thinking as Musk, we’d all be living a better life.
Except Twitter Board members have a fiduciary duty to get maximum value for their shareholders and at this point they have assessed this is to be acquired by musk rather remain shareholders of the continuing business.This is a little like forcing someone by law to be in a relationship with you. If you could do that, would you even want to? Doesn't sound like a very productive, happy situation to be in to me. Better to just let the person go and move on.
Over the Target, truth hurts. When this is over twitter could become a penny stock.Twitter is completely off their meds Elon is going to force them into court, then force them to disclose what % of their user base is bots and end up totally screwing the pooch because everyone knows the bot count is a LOT higher than they are advertising.
nothing was signed therefor the verbal contract dont count"I'd say Twitter is well-positioned legally to argue that it provided him with all the necessary information and this is a pretext to looking for any excuse to get out of the deal," said Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane Law School.
Yep, this much is obvious. You don't go in, agree to a deal, and then back out pretending you don't believe Twitter's data estimates.
The billion dollar penalty was signed. Then they can argue detrimental reliance, restitution damages and a few other legal paths. Saying its verbal doest work in this case, not at all. Remember this was agreed upon by teams of lawyers on both side, to say its verbal is being disingenuous.nothing was signed therefor the verbal contract dont count
I am a bit conflicted, as I like StarLink and Spacex, but Elon himself seems to be terribly full of himself.Good. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You can’t force a company to be bought out by you one day, and then change your mind and start trashing the company afterwards, decreasing its value and destabilizing it. Actions have consequences.
“For example, there are a number of false or spam accounts in existence on our platform. We have performed an internal review of a sample of accounts and estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the first quarter of 2022 represented fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter. The false or spam accounts for a period represents the average of false or spam accounts in the samples during each monthly analysis period during the quarter. In making this determination, we applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated.”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.
Well, the report I read mentioned $1B, unsure if it was $10 or otherwise. In the end, saving $1B by investing $1M in lawyers and court makes sense.Looks like there is a number missing there, between the 1 and the B. Perhaps a 0 or a 5?
It's hard for me to believe that Musk would create all this drama, get taken to court, hire and pay laywers who knows how much (> $1 million?) to defend him, tank Tesla's stock price, etc. just so he can pay $43 billion for Twitter instead of $44 billion.
I don't think you read every detail.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?
But without Twitter, how would the intellectual elite get gems like these out to the masses?I was actually looking forward to him destroying Twitter. By removing moderation, the advertisers leave and the company folds. One less social network in the world is always a good thing.
If only we could destroy FaceBook, which is a doomsday device.
I don't think you read every detail.
Twitter didn't hide their finances. Musk was too eager to move the deal forward and didn't take the time to properly perform due diligence on Twitter before signing the final contract.
He either had ulterior motives and no intentions of every acquiring Twitter in the first place, or he was mislead by his own legal team, or made a terrible decision.
But legally, he was provided with all the necessary info by Twitter and is therefore bound to acquire it. Well, unless he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Twitter withheld key financial info.
But just to get this straight: Musk not taking the time/effort to dig through Twitter's finances before finalising the deal is not the same as Twitter deliberately withholding key information. If Musk cannot prove the latter then there's no way out of the deal.
The fact that Musk publicly disparaged Twitter during the acquisition also doesn't help his case as there's a clause in the deal stating he musk avoid doing so.
You do realize he was given the information he asked for. This is the second time the link is being posted. Its not a long read. He got the data so that argument you are making is dead on arrival. Thats where damages come in. They have every right to sue and are on good legal basis to do it. Musk is his own worst enemy here.I am not sure if Twitters 'tough luck' defence will work in court because basically it appears Twitter is telling Musk that once he agreed to the deal he lost the right to investigate the contents of the deal any further and therefore must accept the deal he agreed to, which is why Twitters board has persistently denied Musk access to the company data he has been requesting to inspect.
When Musk agreed to the deal and some of the specifics of the deal was made public, numerous tech media critics poured scorn on Twitters claim that they only had 5% of fake/spam accounts. I therefore have no doubt that Musk's team saw such tech news which put doubts into their minds as to if Twitter falsified the figure of 5% because saying they only have 5% of fake/spam accounts makes the company more desirable and valueable than if the figure was say 25-30% which is what the tech media are saying the figure actually is.
Musk therefore wanted to confirm this, to see if what the tech media was saying is true but Twitters board has persistantly denied Musk access to company data to allow him to see who is right, Twitter with their 5% claim or the tech media with their 25%-30% claim.
Twitter will not provide the data Musk has requested therefore Musk has said he will pull out of the deal which would invoke the $1 billion cancellation clause but Twitter are not accepting this and instead want the deal to be forced through, which is wrong in my opinion. They should accept the $1 billion cancellation and be done with it.
You do realize he was given the information he asked for. This is the second time the link is being posted. Its not a long read. He got the data so that argument you are making is dead on arrival. Thats where damages come in. They have every right to sue and are on good legal basis to do it. Musk is his own worst enemy here.
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-twitter-firehose/
I wonder how long this will take
I dont think its an issue on the competency of his lawyers, its more of Musk being Musk. The Billion dollar fee is the least of his worries here. They will sue for damages, they can try to force the sale or have him pay the profit price from the sale to offset the drop in stock valuation.I believe it was an updated post on MR but if memory serves me correct, yes Twitter handed over data but it was not the specific data Musk had actually requested.
Musk would have the worst legal team in history allowing it to go to court if it turns out Musk said he requested data A but kept being given data B,C or D and thus decided to pull out of the deal but Twitter is then able to prove they did in fact give Musk data A, case closed Musk has to hand over billions to Twitter in damages.
ZacklyNo he does not have 44 billion cash on hand. That's entirely the problem. He does not have the ability to get 44 billion in cash without basically auctioning off a ton of assets and ownership of 'his companies'. He's an egomaniac who just thinks too much of himself and now, well, he's out of screwed.