Kevin just tweeted about Elon Musk being able to cancel the twitter deal - I want to add my 2 cents to this analysis. NO HATE to Kevin, love his work. The spicy headline is a bit dramatic but that's just for the extra drama.
Trade Bitcoin, Doge, and other cryptos with zero fees on FTX: https://link.blockfolio.com/9dzp/b66533de
Use my referral code and get a free coin when you trade $10 worth: TOMNASH
๐Ÿ‘‰ Watch Next: The US National Debt Spins Out of Control - Now $30 Trillion! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYT7YzIemGs
Here is the link for the 10% coupon code for TipRanks:
https://bit.ly/3BJA7KJ
*Disclosure: I only recommend products I would use myself and all opinions expressed here are our own. This post may contain affiliate links that at no additional cost to you, I may earn a small commission.
๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ Big shout out to our growing list of Patreons. For those of you want (and can) support our channel, here is how you can help: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13016082
You can now book a live 1X1 call with me via Clarity here: https://clarity.fm/tomnashv2
The audio and video equipment I use to make videos:
* Sony A7Siii: https://amzn.to/3IW4AcF
* Sony 16-35 GM: https://amzn.to/3g7o4i2
* Ninja Atomos: https://amzn.to/3451Zya
* Rodecaster Pro: https://amzn.to/3KWUhqf
* Shure sm7b: https://amzn.to/3GfbasL
* Light Nova p300 C: https://amzn.to/3AIZb5M
DISCLAIMER: All of Tom's trades, strategies, and news coverage are based on his own opinions alone and are only done for entertainment purposes. If you are watching Tom's videos, please Don't take any of this content as guidance for buying or selling any type of investment or security. Tom Nash is not a financial advisor and anything said on this YouTube channel should not be seen as financial advice. Tom is merely sharing his own personal opinion. Your own results in the stock market or with any type of investment may not be typical and may vary from person to person. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of risks associated with investing in the stock market so do your own research and due diligence before making any investment decisions.
Original Meet Kevin tweet:
https://twitter.com/realMeetKevin/status/1533810005790494721
Kevin's own interesting video about the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFTdxlKyXOM
Rule 10b-5 of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
https://udel.edu/~pollack/Acct351/handouts/Securities%20Exchange%20Act%20of%201934%20&%20Rule%2010(b)5.pdf
Article - Five Keys to Analyzing A Material Adverse Effect:
https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/five-keys-analyzing-material-adverse-effect-ny-law-journal
Twitter Purchase Agreement:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm
Letter from Elon Musk legal team to Twitter re material breach:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922068347/tm2217761d1_ex99-o.htm

So meet kevin. Just posted this on twitter saying that elon musk is not obligated to buy twitter even with the bot situation because of rule 10, b5 of the securities exchange act of 1934, basically saying that, because important information was not provided was not disclosed, basically, he can walk out Of the deal now, what was cool about this tweet beyond the legal analysis is that elon actually replied to it and kevin had a whole like spasm about it, which is understandable. I mean i would do the same thing now. Kevin is talking about rule 10.

B5. It's a very famous rule, i'm just going to say right now before i start i'm not in my capacity as a lawyer here i was admitted to the new york state bar, but i'm no longer a member of the bar. I stopped paying the fees. I have never practiced in new york.

This has been like 15 years ago, i'm not a lawyer, but i do have legal backgrounds, so i also worked in the industry so understand these things. These are like the basics of securities laws and regulations. So this is kind of um an everyday thing for me. So let me show you what we talk about here, so rule nb5 basically says, as you can see, on the screen, something very simple: i'm not going to read through the entire rule, but i want you to see here.

What's not allowed is to make any untrue statement of material fact or to omit basically not make a statement about an important fact that the person should have known. Essentially, this rule says hey. If you sold me a car, you should have told me: you know about hidden defects in the car which you knew about or should have known about, or vice versa. If you told me, the car is amazing, while the fact you knew that the car is a lemon, that's also not allowed its basic commerce laws apply to the way public companies are are being viewed in the eyes of the legal system.

