5 ms·
IANAL, but I think it makesMore sense if you separate it into: 1. due diligence as a buyer (contract) to review additional information, ask questions etc 2. u
by throwoutway 4y ago
IANAL, but I think it makesMore sense if you separate it into:
1. due diligence as a buyer (contract) to review additional information, ask questions etc
2. using public information to purchase as an investor (he was) for a public company regulated by SEC
I think the claim is not that he has the right to #1 (he didn’t) but that #2 was false and has been false.
No idea if contract laws let #2 get him off the hook though
- cyanydeez 4y agoAll that matters, against musk, is that however twitter claimed to count it's users was infact, how they counted. Musk wanted to invent some means to count users in an effort to demonstrate fraud. But that's not fraud. Just because musk provides an alternate means to count users, doesn't demonstrate fraud. Full stop. Unless he proves that they didn't count the way they claim, he has not claim. Waiving he due diligence clause is what makes his claims a non issue.
- throwoutway 4y agoI was not defending Musk, just trying to explain what he might be “thinking”. I see you’re point though. I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud?
- blitzar 4y ago> I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud? They could know the formula was wrong - inherently every measurement is wrong to some extent which is why you see a +/- error, that is not fraud. For it to be fraud, they would need to measure it in the way they claim to, get a result they dont like, and report it as <5% anyway (with intent to defraud people). Which could happen in theory, but seems highly unlikely.