Tesla shareholders ask judge to silence Musk in fraud case

The interview and the lawsuit came just days after Musk, the world’s richest person, made a controversial offer to take over Twitter and turn it into a private company with an offer of $43 billion, equivalent to $54.20 per share. Twitter Board of Directors on Friday Adopted “toxic pill” The strategy that would make buying stocks too expensive for Mask.

In court documents filed Friday, attorneys for Tesla shareholders allege that Musk is trying to influence potential jurors in the lawsuit. They claim that Musk’s 2018 tweets about having the money to take Tesla private at $420 per share were written to maneuver the stock price, costing shareholders money.

Now, lawyers say, Musk is campaigning to influence potential jurors as the case approaches trial.

“Musk’s comments risk confusing potential jurors with the false narrative that he did not knowingly misrepresent his tweets on August 7, 2018,” the lawyers wrote. “His present statements on this case, a not-so-subtle attempt to exonerate himself in the court of public opinion, will only have a detrimental effect on the jury.”

Attorneys have asked Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco to prevent Musk from making further public comments on the case until after the trial. Chen gave Musk’s attorney until Wednesday to respond.

Alex Spiro, a lawyer representing Musk, wrote in an email Sunday that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking significant damages. He wrote: “Nothing will ever change the truth, which is that Elon Musk was considering and could take Tesla privately.” “All that remains after half a decade are random plaintiffs’ lawyers trying to make money and others trying to prevent this fact from emerging, all at the expense of freedom of expression.”

But shareholder attorneys wrote that Chen had already ruled that Musk’s tweets were false and misleading, and that “no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.”

Judge Chen’s order, issued on April 1, was not on the court’s public file until Sunday. Adam Upton, the shareholder’s attorney, said it was sealed because it contained evidence that Musk and Tesla said was confidential. It will remain sealed until both parties agree on whether anything should remain sealed, he wrote in an email. “Our proposal for a TRO (Temporary Restrictive Ordinance) accurately describes the issues the court has decided,” Upton wrote.

After Musk’s 2018 tweets, the SEC filed a complaint against him alleging a violation of the Securities Act. Musk then agreed to the fine and signed the court agreement. Part of the agreement states that Musk “will not take any action, take or permit the making of any public statement that, directly or indirectly, negates any allegation in the Complaint or creates the impression that the Complaint has no factual basis.”

The agreement states that if a holder breaches the agreement, the Securities and Exchange Commission may ask the court to strike it down and restore the securities fraud complaint. A message was left on Sunday requesting comment from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Spiro, on behalf of Musk, has already asked a federal court in Manhattan to cancel the agreement. Confirms that the Securities and Exchange Commission uses the agreement and “almost unlimited resources” To calm musk’s speech. Court documents filed by Spiro say Musk signed the agreement when Tesla was less mature, and the SEC’s action put its funding at risk.