SEC Reportedly Serves Tesla Subpoena After Musk’s “Funding Secured” Tweet

AUG 15 2018 BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 110

This latest development suggests that the SEC has sent Tesla subpoenas.

The recent story surrounding Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s tweet in which he announced that he was considering taking Tesla private with “funding secured” has been developing more each day. There have been many rumors and reports that an SEC investigation was underway. However, little information was validated. In the meantime, Tesla and Musk have released a few announcements regarding the matter.

Now, a tweet from Charles Gasparino at FOX Business Network claims the scoop that the SEC has ramped up its investigation and has already sent subpoenas to the company due to the talk of privatization and funding. Gasparino reminds that subpoenas are an indication that the investigation may be entering a more formal stage. The New York Times reported that this information originally came from a “person familiar with the matter.”

The SEC mandates that public statements by company executives cannot be false. Musk’s “funding secured” statement must be able to be backed up with actual funding that was in place at the time he made the public announcement. According to The New York Times:

It has become clear since then that neither Mr. Musk nor Tesla had actually lined up the necessary financing aside from having preliminary conversations with some investors.

The Twitter post by Mr. Musk, who has considered taking Tesla private in the past, was something of a flip remark, said several people familiar with the matter but not authorized to speak publicly about the episode.

Initially, Musk said that he had prior verbal approval of a deal with the Saudi Arabia sovereign wealth fund. However, the wealth fund has declined to comment. The automaker has since formed a special committee to evaluate going private.

We’ll keep you updated as this story continues to develop.

Source: CNBC

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

110 Comments on "SEC Reportedly Serves Tesla Subpoena After Musk’s “Funding Secured” Tweet"

newest oldest most voted
William

Musk he respond?

Can he just pull a Roseanne, and say it was the meds and stuff talkin’?

“Funding Secured” was in reference to his Legal Advisors, not for going private, which he forgot to add.

MDEV

Shorts are back, you are Brooke, the clock is ticking…..tic…..tac….tic…tac

William

Your tock is “Brooke”,

And, your short thesis clock, is going to get totally rung, up in lofty belfry, at St. Elons EV CARthedral.

BTW, a “tick tac” is a tiny breath mint, FYI.

Will

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Mark.ca

Subpoena secured!

Will

😭😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

bro1999

Who knew tweeting lies in order to boost your company’s stock price was illegal?? Tough country.

William

A “More Formal” and good Old Fashioned SECpanking, may be on order!

Next time, if he isn’t careful, he Musk check into the Grey Bar Hotel, with “BURNie Made 0FF”!

Get Real

Too bad that constant carpet-bombing FUD by GM employee and shill Mental MadBro against rival Tesla is tolerated here.
In any case Tesla and Musk will be cleared and go private and trolls will either go away or if they are really threatened by the EV revolution like Mental MadBro will keep peeing in the wind.

Prsnep

You can bet your bum that employees of many car companies post on these forums. Basically, if writing something anonymously is good for your business, you’d certainly be tempted, no? Anonymity protects you from facing consequences. The system in fact encourages it. It’s survival of the fittest. The ones who do it well survive. Articles are sometimes propaganda. Comments from your average Joe Blow is very often not actually from Joe.

Dan F.

The stock is certainly not acting like the stock of a company that has any real likelihood of going private at $420/share. This was a foolish thing for Musk to Tweet in every way. Just focus on the products; they ARE good products. Ignore the short sellers; they certainly don’t seem to be driving away the customers. If the company does well enough to justify a higher stock price the short sellers loose, end of story.

Will

Been saying that for while. Why Jobs was never on Twitter but was known as tyrant and jackass , it’s because it was bad for business and Apple personality’s cult

Kbm3

Other than the fact that it hasn’t boosted the stock price and that it was not a lie, I agree with you 100%.

Pushmi-Pullyu

LOL! 😆

Well said.

Altho actually it did boost the stock price, but only briefly, and certainly not to $420.

REXisKing

So, as Tesla and Musk have hired consultants to make this happen, the stock price is a bargain by the Short Doubters. Nearly a guaranteed profit.

bro1999

Elon failed miserably. That’s why you don’t tweet on acid folks!

Windbourne

you seem to.

ROFLOL

That’s not what you want to be saying if your nickname is “madbro”, ROFLOL!

Will

No, it because people knew it was a lie

REXisKing

Talked to the Saudi’s so: Not a Lie.
Secondly, Not illegal to make material statements on Twitter.

Ask Cramer.
If you’re hoping for some SEC action against Tesla, you’re going to go bankrupt waiting.

Will

Not illegal to make material statements on Twitter – correct;
Tweeting “talked to the Saudi’s” – Would not have been a lie;
Actually tweeting “funding secured” when in fact there was no funding commitment- there’s your material misrepresentation, dude’s in the soup. He’s going to get a fine at least, hopefully it’s not too big, hopefully it’s just a fine.

Shaun

From a CNBC story:

“There are no legal repercussions for saying “funding secured,” said Frank Aquila, an M&A partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.

“It’s sort of the same difference between collusion and conspiracy,” Aquila said. “Collusion isn’t a crime. It means nothing in the legal sense. Conspiracy is a crime. If you say ‘I secured this,’ it could mean you had a conversation. Committed means something else. If you have committed financing, you have documentation and conditions. Secured just means lined up. It doesn’t mean that much.””

Windbourne

have to wonder then, why is the SEC getting involved?

Roy_H

There is no proof offered that the SEC has done anything other than look at the legal ramifications of the tweet. Issued subpoenas is a rumor.

Nix

Actually, NONE of the stories about the SEC regarding this issue, including the tweet, are based on any official statements from the SEC. Or any named official from the SEC.

Every single bit of this story has been based on anonymous sources. There has never been any story anywhere that claim otherwise. Instead they all go back to either a Fox New story or a Wall Street Journal story.

I won’t mention who owns both, but the history of anonymous sources being correct about Tesla is rather low.

R.S

@Nix yea who owns Fox News? And is that person in anyway related to a Tesla board member?

That doesn’t mean I think this leads to criminal investigation a subpoena is just a subpoena.

But stop that conspiracy BS. Especially when a Murdoch sits on the Tesla board!

Will

SEC is not going to tell you they investigating 😒 for you can shred those accounting papers

Nix

Windbourne — Please provide a source where any named SEC official or official press release from the SEC says that the SEC has gotten involve.

That’s the crazy thing. All this has been based on anonymous sources.

antrik

Isn’t the SEC *obligated* to launch an investigation if someone makes a complaint? That doesn’t necessarily mean they expect to actually find wrongdoing, does it?…

Nix

No. They have to do an inquiry ONLY if the accusation would rise to something that would violate the law if the accusation were true. If somebody makes a report of something that wouldn’t be illegal even if the report were true, they do NOT need to open up further inquiries.

And the inquiry does not turn into an investigation (different from an inquiry) unless the inquiry comes up with something worthy of an actual investigation. If the inquiry resolves the issue, there never is an investigation.

They NEVER announce any of these results if no wrongdoing is found. They just silently close the issue. So any anonymous leaks of investigations or inquiries simply go unanswered.

Steve

There is no proof that the SEC is getting involved. They are “reportedly” getting involved. NYT and FOX NEWS reported it… and they didn’t provide proof.

But that is good enough for everyone else to report that the SEC is “reportedly” getting involved.

Will

No but if nyt and Fox News are reporting it then there’s an issue

Seven Electrics

A subsequent Elon tweet claimed that investor support was “confirmed” and that only a shareholder vote remained. Sounds committed to me.

Nix

There WAS a verbal funding commitment. Did you even read Musk’s response?

Another Euro point of view

:-), I like you Nix.

Doggydogworld

Musk’s carefully crafted, lawyer-assisted update very specifically did NOT say there was a verbal funding commitment. It said the Saudi official:

“…strongly expressed his support for funding a going private transaction for Tesla at this time. I understood from him that no other decision makers were needed and that they were eager to proceed”.

“I understood” is the key phrase here. Musk’s lawyers are preparing for a legal defense that he had “reasonable belief” per Rule 240.14e-8(c). The other key phrase is “expressed his support”, which means the official was speaking as an individual and not relaying an official position of the Private Investment Fund. That’s why the letter goes on to say Musk “understood from him” that no other decision makers were needed. This is a “reasonable misunderstanding” defense, not a “my funding secured statement was true” defense.

