Elon waived his right to due diligence when he first made the offer to buy Twitter, so backing out of the deal by arguing a lack of due diligence is very funny.
> 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.
This argument is a sleight of hand. Nobody has claimed that Musk waived his right to information from Twitter. What he waived was his right to diligence, which is the right to information along with the discretionary right to terminate the deal based on it. What he waived was the ability to do anything with the information absent an (impossible to obtain) MAE discovery.
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.
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.
He independently reviewed the covenants, representations and warranties of the Company but there could still be an issue if those representations (by the Company) were falsified or fraudulent.
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.
Well based on the termination letter it looks like they are claiming it is deliberate since the number of known-spam accounts (blocked accounts) were not subtracted from the reported total user count.
The notice of termination said that Twitter has violated Section 6.4 and 6.11
> 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".
Right, but theres a lot of nuance in those sections because they are taken in combination with 5.11 that I posted. In other words, if hes seeking information needed for financing then its fair game. If its to perform "due diligence" or to verify financials for his own edification and/or to build a case for pulling out then thats less kosher.
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.
Perhaps, the actual language of the deal is written in legalese and providing a clear interpretation is valuable? I've certainly been in meetings with lawyers that my company specifically engaged for their ability to provide an interpretation of a contract in clear language. Now, nobody paid the GP to provide that interpretation, but it seems silly to pretend that it's invalid to speculate on the interpretation of a contract when there is an entire profession specialized in the minutia of similar activity.
That misses the point. The question was whether the "clear interpretation" was actually accurate. In other words GP's interpretation might simply be wrong.
> invalid to speculate.
Then say that you are speculating instead if claiming it as the truth.
Oh, have you never dealt with lawyers? There are usually multiple valid interpretations of a contract, depending on what side you are on. I didn't claim to be an oracle of truth, I'm not even tangentially related to this case (as I suspect 99% of the commenter here are).
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.
> Well if that's your definition, I'd go so far as to say 'well-written' contracts don't exist.
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?
Language is imprecise so I'd argue it is basically impossible to create a contract with zero ambiguity.
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.
> 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.
They posted an opinion, not interpretation... The part before the opinion as simply for context.
> 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.
From what I understand, the sticking point is the total bot count,
and since ElMu can't produce a trustworthy/reliable bot count which differs from Twitter's (meaning, he can't defend his claims),
he appears to be switching to attack, trying to get data on how Twitter produces their counts, even though he can't convincingly articulate any issues with either it or the result.
The sticking point is that he put an offer in when the company was worth twice what it is today, so now he’ll try anything to wriggle out of his commitment
Yes its public, just as this letter is. Notice that they dont refer to any specific section of the agreement in this portion of the statement, unlike the other references they make to the agreement.
I suspect Musk violated these terms himself:
> Parent will use its reasonable best efforts to minimize any disruption to the respective business of the Company and its Subsidiaries that may result from requests for access under this Section 6.4 and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein
When he made a public m spectacle of the requests for users, etc and publicised data.
>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; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Company or any of its Subsidiaries to disclose any information to Parent or Acquisition Sub if such disclosure would, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, (i) cause significant competitive harm to the Company or its Subsidiaries if the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are not consummated, (ii) violate applicable Law or the provisions of any agreement to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party, or (iii) jeopardize any attorney-client or other legal privilege. No investigation or access permitted pursuant to this Section 6.4 shall affect or be deemed to modify any representation or warranty made by the Company hereunder. Each of Parent and Acquisition Sub agrees that it will not, and will cause its Representatives not to, use any information obtained pursuant to this Section 6.4 (or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement) for any competitive or other purpose unrelated to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Parent will use its reasonable best efforts to minimize any disruption to the respective business of the Company and its Subsidiaries that may result from requests for access under this Section 6.4 and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Company may satisfy its obligations set forth above by electronic means if physical access is not reasonably feasible or would not be permitted under applicable Law as a result of COVID-19 or any COVID-19 Measures. Prior to any disclosure, the Company and Parent shall enter into a customary confidentiality agreement with respect to any information obtained pursuant to this Section 6.4 (or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement).
Yes they knew, and they've been saying so for ages. They disclose it in their SEC reports. It doesn't matter.
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.
It seems to me that he could've, as a board member, said loudly (and publicly!) that the experience for high-follower, highly active accounts sucks, and they would've had to listen
after he complained about his access to their API, they additionally provided him with access to their Firehose, which is essentially a stream of all their data
what did musk's filing say about that? any complaints?
They’re not claiming a lack of sue diligence, they’re claiming fraud. Which is different. They’re saying they’re lying about the numbers. Which would be fraud.
