# X’s Struggle to Evade Severance Payments: A Legal Controversy Emerges
In a high-stakes legal confrontation, former Twitter executives—namely ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, ex-Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, ex-Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde, and ex-General Counsel Sean Edgett—are battling to claim severance payments they argue are rightfully theirs. The conflict, which has intensified into a court case, revolves around accusations that Elon Musk, the present owner of Twitter (now known as “X”), is seeking to deny them severance benefits to conserve $200 million. The case has garnered substantial attention owing to the prominent status of those involved and the considerable financial stakes.
## The Executives’ Argument: A Quest for Severance
The ex-Twitter executives contend that they deserve severance payments as per their employment contracts, which were established prior to Musk’s takeover of the platform. Their complaint indicates that these contracts specified that severance could only be withheld if they were dismissed for “cause” under particular circumstances, such as a felony conviction, gross negligence, or deliberate misconduct. The executives assert that none of these criteria were met in their sudden terminations, which occurred immediately following the completion of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.
Additionally, the executives assert that Musk is trying to retroactively create justifications to withdraw their severance. They claim he has sought to frame their actions during the concluding days of the Twitter transaction as gross negligence or deliberate misconduct, especially concerning legal fees paid to law firms tied to the deal. These fees totaled around $100 million, which were disbursed despite Musk’s dissent, and he has subsequently declared that they were unwarranted and unnecessary.
## Musk’s Alleged Grudge
Beyond the legal discussions, the former executives have made dramatic claims regarding Musk’s personal motivations. They allege that Musk expressed to his official biographer, Walter Isaacson, that he intends to “hunt every single one of” them “till the day they die,” pledging “a lifetime of revenge.” According to the executives, Musk even boasted to Isaacson about his plans to deprive them of their severance payments to save himself $200 million. These allegations portray a picture of a deeply personal vendetta, with Musk allegedly seeking vengeance against the former executives for their involvement in the Twitter acquisition.
## Musk’s Request to Dismiss
In reaction to the lawsuit, Musk’s legal representatives have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the former executives are trying to “burden Twitter, and consequently the numerous investors who acquired it, with excessive legal costs.” Musk’s motion argues that the executives compelled Twitter to make approximately $100 million in payments to certain law firms during the final moments before the acquisition was finalized, despite his opposition. Musk’s legal team asserts that these payments were unnecessary and that the executives behaved in bad faith by endorsing them.
The motion to dismiss also posits that the actions of the executives could be seen as gross negligence or intentional misconduct, which would provide a basis for denying their severance as per their agreements. However, the former executives have countered this assertion, maintaining that their actions were consistent with their responsibilities and that Musk’s claims are a retroactive attempt to validate their dismissals.
## The Stakes: $200 Million and Beyond
Central to this dispute is a substantial amount of money—$200 million in severance payments that the former executives assert they are entitled to. For Musk, refusing these payments would signify a considerable cost-saving tactic, especially given the financial difficulties Twitter has encountered since the acquisition. Nonetheless, for the former executives, the issue transcends mere finances; it is also about protecting their reputations and ensuring they are not unjustly held accountable for decisions made during the acquisition.
This case also holds wider consequences for corporate governance and executive pay. Severance packages are a typical element of executive employment contracts, and this legal battle could establish a precedent for how such agreements are interpreted and enforced going forward. If Musk succeeds in denying the severance payments, it may encourage other companies to dispute similar agreements, potentially altering how executives are compensated upon leaving their roles.
## The Way Ahead: Discovery and Court Proceedings
As the legal conflict proceeds, the former executives are advocating for the court to initiate discovery, a process that would enable both parties to collect evidence and bolster their cases. In a recent submission, the executives stated that “discovery on those topics is unavoidable, and there is no grounds for further delay.” They have requested the court to commence discovery at a hearing set for November 15, voicing concerns that additional postponements could jeopardize their severance claims.
Discovery might become a critical stage in the case, as it would permit the former executives to access documents and correspondences.
