Stop posting lies, you ignoramus. There is a difference between a discussion of going private and a formal written proposal with all the legalities worked out and the Is dotted and Ts crossed. He did not commit securities fraud. Or at least, this isn’t evidence of it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Short Sellers Sue Musk
- Thread starter S'toon
- Start date
Stop posting lies, you ignoramus. There is a difference between a discussion of going private and a formal written proposal with all the legalities worked out and the Is dotted and Ts crossed. He did not commit securities fraud. Or at least, this isn’t evidence of it.
Key word.."formal proposal". Telling the board hey these are my investors and this is the price they want to buy it out is anything but "formal". I would assume "formal proposals" require a lot of Is dotted and Ts crossed.
No he didn't
"Am considering taking Tesla private at $420." read again, *considering*
If SA offered to buy the shares at 420 (without submitting a formal proposal), the funding to this "going private" plan is secured. Not committed but secured.
He might not have a final offer but why would he have to do send one to the board *right now*? It's pretty clear he wants to improve the proposal by getting more participants and limit SA's weight on the future of the company.
As a shareholder, I'm pretty happy with that. But you aren't a shareholder, are you?
FirebirdAlpha
Member
So then where did 420/share come from? Managing director just tosses out a number? After no diligence?
I just don't understand you all here. I'm sorry that Musk lied to you, but between the NYTimes, Financial Times, and now Tesla's own 8K, not a single other party is giving any evidence that this is real.
If there was even an informal proposal, the 8-K would have stated that. If there was an offer for a specific share price the 8-K would have stated that. Tesla is required to detail everything material about this in that filing.
There is no deal. Never was. There are still hundreds of steps to get to a deal.
"Funding secured," "Certain," and responding to the reporter with just "420"
Those are false statements. And the SEC is actively investigating.
Please look up the word "CONSIDERING"
AND it seems as though Elon had good reason to say "funding secured" as he had been talking ... so the point is IF he decided to try and go private funding would be there. It does not read as it would happen for sure ....
Just keep adding to your short position since you are so certain of everything ..... sheesh.
Right? I bet he will say Elon "lied" if the buyout ends up being 450. "But Elon on Twitter said 420 not 450!!!..his funding is now too secured! Fake news Elon!".
This is the Market Action thread. There are already separate threads for discussing the securities fraud allegations. Here's one:
Short Sellers Sue Musk
Short Sellers Sue Musk
You're absolutely right. When Musk tweeted "Formal proposal complete and ready to present to the board", that was clearly a lie.
He did tweet that, right?
Clearly he must have, surely...(Markets don't seem to care much today about the 8K... so far at least)
Bwahaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaa!
Erm... sorry... this is not the proper way to react to another poster's claims on this forum, we do need to treat each other respectfully. It's just that when you said that:
I just... pffffhahahaaaaaaaa!
Again, I must apologise...
With public companies much normal diligence is done reading their disclosures. You discuss price based on those disclosures and your projections for the future. Additional detailed disclosure regarding, for instance, what happens upon a major transactions or fundamentla change will require reviewing contracts that may have been redacted or not filed. That affects the mechanics of the deal but usually not the overall price.
The Tesla company and board communications speak for themselves and describe the normal process for the company to consider the real proposal, informally proposed, and soon to be formally proposed to the Board, which has now created a committee to receive and deal with the proposal.
Totally false and ignorant of securities laws. Read the Form 8-K and what it requires and doesn't require. It does NOT require disclosure of deals in the planning stages, nor does it require disclosure by the company of plans made by potential buyers (when the company isn't even a party to those funding arrangements. It can be used to publish press releases as they recently did under Reg FD, but even those are voluntary.
The buyers have to satisfy their own different disclosure rules under Sch. 13D and Rule 13e-3. Read those rules, and their triggers and timing requirements if you want to see what is required when buyers plan to buy a public company and what they need to disclose.
Again totally false and ignorant of what is required to be disclosed on an 8-K. Find someone knowledgeable to educate you on this.
