Posts Tagged ‘disclosure’

Uh Oh, Is Elon Musk Going to be In Trouble with the SEC? Should He have Disclosed Fires Investigation News?

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

Hey, what do you call this – would you call it the start of a federal investigation of the recent Tesla Model S fires, or at least the ones that occurred in America?

Hey, when did certain people at Tesla learn about it?

Hey, when did certain people at Tesla disclose it?

Is this time gap relevant to the people at the Securities and Exchange Commission?

See what the people at Seeking Alpha think about this situation here.

It would be interesting to hear from somebody from Tesla about all this, non?

“ODI RESUME
Investigation: PE 13-037 Open Resume Page 1 of 1
Investigation: PE 13-037
Date Opened: 11/15/2013
Investigator: Will Godfrey Reviewer: Scott Yon
Approver: Frank Borris
Subject: Fire – Propulsion Battery – Road Debris
MANUFACTURER & PRODUCT INFORMATION
Manufacturer: Tesla Motors, Inc
Products: 2013 Tesla Model S
Population: 13,108 (Estimated)
Problem Description: Deformation/intrusion into the propulsion battery by roadway debris may result in a
thermal reaction and fire.
FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY
ODI Manufacturer Total
Complaints: 0 TBD TBD
Crashes/Fires: 2 TBD TBD
Injury Incidents: 0 TBD TBD
Number of Injuries: 0 TBD TBD
Fatality Incidents: 0 TBD TBD
Number of Fatalities: 0 TBD TBD
ACTION / SUMMARY INFORMATION
Action: A Preliminary Evaluation (PE) has been opened
Summary:
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is aware of two incidents occurring on US public highways in which the
subject vehicles caught fire after an undercarriage strike with metallic roadway debris. The resulting impact damage
to the propulsion battery tray (baseplate) initiated thermal runaway. In each incident, the vehicle’s battery monitoring
system provided escalating visible and audible warnings, allowing the driver to execute a controlled stop and exit the
vehicle before the battery emitted smoke and fire.
Based on these incidents, NHTSA is opening this preliminary evaluation to examine the potential risks associated with
undercarriage strikes on model year 2013 Tesla Model S vehicles.

San Francisco’s Official 2010 Chinese Junket “Gift of Travel” Disclosure in PDF

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

As promised, here it is:

20100616_20100616_3.216d_newsom_gavin_redacted

That should answer any question that you might have about what to give the millionaire who already has everything. Give him/her the “Gift of Travel.”

You should do that particularly if you’re trying to profit off of the two-decade delay in fixing damage to the Bay Bridge from the Loma Prieta earthquake.

Oh well.

Jerry Brown Says No to Concealing the Identities of Proposition 8 Donors

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

Some folks have been up in arms over the disclosure laws that apply to people who gave money promoting California’s recent Proposition 8. You know, the one about same-sex marriage. Donors might feel “exposed,” says the New York Times.

So of course there’s a lawsuit over this now. If you want, read what the Attorney General has to say himself. It’s a fairly accessible document. Or, take the easy way out, and read on, below.

California’s dogged AG:

via “Thomas Hawk’s” Photostream

Brown Moves to Block Effort to Conceal Proposition 8 Donors

“Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a brief in federal court opposing a preliminary injunction that would conceal the identities of contributors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors,” Attorney General Brown said. “Backers of Proposition 8 should not be allowed to carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone.”

The opposition brief, filed today with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contends that Proposition 8 supporters do not meet the criteria for the limited exemption to valid campaign disclosure laws, an exemption developed by the Supreme Court to protect the ability of historically persecuted minority parties to engage in political speech. This limited exemption has applied to groups like the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio and the NAACP in Alabama in 1958, which both demonstrated that disclosure would result in significant harm and threaten the viability of their organizations.

By contrast, the supporters of Proposition 8 are a well-financed association of individuals who raised nearly $30 million in support of a ballot measure that received 52.3 percent of the vote. There is no risk that disclosure of donors will harm their ability to organize or otherwise pursue their political views.

Additionally, there is no justification to shield donors from post-election reporting requirements. Rather, these requirements help to prevent kickbacks, laundering, and other improper uses of campaign funds.

Any instances of violence or harassment against donors are deeply regrettable, but California’s civil and criminal justice systems are the appropriate venues to seek relief from potentially illegal conduct.

The bottom line is that the State’s campaign finance disclosure laws result in more speech, not less, and the public’s interest is better served in this case by requiring disclosure from those supporters of Proposition 8 who donated $100 or more.”