your current location is：Home > TechnologyHomeTechnology

according to reports, a US court asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk (Elon Musk) to submit information on potential investors in Twitter's acquisition, which became Twitter's lawsuit against Musk. The latest victory in the abandonment lawsuit.

　　Musk had promised to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share, for a total of $44 billion. However, the acquisition was later abandoned on the grounds of false accounts. Twitter then appealed and asked Musk to provide information on investors involved in its more than $7 billion equity financing. But the application was opposed by Musk.

　　On Tuesday, U.S. Delaware Chancery Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick rejected Musk’s objection.

　　Over the objections of Musk's lawyers, McCormick backed a separate request from Twitter, ordering Musk to clarify who "was aware of or involved in the key issues and activities of the deal."

　　As they prepare for the Oct. 17 trial, both sides are vying for positions in their favor, issuing numerous subpoenas to equity investors, advisers and banks involved in the takeover. Musk also issued a subpoena on Monday to his longtime friend and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. Musk's lawyers recently complained that Twitter was casting too much of a net in pursuing who Musk communicated with in the deal.

　　Robots and whistleblowers

　　Tuesday's ruling comes as Twitter faces legal and political risks. It comes after a whistleblower accused Twitter of mishandling security and privacy issues and failing to properly tackle spam and bot accounts on its platform. The robotics issue is also at the heart of Musk's reason for canceling the acquisition.

　　Eric Herman, a spokesman for Musk's legal team, declined to comment on McCormick's ruling. A Twitter spokesman also declined to comment.

　　McCormick noted in her ruling that Musk's legal team agreed to search only 2 files of "custodians" responsible for assessing the size of bots and spam accounts, while Twitter searched the records of 42 custodians . The huge discrepancy refutes the defendants' defenses, who previously said listing all possible investors was an overly onerous task.

　　McCormick wrote: “Delaware law requires that the party objecting on the grounds that the burden is onerous, to some extent, to explain the specific burden.” But she found that Musk did not provide such an explanation.

　　empty

　　Musk complained this month that Twitter executives had been pestering him over small talk he had with friends and colleagues about Twitter deals. So he asked Judge McCormick to block Twitter's lawyers. But McCormick found his claim "empty" and asked him to list as many names as possible.

　　McCormick argues that even if the information provided by those individuals is duplicated, it is hard to argue that forcing Musk to list insiders would not meet the needs of the case, especially in a case like this one involving a $44 billion merger.

　　But McCormick also pointed out that Musk is not obligated to provide the names of advisers to third parties if he does not know them.

　　"If he knew it, he had to provide it," she added.

　　But on other issues, McCormick's ruling was more in Musk's interests. Twitter had previously argued that Musk's dropping objections to multiple information inquiries was a "vague forensics tactic." But this view was dismissed by McCormick. She also believes it's premature for Twitter to ask Musk to file records of communications with government officials about the merger.

　　The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on Musk's request for information on Wednesday. It is unclear how the ruling will affect the hearing.