The ongoing legal agreement between Twitter and Elon Musk will enter an interesting new phase later this year after a Judge of the Kankelir Delaware Court has decided that the trial will begin on October 17. Earlier this month, Twitter took the legal path to force Musk to complete the proposal that he proposed $ 44 billion in the social media website. This happened a few days after Musk announced his decision to end the purchase agreement which was widely published where Musk would pay $ 54.20 per share for the majority shares in the company.
Shortly after the offer for Twitter, Musk expressed concern about the actual scale of the BOT account on the platform. Through his own Twitter account Musk also claims that Twitter problems with fake and spam accounts are far worse than what Twitter revealed openly. In one example, Musk claimed he did a random test and found that one fifth of all Twitter accounts was a spam or fake account. Quoting all of these reasons, which he called “misleading representations” made by the Twitter executive, Musk suggested that he decided to get out of the agreement in early July.
Twitter legally challenged this decision with a request that Musk completed the agreement as agreed. In the new income report, Twitter also blamed the uncertainty that rose the offer of the takeover of Musk as one of the reasons for the lack of income.
What happened next?
Kathaleen St. Dear Jude McCormick, the chairman of the judge in the Delaware Chancellor Court, decided on Twitter’s request for a four -day trial in September. In the decision, the judge confirmed October 17, 2022, as the date of trial. Conversely, Musk’s lawyer wants the trial to be pushed to mid -February, 2023.
While Twitter could not convince the judge for the September trial, they must be quite happy with today’s decision, given that their schedule was only extended a month. Twitter lawyers argue that delays in the trial will only add to the uncertainty that rises over the future of the agreement and will affect the future of Twitter’s income.
Judge MC Cormick seems to mostly agree with the Twitter argument that the longer the permanent transaction in the Limbo, the more likely the damage that cannot be repaired at the company. The judge also noted that Musk’s lawyer seems to have underestimated the ability of the court to quickly process this complicated legal struggle.
In his defense, Musk Andrew Rossman’s lawyer argued that his client pushed the February trial to have enough time to verify the Twitter claims about less than 5% of its users to be fake or SPAM account. He also stressed that Musk had more at stake than Twitter, given the possibility that billionaires might be forced to buy a company.
