35 ms·

SEC Sues Musk and Seeks Ban for His Tweets on Go-Private Deal

• wil_I_am_27 8y ago
  Most of the executives are gone. And the ones that remain are getting sued. Tough times for Tesla.
• briatx 8y ago
  Lawsuit secured.
• tareqak 8y ago
  What would be the argument in his defense?
  • iamgopal 8y ago
    Lawyer.
    • tareqak 8y ago
      I mean what would be the argument in his defense. I'll update my question.
  • valarauca1 8y ago
    There really isn't. According to the case [1]. On Nov 23rd, 2013 Telsa filled Form 8-K with the SEC that Elon's twitter account was a means of official company communication. So they can't say this wasn't Musk or Telsa's responsibility, or that the statement was unofficial. It was an official company statement meant to deceive investors. I think the best he can hope for is a plea bargain, or that the SEC made a clerical error. [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-Musk.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-M... page 4 section 13
    • Someone 8y ago
      ”meant to deceive investors” That’s not necessarily true, and, I guess, what his lawyers will contest. I’m not a lawyer, but I guess that whether there was an intent to deceive can make a difference in sentencing, just as it is with murder vs voluntary manslaughter.
      • tomatocracy 8y ago
        Questions of intent are likely also much more significant in the DOJ criminal investigation. Edit to add: I suspect that questions of harm are more relevant than intent in this civil proceeding though, given the violation is about making material statements which are false or misleading.
  • dkhenry 8y ago
    The statute they are charging him with says he has to have made an untrue statement of a "material" fact. So his defense is what he said was not an untrue statement of a "material" fact. You could make the argument that his discussions with the Saudi's let him to believe that what he was saying was factual.
  • pommed 8y ago
    The shorts against Tesla were enormous. Millions (billions?) were put against Tesla. You can't tell me that the shorters did not invest extra money to make their short profitable. That extra money would go into PR to make Tesla look like failing company. That is not fair play either... Basically Musk gave a punch back after being bullied and stressed. Self-defense? Also the Tweet started with: "I am thinking of". Not matter of fact, but just announcing what you are thinking of. Anyway... maybe he can be CEO by proxy or focus more on leading the engineers.
    • UpshotKnothole 8y ago
      However the tweet started, the fact that it included the phrase “funding secured” is the kiss of death, and the SEC and DOJ will be even less interested in “shorts” conspiracy theories than everyone else is.
    • sokoloff 8y ago
      > The shorts against Tesla were enormous. Millions (billions?) were put against Tesla. It's definitely billions (about $10 billion short interest as of mid-September-[0], not including options contracts). I'm very much a small-time investor and I'm personally short well over a million dollars of $TSLA. [0] - https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/short-interest https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/short-interest
  • secabeen 8y ago
    I think they'll not play for defense, they'll play for a settlement of a big fine, that he'll pay personally, and only a fine. The primary risk is the ban from being CEO, and they can probably avoid that if the SEC is willing to treat it as a teaching moment for Elon.
• NN88 8y ago
  Twitter is like keeping a loaded gun in the house with kids. Politicians, Business leaders, community influencers... BEWARE
  • djsumdog 8y ago
    Makes me think of the South Park episode about staying off your phone when you're being President.
  • ravenstine 8y ago
    (removed)
    • jeromegv 8y ago
      This isn't really the context here. It's a tweet from 10 years ago. He wrote a tweet, lying about having secured funding to take Tesla private, even giving the weird price of $420. His tweet was not taken out of context or misconstructed, he did this tweet very willingly and this tweet meant exactly what he wanted it to say.
      • ravenstine 8y ago
        Oh yes, you're correct, and sometimes I go on a tangent and leave comments that aren't in the exact same context from when I first started thinking. :)
    • olivermarks 8y ago
      @ravenstine's comment about deleting past tweets is thought provoking - I use to use Twitter a lot but abandoned it years ago. Might be a good idea to check I didn't say anything too many naive and stupid things that I've forgotten about
    • bilbo0s 8y ago
      >A world where your entire life has to be squeaky clean in order to achieve anything above-average is not one I want to live in... We always lived in that world, it's only extent of the checks that have changed. Outside of a national security context, a background check in 1950 entailed an inquiry with the local constabulary and citizenry about your character. Maybe a cursory check to make sure you were current on your bills. (And of course, a check to make sure you didn't get a dishonorable.) By 1980, the check on bills had been formalized into a credit check, and the check with the local constabulary had been formalized into a nationwide criminal record search. Today, we're approaching the point where we can formalize the inquiry with local citizenry as to the content of a person's character, but every other check is still made. (Try to find a decent job if you have a dishonorable, or a criminal record.) Point is, previous generations have always had the problem of companies wanting to know more about us than we wanted to share. It's just that not many other generations would have foolishly volunteered all of that information to companies. We did. I've got even worse news for you, as you might imply from my little timeline above, background checks will get better and better as time goes on. It's just the world we live in. It's the world we've always lived in.
• chollida1 8y ago
  This comment I made a few weeks ago is coming alot closer to the truth than I would have expected. I hope for Space X and Tesla's sake that the reports of a directory and Executive ban don't come true. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016250#18016292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016250#18016292 SpaceX is doing well, Tesla has pulled itself back from the brink and may actually become a profitable car company. All Elon had to do was keep his head down and not pick twitter fights.... EDIT one thing I should point out is that some people have questioned if the tweet had any adverse affect at all on the shorts, given that the stock is down now. The answer is hell yes and the fact that the stock ash gone down since the tweet only strengthens the shorts case. The reason is that when you are short the biggest issue you have is that the stock could go against you, in this case that means it could go up. So to guard against that you generally have a price level in which you would exit the trade. So when Elon tweeted, a whole whack of shorts got stopped out, intentional or by their risk limits. Infact there is a lawsuit already filed by Citron due to this. That momentary bump, while short lived was more than enough to close out some short positions. If he's found to be in the wrong here by the SEC, then it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to find him guilty in the coming lawsuits.
  • empath75 8y ago
    You say the shorts don't have any power to hurt tesla, but much of tesla's and elon musk's personal debt is backed by Tesla shares. If the price dips too low, it's potentially catastrophic for the company and him.
    • eli 8y ago
      Is there any evidence the short sellers have ever caused the price to move at all?
      • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Shorting a stock means borrowing shares and selling them (making the seller short of shares they still owe). This puts the shares back on the market and absorbs purchasing demand. By supply and demand the price goes down. Regardless of any change in public sentiment or incentives to publicize dirt, at scale shorting a stock inherently reduces the price while the short positions are open.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• NN88 8y ago
  SEC wants to remove him from the head of the company: https://twitter.com/kadhimshubber/status/1045407900259295233 https://twitter.com/kadhimshubber/status/1045407900259295233
  • slg 8y ago
    Are there any previous examples of someone doing something similar to what Musk did and the punishments they received? I don't normally follow SEC cases, but this seems like a pretty extreme potential punishment compared to the slap on the wrist that many people were predicting.
    • amyjess 8y ago
      https://www.seattletimes.com/business/apxex-itt-executives-agree-to-settlements-with-sec/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/apxex-itt-executives-a... https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/08/31/former-sp-executive-avoids-industry-ban-in-sec-case/ https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/08/31/former-sp-executi... (though the SEC failed in this case) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-deeba-insidertrading/silicon-valley-executive-pays-sec-insider-trading-fine-for-tipping-brothers-idUSKCN1LF2GK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-deeba-insidertrading/... https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5c06de1-990f-420b-887e-f7e0ee67f326 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5c06de1-990f...
    • rpedela 8y ago
      Yes. SEC litigation releases, press releases, report major updates to cases including the resolution. Here is a Google search for "prohibited acting officer", the key legal phrase/keywords, on the relevant section of the SEC website. https://www.google.com/search?q=prohibited+acting+officer+site%3Awww.sec.gov%2Flitigation%2Flitreleases https://www.google.com/search?q=prohibited+acting+officer+si...
      • slg 8y ago
        I was asking what the punishment is for similar crimes and that isn't the same as asking for what crimes have caused a similar punishment. I looked through the first few results on that page and they all seemed, in my opinion, to be more severe crimes than what Musk is accused of doing.
• Cshelton 8y ago
  I'm willing to bet the only thing that will come of this is a fine and a slap on the wrist.
  • dawhizkid 8y ago
    ...and irrepairable loss of investor trust
    • kalms 8y ago
      Because he made short sellers look like idiots? I think not. I just bought more.
    • Cshelton 8y ago
      I don't believe so. I have been a Tesla owner and investor for a long time now. I know where Elon comes from, what missions and goals he has stated for years now, and what he is trying to accomplish. I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. He's said he wanted to do so in the past, and even has said they never wanted to go public, but were left with no choice. I don't think any part of Elon was trying to commit fraud or security manipulation. He made a mistake, we all do. He said something that should not have been said at that given point of time. I'm sure he was excited. He even said he typed that tweet in the car after leaving SpaceX. Should he be fined? That is up to the SEC. Will I and many other investor lose trust in what Elon's mission is? Absolutely not.
      • pdeuchler 8y ago
        > I promise you, Elon legitimately thought there would be an opportunity to go private again. According to the hard facts the SEC is presenting this is patently false, there was absolutely no reason for Musk to "legitimately" think that. > even has said they never wanted to go public, but were left with no choice. Also just not even close to true. Elon would have been canned and Tesla would have been bankrupt by now if they didn't go public. If by "left with no choice" means "structured the company so that only a public IPO could sustain it and allow for the path he wanted" then I guess you're right? See: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk-is-working-too-hard https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-17/elon-musk...
• ivraatiems 8y ago
  A short while ago (per my comment history), I asked whether Elon Musk should remain as CEO of Tesla. I think, for my part, the answer is clearly no. He might be brilliant, he has undeniably had a hand in creating something awesome with Tesla and SpaceX's technology, but he's now a danger to the very thing he helped build. This is just one of the lawsuits filed against him or Tesla in recent weeks that have him as the primary cause. I want Tesla's mission to be achieved, I want them to succeed, and to me, Elon Musk is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in their way now. Where does the buck stop? In my opinion, with Tesla's board, and Elon's ouster as CEO. Edit: Worth noting that Elon's removal as CEO is one of the remedies the SEC seeks as well, and could thus be part of any settlement. (I'm not knowledgeable enough to handicap how likely that is.) Another edit: Tesla has no D&O insurance, and therefore might be liable for whatever misconduct Elon is found to have done. That's a pretty big deal, and also a bad move on Tesla's part in not insuring against their (known quantity loose cannon) CEO. See https://www.dandodiary.com/2018/08/articles/securities-litigation/tesla-investors-file-securities-suits-elon-musks-take-private-tweets/ https://www.dandodiary.com/2018/08/articles/securities-litig...
  • drawkbox 8y ago
    If Elon Musk is removed as CEO at Tesla, Tesla is over. I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack. It cannot be argued that Tesla pushed forward both electric cars and self-driving vehicles as a major force (original self-driving push was a DoD X-Prize) Personally I like when American companies succeed and push innovation forward. I would have zero hope of that happening if they bring in some generic C level executive like back in the day at Apple when they ousted Steve Jobs and brought in John Sculley.
    • arawde 8y ago
      It's not shorted because of its mission, its shorted because of the negative cash flow. Musks' public persona doesn't exactly give off the aura of a man who has his companies operating expenses and profitability under control.
• anarazel 8y ago
  The actual complain: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-Musk.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-M...
  • djoldman 8y ago
    PDF: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588/SEC-v-Elon-Musk.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588/SEC-v-Elo...
• detaro 8y ago
  this thread seems to have "won": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18088118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18088118
  • sctb 8y ago
    It did! But it seems fair to go with the earlier submission, so we did.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• nigealj 8y ago
  This is a serious deal. The rest of the year is going to be a real test for Tesla! It'll be real interesting to see if they can rebound from this. I wonder if the Tesla board is thinking of doing an Uber and replace Musk with a more calmer executive! Wouldn't be surprised if he gets fired after this.
  • twblalock 8y ago
    > I wonder if the Tesla board is thinking of doing an Uber and replace Musk with a more calmer executive! Wouldn't be surprised if he gets fired after this. I would be. They have stood by him so far, this isn't going to push them over the edge. Besides, who would they replace him with? If the SEC fines him, he'll pay the fine and get on with his life.
    • quirkot 8y ago
      Unless they ban him from being an executive at a publicly traded company
      • dmitrygr 8y ago
        Ooh. Ooh. I know! They'll go private and thus not be a public company... I heard funding for that was secured
      • londons_explore 8y ago
        Couldn't he assign the janitor to be the official 'CEO', but then give himself title of 'Visionary' and still make all the decisions?
        • jonknee 8y ago
          The SEC would not find this amusing.
          • blotter_paper 8y ago
            Putin would!
• burke 8y ago
  On one hand, the $420 tweet was just blatantly obviously a bad idea and he should have known better. On the other hand, it feels... strange somehow that a joke (if a slightly deadpan one) has consequences this severe. It affected the markets and it obviously wasn't without real-world consequences in any case, but something about this all just feels a little off somehow.
  • bufferoverflow 8y ago
    I wonder if they will be able to demonstrate that any damage was actually done. The $420 tweet had a reverse effect in the end, not what most people would expect from such a tweet.
    • Analemma_ 8y ago
      It has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread that several people holding short positions exited automatically when the stock price temporarily spiked. They were definitely harmed, and in fact are already suing in a separate case.
    • mikestew 8y ago
      If I, a not-inexperienced investor, briefly wondered if I should by a few more lots of TSLA based on the tweet, it is not unfathomable that someone actually clicked the “buy” button somewhere near the peak. In short, yeah, it would be trivial to demonstrate damage. Someone was buying those pricey shares before the drop. EDIT: down $31 in after hours, hell, I’m thinking about suing. :-P
      • mrep 8y ago
        Same. I thought there was no way he say such a stupid thing as "funding secured" without haven't it locked down precisely because I thought the SEC would easily come after him if he lied about it. Fortunately, my brother talked me out of it but I was seriously considering buying some.
        • 8y ago
• andreygrehov 8y ago
  > “In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,” Interesting. How do they know? Did someone from SEC called Musk and he said: "Nah, we're just in talks with investors, nothing lined up yet".
  • ninjaranter 8y ago
    Close enough, he blogged about it https://www.tesla.com/blog/staying-public https://www.tesla.com/blog/staying-public
    • andreygrehov 8y ago
      Ah, gotcha. Thanks a lot for the link.
  • ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y ago
    Presumably they have engaged in some investigative work to determine these facts. They apparently interviewed people from TSLA's board, and perhaps Musk himself, already.
• instaheat 8y ago
  ....well, fuck. I had hoped like any of us rooting for Elon Inc. that this wouldn't happen. I truly hope it amounts to a slap on the wrist because I want Tesla to succeed. I'll show my support with my wallet as soon as I am able.
  • enraged_camel 8y ago
    Elon's judgment has been compromised by intense stress combined by lack of sleep and he is now a detriment to Tesla. For the past several months he has been a complete PR disaster. If you want Tesla to succeed as I do, you should support his ouster. If Tesla can't survive without Elon, then maybe it doesn't deserve to. A single point of failure that is one person is not a sustainable business.
• browsercoin 8y ago
  I'm perplexed how Musk could act without thinking of the consequences? Now I fear that he will be banned from SpaceX as well, when you are convicted of fraud by SEC, it will impact your duties at other companies. It takes decades to build a reputation but it can be destroyed overnight with a single tweet.
  • sho_hn 8y ago
    I'm curious about the possible ramifications for SpaceX as well. That said, it is a private company.
    • DennisP 8y ago
      Not only is it a private company, but "A Musk trust owns 54 percent of the outstanding stock of SpaceX, and has voting control of 78 percent of the outstanding shares....No other shareholder owns 10 percent or more." Short of a criminal conviction I think he'll be fine with SpaceX. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-spacex-shareholders/is-spacex-the-model-for-a-private-tesla-idUSKBN1KU29W https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-spacex-shareholders... Given that Musk has made his point with electric cars and major luxury brands are starting to push hard in that direction, it might not be terrible if Musk were to step down from Tesla, get some sleep, and focus on getting us to Mars.
      • SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
        The battery and solar operations side of TSLA are critical to spaceX's mission to Mars. Can't have a martian colony without being able to harvest and store energy. Additionally the CV being done at Tesla could prove critical in automating prefabrication of living spaces and life support infrastructure. Can't be doing anything like that remote controlled with 8 min latency.
        • DennisP 8y ago
          Tesla is not the only provider of batteries and solar panels, and could sell them to SpaceX even if Musk isn't the CEO of Tesla. There is some technology sharing between the companies, but even that could continue. Lots of companies collaborate without sharing a CEO. (Incidentally, a Mars colony could also use NASA's new fission reactor designed for space missions. It's likely that NASA will be deeply involved in the effort anyway.)
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• thrillgore 8y ago
  The Neon Neon album about Musk is going to be straight fire.
• treis 8y ago
  >According to Musk, he calculated the $420 price per share based on a 20% premium over that day’s closing share price because he thought 20% was a “standard premium” in going-private transactions. This calculation resulted in a price of $419, and Musk stated tha the rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number’s significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend “would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-Musk.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4950588-SEC-v-Elon-M... (Page 7-8) Wow, what a dumb thing to do and even dumber to admit to it.
  • chooseaname 8y ago
    This is to be expected; he's a manchild.
    • stevew20 8y ago
      Thanks for adding substance and insight to the argument!
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • rayiner 8y ago
    It's better for him if it's an obvious marijuana reference. That way he can argue it was a joke that no reasonable investor would have relied upon.
    • rococode 8y ago
      I'm curious, does "reasonable" actually matter in a case like this? Say he tweeted "I just killed someone LOL" and the stock price drops. Could that also be construed as misleading investors?
      • rayiner 8y ago
        The SEC needs to prove he made a “materially” false and misleading statement. The Supreme Court has defined a “material” fact for purposes of the securities laws to mean that there is: > a substantial likelihood that the...fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available. If a statement is an obvious joke, no reasonable investor could have viewed it as altering the mix of relevant information.
• gammateam 8y ago
  YESSSSSSSS sic em boys Now my opinion will be supported by the full faith and credit of the United States of America Gamma team activated. Its an options reference. Its always been about the Greeks.
• Analemma_ 8y ago
  How many different lawsuits and investigations is Elon now the subject of? There’s this, the separate DOJ investigation, the lawsuits from private investors who exited their short positions, the libel suit from the British guy, possibly an Air Force investigation about the weed... am I missing any? Even if every one of these turns out to be nbd, I wonder if it makes sense to remove Elon just on the grounds that a) it’s embarrassing and b) he can’t address all of these at once and still effectively run two companies.
  • noobiemcfoob 8y ago
    Isn't that kind of the point of piling lawsuits onto someone promising that you see as competition?
    • huebnerob 8y ago
      Yes, exactly, I win every time because I just make my competition shoot itself in the foot over and over, very simple.
• colordrops 8y ago
  Something's not right in the US when one of the world's top innovators and fighters for renewable energy is toppled by a tired tweet, and the unaccomplished sexual molester of a leader of the US says many far worst things on nearly a daily basis for years and gets away with it.
  • SteveNuts 8y ago
    You have to be extremely careful with your public statements when you run a publicly traded company. Full stop.
    • colordrops 8y ago
      I get that, hence my statement. I don't think it should be the case.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• rifung 8y ago
  "The suit seeks an order from a judge barring Musk from serving as an officer or director of a public company, a request often made in SEC lawsuits, as well as unspecified monetary penalties." Does this imply that they want to remove him from being CEO and from the board of directors?
  • telotortium 8y ago
    Yes, it does.
  • jiveturkey 8y ago
    It's not an implication. It directly states that.
  • londons_explore 8y ago
    Or to simply make it a private company and stay CEO...
    • ucaetano 8y ago
      > make it a private company and stay CEO Yeah, with what money?
      • cam3ham 8y ago
        the money was on the table. Elon turned it down.
    • dbbk 8y ago
      There is nothing remotely simple about taking Tesla private.
    • refurb 8y ago
      Funding secured!
• Arzh 8y ago
  What if it was true, what if he was working with a group to secure funding to take the company private? Would that make the claim that he was 'deceiving' the investors invalid? I don't really know anything about this kinda thing but I would think if he was just saying that he was working towards that goal but deiced not to do it wouldn't be 'deceiving.'
  • ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y ago
    "Working to secure" and "secured" are two entirely different things. Even if your hypothetical were true (and I'm sure we will find out during the trial, supposing there is one), it would still be misleading investors.
  • rchaud 8y ago
    When I'm making a deal, I usually keep my mouth shut about it until every document that needs to be signed, has been signed. The Musk worship on here and the Internet in general has for too long overlooked his impulsive behaviour in the capacity of his CEO role.
    • Arzh 8y ago
      I don't find impulsiveness to bar someone from being am effective CEO (though I might not invest in that company). I was looking for a more reasoned answer around if it would still be illegal to say what he did if he actually had the backing he was alluding to. The answer that jonknee gave shows that my question is not the case in this instance but it was a more hypothetical.
  • jonknee 8y ago
    Well the SEC has access to Tesla's internal documents and came to the conclusion that he did not do these things. It makes some quite detailed claims and is worth reading: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-2...
• tw1010 8y ago
  Imagine if he knew this would happen, and the reason he went on rogan was a strategic play to win public favour. (I mean I love Elon, but it's not totally improbable.)
  • jacquesm 8y ago
    If this is your idea of winning public favor then you suck at strategy :)
• nebulous1 8y ago
  For a genius he's a bit of a moron
  • deckar01 8y ago
    Unless he's an evil genius. There are financial advantages to tanking the value of your stock in the short term, especially if your primary goal is to increase your ownership in the company. I believe on more than one occasion he has made controversial statements which tanked the price, then purchased millions worth of shares to "inspire confidence".
• mschuster91 8y ago
  Probably he's gonna draw out an email by the Saudi or some other state fund declaring they're willing to take over enough Tesla stocks for effectively taking Tesla private (gotta leave some stock for Musk and employees, I guess). For what it's worth I actually expect something alike this, the Saudi (and other Arabian) states are trying to convert their monies into something that does not depend on oil since years. Tesla and every other car company with a decent EV portfolio are and will be perfect targets for that strategy.
• foobarbazetc 8y ago
  Life lesson: never tweet.
• supergirl 8y ago
  tesla might have succeeded if this guy was not ceo. if he is doing these kinds of shenanigans in public, i can only imagine how he runs things internal. also, from the lawsuit it seems like he is surrounded by yes men. nobody told him what he did was stupid, instead the other executives immediately jumped on board of promise train.
• romed 8y ago
  As I said nine days ago in this box and was roundly downvoted therefor: "Good chance that Musk will get placed on the bad actors list and will be unable to serve as an officer or executive of Telsa." What I don't understand is how this took 10% of the price of Tesla shares. How is it possible that this event, which was a 100% certainty, was not already baked into the price?
  • bmmayer1 8y ago
    My guess would be, a good number of TSLA investors--probably more than most publicly traded stocks--are retail investors.
  • ucaetano 8y ago
    > How is it possible that this event, which was a 100% certainty, was not already baked into the price? Nothing is ever 100% certainty. And this isn't the outcome, just the lawsuit. There is plenty still left to chance. But I've just ordered a 5-ton bucket of popcorn!
  • daveguy 8y ago
    I think most people thought Musk would get off with a fine. For a company partially driven by a cult of personality (at the very least given a significant benefit of the doubt). That hope was diminished and without Musk the entire company will be perceived differently.
  • cam3ham 8y ago
    the market is emotionally reactionary. if it was baked in (and like you, I believe it was) it will bounce back tomorrow.
  • dnautics 8y ago
    ...and your flaw was in believing the market is efficient.
  • tedunangst 8y ago
    The outcome wasn't 100% certain? There was supposed to be a settlement, presumably milder in sanctions, but then Musk said no thanks. The share price reflected the possibility that Musk might play nice. Now he won't; now it doesn't.
• mimerme 8y ago
  Does anyone else find it amazing that these days social media posts are becoming official government documentation? Who would've thought that the very platforms where we once just shared pictures of cats are starting to run our our elections and stock markets.
  • ilaksh 8y ago
    I think it's odd that these powerful technologies are not taken more seriously and incorporated into society more quickly. It just shows how slowly society thinks and adjusts.
  • refurb 8y ago
    Everyone should read the complaint and realize that everything you email and text will be found by the govt if they decide to investigate you.
    • joering2 8y ago
      Protonmail.
