Musk endeavours

[murraypaul]

Musk's current pinned Tweet: "USA birth rate has been below min sustainable levels for ~50 years"

Turns out he is doing his bit to reverse that, with his own employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ivon-zilis

Elon Musk fathered two children in 2021 with Shivon Zilis, a top executive at his artificial intelligence company Neuralink, new court documents show.

[odysseus2000]

Musk's current pinned Tweet: "USA birth rate has been below min sustainable levels for ~50 years"

Turns out he is doing his bit to reverse that, with his own employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ivon-zilis

Elon Musk fathered two children in 2021 with Shivon Zilis, a top executive at his artificial intelligence company Neuralink, new court documents show.

Impressive that he runs all these big companies, sleeps on the productions lines as required and still managed to have this affair leading to twins.

Musk and Zilis must have wanted this information out in the public domain as it seems to have remained off the public agenda since the birth in November and has only just come to light following the court application to name the children. Presumably Musk was listed on the birth certificate as the father but this remained confidential within the US birth register.

As is there are apparently 9 children (one daughter has disowned him) but if split equally his $225b would give each $25b. Always good for children to choose wealthy parents!

The fear for investors is that ugly things may emerge from currently unknown activities, that could damage him and/or his standing causing him to have to resign or otherwise compromise his position. It would not be good for investors in his companies if Musk was to get multiple knives in the back from the folk who sit on his boards like the Prime Minister has had from his cabinet colleagues.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

The world’s first electric timber truck has been delivered in Sweden, and it can haul 80 tons

- https://electrek.co/2022/07/07/electric ... ck-sweden/

[BobbyD]

The inevitable has happened, closely followed by the inevitable:

Elon Musk terminates attempt to buy Twitter, citing ‘multiple’ problems

- https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon ... 19247.html

Twitter says it will make Elon Musk buy it – even though he doesn’t want to

- https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/twit ... 19258.html

[Breelander]

Well, that went well......

July 8, 2022

Twitter, Inc.
1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103

Attn: Vijaya Gadde, Chief Legal Officer

Dear Ms. Gadde:

We refer to (i) the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings II, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. dated as of April 25, 2022 (the “Merger Agreement”) and (ii) our letter to you dated as of June 6, 2022 (the “June 6 Letter”). As further described below, Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement because Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement.....

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

[Gilgongo]

But but but, Twitter says they are still committed to closing the deal at the agreed-upon price (which is huge) and will now take legal action to enforce the agreement.

I would add that I wouldn't be surprised if "real" accounts on Twitter (however that's actually defined, which I guess will come into any lawsuit) are far lower than they like to make out.

[Gilgongo]

It was their opinion that Musk was experiencing some sort of buyers remorse (probably due to falling share prices) and looking to find excuses to pull out of the deal.

Did he think that once he signed the deal, their share price would go up, when in fact the opposite happened? But if his reasons for the purchase were to impose his "free speech" intentions, I'm not sure why he would be a overly concerned with that. Perhaps he realised that social networks do not respond well to pat solutions or dogmatic interventions, and the prospect of becoming the very public focus of an infinite number of unintended consequences wasn't so appealing after all?

[Hallucigenia]

he has to face the consequences. Perhaps the world's richest man thinks the rules dont apply to him.

No, it's just that you're not looking in the right place.

He sold $8.5bn of Tesla shares with the justification that "it was for Twitter".
Even if he has to pay Twitter $1bn of penalties, he's still $7.5bn up.

Normally it would spook the markets for someone so associated with a company on a...toppy...valuation to be selling shares in that quantity.

Instead, because it was perceived as nothing to do with Tesla, the sale has not affected the Tesla price and so its $780bn valuation, and the $120bn value of his remaining stake, remain intact. Meanwhile he now has $7.5bn (less tax) in the bank, maybe $8.5bn if his lawyers are better than Twitter's lawyers.

Job done.

[odysseus2000]

There are some strange ways of looking at this.

If we consider Tesla valuation, then by any standards the company in hugely undervalued. Look at the p/e & peg. So to sell Tesla shares when it is so undervalued makes no sense. Musk’s brother sold a bunch of shares when the price was much higher.

Twitter board now has a huge problem. They initially did what ever they could using poison pills to stop the acquisition, until their lawyers pointed out that not acting in share holder interest negates all the protection offered by limited liability, so they then pushed hard to complete, except they have not released all the data that Musk asked for. This has the makings of a class action suit of investors asking for substantial damages as the Twitter board has not done what was requested by the potential purchaser. Added to that is the actionable fact that Twitter appear to have understated their bot users & potentially other metrics too. The Twitter board can not now accept a lower offer with out a class action suit against them for failing to get the higher offer. Meanwhile who now wants to own Twitter stock? No one & that means any fund needs will come with high prices if anyone will lend them money.

The Twitter board made a huge blunder in banning Trump, playing politics with their shareholders money & now comes a set of painful consequences.

Regards,

[Gilgongo]

The Twitter board made a huge blunder in banning Trump, playing politics with their shareholders money & now comes a set of painful consequences.

While Musk wanted to un-ban Trump, play politics with shareholders money, and now realises those things may have painful consequences for him too.

They're both as bad as each other. Personally, I hope Twitter dies.

[odysseus2000]

The Twitter board made a huge blunder in banning Trump, playing politics with their shareholders money & now comes a set of painful consequences.

While Musk wanted to un-ban Trump, play politics with shareholders money, and now realises those things may have painful consequences for him too.

They're both as bad as each other. Personally, I hope Twitter dies.

This is incorrect.

Under the Musk plan any legal opinion would be allowed irrespective of whether Musk liked or hated it.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

he has to face the consequences. Perhaps the world's richest man thinks the rules dont apply to him.

No, it's just that you're not looking in the right place.

He sold $8.5bn of Tesla shares with the justification that "it was for Twitter".
Even if he has to pay Twitter $1bn of penalties, he's still $7.5bn up.

Normally it would spook the markets for someone so associated with a company on a...toppy...valuation to be selling shares in that quantity.

Instead, because it was perceived as nothing to do with Tesla, the sale has not affected the Tesla price and so its $780bn valuation, and the $120bn value of his remaining stake, remain intact. Meanwhile he now has $7.5bn (less tax) in the bank, maybe $8.5bn if his lawyers are better than Twitter's lawyers.

Job done.

Twitter played Musk like a fiddle.

By announcing a massive defensive push, and feignting at enacting regulations which would prevent any one entity from owning more than 15% of the company, and inviting him on to the board but with an rffective gag clause, they triggered his sense of entitlement and turned what was going to be a loud and disruptive activist shareholder in to a big fish on the line for their entire not exactly issue free company.

Musk explicitly turned down the option of due diligence, and the contract he signed contains a specific performance clause. He's even on public record stating that his reason for buying the company isn't financial!

Twitter aren't after the $1 billion break fee, they will be pursuing a court order for the $44billion Musk signed up to paying them for their company.

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
By announcing a massive defensive push, and feignting at enacting regulations which would prevent any one entity from owning more than 15% of the company, and inviting him on to the board but with an rffective gag clause, they triggered his sense of entitlement and turned what was going to be a loud and disruptive activist shareholder in to a big fish on the line for their entire not exactly issue free company.

Musk explicitly turned down the option of due diligence, and the contract he signed contains a specific performance clause. He's even on public record stating that his reason for buying the company isn't financial!

Twitter aren't after the $1 billion break fee, they will be pursuing a court order for the $44billion Musk signed up to paying them for their company.

It isn’t the Twitter board’s company. No one on the board owns a significant stake.

The job of the board is to look after shareholder interests and they have not done this.

If this goes to court the Twitter board will likely end up in the slammer.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

It isn’t the Twitter board’s company. No one on the board owns a significant stake.

The value of Dorsey's shareholding if the deal completes is quarter of a billion dollars higher than it was immediately before the bid was announced. I'd take that for a couple of days work.

Musk's deal also allows the board to unwind their holdings without any of the problems caused by also being on the board, which Musk is becoming intimately familiar with.

The job of the board is to look after shareholder interests and they have not done this.

They've sold Twitter to Musk for far more than it is worth, there is literally nothing they can do which is more in the shareholders' interests than holding him to this deal.

[odysseus2000]

It isn’t the Twitter board’s company. No one on the board owns a significant stake.

The value of Dorsey's shareholding if the deal completes is quarter of a billion dollars higher than it was immediately before the bid was announced. I'd take that for a couple of days work.

Musk's deal also allows the board to unwind their holdings without any of the problems caused by also being on the board, which Musk is becoming intimately familiar with.

The job of the board is to look after shareholder interests and they have not done this.

They've sold Twitter to Musk for far more than it is worth, there is literally nothing they can do which is more in the shareholders' interests than holding him to this deal.

