Elon Musk was reportedly cleared by a federal jury's verdict that his 'funding secured' tweet in 2018 didn't harm Tesla

[Richard V.]

Refs: Elon Musk was reportedly cleared by a federal jury's verdict that his 'funding secured' tweet in 2018 didn't harm Tesla investors (msn.com)
(579) MUSK EXONERATED! Jury Clears Elon Musk of Wrongdoing in 2018 Tweets! - YouTube
(579) Elon Musk: NOT GUILTY Over “Funding Secured” Tweet - YouTube

This is great news for Elon and Tesla.
No one should have to go through that. I hope that we will see clear skies on Monday's market and beyond.

 

[jerhenderson]

Refs: Elon Musk was reportedly cleared by a federal jury's verdict that his 'funding secured' tweet in 2018 didn't harm Tesla investors (msn.com)
(579) MUSK EXONERATED! Jury Clears Elon Musk of Wrongdoing in 2018 Tweets! - YouTube
(579) Elon Musk: NOT GUILTY Over “Funding Secured” Tweet - YouTube

This is great news for Elon and Tesla.
No one should have to go through that. I hope that we will see clear skies on Monday's market and beyond.

short sellers were the ones driving the lawsuit.

 

[jerhenderson]

short sellers were the ones driving the lawsuit.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-surprise-appearance-tesla-173341322.html

 

[Ogre]

Fraud requires intent. Without some kind of profit motive for Musk, I think it was hard to make that intent piece stick.

I did find it amusing that Musk’s lawyers suggested that many people don’t believe what Musk says on Twitter.

 

[John K]

Investing would be so much simpler if we received a daily mulligan.

 

[Ogre]

Investing would be much less messy if they got rid of derivatives. Shorts and Options just pull the share price all over the place.

 

[Crissa]

The profit motive of 'his company doesn't get bought out by a predatory investor' is usually enough.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

The profit motive of 'his company doesn't get bought out by a predatory investor' is usually enough.

-Crissa

That’s also good motivation for him seeking out a private buyer which corroborates his story.

 

[Crissa]

That’s also good motivation for him seeking out a private buyer which corroborates his story.

Hence saying he had a buyer before he actually had them on the hook being something the SEC really doesn't want CEOs to do. That I can understand.

The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Hence saying he had a buyer before he actually had them on the hook being something the SEC really doesn't want CEOs to do. That I can understand.



The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.



-Crissa

Wanted to try trip him up in the trial.

 

[Ogre]

The civil case, though, hinged upon damage, which, well, were going to be hard to prove. I don't know why the judge allowed it to go this far. They're supposed to prove that damage was possible before the case could run.

Civil case was also apparently hinged on people who bought derivatives rather than actual shareholders which made the entire thing trickIer.

Musk has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. No such obligation exists to holders of derivatives. Derivatives are confusing and fundamentally speculative. Both which make it difficult to sell your case to a jury.

Also, one thing many people neglect to mention is that Musk said this after it leaked to the press and the share price had already risen significantly.