- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 6,129
- Main Camera
- Sony
True, but he should be able to subpoena the records he needs to prove his case.
Either way, advertisers may have questions.
Do you think the shareholders will have a suit against the board if they were not able to prove they didn't have over 5% bots?
In a derivative suit (a suit by the shareholders) they would have to allege that there were affirmative misrepresentations - again, the burden is on the shareholders. Whoever sues has the burden.
As for subpoenaing records, you presume (1) they exist and (2) he doesn’t already have access to everything. From what we’ve heard so far, he has firehose access, which means he can look at everything already.
His arguments are looking very pretextual given the circumstances: he rushed into a purchase agreement on a whim, he didn’t do due diligence, the stock fell so his offer became very overpriced, he actually *waived* due diligence, he complained that he was not given firehose access, so he was given firehose access, then he waves his hands and says “well, it’s not good enough.”.
If I got to pick a client in this case, I’d take twitter’s case in a heartbeat.