The podcast Opening Arguments had two great episodes about the legal details of this deal (note the first episode doubting this deal would go through was from 2 months ago):
Thanks for these. I listened to the July 4th one. For others who may be interested, the first 20 mins are unrelated and you may want to skip ahead to the 45 minute mark or so for their conclusions.
Here is the brunt of why they think the deal won't go through: because it is difficult to prove extent of damages and because innocent third parties (the banks partnering with Musk) would be adversely affected, the courts will be disinclined to trigger the historically rare 'specific performance' to compel the merger. They believe a more likely outcome is Musk will instead be compelled to pay the $1 billion but a decade-long legal battle will ensue over it.
While it is an interesting listen, I wish they provided more substance for their conclusions especially since they're running counter to most other debate I'm seeing. Third parties aside, I fail to understand how legally the courts cannot pursue Musk's personal assets for the full amount. But I'm not a lawyer and haven't read the purchase agreement in detail.
I don't think the issue is that the courts don't have the power, it's that it would take forever to come to a conclusion in the court given the resources each side can pour into the fight, how complicated the legal details are, and how poor the legal system is at deciding these kinds of massive corporate legal issues (according to one of the podcast hosts).
Since it would take forever, it's much more likely the two sides settle or give up before they run out of legal tricks.
July 4th: https://openargs.com/oa610-elons-twitter-deal-was-a-complete...
May 12: https://openargs.com/oa595-shareholders-sue-twitter-alleged-...