SEC Lawsuit

[Chickenlittle]

Yeah, this is not going to be a quick and done thing. It will hang over him and the company for years during the litigation (and probably suppress the share price as well - investors don't like "uncertainty").

I doubt it will be prolonged. SEC brought action and filed. It would only be possible for Elon to delay if he chose to. SEC delaying would only indicate they did not have the evidence to proceed when they filed

 

[dqd88]

You keep mentioning the shorts, but I don't care about the shorts, or follow them, etc.

You CLEARLY have no concept of Securities Law, because a "handshake" according to securities law is NOT sufficient to qualify for "funding secured". If SIGNED DOCUMENTS do not exist (i.e. an agreement for funding, or an agreement to pursue funding), it is illegal. This is black and white, not something that you can fake, or skimp on.

Go back and look at SEC lawsuits of the past. These guys do NOT sue many companies. You really have to screw up big time to get in the cross-hairs of the SEC. When they sue you, they almost always already have all the evidence they need to bury you. Musk was a moron for not taking the settlement.

The complaint CLEARLY did show where Musk broke the law, you simply don't want to acknowledge it. And it's not just the SEC that is investigating this. CA State is as well, and you cannot say that CA is under the thumb of the "Trump administration".

Please point me to any code or case that says if signed documents don't exist it's illegal. That's certainly not how general business law works. So if it's specific to Securities Law then show the proof.

Where did it show he broke the law. It's a bunch of mumbo jumbo about 30-45 min meetings (lame and meaningless)... all just fluff. I've been involved in many many deals and verbal and handshake deals get done all the time prior to working out the fine details later. I'm guessing you don't do much deal making? The way the Saudi deal played out felt very typical in tech/startup/silicon valley circles. Been there. The SEC are jealous sad losers who couldn't make it in the real world. They hate their jobs and can't stand to see people getting rich while they make peanuts and are probably prohibited from equity investing. 2nd rate lawyers who didn't land at the law firm they wanted and settled on the SEC and can now abuse their power to make life difficult for the people actually doing cool s**t.

 

[bkp_duke]

Please point me to any code or case that says if signed documents don't exist it's illegal. That's certainly not how general business law works. So if it's specific to Securities Law then show the proof.

Where did it show he broke the law. It's a bunch of mumbo jumbo about 30-45 min meetings (lame and meaningless)... all just fluff. I've been involved in many many deals and verbal and handshake deals get done all the time prior to working out the fine details later. I'm guessing you don't do much deal making? The way the Saudi deal played out felt very typical in tech/startup/silicon valley circles. Been there. The SEC are jealous sad losers who couldn't make it in the real world. They hate their jobs and can't stand to see people getting rich while they make peanuts and are probably prohibited from equity investing. 2nd rate lawyers who didn't land at the law firm they wanted and settled on the SEC and can now abuse their power to make life difficult for the people actually doing cool s**t.

ROFL. I'm an executive at a company (private, not public). I have bought and sold over 15 companies in the past 10 years. I'm not speaking from inexperience here. You are wrong, plain and simple. I know some people don't like to hear that they are wrong, but you are. There is no "grey area" here.

Read this summary (and weap):
SEC Disclosure Laws and Regulations - Encyclopedia - Business Terms

The relevant laws are referenced in the above, I'm not going to spoon feed this to you, you can google them on your own.

 

[dqd88]

ROFL. I'm an executive at a company (private, not public). I have bought and sold over 15 companies in the past 10 years. I'm not speaking from inexperience here. You are wrong, plain and simple. I know some people don't like to hear that they are wrong, but you are. There is no "grey area" here.

Read this summary (and weap):
SEC Disclosure Laws and Regulations - Encyclopedia - Business Terms

The relevant laws are referenced in the above, I'm not going to spoon feed this to you, you can google them on your own.

LOL - did you read the link? It's rules about SOX and financial disclosures... nothing about consummating a go private deal. You're losing credibility. You aren't able to show me EXACTLY where it says a deal must be in writing. Because it's not true

Yeah? - please tell me which companies you owned, I'm just curious.

