I think Musk is just trying to find an excuse to tank the deal without having to pay all sorts of penalties, avoiding litigation, etc. Elon Musk accuses Twitter of refusing his renewed offer at original price Musk says he made the offer at $54.20 per share or a total of about $44 billion. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/elo...sing-renewed-offer-original/story?id=91131923 Elon Musk accused Twitter on Thursday of failing to accept his restored offer to purchase the social media platform at the original price of $54.20 per share. The billionaire entrepreneur also asked the Delaware Chancery Court to halt a trial that's scheduled to begin later this month. Musk and Twitter have been embroiled in a legal battle since he made an offer to buy the platform and then decided to back out after the company allegedly did not provide him with the information he requested about bot accounts. "Twitter will not take yes for an answer. Astonishingly, they have insisted on proceeding with this litigation, recklessly putting the deal at risk and gambling with their stockholders' interests," Musk's attorneys said in a new court filing. "Twitter offered Mr. Musk billions off the transaction price. Mr. Musk refused because Twitter attempted to put certain self-serving conditions on the deal. Any statement to the contrary is a lie," Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, said in a statement. Twitter did not immediately reply. Musk said he expects the deal to close by Oct. 28: "As a result there is no need for an expedited trial to order Defendants to do what they are already doing and this action is now moot," Musk said in the filing. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
He has other risks now that come from his dicking around. I don't know where we are today or will be after the jobs report tomorrow, but about three days ago I saw that Tesla was roughly where it was in May when he made the original offer. (could be higher or lower depending on the day in May. I would have to go back) But, needless to say there are varying views about whether the market has bottomed or will be much lower by the end of this month. So, he might be suddenly ready to go because he does not want to go to trial and have the deal enforced and then have to come up with the cash through the sale of more tesla shares- if the market is down even more. That, would be a huge dicking around penalty in and of itself. If he could move on the deal immediately, as he wants, then there is a chance he could liquidate the shares somewhat close to his original expectations. No guarantees for the future though. No siree.
The choice is either to follow the Musk model and negotiate a peace. ..or the Biden plan , continue to pay for the slaughter of Ukrainians and Russians until Putin is gone from office and buy radiation pills for everybody
Everyone wants peace.Peace at what cost is the issue. Ukraine is a sovereign nation,they owe Russia nothing.
Twitter Accuses Elon Musk of "Mischief" in Response to His Request to Stop His Trial Elon Musk requested the trial between him and Twitter be removed from the court’s calendar as he plans to go forward with the deal. Learn why Twitter fought to keep the trial and what happens now. https://www.eonline.com/news/134942...-in-response-to-his-request-to-stop-his-trial Twitter may not have their day in court. Elon Musk decided to go forward with the $44 billion deal to purchase Twitter, on the grounds that the trial between him and the social media company is adjourned, per a letter sent to Twitter by Musk's lawyers obtained by E! News on Oct. 4. Musk then filed a motion to stay the trial and remove it from the court's calendar, arguing that his plan to proceed with the deal now makes the trial "moot," per court documents obtained by E! News on Oct. 6. The Tesla CEO has "agreed" to perform the obligations that were a part of the deal, and he is willing to close the transaction, which is likely to occur on or around Oct. 28. "Yet, Twitter will not take yes for an answer," the court documents read. "Astonishingly, they have insisted on proceeding with this litigation, recklessly putting the deal at risk and gambling with their stockholders' interests." Musk's side went on to argue that the trial is an "enormous waste of party and judicial resources" and that it will keep the deal from closing longer. However, Twitter wasn't agreeing to pause the trial that easily. A letter on behalf of Twitter to Delaware's Court of Chancery, obtained by E! News on Oct. 6, was written in response to Musk's request. In the letter, Twitter fought against Musk's proposed plan. Twitter said Musk has still refused to accept the obligations in the contract, has not made best efforts to close the deal and that this request is an "invitation to further mischief and delay," per the letter. Twitter said that Musk should close this deal next week, and until he does, they are entitled to their trial. However, the Delaware Court of Chancery sided with Musk for now and placed a stay on this trial until Oct. 28, as seen in court documents obtained by E! News. If Musk does not hold up his end of the deal, both sides have been instructed to receive new court dates for November.