No, Dorsey left the board, he is now just a private shareholder,

When Musk made his bid the Twitter board refused arguing that it greatly under valued Twitter which had been much higher before the bid came in. Which is it? Did Musk's bid under value Twitter or did the Twitter board deliberately produce fraudulent information?

Twitter board have behaved like idiots in all of this & are in huge trouble.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

When Musk made his bid the Twitter board refused arguing that it greatly under valued Twitter which had been much higher before the bid came in. Which is it? Did Musk's bid under value Twitter or did the Twitter board deliberately produce fraudulent information?

The only person shown to have broken securities law so far is Musk, who failed to disclose that he had exceeded the 5% level in the proscribed time, and continued buying at the suppressed price.

Having finally fessed up, Musk insisted he was going to be a passive shareholder and didn't want to increase his stake, since when he has accidently bought the company for $44billion for 'non-financial' motives and then tried to back out of the deal on financial grounds, having ceded his right to due-diligence along the way and signed a contract with a specific performance clause in it which Twitter will sue to have enforced- and all because the Twitter board made out they didn't want to get bought by Elon.

[odysseus2000]

When Musk made his bid the Twitter board refused arguing that it greatly under valued Twitter which had been much higher before the bid came in. Which is it? Did Musk's bid under value Twitter or did the Twitter board deliberately produce fraudulent information?

The only person shown to have broken securities law so far is Musk, who failed to disclose that he had exceeded the 5% level in the proscribed time, and continued buying at the suppressed price.

Having finally fessed up, Musk insisted he was going to be a passive shareholder and didn't want to increase his stake, since when he has accidently bought the company for $44billion for 'non-financial' motives and then tried to back out of the deal on financial grounds, having ceded his right to due-diligence along the way and signed a contract with a specific performance clause in it which Twitter will sue to have enforced- and all because the Twitter board made out they didn't want to get bought by Elon.

Well if this is the case It is a slam dunk & Musk buys Twitter, but in reality I have more odds of winning the lottery.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

When Musk made his bid the Twitter board refused arguing that it greatly under valued Twitter which had been much higher before the bid came in. Which is it? Did Musk's bid under value Twitter or did the Twitter board deliberately produce fraudulent information?

The only person shown to have broken securities law so far is Musk, who failed to disclose that he had exceeded the 5% level in the proscribed time, and continued buying at the suppressed price.

Having finally fessed up, Musk insisted he was going to be a passive shareholder and didn't want to increase his stake, since when he has accidently bought the company for $44billion for 'non-financial' motives and then tried to back out of the deal on financial grounds, having ceded his right to due-diligence along the way and signed a contract with a specific performance clause in it which Twitter will sue to have enforced- and all because the Twitter board made out they didn't want to get bought by Elon.

Well if this is the case It is a slam dunk & Musk buys Twitter, but in reality I have more odds of winning the lottery.

Regards,

Feel free to disprove anything i posted, i linked to sources for all of it previously in this thread.

[BobbyD]

When Musk made his bid the Twitter board refused arguing that it greatly under valued Twitter which had been much higher before the bid came in. Which is it? Did Musk's bid under value Twitter or did the Twitter board deliberately produce fraudulent information?

The only person shown to have broken securities law so far is Musk, who failed to disclose that he had exceeded the 5% level in the proscribed time, and continued buying at the suppressed price.

Having finally fessed up, Musk insisted he was going to be a passive shareholder and didn't want to increase his stake, since when he has accidently bought the company for $44billion for 'non-financial' motives and then tried to back out of the deal on financial grounds, having ceded his right to due-diligence along the way and signed a contract with a specific performance clause in it which Twitter will sue to have enforced- and all because the Twitter board made out they didn't want to get bought by Elon.

Well if this is the case It is a slam dunk & Musk buys Twitter, but in reality I have more odds of winning the lottery.

Regards,

Feel free to disprove anything i posted, i linked to sources for all of it previously in this thread.

To which end you might find this useful.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... c283119_80

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to quote great tracts, but try searching for specific performance and due diligence.

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
To which end you might find this useful.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... c283119_80

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to quote great tracts, but try searching for specific performance and due diligence.

All of this stuff is public domain & it has made no difference. To get some ideas of will happen one has to look at overall facts & extrapolate within the known law. US securities law primary focus is to protect investors & with all the available information it is clear that the Twitter board have a case to answer & so one can expect shareholder class action suits against the Twitter board.

Obviously I do not know what will happen, but as the deal is currently off, the Twitter board had better find some good reasons why none of this is their fault. If they have overstated business matrix they have no limited liability protection as that is fraud.

Regards,