4 ms·

What would be the argument in his defense?

by tareqak 8y ago

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.

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.