Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I never doubted it, it was obvious he only settled to avoid the negativity of litigation hanging over the company. "Considering" doing something is not any sort of legally binding statement and of course he could have gotten the funding to make it happen. At least one former SEC member felt Elon had a strong case.
Courts are generally weary of restricting speech …. So, would be interesting to see what happens.
 
Courts are generally weary of restricting speech …. So, would be interesting to see what happens.
Yes, it will be interesting. Maybe I am missing something but it seems like the SEC lawyer has filed false documents with the court. In a letter to the court he said this:

Finally, Mr. Spiro’s letter incorrectly implies that the Commission staff have issued subpoenas in this litigation. That simply is not true—the Commission staff have not issued any subpoenas in this litigation. I

At least if what Elon, and his lawyer, is claiming is accurate that they received a subpoena on 11/29/2021.

I wouldn't think the court would look kindly on Steven Buchholz lying about, or misrepresenting, their actions to the court. (Or maybe there really is a rouge employee at the SEC?)

edit: But he was very specific about "Commission staff" having not issued a subpoena. Maybe a contractor issued it? Or someone they don't consider as "staff"? A director?
 
Last edited:
At least if what Elon, and his lawyer, is claiming is accurate that they received a subpoena on 11/29/2021.

I wouldn't think the court would look kindly on Steven Buchholz lying about, or misrepresenting, their actions to the court. (Or maybe there really is a rouge employee at the SEC?)

edit: But he was very specific about "Commission staff" having not issued a subpoena. Maybe a contractor issued it? Or someone they don't consider as "staff"? A director?
There's been a bit of back and forth about this. The SEC is claiming that their request for information was not a "subpoena" but a more informal request. Which... presumably Tesla was free to ignore?
 
Yes, it will be interesting. Maybe I am missing something but it seems like the SEC lawyer has filed false documents with the court. In a letter to the court he said this:



At least if what Elon, and his lawyer, is claiming is accurate that they received a subpoena on 11/29/2021.

I wouldn't think the court would look kindly on Steven Buchholz lying about, or misrepresenting, their actions to the court. (Or maybe there really is a rouge employee at the SEC?)

edit: But he was very specific about "Commission staff" having not issued a subpoena. Maybe a contractor issued it? Or someone they don't consider as "staff"? A director?
Am I missing something - the linked letter looks like the court granting the motion to quash the subpoena as well as the motion to terminate the consent decree to be granted. I feel I'm missing something if only because I expected this to have a lot more back and forth and time to resolution.
 
Am I missing something - the linked letter looks like the court granting the motion to quash the subpoena as well as the motion to terminate the consent decree to be granted. I feel I'm missing something if only because I expected this to have a lot more back and forth and time to resolution.

Sorry, I linked the wrong one, here is the correct letter, and I have fixed the other post. (The incorrect one I linked is a proposed order, the judge hasn't signed it and made it an actual order.)
 
Hey , anyone on here that can put a bug in Elon's ear as to whether "we" can get some of those invitations?

 
It's literally illegal to buy a Tesla in Texas, so that might have some impact.

I've been asking for a while in the oil thread what people think Texas will do for tax revenue or basic services once oil & gas go the way of the coal industry. It ain't far off.

People like Elon flock there for their low taxes and "freedom", but it's all rooted in oil & gas revenue.
Well there's no income tax, but by the time you pay property tax and the city taxes, it's not all that low. Last I heard, the oil economy in Texas was something like one third. Texas is rapidly becoming industrially diverse (perhaps not Houston).
 
Well there's no income tax, but by the time you pay property tax and the city taxes, it's not all that low. Last I heard, the oil economy in Texas was something like one third. Texas is rapidly becoming industrially diverse (perhaps not Houston).
Houston is much more diverse economically than it was in the 80's and 90's. Energy is still the biggest segment (~15%), but retail and health services are almost as big and growing more rapidly.

Data is 5 years old - I expect the trend has continued.

0EF719E7-F4FB-4B43-9532-C9F0BFF6E968.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Houston is much more diverse economically than it was in the 80's and 90's. Energy is still the biggest segment (12%), but retail and health services are almost as big and growing more rapidly.

Data is 5 years old - I expect the trend has continued.

View attachment 778561
You don't need retail, or construction, or financial services, or medical services if no one's making any money in the oil & gas industry.
 
Details of the SEC's plans to distribute the $40M have been filed with the court. The main document describing the details is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.76.2.pdf

Only "realized" losses for stock purchased between 8/7/2018 12:48:16 PM EDT and 8/8/2018 4:00 PM EDT count.

For Securities purchased or acquired during the Relevant Period, the Recognized Loss per Share is:
  • A. the purchase/acquisition price minus the greater of i) the sale price, or ii) $356.67, the share price just prior to the false and misleading statements, if the share was subsequently sold during the Relevant Period;
  • B. the purchase/acquisition price minus $356.67, if the share was held at the end of the Relevant Period; and
  • C. the purchase/acquisition price minus $356.67, if the share was purchased to close a short position opened before the Relevant Period.

Other related documents: