5 ms·

> Nor does that agreement ban such tweets, it only requires that they are run by lawyers first. But it wasn't run by the lawyers because it contains a factual

> Nor does that agreement ban such tweets, it only requires that they are run by lawyers first. But it wasn't run by the lawyers because it contains a factual reporting error the lawyers would have flagged. Thus he violated the SEC agreement. Nobody said the tweet was banned. The tweet violated the agreement because it likely wasn't pre-approved (or his lawyers are really really bad).

gpm 7y ago
Sorry, I removed that and the next part of my post about 20 seconds after posting it exactly to avoid getting into pointless fights like this. We had bad luck with your refresh time... But, you are still messing up your dates. He did not violate the agreement because the original agreement was in effect at the time and it did not require running this past his lawyers. This has run out through court already, the SEC did not win.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >the SEC did not win. What do you mean? Tesla and Elon settled fraud charges: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 Stop the gaslighting.
  - gpm 7y ago
    The sec sued asking for punishment for violating the agreement. The judge basically said, ya, no, but why don't you guys write up a new one that everyone agrees on the meaning of. And that is what happened. A settlement where you get literally nothing that you asked for is a loss not a win. Edit: I just realized you linked to the wrong settlement. One sec, I'll find the right one for you. It seems that the SEC didn't release any press releases over their loss (shocking, I know) - but here is an article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-settle-legal-fight-over-his-tweets-about-tesla-juykzbwq https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-... - you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement.
    - aguyfromnb 7y ago
      >you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement. What are you even talking about? I made no such claim. Elon Musk settled fraud charges with the SEC, and is being sued in civil court, as we speak, for the same infraction (shocking, i know).
      - gpm 7y ago
        Sorry, I thought I was replying to Someone1234, you are right you did not make such a claim. Elon Musk settled charges with the SEC before this tweet happened. Elon Musk "settled" contempt charges over this tweet with the SEC, in the sense that the SEC capitulated and agreed to no punishment whatsoever after some strong words from the court that barely fell short of a ruling against them... I haven't been following any shareholder lawsuits closely, I'm willing to bet that there are none over this tweet though. This tweet did not move the market, and to the extent that it was incorrect or even plausibly inappropriate it was immediately corrected. I strongly suspect all shareholder lawsuits are over the previous "funding secured" tweet and tweets around that tweet in time (before any settlement with the SEC happened). That is not the same infraction as the tweet being discussed here.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Does the agreement apply retroactively?
- gpm 7y ago
  No
- brewdad 7y ago
  The original agreement, which this tweet allegedly violated, was from Oct. 2018.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Someone1234 explicitly alleged that the tweet violated the updated agreement, which was made after the tweet was... The allegation that it violated the original agreement was tested in court by the SEC, and effectively failed.

gpm 7y ago

Sorry, I removed that and the next part of my post about 20 seconds after posting it exactly to avoid getting into pointless fights like this. We had bad luck with your refresh time... But, you are still messing up your dates. He did not violate the agreement because the original agreement was in effect at the time and it did not require running this past his lawyers. This has run out through court already, the SEC did not win.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>the SEC did not win. What do you mean? Tesla and Elon settled fraud charges: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 Stop the gaslighting.
- gpm 7y ago
  The sec sued asking for punishment for violating the agreement. The judge basically said, ya, no, but why don't you guys write up a new one that everyone agrees on the meaning of. And that is what happened. A settlement where you get literally nothing that you asked for is a loss not a win. Edit: I just realized you linked to the wrong settlement. One sec, I'll find the right one for you. It seems that the SEC didn't release any press releases over their loss (shocking, I know) - but here is an article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-settle-legal-fight-over-his-tweets-about-tesla-juykzbwq https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-... - you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement. What are you even talking about? I made no such claim. Elon Musk settled fraud charges with the SEC, and is being sued in civil court, as we speak, for the same infraction (shocking, i know).
    - gpm 7y ago
      Sorry, I thought I was replying to Someone1234, you are right you did not make such a claim. Elon Musk settled charges with the SEC before this tweet happened. Elon Musk "settled" contempt charges over this tweet with the SEC, in the sense that the SEC capitulated and agreed to no punishment whatsoever after some strong words from the court that barely fell short of a ruling against them... I haven't been following any shareholder lawsuits closely, I'm willing to bet that there are none over this tweet though. This tweet did not move the market, and to the extent that it was incorrect or even plausibly inappropriate it was immediately corrected. I strongly suspect all shareholder lawsuits are over the previous "funding secured" tweet and tweets around that tweet in time (before any settlement with the SEC happened). That is not the same infraction as the tweet being discussed here.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago

Does the agreement apply retroactively?

gpm 7y ago
No
brewdad 7y ago
The original agreement, which this tweet allegedly violated, was from Oct. 2018.
- gpm 7y ago
  Someone1234 explicitly alleged that the tweet violated the updated agreement, which was made after the tweet was... The allegation that it violated the original agreement was tested in court by the SEC, and effectively failed.