A big pie has fallen from the sky, and Musk has officially issued a subpoena to Zatko, hoping to provide documents and communication records about Twitter’s fake accounts and security breaches. This is just one of more than a hundred subpoenas issued by Musk and Twitter in total, and the number of subpoenas issued by both parties continues to rise. Many Silicon Valley elites have been forced to get involved, and it’s frustrating.
This was followed by this termination letter sent to Twitter.
The letter stated that the termination of the acquisition letter is in addition to the previous proposal, not a substitute. On July 8, Musk officially announced the termination of the acquisition.
“Allegations of certain facts known to Twitter on July 8, 2022, but not disclosed to Musk prior to their exposure. These allegations provide additional and different grounds for terminating the acquisition agreement.” In the termination letter, Musk’s legal representative wrote.
Interestingly, Musk’s termination letter did not rely entirely on whether Zatko’s report was true, but speculated in the letter that Twitter would face a series of troubles, including investigations and civil lawsuits from regulators in various countries. And that will have a major impact on Twitter’s future survival.
In addition, the letter said the notice was “not legally necessary” to terminate the deal, but rather an insurance measure to ensure that the deal would be terminated even if Musk’s previous termination claims were not valid in court.
Here comes a new reason, no need to be in vain, Musk seized the opportunity to insure the termination of the Twitter acquisition.
A
In the tug of war between the two sides, it has to be said that Twitter has always been the passive party. But after being passive for a long time, the speed has also been passive. Twitter responded quickly to all kinds of “moths” on Musk’s side.
On July 12, Twitter formally sued Musk for $44 billion, the third day after its initial proposal to terminate the acquisition on July 8.
This time, on the day of receiving the termination letter, Twitter sent a letter to Musk’s legal representative, calling the termination letter “invalid and wrong.”
“This is based solely on third-party claims, which, as Twitter has previously stated, are full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and lack critical context,” the letter reads.
The third party refers to Zatko, who reported Twitter. Although Turk reported Twitter in July, the news was disclosed to the public on August 29 by the Washington Post, which caused heated discussions.
It’s Time Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal responded, not only accusing Zatko of being “full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies,” but also stressing that Zatko left Twitter because of “work and inaccuracies.” Poor leadership”, questioning Zatko’s motives and credibility.
Twitter’s response letter to Musk’s side also stated: “Contrary to the assertion in your letter, Twitter has not violated any of its representations or obligations under the agreement, and Twitter has not and is not likely to suffer material disadvantage to the company. influences.”
Once again, Twitter emphasized that it will continue to seek the power to enforce the agreement: “Complete the transaction at the price and terms agreed with Musk.”
Twitter’s legal team said the independent reason the termination letter was invalid was that Musk continued to “knowingly, deliberately, and grossly” breached the agreement.
As Zatko said earlier, he had already started preparing to report Twitter as early as the beginning of this year. From this perspective, its impact on Musk’s legal battle with Twitter’s takeover could be a bonus for Musk.
In response to being subpoenaed by Musk, Zatko’s lawyers said in a statement: “Mr. Zatko will comply with his legal obligations to the subpoena, and his testimony was not voluntary. He disclosed as a whistleblower. , not to benefit Musk, or to harm Twitter. It’s to protect the American public and Twitter’s shareholders.”
From a larger perspective, the termination of the acquisition letter and the “exploitation” of Zatko are just part of the legal battle between the two parties.
That’s right, before the court session, the legal battle between Musk and Twitter is already raging.
B
The acquisition story between Musk and Twitter is full of twists and turns, with several reversals, and the ups and downs always give people the illusion that the matter has been “protracted”.
But in fact, if Musk’s April announcement of the acquisition of Twitter is regarded as the place where the dream began, it will only take five months for the two sides to fully work out.
And the real legal battle is less than 2 months since Twitter sued Musk on July 12. From then on, as if all pretense was suddenly removed, the confrontation between Musk and Twitter suddenly escalated, and the two sides were drawn to each other.
Even the timing of the court session is a point of contention, with Musk hoping for a court session next year and Twitter’s wishing for a quick resolution. At the July 19 hearing for the court time, Twitter’s lawyers even called Musk an “enemy” at one point, accusing him of deliberately sabotaging the deal, and the two sides were fierce.
In the end, the judge ruled that a five-day hearing in October was a compromise.
Nonetheless, as far as the case between Musk and Twitter is concerned, this is still a very fast trial, and the legal work that usually lasts several years has been compressed into three months. Neither Musk nor Twitter dared to slack off. There is no so-called Waiting for the trial, both parties did their best to prepare.
According to the New York Times, the two sides have issued more than 100 subpoenas to Silicon Valley elites, including Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Oracle boss Larry Allison. From big-name banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan, to well-known investors, well-known advisers, Twitter board members, and Musk’s entourage.
The number of subpoena recipients excites even the top law firms representing Silicon Valley’s elite. “Every (law) firm in Silicon Valley is salivating and trying to get involved,” said Carol Langford, a professor of legal ethics in San Francisco.
This court trial has the potential to become a catwalk for tech celebrities, and it’s a special Musk gift. Usually similar deal lawsuits don’t involve so many people, but it’s possible that Musk will tell people something (rather than keeping it strictly confidential).
Twitter declined to comment on this, while a lawyer for Musk said it was “an old-fashioned smokescreen for subpoenas, hoping people don’t get the truth. If the company had nothing to hide, it wouldn’t do it.”
Twitter has been the more aggressive party so far, issuing more than 84 subpoenas. Trying to prove that Musk is actually dissatisfied with the acquisition because his personal wealth has dwindled due to reasons such as the recession.
Musk’s side has issued more than 36 subpoenas, including one of Twitter’s founders, Jack Dorsey, and whistleblower Zatko, trying to show that Twitter has lied about the number of fake accounts and its security.
Of course, there is new friction in the frenzy of subpoenas and disclosures.
Musk has expressed displeasure that Twitter has subpoenaed Musk’s colleagues and friends to try to obtain the content of group chats between them and Musk. Elon Musk, on the other hand, asked for a trove of data, including records of communications between board members and account information on the platform over the years.
Many of those involved were also dissatisfied, especially on Musk’s side.
Prominent investor Joe Lonsdale received a 62-page subpoena on Twitter, tweeting: “I have nothing to do with this other than a few vitriolic comments.” Worked with Musk on Paypal After receiving the subpoena, his friend David Sacks simply posted a picture with a middle finger to express his dissatisfaction.
It is worth noting that Justice Kathalee McCormick, who presided over the case, has expressed doubts about Musk’s side. She wrote in a ruling last week that Musk’s process for gathering evidence “has always been suboptimal” and that his demands for years of data are “ridiculous.”
In response to Musk’s complaint that Twitter wanted to prevent Twitter from “harassing” colleagues and friends, she said “the defendant cannot refuse to respond because he unilaterally believes that these requests are irrelevant, even assuming that Musk has many friends and family members, and he believes that the defendant’s The breadth, burden and proportionality arguments also sound hollow.”
This “legal feast” that Silicon Valley lawyers are looking forward to will officially begin in more than a month. Although Musk has taken the lead in the field of public opinion, Twitter has been caught in the embarrassment of passive response time and time again, but through the legal battle. Looking at the smoke, it is still unknown whether Musk can really not buy Twitter.