Musk Settles SEC Case, to Give Up Chairmanship of Tesla for 3 Years

Elon Musk (Credit: SpaceX)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission have reached a settlement in a case in which the billionaire SpaceX founder was charged with fraud, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Musk and Palo Alto-based Tesla agreed to pay a total of $40 million to settle the case, and he will give up his chairmanship for at least three years. The electric-car maker also is required to install an independent chairman and two new board members, though Musk will remain on the board, according to terms of the settlement.

Musk and Tesla will each pay $20 million to settle the case; both reached the deal without admitting wrongdoing. The company declined to comment.

The SEC charged Musk with fraud Thursday, alleging that his tweets about taking Tesla private — at $420 a share — were “false and misleading.” As part of the lawsuit, the agency asked a federal court to remove him from the company’s leadership and ban him from running a public company.

  • Michael Halpern

    Block 5 has only flown a few times, and while functionally finalized, there are minor adjustments happening. Only one self retracting landing leg has flown as an experiment, and they may need to modify their ground tranporters for it to be really useful, and while NASA approves the current turbopump for the interim, durability improvements there are expected.

    Remember Block 5 is based on lessons learned from Block 3&4 but they still have to test and polish it up

  • Robert G. Oler

    there is no totally free market, and a totally free market would not work

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    They’ve modeled the re-entry heating for years, they know what the temperature is on the hot spots, even implemented a water cooling system to handle these hot spots on block 5. The primary structure is not exposed to this heating. We have detailed information on the composition of the heat shield wrapping octaweb. Get a grip, you’re pushing on a string.

  • Robert G. Oler

    yeah that is what they say…but it is what got me thinking

    the “marginal cost” to recover the boosters had to be “small”

    so what that means is that 9 falcon engines were not worth that. really? thats 9 million or so…ok say half of that 4 million

    the avionics have to be 1 million, more like 2 million…so those were useless?

    the avionics come off the vehicle…so do the engines

    something isnot adding up here.

    more likely the entire package was toast…ie at the end of life…and if that is the case…there are big issues here

  • Michael Halpern

    It isn’t so much that, it costs more in work and storage to keep those outdated block 4s around, than it does to replace them with block 5s which require less work to turn around and can do it much faster. Fastest block 4 turn around was 5 or 6 weeks, and that was the last block 4, the starting turnaround (after the first one which they did a tear down for extra inspection) is 4 weeks, it isn’t so much that they couldn’t fly the block 4s, 3 or possibly 4 times, it just didn’t make sense to. Lets say refurb a late block 4 is 10% a new booster, inspection on an early block 5 could be 1% a new booster.
    Edit and remember, any booster laying around for a long time is just costing money, also this way they could test more efficient landings

  • Robert G. Oler

    you are missing my point. its clear the block IV’s cannot be economically processed beyond two. the point is the PARTS on the vehicle. the avionics package for instance…if the cost of recovery is in the margin…than why not recover the booster for the parts?

    Answer is either the parts are not worth it or that process is to expensive…all bad answers.

    none of this is making any sense right now…unless one concedes the vehicle is not reusable, in say my triple seven but it is merely refurbishable…and now we have an entire new kettle of worms.

    if all the Block IV took to refurbish was 10 percent they would have had parts worth saving.

    something is not adding up

  • Michael Halpern

    Simple those parts while valuable, aren’t as valuable as perfecting a more aggressive landing profile and other than the grid fins it might have costed more to recover them from a booster than it would be to replace them

  • Michael Halpern

    Disassembling a rocket just to reuse the avionics doesn’t make sense, you are spending weeks and lots of labor getting something that you can get in a few days new, as a result the only thing that would have been worth salvaging are the titanium grid fins, however valued against the possibility of being able to push the envelope for reuse with Block 5, by experimenting with block 4s that aren’t going to be reflown anyways, which they did, even the grid fins weren’t THAT valuable. It adds up fine as the extra preformance afforded by perfecting the 1:3:1 landing profile, allows them to put even heavier payloads on F9 and allows more missions to be RTLS that would be ASDS which is more advantageous to them.

    Edit in addition Block 3 &4 were really intended to inform what has become block 5, they were more reusable than Shuttle, but they were missing a few features that would have made them perfectly reusable, tps upgrades and an actively cooled titanium octoweb for instance.

  • Robert G. Oler

    if it takes weeks and disassembly to get to the avionics then its a bad design

    how about the engines

    something is wrong with their numbers…we will see but Ed Boland comes to mind about this block getting to “gas and go”

  • Michael Halpern

    Not a bad design just wasn’t designed to be taken appart and again they aren’t valuable enough.
    As for the engines, they are a different version than what is used on the Block 5, as a result they would just be collecting dust as SpaceX has no intention on selling engines.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    The avionics stack changed between 4 and 5. There was a major upgrade. You aren’t up to date so make crazy claims.

  • Robert G. Oler

    when we get to the third reuse then we can talk…otherwise I feel pretty comfortable in what I am told by people who well “now” are on the SpaceX floor at least for a bit 🙂

  • ThomasLMatula

    Why?

  • ThomasLMatula

    Yes, but the problem was solved quickly after the patent settlement that created the NACA. The DH lasted as long as they did because there was no reason, nor money, for the USPO to replace them. Indeed, it was their staying with such outdated technology that was a motive for the Air Mail Act of 1925. So no, it did not continue into the 1930’s as you claim and what the government choose to use for its airmail service was not an indication of the state of American aviation technology.

    Recall historic aircraft like the NC-4, the Douglas World Cruiser, Commander Byrd’s polar aircraft? All built in the USA and all out performed the European designs in the 1920’s. So if anything it was the opposite, Europe’s lead during WWI resulted in them being awash in surplus aircraft which, combined with their economic issues, resulted in them falling behind until the competition started for WW II and forced them to invest in new military aircraft. In terms of commercial aircraft, Pan Am started Clipper service across the Pacific before the Atlantic because the British didn’t have the aircraft to compete with the Pan Am clippers and so refused them landing rights as a result.

  • publiusr

    Well, let’s agree he isn’t the average businessman. The average suit would not have invested in rocket or car companies, with huge up front costs.

    They run for President and act like fools