There aren't claiming fraud, there are claiming breach of contract. Including, among other things, by failing to maintain operations in the regular course of business because of, I kid you not, allowing some senior officials to resign.
(It's true some of the many other things that are claimed to be breaches relate to alleged failure to fulfill obligations to provide information that Musk supposedly wanted to determine if other claims that has been made were fraudulent, but that's different than alleging fraud.)
> It says in the first paragraph about making misleading representations.
It says that after, and modified by, the phrase “appears to have”.
Musk’s lawyers are saying that Twitter actually breached the agreement. They are saying it looks like Twitter may have done other bad things, too, but that's not the same as claiming that Twitter actually did the other things.
> Secondly, the ceo was firing aka asking for resignations from key people, no?
The separately call out people being forced out and people resigning. Absent something not in the letter, the former is a much more reasonable, on its face, complaint.
And “appears to have” is lawyer talk for “we don't know that this occurred and can't prove it and absolutely want to make clear that we will not be accountable for claiming it actually happened.”
It's also lawyer talk for “we’d like the recipient/reader of the document to think it happened, but we don't want accountability, e.g., in the case of a document intended to be made public, for defamation.”
They are claiming breach of contract, and that it looks to them like lying which, if it did happen, might be fraud, but they can't tell, in part because part of the alleged breaches is Twitter not giving them information that might clarify whether the other claims were true or not.
Musk's lawyers are too scared to point out what they are lying about though and where they got that information cause if they did point it out it would destroy Musk's allegations.
It's not about being scared so much as it is about professionalism.
Accusing someone of lying is in effect an accusation of bad faith. An accusation of bad faith is a serious matter, and if you play too freely with it, then you're engaging in bad faith yourself. [1]
The concept of misrepresentation is in a grey area that may or may not have a component of bad faith (see for example the concept of "fraudulent concealment" in courts of equity,[2] the test for which includes a finding of misrepresentation, and note that "fraud" in equity is, confusingly, not at all the same concept as common law fraud), so it's a much more intelligent accusation to make in court unless you have highly probative evidence. [3]
> They’re saying they’re lying about the numbers. Which would be fraud.
But they've been sending the SEC these same numbers calculated using the same methodology since 2013, right? If they were materially adverse circumstances, you'd imagine that someone would have caught this in the last 9 years...
Also, Musk routinely knowingly confuses DAUs and normal users. Twitter claims 5% of daily active users are bots, but Musk complains about how many of his followers are bots, when clearly many of those wouldn’t be DAUs.
Not only that, but monetizable DAUs, which is basically an advertising metric consisting primarily of folks whose only actions on a given day might just be "checking my feed, liking a couple posts", and from which fake users are likely already removed without there being a strong reason to shut down their accounts. Whatever ad impressions those users get don't get billed to advertisers, and there's no strong motive to shutting them down if they haven't published anything contravening Twitter's policies...
I can't get to the end of that thread without the Signup nag taking over the whole window and obliterating the content. Tried half a dozen times. Finally got there via an Incognito window (though still don't see Musk's response).
So Twitter tagged my device with a cookie specifically meant to keep me from viewing users' content. How's that support their mission statement, "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers"?
It's not in my interest, or that of their users. The only benefit is to their bottom line, and I'd argue tactics like that do more long term damage than good. Certainly doesn't make me want to sign up or log in.
They have said, our bes guess is 5%, but the accuracy is limited by these factors, and we make very little promises that it is correct.
Besides, Musk has been complaining about bots for a long time, and has made it clear he doesn't believe the 5% number way before the acquisition. If the 5% number was a sticking point for him, he could have demanded due diligence. He did not demand that, thereby waiving his rights.
The SEC isn't being asked to address anything, it's being informed that Musk is moving to drop the merger which was something SEC had to be informed about the same way that it had to be informed of the merger plans, as I understand it.
Fraud is not enough. It has to be fraud bad enough to cause a materially adverse effect, which means it would have to seriously impair the value of the business.
Which is why it's not fraud --- Delaware has effectively never finds MAEs. The premise of him walking away is his (utterly specious, but perhaps practically effective) claim that Twitter breached the acquisition contract by refusing to live up to its information covenants.
It’s not that subjective anyone using twitter still sees spam accounts promoting a website, business, product, or scam on every post. Twitter just said they remove 1M spam accounts each day. Their mDAU is claimed to be around 200M. This means they are deleting around half a percent of their users every single day. That seems like a lot to be identifying to me, but doesn't really determine if they are deleting enough or not but does show me that being higher than 5% is very possible when you have to delete that many accounts every 10 days.
I’m not saying they are. I’m saying that they are banning enough bots to make up 5 percent every 10 days. With that amount of bots being banned, the possibility of that amount also being missed from being banned is substantial.
Right, but Twitter's method of counting the number of daily active users, meaning the number who are seeing ads, which is what the SEC report refers to, was allegedly designed to exclude most bots. Perhaps it's wrong, but they never said 5% of accounts are bots (far more are).
Twitter's SEC filing: "In making this [mDAU] determination, we applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated."
Neither side said bots, but bots _should_ be a subset of "false or spam" accounts. They basically used "our judgement" and give themselves complete discretion. And 5% is a nice round number plucked from nowhere which sounds awesome! Providing proof of that to a Banker or Backer (or Elon or a future Jury) isn't therefore possible or intended. It's marketing spin in an SEC filing.
> but bots _should_ be a subset of "false or spam" accounts
Do you mean "they should report all bots as part of their false or spam accounts number", or that you believe logically bots are in fact a subset of the number twitter reports, and so twitter's number is bogus if 50% of all accounts are bots?
If it's the latter, you're missing the point of their mDAU marketing metric. It already has all the obvious bots and non active accounts removed. They're saying, what % of advertising revenue turns out to be from bots.
If you have proof that twitter is > 50% bots, you should give that evidence to Musk. Or, give it to an attorney that's eager to see Twitter's board go to jail for putting false data in SEC filings.
But Twitter said that the number was provided on a best effort basis, so you don’t need to prove the number was wrong. rather, you need to prove that Twitter tried to lie. Unless there’s an internal email saying “I’m making up the number 5% because we know it’s higher but we don’t want to write that,” it doesn’t matter at all. If such an email existed, Twitter wouldn’t be fighting the back-out because revealing that email would mean damages for existing shareholders.
>i know i am screaming into a well here but a very bad thing is people going around saying that elon musk "waived due diligence" and so can't bring up the bots thing.
…
>the reason that elon musk can't get out of the deal over the bots thing is not that he "waived due diligence." it's that he SIGNED A BINDING AGREEMENT TO BUY TWITTER, and that agreement does not have any outs for "i think there are too many bots."
The due-diligence-waive thing isn't really relevant according to Matt Levine, who has been pretty consistent about this for months (see the thread @ https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1545151445057536001). A couple of choice tweets here:
"""
the reason that elon musk can't get out of the deal over the bots thing is not that he "waived due diligence." it's that he SIGNED A BINDING AGREEMENT TO BUY TWITTER, and that agreement does not have any outs for "i think there are too many bots.
"""
... and ...
"""
yes i know that this is a small petty thing. but part of my point is that even if he had demanded extensive due diligence, and done it, and then signed the agreement, we'd be in the same place. the waiver or not of due diligence doesn't matter; what matters is we're past that.
"""
I don't know how the legal system works,
but his argument sounds valid to me.
“My offer was based on Twitter's SEC filings being accurate,”
Willfully filing fraudulent SEC filing is a crime - and if Twitter has been engaging in criminal behavior to artificially increase their value - I would think Musk has a good case.
> Willfully filing fraudulent SEC filing is a crime - and if Twitter has been engaging in criminal behavior to artificially increase their value - I would think Musk has a good case.
Ignoring whether this is a legitimate reason to back out of the agreement, Musk hasn't shown that Twitter has been filing fraudulent SEC filings so what does it matter anyway?
"In the merger agreement, Twitter promised to do certain things between signing and closing, and it has to do those things, whether or not there would be a material adverse effect from not doing them. So if Musk can prove that Twitter hasn’t complied with its obligations, he can get out of the deal."
So far Musk has provided no evidence that the SEC filings on bots are false and he's basically just making repeated unnecessary requests trying to force Twitter into being "uncooperative". I find the notion that the deal should be terminated based upon that pretty ridiculous. The article you linked seems to agree with me.
Regardless, Musk is making a lot of claims. Let's see if he can provide any reasonable evidence of those claims and make any reasonable arguments that will be accepted in court. There's really no point in speculating anymore. Now we just need to wait to see if a judge is actually buying his arguments.
> It matters because that will probably be one of the deciding factors should this eventually be assessed in court.
Musk has _not_ provided any evidence of fraud. I'll wait until he actually does before speculating as to how decisive it will be in any future court proceedings.
As Matt Levine explained [0] the “waiving due diligence” doesn’t really mean anything now. What does mean something is that he signed a binding agreement to buy Twitter, giving Twitter the right to compel him to close the deal, and there’s no “too many bots” exception, nor a “you were wrong (or even lied) about something you said” exception. He has to prove that it’s a “material adverse effect” which I understand is nearly impossible (he’d have to convince a Delaware judge that the company is worth at least 40% less than stated because of this, and in practice it seems these suits almost never succeed).
