1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,600 | |
| 2 | Ṁ417 | |
| 3 | Ṁ317 | |
| 4 | Ṁ252 | |
| 5 | Ṁ57 |
People are also trading
@chrisjbillington If X is representing them, then presumably there is no "pay for anyone's legal bills" because X is doing it pro bono (or at least, presumably not billing themselves, if not technically pro bono).
@Jacy Twitter pays lawyers, Twitter tells lawyers to spend their time on this persons personal matter instead of Twitter business
Are you suggesting the lawyers are working for Twitter for free?
@Gen I'm positing that we don't know there are legal bills involved at all, and if legal bills are involved, it also wouldn't be clear that X has paid them yet or will pay them before 2024.
Just to be clear, this nitpicking perspective is focused on the literal wording of the market title. If the "spirit" of the question is what matters, I think this should clearly resolve YES.
Lawyers at Schaerr Jaffe — who said they are representing Campolargo “with the support of X Corp” — wrote on November 14 that if the university did not “reverse the preliminary finding” against the student, it would “result in a violation of his rights”.
The lawyers are saying they're being paid by X corp.
@chrisjbillington That quote does not say that the lawyers said they're being paid by X. It says "with the support of X Corp." Support could mean a lot of things, not necessarily having already given X a legal bill and having been paid for it.