You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The filing requesting a show cause order stated that willfulness is not required.
Had that filing been incorrect on its face, the judge would have declined to issue the order.
Off Topic...That's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' in support to issue an order to show cause to issue an ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies. To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
Furthermore, the willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory the judge did not make any ruling on. The SEC's legal theory is flawed, because the case they cited relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement. No such admission exists in this case, so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite on its face.
The judge did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
The judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
Where in God's name did you find that disgusting GIF? EWWW!
I know this has been discussed previously, but any new thoughts on the odds of Buffet injecting cash into the company with an elephant-sized' acquisition - either full or in part? A partial injection would allow Musk, excuse me, Tusk, to rapidly product multiply models - the Y, the pickup, and in several geographic locations (ie. Europe..)
I think Buffet bought part ownership in a railroad before he purchased the entire railroad.
Just following Nasdaq.Mandatory dipping
That way he can say he was correct no matter which way the SP ends up. Brilliant.I swear I read yesterday that AJ said fundamentally overvalued and strategically undervalued long term - and I was like "What the Fusk"
Oups What going on with TSLA$ is going RED
giphy.comOff Topic...
Where in God's name did you find that disgusting GIF? EWWW!
Dan
Amusing if illogical.That's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' argument in support to issue an order to show cause ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which separate issue will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies.
To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
The SEC's legal argument was not relied on by the judge to make her minimal ruling ordering Elon to reply. The willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory, and the judge did not make any ruling on the merits of the case.
Furthermore, even cursory review of the SEC's legal theory shows that it's flawed, because the case they cited (Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984)) relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement.
No such admission exists in this case (the SEC only purports that such an admission exists and I fully expect Tesla to dispute it), so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite (i.e. will probably be rejected by the judge) on its face.
The federal judge presiding over the case did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
A judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
Amusing if illogical.
If the judge had decided that wilfulness was required, and had therefore declined to issue an order to Musk, how would that be prejudicial to Tesla?
The federal judge presiding over the case did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
A judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.