The opinion says whether it’s fair is ‘for our citizenry to decide at the ballot box.’
In 2022, the US Securities and Exchange Commission under former chair Gary Gensler brought a case against Elon Musk regarding his acquisition of Twitter. The regulator questioned Musk’s 11-day delay in revealing his previous investments in the social media platform, arguing that the wait allowed the entrepreneur to increase the size of his share before making the purchase, saving him as much as $150 million at the expense of the platform’s shareholders.
Following a change in leadership at both the SEC and the White House, the agency reached a settlement earlier this year that saw Musk pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million while admitting no wrongdoing. Having the already obscenely wealthy Musk pay essentially pocket change struck many as insufficient. But today, Reuters reported that the protracted drama officially ends. US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan delivered a memorandum and order to finalize the settlement. While Sooknanan did approve the outcome, the order came with an unsubtle critique of how the case was handled:
“This Court is limited to evaluating whether the proposed consent judgment meets minimum standards of fairness and reasonableness, or whether it instead ‘make[s] a mockery of judicial power.’ Although the Court has significant misgivings about the settlement reached in this case, it cannot say that the settlement meets that high threshold. That means that this Court must accept the Parties’ consent judgment. Whether the Executive Branch (through the SEC) has done enough to hold Mr. Musk to account for his alleged violation is, like many other issues, for our citizenry to decide at the ballot box.”
Ouch. Also, accurate.
