Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most critically, it is not being alleged that spam accounts have any substantial impact on the earnings of Twitter. Thus, the courts will obligate Musk to buy the business as he agreed to in April.
Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
waiving diligence does not mean that twitter can misrepresent things though. I do not know what the true amount of bot participants are, but IF it is above 5%, that would not be something "due diligence" had to discover, twitter says <=5%, and it had better be that then.
I can't imagine it NOT being above 5%. I'd bet it's over 25%. But I am hoping real numbers come out of this.
I wouldn't be surprised. A lot of outside researchers have come up with results like "at least 20%" over the years.
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#693It’s been amusing to see the flip from people saying Musk can’t buy Twitter to Musk must buy Twitter. Buying Twitter the way Musk did right before the most telegraphed recession in modern history was colossal stupidity. I have no insight to Musks liquidity, but if Twitter is able to force him to complete the sale in the middle of a raging recession then how much of his empire would be diminished by forced liquidation…
Why would it cause job losses? Wouldn't others be able to hire due to the money transferring to them?
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#694Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…
I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures).
I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through.
Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that even after the judge ruled against them, and I had to renegotiate the terms set by the judge.
That was one hell of a ride.
Point being, if Musk really doesn’t want it, even if Twitter wins a lawsuit, Musk will probably find another way to postpone or renegotiate or whatever. In the meantime, Twitter is not in a good shape, and this whole thing is probably hurting them so much more than that they could possibly benefit from.
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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...
They have said, our bes guess is 5%, but the accuracy is limited by these factors, and we make very little promises that it is correct.
Besides, Musk has been complaining about bots for a long time, and has made it clear he doesn't believe the 5% number way before the acquisition. If the 5% number was a sticking point for him, he could have demanded due diligence. He did not demand that, thereby waiving his rights.
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
This flavor of “fraud” is something I’d expect an activist investor or short-seller to address, not the SEC.
This is now going to a Delaware court, not the SEC. The filing here is just a notification to shareholders.
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#697Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…
I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that e…
What happened when they ignore dthe order from the judge? Nothing?
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#698Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…
I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that e…
How could they refuse after being compelled by a court ruling? Did they appeal / sue you back? Can't see how they could simply say... "no".
Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
#699Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…
Do they always have the option of settling at any point in the process? Like if Musk said "$20 billion penalty but I don't buy the company", I assume they'd say yes? (Or substitute a bigger number if not.)
So are they just negotiating at this point if Musk has a penalty number he's willing to pay?