Barklikeadog
Active Member
nice truckNice try, shorty. But Bob would never have a garage like mine.
View attachment 338941
That is Bob Lutz Kryptonite.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SEC Lawsuit
- Thread starter Buggle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Elon Musk Tesla Inc.
thegruf
Active Member
Elon's twitter: DON@T PANIC
The inspiration Elon Musk captured in a single surreal image - and you really want to trash this guy?
The inspiration Elon Musk captured in a single surreal image - and you really want to trash this guy?
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
You're the one that said any 22 year old fresh faced law student could see that his actions were illegal. Bottom line is that none of us have all the information. That is up to a jury to weigh ALL the evidence. All I am saying is that it is wrong for us to speculate on guilt or innocense at this point. Issues like this are seldom black and white. There are shades of grey up for debate as to intent, timing, private conversations, etc. Let's let the judiciary system make it's determination in due course.
Dan
That's not good enough. There's something in business known as due diligence. You don't secure a multi-billion-dollar deal verbally. Heck, you don't even finalize a house purchase that way (hence credit checks, escrow, etc...)
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
True...however, he was dealing with the Saudis which have a different definition of a "deal". Granted, it was a wreckless thing to say and left too much room for interpretation but perhaps in the minds of the Saudis and Elon an agreement had been reached. This is all evidence that a judge and jury will wade through at trial.
Dan
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter what the Saudi's have for their definition. It's what the US and SEC have as their definition (and I'm 100% certain that Musk has the appropriate lawyers at Tesla that advise him on this kind of thing). 100% of this is governed by US, not Saudi, law.
Barklikeadog
Active Member
presumption of innocence is a legal right. If there is some law that prohibits united states citizens from speculating on the guilt or innocence I would love to read about it. Please post a link and we can discuss that.
roblab
Active Member
Yes, we need to remember that pre-judging is called prejudice. Seems that prejudice is getting more common these days. We all, myself included, need to be more accepting, lenient, understanding, patient, and I hope Musk and any people hurt will come out of this feeling that at least people tried to be fair and kind.
I think it was wishful thinking that got people in trouble. Reading ‘funding secure’ while omitting the first part: ‘considering’.
To me it said there was a chance, at the most 50/50 chance, the deal would go through. Funding secured basically meant to say- do not worry about the money part.
To me it said there was a chance, at the most 50/50 chance, the deal would go through. Funding secured basically meant to say- do not worry about the money part.
The SEC should be protecting shareholders, but instead their overzealousness in requesting the court bar Elon from being an officer or director has done a tremendous amount of damage to shareholders. Even the Wall Street Journal -- a perennial Tesla critic -- calls the SEC's action "enforcement overkill." Opinion | SEC Overkill on Elon Musk. They are way out of line in seeking to remove a very successful CEO who has generated massive returns for shareholders for what at most amounts to some sloppy tweets.
The heart of the SEC's complaint is that Elon said he had funding secured but the SEC doesn't think he had a reasonable basis for claiming that. But the SEC -- which apparently had access to Tesla's documents -- presents no facts that suggest that when Elon pulled the plug on the deal funding was a problem. And I have seen no credible public reports that it was. So the SEC accuses Elon of securities fraud by claiming he did not have enough information to claim he had funding to go private, when from all accounts the funding was available but Elon decided to pull the plug for other reasons, including that after discussions with long-term shareholders many preferred that Tesla stay public.
IMO, the whole "funding secured" hoopla is much ado about nothing since there is no indication whatsoever that funding for the deal was a problem. The SEC has not alleged any facts that suggest it was.
The heart of the SEC's complaint is that Elon said he had funding secured but the SEC doesn't think he had a reasonable basis for claiming that. But the SEC -- which apparently had access to Tesla's documents -- presents no facts that suggest that when Elon pulled the plug on the deal funding was a problem. And I have seen no credible public reports that it was. So the SEC accuses Elon of securities fraud by claiming he did not have enough information to claim he had funding to go private, when from all accounts the funding was available but Elon decided to pull the plug for other reasons, including that after discussions with long-term shareholders many preferred that Tesla stay public.
IMO, the whole "funding secured" hoopla is much ado about nothing since there is no indication whatsoever that funding for the deal was a problem. The SEC has not alleged any facts that suggest it was.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
You know, this simply is not true. The SEC tried to do this without having a large impact upon the shareholders, via a settlement with Musk (which, honestly, was a reasonable offer). He is the one that decided to reject the settlement and play hardball. So if anything the detriment to share price is on him, not the SEC.
There were enough shareholder complaints (there are two lawsuits pending in the state of CA) that the SEC would not be allowed to ignore what he did.
The SEC is the one that decided to play hardball. They surprised shareholders by seeking to bar Elon from being an officer or director, by requesting that the court order "that Defendant be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78o(d)]." Here is the SEC complaint against Elon Musk and Tesla
That overreaching request was widely reported and led to $7 billion in shareholder value being wiped out in one day. The SEC is making a completely unreasonable demand that is against the interests of shareholders, and in the process inflicted severe damage on shareholders. That's extremely irresponsible and I hope the persons responsible for filing this complaint and harming shareholders are eventually held responsible for their reckless misuse of their authority.
As far as the settlement offer itself, there were conflicting reports, with Charles Gasparino of Fox Business News stating that his source said the SEC's offer required the Elon step down as both CEO and Chair. In the past his Tesla reporting has been more accurate than most.
Regardless of the settlement posture, the SEC's "enforcement overkill" hardball tactics in their complaint did tremendous damage to shareholders.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Please read more carefully: the negotiated settlement (i.e. his lawyers and the SEC) was for Elon to step aside within 45 days, and not resume the post for 2 years.
