According to reports, legal experts said that Twitter is looking for evidence that Elon Musk tried to sabotage the financing plan that led to the $44 billion acquisition of the social media company. Of course, we already know that both parties could not complete the transaction. In addition, the company is also investigating Elon Musk’s motives for abandoning the deal. Twitter this week issued dozens of civil subpoenas against a number of international banks. This includes Morgan Stanley-owned unit, co-investors in the deal, including Brookfield Asset Management. The subpoenas also include Elon Musk’s advisors.
However, as of now, there is no response from any of the parties. While Morgan Stanley declined to comment, Brookfield, Elon Musk’s representatives, and Twitter did not respond. The subpoenas seek documents and communications related to the deal and its financing, as well as any information related to concerns about fake Twitter accounts. They also want to hear from interested parties about the potential impact of changes in the share price of Tesla.
Twitter believes Elon Musk had a motive from the start
The subpoenas stem from Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk. The company is hoping that Musk will continue to complete the deal at the previously promised $54.20 a share. The five-day trial will begin on Oct. 17 in Delaware Chancery Court. Experts say the subpoenas show that Twitter wants to know how lenders, investors, and advisers communicated after Musk signed a deal in late April.
“They suspect he was conspiring behind the scenes to screw the whole thing up,” said Minor Myers, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law.
Musk announced on July 8 that he was abandoning the acquisition of Twitter, citing the other party’s breach of agreement and failure to provide relevant information about fake accounts. Twitter said the fake accounts were just excuses and that there was only one issue that really mattered, and that was the terms of the agreement. Musk also said he walked away from the deal because Twitter had fired executives and a third of its talent acquisition team, violating its obligation to “keep a significant part of the existing business organization essentially intact.”
Legal experts say Musk can’t be forced to close the deal if the financing fails – as long as it wasn’t his own fault.
The firing of Bob Swan was the focus of Twitter’s subpoena. Swan was an operating partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and initially led the financing of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Antonio Gracias, a longtime Musk assistant, later took his place.
Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School, said Twitter seemed to want to know, “Whether Gracias played any role in getting the financing, or was it just slowing things down.”
Swan has yet to comment. Gracias also did not respond.
Experts say Twitter wants to understand lenders’ concerns about Twitter’s fake account data and whether it’s as worrisome as Musk has said. Twitter asked investors for information on communications they had with Musk cronies, including Steve Jurvetson, a former Tesla board member and director of Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, about the Twitter deal.
Jurvetson has yet to comment.
“Haha, Twitter’s lawyers are sending subpoenas to friends around Musk,” wrote Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of big data firm Palantir Technologies… “I have nothing to do with this, just published Just a few pointed comments, but also received a document notice of ‘hereby order'”. He described Twitter’s subpoena as an “extremely harassing phishing investigation”. However, apart from the tweet, Lonsdale is yet to make further comments
Theodore Kittila, a corporate litigator in Delaware, said Twitter wanted to know exactly how Musk was speaking privately when he publicly tweeted about his concerns about fake Twitter accounts.
“They wanted to dig deeper into what’s going on behind the tweet,” Kittila said. “That’s why they looked into the emails to try and figure out what the conversation really was and what prompted Musk to end the deal”. Musk has also issued subpoenas over the past two days to data analytics firm, Concentrix Solutions and content moderation firm, TaskUS USA but the content of the subpoenas has not been made public.