If we take WSJ at their words, Elon is not the type of person who accepts a huge fine AND admit guilt without a fight. The settlement drafted for him is more likely to be pretty tame. This is Elon, he wouldn't even back down from calling that Thai guy a Pedo. You think he's going to admit guilt to this and required a lawyer to talk him out of it???
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
If we take WSJ at their words, Elon is not the type of person who accepts a huge fine AND admit guilt without a fight. The settlement drafted for him is more likely to be pretty tame. This is Elon, he wouldn't even back down from calling that Thai guy a Pedo. You think he's going to admit guilt to this and required a lawyer to talk him out of it???
So if SEC did find that Trump got a lot of nods from Congress, then what's misleading about it?
Saudis may load another 1Billion shares tomorrow at 260/share and then support Elon
I was referring to sufficient support to execute. Doesn't equate to a few nods. I don't know if you're serious or not.
Ludalicious
Active Member
WOW.... the petition has really taken off..... LOL
I support Elon. The stock will rebound no questions about it. The product speaks for it self.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
There is no equivalent laws between President of the USA and "political fraud."
And a CEO of public company listed on an American stock exchange and "securities fraud."
In fact saber-rattling is part of the tool box for heads of government.
And that's what we are arguing about. Tesla had sufficient support to execute. SEC's opinion is that Elon did not at the time of tweeting. They didn't think the blank check was real. But it doesn't matter if it was real or not. If Elon believed it to be real then there's no intent to defraud. You do realized intent to defraud needs to be pre-meditated. If that check was not real, Elon can claim he was mislead by his Funders.
Phew, OK. Glad to hear that this is a non-issue and there won't be any serious repercussions. We can all chill.
As long as you chill in a model 3 playing asteroid...
If the settlement involved the removal of Elon Musk as CEO, the settlement would worse than losing in court, as it would mean immediate removal of Elon as CEO.
So back to market action...any guestimate what the price will open and close at? I’m doing a wire transfer asap in the AM. I can’t really tell but perhaps it’ll be between $260 to $285
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and here's a quick list of major flaws in the the SEC's lawsuit, which all make the lawsuit internally inconsistent to the level of absurdity:
- By August 22, just two weeks after the tweet, in an effort to secure even better going-private terms for shareholders, Elon had not just one but two prospective buyers in the going-private transaction: the Saudi PIF with a target asset range of 2 trillion dollars, who already bought 5% of Tesla (which made them an actual de facto buyer of Tesla, not just a 'prospective' buyer), and a consortium of buyers led by the fund that took Dell private: Silver Lake. Why is the SEC's complaint entirely silent about these two independent sources of funding? Isn't the fact that what Elon wrote was true an obvious absolute defense against any allegations of fraud, bad faith or recklessness?
- Wasn't it the duty of Elon to inform Tesla shareholders about the efforts that were considering taking Tesla private? Why does the SEC start enforcement action against disclosure of true facts?
- The SEC complaint is asking Elon to "disgorge gains": "Ordering Defendant to disgorge, with prejudgment interest, any ill-gotten gains received as a result of the violations alleged herein;". But Elon did not sell or buy any stock in this time period, so the gain is zero. It's a very weird kind of alleged 'fraud' that the ostensible perpetrator did not even try to profit from. How does the SEC reconcile this flaw of logic in their legal theory, and why are they asking for unprecedented relief for an action that did not benefit the ostensible perpetrator in any fashion, in fact it hurt the valuation of his stake in Tesla? Maybe the real explanation is that Elon thought he's acting in the interests of shareholders by informing them about the going-private efforts?
- Considering the +6% price action caused by Elon's tweet as "harm to investors" is laughable:
- Firstly, it's about twice of Tesla's daily volatility, and it was reversed in two days. The SEC complaint alone caused a drop of -14% in the stock price, and if it's adjudicated and found to be the fabricated legal nonsense it appears to be at first sight, it will have done more than two times the harm to shareholders that Elon is accused of harming shorts. If Elon acted "reckless" on acting on not 100% complete information, what is the SEC's action if not "doubly, triply reckless"? Will the SEC start enforcement action against their own lawyers who make up fantasy legal theories to hurt a company?
- Secondly, the SEC is on very thin legal ice defining short sellers as "investors": when Tesla stockholders gain, shorts lose, and when Tesla stockholders lose, shorts gain. So per definition it's the fiduciary duty of Tesla's board and Elon Musk in particular to help Tesla shareholders, which causes losses to short sellers. Shouldn't the SEC be enforcing the interests of Tesla shareholders, instead of the interests of Tesla anti-shareholders? Here's the specific language the SEC uses in their lawsuit: "By August 2018, more than $13 billion worth of Tesla shares were being 'shorted,' meaning they were sold by investors who did not own them at the time of the sale." Why are the SEC lawyers who wrote this suit siding with Tesla anti-shareholders, against the interests of Tesla shareholders?
