July 4th: https://openargs.com/oa610-elons-twitter-deal-was-a-complete...
May 12: https://openargs.com/oa595-shareholders-sue-twitter-alleged-...
Here is the brunt of why they think the deal won't go through: because it is difficult to prove extent of damages and because innocent third parties (the banks partnering with Musk) would be adversely affected, the courts will be disinclined to trigger the historically rare 'specific performance' to compel the merger. They believe a more likely outcome is Musk will instead be compelled to pay the $1 billion but a decade-long legal battle will ensue over it.
While it is an interesting listen, I wish they provided more substance for their conclusions especially since they're running counter to most other debate I'm seeing. Third parties aside, I fail to understand how legally the courts cannot pursue Musk's personal assets for the full amount. But I'm not a lawyer and haven't read the purchase agreement in detail.
Since it would take forever, it's much more likely the two sides settle or give up before they run out of legal tricks.
Something like "Twitter lied, actually 15% of active users are bots, not < 5%" would never count. But "Twitter lied, 85% of active users are bots, the advertisers found out, they stopped buying ads, and now Twitter has been faking revenue numbers to cover it up" would count.
It's hard to stress enough just how far Musk is from showing a Material Adverse Event, even if his wildest suspicions about the number of bots on Twitter are true (...not that it seems likely they are, mind you).
Musk never intended to buy Twitter. The objective was to expose Twitter as the propaganda machine it is.
Edit: Typos.
The true magnitude of the bot problem is exposed in court. Twitter is exposed for not only lying to Musk, they're also now in trouble for lying to the SEC (for years) and by that same token, lying to investors and advertisers.
Twitter stock crashes to an unthinkable low, DWAC buys it all up.
It’s like buying a house after famously visiting it every day for several years running, seeing all the faults with your own eyes, telling everyone you were going to fix the faults, and even trying to humiliate the sellers for not having built the house to your standards in the first place.
Edit: typos
The number of bots on Twitter has always seemed like a boon of an issue to me. Twitter wants to keep it's user/engagement numbers up and bots do help them. I can 100% understand why they've taken a soft approach to it, even if I find it ethically questionable.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who's engaged with Twitter, or knows a reasonable amount about it has known about this problem for many years. I find it hard to believe that Elon wouldn't have been well aware of this upfront.
---
The part of your simplification that I take issue with is, "[...] that the seller had hidden." IMO - everyone in town knows that house has building code issues, but, no one really knows the exact extent. Unfortunately, these same building code issues are likely keeping the building standing.
The seller has a gray-area "issue" that is on the fence between "feature" and "bug," and the buyer is using it as leverage to pull out of a deal they're on the hook for.
OMFGBBQ ?
Oh My F&&&&ing God Bar-B-Q ?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=omgwtfbbq%21
So if you say "I went into this deal thinking twitter had no bots and OMFGBBQ there are bots" then twitter are going to say "look at our numerous filings on bots and why not actually go on twitter at all you can see there are bots" and therefore no material breach. He has to show somehow that the failure to provide him with complete and accurate information somehow makes the deal materially worse than he could reasonably have thought going in. And that's pretty hard to prove. I believe Delaware has been very reluctant to find material breach in these sorts of circumstances. (eg even if he was to somehow prove that the bot problem was 100x worse than twitter's public statements I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prove an actual material breach given the difference in ad revenue between "lots of bots" and "hella bots all over the place" is probably not material and he knew the revenue number going in).
My expectation is he wants to make it painful enough for them in court and on social media to drop the breakup fee but they have seen for ages that he was likely to attempt this and would be sued to hell and back by other shareholders if they drop the fee and therefore will strap themselves in for a fight.
[1] I'm definitely not a lawyer but I have been involved in a few M&A situations and have been advised on this kind of thing by pretty good lawyers a couple of times.