Elon Musk (yet another authoritarian)

[Peter Brown]

I think, like way too many other issues with you and your squad, spiking the football while in the first quarter may not be too wise in the end.

Oh, we have no doubts that Musk will save you and your pals who think company that sells its users to advertisers will see the light, and start allowing pedophiles, child traffickers, and white supremacists to tweet without (snicker) what Pete thinks is 'censorship'. And then Pete will rejoice.

Musk wants us to have a Public Square. He has plenty of money to make it happen. How do you put a price on principle?

Why is the left so terrified of a public square?

[ggait]

Bloomberg reporter nails it:

"Musk lost interest in pretending to buy Twitter."

The stock has been trading for months at a massive discount to the $54 deal price. Which means everyone, except Petey I guess, knew that Musk was a poser all along.

Twitter board had it right at first -- just say no, poison pill, Elon just go away.

[a fan]

I think, like way too many other issues with you and your squad, spiking the football while in the first quarter may not be too wise in the end.

Oh, we have no doubts that Musk will save you and your pals who think company that sells its users to advertisers will see the light, and start allowing pedophiles, child traffickers, and white supremacists to tweet without (snicker) what Pete thinks is 'censorship'. And then Pete will rejoice.

It’s awful to have differing opinions on things like vaccines.

It's awful when no matter how bad you and your fellow Commie pals want it to be true, in America, you don't get to tell American companies what they can and can't publish.

Let me know when that company of yours lets me edit its brochures, point-of-sale, and website, Pete.

(Just to let you know, you won't like what I do with this power you think is mine)

[a fan]

I think, like way too many other issues with you and your squad, spiking the football while in the first quarter may not be too wise in the end.

Oh, we have no doubts that Musk will save you and your pals who think company that sells its users to advertisers will see the light, and start allowing pedophiles, child traffickers, and white supremacists to tweet without (snicker) what Pete thinks is 'censorship'. And then Pete will rejoice.

Musk wants us to have a Public Square. He has plenty of money to make it happen. How do you put a price on principle?

Why is the left so terrified of a public square?

Why is the right so freaking stupid that they think a company that sells advertising is a "public square"?

Oh no. Pete? Be honest: do you need help with what the word "public" means?

And honestly, don't be embarrassed if you need us to help you to understand what the word "square" means.

We're here for you, Pete.

[Seacoaster(1)]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

$2-3B for it it go away…..a windfall.

[PizzaSnake]

So, a “privately” owned “public square”?

When did basic literacy disappear? Those two words are diametrically opposed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, a “privately” owned “public square”?

When did basic literacy disappear? Those two words are diametrically opposed.

Don’t tell Bandito.

[Kismet]

So, a “privately” owned “public square”?

When did basic literacy disappear? Those two words are diametrically opposed.

The ultimate oxymoron from the ultimate moron around here Petey probably still doesn't get it.

[Farfromgeneva]

I think, like way too many other issues with you and your squad, spiking the football while in the first quarter may not be too wise in the end.

Oh, we have no doubts that Musk will save you and your pals who think company that sells its users to advertisers will see the light, and start allowing pedophiles, child traffickers, and white supremacists to tweet without (snicker) what Pete thinks is 'censorship'. And then Pete will rejoice.

Musk wants us to have a Public Square. He has plenty of money to make it happen. How do you put a price on principle?

He just did by walking away after waiving typical and standard due diligence in forcing Twitter to agree to a sale in the first place. Bird would’ve been sued to kingdom come if they didn’t accept that absurd price with no due diligence requirements. He flat out lied upfront to Force Twitter to agree and hoped he’d get a free option on the company but when it became evident it wasn’t a feasible financial deal he started working to walk more than a month ago, within weeks of agreeing to a deal. His word isn’t worth anything. That’s how all future negotiations with him should be treated. Clear bad faith.

SEC doesn’t have any case on Twitters disclosures. Anyone who suggests that is fascist idiot straight up.

[Farfromgeneva]

I think, like way too many other issues with you and your squad, spiking the football while in the first quarter may not be too wise in the end.

Oh, we have no doubts that Musk will save you and your pals who think company that sells its users to advertisers will see the light, and start allowing pedophiles, child traffickers, and white supremacists to tweet without (snicker) what Pete thinks is 'censorship'. And then Pete will rejoice.

Musk wants us to have a Public Square. He has plenty of money to make it happen. How do you put a price on principle?

Why is the left so terrified of a public square?

Why is the right so freaking stupid that they think a company that sells advertising is a "public square"?

Oh no. Pete? Be honest: do you need help with what the word "public" means?

And honestly, don't be embarrassed if you need us to help you to understand what the word "square" means.

We're here for you, Pete.

When you’re driving down 75 into Fl you start seeing abortion signs and other craziness on billboards at the border. That’s where he gets this moronic “public square” concept from. The billboards..

[Farfromgeneva]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

Is guess it’s the $1bn flat or even a small discount. It’s a problem for Twitter execs to be focused on this for a prolonged period of time. Get their dough and a pound of flesh and move on with bigger existential issues they have.

Online Ad Slump Won’t Be a Blip for Google, Facebook, Others

Players in the segment are facing another tough quarter and beyond

Dan GallagherJuly 6, 2022 7:03 am ET

The combined weight of macroeconomic factors such as rising interest rates, the war in Ukraine and growing inflation took some wind out of the online ad market in the first quarter. And the situation has grown even more fraught since, with inflation alone jumping to a multidecade high in May. Snap Inc. SNAP -0.93%▼ Chief Executive Evan Spiegel said in late May that “the macroeconomic environment has definitely deteriorated further and faster than we expected,” causing the company to warn that revenue and pretax earnings for the second quarter were coming in below the forecast it gave just a month earlier.

That was an ominous sign halfway through the quarter, and Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg closed the period with a similar sentiment. In an all-hands meeting with employees last week, Mr. Zuckerberg said the Facebook META -0.76%▼ parent is slashing its engineer-hiring target for the year by 30%. He also called the current state of affairs “one of the worst downturns that we’ve seen in recent history,” according to a report by Reuters. Facebook’s ad business dwarfs Snapchat’s, and analysts currently expect advertising revenue at the social-media giant to show no growth on a year-over-year basis in the second quarter for the first time in the company’s history.

But Facebook isn’t the only one feeling the pain. Combined advertising revenue for Meta and Google-parent Alphabet, GOOG 0.72%▲ along with Twitter, TWTR -5.10%▼ Snap, Pinterest PINS -0.15%▼ and the ad segment of Amazon, AMZN -0.68%▼ is now expected to rise 9% year over year to $97.2 billion in the second quarter, according to consensus estimates by FactSet. That is a notable slowdown from the 17% growth shown in the first quarter and would be the slowest growth since the second quarter of 2020, when the onset of pandemic lockdowns caused a sharp drop in advertising for travel and other key sectors.

Individual results for all six of the aforementioned companies are expected to reflect the second-quarter slowdown, even though macroeconomic factors aren’t weighing on all equally. Google’s core search arm still makes up the bulk of its ad business and has so far proved more resilient than other segments. Thus, Google’s total ad revenue for the second quarter is expected to increase 12% year over year to $56.7 billion.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Newsletter Sign-up

Heard Alert

The first word on what Wall Street is talking about.

Facebook, by contrast, is still dealing with the impact of changes to Apple’s AAPL 0.47%▲ iOS platform last year. And TikTok’s growing clout may also be taking a bigger bite. In a report last week, eMarketer projected that TikTok’s global ad revenue will top $11.6 billion this year—up 200% from last year and surpassing Snap, Twitter and Pinterest in overall size. TikTok also competes with Google’s YouTube, which is expected to show ad revenue growth slowing to 8% year over year in the second quarter after averaging 42% over the last four quarters.

Wall Street currently expects ad growth to pick back up in the second half of the year. But with more executives and experts predicting a recession on the horizon, that prospect looks increasingly dicey. And the modern online ad industry’s resilience in a sustained global recession has yet to be truly tested.

