Semiconductor firms provide a timely boost with South Korea’s Samsung posting its best second-quarter profit in four years
Without the powerhouse, the JSE would have provided a dismal 3%-4% annually in rand in the last decade
‘The government is doing very little to mitigate the consequences this will have for everyone living in SA,’ says Amnesty SA’s Shenilla Mohamed
ANC national chair Gwede Mantashe and President Cyril Ramaphosa have previously defended cadre deployment
Shares of International Consolidated Airlines Group, the airline’s parent, rose as much as 4% after the deal was announced
The move will speed up the process of procuring additional power for the grid
Business Day TV talks to CEO of the Small Business Institute, John Dludlu
Beijing vies to offer an alternative to the Indo-Pacific of the US
SA canoeist is excited about competing at the World Games in Alabama
The vertiport at Seletar could serve as a global model for what the future of mobility may look like
Elon Musk is trying to appeal a judge’s finding that his 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private was false.
Musk, and other defendants in a shareholder lawsuit over the tweet, asked US District Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco to certify the order so it can be appealed. Pretrial orders generally can’t be appealed.
The shareholders say that Musk’s “indisputably false” August 2018 tweet and follow-up posts on Twitter cost them billions of dollars amid wild swings in Tesla’s stock price. A trial is scheduled for January. Chen ruled April 1 that no jury could find that Musk’s tweet wasn’t misleading.
But in a court filing Friday, Musk’s lawyers argued that the judge “parsed the individual phrases of the various tweets and indicated certain other information should have accompanied the tweets, even though the short-form Twitter medium limits the number of characters per tweet.”
The court must consider that the statements were made on social media, and not in a regulatory filing when analysing whether a statement is misleading, the lawyers wrote.
“Defendants do not seek interlocutory appeal for purposes of delay; to the contrary, defendants are not seeking a stay of the scheduled January 2023 trial, and anticipate proceeding expeditiously to obtain resolution from the Ninth Circuit before trial,” the lawyers wrote in the filing.
The case is In re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation, 18-cv-04865, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
Bloomberg. More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Would you like to comment on this article? Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.