And NASDAQ and the likely the SEC did communicate with Tesla while trading was halted on Tuesday and then resumed after getting the info that they needed.
Indeed. Post your short position and prediction so I can add it to the Short seller time capsule thread for reviewing in the future.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
what's to explain? The deal has to have elons approval, the boards approval (by way of the special committee), the shareholders approval, the buyers approval. If any one of those call it off it doesn't happen.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
I’ve been reading and listening to lots of opinions on this matter from legal experts and former SEC employees. Here are a few examples.
A law professor said that the SEC could simply be looking at the incident as a case study and so would take no enforcement action at all.
Another law professor and a former SEC attorney said there was not yet clear evidence of wrongdoing.
A former SEC commissioner said that the incident was unfortunate and avoidable; that the SEC would likely sue Tesla and the matter would be settled out of court — I imagine that Elon would end up paying a fine.
A former SEC chair thought the matter was potentially more serious, saying that Elon could be liable for stock traders’ damages and even face criminal prosecution if the SEC found he made a false material statement. However, he also said, “Whether or not he's done anything illegal is far from certain.”
In 2016, the SEC sent a letter to Tesla about the company using non-GAAP financial metrics in its shareholder letters. This is an example of the SEC taking action / issuing guidance after an investigation, where the matter wasn’t serious and is now pretty much forgotten. There was no fine or other penalty. So, this goes to show that SEC can investigate and even take action, even if the ramifications are ultimately small.
So, here are four possible outcomes:
Update (2:57pm EST) – I found this quote from another former SEC attorney:
A law professor said that the SEC could simply be looking at the incident as a case study and so would take no enforcement action at all.
Another law professor and a former SEC attorney said there was not yet clear evidence of wrongdoing.
A former SEC commissioner said that the incident was unfortunate and avoidable; that the SEC would likely sue Tesla and the matter would be settled out of court — I imagine that Elon would end up paying a fine.
A former SEC chair thought the matter was potentially more serious, saying that Elon could be liable for stock traders’ damages and even face criminal prosecution if the SEC found he made a false material statement. However, he also said, “Whether or not he's done anything illegal is far from certain.”
In 2016, the SEC sent a letter to Tesla about the company using non-GAAP financial metrics in its shareholder letters. This is an example of the SEC taking action / issuing guidance after an investigation, where the matter wasn’t serious and is now pretty much forgotten. There was no fine or other penalty. So, this goes to show that SEC can investigate and even take action, even if the ramifications are ultimately small.
So, here are four possible outcomes:
- the SEC finishes its inquiry and takes no action
- the SEC issues guidance but gives no penalty (as in the non-GAAP financials case)
- the SEC sues and, in the settlement, Elon ends up paying a fine
- Elon is liable for damages (potentially in the billions) and/or faces criminal prosecution
Update (2:57pm EST) – I found this quote from another former SEC attorney:
Last edited:
Elon’s gonna eat thier lunch is what’s going to happen... play the Saudis oil against the Americans oil spending. What a way to show the world that a heavily oil invested country could actually be an example to the world, instead of calling climate change a hoax and fake news like our current leaders....plus they have a lot of sand to make solar panels and sun. America will roll coal and the rest of the world is gonna get serious.....
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Barklikeadog
Active Member
well here it goes:
The Securities and Exchange Commisison has served Tesla with a subpoena after CEO Elon Musk tweeted that he was considering taking the company private and that he had the necessary funding lined up, according to a report from The New York Times published Wednesday.
The Securities and Exchange Commisison has served Tesla with a subpoena after CEO Elon Musk tweeted that he was considering taking the company private and that he had the necessary funding lined up, according to a report from The New York Times published Wednesday.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Just to be clear.....we wen't all the way from 2007 to 2009 with the SEC barely batting an eye at an all-out orgy of fraud.....but a completely factual tweet is just too much?
I'm going to challenge on this assertion. CNBC says it, quoting Fox, who claim "two people said it". When have you ever heard about SEC subpoenas before? I think it's fake news.
Similar threads
