He will be obligated to buy it at full-price, nothing will happen with Twitter other than it continuing to be a marginally profitable company that won't be able provide him a sufficient income stream to offset the damage the company will cause to his personal liquidity.
He will grow bitter and eventually sell 'Free Speech' Twitter after 2024.
Date: June 6th, 2022 2:11 PM Author: Slate Goal In Life
I don't really care what happens to his money and if he's forced to buy at the bs price. I'm sure he'll survive with his other 100 billion. So how does any of that affect me?
He can't prove it. He's going to be obligated to buy the company and be financially ruined in the process.
Funny thing is he plotted with Jack to buy out the company when Jack put Parag in as CEO. Parag didn't care about anything other than his golden parachute, all he wanted was a high bid and he was sold so he jumped at the offer which Musk got trigger happy to provide after the Babylon Bee getting banned triggered him.
Date: June 6th, 2022 1:59 PM Author: Brass appetizing azn
prove what? he is entitled to see the underlying data for how twitter calculates 5% of its users are bots -- twitter is refusing to provide this data -- and he is also entitled to utilize the underlying data and hire experts to come up with their own calculations.
He questioned the percentage of 'bots' publicly beforehand and waived due diligence before making the bid.
If he wanted to pursue a lawsuit against Twitter on the basis of bots he could've done that, but it would've taken him years and in the mean time he wouldn't have been able to buy the company (which is what he really wanted to do to get back at the libs for banning the Bee).
It seems like he made the offer with the specific intent to reveal malfeasance of some sort. It's like hiring the world's most expensive private investigator, then trying to withhold payment after you find what you're looking for on Google.
Date: June 6th, 2022 10:14 PM Author: flesh bearded cuck
I know "hE wAiVeD dUe dIlIgEnCe" has been repeated on Reddit thousands of times and is now a gospel truth talking point like "Kyle crossed state lines!", but those words strung together are complete gibberish and mean absolutely nothing related to a public company merger agreement.
yeah but it’s still funny to see redditors (why ARE they so poor, anyway?) confidently weigh in about closings and diligence bc they recently bought their first starter shitbox at the young age of 37 and thus have some firsthand knowledge on the ins and outs of complex transactions
one weird trick to close 100% of the time: just lie like a motherfucker, refuse to substantiate, affirmative defense that the rube clearly knew we were lying at the time he relied on our material misstatements of fact
Date: June 7th, 2022 9:33 AM Author: razzmatazz associate filthpig
The question is interesting since warranty law has features of both contract and tort law. Still, likely academic in this context because, given its public disclosures, Twitter would incur substantial securities liability if its defense were, in essence, "Elon knew we were lying about these material statements."
Date: June 7th, 2022 12:36 PM Author: Razzle house
Elon "reasonably believed" or "acted on the belief that" don't work as substitutes for "Elon knew?"
What if Elon "knew" something was weird about Twitter, but didn't know what, and he valued access to its secrets at $44bn irrespective of what he might uncover? The alternative requires believing Musk saw >$44bn face value in Twitter, which seems absurd in light of his own statements made in connection with the offer. If that was Elon's motivation, all Elon had to "know" in order for there to be a meeting of the minds was that Twitter was keeping secrets. It's like when people bid on storage lots before they know what's inside them.
Date: June 7th, 2022 1:22 PM Author: razzmatazz associate filthpig
I'm not sure how to parse what you're asking.
The sandbagging 'defense' seems to me in form to be a way of negating the justifiable reliance element of an action for misstatements in tort (e.g., fraud). (This is embodied in the securities laws, which stem from this common-law source, as, for example, the absence-of-knowledge element of a '33 Act S12 action). But as the case highlighted in the article Drunkard linked points out, justifiable reliance is not an element of a contract action, and Delaware appears to have adopted the contract theory of warranty. (A warranty is a promise of a particular sort, namely, that some state of the world is presently existing. A guaranty is a warranty about future events. There is thus much overlap between warranty/guaranty and the law of false statements.)
My point above was that, even putting aside that this is contract and not tort, it is unlikely that Twitter will go into court and claim that Elon knew before he signed the merger docs that Twitter was lying about its bot #'s, for to make this argument would be tantamount to Twitter admitting to securities fraud (or so enterprising securities lawyers would argue).
ty though I was thinking along the lines of detrimental reliance or something like that, not any sort of tort thing. Dood says "I'll buy equity shares are price X," you acquire equity share at price Y in anticipation of receiving X. Don't know if that works here.
Date: June 8th, 2022 4:50 PM Author: razzmatazz associate filthpig
Detrimental reliance is a way of substituting for consideration when such is lacking -- creates a quasi-contract, or contract by estoppel. But it wouldn't apply here since there's a contract covering the subject matter.
Date: June 8th, 2022 4:40 PM Author: razzmatazz associate filthpig
Re-reading this since you linked it, I think it's worth pointing out that no, "reasonably believed" or "acted as if" are not synonymous with "knew". Actual knowledge in the law is different from constructive knowledge. But I don't see the distinction as being relevant here.
You also raise a point about a meeting of the minds, but I don't think mistake or anything like that is at issue -- there's no serious argument that, objectively, Elon didn't intend to consummate and anyway, the parties drafted around that with the break fee and the like. [Also see my other poast re: the practicalities.]
Date: June 7th, 2022 1:33 PM Author: beta brunch pisswyrm
imma out myself as a shitlawyer, but isn't this the due diligence period and wouldn't the production he's requesting be part and parcel of a transaction like this considering that it's the meat and potatoes of what twitter does?
not an m&amo by trade but “due diligence” isn’t a technical legal term or concept in this context - it’s not a home purchase. diligence is the research conducted before signing the acquisition docs*. the period between that formation of a binding contract and the close (actual payment and ownership change) is when u line up regulatory stuff, maybe do some transition/integration planning for vendors employment health retirement, work on finalizing the financial stuff, etc
*moron redditors and paulie think that he “waived diligence” bc he signed the merger agreement without doing the usual fine toothed comb diligence review first, which was irrelevant here bc twitter is contractually required to give the new management, ie musk, info he asks for, and *truthful* info
Date: June 7th, 2022 3:13 PM Author: curious cowardly gas station
180. I'm not a lawyer and I don't really understand the legal shit ITT. But it was worth reading the thread for this poast alone. Another 180, because you deserve it, sir.
"No, here is the full story of what happened for real.
His whole entrepreneurship career was subsidized by the government (especially by the Obama/Biden admin) to start off with. Now he thinks that since for the first time Tesla is making (some but not much) money and that he is on paper the richest man in the world that he doesn't need the Libs anymore. At this point he starts watching shitcon/anti-Biden media especially after Biden passes a bipartisan stimulus bill that grants tax credits to competing electric car companies. Everything is going swell for him until Twitter libs decide to ban the Babylon Bee. At this point since he is the richest man in the world brainwashed by reptile propaganda he decides to simply impulsively buy Twitter using TSLA's shares as leverage for a loan without any hedging whatsoever.
Then the market starts to tank and Elon starts to realize that he's going to get margin called and his reptile brain causes him to 'blame the libs for making him buy twitter'."
Other shit was happening besides Babylon Bee. Maybe that was the straw the broke the camel's back, but maybe it was also Grimes and Chelsea Manning tweeting intimate details about him and calling him a traitor. Regardless, there were a million straws underneath it. There was also a power vacuum opening up in Washington.
Overall Musk's biggest blind spot seems to be his understanding of the law. Not just corporate shit, but big ticket shit. That tweet where he invited lawyers to submit resumes was the biggest tell. At first I thought it was a honeypot to collect info on hundreds if not thousands of lawyers who might one day be on the other team. It makes no sense to have a car company pre-announce its intent to make first amendment law. Even if you have a case, you're asking courts to expand the 1A for a billionaire. The optics are shit, and every controversial ruling in his favor will create a legacy of resentment like Citizens United.
But now it looks to me like he may have been sincere about this. I've heard he takes a lot of ambien, and this is consistent with how people behave when they take ambien and stay up. They start drifting off into fantasy land and express ideas they would ordinarily censor. "I want to be like Batman but for the first amendment."
Date: June 6th, 2022 11:27 PM Author: Razzle house
I'm as anti-censorship, anti-Twitter as it gets and I thought the deal looked awful. Musk is everything Rach isn't. I mean cot damn Rach is the ONLY actual dood out there with 20 years experience moderating a free speech platform, fighting for free speech, paying out of his own pocket to run the whole thing. Does Musk call him for advice? No, he posts some sleazy tweet asking for resumes from experienced first amendment lawyers, like there's a crew of lawyers out there who specialize in this shit. Rach moderated a forum full of lawyers and probably could have explained to Elon in 5 minutes why free speech twitter won't generate $44bn in ad revenues.
Date: June 7th, 2022 12:32 PM Author: Razzle house
I don't know if you're joking, but if there were any lawyers out there who were truly "good at this" they'd be taking cases to SCOTUS, not writing demand letters. Furthermore they need to know Citizens United inside and out, know the full factual background, know what was really argued and what was at stake, and what the follow on effects of that decision were.
Elon has an immediate problem in that he can only expand 1A protections for commercial speech or political speech by billionaires acting through corporate entities. A big win for this asshole will be an even bigger weak spot in 1st amendment jurisprudence than Citizens United. That case was unambiguously CORRECTLY decided and is a big win for political speech protections, but libs were able to mischaracterize it and turn it into some kind of monstrosity that must be one day overturned. Every time Musk goes to court he'll be asking the judge to become pariah in defense on the 1st amendment. Any 1st amendment lawyer worth a shit would have told him not to actually buy Twitter.
Seems like he's trying to have it both ways. He's trying to claim the deal was cemented insofar as it obligates Twitter to share data. However, he has a parallel information campaign in which he's trying to present the contract as not fully formed.
Twitter is in the same jam though. If they say "we don't have to provide the data because the sale hasn't finalized," that gives Musk an opening to back out.
OTOH what if Twitter says "we think the deal is closed but this crazy mofo hasn't given us the money yet. We want our $44bn."? Again I'm an idiot when it comes to this corp shit and only recently learned this Delaware Chancellory court writes 90 page opinions on this shit
Date: June 7th, 2022 12:24 PM Author: Razzle house
Isn't it trading at a certain price in expectation that it will be purchased at a certain price? I don't recall there being a rule that money must change hands before a contract is formed.
Date: June 7th, 2022 3:30 PM Author: flesh bearded cuck
"expectation that it will be purchased" is a synonym for "not closed". "contract has been formed" is not a synonym for "closed". have you ever owned a house?
Have you ever taken 1L contracts? I vaguely recall cases where courts found a contract existed, notwithstanding the fact that one side disputed that notion and was refusing to pay.
Date: June 6th, 2022 5:35 PM Author: Boyish Headpube
Disney thought about buying Twitter a few years ago and decided not to because it's a nasty cesspool. This was a dumb thing Musk did and he now wants to back out of it. It's clear as day. He should pay the termination fee for swinging his big dick around and gtfo. Social Media, like airlines, is something you use. You never own that shit.