Regulatory capture is a b***h. At this point it's safe to assume the SEC is a hostile agency which is probably controlled by the various interests which want to destroy Tesla. There is no reason to assume they will come to the table with a better settlement now or in the future. We don't know the terms of the settlement they offered before this filing but it was probably not good for Elon or Tesla. I can't think of any reason why Elon would have walked back on a favorable settlement that left him in control of Tesla and required no admission of wrongdoing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I have no problem with Elon becoming the “Entertainment Director” at Tesla.
Attachments
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Firstly, the Saudi PIF has announced a target asset range of 2 trillion dollars within the next decade:
"How Saudi Arabia Is Building Its $2 Trillion Fund"
"The prince announced plans for a $500 billion city called Neom on the Red Sea"
"The prince announced plans for a $500 billion city called Neom on the Red Sea"
They are growing their fund aggressively, and Tesla would have fit into that very well, with a Gigafactory built in that city. It would have been reckless for Elon to not consider funding secured after the Saudis made their offer.
Secondly, are the SEC lawyers really going to try to make the following argument to the jury and the judge:
"Your honor, the SEC is making the argument that funding could not have been considered secured, as the Saudi PIF had only 250 billion dollars of assets under management, with a 2,000 billion dollars target by 2030."
I'd like to have an audio recording of the incredulous laughter that would erupt from members of the jury on hearing that argument... and the judge ruling from the bench to dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous.
Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs was likely consulted to get a better deal: shareholder value is maximized in a bidding war, which won't happen with a single buyer.
But more importantly, the formal going-private plan Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs presented to the Tesla board is independent proof that Elon's belief just two weeks earlier that funding was secured was not just honest belief, but also truthful: Elon probably knew that he could round up enough funds in short order, so the only open question was what shareholders are thinking about it.
Which is exactly what he tweeted, and which is exactly what happened.
How could it have been 'false' or 'reckless' for Elon to claim that funding is secured, if he managed to secure two independent sources of funding (with different conditions for the deal)?
The shorts keep forgetting this: truth is an absolute defense against allegations of falsehood.
Last edited:
Done! Just wrote a letter to both my senator and representative.
lose for shareholders? Shares public are the same shares private. Current price only matters if you selling.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Tesla shareholders, owners and fans within the U.S. can have probably have the biggest impact: don't just talk, organize and act! Also, vote in November.
As to what kind of legal action to take, if any: that would be legal advice which this isn't. Any legal action would be coordinated by lawyers who can advise about what to do, and there's also the social media, political and other forums that should be pursued in parallel.
Elon did the right thing by informing shareholders about the going-private efforts, and what the SEC is trying to do here is unprecedented, harmful and extremely reckless.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
That's about $276.70 with an EUR/USD rate of 1.1700 - a bit above yesterday's post-market closing price which was $270.90.
It could make larger swings I suspect, as the European secondary markets are much thinner than the primary U.S. market, especially before trading hours.
Ulmo
Active Member
I think the main determinant for SEC to sue Elon Musk for lying about his funding secured tweet is that he didn’t follow through with going private. He fooled me and I lost a lot of money.
When Musk claimed his intent to consider going private, I thought it was duly considered and announced, and I put in a lot of money to TSLA to sell or hold at the 420 price point. When Musk turned out to be weak, margin ate most my money. I try to learn from this, but the main issue is the same SEC ‘s suit claims, that Musk wasn’t in earnest.
Now wirh the most promising transformative quarter for TSLA ever, once again, the SEC is causing me to lose a lot of money, and may make me homeless.
When Musk claimed his intent to consider going private, I thought it was duly considered and announced, and I put in a lot of money to TSLA to sell or hold at the 420 price point. When Musk turned out to be weak, margin ate most my money. I try to learn from this, but the main issue is the same SEC ‘s suit claims, that Musk wasn’t in earnest.
Now wirh the most promising transformative quarter for TSLA ever, once again, the SEC is causing me to lose a lot of money, and may make me homeless.
Last edited:
Yes and yet, Elon considered the settlement so there is zero chance that it included barring him from being CEO/director from public companies.
edit: this point was made earlier in the thread.
Difficult for us, Europeans, when there are 1.000 new posts when we try to get some sleep
Last edited:
On that note, and this has been bugging me for weeks if not months now, the SEC has been leaking with news of this investigation for the past few months to major media outlets. I am not saying this was organized and intended, but is definitely unacceptable and has at times moved the stock at least as much as Musk`s tweets. Does the SEC chairman have any responsibilities to ensure this is not happening? Would these frequent and anonymous leaks warrant an investigation?