Basically, this would be actionable if a company either said something fraudulent or inaccurate and changed material facts or did not say important things that they should have disclosed. Then you can actually sue and, in this case, basically terminate the merger agreement. Now. Speaking of this is the actual merger agreement.

I want you to pay attention to this thing. Delaware, pay attention to this delaware. Twitter is a delaware corporation, okay, okay, now, let's go back i'll. Show you something else! I will go back to the merger argument in a second, so basically, this is a letter that elon's lawyers, scott arps, which is one of the leading firms in the u.s.

It's like a top five leading firm. I have friends who actually work there, um and basically, they sent out this letter and in the letter, they're saying something really really important, they're, basically showing their cards or what kind of arguments they're going for. Basically, if you read through this thing, i'm not going to do this right here, but right here you say: twitter is required to provide data and information to mr marsk requests in connection with the consummation of the transaction. So basically they're saying in this letter hey we asked for important information to go over the bot issue ourselves and analyze it and we have not received it through twitter.
So twitter is not cooperating with our procedures of getting basic information about the company and if twitter is basically telling us to off in the corporate talk sense of the world and basically saying hey, we did our test et cetera, et cetera. Then this is a breach and we want to terminate you know in in contracts laws. You have a couple remedies when you have a breach against you, either compensation enforcement or termination, so they're seeking termination right. So basically they're saying here, mr mox, believes the company is actively resisting and thwarting his information right, blah blah blah and it's a material breach of twitter's obligations under the merger agreement, so he's going for material breach for not providing information which is kind of unusual.

Now. This is the actual deal and if you go to page four, which is in in the deal, there's always like a lot of pages before the actual pages start. So you're gon na see me scroll quite a lot. So in page four, they have a definition that i want you to see, but trust me you're not going to learn a lot from it.

It's called company material adverse effect. So this is what needs to happen for this deal to be viewed as cancellable by elon. Essentially - and i'm sorry for the long legal analysis, but i feel it needs to be done because i don't think it can be summarized in the tweet. Sorry kevin.

I love you, but this is way more nuanced, and this is just i'm just scratching the surface here. So basically, company material adverse effect means any change event or effect or circumstance which individually or in aggregate, has resulted or would reasonably be expected to result in material address effect. Now, if you notice material address effect, is not in caps because it's not defined in the agreement, so the agreement does not define what material adverse effect is. So you don't know.

Well that's if you're, not a geek. If you are geek like me, you can go to the new york law journal from 2019, where they have. Basically, what is a very good summary of the way to look at whether something is a material adverse effect, because this is the key for this whole thing. The key for the question: if elon can back away from the deal is, do we have material adverse effect? So here's the thing i do want to point out one important fact, and that fact is that twitter actually actively disclosed the bot issue.

It's not like they haven't disclosed, they said: hey, we think we have. You can see it on the screen. Now we think we have under five percent. This is the level of testing we did but also pay attention to the fact they're saying we're not sure.
If that's in fact the case it could be much higher or sorry it could be higher than we have estimated, so they covered their ass. Pretty good. With this highlighted section, so the recovery ass part of this is pretty strong, they're, basically saying well, we think it's under five percent. These are the tests we did and we're not sure if the numbers are accurate or not.

So it's going to be very hard to claim that there's a material adverse effect with this paragraph in existence in their public filings, but that doesn't mean it's not doable. If you go through the new york law journal, there's a definition here, there's a whole bunch of you know cases which you can read, but i think this definition will be a good starting point for you and - and this is kind of where you can start the Analysis so by the way they use mae, that's short for material address effect, okay, so basically they're saying here: oh that's, a good yeah! So wait. Let me find this. There is an important okay.

