This was my first search on Google, but there were many, many, many documents of this nature.
Is this doc sufficient? Or are you looking for something else? I'm aware of earlier docs but it gets more legalize and arcane the further back you go.
By the time the trials started, the argument from Twitter was incredibly strong and well documented. But the stock price of Twitter was still like $40 so you'd have lots of opportunity to make money on the trade (Musk promised to buy at $54.20 after all)
Thanks, I did not see such a doc on the first three pages, so I am wondering if I was using bad search terms. However, looking through that document and not being a lawyer I am not feeling confident to interpret it correctly. What is a "Verified Complaint" in the first place? Are the items under "Nature of the Action" approved by the court or are they just claims of the complaining side? Also I am generally feeling not all that confident that phrases in a legal text have the same meaning I am used to.
All of that contributes to a completely different picture for me, compared to your statements. Sure, I can read documents like that (if I can find them, if I think of searching for them, ...), but I am not at all confident that my literal interpretation is sound. Thus my perceived risk of an investment would be much higher than yours.
So, maybe literacy is not the point here, but rather confidence in interpreting legal texts correctly, a good grasp of contract law and optimism/experience regarding external factors.
You DO NOT need to be a lawyer to get the arguments. By the time the discussion reaches this stage, the arcane bits are stripped out and referenced explicitly.
In fact, the jury are laypeople, just average Joe's and Jane's. All arguments must be simplified to a point that average people can understand. So it's a good point to pickup info.
---------
Here's a few key events to note on this particular trial:
1. Strong opening argument from Twitter over the contract. My opinion of course, but just read the document and get a gist of the argument yourself.
2. Weak opening arguments from Musk's lawyers.
3. Repeated reprimands from the trial judge for various mistakes the Musk lawyer team were committing
4. Inconsistency between what Elon Musk was saying in public / in the media and what his lawyers were saying in the trial.
-------
Note that in this special case, a judge decided the case instead of a jury. But the argument style at this late stage is simplified to the point where ordinary people / a jury can understand in any case.
That does not change that I cannot categorize the document you have linked, nor its parts, see my previous questions in that regard:
"What is a "Verified Complaint" in the first place? Are the items under "Nature of the Action" approved by the court or are they just claims of the complaining side?"
> Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”), by and through its undersigned counsel, as
and for its complaint against defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc.
(“Parent”), and X Holdings II, Inc. (“Acquisition Sub”), alleges as follows:
If you are trying to say this is 'difficult to read', maybe don't pick things that are answered in the first paragraph.
That does not tell me what a "Verified Complaint" really is. Obviously that is a technical term. Same with "Nature of the Action". If those points under "Nature of the Action" are merely points raised by Twitter, how can I trust them? Or did the court confirm those points? If so, I did not find where the document says that.
But let us stop here. It is obvious that you are very confident in interpreting documents like that. So I hope you are enjoying great gains from your investments based on your interpretations in similar cases.
> If those points under "Nature of the Action" are merely points raised by Twitter, how can I trust them?
You see Elons side and evaluate their followup. You follow the back and forth and evaluate who has the stronger argument.
When it gets to the point that the judge is literally reprimanding Elon Musk's council for breaking rules and shenanigans, you start buying TWTR and short selling TSLA.
You're grossly overcomplicating this. You don't come up with arguments in a trial, that's the lawyers jobs. Your job as a reader is simply to pick out the side with the better argument.
-------
If you are worried about form, that's not your job. That's the judges job. And if you are worried about not understanding the complete argument, that's not even your job. That's the opposing lawyers job to make a cohesive and full argument.
This was my first search on Google, but there were many, many, many documents of this nature.
Is this doc sufficient? Or are you looking for something else? I'm aware of earlier docs but it gets more legalize and arcane the further back you go.
By the time the trials started, the argument from Twitter was incredibly strong and well documented. But the stock price of Twitter was still like $40 so you'd have lots of opportunity to make money on the trade (Musk promised to buy at $54.20 after all)