- Why did these SEC lawyers rush enforcement action, and why did they hurry to file the lawsuit just two trading days before the critical Tesla Q3 production report, which is expected to be hugely negative to shorts sellers. Or will the SEC add the legal theory to the complaint that Tesla making too many cars which are too popular is unfair to short 'investors' and causes them losses?
In short: 1) what Elon tweeted was true twice over; 2) he did not gain; 3) the alleged harm was not to Tesla shareholders but to Tesla anti-shareholders (shorts); 4) which the SEC should be protecting shareholders from, not siding with...
I believe the SEC lawyers who wrote this complaint should be disbarred for recklessly rushing a frivolous lawsuit that caused billions of dollars of damages to investors, and each and every SEC employee involved in this debacle of a lawsuit should be investigated for illegal leaks and illegal ties to short sellers.
Last edited:
Good stuff. Who can we bring this to to prosecute the SEC lawyers?
Depending on the expected outcome, could be throwing them under the bus instead.
Just to clarify, the Saudi Public Investment Fund does not have anywhere NEAR $2 Trillion Dollars, the entire size of the fund is something around $250 Billion. Now could they possibly fund a complete buyout of Tesla, yes, would you ever concentrate that much capital in one (risky) venture? No. Silver Lake was, as far as I am aware not consulted until after the tweets.
I decided not to sell Tesla shares. I took this decision when I bought them. I do believe in Tesla/Elon mission. I'm here in a good and bad situation. I'm long.
In such moments I'm always going trough my fundamental reasons why I'm here:
1. Mother Earth needs me. The problem of human impact to this planet will not go away. I have to do something.
2. The society have problems with truth, bad people, self interests no matter to the consequences. I have to do something.
3. I'm the warrior as my father before me, as my grandfather before him...we never give up. Why? We never pick up the fight according to the enemy, but according to the holiness we defend. This was laid in my cradle.
Elon had the opportunity to settle down this issue with SEC. If he accept it he would lose his face. He knows that. It would be as he betrayed his basic principle to change what is bad in humanity. He stood with his believes even when this path will be hard for him. I didn't think that he can rise my respect even more, but he did. Elon is true warrior.
I'm preparing ammo for next week. Any suggestion what can I do more?
In such moments I'm always going trough my fundamental reasons why I'm here:
1. Mother Earth needs me. The problem of human impact to this planet will not go away. I have to do something.
2. The society have problems with truth, bad people, self interests no matter to the consequences. I have to do something.
3. I'm the warrior as my father before me, as my grandfather before him...we never give up. Why? We never pick up the fight according to the enemy, but according to the holiness we defend. This was laid in my cradle.
Elon had the opportunity to settle down this issue with SEC. If he accept it he would lose his face. He knows that. It would be as he betrayed his basic principle to change what is bad in humanity. He stood with his believes even when this path will be hard for him. I didn't think that he can rise my respect even more, but he did. Elon is true warrior.
I'm preparing ammo for next week. Any suggestion what can I do more?
Every short seller will be bombing the stock tomorrow. They will probably hit the 10% drop trigger right away, trading will halt, then it will resume, then this will continue until we're at $200 or someone finally stops trading for the day. This is the moment Chanos and Andrew Left and all the rest has been waiting for 10 years now, he's not going to miss his chance. He's going to try to make TSLA zero a reality. I wonder if CNBC will just have Chanos on for 8 straight hours and not have any coverage of anything else tomorrow. They might just rotate through Chanos, Left, Gordon Johnson, and Mark Spiegel on the hour every hour for the next 48 hours.
Probably already posted, but don't have time to wade through 20 pages at this moment:
SEC Sues Elon Musk for Fraud, Seeks Removal From Tesla
What I find interesting here is that SEC offered a settlement, which Elon refused, hence the action.
So either a) the settlement was unacceptable or b) Elon is innocent of the charge - I believe the latter, but we still need to be dragged though this.
Very clever by the shorts to manipulate the SEC to do this at this moment, they were about to get burned badly - could still happen.
SEC Sues Elon Musk for Fraud, Seeks Removal From Tesla
What I find interesting here is that SEC offered a settlement, which Elon refused, hence the action.
So either a) the settlement was unacceptable or b) Elon is innocent of the charge - I believe the latter, but we still need to be dragged though this.
Very clever by the shorts to manipulate the SEC to do this at this moment, they were about to get burned badly - could still happen.
We are not going to see $200 tomorrow.
I'm just worried that instead of driving to drive to zero, some "sugar" like Andrew Left will gobble enough stock that he and cronies can do direct damage by voting measures that intentionally harm the company. Hopefully there's enough longs (including Elon) that this is impossible...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
