The story so far: Elon Musk on October 1 agreed to settle a $128 million lawsuit brought against him by former Twitter senior executives, per media reports. In the lawsuit, former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, Chief Legal Offier Vijaya Gadde and General Counsel Sean Edgett accused Mr. Musk of firing them without a reason after he purchased the social media platform for $44 billion, and denying severance payments.
While the exact sum of the settlement and its conditions are not yet public, the case was significant as the high-profile firings set the tone of Mr. Musk’s stormy term at helm of Twitter, which he later rebranded as X.
What is the history of the Twitter firing lawsuit?
Mr. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter started off as a running gag online, but was soon finalised in 2022.
The acquisition process was marked by confusion, as well as multiple U-turns throughout the months running up to October 2022.
Mr. Musk was initially set to join the company’s board but later offered to acquire the company. He then tried backing out, citing numerous spam accounts. He finally went ahead with the acquisition reluctantly, expressing his misgivings about the platform.
After he bought Twitter, he immediately fired several senior executives so they did not have enough time to resign, per their lawsuit.
Mr. Musk then laid off 50% of the company’s 7,500-person strong workforce, gutting safety and content moderation teams. Many employees in Twitter offices worldwide were completely unaware of their employment status even as Mr. Musk revamped the app, make free features paid, and reinstate banned accounts.
What did the fired executives do?
In their lawsuit, filed in March 2024, Mr. Agrawal, Mr. Segal, Ms. Gadde, and Mr. Edgett claimed that Mr. Musk fired them because of his personal grudge, and a “special ire” against them. They further alleged that the firings were aimed at saving himself $200 million by making sure the executives would not get their severance benefits, including stock options that were due to vest.
The executives “appropriately and vigorously represented the interests of Twitter’s public shareholders throughout Musk’s wrongful attempt to renege on the deal,” the filing stated. “For their efforts, Musk vowed a lifetime of revenge.”
The executives also referenced quotes Mr. Musk’s biography by Walter Isaacson to back their claims.
The filing stressed the importance of severance benefits to ensure that company executives represented the best interests of shareholders. Furthermore, they claimed that Musk’s efforts would not withstand legal scrutiny and that he accused the executives of “gross negligence” and “willful misconduct” without providing evidence.
Who all were involved in the lawsuit?
Elon Musk is the billionaire technologist and owner of Twitter, which he rebranded as X after buying it for $44 billion in 2022. X is now owned by his AI company xAI.
Parag Agrawal worked at Twitter from 2011 until 2022, and was Twitter’s Chief Executive Officer from November 29, 2021 until October 27, 2022, following Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. He is now the founder and CEO of Parallel, which is focusing on open web experiences and high accuracy web searches for AI tools and systems, per his X account.
Ned Segal was Twitter’s Chief Financial Officer from August 25, 2017 until October 27, 2022. Per his LinkedIn account, he is currently the Chief of Housing and Economic Development in San Francisco.
Vijaya Gadde is a lawyer who worked at Twitter from 2011 until October 27, 2022. She became the Chief Legal Officer in February 2018. Per her LinkedIn, Gadde is a member of multiple company boards.
Sean Edgett worked in Twitter’s legal department from 2012 until October 27, 2022, and was Twitter’s General Counsel from February 2018. Per his LinkedIn, he is the Chief Legal Officer and Secretary at the Match Group.
Is there any information about the settlement?
According to a legal filing dated October 1, 2025, in the U.S. Northern District Court of California, the four executives and Mr. Musk stated that they had reached a settlement. This is not final, and requires certain conditions to be met in the near term.
In addition to this, the parties involved sought court approval for the existing case management deadlines to be postponed by about a month in each instance, so that they would have time to meet the stated conditions.
The settlement amount and the stipulated conditions have not yet been disclosed.
Published – October 11, 2025 12:22 pm IST
