841–850 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But for Musk's machinations, said stock price would not be down 40%. He caused the stock to drop.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it cause job losses? Wouldn't others be able to hire due to the money transferring to them?
Trickle-down economics has consistently shown to be a failed hypothesis.
> “’Trickle down’ has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.” But “no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Complaining Twitter rate-limited his API access (which would be very foolish on their part) I have recently built a Twitter application with the new V2 API. They do have undocumented API rate limits[1] while the developer documentation says something else[2]. And if you see the discussions at Twitter developer forum, It takes a while for the Twitter representative to find that the issue is because of the undocument…
Then they could have simply communicated that fact the first time they ran into the limits and they certainly would have been lifted. This happens to me during DD all the time and it has never caused a problem or an investor/acquirer to back out of the deal.
Besides, I don't think it's even possible to have something at Twitter scale without some immutable rate limits for security & reliability.
I mean Musk shouldn't go all
SELECT * FROM users;It’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…
What happened to the poison pill strategy to keep him from buying it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When has there ever been a lawsuit of this sort that was anywhere near $15 billion? What do you base these numbers on?
Big Tobacco settlement - $206 billion Deepwater settlement - $20 billion VW Emissions settlement - $14.7 billion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> buy more time until Tesla shares recover The problem is that Tesla is massively over-inflated and Musk knows it and many people believe that was actually the reason for the whole twitter thing (Musk converting overinflated Tesla shares to fair-market value Twitter shares). With Tesla very likely losing the 'biggest EV maker' title to Volkswagen by the end of the year, it here has to be some sleight-of-musk for TSLA…
> With Tesla very likely losing the 'biggest EV maker' title Since you mention it... https://uk.pcmag.com/cars-auto/141332/tesla-is-no-longer-the...
What I was saying: If you extrapolate year-over-year sales of full EVs, Volkswagen will likely sell more full EVs than TSLA sometime this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how the legal system works, but his argument sounds valid to me. “My offer was based on Twitter's SEC filings being accurate,” Willfully filing fraudulent SEC filing is a crime - and if Twitter has been engaging in criminal behavior to artificially increase their value - I would think Musk has a good case.
> Willfully filing fraudulent SEC filing is a crime - and if Twitter has been engaging in criminal behavior to artificially increase their value - I would think Musk has a good case. Ignoring whether this is a legitimate reason to back out of the agreement, Musk hasn't shown that Twitter has been filing fraudulent SEC filings so what does it matter anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thus, the courts will obligate Musk to buy the business as he agreed to in April. That last statement does not follow everything else before. Courts have no power to do that.
Why wouldn't courts have the power to do that? If the court rules you have no grounds to terminate the contract then you will have to execute the contract as originally agreed upon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it i…
> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.