Twitter has sued Elon Musk, hoping to force the billionaire to buy the social media platform at the agreed price of $54 per share.
As Bret Taylor, chairman of the board at Twitter, suggested on Monday, Twitter has sued Musk after he called off the $44 billion deal.
"Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play, and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, 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," read the lawsuit, spotted by Reuters.
In April, Twitter announced that it has accepted Elon Musk's offer to purchase the company for $44 billion, for $54.20 a share.
In May, Musk announced that he would temporarily halt his purchase of the social media while he sought to confirm how many accounts on the platform were spam accounts.
The Tesla CEO claimed that he would walk away from the deal if fake accounts comprised more than 5% of Twitter's total user base.
38 Comments
I was wondering what laws may apply to people who "pump and dump", and I found this on the Internet. I'm not saying that Musk is guilty. I have no idea. In fact, Twitter itself could be guilty of one of these laws. In addition to all these laws, there's also the question of "contract violation" which would have to be resolved in civil court, or be settled out of court.
If Elon Musk asked for bot account and Twitter failed to provide that, then I don't see how it's illegal or how he can be sued.
It's same with buying a house, a buyer want to have the house inspected and all questions answered before full purchase begins. If the seller fail to provide everything the buyer ask for, the seller has no right to sue.
Except he’s not buying a house so your analogy falls flat on its face.
I would be shocked if Twitter hadn’t covered this exact contingency in the contract.
Occam’s Razor says this is simply a sociopathic billionaire (but I repeat myself) trying to back out of a bad deal he made.
I feel like I missed something. I thought Twitter provided Musk with the firehose of data so his team could detect the number of bots? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/technology/twitter-musk-firehose-tweets.html
I guess there is some ambiguity around the percentage of bots that get counted towards advertising numbers and that is what Musk is fighting. This could get messy, but I think with Musk waiving his right for Due Diligence he may get burned on this. This whole situation was really bizarre.