Elon Musk’s attorneys argued before a federal appeals court that a clause in his 2018 consent agreement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be struck down because it mandated that a Tesla Inc lawyer review some of his Twitter statements.
The pre-approval requirement was referred to by Musk’s attorneys as a “government-imposed muzzle” in a brief that was sent late on Tuesday to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. This restriction prevented Musk from exercising his right to free expression on a variety of subjects.
In addition, they said that the rule went against American values of free speech and open debate and violated the US Constitution.
An outside of market hours inquiry for comment received no immediate response from the SEC. It’s anticipated that it will submit its own brief to the appeals court.
Musk is attempting to overturn a portion of US District Judge Lewis Liman’s ruling on April 27 that denied his request to completely invalidate the consent decree.
Since “his corporation has become, in his perspective, all but indestructible,” Liman claimed that Musk’s comments amounted to a “bemoaning” of requirements he no longer wished to follow.
According to Forbes magazine on Wednesday, Musk, 51, is worth $259.8 billion, which is nearly twice as much as anyone else.
A lawsuit against Musk for allegedly misleading investors by tweeting on August 7, 2018, that he had “funding secured” to take his electric car firm private, even though a buyout was not imminent, was concluded by the decree.
According to Musk, the tweet was accurate.
As part of the settlement, Musk consented to let a Tesla attorney to review tweets for any potential significant information about the business.
Mahnur is MS(development Studies)Student at NUST University, completed BS Hons in Eng Literature. Content Writer, Policy analyst, Climate Change specialist, Teacher, HR Recruiter.
