Musk is just proof that at a certain level of wealth you don't have to worry about the SEC anymore and can do whatever you want.

The Half Elf wrote on Jul 8, 2022, 23:45:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 8, 2022, 19:20:
"Twitter says it plans to pursue legal action to enforce the agreement."
They are owed 1 billion from Mr. Free Speech Absolutionist, hope they get it.

Hey Logan, if muskrat offers to buy your Pikachu Fart make sure you get it in writing.

Not really. Because according to Twitter and the information they published (I believe to the SEC) they only had very low spam accounts. Mr Musk asked for this information and it was not provided. Super easy to back out of this and win in court. And if Twitter is smart they'd just shut up and walk away.

If I were Musk I'd...
Nah, let's not kid ourselves, I'd not have even gone anywhere near the "Monster" that is Twitter

Verno wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 17:23:
Let's not play games here either - this was never about bots, it was about stock price. It doesn't take a genius to see that he would be vastly overpaying for the company right now, heck he was beforehand and we can go back to topics from the announcement date and see people here predicting this entire mess.

Bingo. This is all that needs stating. This was the end-game for Musk, just as the crypto pump and dump with doge he participated in.

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:14:
The reason is because its a non factor.

Waive due diligence
You may close if you'd like to, or you may walk away but the the fee is paid and is generally not refundable. There is only one exception (if the seller breaches the contract)

Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

"When I see that I laugh because we all know Twitter doesn’t have lawyers." Twitter's lawyers are not the ones deciding the next step for musk... Musk and his lawyers are in control of what happens next. Twitter's lawyers can only react afterwards, they have zero say in if musk buy's or drops the buy.

I completely disagree. Due diligence is a definitely a factor that will come up in any legal proceedings. Musk essentially agreed to buy Twitter as-is by waiving the due diligence period and I strongly suspect it was against the advice of his own legal counsel as this is rarely done in a multi-billion dollar transaction. Hell, it's rarely done when people buy a franchisee out. He also has a history of impulsive behaviour. Regardless, he is contractually obligated to complete the transaction now. Whether he does so or not and gets sued is up to him, sure. If you can call that "control". The idea that Musk's lawyers are somehow infallible is amusing but even if it were true, we know Musk often acts against advice so I don't really buy the argument. Either way Twitter is likely to get a good settlement from this.

Let's not play games here either - this was never about bots, it was about stock price. It doesn't take a genius to see that he would be vastly overpaying for the company right now, heck he was beforehand and we can go back to topics from the announcement date and see people here predicting this entire mess.

FREN ( far right ethno-nationalists, euphemism for fascists ) pepe the frog community be like:

"I felt a great disturbance in the Internet, as if millions of croaks suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 14:19:
You must have missed my comment about that "1 Bil is a cheap price if he can get Discovery on them"
Ruin the company buy its skeleton for a couple of bil afterwards and rebuild it up. Much cheaper than the current 44bil he was going to pay.

I guess we will see

I don't really care either way although less Twitter is never a problem.

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:57:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:49:

“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.”

I fail to see the inaccuracies of this statement in Twitter’s SEC filing.But if you want to carry musks water, more power to you.

"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."

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000141809122000075/twtr-20220331.htm

That’s where “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.” was copied from.

As I previously said “I fail to see the inaccuracies of this statement in Twitter’s SEC filing.” And you have yet to point them out. But if you want to carry musks water, more power to you.

You must have missed my comment about that "1 Bil is a cheap price if he can get Discovery on them"
Ruin the company buy its skeleton for a couple of bil afterwards and rebuild it up. Much cheaper than the current 44bil he was going to pay.

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 14:13:
How so ? Discovery is guaranteed if they take him to court, its part of the process. The board already threatened legal action against him.

I am sure he will pay the fine or if it does go to court I would be extremely surprised if he was victorious.

fujiJuice wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 14:09:

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 14:01:

fujiJuice wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:54:

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:14:
Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

Says who, the guy who doesn't want to lose money?

He wants them to take him to court... His net value fluctuates 100's of millions per day. 1 Bil is a cheap price if he can get Discovery on them.

He wants a lot of things. What he actually does is usually different.

How so ? Discovery is guaranteed if they take him to court, its part of the process. The board already threatened legal action against him.

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 14:01:

fujiJuice wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:54:

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:14:
Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

Says who, the guy who doesn't want to lose money?

He wants them to take him to court... His net value fluctuates 100's of millions per day. 1 Bil is a cheap price if he can get Discovery on them.

He wants a lot of things. What he actually does is usually different.

fujiJuice wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:54:

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:14:
Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

Says who, the guy who doesn't want to lose money?

He wants them to take him to court... His net value fluctuates 100's of millions per day. 1 Bil is a cheap price if he can get Discovery on them.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:49:

“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.”

I fail to see the inaccuracies of this statement in Twitter’s SEC filing.But if you want to carry musks water, more power to you.

"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."

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000141809122000075/twtr-20220331.htm

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 13:14:
Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

Says who, the guy who doesn't want to lose money?

“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.”

I fail to see the inaccuracies of this statement in Twitter’s SEC filing.But if you want to carry musks water, more power to you.

The best case for Musk would be them taking him to court. The skeletons that would come out of the closet with Discovery would ruin them. This is such a big factor that I think even if they do not go forward with it he will then take them to court for it.

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 12:52:

Verno wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 09:05:
He waived due diligence and is going to pay a significant penalty for backing out.

That has been repeated in the news and mentioned in one way or another in this thread but I swear the words “waived due diligence and is going to pay a significant penalty for backing out” are wrapped in a cloaking device as they are continually ignored.
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.

“ Well musks lawyers said… “

When I see that I laugh because we all know Twitter doesn’t have lawyers.
Maybe they’ll get a court appointed barrister.

The reason is because its a non factor.

Waive due diligence
You may close if you'd like to, or you may walk away but the the fee is paid and is generally not refundable. There is only one exception (if the seller breaches the contract)

Twitter's SEC filling was not accurate. They breached the contract. And on top of that the user count was inaccurate artificial inflating the value.

"When I see that I laugh because we all know Twitter doesn’t have lawyers." Twitter's lawyers are not the ones deciding the next step for musk... Musk and his lawyers are in control of what happens next. Twitter's lawyers can only react afterwards, they have zero say in if musk buy's or drops the buy.

Verno wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 09:05:
He waived due diligence and is going to pay a significant penalty for backing out.

That has been repeated in the news and mentioned in one way or another in this thread but I swear the words “waived due diligence and is going to pay a significant penalty for backing out” are wrapped in a cloaking device as they are continually ignored.
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.

“ Well musks lawyers said… “

When I see that I laugh because we all know Twitter doesn’t have lawyers.
Maybe they’ll get a court appointed barrister.

SabreT wrote on Jul 9, 2022, 11:32:
What gave you that Idea ? All this is to screw over twitter. Buy it, if they refuse (witch they did and enacted a poison pill only to come back begging 2 months later) If that doesn't work break it. Its a toxic place and should not exist. Twitter played exactly as expected and will now start its downward spiral.

Sure but now it is all going to go to a court and be argued in front of a 76 year old judge while they both try to explain how to calculate monthly active users via all these different metrics while the judge's eyes stare into infinity.

I guess what I am saying is I believe this whole situation is a legal quagmire.

While I think Twitter is mostly a cesspool, there are small parts of it which are useful. That said, I thought Musk would only make things worse. I read there was a provision in the agreement he signed which basically said, Twitter could force the sale through if funding was in place but Musk changed his mind. I have no idea how accurate that is or if it is realistically enforceable, but I find myself torn between being glad Musk won't buy Twitter and hoping he is forced to against his wishes.