5 ms·
His subsequent tweet removes any doubt about what he meant: > Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a s
by RivieraKid 8y ago
His subsequent tweet removes any doubt about what he meant:
> Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.
I'm convinced that he lied to hurt the short sellers.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago> I'm convinced that he lied to hurt the short sellers. Luckily, it'll be for a court to decide if it even goes that far.
- tareqak 8y agoMusk and Tesla already settled with the SEC over this event a few weeks ago.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoThanks! I thought this was some other sort of malarkey besides that event.
- village-idiot 8y agoThere was tons of Malarkey, but it’s mostly over. Musk was offered a settlement, he refused at the 11th hour, the SEC threatened to sue for everything, then he settled for a higher amount than the initial offer. What remains is convincing a judge that the settlement is just.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago> What remains is convincing a judge that the settlement is just. "Judge approves Elon Musk's settlement with SEC" (Published 9:36 AM ET Tue, 16 Oct 2018 Updated 3:29 PM ET Tue, 16 Oct 2018) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/judge-approves-elon-musks-settlement-with-sec.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/judge-approves-elon-musks-se...
- village-idiot 8y agoAh, missed that. The malarkey is over then.
- brisance 8y agoIt depends on whether Musk stays within the terms of the settlement, and whether the SEC has the courage to pursue any breaches. The SEC is not exactly at the forefront of enforcement though, despite its title. The Madoff Ponzi scheme was discovered by Harry Markopolos, who reported it to the SEC, and the SEC sat on it for many years before any action was taken.
- BinaryIdiot 8y agoThe SEC imposes civil fines. The DOJ, as far as I know, hasn't announced the results of their probe into Musk's tweet.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y agoI know, and I totally agree with you. Just my point being the things that were potentially criminal were the false statements of fact (e.g. "investor support is confirmed"), not his opinion-based forward-looking statements.