[HN Gopher] Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement ___________________________________________________________________ Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement Author : coloneltcb Score : 350 points Date : 2022-07-08 21:24 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov) | bandrami wrote: | He spent _a billion dollars_ to troll hand-wringing Twitter users | legitster wrote: | Oh boy. The real circus is about to begin. Everything before this | was just a warm up. | codeulike wrote: | I stand by my theory that the whole thing was a displacement | activity that caught his attention instead of something else more | arduous that he was supposed to do that month. | | Like when I suddenly develop an interest in Columbo trivia when | actually I'm supposed to be doing my accounts. | nemo44x wrote: | Why would he spend $44B on a company worth $28B today? I'd make a | new offer of $35B. They'd probably accept. | compiler-guy wrote: | Because he signed a contract to that effect, without any | contingencies if the stock went down. He doesn't really have a | choice except to go through an extended legal process that | likely will end up going against him. | manquer wrote: | They can't accept anything like that , twitter board would get | sued by their shareholders for any price renegotiation. | | Shareholders would sue them as most legal theory says twitter | would win in court and enforce the deal, so there is no reason | for the board to renegotiate instead of going to court, the | board has fiduciary responsibilities. | minimaxir wrote: | Elon waived his right to due diligence when he first made the | offer to buy Twitter, so backing out of the deal by arguing a | lack of due diligence is very funny. | tazjin wrote: | They write | | > Despite public speculation on this point, Mr. Musk did not | waive his right to review Twitter's data and information simply | because he chose not to seek this data and information before | entering into the Merger Agreement. In fact, he negotiated | access and information rights within the Merger Agreement | precisely so that he could review data and information that is | important to Twitter's business before financing and completing | the transaction. | | Is the merger agreement public? | riazrizvi wrote: | He was specifically looking for | | > 1. Information related to Twitter's process for auditing | the inclusion of spam and fake accounts in mDAU. | | > 2. Information related to Twitter's process for identifying | and suspending spam and fake accounts. | | His principle activity is influencing. The main sticking | point of the proposed merger is information on how Twitter | polices fake accounts. Nothing suspicious about this at all. | Reminds me of the time a wolf was interested in buying my | farm, and mainly wanted to know when my dog was chained up | and how long the chain was exactly. | jcranmer wrote: | First result on Google cropped up this: | | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522. | .. | rahimnathwani wrote: | Section 6.4 | floxy wrote: | >Section 6.4 Access to Information; Confidentiality. Upon | reasonable notice, the Company shall (and shall cause | each of its Subsidiaries to) afford to the | representatives, officers, directors, employees, agents, | attorneys, accountants and financial advisors | ("Representatives") of Parent reasonable access (at | Parent's sole cost and expense), in a manner not | disruptive in any material respect to the operations of | the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries, during | normal business hours and upon reasonable written notice | throughout the period commencing on the date of this | Agreement until the earlier of the Effective Time and the | termination of this Agreement pursuant to Article VIII, | to the properties, books and records of the Company and | its Subsidiaries and, during such period, shall (and | shall cause each of its Subsidiaries to) furnish promptly | to such Representatives all information concerning the | business, properties and personnel of the Company and its | Subsidiaries as may reasonably be requested in writing, | in each case, for any reasonable business purpose related | to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by | this Agreement; provided, however, that nothing herein | shall require the Company or any of its Subsidiaries to | disclose any information to Parent or Acquisition Sub if | such disclosure would, in the reasonable judgment of the | Company, (i) cause significant competitive harm to the | Company or its Subsidiaries if the transactions | contemplated by this Agreement are not consummated, (ii) | violate applicable Law or the provisions of any agreement | to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a | party, or (iii) jeopardize any attorney-client or other | legal privilege. No investigation or access permitted | pursuant to this Section 6.4 shall affect or be deemed to | modify any representation or warranty made by the Company | hereunder. Each of Parent and Acquisition Sub agrees that | it will not, and will cause its Representatives not to, | use any information obtained pursuant to this Section 6.4 | (or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement) for any | competitive or other purpose unrelated to the | consummation of the transactions contemplated by this | Agreement. Parent will use its reasonable best efforts to | minimize any disruption to the respective business of the | Company and its Subsidiaries that may result from | requests for access under this Section 6.4 and, | notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the | Company may satisfy its obligations set forth above by | electronic means if physical access is not reasonably | feasible or would not be permitted under applicable Law | as a result of COVID-19 or any COVID-19 Measures. Prior | to any disclosure, the Company and Parent shall enter | into a customary confidentiality agreement with respect | to any information obtained pursuant to this Section 6.4 | (or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement). | [deleted] | AlphaSite wrote: | I suspect Musk violated these terms himself: > Parent | will use its reasonable best efforts to minimize any | disruption to the respective business of the Company and | its Subsidiaries that may result from requests for access | under this Section 6.4 and, notwithstanding anything to | the contrary herein When he made a public m spectacle of | the requests for users, etc and publicised data. | rvz wrote: | So the fraudsters at Twitter knew, and Twitter is in fact | a spam bot utopia, hence why they didn't want to provide | all the data that Musk requested. | | Either way, I am laughing at all of them. (Yes. Elon also | played the fraudster role as well) | at-fates-hands wrote: | This is probably the document more people will be | interested in. | | It outlines the fraud allegations: | | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/00011046592 | 2... | tptacek wrote: | This argument is a sleight of hand. Nobody has claimed that | Musk waived his right to information from Twitter. What he | waived was his right to diligence, which is the right to | information _along with the discretionary right to terminate | the deal based on it_. What he waived was the ability to do | anything with the information absent an (impossible to | obtain) MAE discovery. | | The obvious legalese thing to do in Musk's buyers-remorse | situation is to use the information rights to make demands so | unreasonable no acquiree can reasonably honor them, which is | exactly what he seems to have done here. | that_guy_iain wrote: | They're not claiming a lack of sue diligence, they're claiming | fraud. Which is different. They're saying they're lying about | the numbers. Which would be fraud. | zimpenfish wrote: | > They're saying they're lying about the numbers. Which would | be fraud. | | But they've been sending the SEC these same numbers | calculated using the same methodology since 2013, right? If | they were materially adverse circumstances, you'd imagine | that someone would have caught this in the last 9 years... | teej wrote: | This flavor of "fraud" is something I'd expect an activist | investor or short-seller to address, not the SEC. | dragonwriter wrote: | The SEC isn't being asked to address anything, it's being | informed that Musk is moving to drop the merger which was | something SEC had to be informed about the same way that | it had to be informed of the merger plans, as I | understand it. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Also, Musk routinely knowingly confuses DAUs and normal | users. Twitter claims 5% of daily active users are bots, | but Musk complains about how many of his followers are | bots, when clearly many of those wouldn't be DAUs. | | Twitter's CEO has addressed this. Musk responded with a | poop emoji: https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1526237578843 | 672576?s=20&t... | la64710 wrote: | Which only shows Musk is shit himself, | woevdbz wrote: | Not only that, but _monetizable_ DAUs, which is basically | an advertising metric consisting primarily of folks whose | only actions on a given day might just be "checking my | feed, liking a couple posts", and from which fake users | are likely already removed without there being a strong | reason to shut down their accounts. Whatever ad | impressions those users get don't get billed to | advertisers, and there's no strong motive to shutting | them down if they haven't published anything contravening | Twitter's policies... | [deleted] | delaaxe wrote: | They who and they who? | timmytokyo wrote: | They'd have to prove it in court. Good luck with that. | electic wrote: | It is quite easy to prove twitter is mostly full of bots. | You do not even need a firehose to come to that conclusion. | not2b wrote: | Right, but Twitter's method of counting the number of | daily active users, meaning the number who are seeing | ads, which is what the SEC report refers to, was | allegedly designed to exclude most bots. Perhaps it's | wrong, but they never said 5% of _accounts_ are bots (far | more are). | Johnny555 wrote: | If you have proof that twitter is > 50% bots, you should | give that evidence to Musk. Or, give it to an attorney | that's eager to see Twitter's board go to jail for | putting false data in SEC filings. | WhyNotHugo wrote: | If he's claiming fraud, doesn't he have to prove it? | xadhominemx wrote: | Fraud is not enough. It has to be fraud bad enough to cause a | materially adverse effect, which means it would have to | seriously impair the value of the business. | [deleted] | tptacek wrote: | Which is why it's not fraud --- Delaware has effectively | never finds MAEs. The premise of him walking away is his | (utterly specious, but perhaps practically effective) claim | that Twitter breached the acquisition contract by refusing | to live up to its information covenants. | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | Which is nonsense, since the numbers in question are not | verifiable. | | How can you identify a "spam account"? It's not possible to | definitively determine the intent of someone opening or using | a new account. | | So the numbers are arguable either way. Musk is using this | fact to try to wriggle out of a disastrous impulse buy. | dragonwriter wrote: | There aren't claiming fraud, there are claiming breach of | contract. Including, among other things, by failing to | maintain operations in the regular course of business because | of, I kid you not, _allowing some senior officials to | resign_. | | (It's true some of the many other things that are claimed to | be breaches relate to alleged failure to fulfill obligations | to provide information that Musk supposedly wanted to | determine if other claims that has been made were fraudulent, | but that's different than alleging fraud.) | that_guy_iain wrote: | It says in the first paragraph about making misleading | representations. That is lawyer talk for lying. Lying in | this context is fraud. | | Secondly, the ceo was firing aka asking for resignations | from key people, no? That is not maintaining the business, | that seems like sabotage. | epgui wrote: | Misrepresentation is a necessary but insufficient | component for a finding of fraud. | that_guy_iain wrote: | That's why there not outright claiming fraud just lying. | That way they avoid illegal issues but if they were to | seek damages it would be a fraud case. | dragonwriter wrote: | They aren't claiming lying either. | | They are claiming breach of contract, and that it _looks | to them_ like lying which, if it did happen, might be | fraud, but they can 't tell, in part because part of the | alleged breaches is Twitter not giving them information | that might clarify whether the other claims were true or | not. | tptacek wrote: | Lawyer-talk for fraud is "fraud". | that_guy_iain wrote: | Not sure what your point is. I said misrepresentations is | lawyer talk for lying... | dragonwriter wrote: | And "appears to have" is lawyer talk for "we don't know | that this occurred and can't prove it and absolutely want | to make clear that we will not be accountable for | claiming it actually happened." | tptacek wrote: | You said "in this context lying is fraud", and that's not | the case, which is why lawyer talk for "fraud" is | "fraud", not "lying". | dragonwriter wrote: | > It says in the first paragraph about making misleading | representations. | | It says that after, and modified by, the phrase "appears | to have". | | Musk's lawyers are saying that Twitter _actually_ | breached the agreement. They are saying it _looks like_ | Twitter may have done other bad things, too, but that 's | not the same as claiming that Twitter actually did the | other things. | | > Secondly, the ceo was firing aka asking for | resignations from key people, no? | | The separately call out people being forced out and | people resigning. Absent something not in the letter, the | former is a much more reasonable, on its face, complaint. | [deleted] | Covzire wrote: | Musk himself has addressed this, saying that the waiver is null | and void if the data supplied to the SEC by Twitter is | fraudulent. I can only assume he believes that is the case. | | >>First, although Twitter has consistently represented in | securities filings that "fewer than 5%" of its mDAU are false | or spam accounts, based on the information provided by Twitter | to date, it appears that Twitter is dramatically understating | the proportion of spam and false accounts represented in its | mDAU count. Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk's advisors of the | information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to | strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts | included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Musk has released nothing that would indicate that the | numbers are fraudulent. | Covzire wrote: | Read the SEC filing? | bindle8932 wrote: | They have to be not only fraudulent but fraudulent to the | point of having a "materially adverse effect" on the | value of the company. Delaware courts rarely (almost | never) find this to be the case. | camjohnson26 wrote: | I read it, it contains no data, none. But I think you | know that and are purposely deflecting. | mzs wrote: | >i know i am screaming into a well here but a very bad thing is | people going around saying that elon musk "waived due | diligence" and so can't bring up the bots thing. | | ... | | >the reason that elon musk can't get out of the deal over the | bots thing is not that he "waived due diligence." it's that he | SIGNED A BINDING AGREEMENT TO BUY TWITTER, and that agreement | does not have any outs for "i think there are too many bots." | | - Matt Levine esq of Bloomberg | | https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545152302142689281 | bryananderson wrote: | As Matt Levine explained [0] the "waiving due diligence" | doesn't really mean anything now. What does mean something is | that he signed a binding agreement to buy Twitter, giving | Twitter the right to compel him to close the deal, and there's | no "too many bots" exception, nor a "you were wrong (or even | lied) about something you said" exception. He has to prove that | it's a "material adverse effect" which I understand is nearly | impossible (he'd have to convince a Delaware judge that the | company is worth at least 40% less than stated because of this, | and in practice it seems these suits almost never succeed). | | [0] https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545151445057536001 | dylan604 wrote: | I absolutely love that fact that this tweet happy individual | might actually get slapped for just tossing out tweets. Not | sure if $1B would make him squirm or not, but even for | billionaires, $1B is an expensive twitter rant. | swores wrote: | If he gets punished it won't be for "just tossing out | tweets" it will be for negotiating and signing a legally | binding contract and then breaking it. | | It would be possible to enter into a contract through | tweets alone. That didn't remotely happen here, though. | dylan604 wrote: | But he only signed that agreement because his ego | wouldn't let him back away from those tweets | somenewaccount1 wrote: | idk. the fact that the price had already sunk nearly 40% from | his price over this period could clearly indicate that his | assumption isn't without merit. | ceejayoz wrote: | Only if you don't bother to take a look at the rest of the | market. | donarb wrote: | But for Musk's machinations, said stock price would not be | down 40%. He caused the stock to drop. | smcl wrote: | The due-diligence-waive thing isn't really relevant according | to Matt Levine, who has been pretty consistent about this for | months (see the thread @ | https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545151445057536001). A | couple of choice tweets here: | | """ the reason that elon musk can't get out of the deal over | the bots thing is not that he "waived due diligence." it's that | he SIGNED A BINDING AGREEMENT TO BUY TWITTER, and that | agreement does not have any outs for "i think there are too | many bots. """ | | ... and ... | | """ yes i know that this is a small petty thing. but part of my | point is that even if he had demanded extensive due diligence, | and done it, and then signed the agreement, we'd be in the same | place. the waiver or not of due diligence doesn't matter; what | matters is we're past that. """ | camjohnson26 wrote: | Matt Levine has a take down of the supposed bot problem. | Basically Elon not only waved due diligence, he signed a | binding agreement to buy Twitter, and the bot talk is | irrelevant. Even if there's a problem, Musk should have | addressed it before signing an agreement to buy the company. | | https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545151445057536001?s... | dragonwriter wrote: | The letter doesn't cite the bot problem directly, but instead | Twitter allegedly failing to live up to it's obligation to | give Musk info, which he wanted regarding the bot problem. | (And a bunch of other alleged breaches.) | wollsmoth wrote: | Can twitter agree to release him from the agreement? For a | fee? I know he has a $1B penalty but I didn't think that | covered this current situation. Perhaps Twitter would be | willing to forget the whole thing for $1.5B | TheCoelacanth wrote: | Yes, but they could potentially get sued by their own | shareholders if they let him off too easily. | collegeburner wrote: | Tbh i haven't read the agreement and i'm not going to but | representations and warranties is generally grounds to | terminate. | sureglymop wrote: | Read this a few weeks ago when the newsletter arrived. Money | Stuff by Matt Levine is very worth subscribing to! | pclmulqdq wrote: | I'm ready for the fireworks. Odds are he will be forced to go | through with it, but he will negotiate a lower price. | | Edit: This is over the mDAU thing still? It's been explained to | him very slowly that all the bots that post tweets all day are | often not seeing ads, right? That the "monetizable" is a key part | of that phrase? | zimpenfish wrote: | > but he will negotiate a lower price | | How? As best I understand things, he has zero wiggle room - he | either buys Twitter for the agreed price or he stumps up the | $1B termination fee. | | And if Twitter's board did go mad and decide to negotiate a | lower price, their shareholders would almost certainly block it | and/or sue the board, no? | streetcat1 wrote: | I do not think that he can pay the termination fee. I.e. the | termination fee itself has rules. Otherwise, he would have | payed it (the fee is equal to the daily move of his TESLA | shares). | cbtacy wrote: | Pretty much. I think it's more likely he's trying to set | things up to make the claim that Twitter wasn't co-operative | and forthcoming with the information and then try to reduce | the break fee in court. | epberry wrote: | Agree. And likewise it seems Twitter is going to court to | collect the breakup fee rather than complete the deal. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Twitter's Chairman disagrees: | | https://twitter.com/btaylor/status/1545526087089696768 | jacquesm wrote: | They'd be nuts to do so. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | A 1B termination fee is relatively small given that Twitter's | market cap is down 10B since the beginning of April. | tptacek wrote: | Which is why Twitter has the right to force execution, not | just claim the break-up fee. | jacquesm wrote: | Exactly, this is the point that seems to be missed over | and over again: you can't back out of a deal that you've | inked because you regret it. | Johnny555 wrote: | _he stumps up the $1B termination fee_ | | I don't think that's even an option -- that $1B breakup fee | was just if the deal was not allowed to go through due to | reasons outside of his control (like if it was blocked due to | regulatory reasons). Otherwise, I think he's legally | obligated to go through with it -- and Twitter's board has | fiduciary responsibility to hold him to it. | ozim wrote: | No because he bid above twitter current stock valuation so he | can still go down and people might not be happy but they will | not be able to sue anyone. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | He has tons of wiggle room. Mostly in this will takes years | to resolve, Twitter will be forced to disclose nearly every | internal document that will 100% have some email or chat of | employees stating, if only as hyperbole, that the bot rate | they report to the public is bullshit. | tptacek wrote: | That will get him nowhere in the trial, because incorrect | information is only a valid reason to break off the deal if | it uncovers a material adverse effect, and it is virtually | impossible to get Delaware courts to find an MAE. Matt | Levine's shorthand for Delaware MAE is "40% decrease in | profitability". Not stock price; a 40% decrease in the | fundamentals. It's not happening. | KerrAvon wrote: | Stipulate for the sake of argument that courts will accept | the bot argument -- don't you think discovery would be | problematic for Elon? | | https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-12/musk-is- | of... | minimaxir wrote: | His team apparently had a tough time verifying the data due to | API rate limits. | | > While Twitter has provided some information, that information | has come with strings attached, use limitations or other | artificial formatting features, which has rendered some of the | information minimally useful to Mr. Musk and his advisors. For | example, when Twitter finally provided access to the eight | developer "APIs" first explicitly requested by Mr. Musk in the | May 25 Letter, those APIs contained a rate limit lower than | what Twitter provides to its largest enterprise customers. | Twitter only offered to provide Mr. Musk with the same level of | access as some of its customers after we explained that | throttling the rate limit prevented Mr. Musk and his advisors | from performing the analysis that he wished to conduct in any | reasonable period of time. | | > Additionally, those APIs contained an artificial "cap" on the | number of queries that Mr. Musk and his team can run regardless | of the rate limit--an issue that initially prevented Mr. Musk | and his advisors from completing an analysis of the data in any | reasonable period of time. Mr. Musk raised this issue as soon | as he became aware of it, in the first paragraph of the June 29 | Letter: "we have just been informed by our data experts that | Twitter has placed an artificial cap on the number of searches | our experts can perform with this data, which is now preventing | Mr. Musk and his team from doing their analysis." That cap was | not removed until July 6, after Mr. Musk demanded its removal | for a second time. | fooey wrote: | the contract says they can't make any demands that have | materially adverse effect on the company | | if he was hitting up against rate limits, it's easy for | Twitter to call his requests adverse | erichocean wrote: | They gave higher rate limits to existing enterprise | customers. | | Pretty hard to argue that is was "adverse" in that case. | mft_ wrote: | How would it be adverse? Are you suggesting his data | scientists are querying the API so much that they are | DDoSing Twitter? | outside1234 wrote: | They had firehose access - there was no limiting | ben_jones wrote: | A lot of these rate limits would have been designed off the | rubble of the Cambridge Analytica scandals, and would've been | designed to prevent a lot of analysis. | | I still find it dubious that they couldn't long poll | sufficient samples. I'd love to see the raw feedback of | Musk's "Data Experts" versus whatever awful telephone game it | became through several layers of Executives and Lawyers. I | wonder if Musk just has a nepotistic data team next to him. | paxys wrote: | If this goes to the courts then the only two options are he | gets to back out entirely or he pays the originally agreed | price. There's a chance of a settlement where Twitter agrees to | sell for significantly less than that, but (1) there's zero | incentive for them to do so and (2) they will definitely not | get shareholder approval for that. | | One thing for sure though is that a lot of lawyers are about to | make a lot of money. | mikkergp wrote: | > a lot of lawyers are about to make a lot of money. | | The one thing written in this thread that I am 100% confident | is true. | petilon wrote: | This is good for Twitter, and good for the world. Musk's | misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is | not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an | open forum for spreading lies and hate. | | My guess is Musk never intended to buy Twitter. He needed an | excuse for dumping billions of dollars' worth of TSLA at its peak | (while at the same time faulting Bill Gates for shorting TSLA), | and his proposal to buy Twitter provided a convenient cover. | rappatic wrote: | > Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything | that is not explicitly illegal is allowed | | That's what free speech _is_ , whether or not you agree that | such a policy of unrestricted free speech is constructive or | beneficial. | petilon wrote: | Disagree, there is no _absolute_ freedom of speech, for | example you can 't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. | | Also disagree that such unrestricted free speech is | constructive or beneficial. Sacha Baron Cohen explains it | best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM | h2odragon wrote: | > Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything | that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made | Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. | | Twitter is of course currently known as a source of Truth and | Harmony. | | "anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you | want stuff illegal, make it illegal. If you want unwritten laws | dreamt up by anonymous elites and enforced for random reason, | go talk to Tipper Gore and the PMRC. | anigbrowl wrote: | _" anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me_ | | And there are numerous forums where that standard is applied; | Twitter just happens not to be one of them because they like | money. | plokiju wrote: | That includes spam though | oska wrote: | And he had another strategy for dealing with spam | (verification of accounts). So I don't see your point. | MallocVoidstar wrote: | >"anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if | you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. | | Twitter is based in the US, the 1st Amendment protects hate | speech such as explicit support for genocide. I don't | consider a social network full of genocide promotion to be a | good thing. | petilon wrote: | Nope, 1st Amendment only means the _government_ can 't | restrict your speech. Private companies can. | mft_ wrote: | > Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything | that is not explicitly illegal is allowed | | Genuinely interested, and not just trying to argue: how _would_ | you otherwise define free speech? It sounds like you think free | speech should have defined limits - which surely means it 's | not free speech any more? | petilon wrote: | I am going to let Sacha Baron Cohen, of all people, answer | your question [1]: | | _Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you | believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And | social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions | of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread | conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million | followers._ | | _Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will | always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child | abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free | platform to amplify their views and target their victims._ | | _Zuckerberg says people should decide what 's credible, not | tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of | Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is | such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist._ | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM | mft_ wrote: | Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, that's very much not | answering my question: it discusses limiting _reach_ (i.e. | ability to disseminate one 's views widely and easily) and | explicitly not free _speech_ itself? | petilon wrote: | Free speech doesn't have a single meaning. Freedom is | relative. There is no right to _absolute_ free speech | anywhere. For example, you can 't yell "fire" in a | crowded theater. On social media owned by private | corporations, "fire" isn't the only thing you aren't | allowed to yell. Subverting democracy, inciting violence, | propaganda from foreign governments pretending to be | grassroots movement inside the US, etc., are all banned, | and yet I would consider Twitter a free platform, albeit | with sensible limits. But you're right, that's not | _absolute freedom_. | drexlspivey wrote: | Why does he need a cover to sell his stock? He sold $10B+ last | year without the twitter excuse. Also TSLA stock in March was | at least 40% below it's peak | petilon wrote: | > _Why does he need a cover to sell his stock?_ | | Wouldn't he look to be a hypocrite otherwise? [1] | | [1] https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill- | gates... | Hamuko wrote: | > _This is good for Twitter_ | | Well, especially with that billion dollar termination fee | (well, if they get it since Musk is probably gonna lawyer up | now). | tick_tock_tick wrote: | > Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything | that is not explicitly illegal is allowed | | What is free speech but that..... | | > would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and | hate. | | Like it isn't now. Twitter lets pretty much anything and | everything except hate against specific subgroups they've | decided are "protected". It really doesn't help there choices | are entirely arbitrary with no internal consistency. | Banana699 wrote: | >spreading lies and hate | | It's very funny how those things came to be known as code words | for the *true* offenses, which we all know very well. | | What a waste of perfectly good words that used to have meaning. | tinktank wrote: | Oopsie. Stonks do bite back sometimes. | anewpersonality wrote: | hunterb123 wrote: | ITT: | | - Elon is stupid, haha he will lose money. | | - Elon is evil, he's trying to pull a fast one on this | corporation! | | - Elon waived his rights, he shouldn't have agreed to their fake | numbers! | | - Twitter is allowed to claim whatever % of spam bots they want | for the deal. | | - Twitter's censorship is _actually_ a good thing, here 's why... | gsibble wrote: | Well put. | | Also: | | - I'd hate it if Elon bought Twitter | | Same person: | | - What? This is bullshit! Elon should be forced to buy Twitter! | thirdvect0r wrote: | With age, you will look back on your infantile attitude to this | situation and realise that you were simply a rube. | notahacker wrote: | ITT | | - Elon is a genius, he doesn't make mistakes | | - Elon's Twitter purchase offer isn't an ego trip or a | distraction, he actually has a plan to make Twitter earn its | keep | | - People keep saying that spending money on an overvalued asset | that has zero fit with his engineering experience and ambitions | will make Musk poorer, not richer, but none of those people are | as smart as Elon Musk | | - Elon's decision to waive due diligence and enter a binding | contract shows he knows what he's buying and isn't messing | around | | - Elon deploying gagging clauses and/or financially ruining | people for criticising him or his companies is actually more an | indication of the important role he's playing in defending free | speech, not his narcissism, here's why... | | [a month or two later] | | - Can't believe Twitter deceived poor little lamb Elon Musk | into being the only user of their website unaware of the | proliferation of bots on it. This changes everything! | [deleted] | qaq wrote: | An alternative theory all the people who have being really upset | about him buying Twitter are now actually cheering for him to be | forced to buy it. So he got to shift the sentiment for free :) | gsibble wrote: | There's something really messed up and confusing about all the | people complaining about him buying twitter now complaining | he's backing out of the deal. Most of the people in these | comments are hypocrites. | TAForObvReasons wrote: | It's not hypocritical to complain that: | | 1) Elon Musk, as owner of Twitter, would prioritize profits | over free speech and other concerns. | | 2) Elon Musk, as a participant in a binding legal agreement, | should not be allowed to break it on a whim. | daemoens wrote: | That's not how hypocrisy works. | crmd wrote: | Temporary rate limiting on Elon's firehouse API account[0] does | not sound like a material breach of contract. | | [0] - page 5 | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922... | 734129837261 wrote: | Out of touch billionaire realises that he has to sell quite a lot | of stocks in his companies in order to buy a dying social media | platform that's mostly gamed by PR firms, bots, and the | occasional actual user who wonders: "Why am I here again?" | geoffmunn wrote: | I always thought this was a weird purchase. All his other | businesses have been industry disrupters where he can make all | sorts of bombastic claims and promises of new products, but | Twitter was an established company in a stable(ish) industry. | | It was really hard to see how he would apply his usual tricks, | and I always figured he was going to wiggle out. | TedShiller wrote: | He achieved something good though: he exposed Twitter as a | corrupt, biased company full of spam bots. | | Thank you Elon | daemoens wrote: | Everyone knew about the spam bots. They're spam bots so they're | extremely visible. | bindle8932 wrote: | He didn't though | hartator wrote: | Everyone is saying Musk waived is due diligence rights. Where can | I read that? | vitaflo wrote: | He didn't wave them he simply didn't do them. The time for due | diligence is before you sign a binding contract. Once you sign | no amount of "extra" diligence maters because you already made | a binding decision. Elon signed without doing enough due | diligence and now wants to get out because of it but that's not | how binding contracts work. | kringo wrote: | I like him for his entrepreneurship and big bold bets. | | However related to Twitter, looking what's happening since his | first tweet, this was the plan all along. Come up with an excuse | to get out of the deal. Just he was trying to cash in all the | marketing he can like always. | | I don't think its going to work the way he thinks in this case, | its atleast going to cost him $1b | hwers wrote: | Surely 1bn could have afforded a lot more and better | marketing.. | lemondice wrote: | throwaway5959 wrote: | legitster wrote: | It's not like Twitter doesn't also have money and lawyers. | frollo wrote: | Exactly, I think we are going to see some funny headlines in | the coming days. | throwaway5959 wrote: | Twitter isn't the one breaking the agreement for no reason. I | read the letter, it's full of nonsense. | legitster wrote: | But he hasn't circumnavigated anything. Twitter has full | rights and ability to go after him. | [deleted] | adoxyz wrote: | The Twitter deal always felt like a cover to sell a bunch of | Tesla stock at the peak and cash out. Looks like it worked out | for him. | MBCook wrote: | Depends on how big the fine he ends up with is. | mzs wrote: | >The Twitter Board is committed to closing the transaction on the | price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to pursue | legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we | will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery. | | Bret Taylor, Twitter board chair - 4:51 PM Chicago time * Jul 8, | 2022 | | https://twitter.com/btaylor/status/1545526087089696768 | DonHopkins wrote: | Hit it, Frank: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_WgCGOWae4 | | We must watch the stuff you make. | | You have let us eat the cake. | | While your accountants tell you, "Yes, yes, yes!" | | You make expensive ugliness, how do you do it? Let me guess... | ramacastro wrote: | The amount of envy people here have for Elon is crazy. The man is | succeeding at making us a multi-planetary species, arguably the | single most important achievement in the history of life itself, | and your little damaged egos can't handle it. So sad. | vecter wrote: | This ad hominem has nothing to do with Elon's legal standing | with regards to whether or not he can back out of the deal | without paying a large breakup fee. | | Yes Elon has done great work for humankind, but that doesn't | absolve him of responsibility for bad behavior. | ramacastro wrote: | Sure, he won't mind paying that I believe. And he will likely | create a new social media and crush twitter. I was talking | about people attacking him just for being rich and accusing | him of having an "inflated ego" which I totally disagree. | vecter wrote: | > Sure, he won't mind paying that I believe. | | I strongly beg to differ. The purported damage may be in | the low tens of billions. It doesn't mean that Twitter will | get that much, but they'll certainly sue for that much. | | > And he will likely create a new social media and crush | twitter. | | What makes you believe that that is likely? I don't see any | evidence for it whatsoever. Twitter has an incredible moat. | Just because Musk is going to start a twitter competitor | (which I doubt he'd bother doing since he's already so | busy) doesn't mean it will be successful, if it even ever | gets off the ground. Most likely it will be a small niche | community. | | > I was talking about people attacking him just for being | rich and accusing him of having an "inflated ego" | | Clearly the man has an inflated ego if he thinks he can | pull nonsense like this and get away with it. You could | make a reasonable argument that he's "earned" that ego, but | that's different from whether or not he has one. | ElijahLynn wrote: | So was the whole goal all along to try and figure out how much of | Twitter was fake spam accounts? That would be one way of doing | it. | riffic wrote: | If there's a valid combination of username and password, the | account is in no way "fake". I wish there was better | terminology here. | | It can in certain be a spam account though. | andrewclunn wrote: | So then it looks like the "right wing" / anti-establishment tech | pantheon is then set: | | Rumble, Brave, Truth Social, Subscribe Star | | Locals and Bitchute gave it a shot (and aren't dead yet). And an | Elon owned Twitter might have been interesting, but at this point | that's who the players are. | daemoens wrote: | All of them are incredibly small though. Most conservatives | still use regular social media. | rvz wrote: | All of them are still bigger than Mastodon. After 6 years, | Mastodon failed to show itself to be a proper alternative | even during the so-called 'exodus' from Twitter. Given that | it is smaller than those social networks, I regard that as a | catastrophic failure. | | 6 years is not early days and Mastodon failed has still | failed to attract users from Twitter 2 months ago. No chance | of a significant amount of serious users from other social | networks migrating over. | timsneath wrote: | It seems apparent to this observer that he developed cold feet | pretty fast after an impetuous decision, and has been looking for | any reason to back out of it since then. The spam accounts angle | seems like a convenient scapegoat, rather than a real surprise to | him. | | He's clearly eccentric in his approach to decision making: I | don't think any Harvard Business School course will teach "the | Musk Principles". But it's unclear to me what he initially | thought he was getting out of this. In the original news, he | said, "Twitter has tremendous potential - I look forward to | working with the company and the community of users to unlock | it." Either he was breathlessly arrogant or astonishingly | careless in the first instance. And I say this as someone who has | huge respect for his accomplishments in other industries. | christkv wrote: | Termination fee is like 1 billion I think so it will still be | cheaper for him to back out and then buy it when its stock | price crumples over the next couple of quarters. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > Either he was breathlessly arrogant or astonishingly careless | | Why not both? Arrogance tends to lead to carelessness. | ben_jones wrote: | Seems like a manic episode enabled by yes-men. | recuter wrote: | > The spam accounts angle seems like a convenient scapegoat, | rather than a real surprise to him. | | It seems apparent to this observer that the spam accounts thing | and other metrics were always super inflated and perhaps now | there will be a reckoning. | | I also think it is very funny how there was much gnashing of | teeth and literal tears at the prospect of him owning twitter | but now they might end up chasing him and try to force him to | buy them, thus further alienating the woke mob and sowing chaos | internally. Look how the turn tables have turn tabled. | | If they are greedy enough to go to court over it the question | of just how _fake_ this company is will stay in the news for | the duration of the trial and the stock will tank. If they don | 't they might have to, you know, actually function like a real | company. | | This story is far from over. | initplus wrote: | No kidding Twitter has spam/fake accounts, isn't that part of | why Musk wanted to buy Twitter in the first place? | | He publicly stated that he wanted to buy Twitter to clear up | the fake account issue, he knew about the issue before | entering the deal, when signing he waived due diligence that | could have given him the opportunity to investigate the issue | before signing... | | Musk's own tweets will work against him if he tries to use | the fake accounts issue to back out. | hwers wrote: | This is such a terrible look for Elon. I've really liked him up | until now but this just feels like playing with our emotions. | Honestly starting to question how much hope there is for mars | to happen at all. | plankers wrote: | >Honestly starting to question how much hope there is for | mars to happen at all. | | i spat out my drink reading this | TillE wrote: | I suspect the initial decision was something like "hey I could | actually just buy Twitter, that would be funny". It's less | clear to me why he almost immediately started trying to back | out. It's probably a waste of a significant chunk of money, but | is that all? | idiotsecant wrote: | It makes more sense if you assume that Elon Musk is both a | sometimes successful businessman and also suffering from | unmanaged bipolar disorder. | crmd wrote: | Agree 100%. I've never met Elon but his online behavior in | the run up to and immediately after the Twitter deal sure | seemed hypomanic to me. | soganess wrote: | Can we not jump to blaming a person's bad choices on the | first medical condition that fits? I know Musk has said he | has bipolar disorder, and I'm not trying to discount that. | | I'm just saying what if... gasp... he simply did something | foolish? The blame-it-on-the-bipolar out reinforces the | narrative of an infallible person who only make mistakes | because of a medical condition. Take that line of thinking | one step further and you are now fully onboard the bipolar | stigma train. | appletrotter wrote: | Do you have any experience with bipolar? | stingrae wrote: | It also hit at a point when Tesla's stock price started a | rapid decent. The Twitter deal is becoming a larger and | larger percentage of his net worth. | 988747 wrote: | >> It's less clear to me why he almost immediately started | trying to back out. | | That's what you do when you sober up and realize what a mess | you've made. | jacquesm wrote: | This seems to happen with some regularity in Musk's | timeline. | cowtools wrote: | Well, if the purpose of buying twitter was to improve the | user experience of internet users and advance the doctrine | of free speech, then why not just spend that same amount of | money building your own twitter (mastodon instance or | something) and use your publicity to attract users? | Slartie wrote: | "Musk Social"? | cowtools wrote: | The difference would be that musk's following is more | moderate, and they might respect peering agreements | unlike Gab or Truth Social. | Vespasian wrote: | Well maybe he realised that in the best case he would | govern over Twitter 2.0 with extra toxicity and in the | worst case be the proud owner of another cesspool of | assholes, pedophiles and people with violent ideas. | | I don't believe for a second that Elon Musk really cares | about free speech for anyone but himself and he is right | now probably not limited by twitter's policy but by other | externalities | cowtools wrote: | Pedophiles? I'm pretty sure they would be forced to take | down child porn. I mean, it's a public forum. If you are | publicly announcing that you are pedophile or terrorist, | that sounds like bad news for you. | | In any case, does twitter not already have a lot of | "assholes" and people with "violent ideas"? | dburflzz wrote: | ChildOfChaos wrote: | because that doesn't work. | CoryAlexMartin wrote: | An established social media platform's most valuable | asset is the size of its userbase. Even with the reach of | Musk, I think it would be hard to attract a large enough | userbase to make the product more compelling than | Twitter. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | An established platform's most valuable asset is the | _data_ of the userbase. | | Twitter can leverage a huge amount of data about personal | preferences, interests, relationship status, political | leanings, income, usage profiles, message habits and | content, social graph, and location. | | If you specifically wanted to clamp down on certain | demographics, it would be an excellent way to locate | them. | labster wrote: | Stocks went down almost immediately after the deal across the | tech sector. Financing got harder, he would have sell off a | lot of TSLA at a discount to complete the deal. | towaway15463 wrote: | Did everyone forget about the massive hit the stock market | took right after the deal was announced? Maybe that has | something to do with it. | alasdair_ wrote: | The market went to shit almost right after the point where he | made his offer. Tesla took a dive at the same time. A lot of | the loan he took out is against his tesla stock. | mikkergp wrote: | I think about Jack Dorsey's endorsement early on: | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/26/jack-dorsey-elon-musk-is-the... | | This most of all makes me think he was really into it and then | fucked it all up. Or Jack was just trying to get back at the | board. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | There's another belief floated by Josh Wolfe (an investor with | Lux Capital) who claimed it was a ruse to liquidate Tesla stock | en masse without Tesla hodlers getting suspicious and tanking | the inflated stock price. | | https://twitter.com/wolfejosh/status/1545387947578597376 | marricks wrote: | That's immensely believable, I wonder how he got someone | people onboard to be help him fund it though. It's even more | of a stretch but maybe the rest of them wanted more liquidity | too? | slg wrote: | But Tesla stock did drop after the announcement of the deal. | I think that is the real reasoning behind him quickly getting | cold feet. He probably thought Twitter would be a fun side | project, but the backlash from people in regards to Tesla, | SpaceX, and just the general public meant it would be more | costly both to his reputation and financially beyond just the | sticker price. That took the fun out of it so he has been | looking for ways to escape the deal ever since. | thereare5lights wrote: | > but the backlash from people in regards to Tesla, SpaceX, | and just the general public | | There's no way he didn't foresee this. | | It would be shocking if he is lacking in self-awareness to | that extent. | jacquesm wrote: | The question isn't really whether it dropped or not but | whether the perception was that it would have dropped more | without that fig leaf. | slg wrote: | This isn't the first time he has sold Tesla shares. He | sold billions of dollars worth last year too. I'm not | sure the exact dates to do the math, but did those sales | cause a immediate drop of over 10% like the Twitter | announcement? | jacquesm wrote: | That's not the right question, the question is the | _perception_ of the difference between selling $44B of | stock outright or selling it with the goal of buying | Twitter. | | What actually happened isn't relevant. What is relevant | is whether he may have thought it would work better. | Tricky to prove. | slg wrote: | We agree that he didn't suspect the backlash from buying | Twitter. I think our disagreement is just that you think | he expected a large backlash from selling Tesla shares | and I'm not sure history really suggests that was | something to be concerned about. | robbiep wrote: | he wasn't (or isn't) aiming to sell the stock, he was/is | aiming to finance the purchase using his Tesla stock as | security. So this line of argument... Doesn't really make | sense? | | This is all publicly available. Due to leverage, he faced | ruin if Tesla fell below X (whatever X is) if he funded | it all himself. So he opened his side of the deal up to | other people, and allowed other large shareholders to | come inside his tent - which reduced his exposure. Then | the market dropped 15%. | | Matt Levine has an excellent series of newsletters | covering it. | mensetmanusman wrote: | But he has been saying Tesla was way over valued for over a | year... | openthc wrote: | More than one financial analysit/money manager has floated | this idea in our circle. It seems reasonalble; an pointing to | the last time he sold a bunch (11B?) and told everyone it was | to pay his taxes. They seem to think it was to just convert | some high-risk (TSLA) to low risk (Cash, etc). | the_biot wrote: | That sounds reasonably logical, but by what measure of | logic is overpaying for Twitter, of all assets, a good | deal? There are surely better companies to do this sort of | thing with, _and_ end up with an actually valuable asset at | the end of it. | spfzero wrote: | I agree with you. If the object was to convert overvalued | stock, you would not just convert it to another | overvalued stock, right? | openthc wrote: | To over simplify: it's the trick of a illusionist; look | over there! Something interesting (now switch the rabbit | for the dove or whatever). So while GenPop is looking at | this noisy deal; he's able to shuffle around money in | three(?) ways -- where the net result is to reduce the | TSLA holdings w/o too much penalty (or somethign). I'm | not smart or rich enough to fully understand. The logic | is distraction to execute a big dollar amount shift in | equity positions. | fisherjeff wrote: | Sure but then why skip diligence? That would be the ideal | time to sell lots of Tesla stock and eventually say "You know | what? Nah" without any sticky legal issues. | pryce wrote: | If someone's stock is as incredibly overinflated as Tesla has | been for so long, choosing the most effective way to | liquidate stock without triggering a run becomes a social | engineering problem with the incentive of a multi-billion | dollar payoff. | | Honestly I think other people trying to read this situation | in some way that ignores a _multi billion dollar incentive | just sitting there_ is utterly naive. | spfzero wrote: | I think the incentive you mean is to move out of a stock | you think is overvalued (I agree about that). But that | works with any purchase, not just Twitter. And with that | motive in mind, Twitter would be a really unwise company to | buy, when there are so many companies available with actual | asset value around. Wouldn't you rather buy something with | your over-inflated stock that had some value-preservation | attributes? For example, you could buy a mining stock, or a | railroad. With Twitter, you're going from the frying pan | into the fire. | throwaway09223 wrote: | According to the above theory, a value move (diversifying | from TSLA to something else) is precisely what must be | avoided. | | The move would _have_ to be perceived as financially | irrational for it to be operable. | halukakin wrote: | This would have been switching from an overinflated stock | to a much more overinflated stock. | rmbyrro wrote: | The theory presumes he never intended to actually buy | Twitter stocks, just keep the cash. | behnamoh wrote: | But why would he need cash? To buy another company, or | start one of his own? | Sporktacular wrote: | Minus 1 billion for a termination fee. Why would he have | agreed to that if it was his plan all along? | mzs wrote: | You say _social engineering,_ I say _criminal fraud._ | FerociousTimes wrote: | More precisely, securities fraud. | behnamoh wrote: | Is there any hope that this time he will pay for his | shenanigans? | Dylan16807 wrote: | Though it's weird to me that it's fine to sell stock just | because you want to, but pretending you didn't want to | could qualify as securities fraud. | | And that seems to be what the concern boils down to? The | issue of whether he defrauded _twitter_ is a separate | thing. (Though I 'm inclined to say no, because twitter | came at this in a very skeptical and careful way, and | normal fraud requires fooling someone into material | loss.) | drc500free wrote: | Intent is the core issue of most white collar fraud. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _a ruse to liquidate Tesla stock en masse without Tesla | hodlers getting suspicious and tanking the inflated stock | price._ | | Couldn't he just have said _" SpaceX needs more cash"_ or | something like that? | [deleted] | napier wrote: | Neither of these hypotheses precludes the other. | caminante wrote: | No? "Cold feet" is impulsive. Whereas a disguised | liquidation is calculated. | | Regardless, the fall in share price likely drove the | outcome. | entropicgravity wrote: | The Go masters insist that every stone must have at least two | reasons for its placement. | [deleted] | qaq wrote: | Wolfe has being on anti Musk crusade for a long time. | jacquesm wrote: | But is it true? | qaq wrote: | I would imagine there are cheaper ways to accomplish the | same goal | jacquesm wrote: | That still does not answer the question. | qaq wrote: | How would you find a definitive answer? | jacquesm wrote: | That is a very good question, monitor the SEC for clues, | if they bring some kind of action (which should either | happen soon now that he has made it official he wants to | back out or not at all). | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | given the SEC's regular lack of enforcement, their | inaction would not be evidence of lack of wrongdoing | jacquesm wrote: | With counterparties like Musk it doesn't pay to try to go | for some minor infraction, they will just lawyer their | way out of it or stretch it forever, but if it is solid | enough (and $44B might just do it) then it may well wake | up the dragon. To be fair, someone would likely have to | ask them nicely to do so because they feel that they have | lost a lot of money due to Musk's actions. | throwaway29812 wrote: | That's a strange way of saying he was right. | qaq wrote: | I have no clue if he is right or not | ChildOfChaos wrote: | There is zero evidence that he is right. | | All we know are the facts, he agreed to buy twitter and | now he is trying to walk away from the deal. | | There could be multiple reasons for that, including what | he is saying on face value or a dozen other scenarios. | | He could still be wanting to buy twitter and use this as | a bargaining tool to lower the price. | | You can say he was right, once we know the full facts | which will be once this plays out and since it doesn't | really affect any of us, speculating right now is simply | taking part in silly gossip. | ShamelessC wrote: | bandyaboot wrote: | Musk wanted to be warrior king of the internet edge lords. He | was not playing chess. | Mo3 wrote: | I mean, it didn't necessarily take Josh Wolfe to see this as | a viable possibility. | avalys wrote: | The deal includes a "specific performance" clause, which | allows Twitter to force Musk to carry out the deal. He can't | simply pay $1 billion and walk away, he's in for a very messy | legal fight. This pretext about bots is incredibly weak and | he's in no way guaranteed to win. | | If this really were part of some grand master plan, I think | he would have left himself an easier out. | at-fates-hands wrote: | His legal team maintains Twitter is in material breach of | multiple provisions of the Agreement and appears to have | made false and misleading representations. | | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/00011046592 | 2... | ceejayoz wrote: | Sure, but that's bullshit. Twitter carefully couched each | of this sort of statement in "we might be wrong" | disclaimers. | | It's not like he came up with the "they're all bots" | theory after committing. | eropple wrote: | His legal team can maintain that the sky is a vibrant | chartreuse, but that doesn't mean it's true. | [deleted] | kelnos wrote: | It also depends on what the Twitter board and shareholders | want. Will they want to get bought out and owned by someone | who clearly doesn't want to own the company, and may run it | into the ground out of spite? Certainly some shareholders | will just want to take the money and run (the agreed-upon | buyout price is quite a premium over the current stock | price), but others will be more interested in protecting | the future of Twitter as a company and platform. | | Agree that there will be a massive legal fight, but my | guess is that it will be over how much extra Musk has to | pay to get out of the deal (beyond the $1B breakup fee), | than over making him perform. But who knows; only time will | tell. | themitigating wrote: | He's constantly racked the company and founders through | the mud. The drop dropped 7% once he called it off. | | I'd sued and settle for a few billion instead of taking | the one billion backout | | He uses his wealth as a weapon against companies he | doesn't like, just the mere threat he may get involved | causes massive changes in the stock price and in turn | causes investors to suffer financial lose. | behnamoh wrote: | > He uses his wealth as a weapon against companies he | doesn't like, just the mere threat he may get involved | causes massive changes in the stock price and in turn | causes investors to suffer financial lose. | | Reminds me of Bitcoin "whales". It's a shame that this | guy is the figure that will take humanity to Mars. | runarberg wrote: | Never underestimate the incompetence of the average human. | Doubly so if they are rich and powerful. In fact if a | master plan has several fatal flaws on closer inspection, | then that's just evidence that the perpetrator just didn't | think it all through before executing. | | If you watch an amateur chess game you'll find that most | players actually have some master plan, but don't have the | skills to see the flaws, or even if the plan is perfect, | they don't have the skills to play it through either. | | My sniff test for any conspiracy theory actually involves | incompetence. The more competent the plan and execution | need to be, the less likely it is to be a conspiracy. | aetherson wrote: | What is a theory you have dismissed because it seems too | competent? | mikkergp wrote: | Couldn't he have sold Tesla as part of an offer that still | had due diligence and was in negotiations rather than waiving | due diligence and committing to a deal? | pid-1 wrote: | He made risky bets his entire life and was mostly lucky up to | this point. | | Most folks who subscribe to the "Musk Principles" aren't nearly | as lucky and go bust much earlier. | nixass wrote: | >But it's unclear to me what he initially thought he was | getting out of this | | Answer: some sort of stock manipulation whether it be Tesla's | or Twitter's | oneoff786 wrote: | The market crash makes it impossible to evaluate. It was a | stupid price. | [deleted] | whynotkeithberg wrote: | 'eccentric in his approach' | | by that you mean straight up lying, attempting fraud etc... | jessaustin wrote: | _Either he was breathlessly arrogant or astonishingly careless | in the first instance._ | | Perhaps he didn't expect the Nasdaq composite to drop 2000 over | the next several months? That could have been careless, | depending on the sort of agreement he signed. I guess he can | afford a $1B penalty, but good luck finding another buyer after | that. It's not as though Twitter are overflowing with ideas for | profit... | hourago wrote: | > He's clearly eccentric in his approach to decision making | | Being called Eccentric is the luxury of the rich. If he was | poor one will say "irresponsible" or even "crazy". | ithinkso wrote: | It is irresponsible to do something eccentric if you cannot | afford it | kennywinker wrote: | It's irresponsible to do something eccentric when poor | people bear the brunt of the consequences because you can | afford to lose a billion here and there while people pay | for that with their jobs, homes, lives. | towaway15463 wrote: | Are you saying that poor people would lose their | livelihoods due to Tesla and Twitter stock price changes? | You might need to reevaluate your definition of poor if | so. | cratermoon wrote: | To quote the great Crash Davis, speaking to minor league | pitching phenom Ebby Calvin 'Nuke' LaLoosh, "Your shower | shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs | with fungus on your shower shoes. Think classy, you'll be | classy. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus | grow back and the press'll think you're colorful. Until you | win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob." | la64710 wrote: | Musk is a brown bag of shit. | | He sent his selfie in a tweet response to Parag's tweet | explanation. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2022/05/16/twitter-b... | duxup wrote: | > But it's unclear to me what he initially thought he was | getting out of this. | | The more it goes on it feels like "I don't like how twitter | works, I'll show them! <insert some less developed ideas of | free speech on the internet>" | | Later: | | "Oh noes if I do what I want here the result might be bad..." | | It just feels like a YOLO business deal that wasn't thought out | the more this goes on. | toiletfuneral wrote: | tempsy wrote: | This assumes he was serious about it at some point, instead of | just cover to sell more Tesla shares and free marketing for | himself. | labster wrote: | Gosh, I hope he was serious at the point he signed a contract | with a $1B penalty, or else he's the world's worst | businessman. | shakow wrote: | > or else he's the world's worst businessman. | | According to this hypothesis, he would still walk out with | 7.5B in hard cash instead of 8.5B in Tesla share. I'm not | in his boots, but I see how it can be seen as worth it. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | assuming he can come up with a convincing case that | twitter made material lies, otherwise he walks out owning | twitter for the cost specified in the contract | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Unless he thought he could be a big enough pain in the ass | that Twitter folks would rather walk away from the deal and | let him skate with a few million penalty while he | liquidates Tesla stock with little repercussion to the | share price (unfortunately for him, the market tanked in | the interim and now his deal is an absolutely amazing one | for Twitter shareholders so no way they let him walk away, | $1B penalty isn't even an option as this was about outside | interference) | jiggawatts wrote: | If you want to move $40B, this is just a two percent | transaction fee to avoid losing $200B by spooking the | public investors. | | That's smart. | Hamuko wrote: | I was under the assumption that he was not financing that | $40B with just Tesla stock? | chx wrote: | He was funding it with loans leveraged against his stock | if I understand this correctly. | shuckles wrote: | If that was his intent, it's fraud and has (in theory) | criminal penalties. | Hamuko wrote: | Judging by his dealings with the SEC, I don't feel like | he respects the law all that much. | jacquesm wrote: | I don't think the SEC cares very much what Elon respects | or not, if they can nail him they will. | ShamelessC wrote: | He's been skirting regulators and manipulating | shareholders for a while now. If they "can nail him they | will" was true they would have acted by now. | camjohnson26 wrote: | I think they've clearly shown that's not true ever since | they tried to take him back to court for clearly not | having his tweets pre approved, despite the settlement | over the "funding secured" tweet. | | The man literally tweeted "Tesla stock is too high right | now, imo" and nothing happened. | jacquesm wrote: | I see some difference between tweeting stuff and signing | binding agreements for purchase and using stock as | collateral at a particular valuation. | jazzyjackson wrote: | the man has plot armor, he can do what he likes knowing | that the Department of Defense is counting on him and his | launch platform for the next generation of space warfare | [0] - any efforts to reel him in will be met with a phone | call like Alexander Acosta, "above your pay grade", | "leave it alone" | | [0] you didn't think Starlink's purpose is to let | fisherman watch YouTube did you? | | </tinfoil> | jacquesm wrote: | No reason why Elon has to own it for that to be so, in | fact there is probably a long line of parties who could | not wait to be take it off his hands. | rndgermandude wrote: | The "if they can nail him" seems like a big if to me. | | If it is a scheme and he had no intention of ever | actually buying twitter, the government would still have | to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it for | this fraudulent reason. Or at least collect enough | evidence to make him accept a plea deal for fear he could | lose in court. | | It would seem to me that him backing out now has a bunch | of other very plausible explanations beyond "it was fraud | all along", including the one this document states, that | twitter breached their agreement by not providing the | data he wanted to assess the prevalence of fake account | himself. Or even that buying some "media company" is just | what billionaires do[1], but him being "eccentric" he | went in too hard and fast and is now backing out that he | has seen the backslash and/or has done some actual due | diligence, which would make him stupid and/or | irresponsible but not criminal. All that to me seems like | good ways for lawyers to claim there is "reasonable | doubt" should he ever get charged with fraud, unless the | government would happen to find some "smoking gun" piece | of evidence. | | And of course it assumes there is actually political will | to nail him. | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/billionaires-who-bought- | publish... | micromacrofoot wrote: | that's smaller than a Venmo transaction fee (3%) | jacquesm wrote: | Not necessarily. That all depends on what he gained in | return. Unless of course he ends up going to jail for | fraud. It took a lot less for Martha Stewart. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | I would like the consequences of his actions to catch up with | him. | | A Joe Boggs acting in this fgashion would have been taken to | the cleaners long ago. | [deleted] | scotty79 wrote: | > Either he was breathlessly arrogant | | Isn't that like more than half of his MO? | thethought wrote: | What my school teacher used to say about | | - cold feet - impetous - eccentric - breathlessly arrogant - | astonishingly careless | | pupils | taurath wrote: | He is a man who owns and can raise massive amounts of money and | promise smart people the ability to build something they want | to build. That he gets so much credit for his ventures is a | very strange thing to me given how many he has vs how few hours | in the day he must have to actually pay any attention to them. | burrows wrote: | So you think he would be more deserving of credit if he only | did SpaceX? instead of SpaceX, Tesla, NeuraLink, etc? | hartator wrote: | And Paypal. | parentheses wrote: | He relies heavily on his average decision-making ability being | way above average. By being this volatile he basically captures | surprisingly many good risky decisions. At the same time he | ends up with things like this. | drivingmenuts wrote: | Market manipulation disguised as free speech advocacy. Pure and | simple. | __john wrote: | I think there is a 1A aspect to his involvement with Twitter. | redact207 wrote: | My guess is he's hit that obscene level of wealth and realizes | he is now beyond the controls of the system, and can therefore | game it to his advantage. | | When you can afford the best legal team money can buy and | payoff the rest of the gatekeepers, then the game is simply to | transfer wealth into your own pocket in bigger chunks. | godelski wrote: | Honestly, so what if he's out $60 bn. I don't think this | would affect his lifestyle in any way whatsoever. But it | would affect his high score. I'm guessing at one point he | realized the former but later realized the latter and cared | more about that. Though he's still got a 88bn lead on second | place so I'm not sure why he cares. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | No matter what it won't be him fronting all the money, he | had institutional investors that were ponying up a huge | amount of the dough alongside him. | cormacrelf wrote: | You can't bribe the judges in Delaware. They can force him to | go through with the deal at the agreed price, now at a | significant premium on market value, and it's reasonably | likely they will. This was not a genius move. | tzs wrote: | It should be noted that this is largely because Musk agreed | to it. | | The normal remedy for breach of contract is for the | breaching party to have to pay the other party monetary | damages sufficient to put the other party in the monetary | position they would have been in had the contract not been | breached. Court generally will only order someone to | actually go through with the contract (which is called | specific performance) if monetary damages won't work for | some reason. | | For example if we have a contract for me to sell you a | million microcontrollers at $1 each, which you are going to | use to make a million units of some gadget that you are | going to sell for a profit of $0.10 each, and I find | someone who will give me $2 each for the microcontrollers | and so let you know I'm going to breach the contract and | sell my microcontrollers to them, a court is very unlikely | to order me to honor the contract. They will order me to | pay you $100k, the profit you were anticipating making from | our deal (and probably attorney fees, and other costs you'd | incur dealing with the breach). | | But, according to this blog [1] at Findlaw: | | > If Musk tries to abandon the deal, Twitter could sue him | and ask for specific performance. This remedy is usually | hard to get, but Musk agreed to a powerful specific | performance clause in the merger agreement. In fact, he | didn't just agree that Twitter could get specific | performance. He promised that he wouldn't argue it couldn't | (forgive the double-negative). | | I'm unable to think of any good reason one would agree to | that. | | [1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/courtside/is-elon- | musk-go... | elliekelly wrote: | I think it's far more likely he'd be on the hook for | damages. It would be unusual for a judge to force a sale to | a now unwilling buyer. Everyone--Twitter, Twitter | shareholders, Musk--would be worse off with that result. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | twitter share price is currently lower than what he bid, | so twitter shareholders would be materially better off | quickthrowman wrote: | Twitter shareholders would be worse off.. how? | bediger4000 wrote: | I'm no expert, so what makes Delaware judges specially | incorruptible? | D13Fd wrote: | Delaware sets the gold standard on corporate law, and has | a special courts of law and equity (the CCLD division and | the Court of Chancery) that are set up to handle high- | value corporate matters. | | I don't think most American judges are susceptible to any | kind of bribery (other than jurisdictions where elected | judges may expect campaign donations from litigants), but | Delaware has to be among the absolute least likely to | have that issue. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | I mean, besides the fact that generally I don't think | overt corruption is that much of a problem in the U.S., | the fact that anyone involved with this case will be | under a massive microscope and that Delaware as the | general standard place to do business deals with many | large transactions so this one may not be all that | impressive to local judges | cormacrelf wrote: | Their reputation and their being paid very well to handle | a huge proportion of corporate law in America efficiently | and fairly. They're a huge part of the reason everyone | domiciles their companies there. | bediger4000 wrote: | Ok. I had understood corporations chose Delaware merely | because of the anti-consumer bias in Delaware's laws, but | it's good to hear otherwise. | dwater wrote: | That may have been part of the original reasoning, but | now Delaware has built up the world's most reliable | corporate legal system, and companies like a reliable | legal system very much. | grey-area wrote: | Let's see what happens. I doubt very much the scenario you | outline will come to pass. Nobody wants this deal any more | and he can drag all their dirty laundry into it (bots, fake | daus etc). | | This will just slowly fade from memory as the lawyers argue | and at some point they'll settle. | joshuamorton wrote: | > Let's see what happens. I doubt very much the scenario | you outline will come to pass. Nobody wants this deal any | more and he can drag all their dirty laundry into it | (bots, fake daus etc). | | Twitter shareholders do. If I hold $1m in TWTR today, | this deal going through is worth around 500K to me, | possibly more if we assume the share value now prices in | the buyout potential and will drop otherwise. | VectorLock wrote: | >But it's unclear to me what he initially thought he was | getting out of this. | | The best hypothesis I've heard is that he was trying to secure | the raw materials that Tesla's stock price is made out of. | bredren wrote: | This is perhaps meant to be tongue in cheek but Twitter is | not just influential to Musk's concerns. | | Twitter is influential to the concerns of Musk's competitors | and potential regulators who might stand in his way. | | Regardless of its deflated value, (all assets were way puffed | up) Twitter is still extremely valuable. | | Arguably, it is still positioned to be worth more than | Facebook. | NelsonMinar wrote: | What a blow to his already tarnished reputation. Imagine the | conversation next time he tries to acquire a company. | ivraatiems wrote: | The best thing that could come out of this would be Twitter | forcing Elon to make the purchase, then Elon closing the company | down out of spite. | | In that case, everybody I don't like loses, which is pretty close | to me winning, I think. | riffic wrote: | Federated social networking based on W3C ActivityPub or a | successor protocol will eclipse Twitter on a slow, but finite | timeframe. | | Twitter could even build a business model around that - They can | manage hosting and the sales of Twitter services as a SaaS on | your own domain name like Office 365, Google Workspace. | | Or someone could snatch this market right now with their own | first-mover advantage (I can see Mastodon gGmbH positioned to do | so). I'd do it myself if I had the time and energy. | sizzzzlerz wrote: | One senses there are hoards of lawyers out there gleefully | rubbing their hands together and salivating over the feasting to | come. | fffox wrote: | Most people seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt that | he has cold feet. Personally, I think this was sabotage, he had | no intention of buying Twitter in the first place and this was | just a ploy to fuck with Twitter. | TillE wrote: | Doesn't really add up, because he's going to be forced to go | through with the deal anyway. I haven't heard a single lawyer | with relevant expertise suggest otherwise. | | Since that's where we're going to end up, it would be much | simpler for him to just cleanly buy Twitter, for whatever | purpose he intends. | naveen99 wrote: | So is there a court that can enforce the merger agreement ? | What's the worst Delaware can do ? | r3trohack3r wrote: | I have very little context here. It seems the general sentiment | in the comments is that this attempt to get out of the merger | agreement will fail and that Musk will be forced to follow | through with the purchase of Twitter. At the current rate Twitter | is trading at, Musk will be paying roughly 150% over market value | to acquire the company. | | So a question: if you believe Musk will still purchase Twitter at | an inflated price, are there any good reasons for not purchasing | Twitter stock? In other words, Musk has offered to give you | $54.20 per share, and you can purchase those shares for $36.81 at | the time of this comment. If folks are confident that this trade | will go through, isn't it a quick way (relative to 8% YoY) to | 1.5x your investment? | ceejayoz wrote: | There's a chance Twitter accepts 5-10B in exchange for dropping | their objections to the end of the merger. | somenewaccount1 wrote: | I really don't understand why you all think Elon is going to pay | anythying. | | The 6.4 provision is pretty standard, and often the reason for | deal to fall through, in that enough of the requested information | was not provided. You really don't know what was asked, what was | ignored, and what garbage data was sent back. You think Twitter | is all innocent? Pfffftt. Don't be evil, oops, i mean naive. | | He doesn't have to prove fraud, or malice, or that it wasn't | worth it....all he has to show is that requests were ignored, | rebuffed even though they are reasonable, and responded to with | bad data. That's not really a hard case to win. | MBCook wrote: | I don't believe his purchase was contingent on anything. I | don't think he's allowed to back out. | | Also that billion dollar number was not a get out of jail free | card. He can't just decide to pay it and walk away. It only | works under certain circumstances. | | I don't believe your analysis is correct. At least it doesn't | match what the legal experts at CNBC seem to think. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa... | gsibble wrote: | Seems to me he makes a pretty sound argument here to back out. | hansword wrote: | Are you a lawyer? Because 5days ago, you wrote "I am a | developer..." | | If you are not, where does the "all he has to show...." part | come from? Do you have a source? | gamache wrote: | He knows how to pull out after all! | kzrdude wrote: | He's late | Invictus0 wrote: | Pulling out doesn't help after you've already spilled the ink | legitster wrote: | Did they wait for Matt Levine's article to drop today before they | submitted this? | Smilliam wrote: | No Money Stuff today :( Monday is going to be very juicy, | though I'm hoping for a special Saturday edition to talk about | how this is all so very stupid. | chrisbolt wrote: | No, Matt Levine is taking today off (as mentioned in | yesterday's article). | strangeloops85 wrote: | This is going to Delaware Chancery court, and if his ridiculous | claims hold it does turn upside down long-held general principles | of mergers and acquisitions that would affect.. everyone. I don't | think the court will side with him on this. In the past, they | have forced mergers to go through.. | hwers wrote: | So embarrassing if he ends up being forced to own it and | everyone knows he tried to back out. | metadat wrote: | Embarrassment is the least of his problems at this point. | metadat wrote: | How much foot dragging does the Delaware Chancery Court usually | tolerate in these sorts of situations? | | Asking for a friend xD | jimnotgym wrote: | I don't trust any man that thinks a car doesn't work better for | the driver with an analogue speedo in front of the driver, rather | than a tablet to the side | electric_mayhem wrote: | I'm looking forward to the day he gets held accountable for | market manipulation. | | Bet he (and his friends, if he has any) made a mint off this | farce. | | Not that I have any faith it will happen. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | So glad HN got back online when the day got interesting | bediger4000 wrote: | I guess we'll never see how a free speech Twitter works. I think | this is sad. | gsibble wrote: | You're being downvoted. Another sad day on HN when free speech | is downvoted. | madrox wrote: | Everything about this deal strikes me as Elon trying to buy his | way out of the fact he illegally acquired stock in a bid for a | board seat. At the time, I'm sure he thought it was a clever way | out of an immediate problem, and he certainly moved the | conversation away from his stock buying shenanigans. I just don't | know how he didn't see how the outcome would be...owning Twitter. | | So many people have gotten very close to buying Twitter...even | Disney. The surface appeal is high but once you think about it | for more than ten minutes it's clearly a problematic platform | with few solutions that don't drastically lower its value. If | Elon ends up not closing this deal with Twitter, I suspect that | Twitter will go the way of Tumblr...eventually getting bought by | a second tier tech company before being mismanaged into | irrelevance. | peter_retief wrote: | I think he realises that it is worth a lot less than he offered, | he will probably walk away from it and get sued. | | Any legal experts out there? | camjohnson26 wrote: | Look around in the thread. M&A experts have confirmed that Musk | cannot walk away from the deal, even by paying the $1 billion, | unless Twitter lets him. | patrickaljord wrote: | If he can just walk away and get sued that would probably be | cheaper than spending all those billions on Twitter. I'm not a | lawyer tho so no idea what's going to happen. | gsibble wrote: | Could you commenters please make up your minds over whether you | want the deal to go through or not? You all seem to hate that | Musk would make Twitter more conservative so you don't want the | deal to go through, but also make fun of him and torment him for | pulling out as if you do want the deal to go through. You can't | have it both ways. | | Either you want the deal consummated or you don't. Stop being | such hypocrites. | daemoens wrote: | They still don't want him to do it, it's just funny that he's | being forced into doing it now. It's not hypocritical to laugh | at him for that. | gsibble wrote: | HARD disagree. If you don't want him to own it, you should be | happy he's walking away. | daemoens wrote: | We don't want him to own it, but if he's being forced to | after making all the self-righteous fuss earlier this year, | it's extremely funny. | gsibble wrote: | I'll find it extremely funny if he is forced to own it | and make it a fantastic platform for free speech and | fires all the woke idiots that work there. | compiler-guy wrote: | This may be hard to believe, but HN is made up of thousands of | posters with a wide variety of opinions. | | The fact that some people want the deal to go through, and some | don't, and that they post at different rates in different | threads, doesn't mean that any individual person is a | hypocrite. Nor that HN in general is. | jeremyjh wrote: | We definitely can have it both ways. We don't want him to buy | Twitter - because he is an idiotic blowhard. Also we are happy | he is backing out, because it demonstrates what an idiotic | blowhard he is. | gsibble wrote: | That's fine, but then you can't celebrate that he may be | forced into buying it which a ton of comments here are doing. | minimaxir wrote: | Elon Musk made the offer himself, he wasn't coerced into it | or did it without sufficient public information. | | He's an adult. | daemoens wrote: | We're celebrating the forcing part, not the actual buying | part. | wyldfire wrote: | Is he an idiot who realized he was in too deep / paid too much? | Or was he trying to find a way to discredit their user numbers | and wanted big headlines? | nemothekid wrote: | When Musk made the offer | | 1. TSLA was trading at ~$1,000 share | | 2. He offered $54/share | | Now? | | 1. TSLA is trading at $750/share (so if Elon musk was 100% in | TSLA, he lost 25% of his wealth). | | 2. Twitter's comprable, Facebook, fell roughly 33% on revised | revenue projections and slowing growth. TWTR roughly tracks | Facebook, except for last quarter where the stock hasn't moved | due to Musk's offer. | | So Musk became poorer, and TWTR, which probably should be | trading in the high 20s, has an offer for $54/share; meaning | Musk may be paying double what it is currently worth. | | I find it pretty amusing Musk has meme'd his way into a | disastrous deal. | dylan604 wrote: | Do you really believe that the "if" in 1) is true? Really? | Enough to make that comment? | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | It's true enough. He isn't 100% tesla, but the vast | majority of his wealth is in tesla and spacex, and only one | of those is actually redeemable in the short to medium | term. | dathinab wrote: | and there was money parked in bitcoin... | nemothekid wrote: | Of course it's not 100% true, the only thing you should | take away is that by TSLA shares crashing, Elon lost a | significant amount of wealth that would have been used to | purchase Twitter. | adamrezich wrote: | lots of emotionally-charged comments here, which is pretty | disappointing. if we look at this dispassionately, perhaps we can | come to better conclusions than "elon big poopy head freeze peach | bad". for example, one possibility is that Musk never intended to | actually buy Twitter because he had reasonable suspicions that | the <5% spam/bot figure provided by Twitter was intentionally | incorrect (i.e. fraudulent), and he just wanted to get that out | in the open and possibly even tank the company's stock as a | result, either as a personal vendetta against the platform and | company, or because he wants to develop a competitor. or maybe he | wants to buy it up after the price falls even further. who knows? | but it's more fun and interesting to speculate like this rather | than just hurling loaded adjectives like "impetuous", | "eccentric", "breathlessly arrogant", "astonishingly careless", | and so on and so forth. I get that public opinion on the guy here | has largely turned pretty sharply in the past couple years but do | we really need to pretend like we're 2016 headline-writers | writing about Donald Trump when we discuss him for some reason? | that entire schtick is long-since played out. | minimaxir wrote: | > one possibility is that Musk never intended to actually buy | Twitter | | Which was a common perspective when the idea was floated | around, until he signed a legal agreement actually saying he | was going to buy Twitter. | crikeyjoe wrote: | Lots of Twitter fraud here. | [deleted] | maxander wrote: | I recommend Matt Levine's blog Money Stuff [0] for analysis of | just how bizarre Musk's twitter saga is relative to usual day-to- | day corporate acquisitions. I also recommend his twitter thread | just now breaking down his reaction to today's news [1] | | [0] | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe... | | [1] | https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545519476707319808?s... | selimnairb wrote: | Was really looking forward to watching him eat this shit sandwich | he made for himself. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Twitter is responding with legal action: | | " Bret Taylor, chairman of Twitter's board of directors, tweeted | Friday afternoon that the board plans to pursue legal action to | enforce the deal at the price and terms originally agreed upon. | | We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of | Chancery," Mr. Taylor tweeted. Parag Agrawal, Twitter's chief | executive, retweeted the message." | | https://www.wsj.com/articles/musk-says-he-is-terminating-twi... | godmode2019 wrote: | I can tell you Twitter took the not question seriously. I have | only used twitter once when my company had a notice board you | needed to tweet to, over 7 years ago. | | After musk started talking about bots, I started getting a | ungodly amount of twitter emails asking me to sign in and see | watt my friends are doing ect. Over 10 a day for the last month | or so. | | My email is literally filled with twitter emails trying to | activate my inactive account to temporary inflate their numbers. | | Musk didn't have buyers remorse, we entered a huge market crash | in the middle of the deal, so twitter was not worth nearly as | much. Likely worth around $15 USD per share. | | Everyone knows twitter is majority bots, gpt influence accounts. | Musk was using that angle because they would never admit to it | publicly as it would likely have stock or legal issues. | | He likely still wants to but twitter at the current market value, | not yesterdays current value. | Animats wrote: | Tesla needs to focus. Two major assembly plants are down for line | rework because the line runs too slowly. The battery factories | are behind schedule. Solar roof installations are way under goal, | despite high energy prices. "Self driving" is a flop. And | whatever happened to the Cybertruck? | | Tesla is a car company. They need to focus on making cars. | They're past the startup stage. To grow into that bloated market | cap, they need to make a _lot_ more cars. Production. That dull | and boring stuff Detroit and Toyota do well. | cozzyd wrote: | Wow, this is almost as embarrassing as the Las Vegas Tunnel... | mandeepj wrote: | I'm not sure why you guys have not noticed his patterns: he | always jumps-on whatever the hottest current topic is - whether | kids stuck in a cave in Thailand, Ukraine war (making fun of | Putin by inviting him to a fist fight), Twitter ( was active due | to leadership changes; in-general the app is popular). His idea | is - by staying in news, he's driving PR for Tesla. He's acting | as a brand machine for himself and his companies. | | Besides all his, he has no regard, empathy for his employees - | the real people who made him, who he is. What an irony! | jl6 wrote: | What a ridiculous waste of time and energy for someone who should | have better things to do. What part of his solar/EV/Mars vision | was dependent on him owning Twitter? I hope he makes a swift and | clean exit from this mess, but with enough bruises to teach him a | lesson. | sharken wrote: | Seems like there is only one loose end left: will he or will he | not avoid the 1B penalty for backing out. | | How that goes is anyone's guess. | MBCook wrote: | Not, plus additional penalties. See: | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa... | ilikeitdark wrote: | The dude is funny, gotta give him at least that. | paxys wrote: | This was obvious from the moment he brought up the fake accounts | problem. | | The stock market (especially tech) tanked, other investors | started having cold feet, and he realized his purchase was a | mistake. | | It is bizarre though that Twitter leadership/board continued to | engage with him on the matter - even handing him internal data to | analyze - expecting a good faith resolution. Nothing Musk has | done in the last few months has been in good faith. You either | lawyer up and force him to stick to the agreement, or take the | loss and move on. Appeasement isn't going to work. | PKop wrote: | They wanted to cash out of a declining position as much as he | wanted to renege on the deal... he was overpaying at that | point, why wouldn't they want to sell? | [deleted] | camjohnson26 wrote: | Bad faith has been Musk's MO since the beginning. He even | deliberately crashed Martin Eberhard's roadster (allegedly, | Tesla claims it was an accident.) https://jalopnik.com/tesla- | co-founder-eberhard-sues-elon-mus... | inerte wrote: | They gave the data because if they didn't that's a valid reason | for Musk to walk out of the deal. The bots are not. | Inu wrote: | >Nothing Musk has done in the last few months has been in good | faith. | | Isn't this itself arguing in bad faith? It's fundamentally | speculative to make claims about his intentions. | bindle8932 wrote: | Musk has lied repeatedly in public, so it's difficult to | assume good faith from him. | [deleted] | cormacrelf wrote: | It's because they want him to pay the agreed price. It is an | extremely good deal for the shareholders now, so they are | behaving perfectly rationally. And they can possibly force him | to. | paxys wrote: | Yes but it was clear (to all outside observers, not the board | apparently) that Musk never intended to pay the agreed price. | He was just collecting enough material from them to justify | his breach, and fake users was a smokescreen. Their response | to any questions/statements about fake users should have been | the equivalent of "you signed the agreement, now stick to it" | not "let's work together and resolve your issues". | philosopher1234 wrote: | That's not how i remember the last HN discussion on this | elliekelly wrote: | I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics of the deal | but IIRC there's a penalty clause that's dependent on _who_ | , ultimately, backs out of the deal. It seems like Musk is | angling to get Twitter to pull out and Twitter is doing | everything they can to engage with Musk's requests in "good | faith" so he can't claim Twitter has constructively backed | out-- a bit of M&A malicious compliance/a game of chicken, | I believe. | cormacrelf wrote: | So? What does twitter care whether he intended to do it? He | agreed to! And they can still force him to do it. So even | if he drags out the litigation, they still have a strong | position to negotiate a settlement for somewhere between 1 | and 40 billion. Free money for his stupidity. | jiggyjace wrote: | Have you read the termination letter? The letter was sent by | Elon's lawyers working with Twitter's lawyers according to the | merger terms they had all agreed to. Why shouldn't they have | expected