SAN FRANCISCO (The Hill)– Twitter has hired a large New York-based law firm as it prepares to sue Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk after he scrapped a deal to purchase the social media company last week.
Twitter will file its lawsuit in Delaware next week, according to Bloomberg, which cited people familiar with the matter. Musk is being represented by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
The Hill has reached out to Twitter as well as both law firms for comment.
Musk, who bought up a roughly nine percent stake in Twitter before moving to purchase the company earlier this year, abandoned the deal ostensibly because company officials failed to provide accurate and comprehensive information on “fake or spam” accounts.
After news of the deal was reported, Twitter shares fell five percent while Tesla shares climbed more than two percent. Twitter board chair Bret Taylor said the company would take Musk to court in order to force the completion of the sale.
Musk, with his more than 100 million followers, initially expressed excitement about championing free speech on the platform when news of his takeover bid first emerged, but he quickly pivoted to raising concern over how many bots are on the platform.
But his motives have been called into question by some experts who have pointed out the proliferation of spam accounts on Twitter have been public knowledge for years, well before his takeover bid.
Twitter also said it provided detailed information to Musk on the bots; removes around 1 million spam accounts a day; and insists that the number of active bot accounts on the platform remains below five percent.
In Delaware, the corporate home for many public companies, the Chancery Court often rules on mergers and other business disputes without a jury.
The Hill’s Brad Dress Contributed to the Contents of this Report.
EX-99.P 2 tm2220599d1_ex99-p.htm EXHIBIT 99.P
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom llp
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301
TEL: (650) 470-4500
FAX: (650) 470-4570
July 8, 2022
1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103
Attn: Vijaya Gadde, Chief Legal Officer
Dear Ms. Gadde:
We refer to (i) the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings II, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. dated as of April 25, 2022 (the “Merger Agreement”) and (ii) our letter to you dated as of June 6, 2022 (the “June 6 Letter”). As further described below, Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement because Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement, and is likely to suffer a Company Material Adverse Effect (as that term is defined in the Merger Agreement).
While Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement requires Twitter to provide Mr. Musk and his advisors all data and information that Mr. Musk requests “for any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transaction,” Twitter has not complied with its contractual obligations. For nearly two months, Mr. Musk has sought the data and information necessary to “make an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform” (our letter to you dated May 25, 2022 (the “May 25 Letter”)). This information is fundamental to Twitter’s business and financial performance and is necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement because it is needed to ensure Twitter’s satisfaction of the conditions to closing, to facilitate Mr. Musk’s financing and financial planning for the transaction, and to engage in transition planning for the business. Twitter has failed or refused to provide this information. Sometimes Twitter has ignored Mr. Musk’s requests, sometimes it has rejected them for reasons that appear to be unjustified, and sometimes it has claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk incomplete or unusable information.
Mr. Musk and his financial advisors at Morgan Stanley have been requesting critical information from Twitter as far back as May 9, 2022—and repeatedly since then—on the relationship between Twitter’s disclosed mDAU figures and the prevalence of false or spam accounts on the platform. If there were ever any doubt as to the nature of these information requests, the May 25 Letter made clear that Mr. Musk’s goal was to understand how many of Twitter’s claimed mDAUs were, in fact, fake or spam accounts. That letter noted that “Items 1.03 to 1.13 of the diligence request list contain high-priority requests for enterprise data and other information intended to enable Mr. Musk and his advisors to make an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform…” The letter then provided Twitter with a detailed list of requests to this effect.
Since then, Mr. Musk has provided numerous additional follow-up requests, all aimed at filling the gaps in the incomplete information that Twitter provided in response to his broad requests for information relating to Twitter’s reported mDAU counts and reported estimates of false and spam accounts.1 For example, in our letter to you dated June 29, 2022 (the “June 29 Letter”), we referenced Mr. Musk’s request in the May 25 Letter for “information that would allow him ‘to make an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform.’” Because Twitter, by its own admission, provided only incomplete data that was not sufficient to perform such an independent assessment,2 the June 29 Letter “endeavored to be even more specific, and to reduce the burden of the [original] request,” by identifying a specific subset of high priority information, responsive to Mr. Musk’s prior requests, for Twitter to immediately make available.
