​

SEC subpoenas Tesla about privitization but Cornell Law Prof thinks Elon is safe from SEC

by

The SEC has sent subpoenas to Tesla regarding its privatization plans and Musk’s statement to determine whether the billionaire inventor intentionally misled investors.

Tesla, in response, has also hired two law firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison to help deal with the SEC, and Latham & Watkins to advise on privatization.

Last week, Musk shocked investors after tweeting that he could take the company private at $420 per share, the stock soared on the news before being halted by the Nasdaq.

A former SEC commissioner told FOX Business last week if Musk’s funding disclosure was not accurate, which appears to be the case a week later, it would create a new round of legal issues for Musk.

Cornell Law Professor Robert Hockett thinks Elon Musk’s tweet, about considering taking Tesla private, is legal, but may still spark an SEC inquiry.

1. Elon Musk did not trade on the announcement and did not tell anyone else to trade the announcement
2. Elon Musk and Tesla did announce in 2013 that they would use twitter to make announcements
3. Tesla did release the information in an official public announcement. There was a lag.
4. If there is anything inaccurate in the tweet.

Elon is safe on points 1 and 2.

Items 3 and 4 are causes for lawsuits.

87 thoughts on “SEC subpoenas Tesla about privitization but Cornell Law Prof thinks Elon is safe from SEC”

  1. If he had so much as a verbal agreement from the KSASWF, he’s fine unless and until they decide to contradict that. That’s all there is.

  2. If he had so much as a verbal agreement from the KSASWF he’s fine unless and until they decide to contradict that. That’s all there is.

  3. They can scare him into a settlement. Sometimes you only have to threaten to prosecute. Parasites and enemies might be happy just to draw blood or eat his leg right now. You don’t eat a good pig like that all at once.

  4. Same SEC that did not police the subprime mortgage fiasco. Revolving door captured regulator. Musk pisses off other rich people; they are now gunning for him through straws through the SEC.

  5. A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”. A question of fact gets a trial but it is really easy for somebody of Elon Musk’s means to get somebody to lie on the stand for him enough to cover his behind. I predict this goes nowhere.

  6. THE SEC is a two bit whore for the hedge funds. I have been investing for years and those useless scum protect wall street crooks every time. The hedge funds short stock they cannot borrow and they ignore fake news generated to support the hedges funds short position all the time. The rules say that if you own 5% of a company you must declare it and your intentions. If you short 50% of a company it is considered a trade secret. Wall street is a criminal operation and the police (SEC) is their female dog. BTW media hit pieces are bashers are all over Elon’s companies cause they show how the incompetent oligopolies are. So they are fake news article after fake news article.

  7. ” Verbal agreements are hard to prove in court. “” What! He is being charged with something they need to prove him guilty. He does not need to prove his innocence.

  9. 1. Elon Musk did not trade on the announcement and did not tell anyone else to trade the announcement” Doesn’t matter. Others traded based upon his material falsehoods. That is securities fraud. Other securities fraud lawyers are saying things that are totally counter to all this. Me wonders who is paying this Cornell Professor on the side as a ‘consultant’.

  10. They can scare him into a settlement. Sometimes you only have to threaten to prosecute. Parasites and enemies might be happy just to draw blood or eat his leg right now. You don’t eat a good pig like that all at once.

  11. Same SEC that did not police the subprime mortgage fiasco. Revolving door captured regulator. Musk pisses off other rich people; they are now gunning for him through straws through the SEC.

  12. A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”.A question of fact gets a trial but it is really easy for somebody of Elon Musk’s means to get somebody to lie on the stand for him enough to cover his behind. I predict this goes nowhere.

  13. THE SEC is a two bit whore for the hedge funds. I have been investing for years and those useless scum protect wall street crooks every time. The hedge funds short stock they cannot borrow and they ignore fake news generated to support the hedges funds short position all the time. The rules say that if you own 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of a company you must declare it and your intentions. If you short 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of a company it is considered a trade secret. Wall street is a criminal operation and the police (SEC) is their female dog. BTW media hit pieces are bashers are all over Elon’s companies cause they show how the incompetent oligopolies are. So they are fake news article after fake news article.

  14. \”” Verbal agreements are hard to prove in court. “””””” What! He is being charged with something they need to prove him guilty. He does not need to prove his innocence.”””

  16. 1. Elon Musk did not trade on the announcement and did not tell anyone else to trade the announcement””Doesn’t matter. Others traded based upon his material falsehoods. That is securities fraud.Other securities fraud lawyers are saying things that are totally counter to all this. Me wonders who is paying this Cornell Professor on the side as a ‘consultant’.”””

  17. Hei Tom, This WTA thinks you are me (Luca Mazza) !! HAHA !! You do not know WTA? Check here bit.ly/2MeWYZT. Hi Tom Perkins !!

