your current location is：Home > Finance > depthHomedepth

　　this week, Twitter lawyers will question billionaire Elon Musk (Elon Musk) to understand why he suddenly announced in July that he would give up on Twitter440. billion dollar acquisition.

　　Twitter's lawyers may use the inquiry to prove that Musk walked away from the deal because financial markets fell, not because of doubts about user data or security, as he said.

　　Musk wants the judge to allow him to walk away from the deal without having to pay liquidated damages. Twitter wants to force Musk to buy Twitter at $54.20 per share. Twitter shares closed at $41.58 on Friday.

　　The five-day trial is scheduled for October 17 in Wilmington, Delaware.

　　Dozens of sworn testimony will be scheduled for the trial, with witnesses including Twitter CEO Parag Agrawall. Both parties will take this opportunity to question each other's witnesses and gather evidence in their favor.

　　Agrawal is scheduled to begin answering questions from Musk's lawyers at 9 a.m. local time Monday, according to court documents. But the testimony has also been delayed, people familiar with the matter said. They also did not give a specific reason.

　　As planned, Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey testified under oath last week.

　　Not only has Musk drawn a huge following on Twitter, he has sometimes displayed his charisma and wit when he testifies under oath.

　　The smell of gunpowder in Twitter's forensics process is particularly strong. The firm's legal team includes law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and its lead attorney, Bill Savitt, previously represented Musk and Tesla in the SolarCity transaction, but did not participate in the forensics and Testimony section.

　　Savit has yet to comment.

　　Twitter hired the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati to help with the lawsuit.

　　At that time, the world's richest man's rudeness in court will be put to the test again.

　　Some of Musk's answers when he participated in the trial before:

　　Musk has called the opposing lawyers "reprehensible" in previous lawsuits, questioned their happiness, and accused them of "extortion." He also asked if the attorney's fees charged by the opposing attorney were for contingency expenses because that attorney's client was accused of defaulting on child support.

　　"You're probably getting money from contingency expenses, unless you took that kid's money. Which is it?" Musk told lawyers in a 2020 whistleblower case against Tesla.

　　The high-stakes inquiry will not be made public. Last week's court filings said Musk will testify under oath on Monday and, if necessary, through Wednesday. But Musk was not questioned on Monday, people familiar with the matter said. They did not give a new start date or reveal the reason for the delay.

　　Corporate litigator James Morsch said Musk's lawyers wanted him to focus on answering questions, but that was no easy task for such a smart and stubborn witness.

　　"It's like grabbing a tiger's tail," Mosey said.

　　During his testimony in 2019 over Tesla's acquisition of solar panel maker SolarCity, Musk declined to answer a question five times because of the language of his lawyers, court records show.

　　"We can stare at each other until you change the wording," Musk told opposing attorney Randall Baron at the time.

　　"I guess we have to cancel this testimony," Barron responded. He said he would apply to a judge to force Musk to answer questions. The move seems to have worked.

　　It can be seen from the three testimonies currently available to the media that Musk has never liked the opposing lawyers, and he accused them of "playing tricks" and suing him just for money.

　　“I heard yesterday that 3% of the U.S. economy comes from legal services, and that was one of the saddest things I’ve heard in a long time,” Musk told Barron during his sworn testimony in the SolarCity case.

　　In another lawsuit, Tesla whistleblower Martin Tripp accused the company of wasting raw materials. At the beginning of the testimony session, the opposing lawyer asked Musk if he understood the oath that required him to testify honestly.

　　"It sounds like some kind of legal term or semantic argument. What's the whole truth?" Musk asked rhetorically. "You mean, 'Is that a tree? What tree? Does that tree have a lot of leaves? 'Or are you saying that it's the whole truth that something is a tree? No, of course not."

　　Tripp's lawyer reminded Musk that if he did not cooperate, the presiding judge would personally oversee the testimony process.

　　The lawyer asked, "Are you going to obey the judge's admonition?"

　　"Of course," Musk said.