Tesla CEO Elon Musk mocks SEC as 'Short-Seller Enrichment Commission'

Adjust Comment Print

Tesla Inc's Elon Musk on Thursday mocked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, just hours after a federal judge ordered him and the regulator to justify their securities fraud settlement, which let Musk remain chief executive.

Elon Musk has posted a tweet about the "Shortseller Enrichment Commission" doing incredible work. "And the name change is so on point!"

On August 7 Musk sparked a share frenzy after claiming he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private at $420 a share.

However, the next day, Tesla's attorneys were back at the SEC requesting them for a second chance, this time with Musk's "grudging approval", the paper said.

Here he's suggesting that the agency-whose mission is to protect investors from CEO misconduct-is actually harming the value of Tesla's stock by enforcing securities laws against Musk and Tesla. But that doesn't mean Tesla's board can't order Musk to tone done his Twitter posting in the best interests of the company.

The comments come five days after Musk reached a settlement with the SEC that required him to pay a $20 million fine and step down as chairperson, but which let him stay on as chief executive of the envelope-pushing carmaker.

BlackRock declined to comment on Musk's tweet.

Tesla stock dropped 2 percent in after-hours trading after Thursday's tweet.

But Musk and Tesla might not even be out of the woods yet.

Some judges have complained about being viewed as rubber stamps for SEC settlements. However, at the last minute, Musk's lawyer reportedly called the SEC and told them that his client was no longer interested in settling.

West has tweeted several times about the need for "innovation" and new technology, and in 2011, he went to visit the SpaceX rocket factory with Musk.

Some Twitter users celebrated Musk's tweet, while others expressed disapproval.

Pritchard said before Musk's tweet that he saw no "serious chance" for a rejection of Musk's settlement, based on 2nd Circuit precedent.

Comments