Thursday , April 22 2021

Elon Mash and the SEC reached a tweeting deal



Moscow and federal regulators agreed on Friday to change the settlement agreement approved in October last year, which required monitoring of the use of social media by Musk. The updated agreement marks a number of topics. Moscow can not be heard until we get pre-approval from an "experienced securities dealer".

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.

It is much more specific than what was already in place. The original agreement included conditions that Mashk received pre-approval before sending social media containing information that is "tangible" to investors. Tesla's plan for alignment thus allowed Musk to essentially decide for himself when his tweets were needed to obtain that prior approval.

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.

His punch was sent Tesla (TSLA) increased shares. But the SEC later said that funding was not actually secured, and accused Mask in a lawsuit for the wrong investors.

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.

However, the agreement did not reduce tensions. Since then, Musk has openly mocked the SEC, said her oversight was "broken" and said she "did not respect" the agency.
In a December interview with "60 Minutes", Musk said he would not allow all his tweets to be proofread, though he insisted he was planning to respect the terms of settlement of "respect" for the "justice system".
Tesla lost $ 702 million in the last quarter, breaking its profits

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.

After Moscow announced that tweet, the SEC asked the federal judge to hold Mash into contempt, saying he had not "made a diligent or good effort" to stick to the decision. While Tesla acknowledged that Masha had not received prior consent to the functions in February, the company has since insisted that it does not need it.

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.


Source link