Free Newsletter
Tesla CEO Elon Musk looks at U.S. President Donald Trump as he speaks to the media, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 11, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
SEC, Elon Musk defend ‘compromise’ settlement over Twitter purchases
Reuters//June 2, 2026//
Summary:
- Elon Musk settled with SEC for $1.5 million penalty
- Judge Sparkle Sooknanan questioned settlement fairness
- SEC cited largest penalty of its type in settlement
Elon Musk and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defended their settlement over his purchase of Twitter shares, saying it reflected compromises and was not tainted by collusion, after the judge overseeing the case said the accord raised “red flags.”
Musk called the settlement a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution where “each side gave something up and each side gained something,” according to a June 1 filing in the Washington, D.C., federal court.
In a separate filing on the same day, the SEC added that the accord would let Musk publicly deny its accusations, reflecting a recent policy change governing defendants who settle enforcement actions.
The settlement requires a trust in Musk’s name to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to resolve SEC claims the world’s richest person took 11 days too long in March and April 2022 to disclose his purchase of Twitter shares, letting him buy at low prices before investors caught on.
Musk maintained that the delay was inadvertent. He ultimately paid $44 billion for Twitter in October 2022 and renamed it X. Musk’s businesses also include Tesla and SpaceX.
At a May 13 hearing, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she could not “rubber stamp” the settlement, questioning why the SEC fined the trust instead of Musk and was content to recoup just 1 percent of his $150 million of alleged ill-gotten gains.
She also said she must consider whether the settlement served the public interest and was not tainted by collusion or corruption.
SEC SAYS THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS THE PUBLIC
Musk and the SEC said the settlement did not reflect “improper collusion,” and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations.
According to the SEC, the $1.5 million penalty is the largest of its type, topping the previous $950,000 high, and settling with the trust mirrored the regulator’s practice in recent cases.
“The public benefits from an injunction that has the practical effect of binding Musk whenever he acts through the Revocable Trust, an investment vehicle that he appears to use to manage much of his wealth,” the SEC said.
Musk, meanwhile, said he could have won at trial, including over whether a politically motivated SEC singled him out for enforcement and targeted his free speech.
He contrasted the penalty with the $500,000 penalty imposed in 2024 against billionaire investor Carl Icahn for “far more serious” conduct, waiting more than three years to reveal he pledged a majority of stock in his Icahn Enterprises to obtain billions of dollars in personal margin loans. Icahn Enterprises paid a separate $1.5 million penalty.
“Accepting a certain, immediate, record civil penalty in exchange for releasing a legally doubtful claim is [a] paradigmatic bilateral compromise,” Musk said.
Musk is a former adviser to Republican President Donald Trump. The SEC sued Musk six days before Democratic President Joe Biden left the White House.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins has refocused the regulator’s priorities, as the Trump administration curtails corporate enforcement activity.
Former SEC enforcement chief Margaret Ryan left abruptly in March after just six months on the job, following clashes with SEC leaders over enforcement.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Stephen Coates and Chizu Nomiyama
Related Articles
Related Content
Top Legal News
- Excessive force allegations against officers survive dismissal
- SEC, Elon Musk defend ‘compromise’ settlement over Twitter purchases
- Durham DA: Budget cuts could gut prosecutor staffing, dismantle decades of city cooperation
- Retro application of anti-stacking sentencing amendment rejected
- Rights groups sue over conditions at largest US immigration detention center
- Erroneous refund interest may support innocent spouse relief
- SCOTUS News: Death row inmate gets relief from ‘Batson’ waiver finding
- District court denies California parks department bid to stop Sable Offshore pipeline
- Marketing partner may enforce arbitration agreement
- NC attorney general, DOJ reach settlement ending secret meat pricing data exchange
- Biden sues Justice Department to block release of audio recordings
Commentary
- AI divorce is real, but family law can still save itself
- ‘AI won’t take your job’ and other things CEOs say before the layoffs
- When not to believe (your lyin’ eyes)
- Conduct a technology audit to improve law firm efficiency
- When the client brings ChatGPT to the consultation
- Content Marketing: Where law firms lose referrals and how to prevent it
- Your best people are not leaving for more money — they are leaving because you stopped paying attention
- Best at Work Insights: The choice we’re making about AI
- New life for the noncompete
- 2026: The year of tech, both heroes and villains
- Beyond burnout: The case for workplaces where people thrive
- The December question every leader should anticipate
