Investor's Corner
Tesla’s Elon Musk faces the SEC in hearing over contempt charges (Updates)
The day after the release of Tesla’s Q1 vehicle delivery and production report, CEO Elon Musk headed to a Manhattan courthouse to face the charges leveled against him by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC accused Musk of violating the terms of his settlement with the agency when the CEO tweeted on February 19 that Tesla will produce around 500k vehicles in 2019, echoing one of his statements from the Q4 2018 earnings call.
Musk arrived in the courthouse on Thursday in light spirits. Smiling to cameras, the Tesla CEO told reporters that he respects the American justice system. “I have great respect for the justice system and I think the judges in the American system are outstanding,” Musk said. When prompted by veteran CNBC reporter Phil LeBeau if he feels the same way about the SEC, Musk laughed and walked forward.
The SEC’s arguments
The courtroom was packed as Elon Musk and the SEC’s legal team faced off before U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan. Each side is given 45 minutes to express their arguments. The agency went first, represented by SEC attorney Cheryl Crumpton, who immediately claimed that Musk “recklessly tweeted out information that has no basis in fact (credit to Matt Robinson of Bloomberg, who is currently conducting a Live Blog of the hearing).”
Explaining further, Crumpton stated that the requirement that Musk get pre-approval for his tweets was “the heart of the relief” that the government had sought as part of its settlement. The SEC lawyer also noted it has become pretty clear “over the course of the last few weeks” that Musk does not intend to comply with last year’s settlement terms. Crumpton added that the agreement does not require every single tweet to be pre-approved, provided that the information in the posts was immaterial. “The communication we are talking about here is very, very different,” she said.
The SEC lawyer also pointed the blame to Tesla, who allegedly is failing to control the conduct of its CEO. “Tesla’s conduct is also troubling to the SEC. This court ordered Tesla to implement a mandatory pre-approval process, but they are apparently fine with Mr. Musk making up his own procedure. Tesla still seems unwilling to exercise any meaningful control over the conduct of its CEO,” Crumpton replied.
Judge Nathan, for her part, asked the SEC lawyer if Musk would need to get approval for tweets that reiterated information that had already been disclosed. The judge went through different hypotheticals with the SEC lawyer, such as repeating earlier guidance. “We’re not saying always yes or always no to that. It depends is the answer,” Crumpton said.
“This is a material statement no matter how you cut it, and it was a violation to not get it pre-approved,” Crumpton added.
For his alleged violations of his settlement, the SEC lawyer called on the court to give Musk a series of escalating fines if he continues to violate the order. Crumpton also stated that the SEC wants the court to order Musk to report monthly on his compliance with the settlement. “We want the court to tell them that this has to observed in the way that it’s written,” the SEC lawyer said.
Response from Tesla’s legal team
With the SEC having completed its argument, it was time for Elon Musk’s legal team to argue their points. Tesla lawyer John Hueston stated that “it’s very clear that Mr. Musk retained discretion in the policy. The policy makes clear that the tweet is subject to a fact-based determination by Mr. Musk.” The Tesla lawyer also stated that Musk’s decision to decide what’s material information was negotiated. “That’s exactly what Tesla negotiated for and got,” Hueston said.
The Tesla lawyer also argued that the SEC is currently pretending to be shocked that Musk gets to decide what is material information and what is not, but that is exactly what the the order says. “They agreed to take out language saying that everything has to be approved. There has to be an oversight process and there is an oversight process. They’re not happy about that today,” he said.
Musk’s legal team stated there is not a clear enough standard to use the harsh recourse of contempt. Instead, Hueston stated that the SEC should have attempted to work things out with Elon Musk and Tesla before bringing the matter to court. “What the SEC should have done was approach in good faith and try to work things out,” the Tesla lawyer said. In response, Judge Nathan noted that her intent is “not only to invite it but to order it.” The judge also added that she will tell the parties to create a new agreement that incorporates the SEC’s concerns.
Addressing Musk’ counsel, Judge Nathan inquired about a scenario in which the CEO will be violating the terms of his settlement with the SEC. When the Tesla lawyer noted that he couldn’t think of one, the judge replied “You’re not very imaginative.”
Continuing his points, Hueston noted that the 15 post-order tweets that were cited by SEC as proof of Musk’s violation of his settlement shows that the agency believes “that, apparently, contempt can fall on him for things that he’s tweeting” even if the information had already been disclosed. “They have not shown that the proof of non-compliance is clear and convincing. This is not someone who’s wantonly saying he doesn’t care about processes and procedures. That’s someone who is trying his best to comply and has been diligent,” the Tesla lawyer said (credit to Bloomberg‘s Chris Dolmetsch for the update).
The SEC’s Rebuttal
The SEC lawyer returned stating that the agency did not rush into its request to have Musk held in contempt at all. “Its not that we rushed into court on the first opportunity. There have been a number of tweets over time.” Crumpton further added that the SEC assumed Musk will comply with the terms of his settlement despite his statements in 60 Minutes, where he explicitly commented that he does not respect the SEC.
Hearing Adjourned
Following the SEC’s rebuttal, Judge Nathan asserted that compliance with court orders is not optional, nor is it a game, regardless of whether you are a “small potato or a big fish.” She also noted that government lawyers must take all steps necessary to reach a resolution before invoking contempt, before adding that she has “serious concerns that whatever I decide here the issue will not be finally resolved.”
Judge Nathan ordered the two parties to arrange a meeting and send a letter to the court within two weeks. The parties will be required to indicate if they have reached an agreement or not. If no agreement is reached then, Elon Musk’s legal team and the SEC will hear from her in due course.
The hearing was adjourned after. In a statement following the hearing, Musk stated that he was “very impressed with Judge Nathan’s analysis.”
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Elon Musk’s next Uranium in Uranus merch is Boring Company’s weirdest tease yet
NASA taps SpaceX for more astronaut missions as Boeing Starliner remains grounded
