Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is wreck and hilarious at the same time. A lot of the same people that were losing their minds when said he was going to purchase Twitter are the same same ones losing their minds again or being overly judgmental when he backs out. Can't win with some folks.

His concerns are valid and request for real user data should be fulfilled, especially with 44B dollars on the line.

With that said Elon has been trolling the internet for years now. I think he revels in being able to manipulate the markets with a single Tweet. He loves to trigger people online, which he does so successfully. I take whatever Elon says with a grain of salt and at times do have to chuckle at his trolling.
Troll..
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Deliro
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.
Agree
 
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.
Good sense
 
I hadn't paid Elon Musk much attention before. I didn't realise he was so bonkers! Lol.

I guess at least he's not having kids with his own step kids .... like his Dad
🤢🤮


FXpo2DxVQAIDI16
 
I’m waiting for the SEC indictment for market manipulation due to using a mooted twitter purchase as a cover for selling 8 billion in Tesla stock grants without driving down the share price.
Buffet wouldn't back it...sounds like he dug his own hole
 
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.
Yes..its on him..
 
He waived it as part of his offer which is why the board could not refuse the deal or its stakeholders would sue. They laughed and goofed on his first offer and a week later they suddenly accepted it.
That has nothing to do with it. Even if there were extreme due diligence that’s not relevant to the board accepting the deal or not and it’s not a reason to get sued either. The reason they laughed the first offer was because Elon hadn’t provided how he was going to fund the deal. Once he stated how then everyone got serious.
 
Once the lawsuit starts they might have the right to temp ban him from the platform until it's over (his lawyers might like that LOL).
Why wouldn’t they just ban him now? I mean, they banned the president of the US and the excuse everyone gives is they’re a private company so why don’t they ban this person immediately? I would even say it’s Gross negligence the fact that they don’t have done it. He’s single handily tanking twitter stock thanks to his constant tweeting. What the **** is twitter thinking?
 
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.
Neither are you.
You put $30K down on a contract to buy a house, but then find that the owner owes back taxes, has multiple liens on the house, etc., and the sale cannot go through. You get every penny back because the seller misrepresented the house. Twitter claimed in SEC filings something that they cannot prove. They misrepresented the company.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: aylk
Neither are you.
You put $30K down on a contract to buy a house, but then find that the owner owes back taxes, has multiple liens on the house, etc., and the sale cannot go through. You get every penny back because the seller misrepresented the house. Twitter claimed in SEC filings something that they cannot prove. They misrepresented the company.
That's a major stretch.

Musk waived due diligence. He could have kicked the tires but didn't. He knew about the bots since he posts his stupid ramblings daily. He only did this so he could sell some of his Tesla shares since he knows his **** company is dropping, but that now has failed. He's going to pay billions for this mess and its going to be hilarious. Delaware is going to nail him to the wall.

The musk defenders are some of the worst right now. We all know Musk has gone off the deep end the past few months, but damn, he isn't going to send you money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
Why wouldn’t they just ban him now? I mean, they banned the president of the US and the excuse everyone gives is they’re a private company so why don’t they ban this person immediately? I would even say it’s Gross negligence the fact that they don’t have done it. He’s single handily tanking twitter stock thanks to his constant tweeting. What the **** is twitter thinking?

Because the merger agreement specifically says Musk can continue to tweet, but not disparage the company. Legally, Twitter needs to stay above board.

Twitter is simply playing by the rules of the agreement. On the other hand, Musk disparaged the company, violated NDA, and is now crawling back to the agreement trying to get out of it based on some imaginary stipulations.
 
Neither are you.
You put $30K down on a contract to buy a house, but then find that the owner owes back taxes, has multiple liens on the house, etc., and the sale cannot go through. You get every penny back because the seller misrepresented the house. Twitter claimed in SEC filings something that they cannot prove. They misrepresented the company.

Twitter claimed in SEC filings that bot estimates involved a significant degree of "judgement."

Musk knew there were lots of bots because he literally wrote he was buying the company to get rid of them. Now, he's acting all surprised Twitter has bots. It doesn't work that way.

Nothing was misrepresented.
 
That's a major stretch.

