Elon Musk testifies he would have sold SpaceX stock to take Tesla private in 2018
Elon Musk speaks near a Falcon 9 rocket during his announcement that Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa will be the first private passenger who will fly around the Moon aboard the SpaceX BFR launch vehicle.
DAVID MCNEW | AFP | Getty Images
Elon Musk told a San Francisco federal court on Monday that he could have sold shares of SpaceX to take Tesla private in 2018. He was then, and still is, the CEO and largest shareholder of both companies.
Musk is being sued by Tesla shareholders for a series of tweets he wrote in August 2018 saying he had “funding secured” to take the automaker private for $420 per share, and that “investor support” for such a deal was “confirmed.” Trading in Tesla was halted after his tweets, and its share price remained volatile for weeks.
The shareholders in the certified class action lawsuit allege that Musk’s tweets were reckless and false, and relying on his statements to make investment decisions cost them significant amounts of money.
Musk would later claim that he had a verbal commitment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, and was sure that funding would come through at his proposed price based on a handshake. However, the deal never materialized.
During his second day on the witness stand, Musk claimed that another reason he said he had “funding secured” for a deal back in 2018 was that he could have sold shares of SpaceX, a U.S. defense contractor and satellite internet company that he also runs, in order to finance the transaction.
Musk said under oath, “SpaceX stock alone meant ‘funding secured’ by itself. It’s not that I want to sell SpaceX stock but I could have, and if you look at the Twitter transaction — that is what I did. I sold Tesla stock to complete the Twitter transaction. And I would have done the same here.”
Musk did not say how many shares in his reusable rocket maker he would have been able to sell, to whom, and at what price in order to finance the Tesla buyout.
In April 2018, SpaceX said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it had raised about $214 million as part of a financing round in which it was seeking more than $500 million in total equity funding.
An attorney for the shareholders, Nicholas L. Porritt of Levi & Korsinsky, asked Musk if the price he suggested for Tesla shares was a joke because 420 is a reference to cannabis in pop culture.
Musk insisted that this was coincidental. He said, “There is some, I think, karma around 420… I should question whether that is good or bad karma at this point.”
This is not the first legal action Musk has faced over his tweets. The SEC charged Musk and Tesla with civil securities fraud shortly after he sent them, and they paid separate $20 million fines to the federal agency to settle the charges. They later signed a revised consent decree that required Musk to relinquish his role as chairman of the board at Tesla temporarily, and to have a securities lawyer vet tweets that contain material business information about Tesla before he posts them.
Musk recently became the CEO of social media business Twitter after leading a $44 billion leveraged buyout of the company in October 2022. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz is the social media company’s second-largest shareholder after Musk. Last November, Sen. Chris Murphy, D.-Conn, sent a letter to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States requesting a review of the financing for the Musk-Twitter deal.
Tik Tok creators gather before a press conference to voice their opposition to the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” pending crackdown legislation on TikTok in the House of Representatives, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 12, 2024.
Craig Hudson | Reuters
The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments in the case involving the future of TikTok in the U.S., which could ban the popular app as soon as next week.
The justices will consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the law that targets TikTok’s ban and imposes harsh civil penalties for app “entities” that continue to carry the service after Jan.19, violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections.
It’s unclear when the court will hand down a decision, and if China’s ByteDance continues to refuse to divest TikTok to an American company, it faces a complete ban nationwide.
What will change about the user experience?
The roughly 115 million U.S. TikTok monthly active users could face a range of scenarios depending on when the Supreme Court hands down a decision.
If no word comes before the law takes effect on Jan. 19 and the ban goes through, it’s possible that users would still be able to post or engage with the app if they already have it downloaded. However, those users would likely be unable to update or redownload the app after that date, multiple legal experts said.
Thousands of short-form video creators who generate income from TikTok through ad revenue, paid partnerships, merchandise and more will likely need to transition their businesses to other platforms, like YouTube or Instagram.
“Shutting down TikTok, even for a single day, would be a big deal, not just for people who create content on TikTok, but everyone who shares or views content,” said George Wang, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who helped write the institute’s amicus briefs on the case.
“It sets a really dangerous precedent for how we regulate speech online,” Wang said.
Who supports and opposes the ban?
Dozens of high-profile amicus briefs from organizations, members of Congress and President-elect Donald Trump were filed supporting both the government and ByteDance.
The government, led by Attorney General Merrick Garland, alleges that until ByteDance divests TikTok, the app remains a “powerful tool for espionage” and a “potent weapon for covert influence operations.”
Trump’s brief did not voice support for either side, but it did ask the court to oppose banning the platform and allow him to find a political resolution that allows the service to continue while addressing national security concerns.
The short-form video app played a notable role in both Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ presidential campaigns in 2024, and it’s one of the most common news sources for younger voters.
In a September Truth Social post, Trump wrote in all caps Americans who want to save TikTok should vote for him. The post was quoted in his amicus brief.
What comes next?
It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling, but the case’s expedited hearing has some predicting that the court could issue a quick ruling.
The case will have “enormous implications” since TikTok’s user base in the U.S. is so large, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law.
“It’s unprecedented for the government to prohibit platforms for speech, especially one so many people use,” Chemerinsky said. “Ultimately, this is a tension between free speech issues on the one hand and claims of national security on the other.”
WATCH: It appears TikTok could really get shut down, says Jim Cramer
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway