Private jet company sues Twitter over unpaid flight bills

The flights occurred a day before Elon Musk bought the social media company

Graig Graziosi
Monday 12 December 2022 22:04 GMT
Elon Musk's Neuralink Faces Federal Probe

A private jet company is suing Twitter for flights taken before Elon Musk’s takeover of the company, but the social media platform is reportedly standing firm on its position to not pay the more than $200,000 in flight fees.

Business Insider reports that Private Jet Services Group is suing Twitter for a pair of flights former chief marketing officer Leslie Berland and another employee took between New Jersey and San Francisco on 26 and 27 October.

The flights were taken a day before Mr Musk closed the deal to purchase the social media platform.

Ms Berland was laid off in November after Mr Musk terminated approximately half of the company’s staff, according to Bloomberg.

PJS sued the company in the US District Court of New Hampshire, claiming breach of quasi-contract.

The private jet company is claiming that Twitter never paid its bill for the flight. According to The Hill, the company invoiced Twitter for $103,850 for the first flight, and $98,875 for the second. The payments for the flights were due on 2 and 3 November, respectively.

Marty O’Neil, Twitter’s head of global strategic sourcing, sent an email to PSJ on 16 November claiming that the company was "not liable" for the expenses. He said that only "designated representatives" were allowed to book their flights through PJS.

One of the employees who took the flight, Taylor DeLorenzo, told Mr O’Neil that the then-CEO of the company, Parag Agrawal, had authorised the flights.

"It was an urgent need the week the deal closed, and Leslie was the main person from Twitter liaising directly with Elon," Mr DeLorenzo said in an email to Mr O’Neil, according to the lawsuit. “Additionally, I had been approving all of the previous PJS transactions prior to this one — all of which Twitter paid with no issue or mention of the below requirements. Just wanted to share additional context.”

Mr O’Neil responded saying he "appreciated the context" but that he "can’t emphasise enough that new management wants to hold firm on this," meaning the company was not going to pay for the flights.

The litigation claims that the company had an agreement allowing "designated representatives" to book flights through PJS, but the company claims Twitter "did not always follow the process."

That reportedly included allowing non "designated representatives" to book flights.

PJS argues that the flights were "circumstances that make it reasonable for PJS to expect payment" and claimed Twitter had breached their contract.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in