Twitter just hired a big-name law firm to sue Elon Musk for dropping out of $44 billion takeover bid, report says

Lol. Keep on coping, dude. Repeating the same stuff with a few ad hominems thrown in won't do it.

shilling? for who twitter? you think twitter pays people to go to bs conspiracy sites and try and sway public opinion about the twitter / musk deal??

you glp tards think any person who says shit that triggers you is a shill

and you dumb fucks think there are shills for EVERYTHING... you think there are twitter shills trying to shit talk musk... that it... and what would be the point? what would twitter get?

morons, all of you

Think about it, on sheer business principal and the possibility of future suits from advertisers you have to have accurate figures or else you become liable for fraudulently mis-representing your companies financial position to both clients , users and stock holders.

Shilling is touting for someone. I wouldn't have thought anyone would actually pay you. Braindead liberal is how you come across. You think you're so smart in your own little head. No logic or reason. I don't think you can try any harder.

Moran? Look in the mirror, fool. I'm out.

HEY DUMB FUCKS

twitter and musk BOTH agreed if either walks, there's a billion dollar breakup fee

"Musk and Twitter agreed to a so-called reverse termination fee of $1 billion when the two sides reached a deal last month. "

yeah as he lays off employees and is worried about a recession and tesla is no longer the biggest seller of EVs and everyone keeps flipping him shit about is failed timelines of delivering the products he promises and said his car factories are like money burning furnaces

he seems fine

companies do this all the time

big name financial companies sell and trade stocks amongst one another to make it seem like their businesses are more profitable then they are

musk lies all the time about all the new products tesla and his companies will be producing and delivering, and that inflates his stock

every time he is on a stage he says "we will have auto taxis this year and they will make you X amount of money" " we will have self driving trucks and they will save and make you all money" "we will have FSD out next year" which he has siad for 8 years

musk has lied and hyped his companies and claimed they are doing much better then they are and are going to release new products every year that never seem to materialize

meanwhile tesla stock rose to being so overvalued even musk said it was overvalued

Who is "they"?

We're not talking about advertising a new flashy product.

We're talking about misleading advertisers about potential sales and selling advertising space based on those fake numbers.
Fraud.

Gee, that must be the end of it then. Case closed. I am sure that is the only line of the contract and it was written up on a napkin by the likes of you.

who said that was the end of it?

that was what musk and twitter agreed to if either side backed out

now they are gonna go argue about it in court, the thing they both agreed to

who said that was the end of it?

that was what musk and twitter agreed to if either side backed out

now they are gonna go argue about it in court, the thing they both agreed to

right, or like going on stage in front of a semi truck and telling the world Tesla will have self drivinig semis in a year or self driving taxis or Full Self Driving teslas or an AI robot in 3 months... and the stock prices go up, but none of the promised products ever come out

fraud

elizabeth holmes 2.0

There is significantly more to the agreement than you are trying to present, yet like Twitter, for some reason you want to fail to disclose those material facts to interested parties.

Say this does go to court , Twatter will be seen to have artificially elevated gains to potential advertisers and it's own board through fake participating numbers.

Bots don't buy product.

So the pandoras box will be opened and all advertisers could sue.

The stock market purchases in your instance were a voluntary gamble on the stock market , that's what the stock marked is all about.

Mis-representing a product, deliberate embellishment of numbers for profit in a business market and not the gambling stock exchange is fraud.

It's like telling Sony when selling your company to them , that you have 10,000 users and selling that , for Sony to then find out you only had a thousand at best.

Fraud.

Do those who currently own the company have an interest in keeping the number of actual bots hidden from view, because the value of the company for people who are using a microblogging platform to influence political opinion and manufacture consensus has a certain unstated worth that cannot be fully disclosed in honest negotiations with an interested buyer who has no intention of using the company in that manner; and do the current owners have an interest in keeping that function of the platform viable for future use by keeping it secret from that type of buyer, in case the merger falls through?

Would the company have a different value for someone who wanted to actually use the platform for its supposed, stated reason for existence as a microblog that is dependent merely on advertising dollars for revenue, as opposed to dark money?

Would it constitute a materially adverse change when someone of the second category seeks to purchase a company based upon numbers that are given by those in the first category, who hide the true nature of the level of bots and the dark money that they currently dependent upon, for legal as well as potential future financial reasons, in case the merger does not go through, and the buyer finds out that the projected worth of the company is significantly less, as they plan to use the company for its actual legitimate intended purpose, because the actual amount of true users is far less; and the value of the stock begins to tank because those who hold the stock based upon their knowledge about how the company is used by the first category decides that the company may lose money because of the true difference in value between category A and category B?

you think that AC has details to a contract that other people don't?

everyone has the internet

Material breach and material adverse effect. You might want to familiarize yourself with those concepts.

Nope. But not everyone has common sense.

misrepresenting a product, so like claiming you will have full AI robots in 3 months. Or a hyperloop that is just a tunnel with cars in it. Or deliberately putting up numbers about how much money investors will make and save when purchasing auto taxis or auto semis. And those misrepresentations drive stock prices up.

It's like Tesla telling customers and investors they will be able to make and save money by investing in AI taxis or semis, only to find out the semis and taxis are no where ready to roll and are just cgi graphics or models and won't be available as promised any time soon, and the stock prices go up but no products are delivered.

Fraud.

But he didn't try to sell his company on that.

Advertisers embellish all the time for all sorts of products, but when they go to sell that company they'd better not mis-represent their stock.

Fraud.

Advertising and a Companies actual worth legally are two very different kettles of fish.

you might want to familiarize yourself on how often judges award material adverse effect cases

"Elon Musk’s attempt to walk away from his $44 billion Twitter Inc. buyout will turn on a three-word phrase that’s sometimes asserted in busted mergers—but rarely passes muster with judges.

“Material Adverse Effect”

So far, Delaware courts have found only one case in which a clear MAE emerged—Fresenius SE’s $4.3 billion buyout bid in 2018 for rival drugmaker Akorn Inc.

The adverse effects here are neither short term, nor foreseeable, and quite frankly get right to the heart of a problem that the left is always complaining about, "threats to our democracy." It's a special case, and will require special attention.

it's not special at all. It's a standard contract dispute.

he didn't try to sell his company every time he stood on a stage promoting some future new product for his company that was gonna change the world and save and make everyone money?

every time he is on a stage pushing some new future product for his company, he is selling his company and promoting his brands, that's why it drives the stock up because people think the things he is promising to deliver will make his companies worth more and are a good investment

Promoting and selling products you know you don't have and are not ready to pump your stock value = Fraud. just ask Travis Milton and Elizabeth Holmes.

Why weren't advertisers asking some of the same questions that Musk was asking? That is a mindbender, in and of itself. Is it because it would have hurt their woke-scores?

Your argument is mute anyway , we're talking about Twatter not Musk's companies actions.

Some time in the future if Musk sells his actions may be called to account.

But this case is predicated on Twatters lack of disclosing key aspects of their company as per agreement,
not some fortune telling and mind reading of Musks intent.