TSLA Inc.

NASDAQ
Back to all articles
TSLA Inc. stock analysis TSLA overview
Somewhat Bullish +45

Elon Musk’s lawyer accuses San Francisco jury of bias, points to ‘mocking’ $4.20 reference in damages

🔍 Elon Musk's lawyer Alex Spiro alleges a San Francisco federal jury mocked the billionaire by including "$4.20" in damages calculations on a verdict form.

⚖️ The defense filed a Thursday letter to Judge Charles Breyer claiming the verdict was corrupted by bias and seeking a new trial or motion for judgment in favor of Musk.

🏙️ Spiro argued that finding an impartial jury in San Francisco was practically impossible due to widespread negative public views toward Musk in the city.

🔢 The number 420 is widely known as slang for marijuana, and Musk has previously publicly associated himself with this figure through tweets about buying Twitter or Tesla at $420.

📉 The jury ruled that Musk defrauded investors by intentionally lowering Twitter's stock price before his acquisition but rejected the main claim of a deliberate manipulation scheme.

✍️ Spiro cited Judge Breyer’s own comments during jury selection suggesting a different location might have yielded a different panel as evidence of inherent bias.

🚫 The defense also highlighted that Spiro was initially removed from direct jury questioning due to potential conflict-of-interest rules after plaintiffs threatened to call him as a witness.

⚖️ Spiro compared the situation in San Francisco to a separate Delaware case where Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick faced controversy for liking a LinkedIn post celebrating a loss against Musk.

📜 Quinn Emanuel, Musk’s law firm, is preparing formal motions to overturn the verdict or seek a mistrial based on these claims of jury misconduct and venue bias.

📰 The lawsuit stems from allegations that Musk harmed traders by misleading investors about spam accounts and Twitter deal status, which he ultimately denied in court regarding manipulation charges.

💼 The plaintiffs in this class-action suit accused Musk of driving down stock prices to make his buyout cheaper, a core claim the jury partially accepted but largely rejected.

🌐 Yahoo is warning that AI-generated key points may not always perfectly match the original article content due to the length and detail involved.

Bullish Signals
  • Jury rejected the main allegation of deliberate stock price manipulation, finding Musk liable only for some fraud claims.
  • Defense attorney Alex Spiro indicated a new trial or mistrial could upend the verdict, creating potential legal opportunities for reversal.
  • Plaintiffs' lawyer never called defense attorney Alex Spiro to testify, as originally threatened, suggesting the conflict issue may not materialize.
  • The $4.20 damages entry highlighted by Musk's team offers grounds for challenging jury impartiality and potentially overturning the decision.
Risk Factors
  • Plaintiffs' attorneys alleged Musk defrauded investors by intentionally driving down Twitter's stock price, resulting in a verdict finding him liable for some fraud claims.
  • Musk's lawyer argues the jury decision was corrupted by bias due to his association with '420', referencing the '$4.20' damages entry as a mocking gesture unrelated to actual damages.
  • Defense attorney Alex Spiro claims San Francisco federal court is biased against Musk, noting Judge Breyer admitted that selecting an impartial jury in that location would be effectively impossible.
  • The jury found Musk liable for fraud claims despite rejecting the main allegation of deliberate stock price manipulation, creating legal uncertainty and reputational risk.
  • Spiro referenced a separate legal battle in Delaware where Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick denied Musk a substantial payday from Tesla shareholders, highlighting ongoing financial liabilities.
  • Musk's defense team is seeking a new trial or mistrial based on claims of jury bias and improper venue, which could prolong the high-stakes case and increase legal costs.
  • The lawsuit involves accusations of misleading Twitter investors by making public statements about spam accounts and deal status, exposing Musk to potential further damages claims.
Full Analysis
Elon Musk's defense attorney Alex Spiro has filed a letter with U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer accusing the San Francisco federal jury of bias and mocking billionaire founder Elon Musk, citing a handwritten verdict form that listed "$4.20" in bright blue ink for a damages entry alongside other figures written in black ink. Spiro argued this reference was not accidental but a deliberate jab at Musk, given his well-known association with the number 420, which is slang for marijuana and has been part of various public jokes involving Musk, including a 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private at "$420" and setting Twitter's buyout price at $54.20 per share. The attorney contends that the verdict was "corrupted" by bias, suggesting the jury used the damages form to send a message rather than determine a securities fraud case objectively. The underlying lawsuit alleges that Musk defrauded investors by making public statements about spam accounts and the status of the Twitter deal that depressed the stock price, harming traders who sold shares or options before his 2022 acquisition and subsequent renaming of the company to X. While the jury found Musk liable for some fraud claims, they rejected the primary allegation that he conducted a deliberate scheme to manipulate Twitter's stock price. In his Thursday filing, Spiro claimed the jury was not "deciding a securities fraud case" but rather issuing a commentary on its own views about Musk, arguing that no reasonable person could have faith in the fairness of the proceeding or the verdict. Beyond the $4.20 issue, Spiro highlighted broader concerns regarding venue and jury selection in San Francisco, citing comments from Judge Breyer during selection that suggested finding an impartial panel in the city was difficult given Musk's "notoriety and reputation." The defense attorney noted that excluding all potentially biased candidates would have been impractical, yet maintained that this environment prevented a fair trial. Additionally, Spiro referenced a separate legal conflict involving Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, accusing her of publicly endorsing a verdict against Musk in another case by liking a LinkedIn post about it, a claim McCormick disputed as potentially accidental or otherwise misinterpreted. The combined arguments from Spiro's letter are intended to lay the groundwork for a formal motion seeking a new trial or mistrial, which could overturn the recent verdict just days after it was reached. Spiro also mentioned he had to step back from the jury-facing role in the original case after plaintiffs' lawyers indicated they might call him as a witness, a situation that would have created an advocate-witness conflict under the rules, though plaintiffs never ultimately called him to testify. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has prepared for these motions as part of their effort to secure a ruling in favor of Musk or a retrial.