Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I'm sure.
Though to be fair they've already argued a lot of dumb, glaringly and factually, wrong, stuff-- so that's not much of a stretch to agree with.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure.
Though to be fair they've already argued a lot of dumb, glaringly and factually, wrong, stuff-- so that's not much of a stretch to agree with.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This judge is…not putting up with nonsense. It’s fun to read the whole thing. Sacks (someone Elon communicated with) got smacked down hard.
Court is considering allowing Elon’s attorney’s a “quick peek” at Slack messages (this has a specific meaning).
On Tuesday a hearing to amend the schedule (presumably due to whistleblower?) will be held, along with various arguments about various discovery motions (I think including the Slack one?). This hearing will take several hours.
Court is considering allowing Elon’s attorney’s a “quick peek” at Slack messages (this has a specific meaning).
On Tuesday a hearing to amend the schedule (presumably due to whistleblower?) will be held, along with various arguments about various discovery motions (I think including the Slack one?). This hearing will take several hours.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Not a lawyer. I don’t play one on internet either. So, won’t make such sweeping statements with zero proof.
I only want to note that Facebook value took a beating after Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Good, because there's more than ample proof, including from actual lawyers and experts on chancery law, that prove my own statements- much of such proof posted in this very thread in fact (or linked from it)
The stock did fall a bunch shortly after the report.
By 6 weeks later it had fully recovered.
That's not remotely an MAE.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Not from what I see.
You seem to be arguing - AC is not needed because its night and cool, who knows what will happen in the morning.
Reputation is very important and big impact to reputation will have a material impact. Otherwise not a single defamation suit will ever be won.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Check your glasses then I guess?
March 16 2018 is just before the big Cambridge dump. Stock closed at $185.09
Dump hits bottom about Apr 6, at $157.20
Stock is back OVER the pre-dump number by May 11, 2018 at $186.99
(and these are using weekly closes, if you drill down to daily the "hit" is slightly shorter even than that)
That's a brief, quickly recovered, stock price blip.
And while there were a couple of more dips in SP over the ~4.55 years since, the stock has spent most of its time above the pre-Cambridge price.
So not remotely an MAE- not in the short term (less than 2 months) nor in the long (nearing 5 years now)
No, I seem to be arguing you don't understand what an MAE is, and the last example you tried to give further proves it.
And you keep showing even more evidence of it with that analogy.
Warning: the title is a bit of a clickbait, there isn't really any "Insane New Plan" revealed, but it does give a decent overview of the status of the case
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
12:15 Pacific today is the big hearing! Though we’ll probably have to wait a bit for a ruling on these matters!
Phone numbers included, for those who have nothing else to do.
Phone numbers included, for those who have nothing else to do.
I’m quite surprised that the Twitter board never suggested a negotiated deal before all these damaging accusations came to light...now it’s too late so the board might as well go for broke
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I wonder what Musk is hiding in these emails? Seems suspicious...
Obviously I'm joking.
Obviously I'm joking.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Because it shows intent to possibly avoid the deal without there being any legally justifiable reason to do so. It suggests his slow walk now is in bad faith (and that he's been acting in bad faith for a while now).
Exactly the thing twitter is suggesting is behind this entire case. He decided he made a bad offer, and wants to take it back, without the contract he signed providing any legal way to do that.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Presentations are complete and we await rulings from the Court. It did not take long last time so would expect something tonight or tomorrow.
I sort of expect a slight shift in the trial date (less than requested), but for it to be paired with some other not-so-good results for Musk. No idea though.
And will be exciting to see the details, to see if it precipitates a settlement.
I sort of expect a slight shift in the trial date (less than requested), but for it to be paired with some other not-so-good results for Musk. No idea though.
And will be exciting to see the details, to see if it precipitates a settlement.
Last edited:
Say I want to return a car I bought...because I need the money...but if I say, look the doors are falling off and the wheels are square...then I’m entitled to a refund. Motivation shouldn’t come into it
Not if the car manufacturer advertised "fall off doors and square wheels" upon your purchase. But if you bought it knowing that, then found out that maybe a car with fall off doors and square wheels isn't worth millions of dollars and tried to return it because you had second thoughts.. you're not entitled to a refund.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
- Status
