Twitter shareholders claim the billionaire has tried to bring down the platform's stock value because he wants to walk away from the deal or negotiate a much lower price

 

Twitter shareholders are suing Elon Musk, accusing him of acting illegally in the way he has handled his takeover bid.

 

They claim the billionaire has tried to bring down the platform's stock value because he wants to walk away from the deal or negotiate a much lower price.

 

Last month Musk offered to buy the company for $44bn but later put the deal on hold until the company provides more information about how many accounts on the platform are spambots.

 

(more)

 

https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-sued-by-twitter-investors-over-takeover-offer-12622290

 

 

Good luck. Hope you force him to pay the full amount he offered. 

The important thing is that he gets his name mentioned and picture posted every day.  It's worth the occasional billion bucks to ensure that.  Especially now as he's building a political brand.  "Political Attacks On Me Will Escalate ‘Dramatically’ In Coming Months, Says Elon Musk."  Sounds like a plan.

 

https://www.thetechoutlook.com/internet/politics/political-attacks-on-me-will-escalate-dramatically-in-coming-months-elon-musk/

 

 

 

2 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Last month Musk offered to buy the company for $44bn but later put the deal on hold until the company provides more information about how many accounts on the platform are spambots.

That is a reasonable request .

Twitter would be less valuable if there are many spambots and another question would be who made the spambots and why ?

Buying a company for $44bn and you don't do due diligence?  Not the first time he is using underhand tactics to manipulate share prices.

It’s an excuse. He should pay up or shut up. He knew what he was getting into when he moved on twitter and if he didn’t he’s an idiot. 

 

2 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Last month Musk offered to buy the company for $44bn but later put the deal on hold until the company provides more information about how many accounts on the platform are spambots.

3 minutes ago, Kopitiam said:

Buying a company for $44bn and you don't do due diligence?  Not the first time he is using underhand tactics to manipulate share prices.

He made an offer on the understanding that Twitter had 5 % spambots , it has since been suggested that the real figure is 25 % , and so he is doing due diligently before be he actually pays the money 

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s an excuse. He should pay up or shut up. He knew what he was getting into when he moved on twitter and if he didn’t he’s an idiot. 

 

There has been some suggestion that Twitter didn't give a true amount of their spambots amount 

23 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There has been some suggestion that Twitter didn't give a true amount of their spambots amount 

Tough,.

 

He made a deal and now he needs to honour it.
 

He’s trying to wriggle out of the deal and I truly hope he fails to do so. 

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Tough,.

 

He made a deal and now he needs to honour it.
 

He’s trying to wriggle out of the deal and I truly hope he fails to do so. 

It was just an offer/agreement .

What if Twitter hadn't been honest about the amount of spambots and they deliberately misled him, wouldn't that give him the right to query the agreed price ?

Sure he’s bothered. 
 

Too busy trolling AOC the gaslighter. 

TWTR looks like a good short candidate.  Let it fall back to fair value (with 20% bots) to about $32.00 a share.

4 hours ago, Kopitiam said:

Buying a company for $44bn and you don't do due diligence?  Not the first time he is using underhand tactics to manipulate share prices.

He made the offer at the time based on the info given to him, it seems that info was incorrect.

So he's now asking for the real financial details of the company, not the false ones.

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Tough,.

 

He made a deal and now he needs to honour it.
 

He’s trying to wriggle out of the deal and I truly hope he fails to do so. 

If you agree to buy a car from me with a V8 engine for a certain price, but later find that it's a V6 will you still want to pay the original price?

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is a reasonable request .

Twitter would be less valuable if there are many spambots and another question would be who made the spambots and why ?

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

He made the offer at the time based on the info given to him, it seems that info was incorrect.

So he's now asking for the real financial details of the company, not the false ones.

Except that Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence. And the corporate law courts in Delaware, where Twitter is registered, demand a very high level of misreporting before a suitor like Musk would be allowed to renege. Legally, he's toast. But that doesn't mean that Twitter will pursue this case in court until Musk fulfills his pledge.

