Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, a respected cybersecurity expert, filed complaints in July with federal regulators and the Justice Department alleging that Twitter misled regulators about its efforts to control millions of spam accounts as well as its cyber defences. A former Twitter head of security, fired early this year and turned whistleblower, appeared to bolster Musk's argument. As the two sides presented evidence prior to the trial, the judge appeared to focus narrowly in line with the court's mandate: on the merger agreement between Musk and Twitter, and whether anything had changed since it was signed in April that would justify terminating the deal. Jude McCormick, the court's head judge, apparently wasn't buying it. WHAT WAS MUSK'S MAIN ARGUMENT FOR BACKING OUT OF BUYING TWITTER? Musk grounded his argument largely on the allegation that Twitter vastly misrepresented how it measures the magnitude of “spam bot” accounts that are useless to advertisers. Here's a look at how the legal battle unfolded.
More immediately, Musk faced a deposition in the case by Twitter's attorneys starting on Thursday. He says he'll only complete the deal if that trial is put on hold. A combination of gambles or missteps and potential advantages that didn't pan out made his hand appear weak for the trial looming in less than two weeks in Chancery Court in Delaware. In the months since his initial offer to buy Twitter in April, Musk faced a huge legal challenge. But it wasn't surprising to observers of the monthslong legal battle as Twitter tried to compel the world's richest man to consummate the buyout he had tried to back out of.
It sent shares of the social media platform soaring and stoked alarm among some media watchdogs and civil rights groups worried about what kind of free speech would flourish on Twitter under Musk. WASHINGTON: News that Elon Musk has agreed after all to proceed with his USD 44 billion deal to buy Twitter may have felt like a stunning surprise from the brash billionaire who loves to shock.
0 kommentar(er)