 

[Grendal]

I think the critical word that is being ignored is "considering." That word does not say definite. Which then makes the "funding secured" that followed considering as indefinite as well. Anyone that then reacted as if it was definite and bought or sold based on something based on that uncertainty has no case. They chose to gamble. Just as those who bought or sold today based on the SEC lawsuit is gambling. The SEC sees it differently and maybe their rules are specific enough to justify their actions. It will be an interesting fight and I expect that Elon's position will revolve over the word "Considering."

 

[bkp_duke]

LOL - did you read the link? It's rules about SOX and financial disclosures... nothing about consummating a go private deal. You're losing credibility. You aren't able to show me EXACTLY where it says a deal must be in writing. Because it's not true

Yeah? - please tell me which companies you owned, I'm just curious.

ROFL. I'm loosing credibility? You haven't provided a SHRED of well . . . anything to support what you claim. Please, show me where the SEC says you can publicly disclose something on a "handshake" - which btw Musk never said he had even a handshake. He actually NEVER followed up on the "funding secured" tweet to say who had secured funding.

Are you one of his new attorney's trying to put out fires? If so, you would be better served working on that SEC lawsuit problem, than dealing with those of us here that are just "enthusiasts".

And all my companies (they are in the Cloud computing space, if you really care) are privately owned. I'm not disclosing them, or anything else that might assist you or anyone else in finding out my name and personal information. Anonymity is golden among this crowd.


A really great summary of what we know to date (facts, not opinion) is summarized in this Reuters article:
Factbox - 'Funding secured': SEC gives timeline surrounding tweet from Tesla's Musk | Reuters

 

[dqd88]

I think the critical word that is being ignored is "considering." That word does not say definite. Which then makes the "funding secured" that followed considering as indefinite as well. Anyone that then reacted as if it was definite and bought or sold based on something based on that uncertainty has no case. They chose to gamble. Just as those who bought or sold today based on the SEC lawsuit is gambling. The SEC sees it differently and maybe their rules are specific enough to justify their actions. It will be an interesting fight and I expect that Elon's position will revolve over the word "Considering."

Nope

Saudi's agreed to take Tesla private. That means funding secured.
That doesn't mean Elon has to go private, but that he has the option, because the Saudi's are funding it.

 

[bkp_duke]

Nope

Saudi's agreed to take Tesla private. That means funding secured.
That doesn't mean Elon has to go private, but that he has the option, because the Saudi's are funding it.

No they didn't. They said they might be interested. But they did not make promises.

Elon Musk’s Tesla funding wasn’t quite ‘secured’ after all

 

[dqd88]

ROFL. I'm loosing credibility? You haven't provided a SHRED of well . . . anything to support what you claim. Please, show me where the SEC says you can publicly disclose something on a "handshake" - which btw Musk never said he had even a handshake. He actually NEVER followed up on the "funding secured" tweet to say who had secured funding.

Are you one of his new attorney's trying to put out fires? If so, you would be better served working on that SEC lawsuit problem, than dealing with those of us here that are just "enthusiasts".

And all my companies (they are in the Cloud computing space, if you really care) are privately owned. I'm not disclosing them, or anything else that might assist you or anyone else in finding out my name and personal information. Anonymity is golden among this crowd.


A really great summary of what we know to date (facts, not opinion) is summarized in this Reuters article:
Factbox - 'Funding secured': SEC gives timeline surrounding tweet from Tesla's Musk | Reuters

It's contract law 101. a binding agreement can be verbal. #fact

I see, so you're a not a deal maker. I was head of business development for the fastest growing company in LA and was acquired by Disney. The way we got so big so fast was that I acquired smaller companies and rolled them up under ours. #dealmaking #contracts

I now what transpired. You should try reading the case and studying contract law.

 

[Grendal]

Nope

Saudi's agreed to take Tesla private. That means funding secured.
That doesn't mean Elon has to go private, but that he has the option, because the Saudi's are funding it.

It was good enough in Elon's mind that they were in that he posted the tweet. I'm sure in Elon's mind that there were other options besides the Saudis as well. Either way, he was "considering" the possibility and putting a tweet out there to gauge his investors interest. His follow up tweets also show that his reasons were to gather information from the people that follow (and invest) in Tesla. None of that says he was definite and so "funding secured" is also not definite.

I'll bet that this is the crux of his defense.

Ironically, it's a bit like the defense Top Gear used against Elon and Tesla. Their defense was that everyone understands that Top Gear is an entertainment show and not a real car review show.

