941–950 of 1001 posts
Musk’s account keeps getting suspended/unsuspended in the past hour: https://twitter.com/growing_daniel/status/154562588715182080...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your analysis, but I also think the numbers are bogus. Just for fun I tried buying half a million followers from some Russian guy a 7 years ago. While that number declined a bit over the years as Twitter did some trimming, I still have half of them. (Interesting some of the followers were "real" in that these were people who installed a program that ostensibly would tell them who recently followed or unf…
That's an interesting story, but irrelevant to this. Twitter claims that That there are a lot of bots on Twitter is well known, and clearly true. That Twitter happily leaves most of them alone to do their own thing as long as they don't abuse the service is also well known, and quite sensible. The question is whether Twitter is good about flagging them as bots . You could have a million bots following you, but as lon…
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…
I believe the agreement between Twitter and Musk had a $1B acquisition cancellation clause built into in, so if Musk can't successfully argue for breach of contract he'll have to pay this $1B break-up fee, rather than be forced to complete the purchase.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they have willfully misrepresented the amount of bots on the platform and lied about it to shareholders for years. MAUs are a big part of any social networks valuation metrics.
It's a terrible contract: no due diligence, a specific performance clause. The only type of person who would ever sign a contract like that would be a dumb guy who got rich by accident.
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...
Is there a source for this? I certainly didn't see it. They considered rejecting the offer, and quickly passed a poison pill provision, but that was about preventing buying the company on the open market instead of making a deal like this. The offer was initially only a very short note, and Twitter decided to sell within 3 days of financing being lined up.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a terrible contract: no due diligence, a specific performance clause. The only type of person who would ever sign a contract like that would be a dumb guy who got rich by accident.
Or someone whose ego is so inflated and actions are on a whim due to being vastly rich that he just had a wild hair up his ass and said he'd buy Twitter. Remember, the Twitter buyout bullshit was after he'd done some shenanigans failing to report buying Twitter shares. People complained (on Twitter no less) and he literally went "oh well I'll just buy Twitter then." Egg on face now that he's seen just how utterly ins…
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.
I'm increasingly getting the sense that SpaceX is the anomaly here and otherwise Elon has been steadily failing upwards his entire life. Is that just me? Obligatory joke: this is the only time Elon has pulled out (if you know you know). Tesla's peak market cap is ~$1.5T. It's still sitting at just under ~$800B. Tesla sold just under 1M cars last year putting one metric at (currently) $800,000 per car sold in a year.…
Paul Graham: https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1545547177849667585 Let me answer that: they do not want to be owned by someone who doesn't want to. But they want the 40B more.
That person wanted to own Twitter, though, and very much so. To that effect, that person made and absolutely ludicrous offer (e.g., merger without due digligence), just to end up owning Twitter as soon as possible.
The fact that a few weeks later, the same person changed their mind about Twitter, is absolutely their own fault. They agreed to terms.