Elon Musk says he's terminating $44B Twitter buyout deal

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But they didn't release the information which would show how many user bots they have 

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.

[Chris.B]

Yes, I wouldn't pay $44 billion for Twitter too!

 

[RichardColeman]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Would it be legally possible to force someone to buy something ?

Especially if the seller lied about something

[peterfranks]

14 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Especially if the seller lied about something

Do you have a link to a credible source that proves this?

 

IMO, Musk just invented an excuse because he ran out of funds.

 

Yes I know he is still a billionaire, but look what happened very shortly after he signed an agreement.

 

The Tesla stock price, took a dive, so he would have to use a lot more shares to finance the deal.

 

The crypto, in which he is big invested, also lost about 80% of value.

 

All by all, I think Musk net worth declined by more than the 44 billion he had thought to use.

 

And finally, Musk is a troll who uses social media to talk up his stock prices

Edited July 9, 2022 by peterfranks

[IAMHERE]

Looks to me Musk could pay a one billion breakup fee; then turn around and offer to buy the TWTR for ten billion less. He'd be nine billion better off.

[JonnyF]

Maybe he needs the cash to pay off his baby Momma Amber Heard’s defamation charges to Johnny Depp?

 

Musk is a basket case IMO. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him end up like Elizabeth Holmes.

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Looks to me Musk could pay a one billion breakup fee; then turn around and offer to buy the TWTR for ten billion less. He'd be nine billion better off.

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

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, it was known about bots on twitter and the amount of bots may have been deliberately underestimated by twitter and they may have given fraudulent figures to up the share price .

   He may have made the offer on the basis that 5 % of users were bots and then found out that the figure was much higher and thus Twitter isn't worth the agree price .

   Let the Courts work out who is in the wrong 

Agreed, if Musk wants to back out of the deal due to certain "issues" arising then let the court hear those reasons and Twitters response, then decide if he has a case or not.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Agreed, if Musk wants to back out of the deal due to certain "issues" arising then let the court hear those reasons and Twitters response, then decide if he has a case or not.

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.

[bendejo]

He should be good for a few weeks of daily mentions in the media with this.

 

 

[Berkshire]

12 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Looks to me Musk could pay a one billion breakup fee; then turn around and offer to buy the TWTR for ten billion less. He'd be nine billion better off.

Firstly, Musk agreed to buy TWTR for $44 billion.  TWTR will go to court to force Musk to honor the deal.

If TWTR loses the court case, what makes you think they would let Musk anywhere near a future deal?  The guy's already renege once, they'd be idiots to let him try again.

[Isaan sailor]

Time for a white knight to save the day.  Unfortunately for TWTR, the offer would reflect current prices or a lower one.  As a small time investor, I wouldn’t touch TWTR until it drops another 20%.  But shorting might work.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Isaan sailor

[Phoenix Rising]

Right Wingers Implode Over Elon Musk’s Termination of Twitter Deal

 

"Following the announcement of Musk’s intent to purchase the company, the Tesla billionaire’s own Twitter account became a hub for far-right reactionaries looking to influence the potential new owner of the platform. Now that the deal is seemingly dead in the water, the reaction from those same personalities has been a public mixture of panic and lament."

 

Personally I think Twitter (as well as similar platforms) is the very worst of social media. It's short message format promotes and encourages headline statements without context or background and does nothing but further division in an already divided society, and no amount of rules (or a no rules policy) will change that basic fact.

Unfortunately the social media genie does not go back into the bottle and we're rapidly approaching a society (world-wide) where most people have the attention span of gnats.

Basically, I thing we, as a species, are well and truly f-word-d.

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Personally I think Twitter (as well as similar platforms) is the very worst of social media. It's short message format promotes and encourages headline statements without context or background and does nothing but further division in an already divided society, and no amount of rules (or a no rules policy) will change that basic fact.

Unfortunately the social media genie does not go back into the bottle and we're rapidly approaching a society (world-wide) where most people have the attention span of gnats.

Basically, I thing we, as a species, are well and truly f-word-d.

