3 ms·

Keep in mind that both the statement and the correction came while the markets were closed. This isn't about market manipulation. This is about whether or not

by jsight 8y ago

Keep in mind that both the statement and the correction came while the markets were closed. This isn't about market manipulation. This is about whether or not he intentionally crossed an arbitrary line by vaguely restating previous official company statements in an unofficial manner without complying with company policy on said utterance.

spenczar5 8y ago
Right, this is about contempt of court, not actual fraud, good point. It sounds like you think "contempt of court" shouldn't matter. I think it should. It's hard to have a society with rule of law if people ignore court orders, even cool people like Elon.
- jsight 8y ago
  Contempt of court matters, but it is also a high bar. It remains to be seen if the court will determine that a fellow saying "I love the courts, I'm sorry about the things that I said outside of trading hours" is in contempt. My guess is that the SEC's definition and the court's definition will not agree. Before disagreeing with this, go back and read the terms of the original settlement. A lot of people are talking smack (on both sides) about things that aren't even in that agreement.
  - spenczar5 8y ago
    I've only read the SEC's motion (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYirOxo/v0 https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYi...). I haven't been able to track down the court's final judgement document in the settlement. That said, I don't agree with your portrayal here. The SEC's claim is just that Musk didn't pre-clear the tweet, which was a court-backed requirement in the settlement, which makes him in contempt of court. The other stuff, like about the TV interview, is evidence that he's not acting in good faith, so the court shouldn't cut him slack here - or, in the motion's words, that he "has not made a diligent or good faith effort to comply with the provision of the Court’s Final Judgment requiring pre-approval of his written communications about Tesla. Less than two months after the Court entered its Final Judgment, Musk publicly indicated that he was not serious about compliance with this provision."

by jsight 8y ago

spenczar5 8y ago

Right, this is about contempt of court, not actual fraud, good point. It sounds like you think "contempt of court" shouldn't matter. I think it should. It's hard to have a society with rule of law if people ignore court orders, even cool people like Elon.

jsight 8y ago
Contempt of court matters, but it is also a high bar. It remains to be seen if the court will determine that a fellow saying "I love the courts, I'm sorry about the things that I said outside of trading hours" is in contempt. My guess is that the SEC's definition and the court's definition will not agree. Before disagreeing with this, go back and read the terms of the original settlement. A lot of people are talking smack (on both sides) about things that aren't even in that agreement.
- spenczar5 8y ago
  I've only read the SEC's motion (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYirOxo/v0 https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYi...). I haven't been able to track down the court's final judgement document in the settlement. That said, I don't agree with your portrayal here. The SEC's claim is just that Musk didn't pre-clear the tweet, which was a court-backed requirement in the settlement, which makes him in contempt of court. The other stuff, like about the TV interview, is evidence that he's not acting in good faith, so the court shouldn't cut him slack here - or, in the motion's words, that he "has not made a diligent or good faith effort to comply with the provision of the Court’s Final Judgment requiring pre-approval of his written communications about Tesla. Less than two months after the Court entered its Final Judgment, Musk publicly indicated that he was not serious about compliance with this provision."