Over there SEC he wants to see clearly what the meaning of some is tweets posted by Elon Musk during the early stages of friction with Twitter. What did Musk mean when he publicly ordered Twitter to provide more information about the number of bots on the social network? Had he already chosen to withdraw his offer, or was it really an ultimatum?
The answer to this question is not of secondary importance. But let’s take a step back. Three months ago, Elon Musk proposed to buy Twitter, which he had pledged to buy for $44 billion. Because the shareholder compensation well exceeds the company’s fair market value, the Twitter board had decided to accept it.
It should have followed a rather linear process. After the board vote, the floor would be passed to the shareholders’ meeting, which would have certainly accepted Musk’s beneficial proposal. But that’s not how things went.
The relationship between Elon Musk and Twitter is suddenly tense. The company claims that the number of fake account presence on Twitter is less than 5% of the total. Elon Musk disputes the figure, argues there are many more and accuses the company of lying.
So on May 17, Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that he had paused the acquisition. “The deal cannot go through until the Twitter sign provides me with proof that I bone they are less than 5%,” the billionaire wrote. And so it was: The operation didn’t go through an inch, until a few days ago, Elon Musk’s attorneys formally notified the SEC of the withdrawal of the purchase proposal, accusing Twitter of violating its contractual obligations and sabotaging the success of the negotiations. .
“The deal is not going through”. It was precisely these words that aroused the suspicions of the American authorities. But it’s not like Musk – the SEC wonders – had already decided to do that withdraw your proposal in May, so that’s two months before a formal notice was sent to the agency? If this were the case, there would be a serious infringement.
Billionaire attorney Mike Ringler’s response is ready: “The tweet is not enough to judge the entrepreneur’s real intentions,” he thundered. According to Ringler, the tweet should be taken literally, without conspiracy: Musk had made it clear that he wanted to continue the agreement as long as Twitter management was more cooperative. Which, the lawyer continues, never happened.
Will that be enough to dispel the SEC’s qualms? Otherwise, disagreeing with Twitter would cost Elon Musk dearly. The $1 billion fine would be just the tip of the iceberg.
Source: Lega Nerd
