Then, Wednesday, we learned that Tesla did mention the Autopilot crash as a risk factor in its prior 10-Q filing.And there was Tesla's bid for Solar City (SCTY) a few weeks ago, which, as I've written before, will substantially help Musk with the more than 0 million in Tesla and Solar City stock he has pledged against lines of credit from banks he's worked with in the past.The business community has expressed disapproval of the new rules, which no longer require evidence of misconduct.But the sparse enforcement of the current rules, experts say, suggests that there is little cause for new concern—and, perhaps, even less than before.What’s more, some say, the lack of enforcement makes clawback rules practically useless in deterring the earnings manipulation they were meant to discourage—perhaps even creating an incentive for executives to fudge numbers to boost their compensation.The rules “are written with loopholes and discretion that render them almost meaningless, if desired,” said Divesh Sharma, an accounting professor at Kennesaw State University’s Coles College of Business. Stopler, United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA; Robb C.
Neither the company nor the SEC ever publicly explained why not.Over the long holiday weekend, electric car maker Tesla (TSLA) announced that it would miss its previously lowered second-quarter guidance for shipments.On Tuesday, CEO Elon Musk said that he didn't consider a recent crash in Florida of one of its cars while in Autopilot mode that caused a death to be "material" to the company's stock price. On May 18, 2006, Broadcom's Audit Committee engaged Irell, a private law firm with which it had longstanding ties, to conduct the Equity Review by investigating the propriety of the measurement dates utilized by Broadcom in its option granting process and identifying those grants which failed to meet the measurement date requirements of generally accepted accounting principles. Ruehle, as Broadcom's CFO, was among those intimately involved in that decision from the outset. The court found that at the initial stages of the inquiry by Irell (called the “Equity Review”) an attorney-client relationship also existed with the CFO individually, and not just with Broadcom, and that the lawyers breached their ethical duties to their client Ruehle in disclosing what he had told them in a preliminary interview. As a result of the media attention and in anticipation of an inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Broadcom's Board of Directors and company management decided to bring in outside counsel to commence an internal review of the company's current and past stock option granting practices.