Tesla’s Elon Musk Had a Deal From the S.E.C. It Fell Apart in a Morning.
When he didn't take the settlement, it escalated and the SEC then pushed for a lifetime ban (according to the reading I have done to date).
He had a good deal, he should have taken it. The deal didn't prevent him from ownership, keeping on the board, and remaining Chairman. It ONLY took him out of the CEO role. Which he seriously needs to consider stepping down from given the bad press in the past year he has caused the company (twitter, specifically).
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I suggest you watch this video
Former SEC Senior Counsel Believes What Elon Tweeted Is "More Than Defensible"
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
And the former Chairman of the SEC disagrees with you:
Former SEC chair says Musk could be removed as CEO in civil case, go to jail if criminally charged
The SEC is responsible for what it puts in its complaint -- as you acknowledge they are seeking a lifetime ban, which is an outrageous request.
They should not be seeking any ban -- they have no business substituting their judgment for investors, who strongly support Elon. And for good reason -- Tesla has generated some of the highest returns in the stock market since going public, and Elon has similar success with basically everything else he touches. For example, SpaceX has generated 45% annual returns since it was founded -- which is mind bogglingly good.
As far as the settlement deal, as I said there are conflicting reports with Charles Gasparino reporting that the ban was for both CEO and Chair positions for two years, and other outlets reporting it was for Chair only. Nobody knows for sure, and in either case the SEC has no business dictating that Elon step down from either position. In addition, as part of the settlement offer they apparently insisted that he not deny wrongdoing, which is a big problem when you don't believe you did anything wrong.
There is no denying that the SEC's complaint hammered Tesla's shareholders. They are responsible for what they put in that complaint. Period.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing that the SEC is responsible for what they put in the complaint. They are.
But I do not think Elon has had, completely, the best interests of shareholders in mind. If he did, he would learn not to be a juvenile on twitter. The stock tanked every time he tweeted about Pedo guy. Why? Because the guy thought Elon's sub was stupid. Elon was the ONLY billionaire to try to help in this situation - he could have ignored the guy and ridden the GOOD PRESS for his attempts and looked like a hero. Instead he had to open his mouth and tank any good will (and then some) that he made. Only a person with the thinnest skin imaginable would have done that. Then he goes on a podcast and takes a puff of a joint (not illegal in CA, but not the best public image you want to put forward). And those tweets and that podcast cost the shareholders millions in the process, because everything Elon does reflects on Tesla.
TSLA stock, before the SEC lawsuit, was down for the year about 3%. When you compare that to how the market has done, it looks even worse. Despite the incredible headwind from the traditional automakers and bad press that they subsidize against Tesla, this should have been a break-out year for Tesla (and still could be, but ONLY if they execute on the plan). The CEO's antics, however, have been a HUGE distraction from the mission he put forward a decade ago.
Imagine, for a minute, where the TSLA stock price would be right now if:
1) Elon ignored Pedo guy
2) Elon didn't smoke MJ on a podcast
3) Elon didn't tweet about going private (unless there was SIGNED paperwork)
4) Elon focused on planning for delivery problems for the Model 3 (seriously, you go through production hell and just think your TINY service center network is going to be able to handle 10-20X the deliveries they were used to last year)
This guy has all the hallmarks of someone that is overworked, doesn't sleep enough, and won't take help when he needs it (both mental help and offloading of tasks to others). In a situation like this, it is proper for us to question if he is "fit to be CEO" anymore.
I think Tesla would be better served by keeping Musk as Chairman of the Board, but having someone else operate day to day functions of the company.
But I do not think Elon has had, completely, the best interests of shareholders in mind. If he did, he would learn not to be a juvenile on twitter. The stock tanked every time he tweeted about Pedo guy. Why? Because the guy thought Elon's sub was stupid. Elon was the ONLY billionaire to try to help in this situation - he could have ignored the guy and ridden the GOOD PRESS for his attempts and looked like a hero. Instead he had to open his mouth and tank any good will (and then some) that he made. Only a person with the thinnest skin imaginable would have done that. Then he goes on a podcast and takes a puff of a joint (not illegal in CA, but not the best public image you want to put forward). And those tweets and that podcast cost the shareholders millions in the process, because everything Elon does reflects on Tesla.
TSLA stock, before the SEC lawsuit, was down for the year about 3%. When you compare that to how the market has done, it looks even worse. Despite the incredible headwind from the traditional automakers and bad press that they subsidize against Tesla, this should have been a break-out year for Tesla (and still could be, but ONLY if they execute on the plan). The CEO's antics, however, have been a HUGE distraction from the mission he put forward a decade ago.
Imagine, for a minute, where the TSLA stock price would be right now if:
1) Elon ignored Pedo guy
2) Elon didn't smoke MJ on a podcast
3) Elon didn't tweet about going private (unless there was SIGNED paperwork)
4) Elon focused on planning for delivery problems for the Model 3 (seriously, you go through production hell and just think your TINY service center network is going to be able to handle 10-20X the deliveries they were used to last year)
This guy has all the hallmarks of someone that is overworked, doesn't sleep enough, and won't take help when he needs it (both mental help and offloading of tasks to others). In a situation like this, it is proper for us to question if he is "fit to be CEO" anymore.
I think Tesla would be better served by keeping Musk as Chairman of the Board, but having someone else operate day to day functions of the company.
To avoid/minimize the market chaos that is now happening.
Musk gave up because no buyer interest escalated beyond the nibble stage. In other words, no funding secured.
Similar threads