Musk waived due diligence. He could have kicked the tires but didn't. He knew about the bots since he posts his stupid ramblings daily. He only did this so he could sell some of his Tesla shares since he knows his **** company is dropping, but that now has failed. He's going to pay billions for this mess and its going to be hilarious. Delaware is going to nail him to the wall.

The musk defenders are some of the worst right now. We all know Musk has gone off the deep end the past few months, but damn, he isn't going to send you money.
Says you. If he waived due diligence, where's his signature on that waiver? Why did Twitter respond to any of his requests for information? If he had waived it, they would have told him to close the deal immediately instead of responding with any information at all. You know, because he waived DD, right? But he didn't.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: aylk
Twitter claimed in SEC filings that bot estimates involved a significant degree of "judgement."

Musk knew there were lots of bots because he literally wrote he was buying the company to get rid of them. Now, he's acting all surprised Twitter has bots. It doesn't work that way.

Nothing was misrepresented.
Wrong. They claimed LESS THAN 5%. They have to back up that claim or admit that they misrepresented everything.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: aylk
Wrong. They claimed LESS THAN 5%. They have to back up that claim or admit that they misrepresented everything.

"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."

There is no misrepresentation.

Musk and his lawyers want to pretend this fine print in the SEC filings didn't exist. Unfortunately for him, judges in Delaware treat everyone as big boys because they know this isn't a cell phone contract. It's a multi-billion dollar contract and Musk has lawyers earning $1,000/hr telling him exactly this fine print.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
"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."

There is no misrepresentation.

Musk and his lawyers want to pretend this fine print in the SEC filings didn't exist. Unfortunately for him, judges in Delaware treat everyone as big boys because they know this isn't a cell phone contract. It's a multi-billion dollar contract and Musk has lawyers earning $1,000/hr telling him exactly this fine print.
I don's see that in the agreement. Claiming this after the fact is only relevant in so far as it shows them attempting to cover their tracks.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: aylk
I don's see that in the agreement. Claiming this after the fact is only relevant in so far as it shows them attempting to cover their tracks.

It doesn’t need to be in the merger agreement. The wording has been in every SEC filing submitted by Twitter.

That’s like expecting the merger agreement to include the employment contract of every Twitter employee. And then trying to bail because you found out CEO compensation was high. When you make an offer to buy a company, you’ve already investigated that before signing or you make it a subject in the offer.
 
  • Love
Reactions: aylk
You missed the part about the WAIVER. No one disputes there was an agreement to buy.

You don’t need a waiver.

You can’t offer to buy and try to back out pretending get you didn’t know the Twitter CEO was male, the company logo was blue, or that the company didn’t have a Blackberry app. LOL.

The agreement would have listed subject requirements if Musk was interested in those things. Otherwise there would be a million things the buyer could back out of.

“Your honor, I didn’t know the Twitter cafeteria didn’t serve halal food. That was never disclosed in SEC filings and is important to my decision.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
You don’t need a waiver.

You can’t offer to buy and try to back out pretending get you didn’t know the Twitter CEO was male, the company logo was blue, or that the company didn’t have a Blackberry app. LOL.

The agreement would have listed subject requirements if Musk was interested in those things. Otherwise there would be a million things the buyer could back out of.

“Your honor, I didn’t know the Twitter cafeteria didn’t serve halal food. That was never disclosed in SEC filings and is important to my decision.”
If there is no waiver, then he waived nothing. If Twitter claimed LESS THAN 5% BOTS, which they did, they need to prove it, which they did not.
 
It doesn’t need to be in the merger agreement. The wording has been in every SEC filing submitted by Twitter.

That’s like expecting the merger agreement to include the employment contract of every Twitter employee. And then trying to bail because you found out CEO compensation was high. When you make an offer to buy a company, you’ve already investigated that before signing or you make it a subject in the offer.
Of course it does! They made a false claim. Unless he specifically waived his right to contest that claim, they need to prove their claim.
 
If there is no waiver, then he waived nothing. If Twitter claimed LESS THAN 5% BOTS, which they did, they need to prove it, which they did not.

You don’t seem to understand what “significant judgement” means. It means it’s not objective.

Twitter doesn’t need to prove anything as it’s based on their judgement. If I ask you the condition of your car and you tell me it’s nearly brand new based on your own “judgement” it means it’s not objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.