Elon Musk’s plan to acquire Twitter for $44 billion (€44 billion) has received the support of Twitter’s stockholders.
The results of the shareholder meeting, which lasted only a few minutes, were determined after the majority of the votes had been cast online.
Despite the fact that the shareholder vote deadline for the merger was set for Tuesday, it was thought that enough investors had already cast their votes by Monday night for the result to be guaranteed.
Even though the world’s richest man wants to back out of the agreement, the shareholder resolution approves its closing.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk had stated on Twitter that he did not intend to proceed with the acquisition, claiming he was misinformed about the volume of fraudulent accounts on the network.
He made the remark in May, stating that he needed more information to demonstrate that less than 5% of users were made up of spam and false accounts.
In response, the business sued Musk, and a hearing has been scheduled for October. Twitter’s legal team claims that Musk’s justifications for walking away from the contract are “invalid and unjust.”
If Twitter wins the case, the judge can require Tesla’s CEO to pay the firm billions of dollars or even make him finish the purchase.
The testimony of Twitter’s former security head, who testified to the US Congress on Tuesday that the social media network is plagued by lax cyber defenses, may support Musk’s claim.
Peiter “Mudge” Zatko asserts that the business prioritizes profit over security and is unaware of what data it has or how to safeguard it.
Asserting that Twitter leadership was “misleading the public, lawmakers, regulators, and even its own board of directors,” Zatko, a renowned cybersecurity specialist, made his claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A Delaware judge decided last Monday that Musk could use Zatko’s whistleblower claims in his suit against Twitter.
However, many of Zatko’s assertions are believed to be unsupported by evidence and to have scant documentary backing. In the event that the judge rules that the multi-billionaire failed to conduct the required fact-checking for such a significant commercial arrangement, the evidence in the Musk proceedings may prove to be irrelevant in any case.