The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced on Friday its intention to pursue sanctions against Elon Musk following his absence from a court-mandated testimony regarding his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. According to Reuters, the SEC filed a motion in San Francisco federal court, asserting that Musk’s last-minute notice, received only three hours before his scheduled appearance on September 10, constitutes a violation of a prior court order.
The SEC’s filing highlights that Musk, who also heads Tesla and SpaceX, was present in Florida to supervise the launch of SpaceX’s Polaris Dawn mission on the same day he was due to testify. Per Reuters, the agency argued that Musk was aware of the launch well in advance, as it had been discussed two days prior, and characterized his absence as “gamesmanship.” SEC attorney Robin Andrews emphasized the need for the court to address what she described as Musk’s “delay tactics.”
Related: Starlink Yields to Brazil’s Supreme Court, Blocks X as Legal Battle Intensifies
In response, Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, contended that the potential sanctions were excessive and unwarranted, claiming that Musk’s involvement in the launch was critical for the safety of the astronauts on board. Spiro noted that Musk’s testimony has been rescheduled for October 3 and stressed that the absence was due to an “emergency” that Musk did not instigate, asserting there was no indication that a similar situation would arise again.
An SEC spokesperson declined to comment further, although the filing warned that there was no assurance Musk would comply with the new date. The commission is currently investigating Musk for possible violations of securities laws dating back to early 2022, when he began purchasing Twitter stock. As reported by Reuters, Musk has faced backlash, including from Twitter shareholders, for delaying his disclosure of these stock purchases by at least ten days.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Croatian Supermarket Chain Tommy Cleared to Acquire Brodokomerc Nova
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
X and Unilever Settle Antitrust Dispute, Continuing Partnership
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Allows Antitrust Claims Against GoDaddy to Proceed
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Court Ruling Opens Door for Microsoft to Sell Xbox Games on Android Without Google’s Cut
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Realtors Appeal to Supreme Court Over DOJ’s Investigation into Antitrust Violations
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh