I think Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading idk how similar that is. With OTA updates still could claim this could happen.
This imo is less than both Theranos and insider trading like the FSD has disclaimers right? Unless the argument is Tesla is only valuable because of FSD and not best in class EV experience
The pay package being declined by a Delaware court and now this couldnt have come at a worse time for Musk though. Billionaires got their problems too huh
> Unless the argument is Tesla is only valuable because of FSD
That's not how fraud works. Fraud doesn't require that the false claim us the only source of value of the product, it only requires that the false claim is material to the decision to purchase the product at the price offered.
It's going to be hard to prove fraud when literally everywhere you buy it it said it is not currently available and gave no timeline to when you would receive it.
"Stewart was found guilty on charges including conspiracy and obstruction of justice" [1]. She sold shares on inside information. She went to jail for lying to investigators about it.
There was no insider trading. She thought she was in trouble and made up a story for the investigators that it was a limit order, which she was convicted of.
While lying is bad, this was a case of overzealous prosecution because it was a high-profile case and an inappropriate use of resources. Instead of prison, they should have just had her do some cheezy PSAs and enter in to a deferred prosecution agreement.
I find the members of congress consistently beating the market to be much more troubling.
"Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1].
It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside information.
"Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading.
> "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary
Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined.
Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.
It was third-party hearsay. The stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials, only the movement some of his clients were making.
This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.
> stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials
Source? Not disputing the broker was facilitating others’ insider trades, but if they were, it takes the suspicion to a whole new level around why this broker is so comfortable with his clients with potential insider status making large bets just ahead of corporate events.
Agreed. I don't think she knowingly insider traded. After the fact, the authorities were going after her broker and she erased a voice mail message to protect the broker. They were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile.
> were upset that she deleted evidence and went after her because she was high profile
She also previously held securities licenses. That takes entire categories of innocent error out of the picture. I hold securities licenses. I’d be held to a higher standard because plausible deniability is removed.
This imo is less than both Theranos and insider trading like the FSD has disclaimers right? Unless the argument is Tesla is only valuable because of FSD and not best in class EV experience
The pay package being declined by a Delaware court and now this couldnt have come at a worse time for Musk though. Billionaires got their problems too huh