If funding had actually been secured on 8/7, as yo claim, this update would have said so in very clear terms. The entire section “Why did I say Funding Secured” would be a single sentence, not 4 paragraphs.

Will

So he’s prepping for what if he has secured Funding

nix

ALL statements from ALL companies are based on their best understanding at the time. Which is why Rule 240 explains that standard. The addition of the legalese does NOT mean that there was NOT a verbal understanding. It simply puts the legalese in place to describe HOW the verbal understanding was reached.

You nutters went ape-feces crazy when it was put in plain language and demanded the full legalese. You demanded SEC investigate the plain language tweet for not being an official 8K doc in legalese. So why do you now demand the second statement be another plain language explanation like the first, when you nutters demanded a standard business style release?

There is no making you happy. You reject the plain language and demand industry standard language instead of a tweet. Then when given they industry standard legalese you demanded, you swap goal posts to the other end of the field and say Musk should use “a single sentence” instead of legalese. A rational person would recognize that absurdity of that demand and simply post “my bad, I see where I went wrong there”.

Windbourne

who said that he lied? Off-hand, it appears that he did not.

Dav8or
I wouldn’t say that Elon knowingly lied. It’s just that he likes to imagine what he thinks is possible and then tell everyone that it will happen. I think this is his own personal motivation plan. Publicly promise people a thing and then go out and try to make it happen no matter how outrageous it may seem. It pushes him to push others to meet his own crazy dream. The only problem with this personal strategy is, there may one day be too many working parts, or problems to solve to get it done by a critical deadline. I think that’s what we are seeing now. This is why Tesla is always late on everything. Elon imagines, blurts out to the world and then makes everyone that works for him scramble to make it so. This is why He wants to go private at this point. It will allow him to continue working in this fashion by just having to satisfy key individuals to keep giving him money vs. a rigid, structured establishment. Hopefully he can go private and keep going, but at this point it’s starting to look a lot like the genius artist is slipping and losing… Read more »
Will

Yeah that’s what he do and it’s great

James

Who knew GM isn’t changing the world making 25,000 Bolts per year?

Will

They not. It’s about looking green not about disruption the Status quo

Nix

Wow, it is like a gossipy clatch of school girls, or a knitting circle!! So-called “sources” have been so badly wrong over and over so many times with Tesla that it isn’t even funny.

Call me when there is actual official confirmation from the SEC.

TM3x2 Chris

The New York Times is reporting this as well.
SEC might not even bother to issue an official statement.

Doggydogworld

SEC does not comment on investigations until they are prosecuted or settled. Companies are usually required to disclose them.

Nix

Companies are only required to disclose charges that are filed or are settled.

Will

NiX you said investigations not charges. Yes no charges have been brought l. They still can investigate you without telling you.

nix

The story said investigations, not charges. I’m pointing out how Doggie is falsely conflating the two in his comment. He makes it sound like companies have to report investigations, which is the topic of this story. There is no such obligation.

I’m sorry if Doggie wrongly bringing up an obligation companies have for something that has nothing to do with this story caused confusion.

antrik

… says the guy spending all day posting FUD about same company on same site.

TM3x2 Chris

The NYT is citing “a person familiar with the investigation”: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/business/tesla-musk-sec-subpoena-goldman.html

Can’t wait for all the anti-Tesla trolls to salivate over this.

William

It’s going to be a field day, for those salivating, and frothing at the mouth Trolls, just waiting for their FUDster turn, to help twist and turn the SEC knife.

TM3x2 Chris

Sadly, you didn’t use Musk in a sentence this time.

fotomoto

Can’t we all get Elon?

William

Apologies for my Non SECquitur!

TM3x2 Chris

I suppose I asked for this, it’s just a little too punny.

Nix

This is a complete repeat of when “sources familiar” where absolutely certain that unless Musk filed an 8-K report to investors every single time that a Tesla crashed, that he was going to jail. “The [SEC] is investigating whether Tesla Motors Inc. breached securities laws by failing to disclose to investors a fatal crash in May involving an electric car that was driving itself, a PERSON FAMILIAR WITH THE MATTER said”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-investigating-tesla-for-possible-securities-law-breach-1468268385

That silently went nowhere too, and ‘sources familiar’ never came back and said “my bad, I was wrong”. The newspapers who breathlessly reported the “sources familiar” claiming the SEC was coming for Musk didn’t run breathless headline stories saying their ‘sources familiar’ were wrong.

