87
Musk sues law firm because he’s mad that Twitter paid $90 million bill
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
News
23275 readers
3048 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"This action for equitable relief arises out of an effort by Wachtell to fundamentally alter its fee arrangement as litigation counsel in the twilight of its representation of Twitter to obtain an improper bonus payment in violation of its fiduciary and ethical obligations to its client," claimed the lawsuit filed by X Corp., the successor company to Twitter. "Wachtell exploited a corporate client left unprotected by lame duck fiduciaries who had lost their motivation to act in Twitter's best interest pending its imminent sale to Elon Musk and his entities, X Holdings I, Inc. and X Holdings II, Inc."
It sounds like the "lame duck fiduciaries" were quite effective. Those fiduciaries hired this law firm to secure the acquisition that Musk promised for the benefit of the original Twitter shareholders. Had these fiduciaries not done so, the deal would possibly not have happened and the original Twitter shareholders would have lost substantial value. The fact that the fiduciaries paid out when the deal was imminent to close shows even more that they asked for a legal service, received said service, and paid their bill.
Musk is just upset he didn't get to deny the payment to the law firm that force him to honor his obligation to buy Twitter at the high price.
It was probably a good idea that they paid the legal bill before he took over.
It doesn’t say what’s in the agreement, just says the agreement doesn’t describe a success bonus. Without seeing the agreement we can’t know.
But history shows he’s likely full of shit.
I'm not defending him per se, but the email response was interesting. I have no idea if this was a reasonable fee mount for the services.
I guess the thing that's interesting to me, is that Twitter the company doesn't benefit directly from hiring the firm to close the transaction, the original shareholders do. I would wonder why they weren't paying the firm, as they received the payment? It would be like assigning sellers closing costs bill (agent fees etc) to the house, to be paid by the new owner, and not to the seller.
I think the whole thing is weird, and believe he's still an insane cunt.