      • johannes1234321 8y ago
        That might be technical protection, however the way the SEC gets access to mails is not on a technical level, but by sending out a letter "please send us all your mails on that topic" and if the response on such a request is not convincingly consistent you get into even more trouble.
        • webninja 8y ago
          This. At Toyota corporate, we had a meeting with a lawyer and the lawyer instructed in the event of an investigation (e.g. bad floor mats), provide all of the emails and documents. Make everything easily searchable, and keep emails for 3-4 years. People think that hiding evidence from your lawyer makes things better but according to the lawyer, it actually hurts the case by not being able to have information. So save everything! The Toyota I.T. department must’ve heard something different because outlook now erases all emails older than 90 days.
• Rooster61 8y ago
  I very much hate to see this. Not for Musk's sake, as he has been pretty much asking for something like this to happen. I hate it because of the damage it will do to Tesla and SpaceX when he's likely banned from leading a company. Tesla's not exactly lighting the world on fire in terms of potential long term success, but SpaceX really has been doing well in recent years. The fact that they are already refurbishing solid rocket boosters is a BIG deal. Losing a CEO is a very turbulent thing, and this will only set back their progress towards affordable space flight. I hope both companies are already grooming a suitable replacement.
  • smt88 8y ago
    Get a new, non-founding CEO has worked wonders for lots of companies. There are very few (possibly zero) people who are "the only person for the job".
    • Rooster61 8y ago
      Musk wasn't a founding member of Tesla. In fact, not all of the founders of Tesla were big fans of Musk's hire. Your point is valid though, and I do think someone could go in there and take over his job effectively. That doesn't mean there won't be a period of relative instability while that transition takes place.
      • monocasa 8y ago
        Everywhere I've seen says that he's a co-founder of Tesla.
        • plorkyeran 8y ago
          Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla. Elon Musk joined the board as part of their Series A a year later, and then became the CEO a few years after that.
        • memmcgee 8y ago
          That's because his PR team has pushed that narrative for years. He wasn't a founder however.
• crb002 8y ago
  He could offer to sell his personal shares for $420 a pop. SEC would have no case, Elon gets more $$ to put into Boring. Win win.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• stevew20 8y ago
  Musk being banned from serving as an officer or director of a public company... Does anyone else see this as the beginning to the rise of a super villain? Think about it: our insanely legislated government decides that a rich and accomplished engineer/businessman can no longer run his businesses? He would totally turn evil, buy an island, and start building his super lair!
• Animats 8y ago
  He definitely lost it. And it's going to cost him. This is an open and shut case against Musk. He definitely sent out that tweet. Yes, maybe just not enough sleep and too many drugs. Not a good excuse. Tesla might do better with a new CEO. They're past the vision stage. Tesla's problems today are all those of running a big auto plant. Musk might do better focusing on Space-X.
  • UpshotKnothole 8y ago
    At this point his biggest goal should be avoiding prison, which with the DOJ investigation and the sheer stupidity of his actions is very much on the table.
    • TrainedMonkey 8y ago
      SpaceX is national security launch services provider, no way he is going to jail.
      • UpshotKnothole 8y ago
        Why not? SpaceX will tick along without him, and he won’t leak classified material because then the prison he’d be in would deep and dark indeed.
        • FLUX-YOU 8y ago
          I'm not so sure, one of the other space companies could start poaching talent and there's no way they can continue the government contracts with a huge loss of critical staff.
          • bodas 8y ago
            SpaceX is an extremely desirable company to work at, it's more NASA than NASA. Even without Musk that would remain the case. Talent squeeze is not a risk IMO.
        • 8y ago
• newnewpdro 8y ago
  The day Elon Musk ceases being CEO of Tesla is when I'll buy TSLA. Until then, it's too much of a volatile shit show with his unpredictable behavior too closely resembling that of the 45th president of the United States.
• Latteland 8y ago
  The suit asks to prevent Musk from being an officer of a public company. That would be a very severe punishment for him. So the way to deal with that is to take Tesla private. Problem solved!
• jjdag 8y ago
  While there isn't much doubt that Musk is at fault here, I wonder how a business owner should react when perceiving that his company is threatened by some journalists and (social) media influencers who seemingly have ties with short sellers. I understand that shorting helps stabilize markets but in this case with Tesla being the most shorted stock it seems that forces were at work to stain the company's reputation in order in order to prevent important losses. Seems unethical to me as well, but maybe I am being very naive here.
  • sonofaplum 8y ago
    He or she should react professionally and prudently, the same way they should strive to react to all professional adversity.
  • tomatocracy 8y ago
    Prove them wrong? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not a lot you can do about that. Trying to do something about it that goes beyond saying, politely, "well, we disagree" usually ends up making you look a lot worse.
  • romed 8y ago
    If a CEO of a publicly traded company expresses a belief in a short-side/journalism conspiracy, the board of that company should relieve that person of their duties right away. All such people in recent history have been paranoid cranks who drove their companies into the ground. See: Overstock As for Tesla specifically, there is an overt and massive "conspiracy" on the part of the long side to cheer their share price. There are numerous online news outlets that are shameless boosters of Tesla. The idea that there's a big conspiracy between short sellers and journalists has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
  • bllguo 8y ago
    I'm just baffled by this narrative about a shadowy cabal of nefarious short sellers. Is the claim that there is no reason to have legitimate concerns about Tesla? Honestly it just reeks of people being in over their heads regarding the markets. It's about as compelling an argument as those ridiculous George Soros conspiracies
• jacquesm 8y ago
  The irony of it all is that Elon Musk probably ended up making the people shorting TSLA a lot of money with that stupid tweet. Down to $266 in after hours trading: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/after-hours https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/after-hours Ouch.
• tareqak 8y ago
  CNBC article: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/tesla-falls-4percent-on-report-elon-musk-sued-by-sec.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/tesla-falls-4percent-on-repo... SEC Press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-219 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-219 United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk [PDF uploaded to Scribd by CNBC]: https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Securities-and-Exchange-Commission-v-Musk#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Secu...
• jiveturkey 8y ago
  Page 21: "Prayer for Relief" interesting that this kind of language is accepted legalese par. 80.IV and 80.V seeks both civil penalties and removal from office. Is it feasible that Musk/Tesla can negotiate only penalties, thus keeping him on the board? Given Musk's position of power over the board, and importance to the company, I could see the board agreeing to it, but would the government.
