Photo: NY Times
Twitter filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk to pressure him and others that he is purchasing the social media giant for $44 billion – an agreement the business magnate said he was canceling last week.
Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk has accused him of hypocrisy and bad faith for violating their deal.
According to the suit, Musk used various methods, such as inquiries about the number of fake and spam accounts on the social media service, to attempt to suspend this buyout following a market slump, making it look like he was diving into a bad deal.
The contract indicates that he was under a legally binding agreement.
“Musk wanted an escape. But the merger agreement left him little room,” said attorney William Savitt and other lawyers representing Twitter.
The lawsuit has potentially enormous consequences for both Twitter and Musk, putting both in a costly and critical legal war in which a former reluctant seller will attempt to compel the hand of a currently disinclined buyer.
Read Also: Elon Musk Fathered Twins with Neuralink Executive in 2021, As Per Reports
“Musk refuses to honor his obligations to Twitter and its stockholders because the deal he signed no longer serves his personal interests,” the social media platform’s lawyers stated in the suit.
“Musk apparently believes that he – unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law – is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away.”
On Twitter, Musk wrote: “Oh the irony lol,” briefly following the lawsuit’s filing.
Delaware law obliges the defendant to respond within 20 days after the complaint. However, Twitter has brought forward an expedited timetable, pointing out that any delay would harm the company.
Lawyers who have experience in the Delaware Court of Chancery say Musk’s victory will be a steep mountain to climb. According to experts, the case may depend on proving that Twitter was not advancing in the agreements.
“There is a body of case law in Delaware that says buyers’ remorse does not allow a buyer to back out of a deal,” stated a lawyer who has practiced in the court for 14 years named Daniel Griffith.
“This is a complicated case, but, at the end of the day, the legal analysis won’t be that sophisticated: It’s just whether there was what’s called a material adverse change or not,” he stated.