1 Mr. Musk sought the same information in letters dated June 6, 2022, June 17, 2022, and June 29, 2022. In each of these letters, Mr. Musk referenced his information rights under Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement. Twitter has thus been on notice of the information sought by Mr. Musk—and the contractual bases for these requests—for two months. For the past month, Mr. Musk has been clear that he views Twitter’s non-responsiveness as a material breach of the Merger Agreement giving him the right to terminate the Merger Agreement if uncured. See June 6, 2022 (explaining that Twitter was “refusing to comply with its obligations under the Merger Agreement”). Thus, Mr. Musk has been clear about his requests, his right to seek such information, and his view regarding Twitter’s material breach of the Merger Agreement.
2 See your letter to us dated June 20, 2022 (noting that the information Twitter was agreeing to provide was “insufficient to perform the spam analysis that [Mr. Musk] purport[s] to wish to do.”).
Notwithstanding these repeated requests over the past two months, Twitter has still failed to provide much of the data and information responsive to Mr. Musk’s repeated requests, including, but not limited to:
- Information related to Twitter’s process for auditing the inclusion of spam and fake accounts in mDAU. Twitter has still not provided much of the information specifically requested by Mr. Musk in Sections 1.01-1.03 of the May 19 diligence request list that is necessary for him to make an assessment of the prevalence of false or spam accounts on its website. As recently as the June 29 Letter, Mr. Musk reiterated this long-standing request for information related to Twitter’s sampling process for detecting fake accounts. The June 29 Letter identified specific data necessary to enable Mr. Musk to independently verify Twitter’s representations regarding the number of mDAU on its platform—including, but not limited to (1) daily global mDAU data since October 1, 2020; (2) information regarding the sampling population for mDAU, including whether the mDAU population used for auditing spam and false accounts is the same mDAU population used for quarterly reporting; (3) outputs of each step of the sampling process for each day during the weeks of January 30, 2022 and June 19, 2022; (4) documentation or other guidance provided to contractor agents used for auditing mDAU samples; (5) information regarding the user interface of Twitter’s ADAP tool and any internal tools used by the contractor agents; and (6) mDAU audit sampling information, including anonymized information identifying the contractor agents and Quality Analyst that reviewed each sampled account, the designation given by each contractor agent and Quality Analyst, and the current status of any accounts labelled “compromised.” A subsequent request along these lines should not have been necessary, as this information should have been provided in response to Mr. Musk’s original diligence request. Yet, to date, Twitter has not provided any of this information.
- Information related to Twitter’s process for identifying and suspending spam and fake accounts. In addition to information regarding Twitter’s mDAU audits, the June 29 Letter also reiterated requests for data specifically identified in Sections 1.04-1.05 of the May 19 diligence request list regarding Twitter’s methodology and performance data relating to identification and suspension of spam and false accounts, including, but not limited to, information regarding account suspensions, including information sufficient to identify daily numbers of account suspensions since October 2020 and numbers of account suspensions for each of Twitter’s internal reasons for suspension. In addition, during the June 30, 2022 call, Twitter’s representatives indicated for the first time that the workflow and processes for detecting spam and false accounts in the mDAU population is different and separate from the workflow and processes for identifying and suspending accounts in violation of Twitter’s policies. On that call, Twitter indicated that it would not be willing to provide information regarding the methodologies employed to identify and suspend such accounts. 3
- Daily measures of mDAU for the past eight (8) quarters. On June 17, 2022 (the “June 17 Letter”) Mr. Musk reiterated his request for “access to the sample set used and calculations performed, as well as any related reports or analysis, to support Twitter’s representation that fewer than 5% of its mDAUs are false or spam account.” To that end, Mr. Musk requested that Twitter provide “daily measures of mDAU for the previous eight quarters, and through the present.” This information is derivative of the information Mr. Musk first sought in Sections 1.01-1.03 of the May 19 diligence request list. Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested.
- Board materials related to Twitter’s mDAU calculations. In the June 17 Letter, Mr. Musk requested a variety of board materials and communications related to Twitter’s mDAU metric, its calculation of the number of spam and false accounts, its disclosure of the mDAU metric, and the company’s disclosure of the number of spam accounts on the platform. Twitter has provided an incomplete data set in response to this request, and has not provided information sufficient to enable Mr. Musk to make an independent assessment of Twitter’s board and management’s understanding of its mDAU metric.
- Materials related to Twitter’s financial condition. Mr. Musk is entitled, under Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement to “all information concerning the business … of the Company … for any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transactions” and under Section 6.11 of the Merger Agreement, to information “reasonably requested” in connection with his efforts to secure the debt financing necessary to consummate the transaction. To that end, Mr. Musk requested on June 17 a variety of board materials, including a working, bottoms-up financial model for 2022, a budget for 2022, an updated draft plan or budget, and a working copy of Goldman Sachs’ valuation model underlying its fairness opinion. Twitter has provided only a pdf copy of Goldman Sachs’ final Board presentation. 4
In short, Twitter has not provided information that Mr. Musk has requested for nearly two months notwithstanding his repeated, detailed clarifications intended to simplify Twitter’s identification, collection, and disclosure of the most relevant information sought in Mr. Musk’s original requests.
While Twitter has provided some information, that information has come with strings attached, use limitations or other artificial formatting features, which has rendered some of the information minimally useful to Mr. Musk and his advisors. For example, when Twitter finally provided access to the eight developer “APIs” first explicitly requested by Mr. Musk in the May 25 Letter, those APIs contained a rate limit lower than what Twitter provides to its largest enterprise customers. Twitter only offered to provide Mr. Musk with the same level of access as some of its customers after we explained that throttling the rate limit prevented Mr. Musk and his advisors from performing the analysis that he wished to conduct in any reasonable period of time.
Additionally, those APIs contained an artificial “cap” on the number of queries that Mr. Musk and his team can run regardless of the rate limit—an issue that initially prevented Mr. Musk and his advisors from completing an analysis of the data in any reasonable period of time. Mr. Musk raised this issue as soon as he became aware of it, in the first paragraph of the June 29 Letter: “we have just been informed by our data experts that Twitter has placed an artificial cap on the number of searches our experts can perform with this data, which is now preventing Mr. Musk and his team from doing their analysis.” That cap was not removed until July 6, after Mr. Musk demanded its removal for a second time.
Based on the foregoing refusal to provide information that Mr. Musk has been requesting since May 9, 2022, Twitter is in breach of Sections 6.4 and 6.11 of the Merger Agreement.
Despite public speculation on this point, Mr. Musk did not waive his right to review Twitter’s data and information simply because he chose not to seek this data and information before entering into the Merger Agreement. In fact, he negotiated access and information rights within the Merger Agreement precisely so that he could review data and information that is important to Twitter’s business before financing and completing the transaction.
As Twitter has been on notice of its breach since at least June 6, 2022, any cure period afforded to Twitter under the Merger Agreement has now lapsed. Accordingly, Mr. Musk hereby exercises X Holdings I, Inc.’s right to terminate the Merger Agreement and abandon the transaction contemplated thereby, and this letter constitutes formal notice of X Holding I, Inc.’s termination of the Merger Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1(d)(i) thereof.
In addition to the foregoing, Twitter is in breach of the Merger Agreement because the Merger Agreement appears to contain materially inaccurate representations. Specifically, in the Merger Agreement, Twitter represented that no documents that Twitter filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since January 1, 2022, included any “untrue statement of a material fact” (Section 4.6(a)). Twitter has repeatedly made statements in such filings regarding the portion of its mDAUs that are false or spam, including statements that: “We have performed an internal review of a sample of accounts and estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the first quarter of 2022 represented fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter,” and “After we determine an account is spam, malicious automation, or fake, we stop counting it in our mDAU, or other related metrics.” Mr. Musk relied on this representation in the Merger Agreement (and Twitter’s numerous public statements regarding false and spam accounts in its publicly filed SEC documents) when agreeing to enter into the Merger Agreement. Mr. Musk has the right to seek rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event these material representations are determined to be false.
Although Twitter has not yet provided complete information to Mr. Musk that would enable him to do a complete and comprehensive review of spam and fake accounts on Twitter’s platform, he has been able to partially and preliminarily analyze the accuracy of Twitter’s disclosure regarding its mDAU. While this analysis remains ongoing, all indications suggest that several of Twitter’s public disclosures regarding its mDAUs are either false or materially misleading. First, although Twitter has consistently represented in securities filings that “fewer than 5%” of its mDAU are false or spam accounts, based on the information provided by Twitter to date, it appears that Twitter is dramatically understating the proportion of spam and false accounts represented in its mDAU count. Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. Second, Twitter’s disclosure that it ceases to count fake or spam users in its mDAU when it determines that those users are fake appears to be false. Instead, we understand, based on Twitter’s representations during a June 30, 2022 call with us, that Twitter includes accounts that have been suspended—and thus are known to be fake or spam—in its quarterly mDAU count even when it is aware that the suspended accounts were included in mDAU for that quarter. Last, Twitter has represented that it is “continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU…” But, Twitter’s process for calculating its mDAU, and the percentage of mDAU comprised of non-monetizable spam accounts, appears to be arbitrary and ad hoc. Disclosing that Twitter has a reasoned process for calculating mDAU when the opposite is true would be false and misleading.
Twitter’s representation in the Merger Agreement regarding the accuracy of its SEC disclosures relating to false and spam accounts may have also caused, or is reasonably likely to result in, a Company Material Adverse Effect, which may form an additional basis for terminating the Merger Agreement. While Mr. Musk and his advisors continue to investigate the exact nature and extent of this event, Mr. Musk has reason to believe that the true number of false or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform is substantially higher than the amount of less than 5% represented by Twitter in its SEC filings. Twitter’s true mDAU count is a key component of the company’s business, given that approximately 90% of its revenue comes from advertisements. For this reason, to the extent that Twitter has underrepresented the number of false or spam accounts on its platform, that may constitute a Company Material Adverse Effect under Section 7.2(b)(i) of the Merger Agreement. Mr. Musk is also examining the company’s recent financial performance and revised outlook, and is considering whether the company’s declining business prospects and financial outlook constitute a Company Material Adverse Effect giving Mr. Musk a separate and distinct basis for terminating the Merger Agreement.
Finally, Twitter also did not comply with its obligations under Section 6.1 of the Merger Agreement to seek and obtain consent before deviating from its obligation to conduct its business in the ordinary course and “preserve substantially intact the material components of its current business organization.” Twitter’s conduct in firing two key, high-ranking employees, its Revenue Product Lead and the General Manager of Consumer, as well as announcing on July 7 that it was laying off a third of its talent acquisition team, implicates the ordinary course provision. Twitter has also instituted a general hiring freeze which extends even to reconsideration of outstanding job offers. Moreover, three executives have resigned from Twitter since the Merger Agreement was signed: the Head of Data Science, the Vice President of Twitter Service, and a Vice President of Product Management for Health, Conversation, and Growth. The Company has not received Parent’s consent for changes in the conduct of its business, including for the specific changes listed above. The Company’s actions therefore constitute a material breach of Section 6.1 of the Merger Agreement.
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Mr. Musk hereby exercises X Holdings I, Inc.’s right to terminate the Merger Agreement and abandon the transaction contemplated thereby, and this letter constitutes formal notice of X Holding I, Inc.’s termination of the Merger Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1(d)(i) thereof.
Sincerely, /s/ Mike Ringler Mike Ringler Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Katherine A. Martin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation
Martin W. Korman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation
Douglas K. Schnell, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation
Remi P Korenblit, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation
Alan Klein, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Anthony F. Vernace, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Katherine M. Krause, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Alex Spiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Andrew Rossman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
AMENDMENT No. 2 to
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. 2 to Schedule 13D)
(Name of Issuer)
(Title of Class of Securities)
Heidi SteeleMcDermott Will & Emery LLP444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000Chicago, IL 60657(312) 984-3624
(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person
Authorized to Receive Notices and Communications)
April 13, 2022
(Date of Event Which Requires Filing of this Statement)
If the filing person has previously filed a statement on Schedule 13G to report the acquisition that is the subject of this Schedule 13D, and is filing this schedule because of Rule 13d-1(e), 240.13d-1(f) or 240.13d-1(g), check the following box. x
*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person’s initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of securities, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter disclosures provided in a prior cover page.
The information required on the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the act (however, see the Notes).
