Elon Musk’s lawyers sent a new letter to Twitter on Friday, in their latest bid to overturn the billionaire’s $44 billion deal with the social media platform. Musk’s legal team cited the multi-million dollar severance package paid by Twitter to his former security chief turned whistleblower Peiter Zatko (better known as Mudge) as a breach of the agreement buyout and a reason to end the agreement. Twitter responded to Musk’s notice saying the letter is “invalid and unwarranted”, and that the company has not violated any of the terms of the acquisition agreement.
The third time is good. That may be what Elon Musk’s lawyers thought when they sent out the third Twitter termination notice last Friday in an attempt to halt the company’s $44 billion acquisition. In the latest SEC filing, the Tesla CEO’s legal team opposed Twitter’s payment of a severance package to former corporate security chief Mudge in June, arguing that this action violated a provision of the acquisition agreement. The letter, dated September 9, was sent to Twitter’s chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde.
The notice sent to Twitter mentions that the acquisition agreement included a condition that the social network might not pay non-ordinary severance or termination payments to the “company’s service provider”, including former employees. employees. However, it was reported last week that Twitter confidentially negotiated a severance package of around $7 million with Mudge, who left the company in January 2022. The social network had hired him in November 2020 to settle the myriad of security issues the platform faced.
Mudge reportedly signed a standard nondisclosure agreement while accepting payment, but it allowed him to talk regarding the company through whistleblower complaints and congressional hearings. In August, Mudge made headlines accusing Twitter of misleading investors regarding the number of bots on the service, failing to delete user data and having poor security practices, among other things. In response, Twitter said he was fired in January 2022 for “ineffective leadership and poor performance” and that his allegations once morest the company paint a “false narrative”.
The complaints also accused Twitter of adopting arcane measurement matrices to suppress the number of fake accounts on the platform – a central issue in the legal battle between Musk and Twitter. As noted above, the agreement prohibits Twitter from paying outsized severance or severance pay. After this incident surfaced, Musk sent out his second Twitter dismissal notification in August, citing Mudge’s revelations that were not previously known to him. According to the report, the deal isn’t particularly odd, given that Mudge was a departing executive.
On the other hand, it seems that Musk does not agree with the agreement in Mudge and the social media platform. Musk’s legal team also sent a subpoena to Mudge seeking a deposition and a ton of documents from the ex-Twitter security chief. The billionaire sent his first layoff notice on July 8 following a long battle over the number of spambots on the platform. Whether Musk is actually allowed to terminate the deal is up to a Delaware court, following Twitter a intent a Musk trial in July for trying to abandon the deal.
In early September, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery a dclar that Musk might use Mudge’s allegations in his lawsuit once morest Twitter, but denied the request to postpone the trial to October 17. Additionally, McCormick faulted Musk for not providing the text messages requested by Twitter. McCormick the cit “gross omissions” in the production of Musk party documents in an order partially granting Twitter’s request for more documents.
The judge also berates Musk for wasting her time, and says there’s no time for jokes. McCormick wrote: Plaintiff’s fourth discovery motion identifies obvious deficiencies in defendants’ filings. Third parties produced text messages with Musk that Musk himself did not produce, and the production of text messages from Musk himself revealed glaring deficiencies. By way of example, defendants produced two text messages sent to Musk by Robert Steel of Parella Weinberg Partners on June 17 at 9:57 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.
The 10:15 a.m. text – which reads “Ok. Got it” – implies that Musk responded. Assuming Musk’s response was not telepathic, one would expect there to be evidence of that response in the Defendants’ filings. But the defendants did not provide any by the deadline to substantially complete the discovery of documents. McCormick also noted that Musk’s approach to responding to questioning also left “much to be desired”.
Musk’s legal team is trying to use a number of arguments, ranging from the number of fake accounts on the service to Twitter’s questionable approaches to security and privacy, to extricate themselves from the operation. $44 billion acquisition. Twitter responded to Musk’s letter on Monday, September 12, saying: As was the case with your two purported termination notices of July 8, 2022 and August 29, 2022, the purported termination set forth in your September 9, 2022 letter is invalid and unlawful under the Agreement. Twitter has not breached any of its representations or obligations under the agreement.
Sources : Letter from Musk’s legal team, Response from Twitter
And you?
What is your opinion on the subject?
See as well
