Comment on Elon Musk under investigation by US agency for $44bn takeover of Twitter
520@kbin.social 1 year agoI don't like the guy either, but they literally had to force his hand to get him to buy Twitter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kichae@kbin.social 1 year ago
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.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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.