Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    Elon Musk's Tweet Lands Him in SEC Crosshairs Again

      SEC ask judge to hold CEO in contempt

    Last Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the company would produce "around 500,00" cars in 2019, a large increase over the goal of 400k vehicles the company previously forecast in January. Musk later corrected himself and said that is meant "annualized production rate at the end of 2019 probably around 500k". 

    The problem with this tweet is that back in October, Tesla and Musk had entered into a settlement with the SEC that Musk's public statements regarding Tesla production, finances, and other such matters would be reviewed by the company's board of directors before they were posted. The settlement stems from a fraud case where Musk tweeted that "funding has been secured" to take Tesla private, a tweet that later turned out not to be true.  Tesla's lawyers acknowledged to the SEC on Friday that the posts in question had not been reviewed.

    Yesterday, the SEC filed a motion with the Federal District Court in Manhattan that claims Musk had "violated the court’s final judgment by engaging in the very conduct that the preapproval provision of the final judgment was designed to prevent.". Further, the tweet had gone out to 24 million followers. 

    Musk argues that the substance of his tweets had already been vetted, approved, and publicly disseminated.  The defense comes from Telsa's earning report which had a forecast production of between 350,000 to 500,000 cars. 

    The federal judge has a range of options from imposing a fine, impose restrictions on Musk's use of Twitter, or even set up for a later removal of Musk as CEO.

    Tesla stock dropped about 3% in the hour directly after the motion was filed.

    Related:

    Tesla Model 3 "Recommended" Rating Rescinded by Consumer Reports

    Tesla Laying Off 7% of Workforce

    Tesla Dials Backs Production Hours on Model S and X

     

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    IDIOT!, The board needs to remove his accounts. I would even say they need to consider removing him from the role of CEO. He clearly is a smart man but has no self control over what and how he affects others.

    Musk really makes me have no desire for any Tesla product. I really do wonder how long reservation holders will wait or if they will before they move onto other products as other OEMs start to deliver their EVs. ?

    Musk is screwing the company rather than focusing on growing and building it as a profitable long range company.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They have CNBC on the tvs at work and it looks like Musk is going to try and fight the SEC on this one.   He may have a point if the information he tweeted was already in the January annual report.  There is supposed to be Tesla news at 5pm today. 

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Posts

    • It's amazing how a leather wrapped steering wheel changes the experience at the wheel for the better (it seems to make for an almost different car from the model with a urethane steering wheel).
    • Another thing to think on is the evidence bullet proof? Sadly, the same type of people who have said an eye for an eye, death penalty if you took a life have convicted others with hate in their heart only to have science prove the convicted innocent.  In this regards I wish all guns had palm / finger tip readers to confirm who last fired the gun. While others might say the death penalty is cruel, how is it when the person if proved beyond a reasonable doubt took a life? What about serial killers who are sitting for life, a burden on society in jail because folks feel there should be no death penalty and yet they took multiple lives themselves. Would it not be better for society if that person was no longer around, a burden on the tax payers? Many good questions to be asked. Lets take this a step further, auto makers who due to a focus on profits take shortcuts on safety of an auto, who should be held accountable for the deaths related to their products and how do you hold them accountable? An example of profit before safety, FORD PINTO Details of the Pinto's flawed fuel system: Location and construction: The sheet-metal gas tank was placed behind the rear axle, a design common at the time, but the Pinto's tank was made with exceptionally thin walls. It was held in place by two metal straps. Vulnerable parts: During rear-end impacts, bolts protruding from the differential housing could puncture the thin-walled tank. Additionally, the fuel-filler neck could tear away from the tank itself. Internal cost analysis: Internal Ford documents revealed that engineers were aware of the risks in pre-production crash tests and considered inexpensive fixes, including adding a rubber bladder to the tank. Alternative designs rejected: Engineers considered safer alternative designs, such as placing the tank above the axle (a design used on the Ford Capri), but this was rejected due to cost and styling constraints. Final design choice: Executives opted not to make these changes after a cost-benefit analysis concluded it would be cheaper to pay out potential lawsuits and settlements than to implement the repairs.  So who do you hold accountable for the deaths?
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search