James Murdoch In Line To Replace Musk As Tesla Chairman, Says Report [Update] (reuters.com)

21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch is the lead candidate to replace Elon Musk as Tesla chairman, the Financial Times reported today. The company has until November 13 to appoint an independent chairman of the board, part of settlements reached last month between Tesla, Musk and U.S. regulators in the wake of Musk tweeting in August that he had secured funding to take the company private. Reuters reports: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which said the statement was fraudulent, allowed the billionaire to retain his role as CEO while stripping him of his chairmanship and imposing a penalty of $20 million on each party. Murdoch, who is a nonexecutive director of Tesla, has signaled he wants the job, the report said. The son of Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch, he joined Tesla's board in July 2017 after years of work with media companies. He has no experience in manufacturing and has never led a company that makes cars or electric vehicles.

Murdoch currently serves on the boards of 21st Century Fox and News Corp. He stepped down from the board of Sky Plc on Tuesday following the completion of Comcast Corp's takeover of the broadcaster. Glass Lewis research director Courteney Keatinge said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that while Murdoch's departure from Sky could alleviate some concerns, the Tesla chairmanship would still require a big time commitment as the company faces pressures on many fronts. Update: In a tweet late Wednesday, Musk said Financial Times' report was inaccurate.

Comments

Murdoch

[mentil]

Murdoc is replacing MacGyver? He gonna install Blofeld as CEO next?

Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company

[Anonymous Coward]

...Grabs popcorn...

Re:Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be the right move. Given papa's power, in short time you'd be hearing the party line change to how they never denied climate change and EVs are great. Anything else is just lies, all lies, from the fake news media led by CNN and NYT.

Re:Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company

[Anonymous Coward]

We never said climate change wasn't happening. We always said it was Obama's fault. Because he didn't use the Paris accords to shut down China.

That was easy.

Re:Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he sells off everything of value to boost profits the first quarter and then leaves.

Huh

[Der Huhn Teufel]

I guess we'll find out what happens when you replace crazy with evil.

Makes sense

[DMJC]

Dad's gonna bump off some time soon. Someone has to ensure the trust fund stays full of cash.

Well, there goes Tesla

[DanDD]

A similar thing happened to Aptera Motors. A great little company with lots of potential (queue the electricity jokes), but they never reached their potential - all due to the idiots on the board.

So sad. If Murdoch does take the reins, I predict Elon will resign as CEO, and simply keep his spot on the board.

Re:Well, there goes Tesla

[DanDD]

yes, the current state of affairs is re-volting, I am not amped about this. The potential for failure is high.

Why do they think that

[mark-t]

... Musk supposedly commited fraud. As far as I can understand he said one day that he had secured funding to make the company private. This spooked a lot of people, but there's no indication he was trying to lie about it.

Then, by my understanding, a whole shitpile of people basically begged him not to go through with it because it would be catatsrophically stupid.

In the aftermath of that social onslaught, Musk apparently had some sense knocked into him and so he announced he would not be making Tesla private This doesn't mean he necessarily ever lied, but had definitely spoken far too hastily, because it was not something that had apparently thought through.

But again.... how is any of this fraud?

Stupid as shit, sure.... and it's only fair there should be consequences for that, but fraud?

Fraud requires an intent, or at least a probable intent, to deceive, and I just didn't see that coming from him on this point. He had no incentive to deceive anyone about taking Tesla private... he had his reasons, and presumably they weren't good enough in the big picture to justify actually doing that. That just means he made a mistake, it doesn't mean he lied about it.

Again though, mistakes can reasonably have consequences, but hanging the term "fraud" on it is, I think, a pretty gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.

Re:Why do they think that

[mspohr]

He said he was "considering" taking the company private, "funding secured", "all that is needed is shareholder approval".
Shareholders told him they didn't approve so he dropped the plan before it even got to a vote.
The only uncertainty was the "funding secured" part. Depends on your definition of "secured". Supposedly the Saudis have been hounding him to buy the company for a few years. People assume the funding was from the Saudis and they have the money.

Re:Why do they think that

[theskipper]

Fraud is clearly characterized. The complaint spells it all out:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation...

