Posts Tagged ‘sec’

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.

Yelp Registers for IPO with SEC – Goldman Sachs to Lead – See What Happens When You Kill the Twitter Tax?

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Just after we lose San Francisco’s so-called Twitter Tax (you know, the one former Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law back in aught-four), comes today’s big announcement.

Deets below.

It’s time to party at Yelp:

79501336_bfbbfb513d_ba.jpg

Via Yelp.com’s flickrstream

“Yelp Files Registration Statement for Proposed Initial Public Offering

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 17, 2011– Yelp Inc. announced today that it has filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to a proposed initial public offering of its Class A common stock. The number of shares to be offered and the price range for the offering have not yet been determined. A portion of the shares will be issued and sold by Yelp, and a portion will be sold by certain stockholders of Yelp.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. will be the lead bookrunning manager and representative of the underwriters for the offering. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Jefferies & Company, Inc. will be joint bookrunning managers, and Allen & Company LLC and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. will be co-managers for the offering. This offering will be made only by means of a prospectus. A copy of the preliminary prospectus, when available, may be obtained from Goldman, Sachs & Co. at 200 West Street, New York, New York 10282, Attention: Prospectus Department, by calling (866) 471-2526 or by e-mailing prospectus-ny@ny.email.gs.com; Citigroup Global Markets Inc. at Brooklyn Army Terminal, 140 58th Street, 8th floor, Brooklyn, NY 11220, by calling (800) 831-9146 or by emailing batprospectusdept@citi.com; or Jefferies & Company, Inc. at 520 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Attention: Equity Syndicate Prospectus Department, by calling (877) 547-6340 or by emailing Prospectus_Department@Jefferies.com.

A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the SEC but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective.

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.”

The Mobile Billboards of San Francisco – Are They Illegal or Not?

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Work with me here – mobile billboards, you know, those trucks that are basically giant rectangular ads, are banned in San Francisco under Section 680 of the Police Code and yet you can see them all over town.

What gives?

Click to expand:

Maybe San Francisco has given up enforcing this regulation? Let’s see what the New York Times had to say back ten years ago:

“Similar disputes are occurring in Boston and in San Francisco, which suspended enforcement of its ban on mobile billboards in June because of a lawsuit, said Nathan Ballard, a deputy city attorney there. But San Francisco recently revised its law to explain the rationale behind it (to cut traffic congestion, truck emissions and assaults on citizens’ aesthetic sensibilities). Unless the billboard company succeeds in persuading a judge to issue a preliminary injunction by Dec. 1, he said, San Francisco will resume enforcing its billboard ban.”

(Nate Ballard was a San Francisco deputy city attorney? Did not know that.) Anywho, it could be that constitutional concerns prevent San Francisco from doing anything about mobile billboards.

Oh well.

That’s just my guess – maybe you can find a loophole here. Enjoy:

SEC. 680. ADVERTISING VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON CITY STREETS.

(a) Findings and Purpose. The inherent primary purpose of commercial advertising vehicles is to display commercial advertising on public streets. By their nature, commercial advertising vehicles are intended to distract, and aim to capture and hold the attention of, members of the public on or adjoining public streets, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. Moreover, such vehicles display commercial advertising from a mobile platform, including while the vehicle is moving within the flow of traffic, potentially stopping, starting, or turning abruptly, accentuating the inherent tendency of such advertising to seize attention and to distract. Additionally, the use of motor vehicles to display commercial advertising creates exhaust emissions. For these reasons, the Board of Supervisors finds that commercial advertising vehicles create aesthetic blight and visual clutter and create potential and actual traffic and health and safety hazards. The purposes of this section are (1) to promote the public health, safety and welfare of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others using the City’s public streets and roadways and adjoining areas, by eliminating the aesthetic blight and visual clutter and traffic and safety hazards caused by the operation of commercial advertising vehicles on the City’s streets; (2) to reduce congestion on the City’s streets; (3) to reduce exhaust emissions, by eliminating as an emissions source a type of commercial advertising display whose use may require continuous or extensive operation of motor vehicle engines; (4) to protect public investment in and the character and dignity of the City’s streets; and (5) to aid in the attraction of tourists and other visitors who are so important to the economy of the City. This section is not intended to regulate any non-commercial speech, including non-commercial advertising or signage.

(b) Prohibition. No person may operate any commercial advertising vehicle in or on any public street in the City and County of San Francisco.

(c) Definitions. As used in this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) “City” means the City and County of San Francisco.

(2) “Commercial advertising vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is carrying, towing, or otherwise displaying any commercial advertising sign, unless the vehicle is used primarily to transport passengers or goods.

(3) “Commercial advertising sign” means a banner, placard, poster, card, picture, sign or display that does no more than propose a commercial transaction.

(d) Enforcement.

