According to the verge report, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is carefully reviewing the information that Elon Musk initially disclosed that he held a large number of twitter shares** In a letter sent last month, the SEC told musk that he "seems not to have" disclosed his acquisition of twitter shares within the 10 day window set by the agency. The agency also said that musk may have used the wrong form in the final disclosure of his shares, and the documents he used are not suitable for people who want to reform the acquired company.
It is reported that the SEC is investigating Musk's disclosure, but this is the first time that it has publicly stated the contents of the investigation. this letter It was submitted on April 4, but it is only now open to the public. Musk is required to clarify why he chose to use the form prepared for passive investors, and whether the agency believes that his declaration time is too late is wrong.
In the nearly two months since this letter was sent, many things have happened. Musk won and accepted a seat on Twitter's board of directors; Later, musk decided not to join the twitter board; Then musk put forward a proposal to buy all the shares of twitter, and then reached an agreement. All these activities will further affect the SEC's interpretation of this initial document, and the Committee seems to have been skeptical of this document. The verge believes that if there is any uncertainty about Musk's radicalism intention as of April 4 - the committee's request to clarify some tweets about whether twitter adheres to "freedom of speech", which now seems quite strange - this uncertainty should have disappeared by now.
This is just the latest confrontation between musk and the sec. Musk did not pay much attention to this institution. Musk recently tried to avoid the settlement reached between him and the agency on the "funding secured" tweet in 2018. In his tweet, he inaccurately claimed that he had locked in the funds for the privatization of Tesla. After that, musk claimed that according to the settlement agreement, the SEC's supervision of his twitter activities was an attempt to "stifle his right to exercise the first amendment".
