3 ms·
The SEC saw that argument coming and shot it down completely in their filing: > According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication
by afastow 8y ago
The SEC saw that argument coming and shot it down completely in their filing:
> According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication or even releasing a verbatim pre-approved Written Communication more than two days after it has been pre-approved requires that the pre-approval be reconfirmed. Even if the exact substance of the 7:15 tweet had been pre-approved 20 days before, Musk cannot credibly claim that he thought he was not required to obtain pre-approval again under the plain terms of the Policy. In fact, the written communication in the 7:15 tweet was not pre-approved 20 days earlier or at any time. Musk’s claim that he thought he was simply restating information from the January 30 communications is not credible.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h... page 12
- Dylan16807 8y agoThis tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That rule is irrelevant. The argument is not "this tweet got approved before, so I can edit it however I want". The argument is "the number is already public information, so I can make a new post mentioning it".
- sangnoir 8y ago> This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That is the problem, in a nutshell: it should have been pre-approved - according to the FCC's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
- Dylan16807 8y agoMaybe. But don't confuse different arguments about why. If the tweet needed pre-approval, it's for a reason entirely different from this quote.
- rory096 8y agoWhether or not it's a valid argument, that does seem to be the SEC's argument here.
- Dylan16807 8y agoIt's not the core of their argument, though. It's probably thrown in just in case it could possibly be considered relevant.