4 ms·
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
by 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 agoQuestions 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.