9 ms·
More precisely, securities fraud.
by FerociousTimes 4y ago
More precisely, securities fraud.
- behnamoh 4y agoIs there any hope that this time he will pay for his shenanigans?
- dylan604 4y agoWe've had the Teflon Don, now we have the Teflon Elon. 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.
- XorNot 4y agoThe counter point here is that the Twitter board is not poor, and the incentives to force the buyout (or at least extract more money from Musk) are huge.
- dylan604 4y agoYes, and they are the side I'm cheering for in this match. Even if Musk is forced to pay, I doubt it will slow his twitter tirades down. In fact, I'd expect him to come out harder to prove whatever his little ego thinks needs to be proven.
- bardworx 4y agoIsn’t the entire breakup clause contractually written in? 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?
- dylan604 4y agoWhat reads like simple English to you or I does not get read the same way by lawyers. Once lawyers are involved, all reasonable logic goes out the window in my perspective. Ever since what "the definition of 'is' is", my whole outlook on lawyers was just obliterated.
- bmitc 4y agoNot for sure why you're downvoted, because you're right. Lawyers do not operate on logical basis. They operate on interpretations of logic. I found this out when buying my house. Interacting with the lawyers was completely miserable because they live in their own little world. They expected me to just know things that they would poorly specify, requiring several emails to clarify, and then when I would point out mistakes, logical inconsistencies, or poorly defined things in the contract, they would just shrug it off or sort of grudgingly fix them, seemingly just to appease me. Then they would just dig their heels in the ground about what the contract "says" because the contract "says so", even though it made no logical sense. Because the contracts aren't what they say logically. They say what they say based upon a sort of colloquially agreed upon interpretation of them. Lawsuits then center around this colloquial agreement and not around the contractual logic. It's an excruciatingly frustrating world to be introduced to. I wish to never have to deal with lawyers. > 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?
- dylan604 4y ago>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-the-meaning-of-is.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/09/bill-clinton-and...
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
- elliekelly 4y agoI legitimately think removing Musk’s account from the platform entirely might be their best bargaining chip to actually get the deal to go through.
- beagle3 4y agoThey just reinstated Alex Berenson, apparently in a complete win for him (details are not yet public) Removing musk account, if they do thAt, might backfire spectacularly.
- elliekelly 4y agoHow might it “backfire spectacularly”? What could Musk possibly do to harm Twitter any further?
- lazide 4y ago“I said, ‘What are you going to do, stab me?’” - Stabbed man
- unity1001 4y agoNot Musk but his gigantic fan base on Twitter would.
- beagle3 4y agoApplying unrelated leverage between two parties is usually not looked at favorably by court. And court is likely where the musk/twitter thing will be settled.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThough it's weird to me that it's fine to sell stock just because you want to, but pretending you didn't want to could qualify as 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.)
- drc500free 4y agoIntent is the core issue of most white collar fraud.
- Dylan16807 4y agoI'd say that's because harm (and reliance) is usually easy to prove.
- bardworx 4y agoFrom my understanding, US law is based on King George III, which inherently requires intent to be proven. 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent
- canucklady 4y agoMens rea is a necessary but not sufficient component of proving a criminal charge - the defendant intended to break the law. Actus reus is also required, which is actually doing the act. 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.
- bardworx 4y agoYes, I agree with you and I should have worded my comment better. 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.