placeholder

You seem to assume that twitter is hiding the real number. If you had bothered to do the least little bit of research on the subject, you would know that nobody really knows the number or can tell. The fact is Musk waived his right to due diligence. A very foolish move. The case will be decided by a judge who has technical expertise in corporate law as it is enforced in Delaware where the case will be adjudicated if it comes to trial. He or she won't be moved by empty allegations that you've frothed up here.

Pregnant woman ticketed for driving on carpool lane in Texas says unborn baby should count as passenger A pregnant woman who received a ticket for driving alone in a carpool lane in Texas said that her unborn child should count as a passenger. Brandy Bottone, of Plano, Texas, was recently driving down Central Expressway approaching the exit for I-635 when she was stopped by an officer checking for high-occupancy-vehicle lane compliance. By law, HOV lanes have restrictions to encourage ridesharing and require drivers to have at least one passenger inside the vehicle, according to the Department of Transportation. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-texas-woman-fined-unborn-baby-counted-second-person-ticket-carpool-lane-hov-20220709-afwcdaekuzbvdgmm3o3242jo2q-story.html

Most lawyers I've seen commenting on the case say it would take about a year.

It's just that as the history of the Delaware Chancery Court stands, the prospects don't look so promising for Musk. And, if the decision goes against Musk, it's not clear that Musk would comply.

If it were only a case of him being liable to pay the breakup fee, he probably would. But that's not the case.

Can the govt impose it? I just thought it was a typical clueless suggestion.

You should do a little research on the question. No one really knows. It's a very difficult figure to ascertain. They gave Musk raw data. And as I have already pointed out, his waiving of due diligence means that essentially Twitter did him a courtesy by releasing the info. They were under no obligation to do so.

Thanks for the rant. I guess it's just a coincidence that prices are going up all over the world? And i'm sure you've done a careful analysis to compare how inflation is doing in the USA vs other developed nations. Can you share with us the results of your research? And what's your evidence that fossil fuel extraction in the US has been hurt by green policies? U.S. Oil Exports Soar as World Works to Replace Russian Supplies The U.S. exported the most oil and petroleum products in history last week as countries across the world work to replace Russian supplies in the wake of the war in Ukraine. Exports of U.S. crude and petroleum products surged to a weekly record of 10.6 million barrels a day during the week ending April 15, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The country’s exports also outweighed its imports by the most ever in government data going back to 1990. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-20/u-s-oil-exports-soar-as-world-works-to-replace-russian-supplies

US Job Gains Top Estimates; Jobless Rate Holds at 3.6% https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-08/us-job-gains-top-estimates-unemployment-rate-holds-at-3-6

Twitter has always noted that the 5% is an estimate and could be higher. Twitter is under no obligation to release any data to the boy genius since he waived the right to due diligence. But in fact it did release a flood of information to Musk. Musk is using this alleged lack of info to claim "adverse material effect". The Delaware courts have set a very very high bar for such a claim to hold water.

Oh please. This is not news. It's been known for a long time that it's not easy to determine what percentage of twitter accounts are bots. Moreover, keep in mind that it's Elon Musk making the accusations. Not exactly a trusted source. But certainly a highly self-interested one.

For all you legal geniuses out there who believe that the Delaware Court of Chancery can't or won't force Musk to honor his contract:. It's about a clause in the contract called a "specific performance" clause. "How it works: Section 9.9 of the Musk-Twitter merger agreement says that the company "shall be entitled to specific performance or other equitable remedy to enforce [Musk's] obligations," assuming various other conditions are satisfied. The key precedent is IBP Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc, with Don Tyson of Tyson Foods playing the role of Elon Musk. He tried to back out of an agreed acquisition of IBP, but in 2001 was forced to buy the company anyway by the Delaware Chancery Court." https://www.axios.com/2022/07/09/twitter-elon-musk-specific-performance Keep in mind that Musk's position is even weaker because he gave up the right to due diligence. Of course, if he loses the case in court, he might still refuse to pay. No one knows what might happen if he does this. It would probably thrill his fanboys who tend to love authoritarian figures who disregard the law.

The problem for Musk is that it's very unlikely the the Delaware Chancery Court, where such cases are adjudicated, is going to be impressed by his arguments. When he signed that contract, he signed away his rights to due diligence. So arguments that my impress a jury, are extremely unlikely to hold any persuasive power for justices who decide such issues based on actual corporate and contract law.

If Ukraine hadn't agreed to surrender the nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't have let it go. The nuclear provisions were there to please Russia and not to encourage nuclear proliferation. And spare me your cheap rhetorical trick of deprecating a strong argument by calling it a weak one.. Of course, Ukraine felt threatened by Russia. Ukraine has hardly had a happy experience of Russian domination. Its bid to be a free nation was brutally quashed by the new Soviet govt in the wake of WW1 and Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved to death in the 1930's.

Whatever one thinks about the advisability of using nuclear and natural gas, that was not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are green. While a sort of case can be made for nuclear, the extraction of natural gas is an ongoing environmental disaster.

Does this mean I get to collect my winnings now? I'm going to take them and splash out for a feast at the fanciest restaurant I can find. And then skip out on the bill.

Really? So NATO was considered to be a threat to Ukraine? Considered to be a threat by whom? If Ukrainians really felt threatened by NATO then why did they overwhelmingly vote to leave the warm protective embrace of its Russian big brother? 90% of those Ukrainians who voted, voted for Ukraine to become independent. You think they felt threatened by NATO?

Except, not everything you stated was a fact.

Depends what you mean by long range. North Korea did fire ballistic missiles over japan that flew 2200 kilometers. And they have a missile that has a range of 3500 kilometers. In addition they've demonstrated the capability to fire missiles from submarines. So that extends the range quite a bit, no?

Including you. So maybe you should be a little less categorical about what a poor nation can afford in the way of nuclear weapons.

Can you please share that insight with Kim Jong-un?

Actually it is as if these currencies are doing better than the British pound. They may have declined but they have declined less

Really. How was the economy in 2020?

And I don't care what other think either because I nearly have an IQ!

What I was pointing out that it's simplistic to say that a cheap pound is a good thing. It would be a better thing if it weren't so cheap because that would indicate that the economy is healthier. I don't care about your personal financial situation and the value of the pound is irrelevant to mine.