473
Elon Musk under investigation by US agency for $44bn takeover of Twitter
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
473 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58775 readers
2314 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
he can't win this, can't he?
"i want to buy this."
"NOOO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"
"ok, i won't buy it."
"NOOO, NOW YOU HAVE TO!"
"ok, i bought it."
"WE WILL NOW INVESTIGATE YOU!"
one does not have to like him to see the pattern behind this, just like the farce with investigating spacex for "discrimination" for not hiring migrants and foreigners even tho the law explicitly forbids the company to do so because of national security concerns.
I can see how it might look like that if you simply ignore literally all the details. But thats only something an idiot would do. You’re not an idiot, are you?
Yes, sadly for Musk, he has to follow security laws. Everyone else does also.
You only like to read the headlines of anything posted don’t you..
I know it takes a bit of extra time but why don’t you give reading the whole thing a try. Could help make or break your point
I don't think anyone told him he couldn't buy it.
The board of Twitter is who sued to force the sale, since musk had kicked himself in.
That doesn't mean his offer and subsequent behavior with the company isn't market manipulation to be investigated, which is being done by the government.
Both things can be true. He stupidly kicked himself into a deal he was forced to complete, and his behavior since has indicated that he's just gaming the market since he had to complete the deal.
Bootlicker
I thought I was crazy at first when I read this then I realized you're totally simping
Oh wow. Yikes.
I don't like the guy either, but they literally had to force his hand to get him to buy Twitter. Now they want to investigate him for it? Sheesh.
Why the fuck there isn't an investigation into his Ukraine meddling though? If anything, that's of far greater concern.
Did you intentionally avoid reading the article? Or just shit posting? Do you have an ulterior motive for spreading misinformation?
They are investigating him for purchasing 9.2% of the stock without disclosing it appropriately. The article has good details, you might try reading it.
Specifically the 9.2% that made him majority shareholder. And Twitter tried to sue over the late filing but that lawsuit got dismissed.
He was "forced" to buy because he, uh, signed a contract saying he would. I'm sorry, but "voluntarily signed a purchase agreement" is only "forcing" if you believe people above a certain wealth level can do whatever the fuck they want with impunity.
He could have backed out and paid the fine he agreed to pay in the case he backed out, but he didn't want to do that, either.
He's not being investigated by someone else.
He can't win because he's a fucking idiot.
having just gone through a procurement cycle for a $30k/year purchase at work can't imagine how much work multi-billion dollar purchases must be (if you take them seriously).
Depending on the situation you could possibly be sued for considering other competitors late in the cycle, let alone after signing and then trying not to pay.
If you rob a bank and get caught in the middle, does that mean it's not a crime?
It doesn't matter if he was successful or incompetent, a crime is a crime.
If you planned to rob a bank but then back out of the plan, only for the feds to force you to go through with it, that is entrapment, and your case would get thrown out.
No, it's the other way around. In Musks case not buying twitter was robbing the bank. The feds forced him to not rob the bank but he is still under investigation because he tried.
Thanks for explaining it, I'm too exhausted to deal with these morons anymore.
He offered to buy Twitter of his own volition. Nobody made him do that. He offered a rather high price, and had the option to pay $1 billion to get out of it. His preference was to act like "oh, let's just forget about that". Of course the shareholders and executives wanted him to go through buying Twitter at the best price they could possible get, and someone with his experience and level of business dealings would know that "oh, nevermind" wouldn't work. I'm sure he would pursue someone who signed a contract that would be in his favor and then tried to slink out of it.
But anyway, this investigation is not about the puirchase of twitter. it's when he bought 9-10% of the company and illegally did not disclose it properly. It's in the first line of the article...
It's all the same thing. He "offered" to buy Twitter and then tried to back out. Market manipulation.
The board of Twitter forced the sale, because they had every right and responsibility to their shareholders to do so.
Now he's wrecking the company seemingly on purpose. Market manipulation.
Seeing as how the company is now private, how is him wrecking the company "market manipulation"? Twitter isn't on the market anymore.
I believe they are referring to him buying a significant amount of stock and failing to disclose it, which is illegal. Then talking about buying it for a high price, then trying to get out of buying it after signing the deal. There were lots of shenanigans going on before the final purchase. That's what this is all about.