Musk says Twitter deal could move ahead with 'bot' info

It could move ahead with $44 billion but he hasn’t got and isn’t going to have it. Thus the fuss about the bots.

If only he hadn’t signed a binding contract without doing his due diligence first.

Damn that pesky law.....

It could move ahead with $44 billion but he hasn’t got and isn’t going to have it. Thus the fuss about the bots.

Have you even read the various filings? Twitter in its own filings said Musk has already secured funding, and Agrawal's wife is a partner in one of the VC firm funding it.

IMO, Agrawal is purely trying to save his job at the expense of TWTR shareholders.

He convinced the board to not sell,

Then he put in a poison pill...so buyer would be thwarted

Then finally he relented and agreed to sell (ie loosing his job)...

Then came the missing info

Then the lawsuits

Currently, he is trying to have Musk's lawsuit redacted because it would be embarrassing.

Currently, he is trying to have Musk's lawsuit redacted because it would be embarrassing.

See, when people say "it would be embarrassing", without having known what it says yet, and we're speaking about something, or in this case, someone, who has become part of the culture war, it's clear that the speaker is speaking from a perspective of ideology, rather than fact.

I have not read the filings because I’m not a geek and I’m not THAT interested.

I HAVE followed the basic facts closely on the dreaded and maligned MSM because I’m that level of interested and not for nothing, Elon likely has narcissistic personality disorder and would be a HORRIBLE owner.

From said “propaganda” I have gathered the following:

Elon entered into a binding contract without doing due diligence.

Elon’s net worth is highly dependent upon the market value of Tesla and as such has taken a (not catastrophic but statistically significant) dump due to general economic conditions. It may also have been effected by his (I will be diplomatic here) “erratic” behavior as of late. This has caused much more knowledgeable analysts than myself to speculate that regardless of what is in the filings (and since when has Elon “fudged” the truth, eh?) financing may be in doubt.

Elon is suing in a courier that has a reputation for no legal BS.

So from such publicly available information, one can reasonably deduce (if one has not drunk the Elon-aide) that:

A) the prince of poof got his panties in a pinch and decided to buy Twitter.

B)He then realized that he’d f-Ed up/just didn’t want it anymore because it’s not the shiny new thing. Perhaps he wants it but decided that he should get a discount because he realized that he’s overpaid and hey, he’s Elon Musk.

C) unfortunately for the owner of the world’s best hair plugs, there’s this thing called “Contract Law” and it’s a B.

“Is this your signature on the contract? Is the contract legal? Were you drunk or otherwise impaired?” Yes, Yes, Yes? Then you gotta pay or you gotta pay the break up fee (and likely more)

The rest is just huff and puff legal huff and puff but H&P nonetheless.

Apologies:

it should be “court” not “currier” and the answers should be “Yes, yes, and no” because otherwise he might have an out by virtue of impairment.

I could blame the errors on lack of coffee or the lack of an edit function, but that would be disingenuous. The fault is my own.

I shall endeavor (and likely fail) to be better.

we're speaking about something, or in this case, someone, who has become part of the culture war

No, we're talking about a deal, a deal where Musk has lowered the bar inorder to complete the deal, ie he has reduced the burden of proof to merely 'methodology' whereas the contracted deal required twitter to prove its quoted userbase (ie potentially paying customers) is 95% or more real user.

https://www.wionews.com/trending/i-hereby-challenge-parag-agrawal-to-a-public-debate-says-musk-amid-twitter-row-504470

I was very specific about the 'lawsuit', but the fact you steer the discussion to 'culture war' suggests your post is more 'ideologically based'.

Musk has been nothing but public about the deal, and he has no issue taking things public vs Agrawal's obfuscation.

Musk provided info about his funding which Twitter has acknowledged, yet the media keeps saying he can't afford to buy it.

Musk forego due diligence in exchange for Twitter proving the bonafide of the user base.

But all Twitter (or shall I say Agrawal) has done is try to stop the deal by repeatedly withholding info. His legal team is now trying to withhold Musk's countersuit info. If he is not embarrassed by it, he should instruct his legal team to let Musk suit be published in full. Of course, as we have seen from the Musk letter of termination, the information is very embarassing, like capping access to data, being dishonest about methodology etc., even anti-Musk media was commenting that Twitter was being driven into the ground.

It's about the deal. As I have a position in TWTR via an ETF, I just want the deal completed, even a reduced price. But there is one person holding that back and it's Agrawal. The board has got to grow some balls.

A) the prince of poof got his panties in a pinch and decided to buy Twitter.

Twitter's own filing has disproved this ^. Musk has even said the deal can go ahead on reduced expectation from Twitter.

https://www.wionews.com/trending/i-hereby-challenge-parag-agrawal-to-a-public-debate-says-musk-amid-twitter-row-504470

The only roadblock is Agrawal (and the woke crowd who wants to maintain controls over freespeech), BTW, I don't particularly care about the ideology of why Musk wants Twitter, I want the deal done because it represents a (minimum) 30% uplift to shareholders.

I was very specific about the 'lawsuit', but the fact you steer the discussion to 'culture war' suggests your post is more 'ideologically based'.

You were very specific about a lawsuit whose details have not been made public. And you aren't speaking ideologically. Yeah, sure mate.

Currently, he is trying to have Musk's lawsuit redacted because it would be embarrassing.

You were very specific about a lawsuit whose details have not been made public

Not made public, but has been reported on (with bullet points by the NYT) and the only reason why it has not been made public, is as I wrote, Twitter's team was trying to get more time to redact.

In any case, here it is.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22127591-musk-public-version-of-counterclaims-answer-w-cos?responsive=0&title=1&onlyshoworg=1

This is just a snippet from the countersuit:

"Just three days after signing the Agreement, Twitter restated three years of its mDAU figures because it had been double-counting certain users. Twitter failed to advise the Musk Parties that the restatement was coming before they signed the Merger Agreement."

Don't forget also, as far as TWTR shareholders is concerned, the moment Agrawal backstabbed Twiter's founder Dorsey to take over the CEO role (Nov 21), TWTR shares tanked consistently, until Musk proposed the merger (Apr 22), then TWTR shares has been rising consistently. There's what the market thinks of Agrawal vs Musk.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/TWTR:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo8_Phpbj5AhVBErcAHY-6BeUQ3ecFegQIKRAY&window=1Y

NemoAug. 7  10:57 am JST

It could move ahead with $44 billion but he hasn’t got and isn’t going to have it. Thus the fuss about the bots.

If only he hadn’t signed a binding contract without doing his due diligence first.

Damn that pesky law.....

MuskRat needs to shut-it-up. He can't always get what he wants even though he wants everything he sees.