What’s concerning to me is that this Australian court is considering the intricate details of Nevada’s merger law at all. From reading this article, it sounds to me that if Nevada changed its merger law so that an acquiring company didn’t keep legal liabilities imposed by other countries on the acquired party, the Australian court would have decided that indeed, X doesn’t have to pay Twitter’s fine. Which is an insane takeaway IMO.

We should be looking at this through the lens of Australian law only, and trying to figure out what Australian merger process is mostly closely related to the Nevada one which was used.