Attorneys at the Austin, Texas-based company also say in court documents that the judge ruled that Musk’s tweets about securing funding for Tesla privatization were false and that his comments also violated a court agreement. 2018 with US securities regulators to which Musk and Tesla agreed to pay $ 20 million in fines. Musk, in an interview Thursday at TED 2022, said he had the funding to privatize Tesla in 2018. He called the Securities and Exchange Commission an infamous name and said he only compromised because bankers told him they would stop providing funds if he did not, and Tesla would go bankrupt. The interview and the court came just days after Musk, the richest man in the world, made a controversial proposal to take over Twitter and turn it into a private company with a bid of $ 43 billion, or $ 54.20 per share. Twitter’s board on Friday adopted a “poison pill” strategy that would make it prohibitively expensive for Musk to buy the shares. In court documents filed Friday, lawyers for Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk was trying to influence possible jurors in the lawsuit. They claim that Musk’s tweets in 2018 about having the money to privatize Tesla at $ 420 per share were written to manipulate the share price, costing shareholders money. Now, lawyers say Musk is campaigning to influence potential jurors as the case approaches trial. “Musk’s comments risk confusing potential jurors with the false confession that he did not knowingly falsify his tweets on August 7, 2018,” the lawyers wrote. “His present statements on this subject, a subtle attempt to acquit himself in the court of public opinion, will only have a pre-trial effect on a jury.” Lawyers asked Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco to prevent Musk from making further public comments on the matter until after the trial. Chen gave Musk’s lawyers until Wednesday to respond. Alex Spiro, a lawyer representing Musk, wrote in an email Sunday that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking a large payment. “Nothing will ever change the truth, which is that Elon Musk thought of taking Tesla privately and he could do it,” he wrote. “All that is left about half a decade later are random plaintiff lawyers trying to make money and others trying to prevent this truth from coming to light, all to the detriment of freedom of speech.” But shareholders’ lawyers wrote that Chen had already ruled that Musk’s tweets were false and misleading, and that “no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.” Judge Chen’s order, issued April 1, has not been in the court’s public file since Sunday. Adam Upton, a shareholder lawyer, said it was sealed because it had evidence that Musk and Tesla said were confidential. It will remain sealed until the parties agree on whether something should remain sealed, he wrote in an email. “Our move for a TRO (temporary restraining order) accurately describes the issues decided by the court,” Upton wrote. Following Musk’s tweets in 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against him, claiming that the securities law had been violated. Musk then agreed to the fine and signed the court agreement. Part of the agreement states that Musk “will not take any action, make or allow any public statement that denies, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or gives the impression that the complaint is unfounded. ». If Musk violates the agreement, the SEC can ask the court to annul it and re-establish the securities fraud complaint, the agreement states. A message was left on Sunday asking for comments from the SEC. Spiro, on behalf of Musk, has already asked a Manhattan federal court to reject the deal. He claims that the SEC is using the pact and “almost unlimited resources” to relax Musk’s speech. Court documents filed by Spiro state that Musk signed the agreement when Tesla was a less mature company and that the SEC’s action jeopardized its financing.
title: “Tesla Stockholders Ask Judge To Silence Musk In Fraud Case " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-07” author: “Carol Nicholson”
Attorneys at the Austin, Texas-based company also say in court documents that the judge ruled that Musk’s tweets about securing funding for Tesla privatization were false and that his comments also violated a court agreement. 2018 with US securities regulators to which Musk and Tesla agreed to pay $ 20 million in fines. Musk, in an interview Thursday at TED 2022, said he had the funding to privatize Tesla in 2018. He called the Securities and Exchange Commission an infamous name and said he only compromised because bankers told him they would stop providing funds if he did not, and Tesla would go bankrupt. The interview and the court came just days after Musk, the richest man in the world, made a controversial proposal to take over Twitter and turn it into a private company with a bid of $ 43 billion, or $ 54.20 per share. Twitter’s board on Friday adopted a “poison pill” strategy that would make it prohibitively expensive for Musk to buy the shares. In court documents filed Friday, lawyers for Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk was trying to influence possible jurors in the lawsuit. They claim that Musk’s tweets in 2018 about having the money to privatize Tesla at $ 420 per share were written to manipulate the share price, costing shareholders money. Now, lawyers say Musk is campaigning to influence potential jurors as the case approaches trial. “Musk’s comments risk confusing potential jurors with the false confession that he did not knowingly falsify his tweets on August 7, 2018,” the lawyers wrote. “His present statements on this subject, a subtle attempt to acquit himself in the court of public opinion, will only have a pre-trial effect on a jury.” Lawyers asked Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco to prevent Musk from making further public comments on the matter until after the trial. Chen gave Musk’s lawyers until Wednesday to respond. Alex Spiro, a lawyer representing Musk, wrote in an email Sunday that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking a large