Photo illustration with Elon Musk’s Twitter account displayed on the screen of an iPhone.

Musk tried to delay the trial until next year, but was unsuccessful. A five-day trial will be held in October by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The ruling came very close to the preferred timelines of both Musk and Twitter. The trial for the lawsuit against Musk was supposed to take place in September of 2022.

According to The Wall Street Journal, she said that delay threatens irreparable harm.

The chancellor is the chief judge. She ordered a company to complete a merger last year and it has some similarities to the Musk dispute.

Twitter: Musk’s spam complaint a “manufactured issue”

After the sides argued their motions, the judge made an oral ruling. The conference call for the public to listen to was at capacity the first few times Ars tried it. During the last few minutes of the ruling, we got on the phone.

According to Musk, the merger deal was broken by not giving him all the data he requested. The merger agreement didn't make any promises about the amount of fake accounts, which is why the lawsuit doesn't turn on that.


"That's not what this case is about," William Savitt said.

The Court of Chancery has acknowledged that when a merger is held in limbo by a buyer's refusal to close, the seller is at risk of injury. Ensuring sufficient time for this Court to grant effective relief and for the Delaware Supreme Court to review this Court's decision is a must.

Musk claimed he needs months to evaluate data

The forensic review and analysis of large swaths of data will require complex, technical discovery, according to Musk. This will involve sifting through hundreds of billions of actions on Twitter and reviewing related sampling and control processes.

Musk doesn't agree with the idea that less than 5 percent of its users are fake. The restatement of the total mDAU stat was a small change. The correct mDAU number was 214.7 million, but the incorrect one was 216.6 million.

As a party in violation of his obligations under a merger agreement, Musk should not be allowed to continue his campaign against his contractual counterpart without being held accountable.

Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Musk, said at the hearing that the answers Musk got when he asked about the accounts were alarming.

Rossman pointed out that the billionaire held a larger stake than the directors of the company.