Twitter sues Elon Musk for backing out the deal.

[CTR640]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

Because the organizations that could investigate either don't have any teeth to do anything or would give him such a small fine his farts are worth more. It's a sad state of affairs but it's the reality that people think the rich people and most big corps can do no wrong and should never be punished. Some large corporation or ultra rich person could go so far as to purposely dump toxic nuclear waste into the drinking water for a state or county and you would still have people cheering for them and crying foul for any action taken against them for some reason. I think a big part of it is in the US a lot of people think they can become the ultra wealthy or that those people fight for them and they've been gaslight so badly they're blind to the reality of it all.

Ah, so the organisations are teethless dogs that can do nothing except barking. Got it.

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

And why has this fucker still not been investigated? Did the gov/cops got bribed? Did that sack of shit blackmail? It's like he can fuck over anyone and any business and gets away with it without any consequences to himself.

Because people keep pulling out their pitchforks for allegedly things like "messed up their stock value a lot" without bothering even looking at the Twitter stock chart.

 

e.g. "messed up their stock value a lot"

 

Musk did a bulk of his purchasing iirc around the $33-35 mark.  The announcement he had bought stake in twitter was what jumped the price to $45-$50 mark.

Between Feb 2021 and Oct 2021 the average was over $60.  It's not hard to see  that Twitter was messing things up well on their own prior to Elon.  Also, the current valuation after him then supposedly tanking everything puts the stock at a higher value than again than before he began purchasing the stock.

 

So let me ask this, what part should be investigated?  Why do you think there should be an investigation?

 

Sure there was the issue when he was purchasing the stock, but I'd also argue that it had no real outcome on the price at which he bought the majority of the stock at (because of the volume increase, my guess was he bought it between the window which he was allowed to still in secret).

[CTR640]

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Because people keep pulling out their pitchforks for allegedly things like "messed up their stock value a lot" without bothering even looking at the Twitter stock chart.

 

e.g. "messed up their stock value a lot"

 

Musk did a bulk of his purchasing iirc around the $33-35 mark.  The announcement he had bought stake in twitter was what jumped the price to $45-$50 mark.

Between Feb 2021 and Oct 2021 the average was over $60.  It's not hard to see  that Twitter was messing things up well on their own prior to Elon.  Also, the current valuation after him then supposedly tanking everything puts the stock at a higher value than again than before he began purchasing the stock.

 

So let me ask this, what part should be investigated?  Why do you think there should be an investigation?

 

Sure there was the issue when he was purchasing the stock, but I'd also argue that it had no real outcome on the price at which he bought the majority of the stock at (because of the volume increase, my guess was he bought it between the window which he was allowed to still in secret).

Who's the one that should be investigated? One of them who's at fault. What is this due digilence exactly and does it occur after signing or before? And everyone and their grandmom with some braincells will know the "5% or less" are spambots or fake account is straight-up bullshit. Hasn't Twitter mades losses the past year? No profits?

 

The issue regarding the investigation is not targeted specifically, it's more targeted at regulators/organisations. They don't have the balls to do anything. See Fecesbook for example and many other big corps.

[wanderingfool2]

5 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Who's the one that should be investigated? One of them who's at fault. What is this due digilence exactly and does it occur after signing or before? And everyone and their grandmom with some braincells will know the "5% or less" are spambots or fake account is straight-up bullshit. Hasn't Twitter mades losses the past year? No profits?

 

The issue regarding the investigation is not targeted specifically, it's more targeted at regulators/organisations. They don't have the balls to do anything. See Fecesbook for example and many other big corps.

But the direct problem is you directed it at exactly one person.  The 5% or less is only investigatable by the SEC because it's part of the filing they did...but unless there is a whistleblower they can't really do much.

 

The whole point is if you are going to lambaste an organization like SEC at least have the reasoning why you feel they should be.  It's like criticizing NASA for not pushing human mars missions, when in reality that's not what they are really focused on/meant to focus on.

 

Also, the financials of twitter 2020 Twitter lost 1.1 billion, and 2021 Twitter lost 0.2 billion.  So yea, that is one of the reasons they lost so much in value along with weakening investment in the tech sector.  I mean look at the remaining tech sector, Alphabet since mid/late March has dropped over 20%

 

For all the due diligence stuff, it's standard take-over stuff.  Making sure that there aren't skeletons in the closet so to speak.  Take-over fail, it happens and quite common; it's about who breached the contract really.  Due diligence is done after the initial signing, because you need to have things like NDA etc all in place and penalties if things are breached.