 

. 

A shady company with suspect financials.  Elan should have known better.  Good luck to him.

7 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was just an offer/agreement .

What if Twitter hadn't been honest about the amount of spambots and they deliberately misled him, wouldn't that give him the right to query the agreed price ?

He should have done his homework. No sympathy here, he launched and pursed the bid, no one forced him to do so. 

3 hours ago, animalmagic said:

If you agree to buy a car from me with a V8 engine for a certain price, but later find that it's a V6 will you still want to pay the original price?

I would do my due diligence beforehand and check the engine or at least get a mechanic to do so.  
 

Musk knew there was a bots issue before he launched his bid.  He is using it as an excuse to back out. 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Except that Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence. And the corporate law courts in Delaware, where Twitter is registered, demand a very high level of misreporting before a suitor like Musk would be allowed to renege. Legally, he's toast. But that doesn't mean that Twitter will pursue this case in court until Musk fulfills his pledge.

 

. 

"Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence."

 

Really? He signed a contract with those specific words? I think it quite reasonable that Musk took the publicly released Twitter financial statements at face value and made his offer with the clear understanding that bots and fake accounts made up less than 5% of the daily users. It is illegal for Twitter to lie in these financial statements. Agrawal's public refusal to back up his less than 5% claim sets alarm bells ringing for sure. I suspect if it turns out bots do indeed make up 25% of the daily users not the 5% as claimed - or a similar figure, that it will be seen as a material number, and thus no requirement for Musk to complete his buyout. And then the fraud trials begin for the Twitter board.

 

I suspect Musk and Agrawal will agree on a lower price. Agrawal is between a rock and a hard place. He knows if the deal falls through he will be sued himself for failing his fiduciary responsibity to shareholders to act in the shareholders best interest - which is financial success and a rising shareprice. Investors did not invest in Twitter to propagate a woke narrative at the cost of profit, which is what Senior lead client partner Alex Martinez said on video last week(the 2nd such sting to bear fruit by journalists at Project Veritas)

 

"Washington: In another undercover recording released by American far-right activist group Project Veritas, a Twitter employee has revealed that the company isn't profitable because of their woke ideology and company puts the "correct" views in front of people and mocks Elon Musk's development disorder."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/in-secret-recording-twitter-exec-alex-martinez-blames-ideology-for-not-making-profit-2985768

 

I certainly would not want to be in Agrawal's shoes now. And too see Musk taking victory laps by posting a poop icon after Agrawal's lame explanation for why he can't prove the % of bots, and trolling Ocasio-Cortez over whether her followers are real, which she declined to prove, must be very painful for Agrawal and the board.

 

 This has certainly been an entertaining story, and surely there will be more surprises to come. 

Place your shorts on TWTR, ladies and gentlemen.

Short interest up to 33 million shares today.  That’s up 6.35% over yesterday’s short interest.

This ship’s going down…

5 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

"Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence."

 

Really? He signed a contract with those specific words? I think it quite reasonable that Musk took the publicly released Twitter financial statements at face value and made his offer with the clear understanding that bots and fake accounts made up less than 5% of the daily users. It is illegal for Twitter to lie in these financial statements. Agrawal's public refusal to back up his less than 5% claim sets alarm bells ringing for sure. I suspect if it turns out bots do indeed make up 25% of the daily users not the 5% as claimed - or a similar figure, that it will be seen as a material number, and thus no requirement for Musk to complete his buyout. And then the fraud trials begin for the Twitter board.

 

I suspect Musk and Agrawal will agree on a lower price. Agrawal is between a rock and a hard place. He knows if the deal falls through he will be sued himself for failing his fiduciary responsibity to shareholders to act in the shareholders best interest - which is financial success and a rising shareprice. Investors did not invest in Twitter to propagate a woke narrative at the cost of profit, which is what Senior lead client partner Alex Martinez said on video last week(the 2nd such sting to bear fruit by journalists at Project Veritas)

 

"Washington: In another undercover recording released by American far-right activist group Project Veritas, a Twitter employee has revealed that the company isn't profitable because of their woke ideology and company puts the "correct" views in front of people and mocks Elon Musk's development disorder."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/in-secret-recording-twitter-exec-alex-martinez-blames-ideology-for-not-making-profit-2985768

 

I certainly would not want to be in Agrawal's shoes now. And too see Musk taking victory laps by posting a poop icon after Agrawal's lame explanation for why he can't prove the % of bots, and trolling Ocasio-Cortez over whether her followers are real, which she declined to prove, must be very painful for Agrawal and the board.

 

 This has certainly been an entertaining story, and surely there will be more surprises to come. 

 Over and over again it's reported that he waived due diligence. Musk has not denied that ever. What does that tell you?

But what's really shows how your prejudice incapacitates rational thinking on this subject, you completely ignore that fact that Musk's net worth has plummeted recently. Which makes it a lot more difficult for him to finance a takeover of Twitter. He would have to pledge a lot more shares.

As for Project Veritas. It has been repeatedly show that it misleadingly edits videos to advance whatever agenda it's pushing. It's been successfully sued because of that.

And anybody who thinks sending poop tweets constitutes some kind of victory for Musk...well, I guess that goes back to the issue of rationality.

And as for Musk's honesty...

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/elon-musk-tesla-twitter-fables.html

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 Over and over again it's reported that he waived due diligence. Musk has not denied that ever. What does that tell you?

It tells me that your claim "Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence" is unable to be supported by evidence beyond vague assertions by a politically charged media. Of course if you can show me where Musk signed some contract doing exactly what you claim I will apologize and accept having been wrong.

 What we see happening time and time again is one media outlet reporting something, and then all the others report the same thing without checking whether it is factually correct. 

 

Certainly true that the stock market crash, and TSLA's falling share price makes it much harder for Musk to complete the deal at $44bn. And also worth noting Tesla shareholders are not happy with the current situation. Would not be surprising if he gets booted off the BOD at the next AGM. 

 

 Nobody said saving free speech would be easy.

 

 

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It tells me that your claim "Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence" is unable to be supported by evidence beyond vague assertions by a politically charged media. Of course if you can show me where Musk signed some contract doing exactly what you claim I will apologize and accept having been wrong.

 What we see happening time and time again is one media outlet reporting something, and then all the others report the same thing without checking whether it is factually correct. 

 

Certainly true that the stock market crash, and TSLA's falling share price makes it much harder for Musk to complete the deal at $44bn. And also worth noting Tesla shareholders are not happy with the current situation. Would not be surprising if he gets booted off the BOD at the next AGM. 

 

 Nobody said saving free speech would be easy.

 

 

Really? Musk who is notoriously thin-skinned, makes no comment at all about reports that he waived his right to due diligence? That seems plausible to you?

And you made no mention at all of the elephant in the room, Tesla's collapsing share price, until I brought it up. 

As for saving free speech, I thought that's what Rumble...er.. Parler...er..Truth Social was going to do. What happened?  Why is the acquisition of Twitter necessary to save free speech? 

53 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I suspect Musk and Agrawal will agree on a lower price. Agrawal is between a rock and a hard place. He knows if the deal falls through he will be sued himself for failing his fiduciary responsibity to shareholders to act in the shareholders best interest - which is financial success and a rising shareprice. Investors did not invest in Twitter to propagate a woke narrative at the cost of profit, which is what Senior lead client partner Alex Martinez said on video last week(the 2nd such sting to bear fruit by journalists at Project Veritas)

 

"Washington: In another undercover recording released by American far-right activist group Project Veritas, a Twitter employee has revealed that the company isn't profitable because of their woke ideology and company puts the "correct" views in front of people and mocks Elon Musk's development disorder."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/in-secret-recording-twitter-exec-alex-martinez-blames-ideology-for-not-making-profit-2985768

 

I decided to take a look at the video from project veritas.  The clips taken from Martinez are so short as to render them completely untrustworthy. Often not clear whether it's something he's asserting or him characterizing what others say. This is typical for Project Veritas. 

