<story><title>Elon Musk asserts his “right to terminate” Twitter deal</title><url>https://www.axios.com/2022/06/06/elon-musk-twitter</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AmazingTed</author><text>&amp;gt; and has nothing to do with Musk’s bid.&lt;p&gt;The bid gave Musk access to inside information.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; the time for due diligence is before, not after, one signs the merger agreement.&lt;p&gt;I bought a house. The due diligence period to inspect the house, get a survey, etc. was &lt;i&gt;after&lt;/i&gt; we entered into the contract and &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; closing.</text></item><item><author>snowwrestler</author><text>Everything about the bots is a side show to the merger. Twitter’s assertions about bots are in SEC filings and they are a publicly traded company. If there is a cause of action, it already exists and has nothing to do with Musk’s bid.&lt;p&gt;As for that bid, the time for due diligence is before, not after, one signs the merger agreement.&lt;p&gt;FWIW I have shares in Twitter and would prefer them to remain a publicly traded company.</text></item><item><author>shrubble</author><text>The part that seems dangerous to Twitter is not the go&amp;#x2F;no-go part of Elon Musk&amp;#x27;s offer , but the possible shareholder and advertising related lawsuits that may arise.&lt;p&gt;Representing bot activity as less than 5% but using a sample size of 100, when you are claiming millions of active accounts, can&amp;#x27;t easily be seen as honest. Since statistics which Twitter is expected to know as a matter of their duty to shareholders , makes it plain that the sample size is too small.&lt;p&gt;Too many bots = shareholders were misled as to true number of active accounts.&lt;p&gt;Too many bots = advertisers were misled as to potential reach.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Johnny555</author><text>&lt;i&gt;I bought a house. The due diligence period to inspect the house, get a survey, etc. was after we entered into the contract and before closing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;And many people, just like Musk, waive their right to terminate the contract due to inspections, loan approval, etc. For the same reason that he did - it gives the seller less reason to reject your offer.</text></comment>
<story><title>Elon Musk asserts his “right to terminate” Twitter deal</title><url>https://www.axios.com/2022/06/06/elon-musk-twitter</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AmazingTed</author><text>&amp;gt; and has nothing to do with Musk’s bid.&lt;p&gt;The bid gave Musk access to inside information.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; the time for due diligence is before, not after, one signs the merger agreement.&lt;p&gt;I bought a house. The due diligence period to inspect the house, get a survey, etc. was &lt;i&gt;after&lt;/i&gt; we entered into the contract and &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; closing.</text></item><item><author>snowwrestler</author><text>Everything about the bots is a side show to the merger. Twitter’s assertions about bots are in SEC filings and they are a publicly traded company. If there is a cause of action, it already exists and has nothing to do with Musk’s bid.&lt;p&gt;As for that bid, the time for due diligence is before, not after, one signs the merger agreement.&lt;p&gt;FWIW I have shares in Twitter and would prefer them to remain a publicly traded company.</text></item><item><author>shrubble</author><text>The part that seems dangerous to Twitter is not the go&amp;#x2F;no-go part of Elon Musk&amp;#x27;s offer , but the possible shareholder and advertising related lawsuits that may arise.&lt;p&gt;Representing bot activity as less than 5% but using a sample size of 100, when you are claiming millions of active accounts, can&amp;#x27;t easily be seen as honest. Since statistics which Twitter is expected to know as a matter of their duty to shareholders , makes it plain that the sample size is too small.&lt;p&gt;Too many bots = shareholders were misled as to true number of active accounts.&lt;p&gt;Too many bots = advertisers were misled as to potential reach.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cloudsec9</author><text>&amp;gt; I bought a house. The due diligence period to inspect the house, get a survey, etc. was after we entered into the contract and before closing.&lt;p&gt;I know with the crazy housing markets, this might not be something anymore, but in times past you would enter into a CONDITIONAL contract and set the price, with the stipulation that the inspection has to be satisfactory to remove the conditions. Otherwise, after you signed your contract, the house is yours, and the survey just tells you what you are obligated to fix.&lt;p&gt;Also, Business deals usually allow parties to enter into things like NDAs for due diligence, as well as signing things like Memos of Agreement to get a roughed out deal, pending a thorough due diligence.
I believe he&amp;#x27;s past (or waived) the due diligence. I&amp;#x27;m sure there is a back-out clause, but that has $$$ attached and he&amp;#x27;s trying to wiggle out without paying, is what it seems like.</text></comment>