United States: Supreme Court Narrows Securities Fraud Exposure - Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Elon Musk , Loses Appeal of , 'Twitter Sitter' Provision . On April 29, the Supreme Court denied billionaire Elon Musk's challenge to the terms of a Securities and Exchange Commission agreement. . On April 29, the Supreme Court denied billionaire Elon Musk's challenge to the terms of a Securities and Exchange Commission agreement. . NBC reports that the SEC requirement would require a lawyer to review the Tesla CEO's social media posts. . In his appeal, Musk argued that the SEC's requirement, which has been dubbed the 'Twitter sitter' provision, unlawfully imposed conditions on his freedom to comment. . In his appeal, Musk argued that the SEC's requirement, which has been dubbed the 'Twitter sitter' provision, unlawfully imposed conditions on his freedom to comment. . The SEC requirement stems from Musk's tweets in 2018 that claimed he was taking Tesla private, which shocked the market and caused shares in the company to surge. The SEC requirement stems from Musk's tweets in 2018 that claimed he was taking Tesla private, which shocked the market and caused shares in the company to surge. The SEC deemed the tweets "materially false and misleading," and in clear violation of securities laws. At the time, Musk agreed to settle the issue with the SEC, which included his signing off on the so-called "Twitter sitter" provision. NBC reports that Musk has since said the restrictions are unconstitutional and that he was coerced into signing the SEC agreement. According to court papers, lawyers representing Musk have accused the SEC of waging an "ongoing campaign" against Musk. Musk's legal team claim the provision , "restricts Mr. Musk’s speech even when truthful and accurate.". It extends to speech not covered by the securities laws and with no relation to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action, Elon Musk legal team, via NBC. In response, the SEC said in court papers that Musk waived his right to appeal when he signed off on the settlement.

In a narrow but potentially significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that securities-fraud plaintiffs cannot recover based on a "pure omission" from a...

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not need to work directly in the transportation industry to be within the scope...

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 12 provided important guidance on a recurring question in securities litigation, ruling 9-0 that an issuer's failure...