I absolutely love that fact that this tweet happy individual might actually get slapped for just tossing out tweets. Not sure if $1B would make him squirm or not, but even for billionaires, $1B is an expensive twitter rant.
Where are you guys getting this number from? Similar cases have settled for almost the full original amount. Like 95%+. Not half or less than half. Are you just making stuff up?
They’re saying that if everyone just did what they agreed to do:
- Musk would give Twitter shareholders $44B in cash,
- Twitter shareholders would give Musk ownership of the company.
Note that today, Twitter is worth $28B.
So the agreed deal essentially gives the shareholders $16B in profit.
So a judge might tell Musk he can’t back out and has to buy Twitter for $44B like he said he would.
Or it might let him just give the shareholders $16B and not get the company.
Typically, if you want to distribute money to each and every shareholder you pay them dividend. Must would only need to wire money to Twitter corporate account first.
idk. the fact that the price had already sunk nearly 40% from his price over this period could clearly indicate that his assumption isn't without merit.
I guess if public investors 100% believed Musk would pay, the stock should sit at $44 billion. I guess if Musk is forced to close or to pay equivalent damages, the value will jump back to that in the end.
I'd say the tech sector getting routed played a bigger part. It's not like Twitter dropping 40% (for any reason) is exceptional amonst all the other stocks that dropped 20-60% over the last year.
If the share price is lower than $54.20, it’s because the market doesn’t believe the sale will be completed. The difference between $54.20 and the current share price represents the probability of the transaction falling through.
Twitter has done nothing to impede the transaction, so any uncertainty (and thus decline in TWTR share price below $54.20) is due to the actions of the buyer, who is… Elon Musk.
Therefore, Elon is responsible for any decline in the share price since the purchase agreement was signed.
Matt Levine has a take down of the supposed bot problem. Basically Elon not only waved due diligence, he signed a binding agreement to buy Twitter, and the bot talk is irrelevant. Even if there’s a problem, Musk should have addressed it before signing an agreement to buy the company.
Reading Matt I realized there's another layer, which is Musk has complained about the bot problem for a while - heck, one could argue that he bought Twitter not only fully knowing (according to him) it has a bot problem, but he intended to _fix_ the problem.
The letter doesn't cite the bot problem directly, but instead Twitter allegedly failing to live up to it's obligation to give Musk info, which he wanted regarding the bot problem. (And a bunch of other alleged breaches.)
The agreement have a massive out; yes it doesn't matter what Elon thinks about the bots but if his financier think bots are an issue he gets an out since Twitter for some reason let a financing clause in.
You mean Musk agreed to buy Twitter contingent on financing and now is trying to torpedo his own financing after he himself agreed to the sale? There's a lot of talk of fraud in the comments here, but to me _that_ sounds like fraud on Musk's part.
In any case, I guess we'll have to see if Musk's financing really gets pulled and if that really means Musk is off the hook.
Can twitter agree to release him from the agreement? For a fee? I know he has a $1B penalty but I didn't think that covered this current situation. Perhaps Twitter would be willing to forget the whole thing for $1.5B
And note Musk did a great deal of damage to the company. On hearing that he wanted to change the character of the company; that he was going to lay off a huge number of people; that he was going to make existing employees work much harder... many of the best and brightest left.
Musk himself has addressed this, saying that the waiver is null and void if the data supplied to the SEC by Twitter is fraudulent. I can only assume he believes that is the case.
>>First, although Twitter has consistently represented in securities filings that “fewer than 5%” of its mDAU are false or spam accounts, based on the information provided by Twitter to date, it appears that Twitter is dramatically understating the proportion of spam and false accounts represented in its mDAU count. Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%.
> the waiver is null and void if the data supplied to the SEC by Twitter is fraudulent.
Look at said SEC filing. It is worded in a way that is impossible to prove fraudulent with the kind of data Musk asked for. He could have proof positive that he is the only human account on Twitter and the Twitter SEC filing would likely not be construed as lying - it very explicitly states that it is a judgment call by the Twitter execs, based on some internal methodology, and that the real number could be higher.
The only way you could prove they lied to the SEC would be if you found emails that say something along the lines of "to the best of our knowledge, 20% of mDAUs are actually bots/spammers, but let's say 5% in our SEC filing".
They have to be not only fraudulent but fraudulent to the point of having a "materially adverse effect" on the value of the company. Delaware courts rarely (almost never) find this to be the case.
