'Funding secured' has a very specific meaning in finance. And it definitely implies that he has a party that, contingent on a shareholder vote, has a legal obligation to buy out all existing shares (if necessary).

I really still don't understand why the whole world seems to be ignoring the first part of that "Funding secured" tweet that clearly says this entire thing is something simply under consideration by Musk himself. Why are all you ignoring the words in the same tweet proceeding "Funding secured" to interpret is as a statement meant to indicate the existence of a done deal on the side of Tesla the company or the investors.

"Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured."

The first half suggests that he might go through with the transaction of taking Tesla private, meaning, acquiring sufficient stock for cash that it falls below the SEC reporting thresholds and delisting it from stock exchanges.

The second half of the statement states that, whatever he decides, he has already lined up the funding necessary to carry out contemplated action in the first statement.

People don't interpret the "funding secured" to mean that he has a going-private deal locked up. They do interpret it to mean that he has locked up whatever financing he would need to go private, were he to choose to do so. And the problem is that his follow-up blog post, tweets, and Tesla statements indicate that neither the going-private transaction, or the funding for such a transaction, has been finalized--or even has progressed to the point of concrete terms being discussed.

So you're saying that all the subsequent communications back a liberal reading of the original twete?

The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material statement of fact. Literally the only thing that matters is whether or not the statement 'Funding secured' was true at the time of the tweet.

If it was, then nothing happens (except a strongly worded letter from the SEC on proper disclosure methods). If it wasn't, however, then at the very least he's going to have to pay restitution to all the investors (both long and short) who lost money as a result of the tweet. At worst he's going to prison.

“Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”

This certainly means that if you only need a shareholder vote then you have everything else in place. "Only reason" by definition means there is no other reason this couldn't be.

If I offer you money for a thing, you have a board you know agrees with a deal to sell, you do no anticipate any due diligence hiccups, isn't the only uncertainty about the sale the vote of you other co-owners of the thing I am trying to buy? Note he didn't say the only step, he said the only uncertain thing that could stop the deal are the share holders.

No, he said it was the only reason. Therefore, due diligence, etc. couldn't be the reasons the deal didn't happen.

Yes, precisely what I am saying. That he has no reason, we can reasonably deduce from his statements, to think due diligence, etc might be the reason why the deal doesn't go through.

So again, just for clarity, he didn't say the only to be done is the vote, he said the only reason why he currently expects the deal might not happen is if rejected by share holders.

If he had just left it at "considering," this would be a very different conversation. Funding "secured" means that it definitively exists, i.e., there is an actual agreement from some investor(s) to fund the operation.

The only accusation here, then can be that he wrongly assumed the should be able to parse him saying "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." to not mean Tesla the company has already finish due diligence and agreed to sell and that Tesla the company has secured funds from the buyers already.

The only reasonable interpretation of the above tweet, is to qualify the second sentence with the first, i.e he personally is only considering a buy offer and that he is secure in the funding ability of the buyer.

Choosing your interpretation, what he said in the second sentence, clearly contradicts the first sentence in the same tweet. So why are you choosing the clearly inaccurate, as due diligence is now taking place, narrowly legal interpretation of two words, over all the other context that suggests your narrow legal reading of those 2 words are not what could possibly have been meant by him.

You are the one taking it out of context. You are forgetting the rest of his tweet stream where he says "the only" thing in the way is a shareholder vote. High level discussions about possible billion dollar business deals happen every day. Without an agreement (e.g., term sheet), they mean nothing and certainly don't mean "funding secured." If Musk had come back immediately and said "I meant funding to be secured." It would have been a much smaller deal, but instead he doubled and tripled and quadrupled down. And now we know for certain that funding was most definitely NOT secured.

It sounds like there was some very high level discussions with folks in a position to finance. Does that meet you're (overly strict) definition?

overly? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how defining "funding secured" to mean actually having secured funding is overly strict.

Wrong on all three points, as explained in some detail in the article's paragraphs following the first.