|
|
|
|
|
|
by crazygringo
2239 days ago
|
|
|
His tweet is literally a "projection, forecast, or estimate" of "numbers regarding Tesla’s business" (the stock price) "that have not been previously published in official company guidance". It's also absolutely "any information about the company’s financial condition or guidance". I don't see any way this doesn't fall in the list of bullets. Saying the stock price is too high is nothing but a guidance as to the company's financial condition. |
|
|
That was my first glance interpretation, but I genuinely was curious if people with more legal knowledge would know if it was a correct one. Is the stock price actually part of "Tesla's business" in this context or a reflection of Tesla's business, with the actual numbers about that being the kinds of things that go into company guidance and reports. Additionally, "it should be lower" doesn't seem like it's at all literally a "projection, forecast, or estimate" but a statement of opinion. If said opinion isn't based on undisclosed fact is it a violation? Or is there precedent (seriously) that anything a CEO says inherently is going to be an issue because they can't possibly avoid knowing private info? Normally CEOs at big public corps are more careful by default so I'm kind of curious where it's come up before. That'd tie into the "guidance" aspect too it seems.
Anyway, to be clear this isn't meant to defend him per se it's just that I find law and how the specificity of language in it plays out interesting, so I was curious about other readings.