Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#881

Post by eftychis »

chernevik wrote: post #356
meragrin_ wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 con…

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 all…

I would be surprised if not all lenders / investors did not ask for such data. Especially, after the first tweets from Musk.

Musk did go around knocking on lots of doors to get money and I am not sure if he actually managed to get enough funds; I don't think personally it is a good deal without some internal fundamental data to prove otherwise.

Of course, I am puzzled also that Twitter gave him a smidge of a way out.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#882

Post by stewartmcgown »

chernevik wrote: post #264

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 par…

he's mostly a fraudster who has used a cult of personality and litigation to dominate the businesses that he's involved in. check out the litigation against him for the solar city purchase by Tesla if you're interested in just how much the man is willing to defraud shareholders to personally enrich himself and his family.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#883

Post by Terretta »

t_mann wrote: post #876
stingraycharles wrote: post #694

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…

Sounds like a very unpleasant experience, sorry to hear. But I'm not sure it's a good precedent for this case, for two reasons: a) You were happy to settle, which sounds understandable. But when the stakes are $44bn and most actors on Twitter's side are but agents for Twitter shareholders, their chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties if they accept anything less than the maximum amount they could g…

> chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties

Let’s not forget the all the blather from Twitter board and leadership how their fiduciary duty was to not sell to Musk at this price.

Cramer even claimed the board would be personally liable for accepting the deal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/cramer-twitters-board-has-no...

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#884

Post by rvnx »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #817
rvnx wrote: post #801

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#885

Post by coldpie »

myko wrote: post #877
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK I know this is a massive tangent but I have to ... OMFGBBQ ? Oh My F&&&&ing God Bar-B-Q ?

A modification of a decades old meme popularized on the defunct SomethingAwful.com forums https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=omgwtfbbq%21

Very much not defunct. I've been posting there for more than 16 years :)

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#886

Post by hef19898 »

nl wrote: post #872
hef19898 wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porsche and VW in 2008 if memory serves well. Almost ruined Porsche. Or Schaeffler and Conti, which almost ruined Schaeffler, a private company at the time.

The Porsche/VW thing was complicated by a short squeeze, not the financial crisis.

The short squeeze was an effect of two things (too lazy to look up the details now): Porsche having funding issues and tye complicated share structure of VW, the short squeeze affected the class B(?, those with limited voting power) of VW. Without the financial crisis, Porsche could have easily financed the take over.

It was incredibly risky so. And the attemot was partially driven by a feud between the Porsche and Piech branches of the Porsche family tree, with the latter "represebting" VW. All that does is show us that high stakes decisions should never be taken based on "personal" issues.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#887

Post by papito »

RC_ITR wrote: post #726
chernevik wrote: post #264

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 par…

It’s so crazy to me that the purchase price was determined by a weed joke and people are surprised that in the cold sober light of our recent correction, Musk is trying to get out of this. His whole M.O. is degrading the power of the SEC and DoJ by pointing out they have very little enforcement power. This is just another example in his long journey of “what are they going to do if I just don’t follow the rules?” Wei…

Musk is no different from your average "small government conservative", which basically means being anti-civilization. They won the birth lottery, and the society and the government are stopping them from going from rich to filthy rich quickly.

The only thing here is that Musk happens to be fascinated with electric cars and space travel (ever since he was a teenager). We just got lucky - he could as well have gotten into opioids or coal mining, and his desire to dismantle the laws and norms would have burned even brighter.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#888

Post by p1necone »

goto11 wrote: post #786
cryptica wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is censorship via algorithms illegal? Doesn't all social media platforms do that?

It's not. This seems to be yet another person who is very confused about what the first amendment says (despite it being only 45 words long and written in plain english).

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#889

Post by mrtnmcc »

Terretta wrote: post #883
t_mann wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a very unpleasant experience, sorry to hear. But I'm not sure it's a good precedent for this case, for two reasons: a) You were happy to settle, which sounds understandable. But when the stakes are $44bn and most actors on Twitter's side are but agents for Twitter shareholders, their chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties if they accept anything less than the maximum amount they could g…

> chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties Let’s not forget the all the blather from Twitter board and leadership how their fiduciary duty was to not sell to Musk at this price. Cramer even claimed the board would be personally liable for accepting the deal. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/cramer-twitters-board-has-no...

Cramer's advice is a decent guide if you always take the opposite opinion.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#890

Post by p1necone »

dmix wrote: post #843
orlp wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trickle-down economics has consistently shown to be a failed hypothesis.

It’s a good thing that was invented by a comedian and not an economist (easier to refute it that way). > “’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 the…

> Supply-side economics has consistently shown to be a failed hypothesis.

There, fixed it for you. Happy now?

Post reply on HN