Among these topics: Any information on Tesla's financial condition; potential or proposed mergers; production numbers or numbers for sale or delivery; and new or proposed business lines. It also includes any "non-public legal or regulatory findings or decisions", as well as any topic that the company or its board may "request" if they think that pre-approval "protects the interests" of shareholders.
The updated agreement has not yet been approved by federal judge Alison Nathan. Her thumbs would be a favorable outcome for Moscow: If he lost this latest battle in his ongoing dispute with the SEC, Musk could face major penalties or lose his job as CEO. The new proposed conditions do not add any fines or penalties for his disregard.
Moshus and SEC have been mutilated for several months already. The board is largely due to the frequent and indecent use of Twitter on Musk, which it uses not only to talk to customers and share mimes, but also to publish information about Tesla's prospects.
The second is the one that first saw Mosco in hot water with the SEC last year, when he claimed in a tweet that he was "thinking" to take Tesla private at $ 420 per share and that he secured funding for the deal.
In the beginning, Musk signaled that he would fight the agency. But a few weeks later, the regulators announced that he and Tesla had agreed to conclude settlement agreements that they had seized with $ 40 million in fines and demanded that Mushch to step down as president of the company. He retained the role of CEO.
The relative peace did not last long. Musk's latest legal battle with the SEC flared up in February, after the agency claimed that Musk violated a settlement agreement when it announced that Thekla would make 500,000 cars in 2019. A few hours later, he clarified that Tesla hoped to reach 500,000 vehicles – an annual production rate by the end of 2019 and deliver 400,000 cars this year.
The two sides ended up in court on April 4, when Judge Nathan ordered them to put their "pants of reasonableness" and try to resolve their differences outside the courtroom. That's what eventually led to a deal on Friday.
"I think it's a very reasonable approach," said Mark Liff, Peter Bead's securities partner in New York and a former SEC lawyer. "It recognizes that investors are smart enough to distinguish tweets that are material information – and Elon is Elon."
Charles Elson, a professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware, disagreed. He said he believed the deal reflected the weakness of the SEC.
"When someone is disrespectful of the agency in this way, they need to react firmly and strictly to maintain their credibility with others who are accused of breaking" contracts, he said.
Tesla declined to comment.