Comments by "" (@michaelhill8441) on "'The Five' reacts to Elon Musk terminating Twitter deal" video.

That's the thing, musk would have had lawyers already go through all their books before the agreed sale. If bots were a problem he should have said so before signing. If you bu a home and the day before possession you see termites, good luck getting out of the deal
9
There will be, they're suing him to force the deal through now.
6
I don't think they will. They still have users and still have an offer that's worth twice their current value. If you held Twitter stock right now you would be a fool to get rid of it.
4
Richard Sejour don't forget the FEC is investigating his initial purchase too. He didn't follow disclosure rules when buying up .ore than 5% of a corporation
4
@marilynalvarez9951 I know. I was trying to find an analogy that works. It's hard when people don't have a grasp of contract law
3
@UCKakQPadjorX9Oq-c7GNRGA it is up to the buyer to do their due diligence. Ever buy a house? The day before closing and you see termites, good luck getting out of the deal be a use you already signed.
3
@d3c0y39 if he breaks the deal 1 billion is a drop in the bucket for what Twitter could sue for
3
@marilynalvarez9951 one last thing, a home inspection is not bidning either. If the inspector missed the termites you still have those new room mates with little to no legal.recourse against the initial contract to buy the house. You could sue the inspector but you're still in that home
2
@ThePhenom777 he has a good point.
2
@earlenem5745 we ha e freedom of speech in America. We don't have freedom to lie on private platforms though.
2
@saintbees2088 that's not true. They did and musk added the bot account thing after the deal was signed.
2
No, it will be the initial contract price that he signed
2
@dennisg4053 Ann Lipton, a professor of corporate governance at Tulane Law School, said Mr. Musk’s disagreement with Twitter over spam accounts might not constitute a material breach of the deal, meaning it is a legally tenuous argument. False representations about such accounts are in and of themselves “not grounds to walk away,” she said. “They’re only grounds to walk away if they are so overwhelmingly bad that it really just fundamentally jeopardizes the economics of the deal. That’s a company material adverse effect.”
2
@marilynalvarez9951 that's the thing. The contract does not have a provision, from what I've read, about bot accounts. That was a concern he talked about after the contract was signed. Twitter was going through their subscribers in good faith for musk and have already deleted millions of fake accounts. Now musk says he wants out. That's just not how it works. He had an army of lawyers go over Twitter before the offer. Like I said, it was up to him to perform his due diligence
2
@Primus what power does a judge have to rewrite the contract they signed. That's not how the legal system works
1
@johnrobi0 bot accounts were not a part of the terms of sale. That came after the deal was signed and is not really binding as he already signed. If you sign for a home you can't come back later and add reasons for you to back out
1
@Primus sure, but what company selling would allow the purchase price to fluctuate during the sale? There are rules to takeovers that musk has already broken in this deal. His initial.purchase was illegal because you can't buy up that much stock in a company without disclosing it.
1
@classicrocklover5615 I don't see how that will matter. Musk had lawyers pour over Twitters books before his offer.
1
@MrTom1468 this is the world Republicans live in now. Laws be damned when they think they're right.
1
@max420thc no it was not. That was after the contract was signed
1
@Primus I agree. All I am saying is for me to be wrong Twitter would have had to sign the worst merger contract I've ever seen.
1
@dennisg4053 that's not true at all. How many flippers just put lipstick on a house and sell it. You buy as is. If you didn't find the termites or mold it's your problem. Unless you had and inspector. You could sue them then
1
@Primus honestly, this is pat of the reason the fang index has been seen as inflated for years now. I don't think they care about bot accounts in any social media company. They're valuation is based on the number of accounts and the average monetization of each account (think ads). There would be little incentive for them to actually police bot accounts because it brings their users down. Either way we aren't really saying anything musk didn't already know before going in.
1
@youuuuuuuuuuutube no he cannot. He can only do that if there are material changes to the deal from Twitter or third party problems like financing.
1
@MrEkzotic Ann Lipton, a professor of corporate governance at Tulane Law School, said Mr. Musk’s disagreement with Twitter over spam accounts might not constitute a material breach of the deal, meaning it is a legally tenuous argument. False representations about such accounts are in and of themselves “not grounds to walk away,” she said. “They’re only grounds to walk away if they are so overwhelmingly bad that it really just fundamentally jeopardizes the economics of the deal. That’s a company material adverse effect.” Seeing as he waved due diligence to get the deal done quicker I doubt he has a leg to stand on
1
@MrTom1468 I don't get why this concept is so hard to understand. He signed a contract and now is trying to back out for leverage to renegotiate the deal. It's legally tenuous at best
1
@pocketsand76 it was August remember. Just ask JFK Jr.
1
@ninjaturtle6106 I know, but they're allowed to, just like you can kick someone out of your business.
1
@csheets61 not another offer. This offer from musk. He is in the process of a hostile takeover which he is contractually obligated to complete. He can't back out unless Twitter tries to change the deal.
1
@Shelby Bergeross he was and alot of his followers still are. Just check out how many DeSantis followers are on Twitter. Same folks
1
@gwbuilder5779 I don't know what to tell you. Everything I have read on it says the bot reason isn't good enough to get out of the deal. Neither is the fact that the value of the stock has dropped in that time too. There was a similar lawsuit filed in France when Tiffany's the jeweler was acquired by a larger company. They tried to back out and were still forced to buy.
1
@dennisg4053 Ann Lipton, a professor of corporate governance at Tulane Law School, said Mr. Musk’s disagreement with Twitter over spam accounts might not constitute a material breach of the deal, meaning it is a legally tenuous argument. ADVERTISEMENT False representations about such accounts are in and of themselves “not grounds to walk away,” she said. “They’re only grounds to walk away if they are so overwhelmingly bad that it really just fundamentally jeopardizes the economics of the deal. That’s a company material adverse effect.”
1
Richard Sejour he does have a team of lawyers. He doesn't care. Like I said, the FEC is investigating it. That's just a fact. The reason they're investigating I stated above. It's easily found online and is another fact. I don't see where you're getting lost in this.
1
@etu4245 in this analogy the lawyers would be the inspectors right? Just an FYI before signing he waived due diligence rights to expedite the sale. This is all found easily online
1
@seroogyw6238 no
1