There was no term sheet. No 8-Ks were filed. The Saudis and VW denied they were in any specific talks. The tweet was solely intended to force shorts to cover.

Re: Why do they think that

[drinkypoo]

The claim of secured funding was never substantiated.

It was never found unsubstantiated in court, either, because there was never a case. There was only a settlement, which did not require Musk or Tesla to admit guilt.

Re:Why do they think that

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Even if the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund did tell Musk they wanted to buy, do you think they offered 420? Because otherwise it's like if Bill Gates keeps asking to buy my house. I cannot say "I have a solid deal to sell my house for a billion dollars." Him wanting to buy it and having that much money does not mean he wants to buy it at that price

Depends on your definition of "secured".

It's not a linguistic argument. When you claim funding is secured, and you are talking about a financial transaction, you are making a very specific claim. If it had been secured, Musk would have sat with the SEC in a room, showed them the documentation, and been done. He wouldn't have taken a plea for no reason.

Re:Why do they think that

[mark-t]

I agree with 110010001000 that he made it up completely to try and hurt the short sellers.

Do you have some evidence to the effect that this was his probable incentive?

Because from everything I've read, this was just an example of a man who spoke too hastily about something that everybody freaked out about. There is precisely zero evidence that he ever actually intended to defraud anyone. The fact that people may have lost money over it might certainly be his fault, but that doesn't mean he ever intended to deceive, and in the legal definition of fraud, you do have to show probable cause for actual intent. Consequences that happen to result in financial loss for someone does not prove fraud (although it may still merit compensatory damages).

Re:Why do they think that

[mark-t]

IANAL, but I do know that the legal definition of "fraud" does entail actually having an *intent* to deceive.

Now obviously proving intent in a court of law can be problematic, but you can sometimes prove that there is probable intent.

So, what evidence exists that might show probable intent to cause harm that couldn't also be far more easily explained as the actions of someone who was simply overstressed, and starting to make bad decisions?

Time off from being chairperson will probably be good for the guy, to be honest...

And of course, it's fair to hold him accountable for any financial damages he caused with his statement, but I don't think it's fair at all to assume that he ever intended to cause harm. As the old saying goes, justice without mercy is not justice at all, it is tyranny.

Re:RIP Tesla.

[Rei]

Musk has tweeted that the article is incorrect. Good. James Murdoch tries to paint himself as the "renegade son" who rejects his father's philosophy, while actually sharing a large chunk of it, and engaging in just as scummy tactics (see the BBC phone hacking scandal.... the resulting investigation of which basically declared James as unfit to manage a corporate board).

NBN

[Elitist_Phoenix]

Great they'll ruin Tesla the way they ruined Australia's NBN

Re: RIP Tesla.

[Rei]

Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars. They claimed that the NHTSA data shows that it has the lowest probability of injury of any car ever tested. Which is a fact whether you like it or not.

Re:RIP Tesla.

[organgtool]

So if Musk is right and the Financial Times is wrong, will the SEC investigate the Financial Times for spreading false information that affected the stock price?

Re: RIP Tesla.

[Rei]

Check the date of the article they posted. That has nothing to do with the Model 3.

Murdoch?

[TJHook3r]

That family has an incredibly poor record in the UK. I would venture to say that his corporate strategy is 'Be Evil'.

Re: RIP Tesla.

[Rei]

As pointed out: it's not a false claim, it's literally the NHTSA's data. Regardless of whether the NHTSA gives out higher than five stars or not.

I'm sorry that this bothers you so much.

Re: RIP Tesla.

[Rei]

Look at the data for yourself, for crying out loud.

The first four pages are the likelyhood of injury in each of the four categories. These are combined into an overall safety score on the 5th page (Comb VSS+Overall Ratings). VSS is the probability of injury. Look at it, and get out of denial.

Anything with a lower VSS than 0,67 is declared as "five stars". But that doesn't change the fact that the probability of injury itself is VSS, and at the Model 3's value of 0,38 is the lowest ever tested by the NHTSA.

Again: I'm sorry facts appear to bug the hell out of you, but they remain facts.