The South African Multimillionaire Elon Musk filed a counterclaim against Twitter on Friday in the dispute that both parties remain open over the resignation of Tesla’s CEO to buy the social network after announcing an agreement at the end of April.
Musk presented a counterclaim in the courts of Delaware (USA) in which the case is being carried out, according to court documents, although the content of the counterclaim remains secret.
The trial between Twitter and Musk to resolve the dispute over the purchase of the social network will start on October 17 unless both parties reach an agreement on another date, according to case documents made public also this Friday.
The judge handling the case in a Delaware court ordered late Thursday that the trial be held from that day, after previously agreeing to Twitter’s request for a fast track process against Musk’s claim of postpone it to February of next year.
In mid-July, Judge Katheleen McCormick, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, decided that the trial would be held next October and that it would last five days.
Musk gave notice earlier this month of his intention to cancel the purchase of the technology company, agreed between both parties by 44 billionto which she replied with a demand in a court specialized in commercial disputes to force him to complete the operation.
Twitter’s board of directors has invited its shareholders to vote about the purchase on September 13 and has asked them to give the green light to the operation as the last step to close it, although he acknowledged that it also depends on the “pending litigation” with the millionaire.
the fake accounts
As reported The Wall Street Journalthe tycoon’s counterclaim will serve to point out that Twitter did not respond when asked about the number of fake accounts that existed on the social network and what was the social network’s way of locating and eliminating them, according to Musk’s legal team.
Likewise, the aforementioned newspaper has collected that it is “likely” that the founder of Tesla affirms that the company changed the number of monetizable daily active users before the agreement between both parties was finalized, which would have changed the purchase price of the social network.
–