In a report last week, J.P. Morgan’s Doug Anmuth noted that digital advertising accounted for about 12% of total ad spending in the financial crisis period of 2008-09. That compares with 67% last year, “making online spend now far more exposed to broader macro trends,” he wrote. This time, the industry will need to pick up more than a few clicks to recover.

[Seacoaster(1)]

So FFG, you think business issues will demand the Twitter board's and executives' attention in such a way as too push them to settle quickly with Musk? You may be right; but they are publicly, as of yesterday anyway, all in on the Delaware litigation route. Should be a pretty interesting fight.

Couple of interesting threads:

https://twitter.com/MorganRicks1/status ... 0457536512

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 3119720448

[Peter Brown]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

I honestly don’t think most of you follow news closely, or if you do, only those journals that make you feel better.

Try reading his lawyers letter.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex99-p.htm

I’m sure the lacrosse folks know better than Ringler. Jeebus.

[Farfromgeneva]

So FFG, you think business issues will demand the Twitter board's and executives' attention in such a way as too push them to settle quickly with Musk? You may be right; but they are publicly, as of yesterday anyway, all in on the Delaware litigation route. Should be a pretty interesting fight.

Couple of interesting threads:

https://twitter.com/MorganRicks1/status ... 0457536512

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 3119720448

Like in any situation when a counterparty appears to be in default on its obligations you have to pursue all full legal recourse but Musk is crazy and would burn money to tie them up in court. I don’t see any way a court forces performance on a $54Bn company acquisition when it could risk taking down four companies effectively (Twitter, Tesla, SpaceX and de facto subsidiary solar city). They are as intertwined (pro forma including Twitter) with leverage and common shareholding’s tied to stock secured debt it could risk 10s of thousands of jobs to force a sale as we are in a recession. It looks like a old Japanese conglomerate cross shareholding with loans from the big Asian banks like LT Credit Bank. Q1 GDP is negative officially and check the Atlanta FES forecast for Q2 which will be official in roughly a month.

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/researc ... bsite-link

Twitter has let go of senior execs already. They can’t be dealing with a suit come year end and Q1 23 given their and macro conditions. I think they get their $1Bn +/- gross net of legal costs. Around Q4 or early next year and go their separate ways. Maybe there’s a give back by Twitter to recapture some of Musks shares at a above market price as well.

Speculation but it would be an abrogation of the boards responsibilities in the current environment to pursue this for a year or more. Cant account for musk behavior from here. But I don’t see Twitter pushing this deep into 2023.

[Peter Brown]

So FFG, you think business issues will demand the Twitter board's and executives' attention in such a way as too push them to settle quickly with Musk? You may be right; but they are publicly, as of yesterday anyway, all in on the Delaware litigation route. Should be a pretty interesting fight.

Couple of interesting threads:

https://twitter.com/MorganRicks1/status ... 0457536512

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 3119720448

Like in any situation when a counterparty appears to be in default on its obligations you have to pursue all full legal recourse but Musk is crazy and would burn money to tie them up in court. I don’t see any way a court forces performance on a $54Bn company acquisition when it could risk taking down four companies effectively (Twitter, Tesla, SpaceX and de facto subsidiary solar city). They are as intertwined (pro forma including Twitter) with leverage and common shareholding’s tied to stock secured debt it could risk 10s of thousands of jobs to force a sale as we are in a recession. It looks like a old Japanese conglomerate cross shareholding with loans from the big Asian banks like LT Credit Bank. Q1 GDP is negative officially and check the Atlanta FES forecast for Q2 which will be official in roughly a month.

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/researc ... bsite-link

Twitter has let go of senior execs already. They can’t be dealing with a suit come year end and Q1 23 given their and macro conditions. I think they get their $1Bn +/- gross net of legal costs. Around Q4 or early next year and go their separate ways. Maybe there’s a give back by Twitter to recapture some of Musks shares at a above market price as well.

Speculation but it would be an abrogation of the boards responsibilities in the current environment to pursue this for a year or more. Cant account for musk behavior from here. But I don’t see Twitter pushing this deep into 2023.

Your speculation is extraordinarily one-sided.

I’d read this letter to get a less biased opinion.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex99-p.htm

In a courtroom brawl, the choice below is easy:

Skadden Arps, Quinn Emmanuel, and Morgan Stanley

Or

Wilson Sonsini, Simpson Thatcher, and Allen$Co.

