Twitter sues Elon Musk, says he treated takeover deal like "an elaborate joke"

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 761   +1,202
Actually, no, I don't.
It doesn't even matter, documents were not for twitter lawyers to look at.
Be careful, he might be part of their legal team. That would explain why he’s here in comments court defending Twitter, tooth and nail, four replies in a row. He could sue you next if you keep saying mean things about Twitter like Musky!1
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 371   +246
While Twitter has the upper hand it is doubtful the SEC will require purchase under the original price. Their past track record on these kinds of disputes is to re-assign the price at slightly above current market. Since Musk has several run-ins with the SEC he probably won't be given any special consideration BUT if his claims of a lack of cooperation against Twitter are found true, it is possible the SEC will rule against Twitter and nix the entire deal.
What the point of signing a document agreeing to the sale if it's meaningless?
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 371   +246
The fact is, there are no good parties here. While Twitter is hitting back on Musk, it is clear that there are significant issues with the company, thus, the reason for them dragging their feet on disclosure. Artificially inflating user numbers is likely to land them with legal hot soup as well.
How do you know they dragged their feet on disclosing anything? Why would you assume Musk was asking for reasonable things? It just seems like Musk asked for something that's impossible to prove. If it was easy for Twitter to identify fake account they would just delete them.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 986   +1,489
How do you know they dragged their feet on disclosing anything? Why would you assume Musk was asking for reasonable things? It just seems like Musk asked for something that's impossible to prove. If it was easy for Twitter to identify fake account they would just delete them.

Say what? In the first place signing an intent to buy contract always contains caveat's, including giving good faith information, regulations, regulators, deal termination contingencies to the contract, etc. etc...Secondly what company doesn't try to hide its liabilities and secrets it doesn't want the public or purchaser to know. Legality be dammed when trying to sell for so much money. Let he purchaser clean up the mess. They seem to be looking for a golden parachute forcing the issue as they know twitter is a mess.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,828   +1,892
What the point of signing a document agreeing to the sale if it's meaningless?
Look, this isn't rocket science. The signed document made the sale contingent on several events. And even if it hadn't contained those contingencies, no agreement is binding if it was based on fraudulent representations. Twitter's entire valuation is based on the size of their user base. If you sign a purchase agreement for a house advertised as 10,000 square feet in size, then inspect it and find out it's only half that size, your agreement isn't binding.

How do you know they dragged their feet on disclosing anything?
Because Twitter admitted to it, both in public statements and SEC filings. Twitter's board initially claimed no "external" agency could ever verify their figures ... it took the threat of a shareholder suit to get them to change their minds.

It just seems like Musk asked for something that's impossible to prove.
But Twitter itself has been claiming it is possible to prove it -- and selling billions of dollars worth of advertising based on the claim that they had in fact proven it.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,961   +7,006
Some people are just good at seeing opportunities and prefer to drown themselves in work and success.
Some might call that obsessive/compulsive or addicted.
Claiming people with massive success have a "psychological defect" is just way off based.
What is with the demonization of success these days?
Any of the terms I mentioned are not demonization, they are classified as illnesses.

Just when is enough enough? For those addicted/obsessed, and or compulsive, having all the money in the world in their bank account would still not be enough.
 

Ohnooze

Posts: 263   +474
Some might call that obsessive/compulsive or addicted.

Any of the terms I mentioned are not demonization, they are classified as illnesses.

Just when is enough enough? For those addicted/obsessed, and or compulsive, having all the money in the world in their bank account would still not be enough.
How ridiculous. Having a high work drive is a mental disorder now...?
Some people love their work and love being successful. Some people think they are contributing to mankind with their work and find joy in that. I'm personally not one of those people. I work to provide for my family and pay the bills but I'm not so shallow minded that I'm going to call people with that success addicted, obsessed or mentally disturbed.
What is disturbing how backward we have gotten in our views. Who are you to judge or decide how much is enough for someone else? If someone wants to spend their life making money then let them at it. If you would rather sit around being unproductive then enjoy that life style. For some reason society has become incredibly lazy to the point that being successful has become bad. To those people I say "you do you". Enjoy your life but if you end up with nothing don't cry about it. Don't try to claim that the system is rigged because you would rather sit on your lazy butt and do the minimum to succeed in life. Just be happy but whatever you do stop claiming to be a damn victim and stop insulting others for their success.
 
