[dragontamer]

Did you read the first paragraph?

> 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.

[generic92034]

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.

[dragontamer]

> 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.

At this stage of the trial, it's simply reading.