Re:SEC Sues Musk and Seeks Ban for His Tweets on Go-Private ...
by rohit2412 on Thursday September 27, 2018 @07:02PM
(#18089640)
I find it hilarious that intent is under doubt. Somehow people have forgotten "short burn off the century". If shorts squeeze did happen, there would be cheering everywhere.
Re:SEC Sues Musk and Seeks Ban for His Tweets on Go-Private ...
by dragontamer on Thursday September 27, 2018 @07:24PM
(#18089756)
Personally, I don't doubt intent. But "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as well as the necessity for a "malice" in the DoJ's case makes me think that... the DoJ has way too hard of a case to pull together.
I mean, I might be proven wrong. But... showing off a couple of rage tweets in court to prove malice doesn't seem plausible to me. Would a Jury of 12 (and remember: all 12 have to agree) be convinced over a couple of "who likes short-shorts" tweets?
If a SINGLE jury member, 1 out of the 12, disagrees, then you get a hung case aka a mistrial. As per the rules of the DoJ investigation anyway. That's why I don't think the DoJ will go anywhere, because proof and evidence is at a way harder standard in a criminal case.
That's cool and all. And that's probably why the DoJ case will fail (at least, I'm betting that the DoJ case will turn up nothing).
But this is the SEC: they only have to prove recklessness or negligence. That Musk was NEGLIGENT in his ability to properly vet the information before tweeting.
In particular:
> Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/389617063/United-States-Secu...
As a CEO, his responsibility is to report on the news of the company to his investors in a responsible manner. If Musk is negligent and/or reckless about the facts, then that is ALONE sufficient to have him removed from the position.
That's the thing about this SEC case. They do not have to prove scienter (criminal knowledge of wrongdoing) or malice. They only have to prove recklessness or negligence.
EDIT: Upon further review, paragraph 79 claims that Elon Musk has scienter of these events. So the SEC is in fact claiming that Elon Musk deliberately knew that making these statements were wrong, and did it anyway. This is above and beyond "reckless" or "negligent" !!