Elon Musk told Twitter he wanted to withdraw from the deal.

In a letter to the attorney general’s office, Masc’s lawyer stated that he was terminating the agreement. Twitter (TWTR) The first agreement signed in April, according to a regulatory record released on Friday evening, is “in violation of a number of provisions.”

Musk Twitter has been expressing concern for weeks without any evidence that there are more bots and spammers on the platform than it has officially said. Analysts speculate that the concerns could be an attempt to justify pulling out of the current negotiations after the recent collapse of Twitter shares and the wider technology market. Tesla (TSLA) The stock, which planned to partially support the deal, has fallen sharply since the agreement was signed.

Musk’s lawyer still tweeted in a letter Friday that he had “failed to comply with his contractual obligations” to provide sufficient information to Musk, and that Twitter “appeared to have made false and misleading representations of Mr. Musk.” Agreement.

“For almost two months, Mr. Musk has been looking for the necessary information and information to conduct an independent review of the distribution of fake or spam accounts on his Twitter platform,” the letter read. “This information is fundamental to Twitter’s business and financial performance and is essential to complement the transactions considered in the merger agreement.”

“Twitter has failed or refused to provide this information. Sometimes Twitter ignores Mr. Musk’s requests, sometimes rejects them for seemingly unacceptable reasons, and sometimes Mr. Muk is giving incomplete or complete information. Useless information.”

Twitter has repeatedly said it will share information with Musk to close the deal with the terms of the initial agreement.

Twitter shares are trading at around $ 36, with Mask and Twitter offering a 30 percent discount and less than $ 54.20 since the announcement, raising serious doubts among investors about the price of the deal. Analysts say the declining value may be one of the reasons why the deal is not interested in the deal.

What could happen next

Accusing Twitter of violating the merger agreement, Twitter appears to be arguing that Musk should not be hooked on the $ 1 billion clause in the deal. Carl Tobias, professor of law at Richmond University.

“The way these things usually work is if you have billions of dollars in separation fees and you are the one who is trying to get it, that will apply to you,” said Tobias. For example, there is a compelling reason to convince the court that Twitter is not working well on the agreement.

Musk’s lawyer asked for a mask in a Friday letter but did not receive the information. . Twitter says it relies on users to count bots on public and private data, such as ISP numbers and geographic data.

Despite a mandatory purchase agreement, Mask’s letter said Friday that he could “properly negotiate access and information rights in the merger before reviewing and finalizing the information necessary for Twitter’s business and transaction.”

Brian Quinn, a law professor at Boston College, said Twitter could ask the court two things in a lawsuit against Musk. Twitter is expected to seek a verdict if it does not breach its contract with Musk, and is likely seeking a court order requiring Musk to complete the purchase.

When reviewing Musk’s claim, Quinn added that the court would consider the information provided by Twitter and Musk’s request for further clarification and whether it was necessary to finalize the agreement – for example, whether Musk needed the information to obtain government control or financial commitment.

Although any dispute will continue, Quinn said the two sides will continue to negotiate, and the situation could once again be resolved through negotiated sale prices. He said such a solution was common in merger disputes, citing a recent agreement between luxury brands Louis Vanton and Tiffany, which was eventually finalized at a lower cost.

“It’s a tough argument to try,” Quinn added, adding that more information is needed. “A judge in Delaware knows exactly how these transactions work and what is normal and what is not.”