New Twitter owner Elon Musk still has limited restrictions on his tweets that most of us do not. They are the result of a 2018 agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over its reputable “secured financing” for Tesla’s private acquisition. Even considering Musk’s complaints that he was forced to accept the contract and contempt for the bastards of the SECEarlier in the day, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled in Misk’s favor, allowing the deal to remain as it was written (through). Reuters).
One of the things Musk wanted – but did not get – was for the court to stop the SEC’s order to find out if the tweet last autumn of a poll about the sale of 10 percent of his shares was scrutinized first, as expressly permitted under. Musk complained about an “unfinished investigation” that served an attempt to “cool his use of First Amendment rights.”
Judge Liman ruled that the court was barred from reviewing whether the summons was issued correctly, but also wrote that, if the court ruled, what was presented was indicated that “the SEC clearly has the right to investigate the matter.”
Musk’s plea to overturn the admission decision, claiming that he was violating “the first amendment of his right to be free from previous restrictions,” the judge did not buy his arguments, made in Eminem lyrics or if kale. In addition to stating that “even Musk admits that his right to free speech does not allow him to engage in speech or” be considered a fraud or otherwise in violation of security laws, “the judge wrote as follows:
Musk, entering into a consent decision in 2018, agrees to the provision requiring the prior approval of any written statement containing, or possibly including, information from Tesla or its shareholders. I can no longer complain that this article violates his First Amendment rights.
Musk’s other argument took place in a similar way. In his claim about the “large number of claims” placed against him and his company as a result of the agreement, the judge ruled that the SEC’s three components of the inquiry were “surprising.” It is similar to his argument that he made the deal out of “economic force”. Judge Liman wrote that seeing Musk’s lawyers on display made deals impossible to reach since administrators simply claimed they felt “forced,” forcing the government to undergo expensive tests. eliminating the option of defendants.
Musk was not forced to enter the permit round; instead, “because [his] Own strategic objectives, [Musk]with the advice and assistance of a consultant, voluntarily entered into benefit agreements, to secure their contracts, including the termination. “Security and Exchange Commission v. Conradt, 309 FRD 186, 187–88 ( (SDNY 2015). Musk can no longer seek to withdraw from the contract he entered into by deliberately lamenting that he felt compelled to accept it at that time but now – once the audience of the case is a distant memory and his company has become , him. size, all but unbeatable – the desire not to.