Looking at Elon Musk through Lens of Legal Concept of "Public Nuisance"
"Elon Musk declared he won’t proceed with his $44 billion takeover of Twitter Inc. unless the social media giant can prove bots make up fewer than 5% of its users, casting yet more uncertainty over the deal." - Bloomberg Law, May 17, 2022.
Meanwhile, as Financial Times hammers, Twitter indicates it is firm about enforcing the $44 billion takeover price. That means it isn't opening the door to negotiations by Musk on a lower per-share acquisition price. Some speculate that's his agenda in the uproar about bots.
The deal was for $54.20 per share. Now the stock is at $37.55. That's way down from the 52-week high of $73.34.
We are still hearing so much about Musk. And increasingly we are writing him off. Has he been evolving into a kind of "public nuisance" in business? He has inflicted so much suffering on the leadership and rank and file at Twitter.
I had covered the lead paint litigation in which that entity was being tried as a kind of public nuisance. It was as a public nuisance that the state attorneys general took on Big Tobacco.
"Public nuisance" is a powerful legal concept.
It did win out in the California lead paint class action. Jones Day lost in its defense of former lead paint manufacturer/seller Sherwin-Williams. Neither the state nor the US supreme courts would hear the appeal of that conviction.
State AGs had leveraged it in the opioid litigation.
As revenues decline for states because of reduced capital gains those and other jurisdictions could conjure up new forms of public nuisance lawsuits. Plaintiff firm Motley Rice is associated with that niche.
Connect with Editor-in-Chief Jane Genova at janegenova374@gmail.com. She does communications assignments for law firms and their vendors. Complimentary consultation available. No selling.
Comments
Post a Comment