After a year of preparation for response, key words in the SEC's cover letter:
"in anticipation of litigation" $TSLA
These documents reveal that as expected, Elon Musk's Twitter Sitter changed over time. It wasn't always Yun Huh. $TSLA
They also reveal John Hueston, Musk's former lawyer who disappeared mid-SEC case without formally withdrawing, writing in a manner consistent with someone who was fired (and also highlighting the conflict problem between Musk and $TSLA).
According to the SEC FOIA log, these requests about $TSLA never happened.
Long-since-departed General Counsel Jonathan Chang apologizes to the SEC because...they're being informed about the risk of a publicly traded company's CEO conducting himself in a manner that could lead to a civil action? $TSLA
This is just absurd. And the caption neglects to mention an entire lawsuit against Musk (not just Tesla, Inc.) the letter is connected to. $TSLA
"the Committee will continue to review past written communications"
What? $TSLA
Elon is too busy to speak with the SEC, which he would like to do *directly*, because he is *recovering from surgery* investors were never informed about. $TSLA
Before Yun Huh...
1. The SEC didn't even know who the Twitter Sitter was, and the Commission wrote the Consent Decree that created it! 2. The Twitter Sitter was apparently Jonathan Chang.
In which, as per usual, $TSLA (like all large companies) gets the opportunity to attempt to veto public records requests it doesn't like.
Huh, what could have possibly happened that would have made @samteller summarily resign from three positions as Elon Musk's right-hand man? Possibly a new SEC investigation, No. SF-4322, in which it appears that he was subpoenaed.
Care to comment, Sam?
It appears that just as the SEC closed out investigation number SF-4082, it opened a new one, SF-4322. It's unclear if that investigation is still pending, or how many others there are. $TSLA
Elon Musk's Twitter Sitter Game of $TSLA SEC Request Response Telephone
SEC -> Williams & Connolly LLP -> Hueston Hennigan LLP -> Jonathan Chang -> Yun Huh
Correction: These FOIA requests are listed in the FOIA logs, but for 2018 even though they have 2019 case numbers. They are from Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, which is handling the $TSLA "funding secured" litigation for the plaintiffs.
Let's talk about $TSLA's reported cash balances. First of all, they are very likely exaggerated relative to the average daily cash balances the company has on hand during the quarter. But even assuming they're real numbers, some thoughts.
Here's a not-so-helpful breakdown of $TSLA's cash from its last SEC Form 10-Q. It's not so helpful because it doesn't provide any geographic context for where this cash is actually held. It could be in the U.S., the Netherlands, Korea, China...anywhere.
$TSLA claims it had $18.9 billion cash-like-things on hand at the end of June 2022. That sounds pretty great. There are some issues, though. First, Elon admitted on the earnings call that Tesla had to "convert to fiat," i.e. sell, a whole lot of bitcoin for "liquidity." Huh. Why?
Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit on making even the most basic form, Form 1, which every appellant has to file, more confusing than its prior version starting with the very first field.
"The District of...the Northern...District..."
Left: 2018 version
Right: 2022 version
"The District of...California, Northern?" No one ever says that. Why does this need to be so difficult?
This probably seems like a dumb tweet to some people. But this kind of thing is *exactly* why people end up hiring lawyers at $950 per hour: because the courts *could* make things easy with web-based forms and automation, but they make them confusing and infuriating.
The mob has announced its intention to tell all yous why the used car industry don't matter for us no more, in a week or so. We're in the buyback business, you see. Stock buybacks. $CACC ir.creditacceptance.com/news-releases/…
Incredibly, the SEC completely disregarded everything in our $CACC report, even after several Attorneys General filed suit against the company based on it (and managed to pump up the stock even further by agreeing to weak settlements). Care to explain why, @GaryGensler?
After it became clear that the SEC wasn't going to do anything, "ratings agency" DBRS started deleting copies of its prior error-riddled assessments of $CACC's likely fraudulent Asset-Backed Securities. But that's no big deal, right @SEC_Enforcement?
In $TSLA's 10-Q, the phrase "converting our holdings of digital assets into fiat currency" is intended to avoid a lawsuit from the SEC for contradicting Elon Musk's material tweets promising that Tesla would not sell its bitcoin holdings. It did.
1. Elon lied. He said Tesla wouldn't do something and then Tesla did it while he was in charge.
2. Elon committed perjury. He claimed under oath that he would never lie to shareholders. See 1.
3. Elon again violated his amended consent decree with the SEC. $TSLA
In addition, "we purchased and/or received an immaterial amount and $1.50 billion, respectively, of digital assets" is a fancy way of stating "basically no one purchased their cars or anything else with bitcoin or dogecoin" in legalese. $TSLA
Omead Afshar has been running Tesla for years. Internal documents show that he was in fact the company's de facto CEO. The fact that he has been suddenly pushed out is...strange. $TSLA
Very few people get equal billing with Elon Musk, let alone in public. $TSLA
Omead was *very* well compensated for his time at $TSLA. So well compensated that he should have been disclosed to investors as a key executive. But his name never appeared as corporate management.
Like his predecessor Sam Teller, he knows basically all of Elon's secrets. $TSLA