The battle continues from a distance between Elon Musk and the SEC, US Security and Exchange Commission which since 2018 has been pointing the finger at Tesla’s CEO accusing him of fraud and market disruption. The facts concern the famous tweet published by the richest man in the world in which, four years ago now, he reasoned aloud on the possibility of privatizing his company. A message “false and deceptive“that the stock market supervisory authority found dangerous and destabilizing.
Musk returned to this topic a few days ago, blaming the SEC for the persecution. And the matter seems to escalate further now that his lawyer has again accused the US agency of having leaked information about a federal investigation involving the CEO only to take revenge on the criticism that Tesla’s own number one had publicly leveled against federal financial regulators.
Impossible to blame Musk for exercising the rights under the First Amendmentsays attorney Alex Spiro, who however does not disclose what federal investigation is under discussion, nor what information is improperly disclosed by the SEC. The fact is that never before have relations between the agency and Elon Musk been so tense: e The 40 million dollars paid as a fine are also at stake by Tesla and the CEO himself intended for all shareholders who had suffered financial damage as a result of the tweet and who instead are still in the coffers of the SEC.
In his defense, the commission revealed late last week that the $ 40 million distribution plan will be finalized by the end of March, and that the persecution – using Musk’s words – is part of the 2018 agreements which had led to the closure of the Tesla privatization affair: these agreements provided, in fact, the payment of 20 + 20 million dollars and a greater control over the management of the company.
A tangled situation, therefore, between accusations and counter-accusations. Now the SEC is accused of having disclosed private information, and as previously mentioned, the exact object of the dispute is not known: most likely it concerns the way in which Tesla is respecting the 2018 agreement.
