TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

SEC Opening Inquiry

Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by omarsultan, Jul 11, 2016.

  1. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yes, well, this was predicted by a securities lawyer in one of these investor threads.
     
  2. msnow

    msnow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    SoCal
    • Like x 1
  3. Mike Smith

    Mike Smith Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2016
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    Toronto
    • Like x 3
    • Informative x 1
  4. SW2Fiddler

    SW2Fiddler Bannd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    Houston TX
    I predicted that there would be a dastardly Koch-funded effort to "Tucker" TM and EM. And I'm not even a lawyer. But I am wary of those Koch Tuckering dastards. Throwing daily hoaxes and hexes and hoping something sticks.
    Funny, in this age of communication, it may well stick on them. "Tucker Couldn't Tweet"
     
    • Like x 2
  5. trils0n

    trils0n 2013 P85

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
  6. msnow

    msnow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    SoCal
    Have you read the WSJ story? It includes the response from Tesla that they haven't received the communication so no gun jumping in this story as far as I can tell.
     
  7. Joeski1

    Joeski1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Voorhees Twp. , NJ
    • Dislike x 1
  8. trils0n

    trils0n 2013 P85

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    I read the article 45 mins ago about when it was published. Don't recall that statement being in the original article. (The article notes it was edited at 5:43 est, so about 10-15 mins ago.)
     
    • Informative x 2
    • Like x 1
  9. msnow

    msnow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    SoCal
    Oh okay I apologize.
     
    • Like x 2
    • Helpful x 1
  10. JC86

    JC86 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Lake Forest, CA
    This story has been debated ad nauseam since it broke last week. Suffice to say there are plenty of entrenched positions on both sides of the argument. My personal feeling is that Tesla's marketing department won out over their legal department in the use of the turn Autopilot but I love the technology.

    That being said, in Tesla's "Misfortune" blog post, Tesla claims that the damage was too severe to remotely download the data and that they sent an engineer to Florida to do it manually. All of this makes sense until they mention that they didn't send their engineer out until May 18th, the day after their offering closed. It's impossible to infer when Tesla knew there was a fatality involved in the crash but Tesla knew a severe crash involving one of their cars had occurred yet didn't send a team out to investigate further until nearly two weeks later and a day after their offering closed.

    Now this could all be a coincidence and it really took nearly two weeks for Tesla to become aware of the fatality and launch an investigation. At the very least, I think it gives the haters/shorters ammunition in the appearance of a convenient scheduling to make sure no issues affected their offering. They probably should have erred on the side of caution and disclosed it but felt like they were sufficiently shielded that any investigation would yield nothing anyways.
     
  11. imherkimer

    imherkimer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    United States
    If this turns out to be a false claim, could the WSJ be prosecuted?
    In the linked article I could not find a reference to the source for the information regarding the SEC "opening an investigation." Would the SEC tolerate purveyance of false information regarding their investigative activities?
     
    • Dislike x 1
  12. omarsultan

    omarsultan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,496
    Location:
    Northern California
  13. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    I'm sure the WSJ has what it considers reliable sources (which it will never disclose). Their article is protected by the first amendment guys, so stop complaining. If the WSJ gets additional information showing their original article is incorrect, they will publish a retraction. The most likely answer to why Tesla says it hasn't been contacted yet is that a government agency moves slowly. I know, hard to believe...
     
    • Like x 1
    • Dislike x 1
  14. dha

    dha Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The first amendment doesn't protect against libel.
     
    • Like x 2
  15. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    You are right - I was being glib. Newspapers generally require good sources before publishing stories like this and I have little doubt the WSJ has good sources. If the SEC does not launch an investigation, then Tesla might have some recourse, but I doubt the WSJ would put themselves in that position.
     
  16. Eclectic

    Eclectic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    San Francisco area
    Not even close to true. The SEC doesn't inform a target when it first starts to look into a potential prosecution. Once the SEC gets far enough along to have a sense that it is on the road to prosecution, it sends the target what is known as a "Wells Notice".

    Even if an issuer gets a Wells Notice, prosecution is not guaranteed, but it is likely. I've had client receive Wells Notices who chose to not disclose the receipt of the notice, and the SEC decided to not prosecute, so the investigation was never known to the public.

    In truth, Tesla will probably be the last to know it is being investigated...
     
    • Informative x 5
    • Helpful x 1
    • Like x 1
    • Dislike x 1
  17. dha

    dha Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Fun fact: The record libel verdict in the United States was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favor of MMAR Group Inc. The company was awarded $222.7 million over an article published in The Wall Street Journal.
     
    • Informative x 5
    • Like x 1
    • Love x 1
  18. TMSE

    TMSE Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    San Francisco
    So, what you are saying is no one knows, not even Tesla, while the investigation is underway. How come WSJ came to know of it? Does WSJ have secret informants st SEC? Isn't disclosing confidential information by itself illegal?
     
    • Like x 2
  19. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    Thank you Eclectic. So Tesla's denial of being contacted by the SEC is meaningless. Which begs the question why they bothered to say it. Do they not have a lawyer on staff or retainer than can explain securities laws and procedures to them?
     
    • Dislike x 4

Share This Page