In regard to the #Twitter vs #Musk legal action, Musk's claims about spam are irrelevant.
> Either way, note that the supposed breach of this clause (which again, does not appear to have actually been breached) is what the attempted termination, and thus the lawsuit, is actually about. Musk has to show that he requested information that was necessary for completing the deal and that Twitter didn’t give it to him.
> Twitter just has to show that (1) it gave him what he asked for and (2) anything it didn’t give him either didn’t exist or in Twitter’s estimation was either not necessary for consummating the deal or could be abused by Musk.
> Note that “how much spam is on the platform” doesn’t even remotely play into any of this.
@lxo I think #Musk's offer was more than the company is worth, so they fear shareholder lawsuits if they don't pursue it.
I also think they're going to get billions of dollars out of him in order to let him walk away. In turn, if someone else wants to buy, the new buyer will have to pay for the fact that #Twitter will have X billion dollars in the bank.
> “This is really Musk reading the room that with a weak case going into Delaware, the chances that he's going to have to acquire Twitter are increasingly getting higher,” Dan Ives, a managing director at Wedbush Securities, attested to The Daily Beast.
This is another sign that Elon Musk is not suited to run any publicly traded companies. Investors could try to sue over his implied promise not to sell more stock if the price tumbled as a result of this sale.
Elon #Musk finally backs out of the deal to purchase #Twitter, citing unresolved questions about #bots and #spammers.
> "I'd say Twitter is well-positioned legally to argue that it provided him with all the necessary information and this is a pretext to looking for any excuse to get out of the deal," said Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane Law School.
Now, I don't know whether this person has expertise in contract law and has read the agreement, so I cannot guess as to the result of the legal battle that will come out of this.
> In a filing, Musk's lawyers said Twitter had failed or refused to respond to multiple requests for information on fake or spam accounts on the platform, which is fundamental to the company's business performance.
> "Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement," the filing said.
I suspect it is because they reminded him that as a board member, he would have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of all shareholders, not just himself, and that he could face restrictions on what he could say & write.
Sure, the 14.9% cap probably also bugs him. I just don't think that was enough to dissuade him. While the fiduciary duty is something he may have had trouble with in the past.