Reply to Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Musk waived due diligence when he made the offer for Twitter. I hope they make him pay the $1 bn breakup fee and that the SEC actually takes action for once on this blatant market manipulation. [/quote]

If there was fraud, he’s not on the hook. I’m really curious here because I do believe Twitter has been lying about the number of accounts that are bots.  [/quote]
Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.[/quote]

Twitter has not yet been able to give a concrete number of fake accounts, Musk has an easy out. [/quote]

That’s not how that works, sweetie.[/quote]

When the contract stipulates no more than x% are fake accounts, and Twitter can not (or will not) confirm that fact, it is

Sweetie. [/quote]

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that.  We’ll wait.[/quote]

Where are you PP?  We’re all waiting for that citation.  Surely you did not just make that up.[/quote]

I’m not the PP you’re responding too hun, but it’s not in the contract.  It’s in their official SEC filings.  Pretty sure lying in those is a big deal.  And I wouldn’t want to bet on Twitter.  It’s always been a steaming trash fire.  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-cannot-move-forward-until-he-has-clarity-on-bot-numbers.html[/quote]
Again, Musk clearly [b]*believes* [/b]that Twitter is lying in their SEC fillings about the bot percentages. That DOES NOT MEAN that Twitter is actually lying about the bot percentages in their SEC filings about the bot percentages. See also Trump who clearly [b]*believes*[/b] that he won the 2020 election when he did not.[/quote]

I imagine he has more evidence … researchers have been looking at this for quite a while.  Guess we will see! SEC can always investigate. *shrug*  I’m not an Musk fan, but if he tanks twitter I won’t be sad.  [/quote]

This is not a moral quandary, this is a business transaction. Musk WAIVED Due Diligence, which is the discovery process that would allow him to verify such information. He signed a binding agreement to buy Twitter AS IS. [/quote]

I haven’t seen the contracts but if there is fraud then it’s void. And I believe lying to the SEC is fraud, and I’m sure there are warranties about those public filings being accurate. Not a business lawyer but this seems fairly straightforward.[/quote]

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.  [/quote]

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company![/quote]

There is no evidence of fraud.  That is pure speculation on Musk’s part. [/quote]

It’s not idle speculation. Twitter has a record of lying https://mashable.com/article/twitter-miscounted-users[/quote]

They made a mistake that they discovered and admitted over three years ago.

If Musk was so concerned about whether the bot estimates in Twitter’s SEC filings were accurate, then he should not have waived due diligence so he would have had the right to evaluate the issue before closing the deal.  What Musk is doing is the equivalent of signing a purchase agreement for a house as-is with no inspection, and then trying to get out of the deal because you claim if you brought in an inspector they might find issues under the roof.  [/quote]

No it’s more like agreeing to buy a house, looking at the public permits, and then finding a bunch of stuff that they lied about on the applications.  Seller will be liable.[/quote]

Even in your alternative hypothetical, it’s not the equivalent of finding stuff you know they lied about in the application, it’s about seeing things that are not readily verifiable without having a full inspection of the house done and then demanding an inspection as a condition to closing even though you already waived the inspection and have no evidence that the seller made any misrepresentations in the applications, and your mortgage lender is willing to close based on the publicly available information without further inspection. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics