Slashdot Mirror
SEC Sends Subpoena To Tesla In Probe Over Musk's Take-Private Tweets (bloomberg.com)
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent Tesla a subpoena regarding Elon Musk's effort to take the company private, "indicating the regulatory scrutiny of his statements have reached a more serious stage," reports Bloomberg. Last week, Musk tweeted he was considering taking Tesla off the market and had "funding secured" for the deal. From the report: Musk exposed himself to legal risk by tweeting Aug. 7 that he had the funding for a buyout. Almost a week later, the chief executive officer said the basis for his statement was conversations with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which first expressed interest in helping take the company private in early 2017. Tesla's board has since clarified that it hasn't received a formal proposal from Musk, who's also chairman, nor has it concluded whether going private would be advisable or feasible. Tesla may face potential regulatory challenges beyond the SEC investigation. The company probably will need approval of U.S. national security officials if Saudi Arabia finances the effort to take the company private, and President Donald Trump's administration has been stepping up scrutiny of foreign investment in American technology.
This feels like a lifeguard going after kids for splashing. . . during a hurricane. . .
However, I do agree with the Musk critics that say he should not be the CEO of a public company. . . that is why Tesla needs to go private.
Let good engineers quietly build stuff (and occasionally vent on Twitter, without regulatory consequence) and the do-nothing CEO's of public companies continue do nothing and look good in the name of shareholder value.
I just want to drive their cars. . . the rest just seems like a silly distraction.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Not true. The SEC initiates formal investigations by issuing what's called a Well's Notice to a company. These are not public and companies aren't necessarily obligated to report receiving one. There is some debate on whether its legal for a company to sell more stock without disclosing a Wells Notice, however. There was some suspicion that Tesla already received one looking into the truthfulness of past production/financial guidance claims.and how that would adversely effect their ability to raise more capital (that they desperately need) - it would also explain Musk losing his mind lately. Disclosing the existence of a Wells Notice obviously hurts a stock's price. Actual subpoena's usually mean the company is not complying with the requests outlined in a Well's Notice.
I'm not sure if the reports of a "subpoena" in the buyout tweet case refers to a Wells Notice or actual subpoenas. That is yet to be seen. I believe they would have to disclose subpoenas as a material event in an 8K.
Musk made a fraudulent tweet to manipulate his stock price. It's both illegal and unethical. Now imagine if, say, an oil company executive pulled this shit. The exact same people who are defending Musk would be screeching for the oil company exec's immediate imprisonment and being fined into starvation.
Welcome to 2018, where facts don't matter and right vs. wrong are a function of political correctness. Enjoy your stay.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Did Musk do anything different that Trump? Trump says things and takes no action.
Where is the drug price reduction? Where are affordable universities?
What about the investment to combat the infrastructure that is crumbling, or has crumbled?
All that Musk did was think aloud. You don't have to believe him and you do have to analyze and take / make your own decisions.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada