11 comments

[ 0.96 ms ] story [ 36.3 ms ] thread
Is anybody surprised at this point?
One would think he could afford good legal and financial advice for things like this. The prior settlement with the SEC required that his tweets about Tesla get reviewed beforehand. Wonder if that is actually happening
That would imply some willingness to accept and act upon either.
Part of the problem is that ignoring legal advice hasn’t meant anything to him up until this point.

When you are wealthy enough, fines are just a price and there are plenty of statutory penalty limits that make a lot of rule breaking make financial sense.

Not sure I see a nexus between this and any other complaint about Musk TBH. This is a rule which any director can be held to. It doesn't relate to his 420/FCC problem, or his lawsuit(s) over the director renumeration, it's straightforward that if you have material information to value of shares, and trade in advance of a fall in value, you can get accused of this.

The wider risk to the entire board interests me. If anyone else sold, if they collectively signed off on this, then I think the board as a whole has a problem here.

> Unlike previous stock sales by Tesla insiders, however, these were not the result of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, which removes discretion over timing from an insider and hands them to a third-party broker.
I guess the penalties for breaking the law are not hard enough…
I think I've found out what his actual skills are; It's certainly not being a leader (see Twitter).

> Michael Perry accused both the CEO

> and almost the entire board of collectively violating their responsibility

He can really build a board of directors that does what he wants.

How much did he promise them to get them to take this sort of risk? It's amazing.

Denholm and Ehrenpreis are VC partners, who are probably on other boards. They have no excuse of not knowing. I suppose after getting away with the Solar City merger they thought the risk was not high.