CUSIP No. 90184L102
|1||Name of Reporting Person: I.R.S. Identification Nos. of Above Person (entities only): Elon R. Musk|
|2||Check the Appropriate Box if a Member of a Group (See Instructions):(a) ¨(b) ¨|
|3||SEC Use Only:|
|4||Source of Funds (See Instruction): OO|
|5||Check if Disclosure of Legal Proceedings is Required Pursuant to Items 2(d) or 2(e): x|
|6||Citizenship or Place of Organization: USA|
|Number of Shares||7||Sole Voting Power: 73,115,038|
|8||Shared Voting Power: —|
|9||Sole Dispositive Power: 73,115,038|
|10||Shared Dispositive Power: —|
|11||Aggregate Amount Beneficially Owned by Each Reporting Person: 73,115,038|
|12||Check if the Aggregate Amount in Row (11) Excludes Certain Shares (See Instructions) ¨|
|13||Percent of Class Represented by Amount in Row (11): 9.1%1|
|14||Type of Reporting Person (See Instructions): IN|
1 Based on 800,641,166 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of February 10, 2022 as reported in the Issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
Explanatory Note: This statement on Schedule 13D amends the Schedule 13D of Elon Musk (the “Reporting Person”) that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2022, as amended on April 11, 2022 (collectively, the “Schedule 13D”), with respect to the Common Stock of Twitter Inc. (the “Issuer’). This amendment to the Schedule 13D constitutes Amendment No. 2 to the Schedule 13D. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Schedule 13D. Except as set forth herein, the Schedule 13D is unmodified.
Item 4. Purpose of Transaction.
Item 4 of the Schedule 13D is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
On April 13, 2022, the Reporting Person delivered a letter to the Issuer (the “Letter”) which contained a non-binding proposal (the “Proposal”) to acquire all of the outstanding Common Stock of the Issuer not owned by the Reporting Person for all cash consideration valuing the Common Stock at $54.20 per share (the “Proposed Transaction”). This represents a 54% premium over the closing price of the Common Stock on January 28, 2022, the trading day before the Reporting Person began investing in the Issuer, and a 38% premium over the closing price of the Common Stock on April 1, 2022, the trading day before the Reporting Person’s investment in the Issuer was publicly announced.
The Proposal is non-binding and, once structured and agreed upon, would be conditioned upon, among other things, the (i) receipt of any required governmental approvals; (ii) confirmatory legal, business, regulatory, accounting and tax due diligence; (iii) the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements providing for the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) completion of anticipated financing.
There can be no assurance that a definitive agreement with respect to the Proposal will be executed or, if executed, whether the transaction will be consummated. There is also no certainty as to whether, or when, the Issuer may respond to the Letter, or as to the time table for execution of any definitive agreement. The Reporting Person reserves the right to withdraw the Proposal or modify the terms at any time including with respect to the amount or form of consideration. The Reporting Person may, directly or indirectly, take such additional steps as he may deem appropriate to further the Proposal.
If the Proposed Transaction is completed, the Common Stock would become eligible for termination of its registration pursuant to Section 12(g)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and would be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.
The foregoing description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by reference.
The Reporting Person has engaged Morgan Stanley as its financial advisor.
Neither the Letter nor this Schedule 13D is meant to be, nor should be construed as, an offer to buy or the solicitation of an offer to sell any of the Issuer’s securities.
The Reporting Person intends to review his investment in the Issuer on a continuing basis. Depending on the factors discussed herein, the Reporting Person may, from time to time, acquire additional shares of Common Stock and/or retain and/or sell all or a portion of the shares of Issuer common stock held by the Reporting Person in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions, and/or may distribute the Common Stock held by the Reporting Person to other entities. Any actions the Reporting Person might undertake will be dependent upon the Reporting Person’s evaluation of numerous factors, including, among other things, the outcome of any discussions referenced in this Schedule 13D, the price levels of the Common Stock, general market and economic conditions, ongoing evaluation of the Issuer’s business, financial condition, operations and prospects, the relative attractiveness of alternative business and investment opportunities, investor’s need for liquidity, and other future developments.
From time to time, the Reporting Person may engage in discussions with the Board and/or members of the Issuer’s management team concerning, including, without limitation, the Proposal, potential business combinations and strategic alternatives, the business, operations, capital structure, governance, management, strategy of the Issuer and other matters concerning the Issuer. The Reporting Person may express his views to the Board and/or members of the Issuer’s management team and/or the public through social media or other channels with respect to the Issuer’s business, products and service offerings.
Except as set forth above, the Reporting Person has no present plans or intentions which would result in or relate to any of the transactions described in subparagraphs (a) through (j) of Item 4 of Schedule 13D. However, the Reporting Person reserves the right to change his plans at any time, as he deems appropriate, and in light of his ongoing evaluation of numerous factors, including, among other things, the price levels of the Common Stock, general market and economic conditions, ongoing evaluation of the Issuer’s business, financial condition, operations and prospects, the relative attractiveness of alternative business and investment opportunities, Reporting Person’s need for liquidity, and other future developments.
Item 7. Material to be Filed as Exhibits.
After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
Date: April 13, 2022
|By:||/s/ Elon Musk|
Chairman of the Board,
I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.
|/s/ Elon Musk|
[SEND VIA TEXT]
As I indicated this weekend, I believe that the company should be private to go through the changes that need to be made.
After the past several days of thinking this over, I have decided I want to acquire the company and take it private.
I am going to send you an offer letter tonight, it will be public in the morning.
Are you available to chat?
|1.||Best and Final:|
|a.||I am not playing the back-and-forth game.|
|b.||I have moved straight to the end.|
|c.||It’s a high price and your shareholders will love it.|
|d.||If the deal doesn’t work, given that I don’t have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.|
|i.||This is not a threat, it’s simply not a good investment without the changes that need to be made.|
|ii.||And those changes won’t happen without taking the company private.|
|2.||My advisors and my team are available after you get the letter to answer any questions|
|a.||There will be more detail in our public filings. After you receive the letter and review the public filings, your team can call my family office with any questions.|
Many of Trump’s statements after his January social media ban have received as many, if not more, likes or shares online as they did before, according to an analysis published Monday by the New York Times.
Before his ban, due to his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, Trump’s social media engagement generated a median of 272,000 likes and shares, primarily on Facebook and Twitter. After the ban, his median engagement dropped to 36,000 likes and shares, but 11 of his 89 statements in the past few months have been either just as popular or more popular than before the ban.
The top sharers of some of Trump’s statements after his social media ban include Breitbart News, a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club,” Fox News, and Jenna Ellis, a member of Trump’s legal team who was roundly defeated in court in 2020 election fraud lawsuits.
Sometimes, when Trump criticized conservatives, his statements would get shared widely by those on both ends of the political spectrum and mainstream publications. Top sharers of his statements on the Left include popular Facebook page “Stand With Mueller” and CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
However, Trump’s claims of widespread election fraud were 17 times less popular after his social media ban because of efforts by Facebook and Twitter to curb political misinformation.
“As the Trump case shows, deplatforming doesn’t ‘solve’ disinformation, but it does disrupt harmful networks and blunt the influence of harmful individuals,” Emerson Brooking, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, told theTimes.
Trump’s statements that got the most traction on social media in the past few monthswere his posts on culture, like his boycott of baseball; his praise for certain conservatives, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh; and his criticism of President Joe Biden on political issues related to the border crisis and taxes.
The Washington Times’ Nihal Krisham contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON — Senator Ted Cruz on Wednesday tore into Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over what he claimed was an anti-Conservative bias on his company’s social media platform.
During an often heated hearing with big tech titans Facebook, Twitter and Google, Cruz, (R)- Calif., called Twitter “a dire threat to free speech in America.”
Grilling Dorsey over Twitter’s decision to block the posting and sharing of a recent New York Post report that made corruption allegations against Joe Biden, Cruz demanded to know what gave Dorsey the right to do so.
“Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?” Cruz asked.
In response, Dorsey stated, “We’re not.”
“You’re testifying to this committee right now that Twitter,” Cruz said, “when it silences people, when it censors people, when it blocks political speech, that has no impact on elections?”
“People have choice of other communication channels,” Dorsey responded.
“Not if they don’t hear information,” Cruz countered. “If you don’t think you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything?”
“Your position is you can sit in Silicon Valley and demand of the media, that you can tell them what stories they can publish, you can tell the American people what reporting they can hear?” he said. “Is that right?”
“No,” Dorsey responded. “Every person, every account, every organization that signed up to Twitter, agrees to a terms of service.”
“So media outlets must genuflect and obey your dictates if they wish to be able to communicate with readers,” Cruz shot back.
“Not at all,” Dorsey said.
Later in the hearing, Sen. Ron Johnson, (R)-Wis., challenged Dorsey’s claim that Twitter does not attempt to influence elections with their policies and actions. He , too, challenged the company’s decision to censor the Post’s reporting, as well as Facebook’s decision to flag it.
“Do either one of you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation or that those emails aren’t authentic?” Johnson asked Dorsey and Zuckerberg.
“We don’t,” Dorsey said.
Throughout the hearing, executives for Facebook, Twitter and Google claimed they have no slant against conservatives and have never targeted conservative users or pages for their political beliefs.