Not to get pedantic, but if you read their definition of market manipulation, there's another point that's unrelated to the deception/fraud clause (though those are loaded terms legally, and one again likely could argue they are)
"Intentional interference with the free forces of supply and
demand"
He put money down (a lot of money down!), but that doesn't give him the right to manipulate the stock price purely based on the fact he has a stake on it or not; in fact it gives him a duty not to do so, because he now has a motive/vested interest in profiting off of it. There's rules to follow and forms to file to protect against that, and he's already has one lawsuit against him in that vein: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/business/twitter-lawsuit-...
It sounds to me that you're interpreting that in such a broad way that you could argue that any stock purchases he makes would be in violation of this.
If the market decides the stock should go up or down after someone invests/divests (or files the applicable, standard form), that's one thing.
If he's prematurely saying what direction he's going to go one way or another, that's another thing. You don't see Vanguard tweeting "we're going to invest in this company if X happens and divest if not" to the general public, especially if they're trying to influence X to happen.
This essentially why he got in trouble with Tesla for tweeting he wanted to take it private at $420/share, immediately making the stock price jump up, even though he did not have "funding secured" and did not take it private. And he almost lost the ability to be a CEO or on a board of a public company for 10 years because of that!
> If he's prematurely saying what direction he's going to go one way or another, that's another thing. You don't see Vanguard tweeting "we're going to invest in this company if X happens and divest if not" to the general public, especially if they're trying to influence X to happen.
Because Vanguard is a passive fund. Activist funds do this all the time.
Him putting money down literally is a free market demand for that security, and his ability to freely publicly offer lots of money literally is the "free forces of supply and demand" that's not supposed to be interfered with.
This clause is explicitly not intended to do what you imply, it does not restrict this particular action by Musk at all.
"Intentional interference with the free forces of supply and demand"
He put money down (a lot of money down!), but that doesn't give him the right to manipulate the stock price purely based on the fact he has a stake on it or not; in fact it gives him a duty not to do so, because he now has a motive/vested interest in profiting off of it. There's rules to follow and forms to file to protect against that, and he's already has one lawsuit against him in that vein: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/business/twitter-lawsuit-...