Elon Musk, Tesla, and the Securities Fraud Lawsuit
This paper examines the civil securities fraud lawsuit filed against Elon Musk and Tesla following Musk's August 2018 tweet claiming he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420 per share. The tweet caused Tesla's stock price to surge, harming short sellers, before collapsing when it became clear no funding had been arranged. The paper traces the SEC's settlement with Musk, the Board's limited role in the incident, and the decision by U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen to allow the civil trial to proceed. It also explains the lower evidentiary standard — preponderance of evidence — that governs civil securities fraud cases.
- Introduction: The Tweet That Shook Tesla's Stock: Musk's tweet triggers securities fraud lawsuit
- Musk's War with Short Sellers: Background on Musk's conflict with short sellers
- Shareholder and Short Seller Response: Investors pursue civil suit after SEC settlement
- Securities Fraud and Its Implications: How securities fraud harms public company investors
- The Civil Trial Standard of Proof: Preponderance of evidence standard in civil court
- Works Cited: Sources cited in the paper
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in a specific, high-profile real-world case, making abstract legal concepts like securities fraud and civil liability concrete and accessible.
- It integrates a scholarly source (Friedrichs) alongside news reporting to connect the case to broader white-collar crime theory, lending academic credibility to the analysis.
- The paper clearly explains how the civil and criminal evidentiary standards differ, offering readers a practical legal distinction relevant to the outcome of the case.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of case-based analysis — working outward from a single incident (the "funding secured" tweet) to draw conclusions about corporate governance failures, securities law, and the limits of regulatory action. This technique allows the student to synthesize journalistic and academic sources around a focused legal argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the facts of the case and the Board's governance responsibilities. It then provides context for Musk's motivations and the SEC's response before pivoting to the shareholders' civil suit. The final analytical section explains the legal standard governing civil trials, bringing the argument to a logical conclusion without resolving the still-pending outcome. This structure moves clearly from facts to context to legal analysis.
Introduction: The Tweet That Shook Tesla's Stock
Elon Musk and Tesla are being sued in civil court for securities fraud as a result of Musk, acting as CEO of the company, tweeting that he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private at $420 a share. The stock price immediately leapt, which hurt short sellers, and then the share price crashed when Musk confessed that he did not in fact have funding secured. The Board did not know of Musk's intentions when he made his claims on Twitter; however, the Board does have a role to play in the self-regulation of the company. The Board must demonstrate corporate management so as to show that the company "is not engaging in actions harmful to the interest of shareholders and is not engaged in unwarranted forms of self-dealing" (Friedrichs 305).
Because Musk was acting on his own when he informed shareholders of the false news of taking Tesla private, the company sought to have the case dismissed. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco refused to toss the case and allowed it to go forward. He stated clearly that "the rise and fall of Tesla's stock prices corroborated with the timing of the alleged false and misleading statements, all of which occurred within a less-than-two-week period, and which suggests Mr. Musk's false statements were the proximate cause" (Mitchell). Shareholders and short sellers are behind the civil suit and seek recompense for what they view as securities fraud on the part of Musk and Tesla.
Musk's War with Short Sellers
Musk had been in a war of words with short sellers in the days leading up to his now-notorious tweet. Many large fund managers had been vocal about Musk's management of Tesla and had called for the share price to be brought back to earth. Musk had vowed on Twitter to "burn the shorts" — and his later tweet about taking the company private did exactly that (Levine). When he tweeted that he would take the company private at $420 per share, it caught everyone by surprise, and the stock price instantly began to rise.
However, news began to trickle out from various sources that Musk's reference to "420" was a marijuana-related joke and that his tweet was not serious. Musk himself insisted the tweet was serious and that he was in talks with Saudi investors to take the company private. The SEC filed suit against Musk and settled out of court for $20 million. As a result of the settlement, Musk had to give up part of his control of Tesla, including his Board position, though he was allowed to remain as CEO.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.