Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leo Strine is about to school Elon. This is going to be fun!

Yep. Strine practically wrote the law on this. Musk is going to need a lot of luck here…

He literally wrote the law. Literally. I do not mean that figuratively. He is the most prolific and influential judge in the corporate law space. Wachtel hiring him is such a huge win for them (and they were already the #1 corporate law firm by a large margin).

Anonymous wrote:Leo Strine is about to school Elon. This is going to be fun!

Yep. Strine practically wrote the law on this. Musk is going to need a lot of luck here…

Anonymous wrote:Leo Strine is about to school Elon. This is going to be fun!

This will be very fun. Twitter basically hired the foremost experts in Delaware corporate law to represent them. Elon is gonna go through some things...

Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Prior to joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019. Before becoming the Chief Justice, he served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998.

https://www.wlrk.com/attorney/lestrine/

Anonymous wrote:Musk should be investigated by SEC for market manipulation.

2 birds one stone would be fine with me. Twitter and Musk. Would be happy to have them both under scrutiny.

Leo Strine is about to school Elon. This is going to be fun!

Anonymous wrote:Amen to Musk needing to be investigated. Constant market manipulation and cashing out going on here. You know if we tried this someone would be knocking on our doors immediately. I'm getting really tired of seeing 2 sets of rules going on.

Pump and dump of TSLA options he had to exercise before they expired.

Anonymous wrote:Musk should be investigated by SEC for market manipulation.

This is the case for years. He has been intentionally manipulating stock prices for a long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company!

There is no evidence of fraud. That is pure speculation on Musk’s part.

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

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.

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.

Clearly you have zero experience in M&A. Due diligence provisions like this do not work how you are suggesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company!

There is no evidence of fraud. That is pure speculation on Musk’s part.

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

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.

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.

Trump School of Business Law

Amen to Musk needing to be investigated. Constant market manipulation and cashing out going on here. You know if we tried this someone would be knocking on our doors immediately. I'm getting really tired of seeing 2 sets of rules going on.

Musk should be investigated by SEC for market manipulation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company!

There is no evidence of fraud. That is pure speculation on Musk’s part.

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

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.

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.

Why do you continue to take the fraud for granted when there’s no evidence of it and the person claiming fraud is a well-known serial liar?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe read this by an actual business lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company!

There is no evidence of fraud. That is pure speculation on Musk’s part.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Musk believes that, too. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

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

That’s not how that works, sweetie.

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

Sweetie.

Feel free to cite where the contract stipulates that. We’ll wait.

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

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

Again, Musk clearly *believes* 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 *believes* that he won the 2020 election when he did not.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, yes, it’s very clear you are not a business lawyer.

I know right? I’m not trying to cover for a fraudulent company!

There is no evidence of fraud. That is pure speculation on Musk’s part.

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

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.

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.