Ocho and/or Tree ----- Quick legal Question

gwb-trading said:
We will see how long this DWAC price surge lasts. Probably not long with the company under investigation from both prosecutors and the SEC.

Trump's 'blank check' social company surges as Elon Musk's Twitter deal collapses: report
https://www.rawstory.com/digital-world-acquisition-corp/

On Monday, CNN Business reported that shares of former President Donald Trump's "blank check" company have surged in the wake of reports that tech billionaire Elon Musk is pulling out of his agreement to purchase Twitter and take it private.

"Shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp., the special purpose acquisition company that has agreed to merge with Trump Media & Technology Group, surged 15% in premarket trading Monday morning after Elon Musk said he would back out of his deal to buy Twitter (TWTR)," reported Jordan Valinsky. "The surge comes after Musk announced late Friday that he was pulling out of his agreement to buy Twitter, citing the lack of information about the percentage of Twitter accounts that are bots. Musk's lawyer said that placed Twitter 'in material breach of multiple provisions' of the original agreement."

This comes as Trump slammed Musk as a "bullsh*t artist" at a rally in Anchorage, Alaska.

Musk originally claimed he was purchasing Twitter for the purpose of reforming its policies to reduce censorship and promote "free speech," making him a darling of Trump supporters who have long claimed baselessly that the site suppresses conservative viewpoints — even though, as CEO of Tesla, Musk ironically has a reputation of illegally silencing workers who try to unionize or customers who report problems with their vehicles. In subsequent speeches to Twitter employees, Musk even seemed to endorse the very same policies that conservatives were complaining suppressed free speech in the first place.

Some business observers have speculated the real reason Musk wanted to buy Twitter might have been as a way of offloading Tesla shares he feared were overinflated — and that he's backing out not because of "bots" but because after Tesla's latest market losses, he can't actually afford it.

Regardless, Musk now faces a lawsuit from Twitter seeking to force him to honor the $44 billion agreement — and even if he prevails, he could be on the hook for a $1 billion termination fee.

Trump's "blank check" company — formally known as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC — was used to create a competitor to Twitter, known as Truth Social, which likewise bills itself as a friendly space for conservatives "censored" by Twitter. The website has been plagued with technical and leadership problems from the beginning, some investors say they were unaware Trump was even involved in the deal when they signed on, and the CEO of Digital World Acquisition Corp has been hit with a lawsuit alleging the entire deal was a fraud scheme.
More...
Well it closed around $29.50 that day. The subsequent low was $12... you're a genius... but the subsequent/subsequent high was $80. There goes the genius. $35.67 today. You're in the red, that is if you held on for 21 months and met the margin calls along the way. :p
 
vanzandt said:
Am I wrong to assume, no matter which path they take, this will ultimately land at the feet of SCOTUS? It sure seems like it. But as you pointed out, and I'm pretty sure it is certainly the case, a lower court would instantly see this is a matter of national security unless the plaintiff opens their books so to speak and prove they don't hand anything over to the CCP, which we both know is not the case and would never happen anyway... so SCOTUS could just refuse to hear it right? And then it's case closed. Right?
More...

There is so much that can happen. This will go on for years. I somehow doubt that the Supreme Court will get involved even though- in theory- I can see it. There is going to be so much negotiating and offering and counteroffering along the way the Supreme Court and appellate courts will be reluctant to intervene while the parties are still going back and forth. One can argue that it is a done deal so what's up with saying "back and forth". Not even remotely done yet.

Of note, there will be an election between now and when the drop dead date for sell or shut down arrives. Trump would love to and will love to have this as a campaign issue and will propose all sorts of deals to settle it- out of hopes that he can pick up the Tik Tok vote.

In return this will spook Camp Biden into trying to rework it themselves to make sure Trump does not capture that flag. You know, Joe suddenly decides that he can live with it if they are required to regularly disclose X,Y,Z so they notify the court that they are entering into an extension of time to comply while that deal is being worked and monitored and the court says "fine, whatever, if the government and the defendant are okay with it then why not." I say "defendant" but the action before the court could arise based on action brought by the government and TikTok/Bitedance being defendant, or could be the other way around if the case starts as TikTok taking action against the government. Same issues though.

Also, if Trump is elected he will mix this issue in with the larger issue of sanctions against China and will use that to force different behavior by TikTok.

And maybe that's a good thing.

Long way to go here. Lots of sausage making and campaign gymnastics to come.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
There is so much that can happen. This will go on for years. I somehow doubt that the Supreme Court will get involved even though- in theory- I can see it. There is going to be so much negotiating and offering and counteroffering along the way the Supreme Court and appellate courts will be reluctant to intervene while the parties are still going back and forth. One can argue that it is a done deal so what's up with saying "back and forth". Not even remotely done yet.

Of note, there will be an election between now and when the drop dead date for sell or shut down arrives. Trump would love to and will love to have this as a campaign issue and will propose all sorts of deals to settle it- out of hopes that he can pick up the Tik Tok vote.

In return this will spook Camp Biden into trying to rework it themselves to make sure Trump does not capture that flag. You know, Joe suddenly decides that he can live with it if they are required to regularly disclose X,Y,Z so they notify the court that they are entering into an extension of time to comply while that deal is being worked and monitored and the court says "fine, whatever, if the government and the defendant are okay with it then why not." I say "defendant" but the action before the court could arise based on action brought by the government and TikTok/Bitedance being defendant, or could be the other way around if the case starts as TikTok taking action against the government. Same issues though.

Also, if Trump is elected he will mix this issue in with the larger issue of sanctions against China and will use that to force different behavior by TikTok.

And maybe that's a good thing.

Long way to go here. Lots of sausage making and campaign gymnastics to come.
More...
Hahaha. I think you might have just pretty much hit the nail on the head. Quite the political astuteness. Why's everyone down here have you on ignore? It must be the gender-neutral bathroom thing. Or "celebrate the tranny" days at our nation's kindergartens.
 
With billions of future ad-spend in the balance, I'm just trying to figure out if META or SNAP are a btd plays.

I don't think ByteDance will hand over the algos, soooo, Tik-Tok might be done in the US. But as you said, it will take years. And you're right, enacting the "ban" date can easily be extended.

Hmmm. Of the two, I think SNAP has the most to gain. It sold off huge on Meta's report. That is.. IF that 32 yo founder and CEO grows up and gets down to business. Maybe Elon will step in and roll it into X --- And then IPO the combined entity to make another $200B or so on paper. What say you GWB? :cool:
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
There is so much that can happen. This will go on for years. I somehow doubt that the Supreme Court will get involved even though- in theory- I can see it. There is going to be so much negotiating and offering and counteroffering along the way the Supreme Court and appellate courts will be reluctant to intervene while the parties are still going back and forth. One can argue that it is a done deal so what's up with saying "back and forth". Not even remotely done yet.

Of note, there will be an election between now and when the drop dead date for sell or shut down arrives. Trump would love to and will love to have this as a campaign issue and will propose all sorts of deals to settle it- out of hopes that he can pick up the Tik Tok vote.

In return this will spook Camp Biden into trying to rework it themselves to make sure Trump does not capture that flag. You know, Joe suddenly decides that he can live with it if they are required to regularly disclose X,Y,Z so they notify the court that they are entering into an extension of time to comply while that deal is being worked and monitored and the court says "fine, whatever, if the government and the defendant are okay with it then why not." I say "defendant" but the action before the court could arise based on action brought by the government and TikTok/Bitedance being defendant, or could be the other way around if the case starts as TikTok taking action against the government. Same issues though.

Also, if Trump is elected he will mix this issue in with the larger issue of sanctions against China and will use that to force different behavior by TikTok.

And maybe that's a good thing.

Long way to go here. Lots of sausage making and campaign gymnastics to come.
More...

Hey Tree... look at this:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...stered-audio-paul-harvey.379661/#post-5970970

Any thoughts?
 
vanzandt said:
Hey Tree... look at this:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...stered-audio-paul-harvey.379661/#post-5970970

Any thoughts?
More...

One of the biggest fallacies in the U.S. is that we have no state religion and that the left and liberals are and have been the guardians of keeping religion out of government and out of schools and various public arenas.

In fact, Secular Humanism-Progressivism is a religion and it is a state sponsored religion that permeates every aspect of public life these days. It very much lays out and protects and advances a specific worldview, theological view even if in the negative, and imposes a new set of values with an iron fist.

And it is now very much the mechanism for advancing most of the ills and evils outlined in that Paul Harvey message.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
One of the biggest fallacies in the U.S. is that we have no state religion and that the left and liberals are and have been the guardians of keeping religion out of government and out of schools and various public arenas.

In fact, Secular Humanism-Progressivism is a religion and it is a state sponsored religion that permeates every aspect of public life these days. It very much lays out and protects and advances a specific worldview, theological view even if in the negative, and imposes a new set of values with an iron fist.

And it is now very much the mechanism for advancing most of the ills and evils outlined in that Paul Harvey message.
More...
Yeah but what about this particular case in NJ?
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Oh, where do I see that case? I followed the link you posted and it just had a paul harvey audio.
Must be further back or something.
More...
That was just me thinking out loud on the case. It's some church in Jersey that for 135 years has blocked off their beach on Sunday's, and is now getting hammered by the NJ EPA.

Read Mickey's post. Those are the current facts of the case.
 
vanzandt said:
That was just me thinking out loud on the case. It's some church in Jersey that for 135 years has blocked off their beach on Sunday's, and is now getting hammered by the NJ EPA.

Read Mickey's post. Those are the current facts of the case.
More...

Oh, I see. I think I did not see it because I think I have him on ignore/block so it does not show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top