821–830 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wow, once upon a time you could have a discussion here on any topic, hope that feature is not disappearing....
You were downvoted because your comment about the veiled threat from Biden is a pretty crazy conspiracy theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has already said they'll sue for specific performance: https://twitter.com/btaylor/status/1545526087089696768
It will eventually settle. If they sue and win Musk's financing will have long backed out so they aren't going to end up with enough to close the deal. I suppose they could force him into bankruptcy which would end up with his ownership stakes in Tesla and SpaceX sold off. Given how much of a loose cannon he's become that would probably be better for other shareholders but who knows.
I don't think they'd need to force him into bankruptcy. If a judge awards Twitter (say) $10 billion in damages, there are many avenues to seize enough of Musk's assets to pay without making him bankrupt.
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The IT industry is extremely left leaning on the whole. People who are intelligent enough to know better, it's a very strange phenomenon. Twitter has one of the worst interfaces known to man, I'm amazed anyone uses it.
This is really strange! I'm a tech entrepreneur, but don't personally know many others. Critical thinking should prevail in the tech industry, not this nonsense.
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…
This is going to be one of those HN posts that will not age well, isn't it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
it seems he was given access to the Firehose, AKA all the data, but curiously failed to mention that in his filing (I guess it was enough, and he had no complaints?), instead complaining about rate limiting on more specific APIs (the standard Twitter API), which seem extraneous given the Firehose also, said rate limits were lifted
Twitter’s value depends heavily on human views of tweets (not part of the firehose), not on the tweets’ content (the firehose).
One of musks main things he wanted to do with Twitter was to fight those spam/bot accounts.
He thinks getting rid of them is good for Twitter. If there are more bots than estimated Twitter will get even better than anticipated. If there are less bots than estimated this means the user base is more healthy than assume / one problem you don’t have to solve.
Each scenario is neither clearly good nor bad for a potential buyer.
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…
Yeah especially with his filing saying he’s waiving BDD. That’s a tough one to escape. He’s claiming that Twitter has made a material misstatement on their public filings. I’m sure that disclosure has been heavily diligenced.