[Beerzerker]

10 hours ago, Donut417 said:

He already signed on the dotted line. Yes he has the right to pull out of the deal but they were at the stages where Elon might owe money for pulling out. Its like when AT&T tried to buy T Mobile long ago and the Government told them to fuck off with that idea. AT&T had to give T Mobile like 1 Billion dollars because the deal fell thru. Elon is trying to get out of paying any money, Twitter is going to make sure that doesnt happen. 

Doesn't matter if he did - Negotiations were still ongoing and that's the part that matters, esp since it also depends on what dotted line he had signed.
Such agreements are actually a legal contract and you can't negotiate a contract after it's been finalized and signed by all parties involved - Because there was still some negotiation going on, the deal/contract wasn't finalized, as in a legally enforceable contract upon finalization and signature.

For example - I can walk into a dealership and sign all kinds of papers related to the purchase of a new vehicle but at the same time, as long as I don't sign the all important paper at the end of a deal to actually buy, I can still walk away from it - No harm, no foul.

If a deal isn't finalized and signed then trying to nail someone down for something specific is BS and they know it.

And speaking of bots, we all know they exist and it's really easy for a bot to be programmed to create multiple fake accounts - You see it here too for the purpose of spamming.
Good thing is these are easily spotted and taken out here but that's not always the case everywhere you go because some places are low priority, some are high(er) priority.

FB, Twitter and others are among the highest profile rank of targets, that makes creating a crapton of fake accounts feasable to do and it's estimated Twitter itself kills off about a million of these fake accounts per day.

Musk had good reason to ask about it based on this bit of info, whether it's real or not. 
I know I would have been asking some questions myself were I in his shoes and before anyone decides to knee jerk here, you can't seriously tell me you woudn't have asked about it if you had got wind of something like this yourself.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

Musk had good reason to ask about it based on this bit of info, whether it's real or not. 
I know I would have been asking some questions myself were I in his shoes and before anyone decides to knee jerk here, you can't seriously tell me you woudn't have asked about it if you had got wind of something like this yourself.

Musk had shit loads of time to ask about the bots. He kept pushing forward like an idiot. SHIT its pretty well proven most of the people who follow him are bots and there are those who think he bought the bots himself. The fact is he manipulated both Twitter and Tesla stock. He broke the law for the millionth time, not that it matters. He will get a fine for way less than what he made. 

 

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

Such agreements are actually a legal contract and you can't negotiate a contract after it's been finalized and signed by all parties involved - Because there was still some negotiation going on, the deal/contract wasn't finalized, as in a legally enforceable contract upon finalization and signature.

Actually they can change. All these types of deals need the blessing of the government, not just the federal, a number of state governments have sued over such mergers in the past. So terms can change even if they have been agreed on. I honestly believe he had no intention of buying Twitter. He needed something to drive down the price of Tesla stock. Because he had options that were expiring and he needed to used them or loose them. So he drove down the stock, bought a shit load more of Tesla stock and announced the cancelation of the Twitter deal. Which made the Tesla stock go up. Again stock manipulation / insider trading which is illegal. 

[Beerzerker]

35 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Musk had shit loads of time to ask about the bots. He kept pushing forward like an idiot. SHIT its pretty well proven most of the people who follow him are bots and there are those who think he bought the bots himself. The fact is he manipulated both Twitter and Tesla stock. He broke the law for the millionth time, not that it matters. He will get a fine for way less than what he made. 

Nevertheless, he DID ask before the deal was finalized and signed by all parties.
There is no way negotiations could have continued or would have been needed if all the legal paperwork had indeed been signed by all parties involved.

35 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

 

Actually they can change. All these types of deals need the blessing of the government, not just the federal, a number of state governments have sued over such mergers in the past. So terms can change even if they have been agreed on. I honestly believe he had no intention of buying Twitter. He needed something to drive down the price of Tesla stock. Because he had options that were expiring and he needed to used them or loose them. So he drove down the stock, bought a shit load more of Tesla stock and announced the cancelation of the Twitter deal. Which made the Tesla stock go up. Again stock manipulation / insider trading which is illegal. 

The gov is the only entity that can declare things as you put it, determining who agreed to what, to what extent something would apply or not apply.
Also, there must be proof of what he did was indeed stock manipulation and whether it was done with conscious intent to do so.

To be fair, there have been times in the past things just worked to that effect after a deal was made even though there was no intent on the part of any parties involved to that end.
However it's possible such accusations could still be made and carried foward in the legal sense even in a case like this and if there is real evidence of it, we can both agree the gov will follow up.

That's going to be the thing the Twitter guys will have to show and prove.
Such accusations if based on the deal being "Finalized" in itself can be disproven based on the fact negotiations were still in progress towards the creation of a deal.

If a deal was indeed finalized and signed by all parties involved you cannot continue to negotiate things about it because once signed, that's the thing making it all "In Stone" so there would be nothing to negotiate. 
If one or more parties breaks the terms of agreement after the finalization and signing, that's when it gets sticky and a real mess but the key thing is negotiations were still going on, that proving it had not reached such a point.

Gee - I'm glad I'm not personally involved with any of this... Talk about a headache.

[RedRound2]

12 hours ago, CTR640 said:

And why has this fucker still not been investigated? Did the gov/cops got bribed? Did that sack of shit blackmail? It's like he can fuck over anyone and any business and gets away with it without any consequences to himself.

In my opinion, its sort of grey area. Unless the SEC can prove in court that Elon did all this malicious intent, I think the court case will thrown out. And I don't think Elon does things and tweets thinks with ill intent. He tweets like a normie person - which is exactly the problem, instead of realizing that he has millions of followers and creates headlines whenever he does. Sort of victim of his own fame. And the stock price reacts as a result. If he was a normie person, what he did is just him expressing his own opinions and views

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Musk had shit loads of time to ask about the bots. He kept pushing forward like an idiot. SHIT its pretty well proven most of the people who follow him are bots and there are those who think he bought the bots himself. The fact is he manipulated both Twitter and Tesla stock. He broke the law for the millionth time, not that it matters. He will get a fine for way less than what he made. 

Well part of the claim is that they kept dragging their feet...so yea.

 

Also while it is "proven", you also have to go on official filing by Twitter and conclude that it must be less than 5%.  He was doing his due-diligence by trying to see if that was true, as it can greatly affect revenue through ads and expected user base.

 

Manipulated twitter stock is quite a contentious statement.  Yes, technically the filing was late, but based on the volume of traffic if the filing was on time the purchases made during that time would have fallen within the timeframe where he had to disclose (i.e. technically late but practically not).

 

And wonderful manipulation...the stock price is sitting at the same price when he originally bought his large stake in it.  Could be wrong, but I think at the current % he has to declare selling shares now as well...which means that it's not really a manipulation of stock tactic.  (After all, he would gain less than 1% of his total net worth even in the best case scenario...do you really think he would risk it for that).

 

The Tesla (and the 420) tweet was pretty reckless, but the leaked messages (from the court filings maybe) at least shows it was partially grounded in truth (albeit a verbal deal that fell through)

[spartaman64]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:51 AM, RedRound2 said:

In my opinion, its sort of grey area. Unless the SEC can prove in court that Elon did all this malicious intent, I think the court case will thrown out. And I don't think Elon does things and tweets thinks with ill intent. He tweets like a normie person - which is exactly the problem, instead of realizing that he has millions of followers and creates headlines whenever he does. Sort of victim of his own fame. And the stock price reacts as a result. If he was a normie person, what he did is just him expressing his own opinions and views

nah i think elon knows exactly what hes doing. you think he doesnt know that when he tweets about dogecoin the price will go up? i think its very likely that elon buys dogecoin and then sells it when the price goes up because of his tweets. 

[mr moose]

It wasn't the shareholders or the board that didn't want musk to buy them, it was the workers and middle management who have been using twitter to promote their own political agenda who didn't want the takeover.  

 

Twitter is a dumpster fire of propaganda and corruption that needs to die just like facebook and reddit.

 

 

[pas008]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-elon-musk-deal/index.html

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-elon-musk-deal/index.html

Queue in the its all fake, twitter din du nothin and its a musk ploy arguments

[pas008]

53 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Queue in the its all fake, twitter din du nothin and its a musk ploy arguments

did you see this one?

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/88065/elon-musk-drops-subpoena-on-jack-dorsey-over-twitter-legal-battle/index.html

 

think this is going to be fun maybe to watch?

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Queue in the its all fake, twitter din du nothin and its a musk ploy arguments

Queue the "muskrat is bastion of freedom" bullshit:

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/11/elon-musks-legal-filings-against-twitter-show-how-little-he-actually-cares-about-free-speech/