So who is going to finance this Twitter purchase deal and why would they want to do it --- if they will lose money on the deal. Banks stand to lose at least $500m if they fund Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover Morgan Stanley and six others committed in April to raise $13bn in debt to finance the purchase – before a deterioration in credit markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/banks-loss-elon-musk-twitter-takeover Several large US and international banks would lose $500m or more if they proceed with obligations to fund Elon Musk’s $44bn takeover of Twitter, according to a report on Saturday. The banks, led by Morgan Stanley and six others, including Barclays and Bank of America, committed six months ago to raise $13bn in debt to finance Musk’s purchase – an agreement that does not hinge on whether they are able to sell the debt on to investors. According to Bloomberg calculations published on Saturday, the banks’ losses would collectively amount “to $500m or more if the debt were to be sold now”. Higher interest rates tied to efforts to bring down record inflation have led to a deterioration in the credit markets, with returns on risky junk bonds and leveraged loans surging. When the Musk-Twitter deal was financed in April, banks agreed to terms with lower yields than the market would now accept, leading to potential write-downs. About $400m of the $500m in losses that the banks are estimated to have on the Twitter debt are in unsecured, high interest bonds, and they exclude fees the banks would typically earn on the transaction. “I think that those banks would like to get out of it, I think the deal makes less sense for them now, and that the debt will be harder to syndicate to investors,” Moses Singler law firm partner Howard Fischer told the outlet. In a surprise turnaround last week, Musk abandoned his three-month effort to terminate the Twitter deal through a US court in Delaware, citing the large number of fake accounts on Twitter. By some estimates, 20% of Twitter users are fake. The billionaire boss of Tesla and SpaceX also cancelled negotiations to shave $10bn off the agreed $44bn price tag (Twitter shares have traded as much as $20 below the $54 a share agreed in April) and said he would accept the original terms of the deal. Musk told the Financial Times on Saturday that his interest in the company has never been primarily financial. “I’m not doing Twitter for the money. It’s not like I’m trying to buy some yacht and I can’t afford it. I don’t own any boats. But I think it’s important that people have a maximally trusted and inclusive means of exchanging ideas and that it should be as trusted and transparent as possible.” Twitter, however, did not immediately drop the lawsuit it is pursuing in order to force Musk into compliance. “There is no need for an expedited trial to order defendants to do what they are already doing,” Musk’s attorneys wrote in a filing. “Yet, Twitter will not take yes for an answer. Astonishingly they have insisted on proceeding with this litigation, recklessly putting the deal at risk and gambling with their stockholders interests.” Twitter said the attempt to halt the litigation was “an invitation to further mischief and delay”. On Thursday, the judge presiding over the case, Kathaleen McCormick, granted Musk’s request to delay a trial scheduled for 17 October. Musk’s attorney said they could get the deal could done by 28 October “pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing.” But some warn that there are few ways for the banks to get out of providing financing, for both legal and reputational reasons, even if that means booking substantial losses. “Generally it would be hard to have deals go forward if they were contingent on bank financing and that bank financing was not rock solid,” Fischer told the outlet. But if the deal does not close later this month, McCormick has said that she would schedule a trial for November.