This is yet again why Tesla has no choice but to go private and get away from the rumor mill. If I had a dime for every time ‘sources familiar’ turned out to be wrong about Tesla, I would have some questions for this dime fairy about inflation, and how this old cliche should be worth at least $20 a pop by now….

Nix

Roll the clock back two years to 2016, and this is all just a repeat of banished ignoramus sveeny-poot, who got the exact same call horribly wrong when he was absolutely certain about the SEC coming for Musk before:

https://insideevs.com/tesla-reported-fatal-crash-to-nhtsa-just-9-days-after-incident-but-raises-investor-questions/

(for the record, the SEC never took any action against Tesla)

The only difference is that now the willful ignorance and the number of posters willing to blindly parrot ANY accusation at all leveled against Tesla, has hit a multiplying factor of 50. And insideev’s no longer has just one resident anti-Tesla troll, but a whole herd of resident trolls and an infestation of pop-in shorters.

TM3x2 Chris

I wish I could share your skepticism. Seems that Elon went a little too far this time, I just hope this will have only a minimal impact on Tesla.

Nix

Nah. There would have to be criminal intent. There is no crime without criminal intent.

Ricardo

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Are you serious? I drink, drive, kill, but hey, there was no criminal intent on my behalf. It was that idiot buddy of mine who kept bringing me beer. I never intended to cause any harm. So, can I go?

Nix

Actually that is a very good example. Getting drunk then deciding to drive in wanton disregard for the safety of others is considered criminal intent under the law. You made a reckless choice to get behind the wheel, and your DECISION to break the law and drive drunk, and it kills someone is exactly the kind of criminal intent that gets you a felony conviction.

On the other hand, if you were not drunk, and did not decide to drive drunk, there are times where people kill others without breaking the law, and no charges are filed. When there are no violations of the law, and someone dies due to being struck by a car through no fault of the driver, there are NO CHARGES.

Simply killing somebody with a car while NOT violating any law is NOT illegal. Even though the death is the worst possible result. It requires a CRIME be committed before killing someone with a car results in charges being filed. Sorry you don’t understand the law.

bro1999

You actually believe this news of an SEC subpoena is fake news? Lol, you are even more clueless than I thought.

Nix

There is no news from the SEC of any subpoena. This comes from anonymous sources. Did you even bother reading the story?

bro1999

When it is officially acknowledged, you can post you were wrong on here.
Funny Tesla hasn’t denied it, isn’t it?

Nix

Oh, I will absolutely post I’m wrong if the SEC or any SEC official EVER announces that they are in the middle of an active investigation into any of this. I have no problem ever posting “my bad” posts with my apologies when I get things wrong. Meanwhile all you nutters have claimed over and over that the SEC was doing this or that and they were going to get Tesla/Musk. Yet nobody has fessed up they were wrong.

Will you ever pay up on your bets you lose when you get your bets badly wrong, besides requiring people to dox their personal addresses in the comments?

Remind me again, what were the first 12 months US sales totals for the Bolt and Model 3? Why do you never answer what the results were of your failed bet?

bro1999
Get Real

Lmfao, mental MadBro is having another wet dream based on an unreliable hero of his in the sociopath Martin Tripp, Tesla saboteur who gave stolen Tesla info to sleazy Business Insider at least.

Meanwhile none of the 40,000 Model 3s produced thus far in a year have had battery problems whichis more then you can say about the lesser number of Bolts produced in their 2 years of existence.

William

Bro1999 is obviously grasping at 1998 straws, in the pouring rain.

The last straw, straw #1999, is hopefully being saved for the future Tesla $420 PE deal, as that will be bro1999s last straw.

Cypress

What exactly, besides Tesla’s reputation and stock price, did Tripp try to sabotage?

Roy_H

Isn’t that enough?

Nix

Funny how the story pretends to be about photos of punctured cells. Then in the comments Tripp says no, the photos are NOT of any punctured cells. You’ve just been suckered into regurgitating bullpuckey. How does that hand feel that is running you like a hand puppet? Sadly you will be too intellectually dishonest to admit the story you linked is incorrect, and doesn’t have the photos it claims to have. Took 3 seconds to debunk. You will blame me for your failure.

Prof John Frink
‏ @Prof_John_Frink
3h3 hours ago

Ah, thanks. So this isn’t one of the punctured cells, but it’s an illustration of the generally sloppy work at Tesla?
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes

Martin Tripp
‏ @trippedover
3h3 hours ago

You are correct.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes

bro1999

I feel for the poor suckers that have one of those VINs. I smell more lawsuits.

antrik

You mean the poor suckers with reworked module housings that don’t affect functionality in any way; or the poor suckers who supposedly have punctured cells, which Tripp totally failed to show actual evidence for? (And which, if true, would be quite noticeable in terms of missing capacity I’m pretty sure…)

ROFLOL

Na, that would be your shirt. Stop wasting your life behind a keyboard and actually get a life, ROFLOL!

Nix

Thanks for reminding us YET AGAIN of another SEC frenzy that was all noise, when all you folks said Martin Tripp’s lawyer going to the SEC was going to be the end to Tesla.

And nothing came of it. Like everything else, after you nutters made a whole lot of noise, all the talk of the SEC and Martin Tripp has led to nothing. Nada. Zip.

Fool me once… Wait, not you nutters never fooled me into thinking ANY of your repeated claims about the SEC were valid. Same with the BS you guys claimed about the SEC was looking into Tesla faking production numbers. Another nothing-burger.

Why are you folks so gullible that you get fooled again and again and again into blindly parroting whatever is handed you?

antrik

Eh, the Tripp-initiated SEC investigation only started a few weeks ago, and is likely not done yet. We won’t know that nothing came of it until several months have passed at least I’d say…

Nix

Please provide any source that quotes any named official or any official announcement that the SEC opened any investigation based on Tripp submitting his complaints?

Let me guess. You only have the claims made by his lawyer to go by……

antrik

Are you suggesting his lawyer was straight-out lying?

Either way, I don’t have anything to prove here. I just pointed out that the lack of feedback so far doesn’t prove there was no investigation, or that it won’t find anything… Not saying it will (in fact I doubt it) — just saying that we don’t know.

Shaun

Just like the last SEC investigation in 2016, this one will go nowhere. From a CNBC story:

“There are no legal repercussions for saying “funding secured,” said Frank Aquila, an M&A partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.

“It’s sort of the same difference between collusion and conspiracy,” Aquila said. “Collusion isn’t a crime. It means nothing in the legal sense. Conspiracy is a crime. If you say ‘I secured this,’ it could mean you had a conversation. Committed means something else. If you have committed financing, you have documentation and conditions. Secured just means lined up. It doesn’t mean that much.””

Windbourne

and a I pointed out, if this is true, then why would SEC subpoena musk?
Personally, I wonder about the subpoena bit.
There is far far too many lies coming from the likes of Faux News, so I have to wonder if this is just more there garbage.

Doggydogworld

Former SEC officials — chairman Harvey Pitt, commissioner Laura Unger and several enforcement attorneys — all disagree. I have yet to see a former SEC official that’s OK with Musk’s tweets.

The tweets also broke a NASDAQ rule about notifying the exchange 10 minutes prior to release of material information during trading hours. That will only result in a fine, though.

Nix

*sigh*

Another moving of the goal posts to yet another new claim after failing with the previous attacks.

Please post a link to what rule you think they broke now? Because no such rule applies to what an individual member of the board says he isCONSIDERING

William

You just used the “C” word!
How inconsiderate of you! 😂

Seven Electrics

Musk is in real danger of being fired as CEO, in a repeat of what happened to him at PayPal. Boards do not appreciate being made to look like fools.

“Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”

Nix

Board had already signaled their approval in principle to going private.

bro1999

And were informed by Elon of all the details of the “secured funding” as well, right? Oops.

antrik

They did?

Doggydogworld

They certainly did in Nix’s alternate universe. In the real world Musk told the board on August 2nd he personally wanted to take Tesla private. He also told them of his meeting with the Saudi official. The board met several times, with and without the Musk brothers. They agreed Musk should talk to the largest shareholders and report back.

On August 7th, Musk blindsided the Tesla board with his “funding secured” bombshell. Non-Musk board members quickly scrambled, hiring lawyers to protect themselves from the inevitable fallout and releasing a short statement the next morning (8/8/18):

“Last week, Elon opened a discussion with the board about taking the company private. This included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla’s long-term interests, and also addressed the funding for this to occur. The board has met several times over the last week and is taking the appropriate next steps to evaluate this.”

The board later formed a special committee to evaluate proposals. They emphasized that Musk has not submitted a proposal yet. Everything they (and Musk) have said in public directly contradicts Nix’s claim that they “signaled their approval”.

nix

“They agreed Musk should talk to the largest shareholders and report back.”

This is a clear signal that the board approved going forward with going private, instructing Musk to go and make the details work. Musk did so by talking to ALL shareholders. Now you want to claim the board didn’t approve Musk going forward with privatization and going to shareholders next to complete the deal.

How often are you going to flip-flop and move the goal posts?

You are inserting a false narrative that every single detail has to be completed. That won’t actually happen until the very last day of the deal. Not at the point where Musk publicly states he is CONSIDERING taking Tesla private.

Doggydogworld

“This is a clear signal that the board approved going forward with going private,”

It’s nothing of the sort. The man’s allowed to try to put a deal together. They’re not going to block him, unless he breaks the law or does something to harm shareholders. Which, at that time, he was not.

Nix

He was putting the deal together on the board’s instructions, with their approval for him to do so.

antrik

No, it’s only a clear signal that they are willing to *consider* going forward with this.

bro1999

When stories like this surface, I actually believe he may be in danger of being removed, which I thought was impossible only weeks earlier. If not by the SEC, by Tesla itself. This story paints a picture of a company that is rotten from the top. Old news really, but a sad reminder of what Elon has become. Elon reminds me of Travis Kalanick more and more with each passing day, a silicon valley a-hole that thinks he’s too big to fail.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-silences-team-concerned-about-quality-issues-according-to-former-engineer-2018-7

Doggydogworld

SEC won’t remove him and Tesla lapdog board effectively can’t. You’d see board members resign as a form of protest LONG before you’d see any attempt to oust Musk.

ROFLOL

Ever looked in a mirror lately? Don’t, it’s just a sad reminder of what you have become, ROFLOL!

Nix

“The SEC mandates that public statements by company executives cannot be false.”

The SEC does not criminalize the normal practice of companies having to clarify public statements from time to time.

That is what has happened here. Elon clarified his comments so it was clear that he was referring in good faith to his 2 year long discussions with PIF’s head offering to fund Tesla going private. If anyone didn’t know what funding he was talking about, they now do.

It is normal and non-controversial for clarifying statements to be issued. We have even seen this before when Musk had to clarify that the net number of reservations was 455K, and it was booking before subtracting cancellations that was over 500K. Not surprisingly, the SEC filed no criminal charges, because nothing criminal happened.

“[Musk] misspoke on Friday when he had told some journalists that the company had 500,000 Model 3 reservations in hand. In fact, that number should have been 455,000. Altogether, they had received as many as 518,000 bookings”

https://insideevs.com/tesla-q2-2017-model-3-reservations-455k/

Steve

How come no-one calls up the SEC to confirm these “reports”

Everyone is writing that Tesla is “reportedly” under a subpoena.

Doggydogworld

A Tesla bear did call the SEC and record it. He was transferred to someone in the investigations department who specifically mentioned Musk’s tweet but explained they do not comment publicly on such matters.

Nix

Which means exactly nothing. Zilch. Are you trying to imply something with a call that resulted in a no comment?

Doggydogworld

Steve asked why nobody called the SEC. I told him what happened when someone did. Not “trying to imply” anything.

kubel

Prison Secured.

Will

Lmao😭😭😭😭😭😭. He won’t. It’s Trump America. They will give a fine if $420

SJC

He should know better than to have done that.
CEOs of public companies follow rules or ELSE.

Get Real

LMAO as the serial anti-Tesla trolls, shills, shorters and haters come out of the woodwork.
It is almost like we set off a Koch Roaches fogger!

William

RAID MAX deep reach fogger to the rescue!
Time to watch the little short Tesla buggers scatter!

Scott G

Shorts suck… no other way to describe it.
PS…. The SEC has a lot of credibility lately too.