Elon Musk Exposes the Hatred of Free Speech

[BrownFlush]

Funny how a lot of the far left pretend to be more moderate just before an election. Then quickly revert if they are elected.

Bill Clinton was/is the best at it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What does that have to do with the legality of backing out of the contract to purchase?

Umm... because contract law is civil. If he's done anything wrong the penalty will be better to just pay rather than lose billions going forward with buying a company at his original offer that was made based on a fraudulent valuation. Twitter is the party that's committed criminal acts by lying about how many users were actually bots and overcharging for advertising.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Sounds like he’s using contractual language to get out. Contracts are legally binding.

Yes, meaning the escape clauses are legally binding too. SMH.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What if Twitter was in breach of that contract?

They are. They lied to pump up the value of the company. Contracts entered into under fraudulent circumstances are void.

 

[UnionStrong]

They are. They lied to pump up the value of the company. Contracts entered into under fraudulent circumstances are void.

The argument is that Musk should have done his due diligence while negotiating, before making an offer. Any merit?

 

[oldngray]

They are. They lied to pump up the value of the company. Contracts entered into under fraudulent circumstances are void.

Looks like the SEC will hammer Twitter regardless of what happens with Musk.

 

[UnionStrong]

Looks like the SEC will hammer Twitter regardless of what happens with Musk.

We can only hope

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Maybe they were. Just pointing out that walking away isn’t necessarily an option simply because he rethought his incredibly high offer.

His offer was based on fraud on Twitter's part. Contracts entered into under fraud are void. There are always ways to get out of contracts, it just comes at a price.

 

[oldngray]

His offer was based on fraud on Twitter's part. Contracts entered into under fraud are void. There are always ways to get out of contracts, it just comes at a price.

Musk can easily afford the buy out cost but he might be able to walk away without paying anything.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The argument is that Musk should have done his due diligence while negotiating, before making an offer. Any merit?

His due diligence required Twitter's full disclosure. They lied. That's fraud.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Musk can easily afford the buy out cost but he might be able to walk away without paying anything.

He should and some people at Twitter should face prison.

 

[UnionStrong]

His due diligence required Twitter's full disclosure. They lied. That's fraud.

Don’t they audit the businesses books before an offer? If he discovered it now, why not before?

 

[oldngray]

Don’t they audit the businesses books before an offer? If he discovered it now, why not before?

It sounds like they tried to cook the books and gave him false information.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Don’t they audit the businesses books before an offer? If he discovered it now, why not before?

Twitter is a publicly listed company. Musk was using the numbers Twitter was providing to it's stock investors.

Turns out they were lying to them.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Don’t they audit the businesses books before an offer? If he discovered it now, why not before?

Finances don't keep track of user data. They knew they were lying and culpable. They also knew they couldn't turn down the offer, so they tried to use a NDA to keep Musk silent on the user data, but that didn't work. NDA's don't apply to criminal activity. Whistleblower laws protect people who expose criminal activity, supposedly.

 

[bbsam]

His offer was based on fraud on Twitter's part. Contracts entered into under fraud are void. There are always ways to get out of contracts, it just comes at a price.

Right. But he has to prove the fraud. Not sure how easy that is.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Right. But he has to prove the fraud. Not sure how easy that is.

No he doesn't. Prosecuting crimes is the prerogative of the Executive branch. He just needs to show they lied and their valuation was inflated as a result, which has already been proven.

 

[bbsam]

No he doesn't. Prosecuting crimes is the prerogative of the Executive branch. He just needs to show they lied and their valuation was inflated as a result, which has already been proven.

No. Twitter will sue for breach and Elon will have to show cause.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

No. Twitter will sue for breach and Elon will have to show cause.

Showing cause is not the same level of proving fraud. He's not the prosecution. It's already proven they lied, and their value has dropped since that happened. What else is there to show? Sounds like cause to me.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Right. But he has to prove the fraud. Not sure how easy that is.

They provided data with number of users estimating how many were bots.

Musk found out that the bot estimate was based on a random sampling of 100 accounts. One hundred. There are over 300 million accounts. That's arguably fraud, they purposefully did not want to "know" the actual number.

Twitter was not happy he revealed their scam:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525615849167589380