BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. (BTAI)
Confidential investigation: officers & directors’ potential breach of fiduciary duties to investors.
Investigation
04/25/2021
Initial Lawsuit
05/25/2022
Lawsuit Progression
07/01/2022
Did Elon Musk manipulate Twitter’s stock for his own benefit? Is the process to acquire Twitter flawed? Is Elon Musk trying to walk away?
This post is open for investors to gather facts, and findings and track their exposure to related lawsuits. We invite investors and shareholders to contribute to this investigation for their own benefit, add events to the factual timeline below and vote on events’ pertinence.
A lawsuit was subsequently filed. We will update this post as it unfolds.
06/06/2022
Elon Musk lawyers’ send a letter to Twitter’s board re: refusal to provide required info about spam/fake accounts under the merger agreement.
“Twitter has, in fact, refused to provide the information that Mr. Musk has repeatedly requested since May 9, 2022 to facilitate his evaluation of spam and fake accounts on the company’s platform. Twitter’s latest offer to simply provide additional details regarding the company’s own testing methodologies, whether through written materials or verbal explanations, is tantamount to refusing Mr. Musk’s data requests. Twitter’s effort to characterize it otherwise is merely an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the issue. Mr. Musk has made it clear that he does not believe the company’s lax testing methodologies are adequate so he must conduct his own analysis. The data he has requested is necessary to do so. . .
Based on Twitter’s behavior to date, and the company’s latest correspondence in particular, Mr. Musk believes the company is actively resisting and thwarting his information rights (and the company’s corresponding obligations) under the merger agreement. This is a clear material breach of Twitter’s obligations under the merger agreement and Mr. Musk reserves all rights resulting therefrom, including his right not to consummate the transaction and his right to terminate the merger agreement. . .”
Stock Impact
Close | Previous close | Price variation | Percentage variation |
---|---|---|---|
$39.56 | $40.16 | $-0.6 | -1.49% |
A shareholder filed this class action on behalf of all stockholders of Twitter, Inc., who have been harmed by the actions of defendant Elon R. Musk. Plaintiff asserts claims against defendant Musk for violations of California Corporations Code §§ 25400, 25401, 25500, and 25501 and against defendant Twitter, Inc. for declaratory, injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment.
Excerpt
1. Defendant Musk purchased or offered to purchase Twitter securities and/or willfully participated in the relevant manipulative transactions for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of Twitter securities by others. After purchasing over 9% of Twitter’s shares, and entering into a contract to purchase the remaining stock of Twitter he does not already own for $54.20 per share, Defendant Musk has willfully participated in making statements that were false and misleading, or that omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not false or misleading. Musk knew such statements were false and misleading as detailed herein.
Through such conduct, Defendant Musk also violated Corp. Code Section 25400(b) by effecting, alone or with one or more other persons, a series of transactions in Twitter securities creating actual or apparent active trading in such securities or raising or depressing the price of such securities, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such securities by others.
As a result of Defendant’s misconduct, plaintiff and the other members of the Class have
suffered damages and been harmed. The fair market value of Twitter securities has been adversely affected by Musk’s false statements and wrongful conduct.
2. Defendant Musk offered to purchase and/or purchased securities from plaintiff and members of the Class in and from this state by means of written and oral communications that included untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which the statements were made, not misleading.
Defendant Musk failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure the truth and accuracy of such statements, and plaintiff had no knowledge of the falsity of such statements.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of law described herein, plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged.
3. A justiciable, present controversy exists between the parties. Defendant Musk signed a binding contract to buy Plaintiff’s stock for $54.20. But Defendant Musk thereafter publicly stated that the Buyout is “temporarily on hold” and “cannot go forward” until certain conditions are met.
The conditions Musk that has stated must be met before the Buyout can go forward do not appear to be part of the contract he signed with Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff thus seeks a declaration concerning these facts and issues and the parties’ respective rights and obligations. Plaintiff also seeks appropriate injunctive relief to be determined by the Court.
4. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Musk has violated Section 25402 and that Defendant Twitter has an obligation to investigate Musk’s conduct and take appropriate action.
Plaintiff does not seek any damages on behalf of Twitter and this claim is not brought as a derivative claim.
07/01/2022
"Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23, on behalf of all stockholders of Twitter, Inc. who have been harmed and/or are threatened with harm by Defendants’ unlawful conduct in connection with Musk’s proposed buyout of Twitter. Excluded from the Class are Defendants herein and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to, or affiliated with, any of the Defendants and their successors in interest."
Operative complaint
Confidential investigation: officers & directors’ potential breach of fiduciary duties to investors.
Whether directors and officers of LegalZoom.com, Inc. (LZ) breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.
Whether directors and officers of Payoneer Global Inc. (PAYO) breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.
Whether directors and officers of Inari Medical, Inc. (NARI) breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.
Whether directors and officers of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (KEQU) breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.
Whether directors and officers of Builders FirstSource, Inc. (BLDR) breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.