2 ms·
He didn't say it was "annualized." Therefore he made a factual reporting error, which means the statement likely wasn't pre-approved, and therefore directly vio
by Someone1234 7y ago
He didn't say it was "annualized." Therefore he made a factual reporting error, which means the statement likely wasn't pre-approved, and therefore directly violated the SEC agreement (both versions).
A follow up tweet doesn't allow him to bypass the pre-approval process he agreed to in the settlement.
- gpm 7y agoYou don't need to be inferring the statement wasn't pre-approved. Musk has stated as much in court documents. Where you are wrong is your claim that it needed pre-approval under the first agreement. Only statements that Musk, in his own opinion, believed contained material facts need pre approval. Gloss on publicly known figures is not material, that is what Musk thought he was posting, therefore it did not need per-approval. The SEC tried and failed to push the argument you are trying to push in court. You can view the complete docket here. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7946295/united-states-securities-and-exchange-commission-v-musk/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7946295/united-states-s... You can find musk making the admission I claim he made above in this court filing. You can also find a better version of the argument I made about the tweet not needing pre-approval. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.27.0_1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755...
- marvin 7y agoThanks for the links, nice to see this clearly described. The journalists were much happier to write about a prospective scandal than about the fact that it didn't happen, so even as a not-quite-casual observer, it hasn't been so easy to pick up the details on this.