Twitter Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit Accusing Elon Musk of ‘Fraudulent’ About-Face to Land a Better Deal https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-fraudulent-about-face-to-land-a-better-deal/ Billionaire Elon Musk’s repeated reversals on his plan to buy Twitter for $44 billion weren’t merely the whims of a mercurial mogul — but represented a “fraudulent” effort to secure a better deal, a federal class action lawsuit alleges. In a lawsuit filed on Monday, Twitter investor Giuseppe Pampena alleges that Musk’s fulminations about the social media giant’s “spam bot” problem were a red herring from the start. “Before agreeing to buy Twitter for $44 billion, Musk, one of the world’s richest individuals valued at $276 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, and a sophisticated businessman with a phalanx of lawyers and investment bankers, specifically agreed to waive detailed due diligence as a condition of the Merger,” Pampena’s lawsuit notes, emphasizing the disavowal in original. “At the time, Musk was well aware that Twitter had a certain amount of ‘fake accounts’ and accounts controlled by ‘bots’ and that Twitter had in fact settled a lawsuit based on the fake accounts for millions of dollars.” As the complaint notes, that litigation ended in a princely settlement of $809.5 million. “Musk had tweeted about that issue at Twitter several times in the past, prior to making his offer to acquire Twitter with full knowledge of the bots,” the lawsuit states. “Indeed, on April 13, 2022, when he sent a letter to Twitter’s Board offering to buy Twitter, he later tweeted that ‘If our Twitter bid succeeds, we will defeat the spam bots or die trying!'” The investor says that Musk leaned on the “spam bot” excuse to mitigate what the lawsuit describes as a “unique and multibillion-dollar problem”: his pledge of Tesla stock as collateral for a $12.5 billion loan to finance the buyout, causing the company’s shares to plummet by more than 37 percent. “Because Tesla’s stock was worth much less than when Musk agreed to buy Twitter, Musk was at risk of a margin call or a requirement to put up more cash,” the complaint states. “Musk quickly acted to attempt to mitigate these personal risks to himself by engaging in unlawful conduct that moved the price of Twitter’s stock down.” According to the lawsuit, “Musk’s market manipulation worked,” by driving down Twitter’s valuation by $8 billion. Shortly before trial in Delaware Court of Chancery, Musk offered to purchase Twitter at the original $54.20 per share price if the company agreed to drop the lawsuit. Twitter had originally sued for specific performance of the contract with Musk, which could have ended in a court-ordered consummation of the merger. The case is currently stayed pending completion of the deal. “Forced to face the lack of merit of his baseless positions contending that Twitter had breached multiple provisions of the Merger Agreement and that there had allegedly been a [material adverse effect], Musk essentially acknowledged that he had been bluffing all along,” the complaint states. Twitter’s stock spiked by more than 22 percent the following day. “As a result of Musk’s wrongful acts and false statements, and the precipitous increase in the market value of Twitter’s securities after the truth was revealed, plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit claims that Musk violated Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Pampena is represented by attorney Mark C. Molumphy from the firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP. Read the complaint here.
Elon Musk is under federal investigations, Twitter says in court filing https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...twitter-deal-twitter-court-filing-2022-10-13/ WILMINGTON, Del., Oct 13 (Reuters) - Elon Musk is being investigated by federal authorities over his conduct in his $44 billion takeover deal for Twitter Inc (TWTR.N), the social media company said in a court filing released on Thursday. While the filing said he was under investigations, it did not say what the exact focus of the probes was and which federal authorities are conducting them. Twitter, which sued Musk in July to force him to close the deal, said attorneys for the Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) CEO had claimed "investigative privilege" when refusing to hand over documents it had sought. In late September, Musk's attorneys had provided a "privilege log" identifying documents to be withheld, Twitter said. The log referenced drafts of a May 13 email to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a slide presentation to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). "This game of 'hide the ball' must end," the company said in the court filing. The court filing, which asked Delaware judge Kathaleen McCormick to order Musk's attorneys to provide the documents, was made on Oct. 6 - the same day that McCormick paused litigation between the two sides after Musk reversed course and said he would proceed with the deal. Alex Spiro, an attorney for Musk, told Reuters that Twitter's court filing was a "misdirection" and asserted: "It is Twitter's executives that are under federal investigation." Twitter declined to comment on Spiro's statement. It also declined comment when asked by Reuters about its understanding of any investigation into Musk. The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment and the FTC declined to comment. The SEC has questioned Musk's comments about the Twitter acquisition, including whether a 9% stake he had built up before announcing his bid had been disclosed late and why it indicated that he intended to be a passive shareholder. Musk later refiled the disclosure to indicate he was an active investor. In June, the SEC asked Musk in a letter whether he should have amended his public filing to reflect his intention to suspend or abandon the deal. The Information, a tech news site, reported in April that the FTC was scrutinizing whether Musk failed to comply with the antitrust reporting requirement relating to an investor's intentions of being a passive or active shareholder. Twitter said in June, however, that the takeover deal with Musk had cleared an antitrust waiting period for review by the FTC and U.S. Justice Department. read more McCormick has given Musk until Oct. 28 to close the acquisition. If the deal does not get done by then, a trial date will be set for November.