International

Elon Musk takes stand in Tesla tweet fraud trial

Photo: Reuters

January 23 | By AFP | Glenn Chapman |

Tesla CEO Elon Musk took the stand in a California fraud trial on Friday, accused of lying in tweets about taking the auto company private, punishing investors.

Musk was called to testify by lawyers for angry investors who accuse him of costing them millions of dollars in 2018 with untrue tweets about having funding secured to buy out shareholders at $420 a share.

The multi-billionaire’s tweets sent the Tesla share price on a rollercoaster ride and Musk was sued by shareholders who say the tycoon acted recklessly in an effort to squeeze investors who had bet against the company.

Musk, who bought Twitter itself in October, downplayed the power of his tweets noting under questioning that he once posted that he thought Tesla share price was too high, and “it went higher, which is counter-intuitive.”

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“What I’m trying to say is that the causal relationship is clearly not there simply because of a tweet,” Musk said in a testimony that lasted only thirty minutes and was to be continued on Monday.

The hearing on Friday began with Harvard law and business professor Guhan Subramanian, who was called as an expert witness by the plaintiffs.

He called Musk’s tweeted proposal to take Tesla private as “illusory” and “just wrong” in how it deviated wildly from the way such mega-deals usually take place.

“All I can say is this is just wrong; as a matter of deal process… this isn’t correct,” Subramanian said while being questioned by a defense lawyer about Musk’s tweets.

‘Reckless’ words

Testimonies in the trial opened Wednesday with a lawyer for the upset investors telling jurors Musk lied about having funding in place.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Nicholas Porritt, who represents lead plaintiff Glen Littleton and other Tesla investors, said the tweets cost “regular people” to lose “millions and millions of dollars.”

Called as the first witness, 71-year-old Littleton told jurors he was heavily invested in Tesla in 2018 in a way that banked on the share price climbing to $500 or more.

Littleton testified that he was “pretty shocked” by Musk’s tweet about taking the company private at $420 a share because it threatened almost all the money he had invested in Tesla.

“It was going to pretty much wipe me out,” Littleton said.

Littleton told jurors he scrambled to save what he could of his investments, getting out of most of his positions at a huge loss.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Musk is expected to continue testifying at trial on Monday, when his lawyers will get a chance to refute the accusation that he was being deceitful.

The case revolves around a pair of tweets in which Musk said “funding secured” for a project to buy out the publicly traded electric automaker, then in a second tweet added that “investor support is confirmed.”

Porritt told jurors that Musk had selected the $420 share price in the tweet “as a joke” and that the funding to take Tesla private was never locked in, nor credibly pursued.

In his own opening remarks, Musk attorney Alex Spiro said that even though the tweets may have been a “reckless choice of words”, they were “not fraud, not even close.”

The fraud trial is expected to last three weeks.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

International

Trump Floats “Friendly Takeover” of Cuba Amid Rising Tensions

U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration is considering what he described as a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, as Washington continues to increase pressure on the island’s communist government.

“The Cuban government is talking to us and they have very serious problems, as you know. They have no money, they have nothing at this moment, but they are talking to us and maybe we will see a friendly takeover of Cuba,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for a trip to Texas.

Earlier in the week, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Cuba needed a “radical change,” shortly after Washington eased restrictions on oil exports to the island for what officials described as “humanitarian reasons,” amid a deep economic crisis.

The United States has imposed an energy blockade on Cuba since January, citing what it calls an “extraordinary threat” posed by the communist-run island, located roughly 150 kilometers (90 miles) off the coast of Florida, to U.S. national security.

International

Argentina’s Senate Reviews Milei-Backed Labor Overhaul

Argentina’s Senate on Friday began reviewing the Labor Modernization Law promoted by the administration of President Javier Milei, a proposal that would significantly reshape labor rules across the country.

The upper chamber opened its final discussion of the contentious initiative, which revises the method used to calculate severance payments — lowering the amounts owed in dismissal cases — and introduces an “hour bank” mechanism that allows overtime to be offset with paid leave rather than extra wages.

The legislation also broadens the classification of essential services, a change that would place new limits on the right to strike in designated sectors.

The bill was initially approved by the Senate on February 11 and then moved to the Chamber of Deputies, where lawmakers passed it with amendments. It has now returned to the Senate for definitive approval.

Outside the Congress building in Buenos Aires, workers, trade unions and left-wing organizations staged demonstrations beginning at midday. The gathering later thinned out amid reports of disturbances and a strong police presence. Security forces had secured the area surrounding the legislature since early morning hours.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Union leaders contend that the reform weakens labor protections, while many business representatives back the measure but stress that sustainable formal employment will require economic expansion, improved credit conditions, greater investment and a more dynamic domestic market.

International

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Policy Allowing Deportations to Third Countries

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the policy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration allowing immigration authorities to deport foreign nationals to third countries without prior notice or the opportunity to object is unlawful. The decision marks another legal setback for the administration on immigration matters.

Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down the regulation issued last year, which stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not required to notify migrants if they were to be sent to countries other than the one listed in their removal order, provided that receiving nations offered assurances they would not face persecution or torture.

Murphy ordered the measure vacated but granted a 15-day delay before the ruling takes effect, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal.

In his decision, the judge concluded that the policy violates federal immigration law and migrants’ due process rights. He also questioned the lack of transparency surrounding the alleged assurances provided by receiving countries, stating that “no one really knows anything about these supposed ‘assurances.’” He added, “It is not right, and it is not lawful.”

The ruling follows several legal disputes involving deportations to third countries. Last year, the executive branch deported more than 200 Salvadorans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, invoking an old wartime law. The White House also held talks with Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda about receiving migrants who are not citizens of those countries.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

In May, the same judge determined that the government violated a court order when it attempted to remove a group of immigrants with criminal records to South Sudan without prior notice or an opportunity to raise claims of fear of persecution.

Although President Donald Trump took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily allowed the deportations to resume while a final decision was pending, the White House is expected to again appeal to higher courts to overturn this latest judicial ruling.