I know that Elon was using his Twitter platform to get feedback from his followers to gauge whether going private was a good idea. It was not a done deal.

 

[bkp_duke]

It's contract law 101. a binding agreement can be verbal. #fact

I see, so you're a not a deal maker. I was head of business development for the fastest growing company in LA and was acquired by Disney. The way we got so big so fast was that I acquired smaller companies and rolled them up under ours. #dealmaking #contracts

I now what transpired. You should try reading the case and studying contract law.

Not for public companies. SEC rules and regulations supersede basic contract law. Think of it as another layer that public companies must adhere too. I don't know where you get this junk, but you really haven't done your homework.

 

[Barklikeadog]

Not for public companies. SEC rules and regulations supersede basic contract law. Think of it as another layer that public companies must adhere too. I don't know where you get this junk, but you really haven't done your homework.

People are blinded by loyalty. If a 22yr old fresh faced graduate is taking the series 7 and this exact situation comes up as a question... the answer is low hanging fruit:
I. No, this action is illegal. <----- ding ding ding
II. Maaaaybbbee ok
III Possibly ok
IV Perfectly within the regulations.

 

[Brando]

double standards?
Elon seems a saint compared to Wells Fargo, as just one example [banks have earned the nick name Banksters]

 

[dqd88]

No they didn't. They said they might be interested. But they did not make promises.

Elon Musk’s Tesla funding wasn’t quite ‘secured’ after all

just give up Chanos boy. You link to an article that doesn't even support your claim. get real

 

[Dan Detweiler]

People are blinded by loyalty. If a 22yr old fresh faced graduate is taking the series 7 and this exact situation comes up as a question... the answer is low hanging fruit:
I. No, this action is illegal. <----- ding ding ding
II. Maaaaybbbee ok
III Possibly ok
IV Perfectly within the regulations.

So the need for a trial and the case to be heard and argued by both sides in a court of law is irrelevant? The concept that the plaintif is innocent of the charges against him until proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a waste of time?

Dan

 

[dqd88]

It was good enough in Elon's mind that they were in that he posted the tweet. I'm sure in Elon's mind that there were other options besides the Saudis as well. Either way, he was "considering" the possibility and putting a tweet out there to gauge his investors interest. His follow up tweets also show that his reasons were to gather information from the people that follow (and invest) in Tesla. None of that says he was definite and so "funding secured" is also not definite.

I'll bet that this is the crux of his defense.

Ironically, it's a bit like the defense Top Gear used against Elon and Tesla. Their defense was that everyone understands that Top Gear is an entertainment show and not a real car review show.

I know that Elon was using his Twitter platform to get feedback from his followers to gauge whether going private was a good idea. It was not a done deal.

not exactly.
the saudi's secured the funding.
THEN
elon had a duty to approach others
AND
that's what he did
INCLUDING
telling all small shareholder's
AND
the best way to do that was through twitter

 

[dqd88]

Not for public companies. SEC rules and regulations supersede basic contract law. Think of it as another layer that public companies must adhere too. I don't know where you get this junk, but you really haven't done your homework.

lol - ok Chanos Jr. You still haven't provided the exact code, because you cant' find it! lmfao

 

[CO2CLEAN]

lol - ok Chanos Jr. You still haven't provided the exact code, because you cant' find it! lmfao

As a Dutchman I find it interesting to read about the discussion on oral contracts and their legal power (or lack there of). I quickly googled and found this interesting article which seems to agree with practices in the Netherlands: The Enforceability of Oral Contracts - McInnes Wilson Lawyers

 

[bkp_duke]

just give up Chanos boy. You link to an article that doesn't even support your claim. get real

Who the heck is Chanos?

Ironic that someone with a 9 day history here is calling someone a "short".

 

[dqd88]

As a Dutchman I find it interesting to read about the discussion on oral contracts and their legal power (or lack there of). I quickly googled and found this interesting article which seems to agree with practices in the Netherlands: The Enforceability of Oral Contracts - McInnes Wilson Lawyers

thanks.

Key phrase:

Although not as common as written agreements, oral agreements can still give rise to contractual relationships.

As long as the components of a contract are there (offer, acceptance, etc), that's what determines it.