3 ms·

>He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. Yes, and the interveni

>He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. Rejecting a purchase where there's a hidden defect is not flip-flopping, the fact that you can't see the obvious weakness of this example is telling. btw, where's the statement that Elon said that he would not be firing most of Twitter? Again, that seems to be a much better example.... if you can provide it. But maybe you can't?

dragontamer 4y ago
> Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip You are running away from this point. So I'll go focus on this one thank you. Because you know the Twitter buyout has more waffles and flip flops than you care to defend. BTW, the contract waived Elons right to research Twitter's books. Suddenly, after signing the contract, he flip flopped on that point too.
nemothekid 4y ago
>Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. This does not make Elon look any better. Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. The first intent to buy was incredibly unusual in the first place because he did not ask for any due-diligence. If I tell you I will buy your car, no questions asked, and then show up and start complaining about the headlights, that is flip-flopping. It's why the whole thing went to court. Do you really think normal M&A doesn't include due-diligence? Regardless, the "hidden" issues were a scapegoat. It is far more likely that he wanted to backout because the entire tech sector crashed and 44B was now an insane premium (SNAP, which was worth ~30B at the time is now 15B).
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. Really? He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? That seems very unlikely to me.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? Yes. This was a huge deal, I don't know how you missed it. It's also why no one believed he could get out of it. That's why he had to tried sue to cancel the deal instead of just, cancelling the deal? It wasn't even clear that if he managed to prove TWTR had misled investors that could cancel the deal. [1] https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblower-acquisition-due-diligence-security-spam-bots/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblow... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-team-suboptimal-twitter-legal-battle-2022-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-...
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Nitpick: Twitter sued for Musk to finish the deal. You got it backwards but your point is otherwise solid.

dragontamer 4y ago

> Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip You are running away from this point. So I'll go focus on this one thank you. Because you know the Twitter buyout has more waffles and flip flops than you care to defend. BTW, the contract waived Elons right to research Twitter's books. Suddenly, after signing the contract, he flip flopped on that point too.

nemothekid 4y ago

>Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. This does not make Elon look any better. Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. The first intent to buy was incredibly unusual in the first place because he did not ask for any due-diligence. If I tell you I will buy your car, no questions asked, and then show up and start complaining about the headlights, that is flip-flopping. It's why the whole thing went to court. Do you really think normal M&A doesn't include due-diligence? Regardless, the "hidden" issues were a scapegoat. It is far more likely that he wanted to backout because the entire tech sector crashed and 44B was now an insane premium (SNAP, which was worth ~30B at the time is now 15B).

yanderekko 4y ago
>Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. Really? He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? That seems very unlikely to me.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? Yes. This was a huge deal, I don't know how you missed it. It's also why no one believed he could get out of it. That's why he had to tried sue to cancel the deal instead of just, cancelling the deal? It wasn't even clear that if he managed to prove TWTR had misled investors that could cancel the deal. [1] https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblower-acquisition-due-diligence-security-spam-bots/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblow... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-team-suboptimal-twitter-legal-battle-2022-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-...
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Nitpick: Twitter sued for Musk to finish the deal. You got it backwards but your point is otherwise solid.