The Saudi Electricity Company responds to allegations of harassment of Elon Musk

The US Securities and Exchange Commission responded to Elon Musk’s comments . In a letter it filed Friday with a federal judge in New York, the Securities and Exchange Commission said repeated check-ins with Tesla are in line with expectations of the court overseeing the company’s 2018 settlement.

At the time, Tesla had agreed that his attorneys would preemptively get rid of some of Musk’s tweets after one of his messages caught the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission. determinant It saw Musk say he had secured “secured financing” to own Tesla at $420 a share. After investigation, the SEC alleged the letter constitute a fraudwith Tesla and Musk at the end Approval to settle the case in the amount of 40 million dollars.

But less than a year after that, the SEC suspected Musk was not complying with his part of the agreement, according to . In 2019 and 2020, the agency’s lawyers wrote to Tesla to ask why its lawyers had not filtered out some of Musk’s tweets about the company’s production numbers and stock price. Tesla claimed that these statements were not covered by settlement policy.

Tesla accused the Securities and Exchange Commission this week of using its resources to conduct “endless, baseless investigations” of the company and its CEO. It also alleges that the regulator broke its promise to distribute the $40 million settlement to Tesla shareholders, a claim granted by the SEC. In the letter submitted on Friday, the agency said it was working on a plan to pay shareholders’ salaries and would have more details to share by March. As for the “endless” investigation, the agency said it “sought to meet and consult with attorneys for Tesla and Mr. Musk to address any concerns about Tesla and Mr. Musk’s compliance.”

It is not clear what will happen next after the Securities and Exchange Commission responded to Tesla’s allegations. the magazine Reports US District Judge Alison Nathan has asked the two sides to resolve their dispute rather than pressure the court to intervene in the matter.