Elon Musk was reportedly cleared by a federal jury's verdict that his 'funding secured' tweet in 2018 didn't harm Tesla

Richard V.

Well-known member
First Name
Richard
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Threads
55
Messages
399
Reaction score
396
Location
Quebec
Vehicles
Chevy Volt 2015
Occupation
Retired
Country flag

jerhenderson

Well-known member
First Name
Jeremy
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Threads
11
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
3,354
Location
Prince George BC
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Correctional Officer
Country flag

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
Fraud requires intent. Without some kind of profit motive for Musk, I think it was hard to make that intent piece stick.

I did find it amusing that Musk’s lawyers suggested that many people don’t believe what Musk says on Twitter.
 

John K

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Threads
41
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
5,768
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicles
Volt, CT reserve day 2
Country flag
Investing would be so much simpler if we received a daily mulligan.
 


Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
The profit motive of 'his company doesn't get bought out by a predatory investor' is usually enough.

-Crissa
That’s also good motivation for him seeking out a private buyer which corroborates his story.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
126
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
27,072
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
That’s also good motivation for him seeking out a private buyer which corroborates his story.
Hence saying he had a buyer before he actually had them on the hook being something the SEC really doesn't want CEOs to do. That I can understand.

The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.

-Crissa
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
Hence saying he had a buyer before he actually had them on the hook being something the SEC really doesn't want CEOs to do. That I can understand.



The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.



-Crissa
Wanted to try trip him up in the trial.
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.
Civil case was also apparently hinged on people who bought derivatives rather than actual shareholders which made the entire thing trickIer.

Musk has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. No such obligation exists to holders of derivatives. Derivatives are confusing and fundamentally speculative. Both which make it difficult to sell your case to a jury.

Also, one thing many people neglect to mention is that Musk said this after it leaked to the press and the share price had already risen significantly.
Sponsored

 
 




Top