SAN FRANCISO — A jury on Friday decided Elon Musk didn’t defraud investors along with his 2018 tweets about electric automaker Tesla in a proposed deal that quickly unraveled and raised questions on whether the billionaire had misled investors.
The nine-member jury reached its verdict after less that two hours of deliberation following a three-week trial. It represents a significant vindication for Musk, who spent about eight hours on the witness stand defending his motives for the August 2018 tweets at the middle of the trial.
Musk, 51, wasn’t readily available for the temporary reading of the decision but he made a surprise appearance earlier Friday for closing arguments that drew starkly different portraits of him.
Not long after the decision got here down, Musk took to Twitter — the bully pulpit he now owns — to rejoice.
“Thank goodness, the wisdom of the people has prevailed!” Musk tweeted.
Musk’s decision to interrupt away from his other responsibilities to take a seat in on the closing arguments despite the fact that he didn’t must be there could have had an impact on the jurors, said Michael Freedman, a former federal prosecutor who’s now in private practice working for a law firm that has represented celebrities and business executives.
“It shows he has a presence,” Freedman said.
Nicholas Porritt, an attorney who represented aggrieved Tesla investors, said he was disillusioned after urging the jurors in his closing arguments to rebuke Musk for reckless behavior that threatened to create “anarchy.”
Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, conceded the 2018 tweets were “technically inaccurate.” But he told the jurors, “Simply because it’s a foul tweet doesn’t make it a fraud.
“I don’t think that is the type of conduct we expect from a big public company,” a downcast Porritt said after discussing the decision with a couple of jurors who gathered to consult with him. “People can draw their very own conclusion on whether or not they think it’s OK or not.”
During their discussion with Porritt, the jurors told them they found Musk’s testimony that he believed he had lined up the cash from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund with out a written commitment to be credible. In addition they expressed doubt about whether Musk’s tweeting was the only reason for the swings in Tesla’s stock price during a 10-day period in August 2018 covered within the case.
The trial pitted Tesla investors represented in a class-action lawsuit against Musk, who’s CEO of each the electrical automaker and the Twitter service he bought for $44 billion a couple of months ago.
Shortly before boarding his private jet on Aug. 7, 2018, Musk tweeted that he had the financing to take Tesla private, despite the fact that it turned out he hadn’t gotten an iron-clad commitment for a deal that might have cost $20 billion to $70 billion to tug off. A number of hours later, Musk sent one other tweet indicating that the deal was imminent.
Earlier Friday, Musk sat stoically in court in the course of the trial’s closing arguments while he was each vilified as a wealthy and reckless narcissist and hailed as a visionary searching for the “little guy.”
Musk’s integrity was at stake on the trial as well a part of a fortune that has established him as one in every of the world’s richest people. He might have been saddled with a bill for billions of dollars in damages had the jury found him responsible for the 2018 tweets that had already been deemed falsehoods by the judge presiding over the trial.
That determination, made last 12 months by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, left the jury to determine whether Musk had been reckless along with his tweeting and acted in a way that hurt Tesla shareholders.
“It could have not been that difficult for the jury,” Freedman said, “since it kind of became like an up-or-down vote.”
Earlier Friday, Musk sat stoically in court in the course of the trial’s closing arguments while he was each vilified as a wealthy and reckless narcissist and hailed as a visionary searching for the “little guy.”
Over the course of a one-hour presentation, Porritt had implored the jurors to rebuke Musk for his “loose relationship with the reality.”
“Our society is predicated on rules,” Porritt said. “We’d like rules to avoid wasting us from anarchy. Rules should apply to Elon Musk like everyone else.”
Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, conceded the 2018 tweets were “technically inaccurate.” But he told the jurors, “Simply because it’s a foul tweet doesn’t make it a fraud.”
During roughly eight hours on the stand earlier within the trial, Musk insisted he believed he had lined up the funds from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take Tesla private after eight years as a publicly held company. He defended his initial August 2018 tweet as well-intentioned and aimed toward ensuring all Tesla investors knew the automaker may be on its method to ending its run as a publicly held company.
“I had no unwell motive,” Musk testified. “My intent was to do the best thing for all shareholders.”
Spiro echoed that theme in his closing argument.
“He was trying to incorporate the retail shareholder, the mom and pop, the little guy, and never seize more power for himself,” Spiro said.
Porritt, meanwhile, scoffed on the notion that Musk could have concluded he had a firm commitment after a 45-minute meeting at a Tesla factory on July 31, 2018, with Yasir al-Rumayyan, governor of Saudi Arabia’s wealth fund, given there was no written documentation.
In his 90 minute presentation, Spiro emphasized Musk’s track record helping to begin and run a listing of corporations that include digital payment pioneer PayPal and rocket ship maker SpaceX, along with Tesla. The automaker based in Austin, Texas, is now price nearly $600 billion, despite a steep decline in its stock price last 12 months amid concerns that Musk’s purchase of Twitter would distract him from Tesla.
Recalling Musk’s roots as a South African immigrant who got here to Silicon Valley to create revolutionary tech corporations, Spiro described his client “because the type of one who believes the not possible is feasible.”