Access the Editorial Brief at no cost
Roula Khalaf, the FT’s Editor, chooses her preferred articles for this periodic bulletin.
Elon Musk misled Twitter stockholders, a California jury determined, by disparaging the firm while he sought to revise or postpone his $44bn agreement for its acquisition in 2022.
On Friday, the San Francisco panel of judges rendered a decision supporting a cohort of financiers who filed a lawsuit against the magnate, asserting losses stemming from Musk’s “deceptive declarations” made in April 2022 amidst his acquisition of the online communication service.
This signifies a prominent judicial setback for the planet’s wealthiest individual, who may be responsible for significant compensation, to be assessed subsequently.
The nationwide collective lawsuit focused upon a sequence of posts Musk published in April 2022, a few weeks following his pledge to acquire the digital communication firm for $44bn.
He declared the transaction was “briefly suspended” until Twitter’s leadership could demonstrate that “inauthentic or deceptive profiles truly constituted under 5% of its user base”. Twitter’s shares dropped to the lower $30 range from the agreed price of $54.20 per share, since investors accounted for the possibility of its failure.
Musk additionally published that the agreement “cannot proceed” until Twitter’s principal executive presented evidence that fewer than 5 percent of profiles on the platform were “bogus/unwanted”.
The cohort of shareholders asserts they suffered losses having divested Twitter shares following the declarations at a diminished valuation. The takeover concluded later in 2022 at the initial transaction cost, subsequent to the Twitter board pursuing legal action against Musk in a Delaware court to compel the amalgamation accord.
The claimants contended that Musk, having affixed his signature to a compulsory accord for Twitter’s purchase and relinquished his entitlement to thorough investigation, ought to have been aware that he lacked the prerogative to withdraw.
Consequently, they posited his post that the acquisition was “paused” was untrue, as Twitter had not consented to postpone the transaction. Attorneys representing the financiers asserted Musk received counsel from his financiers regarding a tactic to reduce Twitter’s acquisition cost by menacing to withdraw.
The panel of judges refrained from determining that Musk perpetrated a deceptive “plot” to the detriment of stockholders.
The several-week litigation in San Francisco included depositions by Musk, alongside previous Twitter leaders, council members, and the financiers and legal representatives who brokered the deal.
Musk informed the tribunal that he thought the purported exaggerated Twitter user numbers justified his ability to withdraw.
“It may not have been my most prudent post,” Musk stated during his deposition at the beginning of this month. “I am not certain I would label it remarkably foolish . . . but if it resulted in this litigation, it likely fits that description.”
He has since reimagined Twitter, dismissing numerous staff members, rebranding it X, and amalgamating it with his artificial intelligence venture xAI before integrating both into his aerospace firm SpaceX.