Slashdot Mirror
SEC Charges Elon Musk With Fraud Over His Statements To Take Tesla Private (bloomberg.com)
U.S. securities regulators have sued Elon Musk for allegedly making false statements related to his abandoned efforts to take Tesla Motors private. Bloomberg News broke the news Thursday, citing docket entry in Manhattan federal court. Last month, Musk had expressed his intentions to take Tesla private, and that he had secured the funding. Taking Tesla private, which would have helped the company avoid making short-term commitments and goals, would be the "best path forward," Musk had said at the time. Even as investors had shown agreement to Musk's move, a few days later, he announced that after further discussions, everyone believes that Tesla should remain public. Amid all of this, some argued that Musk made the "false" claim just to hurt short-sellers. From the lawsuit: This case involves a series of false and misleading statements made by Elon Musk, the Chief Executive Officer of Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla"), on August 7, 2018, regarding taking Tesla, a publicly traded company, private. Musk's statements, disseminated via Twitter, falsely indicated that, should he so choose, it was virtually certain that he could take Tesla private at a purchase price that reflected a substantial premium over Tesla stock's then-current share price, that funding for this multi-billion dollar transaction had been secured, and that the only contingency was a shareholder vote. In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source. During a press conference, Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's division of enforcement, said: A chairman and CEO of a public company has important responsibilities to shareholders. Those responsibilities include the need to be scrupulous and careful about the truth and accuracy of statements made to the investing public, whether those statements are made in traditional forms such as a press release or an earnings call or through less formal methods such as Twitter or other social media. Neither celebrity status nor reputation as a technological innovator provide an exemption from the federal securities laws. In a statement to CNBC, Musk said, "This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way."
It was probably more an act of stupidity under influence than a premeditated attempt at a short squeeze, but if you're wearing the CEO hat, you have less leeway for stupidity.
So, fraud charges secured.
Wouldn't it be delicious if this derailed humanity's path to the stars long enough that we didn't make it as a species?
I honestly can't think of a worse group of folks than financial lawyers, or a better group of people than SpaceX.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
They still incorrectly state "charges". They've sued Musk in a civil case.
"Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
The phrase "civil charges" is in wide use, including by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press...
I agree with laypeople it carries the connotation of criminal charges.
On the one side, we have someone who could be humanity's best hope for escaping extinction.
On the other side, we have a bunch of rich assholes trying gambling that he'll fail, and expecting to pull some money out of thin air if they're right.
Part of me wants Elon to fail. We don't really deserve to spread our seed throughout the galaxy.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Maybe the SEC should sue itself too?
No, dipshit.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5] thereunder.
In no place does it say 240.10b-5(b).
This makes me wonder what would happen if there were no rules about fraudulent claims.
How would that work out? Would it be okay for a company to outright lie about, say, their profits?
If I lie on a loan application about my income, I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable. If Iie about certain facts about a car I am trying to sell you (e.g. I claim just had the brakes fixed, when my mechanic just confirmed my suspicion that the brakes were failing and I did not bother to have them fixed), I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable.
What is so different about a CEO of a company who is offering one millionth ownership of a company on the public market if the CEO lies about everything? What can't that be criminally and/or civilly actionable? What is gained by allowing unlimited leeway for what is fundamentally no different from any other kind of fraud?
The idea that companies are honest now because they skate on the edges of the rules is laughable.
The rules are not expected to achieve some generic state of consistent trustworthiness. They are to prevent outright lying about certain things, so that the marketplace is honest enough to consistently attract divers investors. In the long run, that can be a win-win. More access to capital for businesses. More access to different kinds of investments to the general public.
Investments in property, plant and equipment (capital investments) are amortized over their useful life (25-50 for buildings, 15 for robotics, 3 for computers, etc...)
You are attempting to amortize all of the capital investments immediately, which is the only way that you can come up with numbers that show a loss on every vehicle.
you are only demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge and not really being convincing beyond that
She changed her story later, probably in response to threats from Trump. And maybe she'll reveal why at some point in the future. But he clearly raped her, and you're clearly trying to make excuses for rape. That makes you rapey AF.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You do understand they don't need to buy a robot for every car they make, right? They don't wear out after each car passes by.
Revenue rises at a steeper slope than operational costs, and at some point they cross over - that would be what is referred to as "cash-flow positive". The question is when that crossover happens.
This has been pointed out to you many times, but you don't ever listen. Either you're just spreading FUD because reasons, or you're completely daft and refuse to learn anything.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Musk really needs to get a president into Tesla to handle day-2-day stuff.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?