SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Contempt

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by afastow on Monday February 25, 2019 @08:02PM (#19251134)

The SEC saw that argument coming and shot it down completely in their filing:

> According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication or even releasing a verbatim pre-approved Written Communication more than two days after it has been pre-approved requires that the pre-approval be reconfirmed. Even if the exact substance of the 7:15 tweet had been pre-approved 20 days before, Musk cannot credibly claim that he thought he was not required to obtain pre-approval again under the plain terms of the Policy. In fact, the written communication in the 7:15 tweet was not pre-approved 20 days earlier or at any time. Musk’s claim that he thought he was simply restating information from the January 30 communications is not credible.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h... page 12

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by Dylan16807 on Monday February 25, 2019 @08:26PM (#19251253)

This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That rule is irrelevant.

The argument is not "this tweet got approved before, so I can edit it however I want". The argument is "the number is already public information, so I can make a new post mentioning it".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by sangnoir on Monday February 25, 2019 @08:44PM (#19251327)

> This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication.

That is the problem, in a nutshell: it should have been pre-approved - according to the FCC's interpretation of the settlement agreement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by Dylan16807 on Monday February 25, 2019 @08:46PM (#19251339)

Maybe. But don't confuse different arguments about why. If the tweet needed pre-approval, it's for a reason entirely different from this quote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by rory096 on Monday February 25, 2019 @09:54PM (#19251645)

Whether or not it's a valid argument, that does seem to be the SEC's argument here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con... by Dylan16807 on Monday February 25, 2019 @10:00PM (#19251667)

It's not the core of their argument, though. It's probably thrown in just in case it could possibly be considered relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]