a "good faith resolution"? A termination can still be | made in M&A under good faith. | paxys wrote: | Where did you get the "working with Twitter's lawyers" part? | This letter is sent _to_ Twitter 's lawyers informing them | that Musk is terminating the agreement. | betwixthewires wrote: | They helped craft the agreement, according to Musk, twitter | is violating the agreement which is grounds for termination | as per the agreement. | | I'm not going to pretend to know who's right or how this | will play out legally, but Twitter's lawyers did | participate in the creation of the agreement and therefore | the current state of affairs. | [deleted] | Wowfunhappy wrote: | Presumably, if Twitter goes out of their way to demonstrate | good faith towards Musk, it will benefit any potential legal | cases in the future. | gkoberger wrote: | This was always going to be how it ended. | | Elon got what he wanted. Everyone on his side now thinks he's a | bastion of free speech, and he can forever say "If I owned | Twitter, I would have...". And he gets the credit he wants | without having to actually do anything. | | Twitter got what they wanted. They didn't want Elon to own the | company, but they also couldn't ignore the offer. So they called | his bluff. They would have ended up with a world of pain if they | didn't accept the offer, but nobody at Twitter wanted it to | close. And now they'll be able to sue Elon and get the upper | hand. | | Both sides got what they wanted here. I just wish it didn't have | to distract all of us so a few rich people could mutually level | up. | bogomipz wrote: | >'Everyone on his side now thinks he's a bastion of free | speech, and he can forever say "If I owned Twitter, I would | have...".' | | Doesn't he kind of forfeit that bragging right if he tries to | walk away from the deal though? | | >"Twitter got what they wanted. They didn't want Elon to own | the company, but they also couldn't ignore the offer." | | What happens to their stock price after this though if this | deal doesn't happen? Hasn't it basically been flat or trending | down for some time before this current situation? Doesn't | Twitter still have all the same problems they had before this | current circus started? | | Also is there a possibility that if that deal doesn't happen | there becomes a bigger spotlight on Twitter's future filings in | regards to their quoted percentage of "fake or spam accounts on | Twitter's platform"? | mikkergp wrote: | > Doesn't he kind of forfeit that bragging right if he tries | to walk away from the deal though? | | I actually don't think so, he gets it more because "liberal | big tech tried to screw him and he was smart enough to walk | away" | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | Well that's certainly an editorialized title. | minimaxir wrote: | > and this is why nobody should be reporting it as "Elon Musk | ends Twitter deal." Musk is TRYING to back out of the deal, but | Twitter plans to try and enforce the merger agreement. The | battle begins | | https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1545527519008509952 | adrr wrote: | Twitter is going to be the downfall of Elon. I don't understand | is fascination with it. It's a big distraction and he alienates a | certain percentage of his customers for Tesla. | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | How exactly would it result in his downfall? Do you think the | terminally online even buy Teslas, or use Starlink, or, you | know, shoot rockets into space? | dathinab wrote: | yes, yes, no | adrr wrote: | His tweets are shared on the news. Like when he accused | Thailand diver of being a pedophile. | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | Elon is going to be the downfall of Elon. | | Trying to buy Twitter is just a symptom. | dathinab wrote: | Because a non small part of his success is based on portraying | himself as a form of real world tony stark, mainly over | twitter. | | Without that he wouldn't have gotten nearly anywhere close to | where he ended up. | | Because for a lot of his ventures he used that image to collect | way more money then the company would normally had gotten and | the used the additional money to try to beat the completion | enough so that the investors won't complain even through the | company didn't reach to promised (and often outright absurd) | goal anywhere close in time/at all. | Flankk wrote: | Tony Stark from the comic books was based on Howard Hughes. | When they developed the character for film, they used Elon | Musk as inspiration for the character. So you have it | backwards, Elon was even in Iron Man 2. Most of his PR stunts | make the news so I don't think Twitter makes much difference. | eatsyourtacos wrote: | >I don't understand is fascination with it | | I think it's simple.. he is insanely egotistical. He thinks he | is some super genius. I'm not saying he's not a smart guy, but | he was able to benefit from the early dot-com era mostly | because of timing- he happen to be a smart guy at the right age | of tech when it was much "easier". There are millions of people | who are really smart and work in tech but it's not like they | can just magically make an insane amount of money like early | on. | | He thinks because he is the richest person in the world that he | has also worked the most and is the smartest. Both are | extremely far from reality- but you can't convince someone of | him like that. | | Anyway- my point is he loves being able to just post a tweet | and have however many people read it and talk about it. Similar | to someone like Trump- they just love all the attention to an | _insane_ amount, and unfortunately technology makes that | possible these days. | [deleted] | tick_tock_tick wrote: | I'm super excited for this to go to court. If nothing else we've | known Twitter has massive internal issue on how it polices | content, reports number, bans people, etc. The leaks out of this | case are going to be so juicy. | | Hopefully they are bad enough we could get real legislation that | if you want protection from user generated content you can't just | ban whatever you feel like. | chernevik wrote: | The filed letter | (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922...) | isn't the knockdown argument I would be expecting. | | Musk is saying, you haven't demonstrated your numbers are | accurate. But having signed the merger agreement and waived due | diligence, I think he needs to demonstrate that they are _not_ | accurate. Complaining Twitter rate-limited his API access (which | would be very foolish on their part) or that their bot | measurement standards are "arbitrary" doesn't seem to get there. | | The letter complains that Musk asked for data allowing him to | "independently verify Twitter's representations regarding the | number of mDAU" -- but where does the agreement provide for that | verification as a condition of the deal? Maybe Twitter didn't | provide sufficient information for Musk to "independently verify" | that number -- that means nothing without showing Twitter had a | duty to provide that information, or that Musk had a right to his | own verification. (Any lawyer agreeing to the other side's | verification of such a thing probably isn't a very good lawyer.) | | The last paragraph, complaining about firings and hiring freezes | and departures, seems positively desperate. Who seriously cares | about this stuff? | | "I relied on your numbers but now they seem soft" is different | than "I relied on your numbers but now they are clearly wrong". | | I have enormous respect for his engineering and business skills, | he's accomplished some remarkable things. But he doesn't seem so | great as a dealmaker. Perhaps he's badly advised, but hey, he | chose his advisors. | | I would think Twitter will sue for specific performance, and they | probably have a case. And Musk is liable for their full market | cap, and any trial would depend on a legal team that has a hard | time writing a clear letter. I think Musk is in trouble here. | np1810 wrote: | Well, here's the tweet from Bret Taylor (chair of the board at | Twitter)... | | https://mobile.twitter.com/btaylor/status/154552608708969676... | | > "The Twitter Board is committed to closing the transaction on | the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to | pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are | confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery." | shuckles wrote: | Twitter has already said they'll sue for specific performance: | https://twitter.com/btaylor/status/1545526087089696768 | elliekelly wrote: | My heart sank when I read your comment: why on earth would | the board sue for specific performance!? But my reading of | the statement in the tweet is that they plan to sue for | enforcement of _the agreement_ which I believe means paying | the agreed-upon penalty for backing out of the deal. I don't | at all read that statement as a plan to seek specific | performance. | howinteresting wrote: | The agreed-upon penalty is when both sides mutually back | out of the deal. But right now Twitter's board thinks it | can get a lot more out of Musk than just $1B, and my | understanding is that the board is likely correct. | agrajag wrote: | > closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed | upon | | They're definitely suing for specific performance, and I'm | not sure they really have any other option at this point. | It would be by far in their best financial interest if they | can force closing the sale, and Musk's objections seem | really thin. Doing anything less than that is complete | capitulation | | I can see them reaching a settlement to agree to cancel the | deal with Musk if he agrees to pay a significant penalty | ($5B+), or maybe agree to reduce the purchase price some, | but why not sue for specific performance if you think | you'll win? | georgeecollins wrote: | Right- he waived diligence. Twitter has no obligation to prove | anything to him. Twitter is obligated to give him documents if | they are reasonable to request and helpful for him in financial | planning. If the documents Twitter has on hand are flawed or | not comprehensive, that doesn't give a pretext to leave the | deal. I am sure his lawyers know this and it will all be | negotiated. | meragrin_ wrote: | If Twitter fails to provide reasonable access to data | necessary to secure debt to finance the purchase, it does | indeed give a pretext to leave the deal. It is part of the | merger agreement. You can't tell me that a lender would not | want some independent assessment of Twitter's claims before | lending. | meragrin_ wrote: | > Musk is saying, you haven't demonstrated your numbers are | accurate. | | It has nothing to do with accuracy. Twitter is supposedly not | providing the data: 'While Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement | requires Twitter to provide Mr. Musk and his advisors all data | and information that Mr. Musk requests "for any reasonable | business purpose related to the consummation of the | transaction," Twitter has not complied with its contractual | obligations.' | | > The letter complains that Musk asked for data allowing him to | "independently verify Twitter's representations regarding the | number of mDAU" -- but where does the agreement provide for | that verification as a condition of the deal? | | Section 6.11, the part of the deal where Twitter needs to | provide necessary information to secure debt: 'and under | Section 6.11 of the Merger Agreement, to information | "reasonably requested" in connection with his efforts to secure | the debt financing necessary to consummate the transaction.' | | I have little doubt anyone lending that kind of money would | require the buyer to independently verify the mDAU. | chernevik wrote: | I will be very surprised that Twitter's position was less | than "you can have anything you want", precisely to avoid any | complaint of non-cooperation. | | I do agree that the agreement's debt financing provisions may | provide Musk an out -- "I wanted to close, but I couldn't get | debt b/c you wouldn't cooperate". | | I'm a little surprised that Twitter agreed to any sort of | financing provision, precisely because it seems to allow Musk | to screw up his debt raising and then point to that as an | out. | | But that is not a complaint in the letter, and becomes an | argument about what lenders require for debt financing. Musk | will have to show that lenders cared about this, and Twitter | will have discovery to find evidence they didn't. | DelaneyM wrote: | For anyone thinking he can pay the 1B$ termination fee and walk | away, it's not that simple. | | The 1B$ is a "reverse breakup" fee, and applies when an outside | force (like SEC or financing) prevents the deal. That 1B$ has | nothing to do with any choices on either side, and is unlikely to | factor into this process. | | At this point they're clearly going to trial, and it's not | unlikely that the cost to Elon will be somewhere in the | neighborhood of the difference between the fair current market | value (~20B$?) and the purchase price (~44B$). | | My guess is it'll end up being ~10-15B$. | dylan604 wrote: | ~10-15B$ is not inbetween the 2 numbers you posited it would be | between though. | jkrems wrote: | What they said was: | | > in the neighborhood of the difference between the fair | current market value (~20B$?) and the purchase price (~44B$). | | The difference is 24B$ which is implied to be the upper | bound. 10-15 is in the range 0..24. | samatman wrote: | That's not what difference means. | addandsubtract wrote: | 44 - 20 = 22 != 10~15 | bindle8932 wrote: | 44 - 20 = 24 != 22 | renewiltord wrote: | Two plus two is four minus one that's three quick maths | dylan604 wrote: | wow. total brain fart caused me to completely skip the word | difference ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-08 23:00 UTC)