Pretty much he just brought to light all the shadiness of Twitter and politics attached to Twitter. Twitter is now a joke and useless as an aggregate for the “will of the people” .
Is it bullshit if it’s the contract? (I don’t know if it really is)
Nobody wants to read, eh?
And for 30% less than Musk would had. It'd actually be pretty hilarious.
And pro Musk people in the thread think I’m rooting for Twitter… That is the point… no one wins when we accept tribalism and retreat to the safety of our own little social bubbles and don’t actually discuss the topic instead of mindlessly parroting talking points as evidenced by over 100 posts in the thread.
At the very least, he exposed them for the bullshit they really are, and a lot of people have been saying (and called tinfoil hats in the process by the very echo chamber ideologues) for years.And pro Musk people in the thread think I’m rooting for Twitter… That is the point… no one wins when we accept tribalism and retreat to the safety of our own little social bubbles and don’t actually discuss the topic instead of mindlessly parroting talking points as evidenced by over 100 posts in the thread.
It all “you’re an idiot for doubting musk” & “you’re an idiot for believing in musk”.
Maybe, like always, the truth is in the middle where there is clear evidence Twitter is a shit company the manipulates it’s data for thier own desires and is full of bots to control thier narrative, and Musk thinks he is way smarter than he really is and is at the very least going to revitalize Twitter by having to pay them $1billion separation fee for backing out cause he was stupid to get involved in Twitter in the first place.
Why not? The guy built the most successful electric car company in the world, despite years of everyone saying major car companies will kill Tesla ‘any moment now’ since Musk doesn’t know how to build cars. It looks like he does.
www.facebook.com
So it is essentially Deez Nuts.An Arab digital marketing company.
DN Media
DN Media. 22,460 likes · 2 talking about this. DN Media offers production as well as full coverage of; Advertisements, TV Programs, Documentaries, Short Movies, Press Conferences and Awareness...
“Elon Musk is buying Twitter”
“Elon Musk is not buying Twitter”
.
.
.
Dude you have such a fucking bad track record regarding trusting people and placing bets on outcomes that i'm starting to laugh my ass of right now knowing the outcome will be totally opposite from what you think will happen.
Are there really grounds where they can force him to buy?
I think COVID has given me slight dyslexia: I read the last line as “Burn in Shit Hellheads!”
An Arab digital marketing company.
DN Media
DN Media. 22,460 likes · 2 talking about this. DN Media offers production as well as full coverage of; Advertisements, TV Programs, Documentaries, Short Movies, Press Conferences and Awareness...
No, bad because they're nobodies.
No, but they could argue that he has broken the terms of the contract causing such financial damage that the penalties will almost equal the price of the deal.
It's possibly going to be a long, but entertaining.
www.theguardian.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/4RQQZVK5ZBMZ7JQK6O6YB3QSDA.jpg)
www.reuters.com
They will have to prove that their quoted figure of spam accounts is true, or at least ‘as true’ as technically possible to establish.
I'm no lawyer but I'll just call it now. Musk has literally 0.00000001% chance of winning in court. His claims are a joke. He's done obvious damage that will be easy to prove.It's possibly going to be a long, but entertaining.
Some interesting speculation:
[/URL][/URL]
"
The Twitter chair, Bret Taylor, said on Friday that the social media firm would sue in a Delaware court to enforce the deal. The deal included a “specific performance” clause, a provision that may force Musk to buy the company as long as he has financing in place. Musk in May said he had secured financing to complete the deal.
In addition to the fine for the failed deal, Musk could face serious consequences from the SEC for his antics, which have had major impacts on the several public companies he manages as well as Twitter itself.
Musk is an executive at the artificial intelligence firm Neuralink, the electric car company Tesla, the space travel company SpaceX, and the tunnel construction firm the Boring Company. He has in the past faced lawsuits from investors over his erratic behavior and its effects on the companies’ stocks.
