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.
That trader should return the favor and send Musk a pair of handcuffs.
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!
A subpoena is not "asking". It is demanding, and to get one you have to convince a judge that there is probable cause. You can consider it a search warrant, except for documents, testimony and information instead of physical evidence.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bitch, here on Slashdot, I am the very definition of a front-bencher. I got a motherfucking bench down in front all to myself. It's possible that nobody wants to sit near me, but nonetheless, the bench is in front. I'm like goddamn Jack Nicholson at a Lakers game up in here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bloomberg ran an article titled Elon Musk's Funding for Tesla Wasn't So Secure where they pointed out when Musk said "funding is secured" there was no actual agreement in place. His statement being factually untrue risked causing this SEC investigation.
Couple things:
The SEC has their own subpoena powers. No judge necessary. Companies agree to comply as part of the process of going public.
The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. The only thing the SEC can do is levy fines and bar company officers from being officers. The DOJ (FBI) will have to get involved for indictments to happen.
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
Protip: if you don't know whether the apostrophe should be there, just go 50:50.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Here.
Key points:
* This had been discussed with the board before the announcement
* The board agreed that the next step was to discuss with large shareholders.
* It would be unfair for the big shareholders to know of this proposal but not the small shareholders, hence a public announcement. (It isn't clear to me whether the board specifically agreed to this announcement, or whether Musk felt it was a logical consequence of the previous point.)
* "Funding secured" means the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund has been eager to do this for quite some time, although Musk would like there to be other investors too.
I feel somewhat but not completely reassured by this explanation.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
A subpoena is one step below a warrant, and one does not generally have to convince a judge of anything to obtain one. They are often issued by the clerk of the court, or even by the lawyers themselves. Or, as in this case, it was directly issued by a federal agency.
If one is served a subpoena that they believe is invalid, they must file a formal objection with the court. Simply ignoring a subpoena, even an improper one, is grounds for penalty.
A warrant, in contrast, is an authorization by a judge or other "competent official" for an officer to perform an act that would otherwise be illegal, most frequently to arrest someone or to perform a search, but is also used for executions and myriad other things.
Well, sort of - but you went to the stock market to *get other people's money*, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to have some say in how you conduct yourself.
If you want to retain full control, as you say, don't take it public. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.