The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →X Corp. dismissed with prejudice its California lawsuit seeking to recover the $90 million fee Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz received for representing Twitter during Elon Musk’s effort to withdraw from his acquisition agreement. The dismissal ended that court case, but the reported filing did not explain why X dropped it. Wachtell said there was no settlement.
What happened to X’s lawsuit?
In November 2025, X dismissed its lawsuit against Wachtell in California. The case, filed in 2023 in San Francisco Superior Court, sought to recover most of the fee the firm had received for its work representing Twitter in the acquisition dispute. Reuters reported that the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning X cannot refile the same lawsuit.
The reported court filing gave no reason for the dismissal. Wachtell’s spokesperson said, “There was no settlement.” That statement addresses settlement, but does not explain X’s decision or establish what happened to the separate arbitration process.
Why was X challenging the $90 million fee?
Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter in 2022 and later renamed it X. Wachtell had represented Twitter in the litigation that resulted in Musk being required to honor the acquisition agreement, a deal reported at $44 billion by Bloomberg Law.
Recommended Free Tools
X’s 2023 complaint characterized the $90 million payment as an improper bonus and alleged breaches of fiduciary and ethical obligations. Wachtell denied wrongdoing and said Twitter’s board determined and approved the fee. Those are the parties’ competing positions; the dismissal did not decide whether the fee was proper.
Wachtell’s court filing described the representation as “after three-and-a-half months of round-the-clock litigation” and said the firm “achieved complete success.” That is the firm’s characterization of its work, not a ruling on the fee dispute.
Rank #2
What did the arbitration ruling mean?
In October 2023, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer Jr. ruled that the fee dispute had to be considered in private arbitration under the parties’ agreement. Bloomberg Law quoted him saying the parties “clearly and unmistakably” delegated the issue to arbitration.
The later court dismissal ended X’s court lawsuit. The reporting available does not establish whether arbitration went forward or produced an outcome. It therefore cannot be treated as confirmation that X recovered the fee, that Wachtell kept it after a merits decision, or that the dispute was otherwise resolved.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Did X get the money back, or did it concede the fee was legitimate?
The reported dismissal does not show that X recovered the $90 million, and it does not establish that X conceded Wachtell’s position. It confirms that X ended this court case with prejudice. Without a stated dismissal rationale or confirmed arbitration result, the underlying merits and any recovery remain unclear.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
