12 ms·

He agreed to have material tweets reviewed by Tesla's in house counsel before publishing. With a specific definition of material and examples of content that wo

by gpm 7y ago

He agreed to have material tweets reviewed by Tesla's in house counsel before publishing. With a specific definition of material and examples of content that would be material. This tweet IMHO doesn't fall under that definition of material. Even if you think it did, you're blindly assuming that this tweet wasn't reviewed (which it might well have been, if it was reviewed it was certainly legal instead of probably legal). The SEC doesn't have a choice to tolerate or not tolerate this behavior. They basically lost the last time they sued (it ended in a settlement where the only concession to them was rephrasing an existing agreement after a judge said some strong words), and they would probably lose again if they sued this time.

kasey_junk 7y ago
Lol. That and a binding legal agreement that he’d have public statements reviewed. And the small thing of being removed as the chairman of the board. When the SEC starts dictating your board shape no one considers it a loss for the SEC.
- gpm 7y ago
  > That and a binding legal agreement that he’d have public statements reviewed As I just said, no such general legal agreement exists. The only legal agreement that exists is the one I described in my above comment. I'd cite a source, but citing a negative is basically impossible. So I'd ask that instead you cite that agreement. Sec agreements are public documents. Here is a link to the most recent agreement that the SEC settled with musk on - this is all they got the last time they sued. Note that the previous agreement (which you can dig up if you want) basically said the same in less words. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.47.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755... Order denying the SECs contempt motion as moot following the entry of that consent agreement: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.48.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755...
clouddrover 7y ago
> Even if you think it did, you're blindly assuming that this tweet wasn't reviewed Musk said it wasn't reviewed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-stock-falls-after-ceo-tweets-stock-is-too-high-11588348672 https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-stock-falls-after-ceo-twe... His tweets in general are not reviewed. He does not respect the SEC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzGdoPu9vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzGdoPu9vs
- gpm 7y ago
  > Musk said it wasn't reviewed: Huh, I hadn't seen that. You're right (upvoted you). > His tweets in general are not reviewed. He does not respect the SEC: I'm perfectly aware, I'm the sort of weirdo who reads the court filings in these lawsuits. I was hoping that he would have been ... cautious ... enough to get this tweet reviewed against the general policy since it is pushing the boundary of the agreement.

by gpm 7y ago

kasey_junk 7y ago

Lol. That and a binding legal agreement that he’d have public statements reviewed. And the small thing of being removed as the chairman of the board. When the SEC starts dictating your board shape no one considers it a loss for the SEC.

gpm 7y ago
> That and a binding legal agreement that he’d have public statements reviewed As I just said, no such general legal agreement exists. The only legal agreement that exists is the one I described in my above comment. I'd cite a source, but citing a negative is basically impossible. So I'd ask that instead you cite that agreement. Sec agreements are public documents. Here is a link to the most recent agreement that the SEC settled with musk on - this is all they got the last time they sued. Note that the previous agreement (which you can dig up if you want) basically said the same in less words. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.47.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755... Order denying the SECs contempt motion as moot following the entry of that consent agreement: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.48.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755...

clouddrover 7y ago

> Even if you think it did, you're blindly assuming that this tweet wasn't reviewed Musk said it wasn't reviewed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-stock-falls-after-ceo-tweets-stock-is-too-high-11588348672 https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-stock-falls-after-ceo-twe... His tweets in general are not reviewed. He does not respect the SEC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzGdoPu9vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzGdoPu9vs

gpm 7y ago
> Musk said it wasn't reviewed: Huh, I hadn't seen that. You're right (upvoted you). > His tweets in general are not reviewed. He does not respect the SEC: I'm perfectly aware, I'm the sort of weirdo who reads the court filings in these lawsuits. I was hoping that he would have been ... cautious ... enough to get this tweet reviewed against the general policy since it is pushing the boundary of the agreement.