On February 12, a federal judge in California decided in favor of the SEC, compelling Elon Musk to respond to more inquiries about his purchase of Twitter (now X). Rejecting Musk’s allegations of harassment and pointless questions, the court found the SEC’s probe to be genuine and the required testimony important, Bloomberg reported.
Read More: Elon Musk
The decision, which was announced over the weekend by US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, formalizes an earlier preliminary decision from December that supported the SEC’s stance.
In July 2022, Musk appeared twice for half-day sessions before the SEC. However, the agency wants to speak with Musk over fresh material after receiving “thousands of new documents” from different parties, some of which were written by him.
According to the complaint dated February 10, the report also stated that his attorney had agreed with the SEC to testify last September but then asked to reschedule the appointment by one day and eventually declined to show up.
Despite Musk’s two testimony sessions in 2022, the SEC requested clarity on his claims and actions on his purchases of Twitter stock after receiving fresh documents. Musk then withdrew his earlier consent to a second interview.
The SEC is looking into whether Musk disclosed all relevant information and gave truthful representations to the public regarding his plans and purchases of Twitter stock.
Musk insisted that the probe was unfounded and only looked for unrelated data. In addition, he contested the legality of the subpoena, claiming it was issued by an unapproved authority.
Musk and the SEC fell out after the agency sued him in 2018 for tweeting that “funding secured” regarding a potential plan to take Tesla private. Musk agreed to have a Tesla attorney review his tweets criticizing the electric vehicle manufacturer in order to resolve the issue. He was sued by the SEC once more in 2019 for allegedly breaking that clause.
Musk claims that the arrangement infringes on his constitutional right to free expression and has requested the US Supreme Court to examine it.