[Farfromgeneva]

Stupid I read filings all day and night.

He’s in breach it’s patently obvious. It’s just a game of chicken now. Both have a lot to lose but he can’t walk away clean.

But some idiot here who’s repeatedly providing a letter as advocate for the defendant in the pending suit seems to believe they know better while yelling at others that they don’t know better.

Just a moron. It’s very clear some people actually don’t know anything about the real world.

[Seacoaster(1)]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

I honestly don’t think most of you follow news closely, or if you do, only those journals that make you feel better.

Try reading his lawyers letter.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex99-p.htm

I’m sure the lacrosse folks know better than Ringler. Jeebus.

I posted the Skadden letter earlier in this thread, you complete ninny. And I’m a lawyer. Jesus, you really are the dumbest rock on the planet.

[Kismet]

When you read these boards, it’s a good reminder why the framers established the Senate.

: Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. :

The folks commenting on the Musk Twitter deal have no understanding of the complexities nor negotiations, yet seem entirely confident making statements like ‘Musk will pay a $billion’.

If you’d allow for the smallest amount of humility to admit you actually don’t know the situation and these are simply guesses, it wouldn’t be as cringe as it is. But because the FLP are always so sure of themselves when they know absolutely nothing about an issue, it reminds me that the framers knew enough about the mob to fully distrust the mob. They were of course correct, and you can read these boards to understand why.

Musk will sue for the company’s negligence and fraud. He remains the single largest shareholder. He may end up with the company at a lowered price. He may pay to leave. He might become a board member. He might exert influence even without buying the company in full. Maybe he’s already exerted the influence he sought (Berensen is back). Maybe the SEC investigates Twitter for manipulating data. Maybe advertisers demand more transparency on bots. Maybe the business model is impaired as a result.

We don’t know is the issue. Unless you’re on his legal team, or the company’s, you’re just guessing.

The purchase agreement allows Twitter to seek the termination fee or seek specific performance of the deal terms: in other words, they can compel Musk to close the deal on those, now disadvantageous terms. The Delaware Chancery Courts act fast and do on occasion issue orders of specific performance.

I don't know if Musk has any real contractual basis for getting out of the deal; economic change is not a reason that a court would let him sail away free. What is "the company's negligence and fraud"? Or are you -- wait for it -- making stuff up again?

Did Twitter misstate something in a material document? Here is Musk's lawyer's letter to the Twitter Board:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12C2Kgi ... ZIdR6/view

It is a litany of "stuff we asked for and didn't get" about the performance of the platform and the folks that occupy it. Frankly, it seems a little tenuous as a basis to cancel the deal. If I was betting now, I'd bet there is a flurry of interesting litigation, followed by a payoff somewhat in excess of the $1 billion termination fee.

I honestly don’t think most of you follow news closely, or if you do, only those journals that make you feel better.

Try reading his lawyers letter.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex99-p.htm

I’m sure the lacrosse folks know better than Ringler. Jeebus.

I posted the Skadden letter earlier in this thread, you complete ninny. And I’m a lawyer. Jesus, you really are the dumbest rock on the planet.

Per Mrs Gump - "Stupid is as stupid does"

Your ninny characterization of our resident troll is IMHO a nuclear understatement. At least, was your jaw clenched as you wrote it?

[Farfromgeneva]

Fact is he waived standard DD and he’s challenging their public filings and notes with no basis in fact and no right to their proprietary models. It’s like in markets: can the market be wrong longer than one can stay solvent?

Can Twitter afford a full on 2-4yr battle over this? Can Elon get away with stringing it out without causing him harm in his own pursuits and will markets accommodate given how levered his personal equity is (highly illiquid guy)? Will financiers trust him or will he start to be considered a “bad borrower” (fifth “C” of credit is character and has been for 50yrs) at a time when banks will be retrenching?

He created a sh*Tahoe for no reason other than ego and will have to pay the cost of doing so. Just how much can he minimize or reduce his exposure by fighting and creating a nuisance for Twitter?