US judge rejects SEC bid to sanction Elon Musk
Judge finds sanctions would not be meaningful
Musk missed court-ordered testimony for SpaceX launch
SEC probing Musk's $44 billion Twitter takeover
Adds details from decision, SEC and Musk arguments, background, case citation, byline
By Jonathan Stempel
Nov 22 (Reuters) - Afederal judge on Friday rejected the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's request to sanction Elon Musk after he failed to appear for court-ordered testimony forthe regulator's probe intohis $44 billion takeover of Twitter.
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco said sanctions over Musk's Sept. 10 absence were unnecessary, after the world's richest person testified on Oct. 3 and agreed to pay the SEC's $2,923 of travel costs.
"Because the present circumstances forestall any occasion for meaningful relief that the court could grant, the SEC's request is moot," Corley wrote.
The SEC had sought a declaration that Musk violated a May 31 court order to provide testimony.
It said having only to repay travel costs would not deter many other people from ignoring court orders, "much less someone of Musk's extraordinary means."
Musk said he complied with the order by testifying on Oct. 3. He is worth $321.7 billion according to Forbes magazine.
The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after business hours. Lawyers for Musk did not immediately respond to similar requests.
Musk, whose businesses include electric car maker Tesla TSLA.O and rocket company SpaceX and who is the world's richest person, went to Florida's Cape Canaveral on Sept. 10 to oversee the launch of SpaceX's Polaris Dawn mission.
The SEC is investigating whether Musk violated securities laws in early 2022 by waiting at least 10 days too long to disclose he had begun accumulating Twitter stock.
Critics and some investors have said this let him buy shares cheaply before he eventually disclosed a 9.2% Twitter stake, and shortly thereafter offered to buy the whole company.
In July, Musk said he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and that "all indications" suggested he made a "mistake."
The SEC also sued Musk in 2018 over his Twitter posts about taking Tesla private. He settled that lawsuit by paying a $20 million fine, agreeing to let Tesla lawyers review some posts in advance and stepping down as Tesla's chairman.
The case is SEC v Musk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-mc-80253.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Ismail Shakil; Editing by Chris Reese and Cynthia Osterman
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
