Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

According to news in the morning of August 24, Beijing time, it is reported that a US court has asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk (Elon Musk) to submit information about potential investors in the Twitter acquisition, which is the latest victory in Twitter's lawsuit against Max to abandon the purchase.

Musk had promised to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, totaling $44 billion. But then abandoned the acquisition on the grounds of a false account. Twitter immediately appealed and asked Musk to provide information about investors involved in its more than $7 billion equity financing. But the application was opposed by Musk.

On Tuesday, local time, Judge Catherine St. McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court rejected Musk's objection.

Despite the opposition of Musk's lawyer, McCormick supported another request from Twitter, ordering Musk to identify who were "aware of or involved in the key issues and activities of the deal."

As they prepare for the October 17 trial, both sides are vying for positions in their favor, issuing a large number of subpoenas to equity investors, advisers and banks involved in the acquisition. On Monday, Musk also issued a subpoena to his old friend and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. Mr Musk's lawyer recently complained that Twitter had cast a net too wide in pursuing Mr Musk's contacts in the deal.

Tuesday's ruling by robots and whistleblowers comes at a time when Twitter faces both legal and political risks. Earlier, a whistleblower accused Twitter of mishandling security and privacy issues and failing to properly deal with spam and robot accounts on its platform. The robot problem is also the core reason for Musk to cancel the acquisition.

Eric Eric Herman, a spokesman for Musk's legal team, declined to comment on McCormick's ruling. A Twitter spokesman also declined to comment.

In her ruling, McCormick pointed out that Musk's legal team agreed to search only two files of "custodians" responsible for assessing the size of robots and spam accounts, while Twitter searched the records of 42 custodians. This huge difference refutes the defence of the defendants, who had previously said that listing all possible investors was too onerous a task.

"Delaware law requires the party who objects on the grounds of heavy burden to explain the specific burden to some extent," McCormick wrote. " But she found that Mr Musk did not give such an explanation.

Empty Mr Musk complained this month that Twitter executives had been pestering him because of his small talk with friends and colleagues about the Twitter deal. So he asked Judge McCormick to stop Twitter lawyers. But McCormick found his statement "empty" and asked him to list as many names as possible.

McCormick believes that even if the information provided by these people is repeated, it is difficult to think that forcing Musk to list insiders does not meet the needs of the case, especially in a case involving 44 billion dollars in mergers and acquisitions.

However, McCormick pointed out that if Musk did not know the advisers, he would not be obliged to provide the names of the advisers to third parties.

"if he knows it, he must provide it." She added.

But on other issues, Mr McCormick's ruling is more in Mr Musk's interest. Twitter had previously regarded Musk's abandonment of objections to multiple information queries as a "vague forensics strategy". But this view was rejected by McCormick. She also believes that it is too early for Twitter to ask Musk to submit a record of communication with government officials about mergers and acquisitions.

The court plans to hold a hearing on Musk's request for information on Wednesday. It is not clear what impact the ruling will have on the hearing.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.