The sec sued asking for punishment for violating the agreement. The judge basically said, ya, no, but why don't you guys write up a new one that everyone agrees on the meaning of. And that is what happened.

A settlement where you get literally nothing that you asked for is a loss not a win.

Edit: I just realized you linked to the wrong settlement. One sec, I'll find the right one for you.

It seems that the SEC didn't release any press releases over their loss (shocking, I know) - but here is an article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-... - you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement.

>you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement.

What are you even talking about? I made no such claim.

Elon Musk settled fraud charges with the SEC, and is being sued in civil court, as we speak, for the same infraction (shocking, i know).

Sorry, I thought I was replying to Someone1234, you are right you did not make such a claim.

Elon Musk settled charges with the SEC before this tweet happened.

Elon Musk "settled" contempt charges over this tweet with the SEC, in the sense that the SEC capitulated and agreed to no punishment whatsoever after some strong words from the court that barely fell short of a ruling against them...

I haven't been following any shareholder lawsuits closely, I'm willing to bet that there are none over this tweet though. This tweet did not move the market, and to the extent that it was incorrect or even plausibly inappropriate it was immediately corrected. I strongly suspect all shareholder lawsuits are over the previous "funding secured" tweet and tweets around that tweet in time (before any settlement with the SEC happened). That is not the same infraction as the tweet being discussed here.