The chargée du contentieux juge between Twitter and Elon Musk ajourné jeudi la procédure et donné jusqu’au October 28 aux deux parties so that Tesla’s employer rachète le réseau social, faute de quoi le procès initially prévu pour dans dix jours aura lieu en november. A few hours earlier, the billionaire’s lawyers had requested the suspension of the lawsuits initiated by Twitter to force their client to comply with the acquisition agreement. They said they expected the deal to close “around October 28.”
Elon Musk had forced the hand of the Californian group’s board of directors in April to buy it back, for $44 billion, before unilaterally reconsidering his commitment a few weeks later. On Monday, in another radical twist, he finally offered to complete the transaction at the price originally agreed upon, provided he obtained the necessary funds and Twitter ended the demands of him.
But after months of public attacks and change of heart by the capricious businessman, the company wanted hard and fast proof of its seriousness. For this reason, Twitter’s lawyers had opposed this Thursday the postponement of the trial requested by the opposing party, describing this proposal as “an invitation to more cunning and delay.”
Judge Kathaleen McCormick ultimately ruled: “The proceeding is adjourned until October 28, 2022 at 5 pm, to allow the parties to complete the transaction. If it is not concluded (by this date and time), the parties shall stop trial dates in November.
Money
A move that caught many observers by surprise, as Twitter seemed to have the upper hand so far. Delaware law, where these types of conflicts are usually resolved, promotes the respect of contracts. Elon Musk “scores a point,” says Ann Lipton, a law professor at Tulane University. “Clearly he wanted to delay the process and avoid his declaration”, which has already been postponed several times.
The judge gives him a chance to keep his word, the expert believes: “She gave him some slack,” but if the deal ever falls short, “Twitter will have a stronger case to prove than he ( Elon Musk, editor’s note) was in bad faith all along.” Negotiations between the two sides resumed earlier in the week but are running up against the financing condition. In their motion, Elon Musk’s attorneys note that “Twitter refuses to suspend its lawsuits due to the theoretical possibility that funding may not be completed in the future.”
But “this failure did not occur at this stage,” they stress. “On the contrary”, the creditors indicated “to be willing to fulfill their obligations”, say the lawyers. “Twitter’s baseless speculation has been refuted by the banks themselves.” They feel that their client “agreed to do” what the company asked. “And yet Twitter refuses to accept this positive response. Incredibly, (the company) insists on continuing with the procedure, endangering the transaction and playing with the interests of the shareholders”.
“Trust us”
The Blue Bird group, for its part, argued that it had no reason to trust the richest man in the world. “On numerous occasions,” the Musk clan “failed in their obligation to do everything possible to complete the transaction,” Twitter’s lawyers responded. “For months (the opposing party) has advanced increasingly unlikely accusations to delay the trial (…), accusations that appeared unfounded” during the preliminary hearings, they asserted.
“Now, on the eve of the trial, they say they want to conclude. (…) ‘Trust us,’ they say, ‘we are serious this time,'” the social network mocked. Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that, in their opinion, the most likely outcome would be “debt financed”, in which case “shareholders will get their money much faster than if Twitter wins the lawsuit and then the appeal (… .) process that could take months.”
“The court is supposed to see things neutrally and therefore not have an opinion on Elon Musk,” recalls Adam Badawi, a law professor at UC Berkeley. But if the billionaire does not keep his word, the consequences can be harsh, adds the expert, because it is a court specializing in business law, “which therefore has more room to impose sanctions.”
Source: BFM TV