“The fine will be painful for Musk, but what would be more painful is if the SEC used its power to say ‘you are not fit to run the companies you are running and someone else should be appointed as CEO’,” Beck said.
"
Axios does raise an interesting question in the possibility of the court ruling in Twitter's favour and Musk refusing to pay in this flow.
Twitter said elsewhere it's hoping for this to be resolved in a few months.
[/URL][/URL]
"
Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) has a strong legal case against Elon Musk walking away from his $44 billion deal to acquire the U.S. social media company but could opt for a renegotiation or settlement instead of a long court fight, according to legal experts.
Delaware courts, where the dispute between the two sides is set to be litigated, have set a high bar for acquirers being allowed to abandon their deals. But target companies often choose the certainty of a renegotiated deal at a lower price or financial compensation rather than a messy court battle that can last for many months, three corporate law professors interviewed by Reuters said.
Musk also said in a letter to Twitter on Friday that the company's misrepresentation of the number of spam accounts might be a "material adverse effect (MAE)" that would allow him to walk away under the terms of the deal contract.
But legal experts said Delaware courts view MAEs as dramatic, unexpected events that cause long-term harm to a company's performance. Deal contracts such as the one between Musk and Twitter are so prescriptive that a judge has ruled that an MAE has validly been triggered only once in the history of such litigation -- in the case of German healthcare group Fresenius Kabi AG ending its deal for U.S. generic drugmaker's Akorn Inc in 2018.
In that case, a court ruled that Akorn's assurances to Fresenius that it was in compliance with its regulatory obligations were inaccurate. It also found that Akorn had withheld facts about its deteriorating performance that emerged in whistleblower allegations.
Legal experts were dismissive of the idea that inaccurate spam account numbers would amount to an MAE for Twitter on the same level as the problems that plagued Akorn.
"If it goes to court, Musk has the burden to prove more likely than not, that the spam account numbers not only were false, but they were so false that it will have significant effect on Twitter's earnings going forward," said Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane Law School.
"
This is exactly where this lawsuit will be fought, regarding the idea of what data Twitter should be required to turn over to Musk for them not to be in "material breach" of the contract. It's nicely explained at this timestamp:
Taking the court as neutral in precedent and since this case begins with the burden of proof being on Musk - he is at a disadvantage.
I think it's just a sideshow, and a joke of a claim. It's pretty well known how much money Twitter makes or doesn't make, and any determination about the bot numbers is not going to change that, because they've been pulling in the same money regardless on that front. There was no sudden, unforseen, rapid and unexpected change between the time Musk signed the deal and now. Literally nothing changed except his mind, which just happens to coincide with the stock value plummeting at the same time. Ooops. And Musk has a lot of public statements claiming he's not even that concerned with the profit, so why does he suddenly care about the bot numbers enough to claim that the deal is void?
I don’t think the MAE argument holds water; it’s suggested that Musk has only hinted at it. I’m not familiar with US law, but it sounds like a sort of commercial ‘force majeure’. This sort of thing isn’t appropriate.
The burden of proof is higher than account figures being false. They have to be excessively false to a level that materially impacts the financial health of the company. The bot numbers would have to be very inaccurate, and then their clarification would have to suddenly cause a massive change in the amount of advertising money they're taking in (none of this has happened).
It really is and it’s ironclad. Elon is paying at minimum court costs + 1B unless Twitter caves. It’s an open and shut case really.
Twitter has had to report some version of this data to all its investors and customers (advertisers); (what their userbase is and the potential impact and value of ads on their service) for as long as they've been a company. Musk is basically just asserting that Twitter has basically been committing fraud this entire time, but hasn't provided a single bit of evidence to back that up. The fraud would have to be exposed and then materially change the financial course of the company. That hasn't happened. Twitter also provided Musk with the "firehose" of data they have so that he could try to prove it himself, which is basically an impossible task requiring teams of data scientists to try and dig through various metrics and come up with some indication of data that points to real or bot-like behavior (something Twitter already does).
Not sure what you mean? I'm going to be happy regardless of outcome.