This is the one i was looking for, although there is no one definition or sorry, although there is no one definitive benchmark to establishing an mae material address effect, parties to purchase or merge transactions like we have here with new york or delaware. Remember twitter is a delaware corporation. I just showed you, delaware, a choice of low provisions, blah blah blah, and this is kind of the the cases that they're showing here so they're, showing a bunch of cases and then they're saying something here. So the chance record found and may had occurred that there was a failure of the bring down condition because acorn's regulator, compliance representations were inaccurate and would reasonably be expected to result in a in in nmae now.

Basically, this is the part i want you to read in acorn in acorn story, chancellor laster relied on the standards established by the seminole delaware cases that an mae must substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally significant manner. So what we're talking about it has to be something that substantially threatens the overall earnings potential of a target in a durationally significant matter. Unfortunately, there are no hard lines for establishing such a material long-term impact. For example, the lower chance record has found a decline in targets a bit of three percent, not constituting an mae, while in another case a 50 um of the consecutive quarters likely did constitute me, so the borders are very, very wide here.

Three percent is no 50. Is yes anything in between who knows now you can go ahead and read this whole thing. I'm going to put it in the you know in the description. Go right ahead.

Read it what i'm saying in this video, it's not clear cut it's actually very, very complicated, because the crux of it is going to be around. Is this thing material adverse effect twitter is going to rely on their basically filing saying: hey, we don't know it's five percent. We think we tested it this way, we're not sure it might be more and they're going to say, there's absolutely no material adverse effect since we posted this illinois is going to say well, they understated it by like 10-fold. So it's 50, whatever i don't know, and then it's going to be a very hard battle.
I'm just here to explain to you that this is going to be a tough battle for both sides. It's not like elon is going to be losing here. It's not a layup for any party here, which is why i think this is leading to a settlement. I think this is leading to a settlement, because both parties are probably not interested in spending a decade in court, paying so much legal fees that they'll probably settle.

But in this case i mean who knows um, but this is just to show you how complicated this is. It's not like ellen has a layup or twitter has a lab. You know just doing my two cents, my contribution to the community. I hope this helps share this with people who, i guess, need to hear this about.

What's going on with the twitter deal, see you in the next video much much appreciated. If you want to become a patreon channel member, the link is going below five bucks per month. You'll be part of a community. Thank you.

So much see you next.

By Stock Chat

where the coffee is hot and so is the chat

27 thoughts on “Dear meet kevin, you are wrong!”
  1. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Dice Daddy says:

    I stopped watching Kevin after he lost his mind earlier this year

  2. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Joshua Humphrey says:

    Meet Kevin is a joke. He will make a entire video of Elon replying to his tweet. If he hasnโ€™t already.

  3. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Adrian says:

    ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ

  4. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars 3pharaohstowers says:

    ITS FULL INFORMED CONSENT AND MALICIOUS INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.
    A CRIMINAL BUSINESS CANNOT HIDE THAT THEY ARE CRIMINAL.
    IF TWITTER IS A FAKE MASS BOT SCAM FRAUD AND HAS NO PROFIT THEN ITS NOT A BUSINESS ITS A SCAM.

    ANYWAY CAN YOU ASK YOUR LAW FRIENS IF IM RIGHT ABOUT TERRA LUNA. ITS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    V. V. V. V. V. V. V PLEASE TOM IN NOT A BOT
    (OMG SOUTH KOREA ADOPTED US DOLLAR THRU TERRA LUNA
    TERRA THRU CHAI A FIAT PAYMENT GATEWAY SUPPORTED BY 14 south korean banks.
    So won digital banking was based on terra.
    Terra peg to us dollar
    Equals US KOREA UNINTENTIONALLY ADOPTED THE US DOLLAR INTO THERE BANKING BUT ONLY DIGITALLY
    SO BILLIONS OF TERRA WHERE USED PEGGED TO US DOLLAR BY US LAW EVERY US DOLLAR HAS PUBLIC DEBT OF $1 BUT EVEN DIGITALLY, THAT DEBT REMAINS.
    SO TERRA = 1 DIGITAL US DEBT DOLLAR.
    OMG SOUTH KOREA CREATED THE US DIGITAL DOLLAR without usa regulation OMG.

