<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>JamesSwift</author><text>&amp;gt; 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;Right, because thats what you included in your offer contract. Now, imagine that you didn&amp;#x27;t have anything in your offer about contingent on inspection. Do you think you would have standing to back out of the deal?</text></comment>