SEC Says Musk Breached Settlement Agreement Over Tweets
Tesla CEO Elon Musk's tweets have again led to SEC trouble. The agency says Musk's recent tweets on the company's 2019 production estimates violate Tesla's settlement with the SEC.
February 25, 2019 at 08:56 PM
3 minute read
Less than a week after Tesla Inc.'s general counsel departed two months into the job, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has called for the company's chief executive officer, Elon Musk, to be held in contempt of court.
In a motion filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York on Monday, the SEC alleged Musk violated a settlement with the agency by not seeking approval before posting a Feb. 19 tweet claiming Tesla would ”make around 500k [cars] in 2019.” Four hours later, Musk tweeted again, clarifying the Palo Alto-based company aimed to produce 10,000 cars a week this year and complete 400,000 deliveries.
Tesla's leaders had agreed to prescreen any Musk tweet related to the company and its shareholders in a 2018 settlement with the SEC, after the CEO tweeted he'd secured funding to take Tesla private at $420 a share.
“Musk did not seek or receive pre-approval prior to publishing this tweet, which was inaccurate and disseminated to over 24 million people,” SEC representatives wrote in a filing signed by Cheryl Crumpton, an SEC supervisory assistant chief litigation counsel with the agency's division of enforcement. “Musk has thus violated the court's final judgment by engaging in the very conduct that the pre-approval provision of the final judgment was designed to prevent.”
According to the SEC, Musk admitted his Feb. 19 tweets were not pre-approved but that he didn't know they would need approval, because Tesla's production estimates were previously disclosed. Tesla declined to comment.
Bradley Bondi, a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel who represented Tesla in communications with the SEC, said in a Feb. 20 email to Crumpton that Musk's tweeted production estimates “had been communicated previously in pre-approved public updates” and on a company earnings call. He cited a January 2019 announcement from Tesla that publicly stated a company goal to “produce 10,000 vehicles per week on a sustained basis.”
“Although the 7:15 PM EST tweet was not individually pre-approved, Mr. Musk believed that the substance had already been appropriately vetted, pre-approved, and publicly disseminated. Moreover, the tweet was made outside of NASDAQ trading hours,” Bondi wrote in his email to Crumpton.
Crumpton's letter states “a violation of a court order need not be willful in order to find contempt.” Neither she nor Bondi immediately responded to request for comment.
Musk's latest string of controversial tweets coincides with the departure of Dane Butswinkas as general counsel. On Feb. 20, Butswinkas announced he was leaving Tesla after two months as GC. Longtime Tesla in-house counsel Jonathan Chang replaced him. A top Tesla securities lawyer, Philip Rothenberg, also left the company recently, moving to hospitality startup Sonder as GC in November.
Read More:
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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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