In a class action in San Francisco, Twitter shareholders who sold in mid-2022 allege Elon Musk’s statements during his $44B bid were designed to depress the stock. After a March 2026 jury verdict, largely upheld in July 2026, Musk has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Class members must submit claims by November 24, 2026.
Latest development Aug 4, 2026
On August 4, 2026, Musk filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. He seeks review of the post-trial order of July 6, 2026, and related rulings on the jury verdict. The district court is proceeding with the class claims process, which has a November 24, 2026, claims deadline.
Why it matters
The appeal tests how far a controlling shareholder’s social media statements during a merger dispute can support Rule 10b-5 liability. The outcome affects Twitter investors who sold in 2022 and executives whose posts move markets.
Background
Giuseppe Pampena sued Elon Musk on October 10, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit, brought for Twitter shareholders who sold stock or options during Musk’s takeover bid, alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. It contends that his public statements, including tweets questioning the platform’s bot counts and expressing doubts about closing the deal, were designed to talk down Twitter’s share price. The plaintiffs argue that Musk wanted either to exit the $44B merger agreement or to renegotiate a lower price.
In February 2023, the court appointed Steve Garrett, Nancy Price, John Garrett, and Brian Belgrave as lead plaintiffs. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. became lead counsel. In December 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer largely denied Musk’s motion to dismiss, allowing claims over several alleged misstatements to proceed. That month, he also certified a class of shareholders who sold Twitter stock or call options, or bought put options, between May 13 and October 4, 2022. On December 1, 2025, the court denied a motion to disqualify Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as Musk’s trial counsel, despite the plaintiffs’ objection that he might be a witness.
A jury trial began in San Francisco on March 2, 2026, with Spiro in a limited, non-jury-facing role because he had been named a potential witness. On March 20, 2026, the jury found that false or misleading statements by Musk, principally his tweets of May 13 and May 17, 2022, harmed the class. It rejected the claim that Musk ran a broader intentional scheme to defraud investors and cleared him of liability for statements in a podcast interview. On March 26, 2026, Spiro wrote to Judge Breyer asking for a probe into alleged juror bias and mockery of the trial process. The court entered judgment for the class on April 3, 2026.
Musk moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and decertification of the class. On July 6, 2026, Judge Breyer granted judgment as a matter of law only as to the May 17 tweet. He denied the motions in all other respects, including as to the May 13 tweet, and approved prejudgment interest and a claims administration process. On August 4, 2026, Musk filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the post-trial order and related rulings. Meanwhile, Epiq Systems is administering the class claims process, and eligible shareholders must submit claims by November 24, 2026.
Timeline 12 events
-
Scheduled orderCourt sets claims filing deadline for class members
The court-approved claims process set a November 24, 2026, deadline for eligible Twitter shareholders to submit claims. Distributions, administered by Epiq Systems, were estimated to exceed $2.6B depending on individual trades.
Case Spotlight: Rare Jury Verdict - $2.6 Billion on the Table for Twitter InvestorsElon Musk Twitter Securities Class Action VerdictTwitter Stock Jury Verdict: Musk Damages Claims Due Nov. 24, 2026Twitter Acquisition Litigation - Frequently Asked Questions
-
AppealMusk files notice of appeal to Ninth Circuit
Musk filed a notice of appeal asking the Ninth Circuit to review the post-trial order and related rulings from the jury verdict.
Musk Wants 9th Circ. To Weigh Twitter Investor Trial LossElon Musk Appeals Order Mostly Upholding Verdict In Stock-Price Manipulation Case
-
JudgmentBreyer largely denies Musk’s post-trial motions
Judge Breyer granted judgment as a matter of law only as to the May 17, 2022, tweet and denied it in all other respects. He also denied decertification and granted the plaintiffs’ motions for prejudgment interest and a claims administration process.
Musk Convinces Judge to Dull Twitter Investor Suit LiabilityJudge scraps Musk's attempt to toss Twitter fraud verdict
-
JudgmentCourt enters judgment on the jury verdict
Judge Breyer entered judgment for the class on the March 20 verdict and set post-judgment motions for hearing.
-
OrderMusk’s counsel alleges juror bias
Alex Spiro sent a letter to Judge Breyer asking for a probe into alleged juror bias and mockery of the trial process, and reiterating concerns about a fair trial.
Musk attorney demands probe into jury bias after panel allegedly 'mocked' process
-
JudgmentJury finds Musk liable for misleading Twitter investors
-
HearingJury trial begins in San Francisco
A full jury trial in a federal securities class action began before Judge Breyer. Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro had a limited, non-jury-facing role after he was named a potential witness.
-
OrderBreyer denies motion to disqualify Musk’s counsel
The court denied a motion to disqualify Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel as Musk’s trial counsel despite the plaintiffs’ objections that he might be a witness.
Giuseppe Pampena v. Elon R.Musk, No. 3:2022cv05937 - Document 320
-
OrderBreyer largely denies Musk’s motion to dismiss
Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part Musk’s motion to dismiss, allowing claims regarding several of Musk’s alleged misstatements, including the May 13 tweet, to proceed.
Giuseppe Pampena v. Elon R.Musk, 3:22-cv-05937 – CourtListener.comPAMPENA v. MUSK (2023) | FindLaw
-
OrderCourt certifies class of Twitter shareholders
Judge Breyer certified a class of shareholders who sold Twitter stock or call options, or bought put options, between May 13 and October 4, 2022.
Jury in Rare Securities Suit Trial Finds Musk Misled Twitter Investors
-
OrderCourt appoints lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
After competing motions, the court appointed Steve Garrett, Nancy Price, John Garrett, and Brian Belgrave as lead plaintiffs under the PSLRA. It named Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as lead counsel.
-
FilingTwitter shareholders sue Musk for securities fraud over his acquisition statements
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Ninth Circuit resolve Musk’s appeal of the Pampena v. Musk jury verdict and post-trial order by December 31, 2028?
- Judgment stands on appeal34%
- Still pending on December 31, 202830%
- Ninth Circuit vacates for Musk15%
- Split ruling or damages remand11%
- Musk settles with the class10%
- Resolves by
- Dec 31, 2028in 26 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome is that the judgment for the class survives Musk’s Ninth Circuit appeal, at 34%, by December 31, 2028. A separate 30% chance remains that the appeal is still undecided then. The strongest reason is that Judge Breyer already narrowed the verdict to the May 13 tweet and denied a new trial and decertification. That leaves Musk a smaller target on appeal.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Ninth Circuit’s first merits disposition, or on a settlement, entered on or before December 31, 2028, per the public docket. “Judgment stands on appeal” means the court affirms liability on the May 13 tweet and the damages framework in substance, or Musk’s appeal is dismissed or withdrawn without a settlement. “Ninth Circuit vacates for Musk” means reversal or vacatur of liability, or of class certification, requiring judgment for Musk or a full new trial. “Split ruling or damages remand” means liability is affirmed but damages, prejudgment interest, or class scope are vacated or remanded, or there is another partial result. “Musk settles with the class” means a settlement is publicly announced or filed for approval. “Still pending” applies if none of these has occurred by December 31, 2028. Rehearing petitions do not delay resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. Ninth Circuit appeals from civil jury verdicts after post-trial motions were denied, with securities class action verdicts as a subset: Federal courts of appeals reverse roughly 10% to 15% of private civil judgments. Rule 10b-5 verdicts draw closer review of loss causation, price impact, and damages. Argued Ninth Circuit civil appeals often take 18 to 30 months from notice to decision.
Courts of appeals affirm most civil judgments, and reversal rates for private civil appeals run about 10% to 15%. Securities verdicts carry somewhat more appellate risk, because loss causation, price impact, and class-wide damages involve legal questions reviewed de novo. The July 6, 2026, order cuts both ways. Granting judgment as a matter of law on the May 17 tweet shows close scrutiny, but the rest of the verdict and class certification survived. Musk may also press his juror bias concerns and the counsel disqualification issues, although those grounds rarely succeed on appeal. Timing is a major uncertainty. The notice of appeal was filed only 1.7 months ago, and a record from a full trial means long briefing, argument, and a likely published opinion. About 30% is therefore reserved for no decision by the end of 2028. Settlement is possible given the roughly $2.6 billion exposure and ongoing claims administration, but Musk has usually litigated to the end, so it stays near 10%. The leading alternative to affirmance is a vacatur or damages remand driven by loss causation or damages methodology.
Post-trial rulings narrowed liability to the surviving May 13 tweet · Low appellate reversal rates for civil jury verdicts · Loss causation and class-wide damages invite de novo review · Long Ninth Circuit timelines for argued appeals with trial records · Musk’s resources and history of litigating rather than settling
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made