https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
It also does not make sense to do this kind of fraud, as Tesla stock will surely tank on the news of it being used as a collateral in an acquisition deal.
Elon Musk announcing some M&A news with the intent of effecting price changes in TWTR,TSLA securies would be pretty boring, vanilla securities fraud.
And that seems to be what the concern boils down to? The issue of whether he defrauded twitter is a separate thing. (Though I'm inclined to say no, because twitter came at this in a very skeptical and careful way, and normal fraud requires fooling someone into material loss.)
The $1B penalty for backing out of the Twitter deal is the least of Musk's concerns.
The fact that it’s trading lower means that investors don’t expect the deal to go through. And who exactly as been doing his best to very publicly bring the deal into question? Elon Musk.
Why does that matter? Musk agreed to buy Twitter for $44 billion. If he comes through, that's the value of Twitter. If he doesn't, then the value is something else. The difference between $44 billion and fair market value is just the expectation of investors that Musk really will pay. So yeah the drop really _is_ due to Musk trying to back out of the deal. If Musk weren't backing out of the deal, then then Twitter's value shouldn't drop regardless of the fact that the rest of the market has.
In other words, US law judges by intent vs actual action/damage.
One example of this is: Credit Card Fraud is prosecuted based on max possible theft vs money stolen.
US law doesn't "judge by intent". If you try to murder someone but you don't succeed, you don't get charged with murder.
To keep with the murder example, intent is what separates 3v2, in most states. Yes, a crime was committed but was the intent to cause bodily harm vs actions causing bodily harm, without intent.
If he entered into that contract with no intent to honor it...
He didn’t waive his right. He just opted not to do any before buying.
I'm sure he'll be able to weasel his way out of this. He'll spend a crap ton of money to lawyers just to be able to say he doesn't have to pay for it, but he's still paying for it on a smaller scale and not in public. Anything to put up another W on the scoresheet.
Removing musk account, if they do thAt, might backfire spectacularly.
- Stabbed man
From my understanding, the current choice is:
1. Does Elon get sued by Twitter to force sale, per the initial agreement, where Elon agreed to allowing Twitter to force a sale.
2. Does Elon just pay the billion separation clause and walk away.
Do you see it differently?
Is there a different version of the doc than listed above? I couldn’t find any revisions and it sure seems that there are options available to Musk.
In all other cases, Elon has committed to give them $44B in exchange for the company.
There’s quite a bit about separation, sections 7 & 8
Ever since what "the definition of 'is' is", my whole outlook on lawyers was just obliterated.
> Ever since what "the definition of 'is' is", my whole outlook on lawyers was just obliterated.
Is that in reference to something? Got a link or an article or something?
Very much yes[0]. It was one of the defensive lines from Bill Clinton. I was still in high school during this, and it set me on a very bad path of thinking how to twist anything and everything anyone ever said. After all, if the pres can do it, then we should all be able to do it.
[0] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/09/bill-clinton-and...