> Despite public speculation on this point, Mr. Musk did not waive his right to review Twitter’s data and information simply because he chose not to seek this data and information before entering into the Merger Agreement. In fact, he negotiated access and information rights within the Merger Agreement precisely so that he could review data and information that is important to Twitter’s business before financing and completing the transaction.
Is the merger agreement public?
The obvious legalese thing to do in Musk's buyers-remorse situation is to use the information rights to make demands so unreasonable no acquiree can reasonably honor them, which is exactly what he seems to have done here.
Copying a previous reply I've made on this:
Section 5.11 ("Parent" and "Acquisition Sub" is Musk, "Company" is Twitter):
> Each of Parent and Acquisition Sub has conducted, to its satisfaction, its own independent investigation, review and analysis of the business, results of operations, prospects, condition (financial or otherwise) or assets of the Company and its Subsidiaries. In making its determination to proceed with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including the Merger, each of Parent and Acquisition Sub has relied solely on the results of its own independent review and analysis and the covenants, representations and warranties of the Company contained in this Agreement
So, in essence:
1) Musk has been afforded the opportunity to address any concerns he has with Twitter
2) Any concerns of Musks have been satisfactorily resolved by Twitter
3) In determining said satisfaction, Musk is relying on his own judgement and analysis, and is not relying on any analysis by Twitter.
If you are buying a bank under these same terms and the bank represents that they have $X in deposits, then it turns out that they actually have $X/2 in deposits are you saying the transaction should also be forced to proceed?
Is it meaningfully different here because X is # real users rather than dollars?
First, so far its not an argument that the data is "falsified or fraudulent". Its merely that the data is incorrect. Theres a very big difference, and the 10-Q claims are so measured and non-committal that its very hard to even find anything that could be construed as falsified/fraudulent. The claims themselves even go ahead and say it might not be right, even implying they have a significant likelihood of imprecision due to the methodology employed.
In order for the claims to be falsified/fraudulent, you would have to have actual deliberate lying and coverups to get there. In other words, they found 20% but _intentionally still put 5% even though its a made up metric that they can just move the goal posts on_. It just doesn't make any sense to do that and, in my opinion, is _extremely_ unlikely to be found during discovery.
Second, if the argument being made is that he thinks its higher than 5% _and isnt arguing deliberate fraud_ then the clause I pasted above absolves Twitter because it says Musk has been afforded the opportunity to fact check it and has no reason to debate the accuracy of the claim.
> Section 6.4 Access to Information; Confidentiality.
> Upon reasonable notice, the Company shall (and shall cause each of its Subsidiaries to) afford to the representatives, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, accountants and financial advisors (“Representatives”) of Parent reasonable access (at Parent’s sole cost and expense), in a manner not disruptive in any material respect to the operations of the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries, during normal business hours and upon reasonable written notice throughout the period commencing on the date of this Agreement until the earlier of the Effective Time and the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Article VIII, to the properties, books and records of the Company and its Subsidiaries and, during such period, shall (and shall cause each of its Subsidiaries to) furnish promptly to such Representatives all information concerning the business, properties and personnel of the Company and its Subsidiaries as may reasonably be requested in writing, in each case, for any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement;
> Section 6.11 Financing Cooperation.
> (a) The Company shall and shall cause its Subsidiaries to, and shall use its commercially reasonable best efforts to cause each of its Representatives to, at Parent’s sole expense, provide any reasonable cooperation reasonably requested by Parent in writing in connection with (i) the arrangement of the Bank Debt Financing and any other debt financing expressly contemplated by the Bank Debt Commitment Letter...
This argument is saying that Twitter is not holding up it's end of the Merger Agreement by not providing (sufficient/useful) information and not cooperating with debt financing (by not providing information). They give examples like rate limits on developer APIs etc.
So the kernel of the question is: is Twitter providing information to the satisfaction of Merger Agreement?
I don't know the answer to that, but if is "no", would that be grounds for terminating the deal? That seems a bit extreme to me. To me a reasonable ruling would sound something like "Twitter has X days to provide all the information requested and then Musk has to perform the purchase".
Its important to keep in mind that until he actually owns Twitter, the current management needs to still operate with an assumption that he may not end up owning Twitter. If they have reason to believe it would harm Twitter financially to give information to him in terms of him using it to undermine them later, or if it would impact business operations today, then they don't need to give it to him under these agreed upon terms.
More broadly I think its important that theres a clear distinction between pre-merger-agreement information requests and post-merger-agreement information requests. An analogy I've made before is that imagine you have 2 offers for your home which you list at $100k. You receive two offers: one is for $100k with no inspection contingency and one is for $100k _with_ an inspection contingency. All else being equal, you will always take the no inspection contingency. Now imagine one is $100k with no inspection, and the other is $500k with an inspection. Some percentage of people will take the $500k offer because they have _paid a sufficient premium for the future uncertainty of consummating the deal_ as well as _the likelihood of renegotiation if anything comes up_. This is extremely relevant to the Musk/Twitter agreement because Pandoras box has already been opened once the agreement goes public. It would be an unfair negotiation to try and _reopen_ negotiation based on things discovered in a _new round_ of "due diligence" analysis. If you wanted that right, you need to pay for it.
> invalid to speculate.
Then say that you are speculating instead if claiming it as the truth.
This is a legal matter, and often it comes down to which side argues their case better. It isn't code where there is only the factual interpretation as seen by the compiler; law takes into account the fuzzy human interpretations that often frustrate programmers. Ultimately, this contract will be enforced by the courts in whichever side makes a better case.
Note that this may mean that even if Elon is in the wrong by canceling, the court may find in his favor simply due to the potential economic fallout. Sucks, but if law was a cut and dried thing we would have eliminated lawyers long ago.
Do you believe it's not possible to draw up clear contracts with clear meanings? Do you believe that if you just take any contract and pay a lawyer some money, they can argue whatever? In that case, what's the purpose of drawing up a contract at all?
Resolving that ambiguity is an important function of law and I'd go so far as to say the primary function of the court system. I do believe that if you pay a lawyer enough money you can probably find one willing to argue what you want although you may not win.
They posted an opinion, not interpretation... The part before the opinion as simply for context.
Someone else gave their opinion.
If you disagree, then say why.
If you want that evidence, then go get it yourself.
> 1. Information related to Twitter’s process for auditing the inclusion of spam and fake accounts in mDAU.
> 2. Information related to Twitter’s process for identifying and suspending spam and fake accounts.
His principle activity is influencing. The main sticking point of the proposed merger is information on how Twitter polices fake accounts. Nothing suspicious about this at all. Reminds me of the time a wolf was interested in buying my farm, and mainly wanted to know when my dog was chained up and how long the chain was exactly.
Yes [1].
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522...
It outlines the fraud allegations:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922...
Either way, I am laughing at all of them. (Yes. Elon also played the fraudster role as well)
What matters is that Elon has a bad time when he goes on Twitter because he is bombarded by bots and spam.
If there were only 3 bots on Twitter, they would all be bombarding Elon. If there were no bots on Twitter, he would still be bombarded by spam.
I guess you can't really use "I'm tired of my personal experience being terrible on Twitter" to raise money to buy Twitter, or to keep your fanboys engaged, or whatever Elon is thinking.
Personally, I think "I'm tired of my personal experience being terrible on Twitter" would have been a very honest way for him to approach the whole matter.
I also think that it is very natural for people to feel a threat or emotion or anger and then pin that on an external actor or actors, when it's something that they feel inside themselves.
what did musk's filing say about that? any complaints?