Leer en Español
Musk initially announced that he considered the deal dead on July 8, but Twitter rejected his arguments and sued him to force him to comply with the agreement and pay $44 billion for his business.
Now, the billionaire believes that the information disclosed by Peiter Zatko, who until last January was Twitter’s chief cybersecurity officer, provides additional grounds for him to break the deal.
Zatko, also known by the nickname “Mudge”, has submitted a report to the U.S. authorities in which he claims that Twitter has serious cybersecurity problems, that there may be one or more spies from other governments in the company, that it has lied about them to regulators and that it has neither the capacity nor the interest to determine the number of fake accounts on its platform.
In the letter sent yesterday and made public this Tuesday in a notice to the stock market regulator, Musk’s team points out that Twitter knew about the facts reported by its former security chief, but did not communicate them when the sale was negotiated and believes that this violates the agreed terms.
Musk presents this letter as an “additional notice” of cancellation to be used in case Justice determines that the first one, which he sent on July 8, is not valid.
The two parties will go to trial next October in a specialized court in the state of Delaware.
Musk’s lawyers have already subpoenaed Zatko to testify and have requested documents and communications from him as part of the proceedings.
In principle, the former executive’s allegations about fake accounts on the platform may be of most interest to the entrepreneur, who accuses Twitter of lying about his number and who has used that argument to justify the breakup of the acquisition agreement.
Zatko, who was fired last January, has provided information to the U.S. Congress about alleged irregularities committed by Twitter and important internal problems at a particularly complicated time for the company.
In response to these allegations, Twitter said they are part of a false narrative against the company and are riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