  18. Hei Tom This WTA thinks you are me (Luca Mazza) !! HAHA !! You do not know WTA? Check here bit.ly/2MeWYZT. Hi Tom Perkins !!

  19. No, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You are full of crap. Where is the “retraction” tweet you claimed exists? Justo fermentum litora at lacus taciti elit dui pretium fusce nascetur. Penatibus mauris pharetra praesent cursus molestie inceptos aliquam donec congue. Nostra tempus, elementum faucibus.

  20. No moron, it is only fraud if what he said is not true, and no one has said anything to the contrary. If you want to pretend otherwise, get to quoting where anyone said different.

  21. No the burden of proof is on the accuser. You are full of crap.Where is the retraction”” tweet you claimed exists?Justo fermentum litora at lacus taciti elit dui pretium fusce nascetur. Penatibus mauris pharetra praesent cursus molestie inceptos aliquam donec congue. Nostra tempus”””” elementum faucibus.”””

  22. No moron it is only fraud if what he said is not true and no one has said anything to the contrary. If you want to pretend otherwise get to quoting where anyone said different.

  23. I don’t *think*, you screwed up and provided proof thereof. You both used the term sockpuppet and you both write the same way. And you both post links to the same Stalking Wall in Flickr.

  24. , it is only fraud if what he said is not true” And that means he has to prove that it is true. They haven’t produced any proof. ” no one has said anything to the contrary

  25. A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”. Show us that rule applies here. You didn’t.

  26. I don’t *think* you screwed up and provided proof thereof. You both used the term sockpuppet and you both write the same way. And you both post links to the same Stalking Wall in Flickr.

  27. ” it is only fraud if what he said is not true””””And that means he has to prove that it is true. They haven’t produced any proof. “””” no one has said anything to the contrary”””” “””

  28. A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”. Show us that rule applies here. You didn’t.”””

  29. No idiot, we don’t write the same way, and I already showed you where I got the link to Matheus website citing your trollery, from this webite where he posted it — NBF. And because you do change your comment name to avoid accountability for and association to past sins of yours, which do include trollish things like editing people comments and boasting of it, and then denying it, you are a sock-puppeteer and a troll.

  30. You are the moron. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Dent anarky abattoir ra. Hush hatter edward robin lantern. Rose shiva the maxie, boomerang charlatan moth. Abdullah cobblepot metallo, wing harvey. Bane, wing hugo hammer blink atom scorn quinn shadow. Vale firebug vicki; joker barbara. Pennyworth ra firefly grundy jason lucius oracle boomerang abattoir dent pennyworth. Doom azrael abbott owl joe helena al al ventriloquist killer young. Carmine lucius two night two. Gordon abdullah temblor abbott elongated?

  31. No idiot we don’t write the same way and I already showed you where I got the link to Matheus website citing your trollery from this webite where he posted it — NBF. And because you do change your comment name to avoid accountability for and association to past sins of yours which do include trollish things like editing people comments and boasting of it and then denying it you are a sock-puppeteer and a troll.

  32. You are the moron. Burden of proof is always on the accuser.Dent anarky abattoir ra. Hush hatter edward robin lantern. Rose shiva the maxie boomerang charlatan moth. Abdullah cobblepot metallo wing harvey. Bane wing hugo hammer blink atom scorn quinn shadow. Vale firebug vicki; joker barbara. Pennyworth ra firefly grundy jason lucius oracle boomerang abattoir dent pennyworth. Doom azrael abbott owl joe helena al al ventriloquist killer young. Carmine lucius two night two. Gordon abdullah temblor abbott elongated?

  33. If you think so you may consider writing a couple of lines to Brian I have nothing personal against WTA but his trolling ruines this site

  34. If you think so, maybe you should drop a few lines to Brian Nothing personal against WTA but he is destroying the credibility of this site

  35. If you think so you may consider writing a couple of lines to Brian I have nothing personal against WTA but his trolling ruines this site

  36. If you think so maybe you should drop a few lines to BrianNothing personal against WTA but he is destroying the credibility of this site

  37. Brian “ruins” his own site by seeking out the least useful comment systems known to man. Trolls are amusement.

  38. You’ve never showed us anything you claimed yet. Start with the 2nd tweet where you lied and said Musk retracted the first one.

  39. Brian ruins”” his own site by seeking out the least useful comment systems known to man. Trolls are amusement.”””

  40. You’ve never showed us anything you claimed yet. Start with the 2nd tweet where you lied and said Musk retracted the first one.

  45. Why should I show the second tweet just because you are in denial of its existence while everyone else is not?

  48. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. ” No, when rigging stock prices with Twitter announcements, the burden of proof is on the one doing said securities fraud to prove himself innocent.

  51. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. “”No”” when rigging stock prices with Twitter announcements”” the burden of proof is on the one doing said securities fraud to prove himself innocent.”””

  52. Why should I show the second tweet just because you are in denial of its existence while everyone else is not?

  54. Burden of proof is always on the accuser in the United States. That’s just how it is, from the warrant requirement to unanimity in jury trials.

  55. Idiot, I have never said there was not a second tweet. It is that there is nothing in the 2nd tweet which is any retraction. If you’re so sure it’s a retraction, you should be able to quote that.

  57. Burden of proof is always on the accuser in the United States. That’s just how it is from the warrant requirement to unanimity in jury trials.

  58. Idiot I have never said there was not a second tweet. It is that there is nothing in the 2nd tweet which is any retraction.If you’re so sure it’s a retraction you should be able to quote that.

  60. Idiot, I have never said there was not a second tweet. It is that there is nothing in the 2nd tweet which is any retraction.

    If you’re so sure it’s a retraction, you should be able to quote that.

  64. ” Burden of proof is always on the accuser. ”

    No, when rigging stock prices with Twitter announcements, the burden of proof is on the one doing said securities fraud to prove himself innocent.

  72. No idiot, we don’t write the same way, and I already showed you where I got the link to Matheus website citing your trollery, from this webite where he posted it — NBF. And because you do change your comment name to avoid accountability for and association to past sins of yours, which do include trollish things like editing people comments and boasting of it, and then denying it, you are a sock-puppeteer and a troll.

  73. You are the moron. Burden of proof is always on the accuser.
    Dent anarky abattoir ra. Hush hatter edward robin lantern. Rose shiva the maxie, boomerang charlatan moth. Abdullah cobblepot metallo, wing harvey. Bane, wing hugo hammer blink atom scorn quinn shadow. Vale firebug vicki; joker barbara. Pennyworth ra firefly grundy jason lucius oracle boomerang abattoir dent pennyworth. Doom azrael abbott owl joe helena al al ventriloquist killer young. Carmine lucius two night two. Gordon abdullah temblor abbott elongated?

  74. I don’t *think*, you screwed up and provided proof thereof. You both used the term sockpuppet and you both write the same way. And you both post links to the same Stalking Wall in Flickr.

  75. “, it is only fraud if what he said is not true”

    And that means he has to prove that it is true. They haven’t produced any proof.

    ” no one has said anything to the contrary” <-- the onus is on Musk/Tesla to prove it is true, not the other way around. And someone has come forward saying that Musk was on the phone after this fiasco started, desperately trying to secure funding. Who's the moron now?

  76. “A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”.

    Show us that rule applies here. You didn’t.

  77. No, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You are full of crap.

    Where is the “retraction” tweet you claimed exists?

    Justo fermentum litora at lacus taciti elit dui pretium fusce nascetur. Penatibus mauris pharetra praesent cursus molestie inceptos aliquam donec congue. Nostra tempus, elementum faucibus.

  78. No moron, it is only fraud if what he said is not true, and no one has said anything to the contrary. If you want to pretend otherwise, get to quoting where anyone said different.

  80. They can scare him into a settlement. Sometimes you only have to threaten to prosecute. Parasites and enemies might be happy just to draw blood or eat his leg right now. You don’t eat a good pig like that all at once.

  81. Same SEC that did not police the subprime mortgage fiasco. Revolving door captured regulator. Musk pisses off other rich people; they are now gunning for him through straws through the SEC.

  82. A penalty under securities rule 10b-5 requires proof of unlawful intent aka scienter. It doesn’t allow for any penalty for negligence aka “should have known”.

    A question of fact gets a trial but it is really easy for somebody of Elon Musk’s means to get somebody to lie on the stand for him enough to cover his behind. I predict this goes nowhere.

  83. THE SEC is a two bit whore for the hedge funds. I have been investing for years and those useless scum protect wall street crooks every time. The hedge funds short stock they cannot borrow and they ignore fake news generated to support the hedges funds short position all the time. The rules say that if you own 5% of a company you must declare it and your intentions. If you short 50% of a company it is considered a trade secret. Wall street is a criminal operation and the police (SEC) is their female dog.

    BTW media hit pieces are bashers are all over Elon’s companies cause they show how the incompetent oligopolies are. So they are fake news article after fake news article.

  84. “” Verbal agreements are hard to prove in court. “” What! He is being charged with something they need to prove him guilty. He does not need to prove his innocence.

  86. “1. Elon Musk did not trade on the announcement and did not tell anyone else to trade the announcement”
    Doesn’t matter. Others traded based upon his material falsehoods. That is securities fraud.

    Other securities fraud lawyers are saying things that are totally counter to all this. Me wonders who is paying this Cornell Professor on the side as a ‘consultant’.

Comments are closed.