Background on 2018 Musk attempt to take Tesla private

Filings in the litigation against Musk show a breakdown between Musk and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) over funding. This may explain Musk’s recent statements defending his tweet: “…Funding secured.”

An interesting coincidence may be the relative timing of a PIF investment in Tesla competitor (hated rival) Lucid Motors.

Current story:

Court filing:

Court docket:

Background re Lucid:

“The listing represents the fruits of a well-timed 2018 investment in Lucid when it was struggling for survival.”

2 Likes
2 Likes

This is disappointing. I have long believed the time is well overdue for a push-back against SEC prior restraint upon the speech of anybody they consider within their power on the grounds of free speech. This does not remotely just apply to those who have been coerced to sign decrees as part of settlements. Every officer and director of a public company is constrained by SEC “quiet period” regulations not to publicly comment about any aspect of the business between the time of an S1 registration and forty days after an IPO. The quiet period also applies to analysts working for underwriters of the offering.

A separate quiet period applies for four weeks before the end of any business quarter for a public company.

Note that this explicitly applies to public speech. If the CFO of a company is speaking at an industry conference two weeks before the end of a quarter and forecasts expected sales of a new product, that’s a quiet period violation and the company and executive can be sanctioned by the SEC.

In 1992, when I was no longer an officer of director of Autodesk, I was told I could not disclose a pending “insider trading” investigation against a former Autodesk employee who was himself neither a director nor an officer.

4 Likes

Docket (includes several amicus briefs):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1284.html

Amicus brief by Cuban, Musk, et al.:

1 Like