Elon Musk’s Mega‑Deal Under Scrutiny: Twitter Boots Out Subpoenas Like a Detective Sleuth
In a starring twist of corporate drama, the Delaware Court of Chancery got a full‑blown investigation report this week. Twitter, the social media giant rocked by Musk’s takeover, has dropped dozens of civil subpoenas right at the heart of the financing machinery that was supposed to make the $44 billion deal happen.
Who’s Got the Papers?
- Morgan Stanley units – the banks that were supposed to keep the deck tilted in favor of the deal.
- Brookfield Asset Management affiliates – the co‑investors who were promised a slice of the Twitter pie.
- Anyone on Musk’s entourage who might have whispered secrets about the financing.
Both Morgan Stanley and Brookfield haven’t spoken up yet. Musk and the Twitter legal team are, unfortunately, playing hard to get on the phone.
What’s Twitter After?
These subpoenas are all about documents and chats that could reveal why Musk might have been plotting a paradoxical sabotage of his own deal. Twitter wants the inside scoop on:
- Any chatter about “bot” or fake accounts that might have rattled lenders.
- How the stock price roller‑coaster of Tesla, Musk’s other baby, could have shaken things up.
- How the need for these fake‑account details could have been a deal‑breaker.
All of this is wrapped up in Twitter’s lawsuit calling Musk to account for the 54.20 $ per share price he signed up for back in late April. Fast‑forward to a five‑day trial slated to start on October 17.
Why All the Scream‑Now?
According to legal scholars, Twitter suspects Musk may have been a “secret saboteur” behind the scenes. Professor Minor Myers of UConn Law says, “They suspect that behind the scenes he’s been conspiring to blow the whole thing up.”
Musk claims he walked away because Twitter allegedly kept silent on the fake‑account issue and fired top execs, ripping out a third of the talent acquisition team. Another twist? Musk says the deal could fail if the financing falls through, but only if he wasn’t the trigger.
Operatin’ Partners and the Ring‑Change Story
Robots in the room: Bob Swan, the venture partner who first tried to raise the dough, got replaced by Antonio Gracias. Twitter’s lawsuit is basically asking if Gracias helped get the bank to finish the deal or just blew up delays.
Neither Swan nor Gracias responded, but Bulldog investor Steve Jurvetson – a former Tesla board member and current SpaceX director – was also sniffed out. While the big names play “silent mode,” Twitter prepped a docket that spins the grand intrigue—firing executive Bob Swan could be “the sticking point.”
Side‑kick: Palantir Co‑Founder Lonsdale Calls It “Fishing”
Joe Lonsdale of Palantir (and also 8VC) tweeted, “Lol, lawyers w/ TWTR are sending subpoenas to friends in the ecosystem around @elonmusk,” labeling them “giant harassing fishing expedition.” He claimed he was only there for a few snarky comments.
Moving Forward: From Subpoenas to Revelations
Twitter’s probe is effectively a backstage pass to the unseen conversations that might explain Musk’s motives. One Fraser-based litigator, Theodore Kittila, notes, “They’re troubleshooting the gap between what he tweets publicly and what he does in private.”
Meanwhile, Musk fired his own subpoenas at data analytics firms Concentrix Solutions Corp and TaskUs USA, diving into content moderation mysteries.
All told, the court is working to unearth the chain of conversations—like a giant copy‑cat mission in the corporate world—unraveling whether Musk truly had the deal’s back, or was simply playing a double‑agent card on the grand stage of Twitter and Tesla.
Let’s see how this under‑the‑covers saga unfolds on October 17. Will Twitter win? Will Musk pull the levers? Stay tuned for the next act in this high‑stakes financial thriller.