A number of "tweets" are done in a thread format that unrolls as many messages as the author needs to make his point.  Personally, I like Twitter because it is the fastest breaking news outlet available. The Abe killing was a perfect example. Traditional media sources were flatfooted for hours, while Twitter accounts brought the news within minutes of the murder. Compare breaking news on Twitter to Aseannow, for example. A half day or more might go by on AN before important stories get noticed. It's not that AN is particularly slow. It's just like a lot of other traditional outlets that take their time to get things sorted. Obituaries of the famous are another example. Twitter is valuable, I think, although I think Musk is on firm ground about all the fake accounts. Some blue checks on Twitter have a million or more followers but never get more than a hundred or so likes, retweets, or comments. Clearly, something is amiss there. 

[papa al]

21 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Musk will have long drawn our Court cases which would take years to resolve , advertisement revenue will fall when advertisings suspect 25 % of twitter users may be bots .

  Considering the current price of twitter shares , Musk will probably buy twitter at a reduced price , say a 25 % discount 

45% discount.

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Agreed, if Musk wants to back out of the deal due to certain "issues" arising then let the court hear those reasons and Twitters response, then decide if he has a case or not.

Yes, it would take years to resolve with the  Countries top lawyers from both sides making their case to the Judge and the Judge who would know what the law is, would then make a Judgment or would pass the case onto a higher Court .

  Some ASEANNOW posters have bypassed that process and have already made a Judgment on the case 

[placeholder]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, it would take years to resolve with the  Countries top lawyers from both sides making their case to the Judge and the Judge who would know what the law is, would then make a Judgment or would pass the case onto a higher Court .

  Some ASEANNOW posters have bypassed that process and have already made a Judgment on the case 

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

[Elkski]

Musk has already won.  Twitter will be forced to let everyone examine how many bots and fake pro china and Russia and trump accounts are on there.  Plus they will have to release all internal communications, plus the bit algorithms.   jack Dorsey will be revealed for who he is.  Elon planned this. 

He has decimated the stock price.  And it can't recover until it can prove to advertisers what the real numbers are. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Elkski

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Elkski said:

Musk has already won.  Twitter will be forced to let everyone examine how many bots and fake pro china and Russia and trump accounts are on there.  Plus they will have to release all internal communications, plus the bit algorithms.   jack Dorsey will be revealed for who he is.  Elon planned this. 

He has decimated the stock price.  And it can't recover until it can prove to advertisers what the real numbers are. 

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.

Edited July 10, 2022 by placeholder

[Elkski]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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.

For 1 billion$, chump change for musk, he will reveal to the World the truth about 1 social media platform whatever that may be.   Thank you Elon. 

You can bet there are some internal memos from smart number crunching code walkers that  had drastically higher estimates of the bot numbers but the bean counters won.  The SEC will love this. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Elkski said:

For 1 billion$, chump change for musk, he will reveal to the World the truth about 1 social media platform whatever that may be.   Thank you Elon. 

You can bet there are some internal memos from smart number crunching code walkers that  had drastically higher estimates of the bot numbers but the bean counters won.  The SEC will love this. 

If 1 billion was all Musk stood to lose, I don't think he'd have a problem paying it. However, to quote myslef:

"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."

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

On 7/9/2022 at 11:49 AM, placeholder said:

 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.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

"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."

 

Errrrmmm , you made the same point yesterday

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

Errrrmmm , you made the same point yesterday

As I noted in my reply, I quoted myself. But apparently for some inexplicable, the person I replied to doesn't not read all my posts. So for their benefit, I quoted it.

[Berkshire]

14 hours ago, Elkski said:

Musk has already won.  Twitter will be forced to let everyone examine how many bots and fake pro china and Russia and trump accounts are on there.  Plus they will have to release all internal communications, plus the bit algorithms.   jack Dorsey will be revealed for who he is.  Elon planned this. 

He has decimated the stock price.  And it can't recover until it can prove to advertisers what the real numbers are. 

Musk has won??  Because he decimated the stock price...?  Musk owns roughly 9% of the company, about 74 million shares of TWTR.  TSLA stock price has also taken a beating.  Musk's little adventure into TWTR has cost him a fortune....and it ain't over.   

Edited July 11, 2022 by Berkshire

[Berkshire]

Seems a certain former President is not too pleased that Musk is bailing on TWTR....

 

[Trump drops F-bomb, mocks Musk in Alaska rally speech]

["Elon is not going to buy Twitter. Where did you hear that before? From me," Trump said. "He's another bulsh*t artist."]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-drops-f-bomb-mocks-054802853.html

 

[Berkshire]

[SunnyinBangrak]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

If 1 billion was all Musk stood to lose, I don't think he'd have a problem paying it. However, to quote myslef:

"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."

 

Did Tyson foods claim a dishonestly low bot count in order to win more revenue from advertizers? Did they lie about this on their SEC filings?

 I suggest there is no similarities in the 2 cases.

 BTW, IF it can be proven that the bot count is SUBSTANTIALLY above Twitter's claimed 5% it will be about the biggest fraud since Enron and Theranos. Parag will be making license plates for decades.

 Watching with interest and not buying this oft repeated, never properly substantiated "Musk signed away his rights to due diligence" for 1 second. I have a good nose for BS and this smells a lot like it.

Edited July 11, 2022 by SunnyinBangrak

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Did Tyson foods claim a dishonestly low bot count in order to win more revenue from advertizers? Did they lie about this on their SEC filings?

 I suggest there is no similarities in the 2 cases.

 BTW, IF it can be proven that the bot count is SUBSTANTIALLY above Twitter's claimed 5% it will be about the biggest fraud since Enron and Theranos. Parag will be making license plates for decades.

 Watching with interest and not buying this oft repeated, never properly substantiated "Musk signed away his rights to due diligence" for 1 second. I have a good nose for BS and this smells a lot like it.

What don't you understand about the fact that Musk waived his right to due diligence? And no, they didn't lie in the SEC filings. They always noted that their estimate could be substantially off. And to make his case, Musk would have to prove that these figures had a "material adverse effect" on the deal. The Delaware courts set a very very high bar for something to qualify as a  material adverse effect.  . And please, tell us where it's been contradicted that musk waived his rights to due diligence. I don't need a good nose for BS to smell that your comments are full of it.

[SunnyinBangrak]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact that Musk waived his right to due diligence? And no, they didn't lie in the SEC filings. They always noted that their estimate could be substantially off. And to make his case, Musk would have to prove that these figures had a "material adverse effect" on the deal. The Delaware courts set a very very high bar for something to qualify as a  material adverse effect.  . And please, tell us where it's been contradicted that musk waived his rights to due diligence. I don't need a good nose for BS to smell that your comments are full of it.

I'm sure I asked you before to quote Elon Musk specifically stating that he waived his rights to due diligence - and couldn't care less if Twitter fraudulently exaggerated it's real user numbers. Still waiting. What I did see was a vague statement to that effect from some msm outlet, not backed up by documentation. I liken this waived rights issue to the 0.2% weed/extract misdirection. People read something and take it as total fact, even when it is patently nonsensical.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SunnyinBangrak

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I'm sure I asked you before to quote Elon Musk specifically stating that he waived his rights to due diligence - and couldn't care less if Twitter fraudulently exaggerated it's real user numbers. Still waiting. What I did see was a vague statement to that effect from some msm outlet, not backed up by documentation. I liken this waived rights issue to the 0.2% weed/extract misdirection. People read something and take it as total fact, even when it is patently nonsensical.

 

Rarely have I seen so pronounced a case of willful ignorance. Can you cite anyone with expertise in such matters who says differently? Anyone? Anyway, before due diligence became an issue, it was already reported that Musk had waived his right to it. All the way back in April when the deal was announced. This article in Bloomberg appeared a couple of days after the deal was made public. How would it even have been suspected that Musk was going to renege?

 

"It is worth noting that Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company was not  contingent on customary due diligence, and given the timeline he basically didn’t do any. Davis and Baker report that “the transaction came together at breakneck speed in part because Musk waived the chance to look at Twitter’s finances beyond what was publicly available.” 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-26/elon-got-his-deal

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/twitter-takeover-was-brash-and-fast-with-musk-calling-the-shots?srnd=premium

 

Keep in mind that at the time he actually was going over the heads of Twitter management to appeal to stockholders directly to accept his offer. This article in Bloomberg appeared a couple of days after the deal was made public. How would it even have been suspected that Musk was going to renege? Keep in mind that at the time he actually was going over the heads of Twitter management to appeal to stockholders directly to accept his offer.