Musk proposed to buy Twitter  for $44 billion in April this year, but three months later he claimed that the platform had too many fake accounts and was unwilling to complete the deal.

Now, a report by former Twitter security chief Peiter Zatko that Twitter misled regulators about its privacy and security protections, as well as its ability to detect and root out fake accounts, could lead to Musk’s Oct. 17 Delaware attack. The state has a favorable side at the upcoming trial. In fact, Musk’s legal team has petitioned the court to subpoena Peiter Zatko to testify.

Wedbush analysts believe Twitter could have easily won the lawsuit, but the whistleblower has changed the game.

“For Musk, it’s like a child waking up on Christmas morning and seeing a big gift under the Christmas tree. This makes Musk’s camp stand in court.” Ives described the presence of this person at a critical moment. Simply the worst nightmare of a Twitter board.

Twitter shares fell 7.32 percent to $39.86 a share on Tuesday.

Zatko accused Twitter executives of deceiving the board, users and shareholders in 2021, and that CEO Parag Agrawal had asked him to forge paperwork.

He said that Twitter failed to report the actual status of the four major problems to the board of directors, including the old Twitter software and lack of basic information security measures; the number of employees who have control systems and data permissions as many as 7,000, and no one has control of these employees’ data. Usage; problems in the company’s internal processes, and a large number of information security attacks have affected the security of user data. Zatko pointed out that Twitter has 500,000 servers with outdated software, and more than a quarter of employees’ computers cannot be updated with software, which has become a major loophole in information security.

However, some legal experts believe that while the whistleblower’s news may seem favorable for Musk, it may not change the likelihood that Twitter will succeed in asking Musk to complete the acquisition.

Erik Gordon, a professor of law and business at the University of Michigan, said that this was because Musk knew about and complained on Twitter about the number of “fake accounts” and “spam bots” before signing the agreement, so in order to invalidate the acquisition agreement between the two parties, Musk must demonstrate a “material adverse change” in Twitter, not a change that could be used for bargaining, but a change sufficient to alter the nature of the contract. “He can’t argue that he was misled. In short, what the whistleblower says only confirms what Musk is right. This news hurts Twitter, but doesn’t help Musk much in his lawsuit.”

Gordon, who has taught mergers and acquisitions law, said the Delaware Court of Chancery would typically not let the two companies back out of a deal if the circumstances of the case did not meet those conditions, and courts have ordered enforcement of deeds in the past.

However, Gordon believes the whistleblower news could put some pressure on Twitter’s board to accept the settlement in Musk’s takeover contract, but he expects any settlement to cost more than $1 billion