Elon Musk's lawyers responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that Tesla's Chief Executive has not violated the terms of his September agreement with the agency, and that the agency's attempt to press Musk violates the First Amendment. SEC has asked the federal judge to keep Musk scornful to publish the projection of Tesla's car production in 201
9 without first clearing the tweed with Tesla's lawyers.
The main disagreement in this case is whether
Claiming that "Tesla did 0 cars in 2011, but would make about 500,000 in 2019," it was essential – a legal jargon for information meaningful enough to influence the price of Tesla. If this figure of 500,000 was material, then Tesla's policy required Musk to clear the tweet with his attorneys. Failure to do so would be a violation of the Musk agreement with the SEC, which arranged a previous trial for another twisted message containing alleged inaccurate information
But if Musk's 500k tweet is not a material, as Musk's lawyers say, then Musk is not did not do anything wrong, Musk's lawyers claim that Tesla's policy gives Musk the right to decide which tweets are essential, and that Musk has reasonably determined that this tweed on February 19th is intangible. They claim that Musk's "about 500,000" figure did not provide new information on the market, but rather repeats the information Tesla has revealed earlier. a production of over 500,000 units between Q4 of 2019 and Q2 by 2020. "Income later that month, Musk said the opening of a new factory in Shanghai would allow us to" get up to 10,000 cars a week, or a lot near the end of the year. "
These figures are not exactly the same as the SEC stated in its initial submission, and there is a difference between producing 500,000 vehicles in 2019 and reaching an annual production rate of 500 000 vehicles (in other words 10 000 vehicles per week) by the end of 2019. Additionally, earlier Tesla's announcements actually say that Tesla will achieve this "Q4" rate of 2019 and Q2 by 2020.
But Musk's lawyers say Musk has spoken freely, claiming Musk's statements are were sufficiently close to Tesla's earlier disclosure that Musk could reasonably believe he did not provide new information to the markets.
Musk's statement that Tesla would make "about 500,000" in 2019 was within the previously announced ranges, "the request said. He also notes that a tweet that happened after the markets were closed for the day did not seem to have influenced Tesla's cost. "Reasonable investors are expected to use caution when assessing such predictions that they contain. They argue that Tesla's policy requires Musk to obtain prior approval for every tweet that would be possible to be essential. Muskus camp argues that such a broad interpretation of the deal would contradict the First Amendment
. "As the SEC interprets and seeks to impose it, the order is
de facto a wide range of statements in which they participate Tesla, "says Musk. According to lawyers, this is "unconstitutional power absorption".
KCI already has a week to answer Musk's arguments. A week later both parties will have the opportunity to seek evidence. At some point thereafter, Judge Alison Nathan will decide whether Muscle should be held contemptuous.