[mpyne]

> Systrom was asked about formal offers. The Twitter offer was a verbal agreement.

Verbal contracts are still contracts. Written form is preferred because it's easier to enforce after-the-fact, not because it's required for legal contracts.

And either way, Systrom would have taken an oath to "tell the truth, and the whole truth". This type of glaring omission over quibbling about whether an offer was a "formal" offer or not would get most in trouble with the courts...

[cynicalkane]

Uh, no. For a verbal agreement to be binding it must pass the same requirements as a written agreement. A few guys discussing a takeover is not a formal takeover offer any more than if they exchanged e-mails about it. I am no expert in securities law but the bar for contractual consideration has got to be very high.

[mpyne]

There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "formal offers" to talk about something else.

Can you at least read the article before talking about generalities of mergers&acquisitions?

[cynicalkane]

What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.

[uptown]

"carefully and specifically ... standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved."

You know - just like the terms and conditions.

[jonknee]

Spilling the beans was exactly the point of his questioning.

[mburshteyn]

Nice thereunto.