| > It seems like a gap in the law/regulation if a former owner (in this case, the pre-Elon Twitter management) can make verbal pronouncements that the new owner is beholden to, without a paper trail. With that said, the complaint does state that promises were made post-acquisition, although this is only mentioned once. Ownership doesn't change contracts. Verbal agreements are also agreements, just harder to prove. What matters is who had the power to make such agreements at the time. Management made a contract on behalf of Twitter at the time. Promises after firing management would have little meaning. > It seems even more puzzling to enforce this on non-profitable private companies. The precedent that would be set here would severely undermine the ability of a private company to operate if it came in far under revenue targets, and was beholden to pay out bonuses to employees. All depends on the conditions for the bonus. A promise is a promise. If you buy a car, but then have a large medical bill and can't pay for it, you'll still need to pay for the car. > It's EVEN more puzzling that Twitter, a Delaware corp owned by X, a Nevada corp, is being sued by an employee based in Texas, under California law. Why is that puzzling? Twitter has its HQ in California. |