Twitter shareholders are suing Elon Musk, and Twitter itself, over their dealing with of a chaotic acquisition course of that’s nonetheless underway, and that has contributed to risky worth swings within the firm’s inventory worth.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO revealed a major stake in Twitter on April 4, and ten days later proposed a buyout for $44 billion, or $54.20 per share. He has each bought and pledged a bit of his Tesla holdings as collateral for loans with the intention to finance the deal.  

Since Musk’s acquisition bid, Twitter’s share worth has dropped greater than 12%, and Tesla’s is down about 28% as a part of a broad sell-off in tech shares. Tesla’s share worth is off about 40% since Musk first revealed his stake.

In a proposed class motion lawsuit filed on Wednesday, Twitter shareholders allege that Musk violated California company legal guidelines on a number of fronts, and in so doing engaged in market manipulation.

For one, they declare that Musk financially benefitted by delaying required disclosures about his stake in Twitter and by briefly concealing his plan in early April to change into a board member on the social community.

Musk additionally snapped up shares in Twitter, the criticism says, whereas he knew insider details about the corporate based mostly on personal conversations with board members and execs, together with former CEO Jack Dorsey, a long-time pal of Musk’s, and Silver Lake co-CEO Egon Durban, a Twitter board member whose agency had beforehand invested in SolarCity earlier than Tesla acquired it.

Dorsey formally resigned from Twitter’s board of administrators on Wednesday. Shareholders voted to not re-instate Durban.

The proposed class motion lawsuit additionally contends that Musk broke California legal guidelines by sowing doubt about whether or not he would full the deal after signing the contract to purchase it.

Earlier this month, Musk stated he was placing the Twitter acquisition “on maintain” to study extra about inauthentic exercise on the platform, together with round pretend or automated accounts.

The shareholders’ criticism says his gripes about “bots” had been a part of a scheme to barter a greater worth or kill the deal:

“Musk proceeded to make statements, ship tweets, and have interaction in conduct designed to create doubt concerning the deal and drive Twitter’s inventory down considerably with the intention to create leverage that Musk hoped to make use of to both again out of the acquisition or to re-negotiate the buyout worth by as a lot as 25% which, if completed, would end in an $11 billion discount within the Buyout consideration.”

In accordance with California state legislation, firms within the state need to exclude board members from voting on proposals if they’ve engaged in some sorts of misconduct related or related to these proposals.

Twitter declined to remark. Musk didn’t return requests for remark.

The case, Heresniak v. Musk et al, was filed in a California Northern District Courtroom and the shareholders are in search of a jury trial. The shareholders’ criticism is topic to additional revisions.