Game on buddy! Wild 8 ball says after the early dip it will bounce up to close at the current daily bottom bollinger band of $270 or $281 which seems to be previous support/resistance. If pass that then $290.276.77
Actually just Forget it, TA doesn't apply today. It’ll surely be up to the Saudis vs. Chanos
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
If true then it's not just "unacceptable" but very likely criminal, I can see several potential crimes on a cursory reading, some of them felonies with long prison sentences and disbarment for life for the SEC employees and any shorts/traders involved:
- insider trading,
- market manipulation,
- leaking of attorney-client privileged and agency privileged confidential information,
- RICO charges if it was done in a criminal conspiracy to defraud investors,
- etc.
Yes, absolutely, normally not just these leaks but market-moving untrue articles would be investigated as well, such as the hit piece in the New York Times by David Gelles, which likely misrepresented a phone interview with Elon and caused a drop of over 10% - and similar recent incidents of market-moving FUD pieces that happened to be designed to help short sellers financially, at the expense of Tesla shareholders.
While the Trump administration is unlikely to investigate, Tesla shareholders could call for the California State Attorney General to investigate these potential crimes that might have been committed here, which caused billions of dollars of damages to the largest carmaker of the state and employer of tens of thousands of Californians.
WSJ:
"Whether Elon Musk’s new legal difficulties will result in his being banned from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded-company is far from certain.
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued the Tesla, Inc. chief executive for securities fraud Thursday, seeking in part to ban him from serving as an officer of a publicly traded company, a measure that is common in such cases, according to former SEC lawyers.
If Mr. Musk chooses to go to trial and a jury finds him liable for securities fraud, a federal judge would determine whether Mr. Musk should be banned from the securities industry for any period of time. If he and the government agree to a settlement before trial, both sides would likely negotiate any ban.
Because the complaint is against Mr. Musk and not Tesla, any financial penalties would come out of Mr. Musk’s pocket—not those of shareholders, said Joseph A. Grundfest, a Stanford Law School professor and former SEC commissioner. That leads to what Mr. Grundfest said was a central question to the SEC: “How do you punish Musk without harming Tesla’s shareholders?”
“Elon Musk is really important to the company’s future,” Mr. Grundfest said. “If he is barred from acting in ways that are central to the company’s success, then the shareholders of Tesla wind up being the largest victims of the process.”
[...]
"Former SEC lawyers said the speed of the investigation was unusually fast, as the SEC complaint came less than two months after Mr. Musk’s tweet.
Some SEC experts said the commission may be trying to send a strong message to Silicon Valley’s freewheeling culture that chief executives who appear to mislead investors will face regulatory scrutiny."
SEC Action Could Mean Ban for Musk, but It’s Not Certain
"Whether Elon Musk’s new legal difficulties will result in his being banned from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded-company is far from certain.
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued the Tesla, Inc. chief executive for securities fraud Thursday, seeking in part to ban him from serving as an officer of a publicly traded company, a measure that is common in such cases, according to former SEC lawyers.
If Mr. Musk chooses to go to trial and a jury finds him liable for securities fraud, a federal judge would determine whether Mr. Musk should be banned from the securities industry for any period of time. If he and the government agree to a settlement before trial, both sides would likely negotiate any ban.
Because the complaint is against Mr. Musk and not Tesla, any financial penalties would come out of Mr. Musk’s pocket—not those of shareholders, said Joseph A. Grundfest, a Stanford Law School professor and former SEC commissioner. That leads to what Mr. Grundfest said was a central question to the SEC: “How do you punish Musk without harming Tesla’s shareholders?”
“Elon Musk is really important to the company’s future,” Mr. Grundfest said. “If he is barred from acting in ways that are central to the company’s success, then the shareholders of Tesla wind up being the largest victims of the process.”
[...]
"Former SEC lawyers said the speed of the investigation was unusually fast, as the SEC complaint came less than two months after Mr. Musk’s tweet.
Some SEC experts said the commission may be trying to send a strong message to Silicon Valley’s freewheeling culture that chief executives who appear to mislead investors will face regulatory scrutiny."
SEC Action Could Mean Ban for Musk, but It’s Not Certain
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
We are at 3th level.
Mahatma Gandhi
We are at 3th level.
If this all boils down to "funding secured" or not. Is there any indication that SEC have had any contact with the Saudis? Couldn't all of this just be settled with a simple conversation. Maybe the Saudis have shied away from all contact since they weren't too happy with how public their involvement became.
cheshire cat
Member
Can we give this one more flypast ? Is this a common practice ???
cheshire cat
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
