Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by omarsultan, Jul 11, 2016.
SEC Investigating Tesla for Possible Securities-Law Breach
Yes, well, this was predicted by a securities lawyer in one of these investor threads.
I told you this may happen and so did @Eclectic a securities lawyer. My personal experience has been to always be overly inclusive w/r/t disclosing a material fact in these filings. I hope they cut Tesla a break.
Tesla has now stated they've heard nothing about this, which means there's no truth to it. Tesla would be the first to know if it was being investigated.
Tesla: Have not received any communication from SEC
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"
Tesla (TSLA) is being investigated by the SEC over fatal Autopilot accident disclosure
“Tesla has not received any communication from the SEC regarding this issue. Our blog post last week provided the relevant information about this issue.”
WSJ looks like it jumped the gun with this story...
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.
I got another one for you all........
Another TESLA MX goes off the road... AP use claimed.....
Another Tesla veers off road, crashes into guardrail in Montana
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.)
Oh okay I apologize.
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.
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?
Thread here: My friend model X crash bad on AP yesterday
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...
The first amendment doesn't protect against libel.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?