A US court has approved a settlement between the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Elon Musk regarding the delayed disclosure of his Twitter acquisition, despite expressing serious concerns about the terms of the agreement and questioning whether Musk may have received preferential treatment.
July 9, 2569 at 05.33:XNUMX a.m., Reuters reported that A U.S. federal judge approved a settlement agreement between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Elon Musk regarding the delayed disclosure of his acquisition of shares in Twitter (now X). Despite explicitly stating serious concerns about several irregularities in the deal and questioning whether the Trump administration might be treating the billionaire too leniently,
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., stated that the court has limited power to determine whether the agreement meets minimum principles of fairness and reasonableness, not to judge whether the government agency has adequately punished the offender. She added that while the court is not merely a "rubber stamp" approving every agreement, it is also not a regulator of the executive branch's actions.
He also pointed out that whether the SEC's actions against Musk were appropriate is an issue that the public should decide through the electoral process, rather than having the courts interfere.
Under the agreement, the trust holding Musk's assets will pay a $1.5 million fine to settle a lawsuit in which the SEC alleged that Musk took 11 days to disclose his March-April 2565 Twitter acquisitions, exceeding the legal deadline.
The SEC stated that the delayed disclosure allowed Musk to gradually purchase shares at a lower price before the market became aware of the information, saving him approximately $150 million. However, Musk insists the delay was unintentional, occurring before he acquired Twitter for $44,000 billion in October 2565 and renamed the platform X.
Although the agreement was approved, Judge Sooknanan questioned why the SEC dropped its demand for Musk to return illegally obtained benefits (disgorgement) to compensate victims, stating that even if the SEC claimed never to have used such a measure in similar cases before, it raised doubts about the appropriateness of the settlement.
She also noted that the SEC chose to enter into an agreement with Musk's "trust" rather than directly with Musk, which opens the door for Musk to publicly declare his innocence. She questioned whether the SEC would treat other suspects similarly, or if this settlement was merely a "one-time special agreement" designed specifically for Musk, possibly negotiated without the SEC's legal team involved.
The SEC assured the court that the agreement was not the result of collusion and that the $1.5 million fine is the largest for this type of case. Furthermore, the court order binding Musk's trust protects the public interest, as the trust is the mechanism Musk uses to manage most of his assets.
refer : reuters.com
Read news related to The full US economic situation can be found here.