payment. “Nothing will ever change the truth, which is that Elon Musk thought of taking Tesla privately and he could do it,” he wrote. “All that is left about half a decade later are random plaintiff lawyers trying to make money and others trying to prevent this truth from coming to light, all to the detriment of freedom of speech.” But shareholders’ lawyers wrote that Chen had already ruled that Musk’s tweets were false and misleading, and that “no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.” Judge Chen’s order, issued April 1, has not been in the court’s public file since Sunday. Adam Upton, a shareholder lawyer, said it was sealed because it had evidence that Musk and Tesla said were confidential. It will remain sealed until the parties agree on whether something should remain sealed, he wrote in an email. “Our move for a TRO (temporary restraining order) accurately describes the issues decided by the court,” Upton wrote. The death toll from floods and mud landslides in South Africa rises to 443 Zelensky’s IMF chief discusses post-war plans to rebuild Ukraine Following Musk’s tweets in 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against him, claiming that the securities law had been violated. Musk then agreed to the fine and signed the court agreement. Part of the agreement states that Musk “will not take any action, make or allow any public statement that denies, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or gives the impression that the complaint is unfounded. ». If Musk violates the agreement, the SEC can ask the court to annul it and re-establish the securities fraud complaint, the agreement states. A message was left on Sunday asking for comments from the SEC. Spiro, on behalf of Musk, has already asked a Manhattan federal court to reject the deal. He claims that the SEC is using the pact and “almost unlimited resources” to relax Musk’s speech. Court documents filed by Spiro state that Musk signed the agreement when Tesla was a less mature company and that the SEC’s action jeopardized its financing.
title: “Tesla Stockholders Ask Judge To Silence Musk In Fraud Case " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Richard Marshall”
Attorneys at the Austin, Texas-based company also say in court documents that the judge ruled that Musk’s tweets about securing funding for Tesla privatization were false and that his comments also violated a court agreement. 2018 with US securities regulators to which Musk and Tesla agreed to pay $ 20 million in fines.
Musk, in an interview Thursday at TED 2022, said he had the funding to privatize Tesla in 2018. He called the Securities and Exchange Commission an infamous name and said he only compromised because bankers told him they would stop providing funds if he did not, and Tesla would go bankrupt.
The interview and the court came just days after Musk, the richest man in the world, made a controversial proposal to take over Twitter and turn it into a private company with a bid of $ 43 billion, or $ 54.20 per share. Twitter’s board on Friday adopted a “poison pill” strategy that would make it prohibitively expensive for Musk to buy the shares.
In court documents filed Friday, lawyers for Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk was trying to influence possible jurors in the lawsuit. They claim that Musk’s tweets in 2018 about having the money to privatize Tesla at $ 420 per share were written to manipulate the share price, costing shareholders money.
Now, lawyers say Musk is campaigning to influence potential jurors as the case approaches trial.
“Musk’s comments risk confusing potential jurors with the false confession that he did not knowingly falsify his tweets on August 7, 2018,” the lawyers wrote. “His present statements on this subject, a subtle attempt to acquit himself in the court of public opinion, will only have a pre-trial effect on a jury.”
Lawyers asked Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco to bar Musk from making further public comments on the matter until after the trial. Chen gave Musk’s lawyers until Wednesday to respond.
Alex Spiro, a lawyer representing Musk, wrote in an email Sunday that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking a large payment. “Nothing will ever change the truth, which is that Elon Musk thought of taking Tesla privately and he could do it,” he wrote. “All that is left about half a decade later are random plaintiff lawyers trying to make money and others trying to prevent this truth from coming to light, all to the detriment of freedom of speech.”
But shareholders’ lawyers wrote that Chen had already ruled that Musk’s tweets were false and misleading, and that “no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.”
Judge Chen’s order, issued April 1, has not been in the court’s public file since Sunday. Adam Upton, a shareholder lawyer, said it was sealed because it had evidence that Musk and Tesla said were confidential. It will remain sealed until the parties agree on whether something should remain sealed, he wrote in an email. “Our move for a TRO (temporary restraining order) accurately describes the issues decided by the court,” Upton wrote.
Following Musk’s tweets in 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against him, claiming that the securities law had been violated. Musk then agreed to the fine and signed the court agreement. Part of the agreement states that Musk “will not take any action, make or allow any public statement that denies, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or gives the impression that the complaint is unfounded. ».
If Musk violates the agreement, the SEC can ask the court to annul it and re-establish the securities fraud complaint, the agreement states. A message was left on Sunday asking for comments from the SEC.
Spiro, on behalf of Musk, has already asked a Manhattan federal court to reject the deal. He claims that the SEC is using the pact and “almost unlimited resources” to relax Musk’s speech. Court documents filed by Spiro state that Musk signed the agreement when Tesla was a less mature company and that the SEC’s action jeopardized its financing.
