Briefly Noted: Twitter's Choice
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand the specifics of what’s going on with the Musk/Twitter deal, in the sense of understanding the technicalities of possible shareholder lawsuits. I think most of us get the general picture: A massive fraud has been perpetrated. Zerohedge sketches out the unhappy alternatives that Twitter is faced with:
A number of additional thoughts occur to me.
It seems pretty obvious that Musk must have had a pretty good idea of what was going on—nobody spends that kind of money on acquiring a business without having done a deep dive into the whole business model and the sustainability thereof. He certainly had the money to do due diligence even without selling off the Tesla stock.
It also seems pretty obvious that Twitter management understood all this, which leads to the question: Who, really, is behind Twitter? Because how could this go on so long so publicly? Were the initial nonsensical attempts to thwart Musk’s purchase simply a desperate effort by Twitter management to avoid exposure?
Was it part of Musk’s plan all along to expose the scam for what it was? And what was it? There have been rumors of government connections, that this was always about social control. All of which raises the question of Musk’s motives.
A final question: Without knowing much of anything about this area of the law, it seems wildly impossible that there would not be criminal offenses involved. Look at it this way—start with the likelihood that false statements were made to federal regulators (false statements to the government) as well as to federally insured financial institutions. Work from there.
On the other hand, there’s this out there, too, re motives:
Of course, the two possibilities don’t cancel each other out—not at first glance. At first glance, this would simply be Musk being rather clever. But what do I know about the law in these matters?
This should all prove interesting—maybe even education—as it unravels.
Let’s end on a happy note: