A decisive step has been taken in the fee dispute resolution between X Corp (formerly Twitter) and the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz: X has formally dismissed its claim demanding recovery of nearly US $90 million in legal fees.
The Origins of the Fee Dispute Resolution
The fee dispute resolution stems from a lawsuit filed by X in 2023 in California state court. The suit accused Wachtell of receiving what X termed an “improper bonus payment” in the course of defending X’s acquisition of Twitter.
According to the complaint, X claimed that Twitter’s board approved tens of millions in “success” or “project” fees for Wachtell shortly before the $44 billion sale to Elon Musk. Arguing the payments were excessive and inconsistent with standard legal billing.
Wachtell responded that the board approved the fees and that they reflected the firm’s work in ensuring Musk completed the acquisition and protected shareholder value.
How the Fee Dispute Resolution Was Concluded
In its most recent filing, X requested dismissal of the case with prejudice, signifying the claim cannot be re-filed in the future.
No financial settlement was publicly disclosed, and both X and Wachtell indicated that there was no settlement agreement. Wachtell described the lawsuit as “meritless” and expressed satisfaction that the case had been dismissed.
Earlier in the proceedings, a judge ordered that the dispute proceed to private arbitration rather than a full public trial.
Because of the dismissal, the fee-dispute resolution is now formally closed without adjudication of the merits or liability.
Significance of the Fee-Dispute Resolution in Corporate Legal Practice
The conclusion of this fee-dispute resolution matters because it sheds light on how large corporations and major law firms handle high stakes fee arrangements.
Firstly, the dispute raised questions about whether success style or project based fees in M&A litigation can pose governance or fiduciary risks for corporate clients. The case invited scrutiny into whether such arrangements might incentivize law firms in ways that conflict with client interests.
Secondly, the resolution underscores the importance of transparency and board approval in approving law firm fees, particularly when changes in fee structure occur around the time of a transaction close. The board’s role in signing off on large legal fees came under examination.
Thirdly, although the case ends without a substantive ruling, it may influence how legal departments and corporate boards evaluate and structure fee arrangements going forward especially in situations involving high-risk litigation tied to major transactions.
Finally, from a reputational perspective, the resolution allows both X and Wachtell to move on without the distraction of prolonged litigation, but it leaves open questions about best practices for fee governance and whether similar disputes may emerge in the future.
What Comes Next After the Fee-Dispute Resolution?
With this chapter of the fee-dispute resolution closed, attention may now shift to other aspects of corporate-legal oversight at X and similar companies. For example:
- How companies structure and disclose major legal expenditures, especially in high-risk litigation tied to transactions.
- Whether corporate boards will impose stricter approval processes or require more detailed justification for large fee commitments to law firms.
- How law firms will justify large contingent or project-based fees when defense of major corporate deals is involved.
- Whether other corporate clients might follow X’s approach (filing suits over large law-firm fees) or alternatively adjust their own fee arrangements proactively to avoid such disputes.
For X, the fee-dispute resolution means one litigation front is closed, but scrutiny of its acquisition-related costs and internal governance is likely to continue. For Wachtell, the dismissal offers a clean break from a high-profile fee controversy, yet the broader industry implications remain.
Key Takeaways for Legal and Corporate Professionals
The term fee-dispute resolution shows how billing structures can become litigation risks for companies and law firms.
- Corporations handling major acquisitions should document fee agreements and secure board approval, especially when using success or project-based models.
- Law firms must also expect pushback on large contingent fees, particularly when deals face public scrutiny or lead to disputes.
- The decision to dismiss the case with prejudice reflects a strategic move by both sides to avoid uncertain litigation and unwanted attention.
- As a result, governance bodies now monitor legal spending in M&A deals more closely and assess whether traditional billing still fits high-risk matters.
- With the fee-dispute resolution between X and Wachtell now closed, it stands as a warning for clients and firms: legality is only part of the issue perception, oversight, and disclosure can turn a fee into a flashpoint.
Stay informed on the latest developments in corporate litigation and law-firm disputes. For attorneys seeking new opportunities or career advancement, explore thousands of verified legal jobs on LawCrossing, the industry’s most comprehensive legal career platform. Start your search today and elevate your legal career.
