Re:SEC Asks Manhattan Federal Court to Hold Elon Musk in Con...
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @05:44AM
(#19253298)
And do you think that's because he got such significant new information in the two weeks since the report, or because he summarized badly?
By itself it looks like new information. But once you consider it's a typical post on twitter, it's quite plausible that it's a botched quotation.
The agreement pertains to posts that "contain, or reasonably could contain, material information". Sounds like it needs [a likelihood of] actual material information to count.
(This is all assuming that "material information" is info that's not already widely publicly distributed. In other words I am assuming that a tweet of "Tesla makes cars." would not violate the agreement.)
(Also, none of this precludes him getting in trouble for a misleading tweet, entirely separately from whether he violated this agreement.)
By itself it looks like new information. But once you consider it's a typical post on twitter, it's quite plausible that it's a botched quotation.
The agreement pertains to posts that "contain, or reasonably could contain, material information". Sounds like it needs [a likelihood of] actual material information to count.
(This is all assuming that "material information" is info that's not already widely publicly distributed. In other words I am assuming that a tweet of "Tesla makes cars." would not violate the agreement.)
(Also, none of this precludes him getting in trouble for a misleading tweet, entirely separately from whether he violated this agreement.)