Are you arguing that when he signs his name and certifies that the (short) form is "true, complete and correct" that he is not responsible because the form was prepared by an attorney of his?
> being seized upon by the media
How did "the media" seize on this? When I last checked, there were zero articles. And even if they had, why wouldn't discussion be merited?
I have heard it several times already today, but so what a form was filled out wrong, is there any consequence to that that anybody would care about? (I doubt anybody complaining about it actually knows anything about how important it is, it’s just being latched on to because it’s a way to match events with preexisting opinions)
But why is that form there and what is the consequence of filing one way or the other? I mean besides being punished for doing it wrong, why does that rule exist and what are the effects of filling it out one way or the other?
Why is this anything more than an administrative mistake? Did he get some benefit from filing the form that way?
... or, what it seems, is this just a "gotcha!" for people to complain about on the Internet.
I'd almost say it was on purpose for whatever reason. You don't get rich like Elon by hiring incompetent lawyers.
Let me ask you this: how is it that you are aware of the form and how Musk (or, more likely, a lawyer) filled it out?
It is being reported [1]. Every word in an article for a major news outlet is meaningful in some way. Journalists are not provided limitless word count, so decisions have to be made about what is and is not included.
Now, one could definitely argue that journalists merely reported on it as they were trying to divine Musk's intentions. But to then interpret this, as the GP has done, as a sign of Musk's dishonesty and lack of integrity is too great a leap (in my opinion).
[1] https://news.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+twitter+passive
Edit: Also, I love your handle. "Wildcat. Wiiiiiild cat."
RE: handle, thanks!
Also, I have since-posting found one article kinda about this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-thumbs-his-nose-at...
However, even that article is just about the lateness of the filing. It doesn't mention the debate over whether the filing itself was misleading. And this is the best example I could find!
Can I introduce you to Matt Levine? A very popular opinion columnist - you can get his column by email even without a subscription to Bloomberg, but he’s one of the reasons I subscribe.
His take on this was emailed out midday yesterday and I enjoyed every minute: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-04/elon-m...
You can find an archive of columns here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe... and the email sign up is at http://www.bloomberg.com/newsletters (it used to be a bit easier to find… but pick “Money Stuff” from the list)
Elon openly attacks and disregards SEC. He doesn’t have any benefit of the doubt left, when it comes to activities that SEC is suppose to be regulating.
This is a tempest in a teapot. People who don't like Musk are pointing to it and saying, "See? SEE!? He is a liar. He is bad."
But the reality is, this doesn't actually hurt anyone and its not really a big deal at all.
But let's take the least charitable interpretation and play it out: Musk filled out the form himself. He intentionally with malice aforethought lied. The day after the SEC form becomes public, he takes a board seat. What is the material damage done to the public?
Twitter shareholders got a huge 2-day pop. That would have happened regardless of Elon's intent.
That's entirely irrelevant. The point is that his past behavior shows a pattern of disregarding financial laws.
Yes, you do. Many crimes, like tax evasion, require “willful” violation, so blaming your tax attorney is a valid defense.
That makes it worse, not less bad. It makes the good-faith-mistake defense untenable.
This is like saying that you can’t be responsible for tax dodging because your accountant filed on your behalf.
> This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the worst possible light.
Almost all of securities law is “technicalities”, it still has the force of law.
This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the worst possible light.
> I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board
In this hypothetical, what is your role (i.e. fellow shareholder, CEO, employee)? I ask because shareholders (aka the owners of the company) choose the board. Musk owns nearly 1/10th of the company, and is now the largest shareholder, institutional or individual, by a good margin. In other words, whatever your hypothetical role, you wouldn't have much of a choice.
Setting the mechanics of boards aside, there is strong case for him being the most successful business person alive. He is right up there with Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg. Shareholders should be cheering this on. And there is some evidence, in the form of the stock price, that they are.