32 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It tells me that your claim "Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence" is unable to be supported by evidence beyond vague assertions by a politically charged media. Of course if you can show me where Musk signed some contract doing exactly what you claim I will apologize and accept having been wrong.

 What we see happening time and time again is one media outlet reporting something, and then all the others report the same thing without checking whether it is factually correct. 

You don't understand how due diligence works. Before an agreement is signed, a separate due dligence agreement is created and signed No such document was created. In the proxy statement to Twitter shareholders

"Mr. Musk did not ask to enter into a confidentiality agreement or seek from Twitter any non-public info regarding Twitter," Twitter said in its proxy statement.

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/twitters-account-of-deal-shows-elon-musk-signing-without-asking-for-more-info-11652802170661.html

If Twitter was lying about this, the SEC would be all over them. As would Musk.

9 hours ago, Kopitiam said:

Buying a company for $44bn and you don't do due diligence?  Not the first time he is using underhand tactics to manipulate share prices.

Tactics yes, underhand....maybe?

this is simply the left spitting their pacifiers because they dont want the truth and free speech to happen with twitter, the left much prefer their lies and innuendo to be what twitter stands for, last thing they want is honesty as they know it would destroy the dems and their biased views

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Tough,.

 

He made a deal and now he needs to honour it.
 

He’s trying to wriggle out of the deal and I truly hope he fails to do so. 

Nope. Same as buying a house. Offer made/accepted based on viewing by buyer and info provide by seller. Time between accepted offer and closing used for due diligence. If buyer finds serious flaw not disclosed by seller, price adjustment is one standard recourse.

 

It is standard procedure.

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It tells me that your claim "Musk specifically waived his rights to due diligence" is unable to be supported by evidence beyond vague assertions by a politically charged media. Of course if you can show me where Musk signed some contract doing exactly what you claim I will apologize and accept having been wrong.

 What we see happening time and time again is one media outlet reporting something, and then all the others report the same thing without checking whether it is factually correct. 

 

Certainly true that the stock market crash, and TSLA's falling share price makes it much harder for Musk to complete the deal at $44bn. And also worth noting Tesla shareholders are not happy with the current situation. Would not be surprising if he gets booted off the BOD at the next AGM. 

 

 Nobody said saving free speech would be easy.

 

 

Expand  

Really? Musk who is notoriously thin-skinned, makes no comment at all about reports that he waived his right to due diligence? That seems plausible to you?

No, what seems unreasonable to me is you using the logical fallacy of "argument from silence".

 

9 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Nope. Same as buying a house. Offer made/accepted based on viewing by buyer and info provide by seller. Time between accepted offer and closing used for due diligence. If buyer finds serious flaw not disclosed by seller, price adjustment is one standard recourse.

 

It is standard procedure.

Nope. Musk waived any rights for due diligence after he made his offer. Should have done his homework.

 

Pay up musk.

 

''The lawsuit notes, however, that Musk waived due diligence for his “take it or leave it” offer to buy Twitter. That means he waived his right to look at the company’s non-public finances.

 

In addition, the problem of bots and fake accounts on Twitter is nothing new. The company paid $809.5 million last year to settle claims it was overstating its growth rate and monthly user figures. Twitter has also disclosed its bot estimates to the Securities and Exchange Commission for years, while also cautioning that its estimate might be too low.''

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/twitter-shareholders-sue-musk-say-he-deflated-stock-price/2022/05/26/df534a84-dd32-11ec-bc35-a91d0a94923b_story.html