    USA CANT MAKE A USA DIGITAL DOLLAR THAT IP BELONG TO SOUTH KOREA NOW
    OMG
    IF USA TRIES TO RUN DIGITAL US DOLLARS IT HAS TO PAY FOR IP LICENSING FROM SOUTH KOREAN IP
    OMG THIS IS HUGE
    SOUTH KOREA HOLD USA DOLLARS DIGITALLY NOW TRILLIONS OF DIGITAL USA DOLLARS

    (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.)
    ITS LAW NONE OF USA CAN DEFY
    USA allowed the usd peg they permitted it NOW ITS LAW
    OMG

    The trick is that terra ran FIAT Transactions in sk so SOUTH KOREA RAN UNDER THE US DOLLAR WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT.)

  5. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Shannon Vlogs says:

    I agree with your take, and I think the lawyers could take it to court. I hope they do settle like you suggested

  6. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Edward THC says:

    I stopped watching and unsubscribed from Kevin when he dumped all his stocks.

  7. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars nir sade says:

    elon musk "invaded" twiter and everything went wrong, that's remind something else, interesting…

  8. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars warpigxxxl18 says:

    Could all Twitter share holders sue because of the underestimate of the bots, that seems like a no-brainer

  9. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Alex AM says:

    I donโ€™t know what was Elonโ€™s need to start this Twitter sh1tโ€ฆ having so many things to do in Tesla.

  10. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Russty Russ says:

    We all just want it all to get settled asap. TSLA stock is losing steam because of all this drama.

  11. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars rigo valenzuela says:

    Palantir bags v.s Shift bags who will win

  12. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Capital Diaz says:

    So basically it comes down to whatโ€™s defined as โ€œadverse affectโ€

  13. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars 1painter 4hire says:

    Meet Kevin " BUY MY CLASSES " is another salesman…. Nothing more…imo…

  14. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Riyas Mh says:

    Meet Kevin is always wrong , but comes up with a new theory everytime, so he can tell i told u so .. All he does is promote 5 products in 7 minute videos with 10 affiliate links . He is a classical snake oil salesman..he just print out videos with click baits to promote sponsor..

  15. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Alex Lecon says:

    Like he didn't know Twtr didn't have bots…he was looking for an out

  16. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Vintage says:

    It would be great if Elon makes TWTR crash. However, does Elon realize if price goes to $25, he loses money on his 9% stake? Either way he will also lose, BUT if he can make TWTR go bankrupt, then he should be proud of himself because he will be doing charity for humanity.

  17. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Cedric Giles says:

    MK is a grifter and a professional manipulator. Itโ€™s unfortunate that Elon Musk would validate him by even bothering to reply to his page.

  18. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Keoni Borge says:

    ~~~Hey Guyz!!!~~~
    It's _____
    ;D

  19. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars J. Jason Santilli says:

    AKA buyer beware… great analogy with a crappy car.

  20. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars StandingRob says:

    Solid video! Analysis, domain expertise, love it!

  21. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Daniel Padilla says:

    Meet kevin is full of baloney

  22. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Bitcoin FightClub says:

    Elon dislikes your callout of meetkevin!

  23. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Tom Nash says:

    NO HATE to Kevin, love his work. The spicy headline is a bit dramatic but that's just for the extra drama.

  24. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Stacy Walker says:

    Tom Nash bringing us the real deal plain and simple ๐Ÿ˜Š it had to be said. Thank you!

  25. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Alex says:

    Didnโ€™t Elon Musk buy Twitter like 2 months ago?

  26. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Marcela Damico says:

    titans fight i like it

  27. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Mark Angelone says:

    ๐Ÿฟ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.