Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Just a small update regarding the SEC lawsuit, Exhibits 10 and 11 to Elon's sur-reply motion are now available via the RECAP project:
These are the settlement negotiation emails between the SEC and Tesla/Elon lawyers in "redline" form through which lawyers propose and reject changes to the settlement.
Notes:
(Heads up to @TNEVol and @Big Blue 1011.)
Docket for United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk, 1:18-cv-08865 - CourtListener.com
Exhibit 10 – #33, Att. #2 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com
Exhibit 11 – #33, Att. #3 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com
Exhibit 10 – #33, Att. #2 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com
Exhibit 11 – #33, Att. #3 in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk (S.D.N.Y., 1:18-cv-08865) – CourtListener.com
These are the settlement negotiation emails between the SEC and Tesla/Elon lawyers in "redline" form through which lawyers propose and reject changes to the settlement.
Notes:
- Interesting that Cheryl Crumpton was not on Cc: to the discussions. This technically could have made her "not aware" of these redline edits.
- The redlines are IMHO making it pretty clear that the SEC was pushing hard to get mandatory "Twitter censorship" installed for Elon, and Tesla/Elon pushed back and the SEC didn't get those restrictions.
- I.e. the redlines are pretty damaging to the SEC's position and legal theory AFAICS.
- The SEC did object to these exhibits being admitted as uncontested evidence, but didn't counter it so far with their own evidence.
- Chances are that materialness or constitutional arguments will make this kind of intent evidence moot, but should it ever get here it's another layer of defense the SEC would have to break through to get Elon be held in contempt.
(Heads up to @TNEVol and @Big Blue 1011.)
Last edited: