Tesla's Musk Facing SEC Charges Over Tweets About Taking Company Private
On top of monetary penalties, regulators from the SEC are seeking to have Musk banned from serving as an officer or board member of a publicly traded company.
September 27, 2018 at 06:31 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Billionaire Elon Musk's boasts on Twitter that he had “funding secured” to take his electric vehicle company Tesla private—made after believing himself the target of unfair practices by short-selling traders—has landed him in hot water with federal regulators and it could lead to his departure from top positions at any of his publicly traded companies.
In a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Musk should have known that his Aug. 7 tweets about potentially taking the company public were reckless, since he didn't “have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions.”
“When he made these statements, Musk knew that he had never discussed a going-private transaction at $420 per share with any potential funding source, had done nothing to investigate whether it would be possible for all current investors to remain with Tesla as a private company via a 'special purpose fund,' and had not confirmed support of Tesla's investors for a potential going-private transaction,” regulators claim in their complaint.
In a statement, Musk pushed back against the allegations.
“This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed,” he said. “I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way.”
As regulators noted, “investors reacted” to Musk's statements. By the close of trading on Aug. 7, Tesla's stock price was up nearly 11 percent from the previous day. Yet the reality was that Musk “had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source.”
The decision set off a chain reaction of uncertainty, questions and confusion. According to the SEC, Tesla's head of investor relations sent Musk a text message 12 minutes after the tweet to ask, “Was this text legit?”
According to federal regulators, Musk's choice of a price suggested that perhaps it was not. His initial calculation of a per-share price with a 20 percent premium came to $419. According to regulators, “Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'”
Shortly after 2 p.m. that day, Nasdaq, which requires a 10-minute heads-up on public statements about corporate events like going private, halted the trading of all Tesla shares.
In the hours after the tweet, Musk appeared to attempt to contain the fallout over his public statement, offering up other pieces of information through tweets, and responding on the social media platform. In a companywide email, he defended the move, while detailing a possible process for investors, while noting that the proposal was only possible “through a vote of our shareholders.”
It was later revealed that no actual details had been presented to the board. By Aug. 24, Musk announced the company was staying public, noting that “the majority of shareholders” had told him not to proceed.
“This was the first time that Musk publicly disclosed the obstacles to allowing current Tesla investors to remain invested if Tesla went private and thus corrected his multiple previous misstatements that any going-private transaction would allow all current shareholders to remain invested,” the SEC claimed.
On the next trading day, Tesla stock prices ultimately fell to a point 15 percent below where they closed the day of Musk's initial tweet.
In a statement, Steven Peikin, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, said the celebrity status or reputation as a “technological innovator” doesn't give a corporate officer “license to take those responsibilities lightly.”
“Corporate officers hold positions of trust in our markets and have important responsibilities to shareholders,” Peikin said.
On top of possible civil penalties and disgorgement, federal regulators are seeking that Musk be barred as an officer or director of a publicly traded company, opening the potential for his removal from Tesla and other companies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute read5th Circuit Judge Jones Slams Proposal for Greater Amicus Brief Funding Disclosure
Trending Stories
- 1Prior Inconsistent Statements and Medical Malpractice Defense
- 2Public Interest Calendar of Events
- 3Why Law Firms Should Focus on IA for Improved Gen AI
- 4Post-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
- 5Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250