By fan fiction you're implying it's false.

Are you saying Elon Musk didn't creepily personally call the boss of a prominent skeptic to shut him down? That he's not talking almost every day about the shorts?

Do you believe this is normal or sane behavior for a billionaire CEO? Do you believe the way he announced his "funding secured" go private, with yet another rant about the short, is normal or sane?

Look, I know you like to lick Musk's nuts, but the above are facts, not fiction, and they're pretty weird, and an interesting data point given the rest.

Gold.

This post is absurd. Thread is actually interesting tbh. Got me interested in the TSLA story.

With TSLA's high valuation I was thinking they'd be looking to make key acquisitions to enhance their capabilities and ultimately their value. I came across this Shareholder Lawsuit Over Solar City Acquisition Can Move Forward.

Quote:

A 2016 shareholder lawsuit accused Tesla Motors of bailing out SolarCity by grossly overpaying for the troubled energy company because the two companies are intertwined financially and through family ties. Tesla CEO Elon Musk is also chairman of the board for SolarCity Inc., while his two cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive, run SolarCity.

The conflict of interest does not stop there, the City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund claims, as six of seven Tesla board members are either beholden to Musk or directly own SolarCity shares themselves, about $560 million worth.

The pension fund’s complaint has since been consolidated with other shareholder actions against Tesla, Musk and its board of directors.

Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, also serves on the Tesla board and is a director of SpaceX, another Musk company that holds approximately $165 million in SolarCity bonds. Those bonds “will be worthless if SolarCity collapses,” according to the shareholder complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that, with “SolarCity in jeopardy, Elon Musk devised a plan to use another of his companies, Tesla, to bail it out.”

While not required to do so, Tesla submitted the $2.6 billion acquisition to Tesla stockholders for approval, and a majority approved the deal.

Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights denied Tesla’s motion to dismiss the shareholder suits.

“In a close call, I conclude it is reasonably conceivable that Musk, as a controlling stockholder, controlled the Tesla Board in connection with the acquisition,” Slights said.

Musk holds 22 percent of the voting power in Tesla, but as a minority blockholder exercises control over the business affairs of Tesla, the judge found, especially given his public position as a visionary CEO and his strong connections with members of the board.

I would appreciate it if the TSLA bulls would make the case defending this acquisition. Thanks.

As expected it's the Saudis.

Seems like the letter today should cover his ass enough.

The lawsuits are silly anyway. He said considering not taking.

Seems like the only way Musk could get into trouble with that tweet is if the Saudis aren't serious about providing funding. And it sounds like they're pretty serious.

I disagree. He made false material statements - "The only thing in question is shareholder vote". That's an entirely false statement that adds on to his "secured". He contradicts that entirely in his letter, where the Saudis are claimed to be very interested but want far more details and have to work out a range of things including financing, legal, etc (foreign ownership laws, for example). There is nothing binding or even worked out. "Funding secured" and lack of further disclosure - combined with his second "The only thing in question is shareholder vote" are sufficient to make this stock fraud. You don't get to be that careless as a CEO - the standard is different.

Combined with the irregular/very incomplete nature of the disclosure, that's more than enough for civil lawsuits.

Enough for criminal charges? I don't know, the SEC would decide that. Ass seems half covered, I assumed he'd have something like this when he made the announcement - basically an expression of vague if strong interest.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. CEO of $1 penny stock:

"Considering taking CRAP private for $30. Funding secured"

Stock soars. Turns out one shareholder had asked a few times and expressed interest in going private, but and no details have been worked out and he needs funding and approval from other parties. You really think this penny stock CEO isn't charged, and has his ass covered by "considering"?

I just wanted to point out that this is easily the dumbest post I've read in a while

No way. He clearly violated sec rules. I'm pretty sure nothing formal was arranged . I'm pretty sure he was screwing with us shorts , I'm sure he wanted a push above the 360 price. And yes , I'm short and a good amount % wise of my trading position. I'm calling his bluff.

Screen photographs ITT.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcoll.../#64a3ae1932b8

Don't think anything formal would have to be arranged in order for SEC rules to have been followed here. If Musk had an agreement in principle with the Saudis and part of that agreement was to disclose the broad strokes of the plan to shareholders then it seems like everything is fine.

Good luck on your bets, props for having skin in the game unlike folks like myself and tooth sayer.

yeah. there was another article a few days ago on bloomberg about how they are already seeing a sales drop in europe due to the ipace, porsche taycan and other reservations starting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...la-s-elon-musk

Musk:

"Funding is secured"

" Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote."


Also Musk:

Musk himself makes an open and shut case that his earlier tweets are materially false statements. That "Only reason why it's not certain" makes it securities fraud. This is why people who aren't morons file 8Ks and do official releases rather than mind-vomit on Twitter.

SenorKeeed:
Former SEC Commissioner:
Place your bets.

SEC should make an example of him here, such a bad precedent if they do nothing.

Even if what he wrote is true? If the Saudis are committed to the deal and just have to do their due diligence and get a shareholder vote then what the heck is the problem? Now if Musk misrepresented the state of the company to the Saudis and that comes up in thier due diligence then he could be in trouble but if not, what's the problem?

I just read like 30 pages from the TMC forum... most of these guys are dumb as rocks. I think it's helping the shorts' conviction - when they see what morons are on the other side of the trade.

Seems like we would have ab 8-k or some documentation that doesnt include the word blog in it



Also, azaela banks ( idk who this is, apparently a female rapper) said she was with elon and grimes when he tweeted the fake bid while tripping on acid. Lol no idea if its true but its awesome!

https://twitter.com/sadhoeflo/status...213880320?s=19

- Funding secured, only shareholder vote pending

......

- Oh I almost forgot, I also have to tell the board; the guys that finance me have to do their due diligence and get internal approval; we also have to come up with a plan how to actually execute all this - something that has never been done before; and the board and the shareholders have to approve the plan that we come up with.

If you want to see the drone flyovers of all the model 3s stacking up in a dirt lot in lathrop CA, here u go

https://twitter.com/invtots/status/1...496493570?s=19

And i have nothing in writing

I am not sure i have found anything more entertaining ever. That might be sad but i dont care.

"Funding secured" is not an ideal use of language, but I'm sure he can argue that a deal with the complexity of taking Tesla private is clearly not as simple as finding the funding.

i guess he could've argued that if he didn't tweet this: