Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 21 of 31 HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS VII. Defendants materially breach their obligations to work toward closing and refrain from unreasonable withholding of consent to operational changes A. Defendants abandon financing-related efforts and breach Section 6.10(d) 109. Musk’s distortive public statements about the deal, and his increasingly aggressive information demands through counsel, raised Twitter’s suspicion that he was secretly abandoning efforts to finalize the committed debt financing in time for a prompt closing. Section 6.10 requires defendants to take all steps necessary to secure the already-committed financing for the closing. 110. Twitter’s concern deepened when, on June 23, 2022, Musk texted Twitter management to say that he had asked Swan “to depart the deal proceedings, as we are not on the same wavelength.” At the same time, Musk said he was “trying to prepare the cash flow projections necessary to secure the debt,” and asked for Twitter’s “cash flow projections over the next three years” and a comparison of historical projections to actuals — to assist “debt issuers” who “are much more conservative than equity investors.” Customarily, projections are needed well in advance of closing and before approaching ratings agencies, which is a key first step in consummating debt financing. They are the buyer’s, not the seller’s, responsibility. See Ex. 1 § 6.11. 111. Over the ensuing days, Twitter’s repeated requests for a contact in lieu of Swan generated no response. Outreach by Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan to Morgan Stanley likewise was met with silence. 112. Faced with this uncertainty and with Musk’s insinuations about his lenders, on June 28 and again on July 6, Twitter exercised its rights under Section 6.10(d) of the merger agreement to formally seek information about the status of Musk’s financing. 113. Defendants still have provided no substantive response. Instead, the day after the first of these requests, Musk warned Agrawal and Segal to back off: 114. On June 30, 2022, Musk informed Segal that replacement team member (and long-time Musk confidant) Antonio Gracias would be taking over the financing effort that Swan had helmed. But Gracias never appeared. Continue reading here

Morgan Stanley

Twitter

Musk's 'erratic conduct and public disparagement' caused Twitter employee attrition, per lawsuit

Mergers & Acquisitions are No Joke, and Musk Violated 2 Contractual Obligations

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

Musk Attempted to Abandon Twitter Deal via Text Threats

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Accused of breaching Merger Contract with Musk, Twitter showed receipt that it did not

Musk blamed Twitter on employees attrition, while intending to do just that behind closed doors

Musk breached a 'valid and enforceable contract' with Twitter, per lawsuit

Musk Risked Breaching Legally Binding Contract Trying to Back Out of Twitter Deal

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Accused of breaching Merger Contract with Musk, Twitter showed receipt that it did not

Musk blamed Twitter on employees attrition, while intending to do just that behind closed doors

Musk breached a 'valid and enforceable contract' with Twitter, per lawsuit

Musk Risked Breaching Legally Binding Contract Trying to Back Out of Twitter Deal

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps