Posted on 04/13/2022 6:22:44 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
April 13 (UPI) -- A Twitter shareholder has filed a lawsuit against Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk over his failure to disclose his ownership stake in the social media platform, saying it cost shareholders blind to his investment money while the world's richest man was able to purchase artificially cheapened options.
Musk, who currently owns 9.2% of the social platform's stocks, started buying Twitter shares in January, accumulating a more than 5% stake in the company by March 24 and a 9.2%, or more than 73.4 million shares of Twitter, by April 4.
In the federal security class action lawsuit filed by Marc Bain Rasella on Tuesday and obtained by NPR argues Musk is liable for losses incurred by Twitter investors who sold their stocks between his acquisition of a 5% stake in the company and his disclosure of ownership.
In the lawsuit, Rasella on behalf of other unknown plaintiffs states Musk was required under a Security and Exchange Commission rule to file a Schedule 13 form to disclose his ownership of Twitter within 10 days of surpassing 5% stock ownership.
However, Musk only filed the required form on April 4 -- a revelation that caused the price of Twitter stock to sore 27% to $49.97 from $39.31 three days earlier.
In the court document, Rasella argues that Twitter investors who sold stock between March 24 and April 4 were cheated out of information due to false statements made by Musk that not only cost them money but allowed him to purchase more Twitter stock at a devalued price, saving him some $143 million.
"Defendant Musk is liable for the false statements," the documents states.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Makes no sense from a supply and demand standpoint. Dem activist.
Musk will not lose this, the proof of whetehr the disclosure was timely or not is very honorous burden. This is a fart in a mitt.
These liberals will try anything to keep Twitter a wasteland. He should tell them to go suck on a rock.
I just wanted to add that this second Form 13 is a requirement to make sure that raiders of the lost arc are not secretly taking over the company only to sell off its assets etc,the form is not made to allow others to gauge the purchaser character whether they should sell shares or not. That would be racis’!
“Rasella on behalf of other unknown plaintiffs”
Why unknown?
It is cut and dried. Read the 13G and revised 13D. He did not follow the law. He made a tweet AFTER the required disclosure and BEFORE he disclosed the stake that could enter into the argument by the plaintiff.
Now what the plaintiff can get from that remains to be seen.
But there is no mistaking that Musk did not follow the law
Looks to me this is much to do about nothing. 10 days after 3/24 would be the non-business sunday prior to 4/4. For all we know, perhaps it was filed on the 10th day, only processed on the 11th. It wasn’t musk doing the filing, but his attorneys, who I’d imagine were using every day legally possible, including playing with non-business days.
Also, I don’t think this is the lawsuit of a “a left wing Dem activist”, but rather another group of left-wing attorneys, trying to create havoc utilizing an amenable investor, probably an attorney him/herself.
getting ready for a class action lawsuit
You don’t understand the issue.
The 13G tells you the event date that triggers the disclosure. It is not March 24. Musk wasn’t one day late. He was many days late.
Odds are that trying to split hairs like this will only enrich the lawyers and not touch Musk.
Okay, gotcha. Thanks.
Interesting, will monitor this...
“It is cut and dried”
Not really, and you don’t know the full details of his transactions. Did he purchase them through third party companies? If so, this disclosure may not even be required yet.
If they bought or sold during that time...they had no knowledge of his purchase to rise to 9.2%...unless they had insiders info.
Elon please buy this demented company, and fix it.
Hubby mentioned, the day Musk’s ownership was announced, Now, the lawsuits will begin.
It’s how the libs operate….lawfare!
It IS cut and dried on the face of the facts.
Read the 13G and 13D before you opine.
He did not follow the law. Now it remains to be seen how plaintiffs were damaged.
I think they were but you never know what a jury will do.
Because they are well known Dem Party activists? So they need to keep in the dark for now. We'll eventually find out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.