Last edited:

Diwiak

Posts: 21   +4
Every single newsletter from Techspot contains "Musk". Iam not complaining just is he really that powerful??
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,961   +7,006
How ridiculous. Having a high work drive is a mental disorder now...?
Maybe working 24/7 is your definition of living life, but not mine. People need time off. There's a difference between having a good work ethic, and devoting so much time to work that you have no time for anything else. People who have a good work ethic make valuable contributions to society without working themselves to death and driving others into the ground or cheating others just so that they can rise to the top of the work tree and defecate on everyone else below them without giving those same "lower" people any credit for their success.
Some people love their work and love being successful. Some people think they are contributing to mankind with their work and find joy in that. I'm personally not one of those people. I work to provide for my family and pay the bills but I'm not so shallow minded that I'm going to call people with that success addicted, obsessed or mentally disturbed.
Some day, you might get it. Not everyone is that way, but some are. Like it or not, success is not all there is to life.
What is disturbing how backward we have gotten in our views. Who are you to judge or decide how much is enough for someone else?
So, you would gladly take all the fish in a pond or lake and not leave any fish for anyone else or any fish that would breed and produce food for your future?

Have you gotten the idea yet?

Or do you think that taking everything for yourself is the way to live your life. I see that as unsustainable, greedy, and not conducive to society in general.

I'm sorry you have trouble grasping the concept that once needs are met, what good does it do anyone to keep gathering well beyond those needs as what you have gathered will go to waste if kept for yourself - simply because your needs have been met.

BTW - I think you are the one who is claiming the system is rigged.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 986   +1,489
Maybe working 24/7 is your definition of living life, but not mine. People need time off. There's a difference between having a good work ethic, and devoting so much time to work that you have no time for anything else. People who have a good work ethic make valuable contributions to society without working themselves to death and driving others into the ground or cheating others just so that they can rise to the top of the work tree and defecate on everyone else below them without giving those same "lower" people any credit for their success.

Some day, you might get it. Not everyone is that way, but some are. Like it or not, success is not all there is to life.

So, you would gladly take all the fish in a pond or lake and not leave any fish for anyone else or any fish that would breed and produce food for your future?

Have you gotten the idea yet?

Or do you think that taking everything for yourself is the way to live your life. I see that as unsustainable, greedy, and not conducive to society in general.

I'm sorry you have trouble grasping the concept that once needs are met, what good does it do anyone to keep gathering well beyond those needs as what you have gathered will go to waste if kept for yourself - simply because your needs have been met.

BTW - I think you are the one who is claiming the system is rigged.

LOL wtf?
 

Ohnooze

Posts: 263   +474
Maybe working 24/7 is your definition of living life, but not mine. People need time off. There's a difference between having a good work ethic, and devoting so much time to work that you have no time for anything else. People who have a good work ethic make valuable contributions to society without working themselves to death and driving others into the ground or cheating others just so that they can rise to the top of the work tree and defecate on everyone else below them without giving those same "lower" people any credit for their success.
Never said it was my definition of living life and just because someone loves work does not mean they are hurting everyone else. That's some over dramatic stuff there.
Some day, you might get it. Not everyone is that way, but some are. Like it or not, success is not all there is to life.
I agree and I never said that I believed it was "all there was to life". In fact I said that I was not that way myself.
So, you would gladly take all the fish in a pond or lake and not leave any fish for anyone else or any fish that would breed and produce food for your future?

Have you gotten the idea yet?

Or do you think that taking everything for yourself is the way to live your life. I see that as unsustainable, greedy, and not conducive to society in general.

I'm sorry you have trouble grasping the concept that once needs are met, what good does it do anyone to keep gathering well beyond those needs as what you have gathered will go to waste if kept for yourself - simply because your needs have been met.

BTW - I think you are the one who is claiming the system is rigged.
Oh boy...this here is a mess.
So you believe that everyone would have more money if Elon didn't continue to make so much? That's not how the would works. Elon or any wealthy person for that matter does not keep others from being successful and also becoming wealthy. In fact much of their money goes back out to the public in charities, employees and so on. What you're saying is that people who continue to make money off of their hard work should give it up to the people with less drive to do so? No....no one owes you anything. If you want more then you need to go out and get it. If you don't want more then don't go out and get it. That's up to you and I 100% believe in "you do you". Whatever fit's your ideal life but don't expect to be given if you're not contributing.
And by the way the whole point was you're judging people negatively for their hard work and success. That is just wrong. You don't have to compare to those people if you don't want to, I sure don't. But stop demonizing them for being different than you. Hey I don't want to live for work either but I can respect that some people are different than me. Who am I to judge or look down on them?
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,828   +1,892
Maybe working 24/7 is your definition of living life, but not mine. People need time off
Mistake #1: To you, work is a distasteful activity, done in the minimal amount possible. You'd happily dispense with work altogether, if someone simply fed you a monthly check for the same amount. To Musk, though, and people like him, building entities like SpaceX and Tesla are much more enjoyable watching banal Netflix series while downing a few six-packs.

So, you would gladly take all the fish in a pond or lake and not leave any fish for anyone else
Mistake #2. In a free market, entrepreneurs like Musk aren't taking fish from our pond. They're adding fish to it. Economics isn't a zero-sum game. Would you like some references on the topic?