This imo is less than both Theranos and insider trading like the FSD has disclaimers right? Unless the argument is Tesla is only valuable because of FSD and not best in class EV experience
The pay package being declined by a Delaware court and now this couldnt have come at a worse time for Musk though. Billionaires got their problems too huh
That's not how fraud works. Fraud doesn't require that the false claim us the only source of value of the product, it only requires that the false claim is material to the decision to purchase the product at the price offered.
Not specifically that, but Musk has stated that he sees Tesla as a software company.
"Stewart was found guilty on charges including conspiracy and obstruction of justice" [1]. She sold shares on inside information. She went to jail for lying to investigators about it.
[1] https://people.com/martha-stewart-fraud-case-prison-sentence...
While lying is bad, this was a case of overzealous prosecution because it was a high-profile case and an inappropriate use of resources. Instead of prison, they should have just had her do some cheezy PSAs and enter in to a deferred prosecution agreement.
I find the members of congress consistently beating the market to be much more troubling.
"Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1].
It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside information.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading...
Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined.
Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.
This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.
Source? Not disputing the broker was facilitating others’ insider trades, but if they were, it takes the suspicion to a whole new level around why this broker is so comfortable with his clients with potential insider status making large bets just ahead of corporate events.
She also previously held securities licenses. That takes entire categories of innocent error out of the picture. I hold securities licenses. I’d be held to a higher standard because plausible deniability is removed.