  • ubernostrum 8y ago
    Don't forget that in a handful of places literal prayer is still part of legal procedure. For example: https://guernseypress.com/news/2016/12/15/man-raises-clameur-de-haro-to-stop-planners/ https://guernseypress.com/news/2016/12/15/man-raises-clameur... The procedure used there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clameur_de_haro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clameur_de_haro
  • adrianmonk 8y ago
    The language doesn't surprise me particularly. "Pray" is an old word that means to ask. Hence "prithee", which is kind of a mashed together "pray thee" (which means "ask you"). And "prayer" is noun form of that verb. Yes, the words are really old (archaic-sounding if not actually archaic), but that happens all the time in legalese. And yes, they have religious connotations, but they are also used in secular ways. For example, from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet": "I pray thee, good Mercutio, let's retire: The day is hot, the Capulets abroad".
    • Tomte 8y ago
      I first came across "pray" (as a non-native speaker) through Sherlock Holmes. "Pray sit down" is ubiquitous in his stories.
  • rst 8y ago
    Per WSJ reporting, they already had negotiated some sort of settlement, presumably with milder action toward all concerned, and then the Tesla side blew up the deal at the last minute, resulting in the SEC's hurried drafting and filing of the complaint we have now. As a procedural matter, they probably could still settle the case if both sides agreed to do that. But the best deal Tesla could get now is almost certainly worse than what was on offer Monday -- particularly since the case against Musk looks awfully close to open-and-shut. (The case: 1) He said he had funding secured, 2) he didn't, and 3) the result was to run up the stock price to his personal benefit. 1) and 3) are matters of easily accessible public record; as for 2), Musk thought he could get the money from the Saudi government's "sovereign wealth fund", which was thinking about formally providing it, but had absolutely not agreed to do so. During the BFR announcement, Elon talked pretty frankly about his habit of promising best-case outcomes to give people something to shoort for -- but when it comes to public statements about company financials, it's a very, very, very bad idea.)
• dmitrygr 8y ago
  He responded: “This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way.” https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-responds-to-sec-securities-fraud-charges/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-respon...
• fgaf33 8y ago
  I just bet $20 on whether Elon Musk will leave Tesla by October 31st on this app: https://www.atlaspredict.com/prediction/5bad4c081cb6e0001443141c https://www.atlaspredict.com/prediction/5bad4c081cb6e0001443...
• agumonkey 8y ago
  This is his Pepsi moment. Ousted from Tesla, will have to hang low and learn more, and will buy back Tesla (with the help of William Gates)
• WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
  The book The PayPal Wars: Battles with eBay, the Media, the Mafia, and the Rest of Planet Earth, details Musk's time at Paypal and pretty much describes him as an eventual hindrance rather than a help. He was eventually ousted from the company. Peter Thiel was the one that was able to nurse the company to success. He was vital to get the company started but eventually, he was difficult to work with. Looks to me that history repeats itself. He's a great visionary but that does not translate to a great CEO. He needs to get a new CEO at Tesla and focus on another company where I'm sure he'll make a great impact. He truly has great vision but the everyday minutia of running a company probably irritates and bores him.
  • WilliamEdward 8y ago
    It might be somewhat important for morale that he remains CEO. So many people are rooting for the very idea of Elon Musk that it's probably what holds spacex and tesla together.
  • propman 8y ago
    I can only think of Elon as the only person to create THREE multi billion dollar companies in wildly different industries. Elon is a fantastic CEO AND visionary. I personally know people who could be making double specifically work at spacex because they believe in his vision. Elon is able to get Supreme talent and productivity for pennies on the dollar. He’s able to market Tesla and spaceX to billions with such a positive favoriability unlike anything we’ve ever seen. SpaceX and Tesla don’t have a marketing budget because of Elon. Car companies spend billions marketing, Elon tweets saving billions for Tesla which he reinvests in r&d. The entire world will lose if Elon is forced out. He’s the biggest fighter for climate change and space travel in modern history, greater than Al Gore in marketing and execution, greater than Buzz Aldrin, Tyson, and cosmos. I’d much rather have an honest relatable Elon Musk than a suit. I’d rather have creativity than suffocating structure. Elon is a great CEO. I would pick him over almost anyone alive.
    • toozap 8y ago
      Wayne Huizenga - Blockbuster, AutoNation, Waste Management.
• gniv 8y ago
  It looks more and more that Tesla will follow a trajectory similar to GM: https://hbr.org/2018/04/to-understand-the-future-of-tesla-look-to-the-history-of-gm https://hbr.org/2018/04/to-understand-the-future-of-tesla-lo... (If you didn't know about early GM, like I didn't, the article is worth reading.)
• piker 8y ago
  The theoretical "go private" option under current circumstances is probably out. Tesla would have to rely on Regulation D[0] to privately place its securities in connection with going private. Being deemed a "Bad Actor" with respect to Tesla could eliminate that option as long as Musk is still a "Covered Person", which includes directors and executives, and, importantly, large owners of the issuer[1]. As SpaceX presumably relies on Regulation D to place its securities, this may have also already implicated SpaceX's ability to rely on Regulation D going forward. [0] https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6a9b59e7-1b37-476b-8edf-812f35935c91 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6a9b59e7-1b37...
• not2b 8y ago
  He was trying to bankrupt the short-sellers, and he was doing it by lying: the price would soar, their options would be called, and they'd lose their shirts, all for a lie. When you're head of a public company, that's a crime. Not only will the SEC come after him, but the short sellers can probably sue him too. I have huge respect for his engineering ability, but he has messed up badly. He's overextended and it seems his conduct lately shows that he's melting down from overwork.
  • dabockster 8y ago
    > He was trying to bankrupt the short-sellers Or he was trying to divest at artificially inflated prices caused by the hype. Both of these hypotheses are illegal under US stock law.
    • maccam94 8y ago
      I don't think personal fortune is anywhere near as significant of a motivation for Musk as the public image of his companies or their success. I have no doubt that he let negative headlines get under his skin, and that he wanted to fight back.
      • hdieirbeopwhd 8y ago
        If he was angered by the haters, then - while tanking a couple near term shorts would serve that goal - the best most final and bold way to get back at them would be to take the company private (thereby depriving them of the opportunity to short) and succeeding (thus proving them wrong and depriving them of the opportunity to later bandwagon). Ie he meant what he said about his intentions & funding.
        • maccam94 8y ago
          I think he also really wanted to do that, but I think he couldn't wait to announce it with a more concrete deal in hand because of the reasons I outlined above.
  • 8y ago
• Zarath 8y ago
  What a joke, there are plenty of scumbag and criminal leaders of corporations and this is the guy who doesn't walk. It'll be a sad day for the world if this guy goes to jail.
  • dabockster 8y ago
    It's like this clip from the 1990s Batman cartoon regarding the Joker's view on the IRS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56VgsLfKY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56VgsLfKY4 Securities crime is almost always prosecuted in the US because of how much of our economy depends on it being free of outside manipulation. This is why all stock trades are tracked so intensely. A crook may be able to systemically deprive people of health insurance and get away with it, but he/she will almost certainly go to prison if caught manipulating the stock market for personal gain.
    • Zarath 8y ago
      I believe it, but it's kind of stupid that GS or JPM "analysts" can "downgrade" a stock and move it by 4%, and this happens literally every day, but some guy who is going to put humans on Mars and fly them around the moon is going to get shit for a tweet that was obviously a joke to anyone who isn't a total moron.
      • yifanl 8y ago
        A tweet that moved the stock by >4%.
• objektif 8y ago
  It is really sad to see this happening to Elon. He is one the handful of visionaries who wants to change the world for the better. He could have easily choosen to sell our private information for adds but he went for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. And then he sends an idiotic tweet in the middle of the day. Such a shame!!!
  • kraftman 8y ago
    Not just one idiotic tweet.
• qj4714 8y ago
  To me it’s weird because when I heard the news I assumed he was full of shit. And the market realized pretty quickly as well. Wished I had shorted the stock...
• artemisyna 8y ago
  I just hope Musk doesn't end up suiciding cause of all of this. =/
• zekevermillion 8y ago
  The subtext is that Elon intentionally bumped the stock price to screw over short sellers like Jim Chanos. But the rationale behind 10b5 is to protect investors from fraud. Right, we are not concerned with protecting short-sellers who spend all day on twitter making up negative stories about their targets. So the underlying rationale here has to be that Elon's $420 tweet harmed regular investors who purchased TSLA at inflated prices during the time between his initial tweet and the announcement that there would be no go-private transaction. The irony of SEC enforcement power is that the harsher they come down on the company or its execs, the more damage they do to the very investors they are charged with protecting. And I tihnk that is why you often see relatively modest settlements. Ya know, unless the board of Tesla is tired of Elon, I think there is a decent chance they are able to reach a settlement where Elon is not barred from serving as an officer or director.
  • _drimzy 8y ago
    > Right, we are not concerned with protecting short-sellers who spend all day on twitter making up negative stories about their targets. This doesn't make sense. We don't go after them because they don't have any authoritative powers/inside knowledge about the company, so a reader cannot be misled by them. If an exec of a company short sells a huge chunk of the company and plants a misleading negative story about the company, SEC will go after them too.
    • zekevermillion 8y ago
      What I mean is, we are concerned with price manipulation. But the theoretical harm of price manipulation is that some investor has overpaid based on the intentionally misleading $420 tweet. The SEC is not primarily trying to protect Jim Chanos from getting screwed on his short position. It is trying to protect the "investing public" more generally. When they talk about damages it's not going to be damages suffered by the shorts. It will be damages suffered by investors who overpaid based on $420 expectation. Note that you are actually wrong about 10b5 here, Jim Chanos can very well commit a 10b5 violation without being an insider. Securities fraud does not depend on fiduciary status of the perpetrator, and while insider trading is fraud, there are many other types of fraud as well. edit: Jim Chanos is too smart to commit a 10b5 violation. I am just using him as a hypothetical example!
• NN88 8y ago
  The good thing is that none of his companies are named after himself...
• andromaton 8y ago
  Musk did not want to quit Tesla, but wanted out: tweetice.
• voodooranger 8y ago
  you can’t disrupt or otherwise show up all of these players: the us/eu/russian/chinese space industries (and by extension the governments of china and russia), the oil industries of russia/saudi/usa, the major auto manufacturers, power companies, professional car and truck drivers, and the us dealership association (what am i forgetting), all of whom are politically very well connected, and some of whom have their hordes of paid shill internet commenters, and upvoting/downvoting bot nets (not that that would ever happen on hn (and if it would it’s against hn rules to suggest it)) and expect not to get trounced. elon might have fucked up by sending that tweet, but the response here, on reddit, and by the gov’t is way out of proportion, esp considering everything positive that this man has accomplished and is currently working on.
  • turtlecloud 8y ago
    Looks like a TESLA Denier here. Musk screwed over and pissed off a lot of people. How is the response not justified? Both shorts and longs got hurt by his tweet.
    • _louisr_ 8y ago
      > Both shorts and longs got hurt by his tweet. The human race has been directed out of an apocalyptic technological cul-de-sac by his hand. I recognize crony behavior when I see it.
• bogomipz 8y ago
  I thought the most fascinating part of the article was the following exchange: >"About 20 minutes later, the company’s chief financial officer texted Musk: “Elon, am sure you have thought about a broader communication on your rationale and structure to employees and potential investors. Would it help if [Tesla’s head of communications], [Tesla’s General Counsel], and I draft a blog post or employee email for you?” Musk responded, “Yeah, that would be great.” Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer then replied, “Working on it. Will send you shortly.”" The CFO seems oddly nonchalant with this crazy development. Or is this just sarcasm? The individual then offers to draft up comms without even first inquiring about that "rationale."? Is this what passed for normal at Tesla or were the "WTF" and exclamation points redacted?
• memmcgee 8y ago
  All I can say is that the Star Trek: Discovery name drop will age extremely poorly.
• MentallyRetired 8y ago
  Never in history has a nationalist political party sought so hard to undermine a domestic company... jesus. You're telling me the president can make tweets threatening nuclear war and face no retribution but a CEO can make a joke in poor taste and lose everything?
• theptip 8y ago
  I think there's a bit of overexcitement going on in this thread; it doesn't look to me like Musk is going to jail on this one. This part is interesting: > The SEC had crafted a settlement with Musk that it was preparing to file Thursday morning, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter. Musk’s lawyers called SEC lawyers to say they were no longer interested in proceeding with the agreement, it said. If his lawyers had a settlement lined up, and then retracted it, that means that they are confident they can win a better outcome in court. The deal they were going to cut did not involve Musk going to jail, so the outcome that Musk's expensive lawyers are betting on by retracting the settlement presumably also doesn't involve that.
  • jjeaff 8y ago
    Either that or Elon refused the deal the lawyers crafted and is going against their advice. It's not like he never makes rash decisions.
  • village-idiot 8y ago
    This immediate matter was never about jail. The SEC doesn’t jail you, they just make you poor. What’s triggering the discussion of jail is the rumor that the SEC referred some of this to the DOJ. That’s when you start talking about jail.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • anonu 8y ago
    Part of the deal was that he step down as CEO. I think that was not acceptable to him. Ultimately, I believe he will lose. A strong operator to handle traditional car company problems will make TSLA sky rocket
    • azernik 8y ago
      Do you have a source for that, or is this a inference based on the rejection of the deal?
    • 8y ago
• lngnmn1 8y ago
  Remins one of Atlas Shrugged.
• mikehines 8y ago
  Travis Kalanick is available to run Tesla.
• davidparks21 8y ago
  I'm quite doubtful this suit will succeed. To succeed the SEC would need to prove intent to disrupt the market. You can certainly show that he had a reason to attack short sellers, but he also has a long history of communicating in exactly that manner. He probably also has plenty of evidence of meetings that justify the statement. If that assumption is correct, given his historical use of this medium of communication, I can't see how you prove intent.
  • branchless 8y ago
    How is this the top comment when it says it was made "0 minutes ago"? When there are 550+?
  • hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    > He probably also has plenty of evidence of meetings that justify the statement. By Musk's own description I don't see how any reasonable human being could interpret the meetings he said he had with the Saudis as meaning "funding secured". The verbal gymnastics he tried to use when explaining his tweet in saying "I knew we could get a deal" made me think "Come on Elon, I don't even think you believe the bullshit you're peddling."
• kbos87 8y ago
  Wealthy narcissistic attention seekers should be subject to the law just like the rest of us.
• VeXocide 8y ago
  Here's the actual filing: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-2...
• caublestone 8y ago
  Is there any logic in forcing the share price down in order to make a go private deal possible?
• dingdongdang 8y ago
  Adiyogi is the most prolific thinker in the world, miles ahead of Aristole and other greek thinkers. But he never got any recognization for his work. Marijuana is also his favourite food. I don't see what's wrong in Musk having Marijuana when it enables him to think clearly.
• gfody 8y ago
  does the SEC have a case? Elon can say the post was a joke (probably the truth), or that he sincerely intended to take the company private at $420 after smoking a joint with a potential backer but then later thought better of it, say he even confessed that his tweet was a deliberate attempt to mislead short-sited investors in a lapse of moral judgement; it would still be just a note on a social network, not an official company announcement. what if he left his phone unattended and someone made that tweet, would the SEC be suing him for negligently managing his twitter stream? isn't the real problem that too many "investors" are making short-sited decisions based on nonsense posted to social networks?
  • detaro 8y ago
    from the filing: > In November 5, 2013, Tesla publicly filed a Form 8-K with the Commission stating that it intended to use Musk’s Twitter account as a means of announcing material information to the public about Tesla and its products and services and has encouraged investors to review the information about Tesla published by Musk via his Twitter account.
• gfody 8y ago
  the actual filing is more interesting: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/3KSLKOY/96034763/United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_v_Musk__nysdce-18-08865__0001.0.pdf https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/3KSLKOY/96034763/Unit...
• bentoscher 8y ago
  Alas, on the path to greater things achieved, quarrels of mankind see no relief; to build a house of time and stone, requires an ounce of flesh and bone.
• fipple 8y ago
  The proposed punishment is statutorily allowed for the infraction. Sadly, in this climate, it's not clear whether this is standard operating procedure for this, though, or whether a particularly vindictive response because of some political slight Musk may have committed towards the administration or the SEC.
• _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  Glad it's only a CEO, imagine what a president could do with Twitter!
  • the_clarence 8y ago
    Someone has to explain that to me. Is the POTUS all powerful and can pretty much say anything?
    • lostmyoldone 8y ago
      No, but the republican majority in congress refuses to hold him accountable, and possibly voters too. Time will tell. It is rather absurd that a CEO is seemingly held to higher standards then the president.
• pandacat 8y ago
  (F)elon Musk
• jbeales 8y ago
  So if he's banned from running a public company, could he... take Tesla private?
• _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  Hopefully it only hits Tesla (which never understood people excitement) and a deal can be made he's staying head honcho (resarch? vision?) at SpaceX where I really think he can help humanity (hopefully Mars will not become a land grab as the US was, but I fear it's the same again)
  • slivym 8y ago
    This seems incredibly unlikely because his actions were so independent of Tesla. They aren't pursuing Tesla right now, they're pursuing Musk personally.
• tinkerteller 8y ago
  TLDR; According to article, SEC did do the "swift" investigation and it seems they were convinced Musk had no hard evidence to back up his $420 claim. They even drafted settlement agreement that was supposed to be signed which I'm guessing involved removing Musk from exec position. However at last minute Musk's lawyers decided not to go for settlement and now they are going to fight the case. I'm thinking they probably cooked something with Saudi to corroborate the claims - may be in exchange for some future deal. For whatever reason, Musk lawyers have figured things out so at this point Tesla is buy for me.
• jmachete 8y ago
  Musk is Tesla, and people loves Musk whatever he do. The same way a couple years ago, the Apple Board pulled out Steve Jobs from his company, they are now trying to do the same with Musk on Tesla. BAD Move. Tesla without Musk is nothing
• sunstone 8y ago
  Interesting legal point, does Musk have any legal duty to the Tesla shorts? If I'm not mistaken they don't officially own the shares they short so I'm thinking not. On the other hand if the "shorts" are actively working against the interests of "long" holders of Tesla stock and Musk works against their interests (but in the interests of shareholders) how can that run afoul of the rules? Not a lawyer so it may not be as black and white as this but I would interested to hear from those that are familiar with legal precedents on this issue.