bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Sorry - I thought CNBC was home of the FUD. Now we're believing them?
I don't really care that you owned multiple simultaneous companies - that's not what I'm talking about, unless you were CEO of a public company and owned a separate side business in which you directed employees of the public company to work on.
Misappropriation of Human Resources at a publicly owned company for a vanity project is typically grounds for termination from ANY company.
Anyway, this seems a bit relevant given the upcoming testimony this month in Tornetta v. Musk (investor suit over Musk's compensation package...at the heart of which is whether or not Musk was acting like a controlling shareholder, despite owning 17% of Tesla's shares). Case will go before Kathaleen McCormick (same Delaware Chancery Court judge who oversaw the Twitter litigation).
WRONG WRONG WRONG - this was an SEC official. Pretty much the HIGHEST AUTHORITY of the government regarding this.
Nice try at conflation there.
Oh, and you should have SEEN the look on the CNBC host's face when the SEC official said that. It was clear that he was disappointed that what Elon was doing fell squarely within the boundaries of the law. CNBS was not expecting that reply, that is for sure.
Regarding your "legal case" - you have a VERY high bar to scale to prove it was misappropriation of resources. 1) This would be being done with the approval of the Tesla board (just like things with SpaceX and The Boring Co are approved by the Tesla board to share resources). That right there would be plenty of legal cover. 2) Twitter is a legitimate company, with owners, etc. that Musk has to report to. So calling this a "vanity project" is subjective at best and would not fall under any legal definition as such. YOU may view it as that, but the LAW won't.
Good luck also getting the board or a majority of shareholders to back anything against Musk. First Musk and the board own enough TSLA shares to make any motion against Musk a TALL hill to climb. Second you have a lot of people that would back him. I'm in that camp, and a lot of the large corporate investors (Cathie Wood, Ron Barron, etc.) would not vote to discipline Musk, even if they view Twitter as a distraction. They all view a distracted Musk as still head and shoulders better than anyone else on the planet to run Tesla.
AGAIN - you are CONFLATING your own WISHES and OPINIONS and trying to find a way for them to be FACTS. They are not. Congratulations, you literally just fell for what the MSM was wanting to do.