Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Not exactly true, there is a very famous acquisition made by HP that turned out to be fraudulent. HP sued, and won, and clawed by billions after the deal was over.
There's a few problems with this analogy:
1) They sued under UK law, not US- which is substantially different.
2) They personally sued the former CEO (again in UK courts under UK law) who was a billionaire who profited heavily from the purchase of the company- with considerable evidence of years of his outright accounting fraud (like selling cheap HW at a loss and reporting it as a profitable software sale)- so there was both a mountain of evidence to use and a mountain of money to go after.
In this case the board will get very little $ from the sale- they own few shares. Nearly all the $ will go to individual and institutional shareholders who had nothing to do with any misrepresentation if there even IS any-- so there's little to no $ to go after in comparison.
And there's been 0 evidence of actual accounting fraud-- or any fraud at all under GAAP standards. (mDAU is a measure twitter made up and then explicitly disclaims as a guess in the description of it).
The nearest we get is Elon basically saying "I think their guess- which they admit in the SEC filings is a guess and might be wrong is wrong"
And it's under US law on top of that not UK.
Unless you get like mustache twirling level stupid stuff come out like the board members emailing each other "MUAHAHAHA! I CAN NOT BELIEVE HE IS PAYING US THIS MUCH WHEN WE KNOW FOR A FACT IT IS 50% BOTS" there's not much cause of action to ask for money back.
Which seems unlikely as it'd be vastly more in the interests of the board to legit not know for certain how many bots they have- and thus their "this # could be wrong" disclaimer in the SEC filings going back like a decade provides all the legal cover they need.