(San Francisco) The judge in charge of litigation between Twitter and Elon Musk adjourned the proceedings on Thursday and gave both parties until October 28 for the boss of Tesla to buy the social network, failing which the trial initially scheduled for in ten days will take place in November.
Updated yesterday at 6:39 p.m.
A few hours earlier, the multi-billionaire’s lawyers had asked for the suspension of the lawsuits initiated by Twitter to force their client to honor the acquisition agreement.
They assured to expect that the operation will be concluded “around October 28”.
Elon Musk had forced the hand of the board of directors of the Californian group in April to buy it back, against 44 billion dollars, before unilaterally reconsidering his commitment a few weeks later.
On Monday, in a further about-face, he finally offered to complete the transaction at the price originally agreed upon, as long as he obtained the necessary funds and Twitter ended its lawsuits.
But after months of public attacks and changes of heart from the whimsical entrepreneur, the company wanted hard and fast proof of his seriousness.
Twitter’s lawyers had therefore opposed earlier Thursday the adjournment of the trial requested by the opposing party, calling this proposal “an invitation to more cunning and delay”.
Judge Kathaleen McCormick finally ruled: “The proceedings are suspended until October 28, 2022 at 5 p.m., to allow the parties to complete the transaction. If it is not concluded (by this date and time), the parties should contact me by email to obtain dates for a trial in November. »
Funding
A move that took many observers by surprise, as Twitter seemed to have the upper hand so far. The law of Delaware, where this type of conflict is usually settled, promotes the respect of contracts.
Elon Musk “scores a point”, notes Ann Lipton, professor of law at Tulane University. “He clearly wanted to delay the proceedings and avoid his deposition”, which has already been postponed several times.
The judge gives him a chance to keep his word, believes the expert: “She gave him a little slack”, but if ever the operation was not concluded by the deadline, “Twitter will have a more solid case for prove that he [Elon Musk] was in bad faith all along”.
Negotiations between the two parties resumed at the beginning of the week, but they are stumbling over the financing condition.
In their motion, Elon Musk’s attorneys note that “Twitter refuses to discontinue its lawsuits due to the theoretical possibility of a future failure to complete funding.”
But “this failure did not take place at this stage”, they underline. “On the contrary”, the creditors indicated “to be ready to honor their obligations”, say the lawyers. “Twitter’s groundless 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, [la société] insists on continuing the procedure, endangering the transaction and playing with the interests of the shareholders”.
” Trust us ”
The group with the blue bird, for its part, argued that it had no reason to trust the richest man in the world.
“On numerous occasions,” the Musk clan “failed to fulfill its obligation to do everything possible to complete the transaction,” replied Twitter’s lawyers.
” For months, [la partie adverse] advanced increasingly implausible charges 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’re serious this time’,” the social network mocked.
Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that the most likely outcome in their view would be “that the debt be funded”, in which case “shareholders will get their money much faster than if Twitter wins the lawsuit, and then the appeal […] a process that could take months.
“The court is supposed to see things in a neutral way and therefore not have an opinion on Elon Musk”, recalls Adam Badawi, professor of law at the University of Berkeley.
But if the billionaire does not keep his word, the consequences could be severe, adds the expert, because it is a court specializing in business law, “which therefore has more leeway to impose sanctions”.