The year’s high stakes tech saga keeps unfolding with more twists in the Elon Musk Twitter case. A judge’s ruling has pushed a decision date back to October 28, a temporary pause that leaves both sides in the spotlight as the trial window looms. The court has given Musk until October 17 to attempt to seal the $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, a deal valued at about 41 billion euros. The postponement marks a critical moment in a saga that has drawn intense public and investor scrutiny and sparked widely divergent opinions about the path forward for the social platform.
After months of sharp exchanges, the world’s richest person shifted course by telling Twitter’s board on a recent Tuesday that he intends to honor the agreement that closed on April 25. The move appears to align with the stance of the social network, which has accepted the potential restoration of the deal. Earlier, Musk had pressed to set a price well above the company’s current value, arguing that such a move would help him address the legal threat of breaching the agreement. Market observers insist the stakes extend beyond the immediate sale, touching on how this dispute could influence corporate governance and accountability in large tech takeovers.
Judge Kathleen McCormick stated that if the parties cannot reach a settlement by October 28, the trial will be rescheduled for November. The decision has unsettled Twitter leadership, who must navigate a delicate balance between legal risk and strategic positioning as timelines shift and the court weighs the best path forward. The platform’s executives and investors are watching closely as the clock ticks down toward a potential new phase in the proceedings.
Twitter remains wary of Musk
Twitter officials have grown increasingly skeptical of Musk’s recent indications about closing the deal. U.S. media outlets warned on Tuesday that accepting the restructuring could be a tactic to extend the legal fight rather than a genuine commitment to finalize the purchase. The fear is that a renewed agreement might come with new conditions or safeguards that complicate governance afterward, especially if the proposed financing is not solidified.
“On the eve of the trial the defendants claim they intend to close the settlement. They say trust us and this time we are serious, while seeking to avoid scrutiny,”
The judge’s order triggered a new affidavit from Musk, with another procedural session set for the same Friday. Twitter has pushed back against what it calls a last minute attempt to dodge the merits trial. In correspondence with the court, Twitter’s counsel argued that the latest statements for closure look like a renewed effort to escape full judicial review. The exchange underscores a broader concern about how the parties manage transparency and compliance as the legal process unfolds.
Funding questions hover over the deal
Twitter’s directors are evaluating Musk’s ability to secure the financing needed to complete the purchase. The company’s legal team noted that the financier has yet to finalize plans to unlock several billion dollars in financing, a crucial step given the debt-heavy structure of the deal. They indicated that Musk has not informed the lenders about any final decision to close, a factor that could complicate the funding plan. An official from one lending institution reportedly confirmed that no definitive notification about closing had been issued, raising questions about timing and certainty for all parties involved.
Even if Musk intends to close, questions remain about whether sufficient funding can be mobilized in time. The broader financial environment has grown riskier since April, and the lending banks face heightened scrutiny and tighter conditions. Two investment entities that had previously pledged substantial support backed out in May, leaving Musk with fewer assurances about financing. The unfolding dynamics suggest the Twitter deal could be more fragile and contingent than initially anticipated, keeping the market on edge as legal and financial players weigh the potential outcomes. The ongoing drama has kept the tech sector transfixed on the evolving narrative surrounding a landmark social platform and its controversial owner.