(1) The Police Department shall issue a written notice of violation concerning, and requiring the immediate correction of, any violation of this Section to the driver of any commercial advertising vehicle that is being driven or used in violation of this Section, as well as to the owner or other person responsible for the vehicle, if the identity of that owner or other person is known or readily ascertainable. If issued to the driver of a commercial advertising vehicle, the notice shall require the driver to inform the owner or other person responsible for the operation of the commercial advertising vehicle of the notice and of the violation to which it relates. Notice to the driver of a commercial advertising vehicle under this subsection shall be deemed notice to the owner or other person responsible for the operation of the vehicle.

(2) The City Attorney is authorized to enforce this Section by appropriate civil action. No such action shall be commenced against any person unless and until the Police Department has issued a notice of violation requiring correction to that person, as specified above, and that person has failed to comply with this Section and with that notice. In any civil action brought to enforce this Section, the City Attorney may pursue the remedies set forth in this Section for the violation of this Section that is subject of the notice, as well as for any subsequent violations of this Section that have occurred within one year after the issuance of the notice without regard to whether the Police Department issued subsequent notices concerning those subsequent violations.

(3) Violation of this Section shall constitute grounds for injunctive relief. In addition, any person who violates or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Section shall be liable for a civil penalty which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the People of the City and County of San Francisco in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each separate display of commercial advertising prohibited by this Section, and each day that a violation of this Section is committed or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate violation. The amount of such civil penalty shall be $250 for the first violation, $350 for the second violation, and $500 for each subsequent violation of this Section. Any penalty assessed and recovered in an action brought pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid to the Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco. The person against whom a penalty is assessed, or against whom an injunction is obtained, also shall be liable for the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City and County of San Francisco in bringing any civil action to enforce the provisions of this Section.

(4) Violation of this Section shall not constitute a criminal offense.

(5) In any action brought to enforce this Section, the City Attorney may also seek any remedies available under state or federal law.

(Added by Ord. 70-92, App. 3/4/92; amended by Ord. 234-00, File No. 001261, App. 10/13/00)

Zodiac Update – Proof that Deborah Perez was at Scene of Berryessa Slaying

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

What do you do when somebody comes to you with their version of the Zodiac Killer story. You say, “You’ve got the looks, I’ve got the brains, let’s make lots of money,” or something similar, of course! But isn’t that a little patronizing, though? To say, yes, I believe everything you have to say about your father, yes, I validate your beliefs, and hey, maybe let’s get a movie deal working?    

In the words of the late Dr. Marvin Monroe, “This is not the way to get healthy!”

Guy Ward Hendrickson with daughter Deborah Perez (known as “Little Debbie” at the time) at Lake Berryessa. Can you see her having snacks at the picnic table?

Do you think the above is valid evidence? Is it time to call Hollywood with this key to the puzzle?

Hey, how about a documentary about the making of the documentary? That would be far more interesting, non?

Circuslike “Zodiac Killer” News Conference Reveals No Real Evidence

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

[UPDATE: Here’s the gritty nitty from Deborah herself. Uh oh, turns out the eyeglasses don’t match, see below. Also, did she change her story from last year? Today’s presser must rank as the biggest fail whale on the West Coast since 1970. Or was it just some performance art? Hard to say.]

This afternoon’s “completely unorganized and totally shadynews conference on the Streets of San Francisco turned out to be a bit of a fiasco. “Deborah Perez” claims to have been on the scene when her father, Guy Ward Hendrickson, committed some of the Zodiac killings. And her dad didn’t kill just a handful of people, he killed “at least 37.”

The problem is that Guy Ward Hendrickson died in 1983, but not before he conveniently passed along a deathbed confession. Oddly, daughter Deborah, a “mother and a professional,” said she didn’t realize her dad was the Zodiac until watching America’s Most Wanted in 2007.

Was Guy Ward Hendrickson in the military, maybe based in the East Bay close to the scene of killing? Maybe, but nobody knows for sure. Was Guy Ward Hendrickson a peace officer? Maybe, but nobody knows for sure.

This was the headline from this morning’s ‘Xam. They’ve come back to Earth this afternoon.

William Clifton Degarmo is acting as Deborah’s attorney. He says he hasn’t made a cent so far, but he could cash in later on. Interestingly, Mr Degarmo settled a matter with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating something akin to insider trading back in the 1990′s.

Interestingly, the San Francisco Chronicle identifies Kevin McLean as one of Deborah’s attorneys, but wasn’t he just disbarred by the State Bar of California earlier this month? (I didn’t read the whole article from SFGate / The Chronicle, but it seemed to do a much better job presenting la théorie du jour than those at the press conference.)

The crew today continues work on their documentary. They’d like help from the FBI and other police agencies. This news conference was a way to get more attention for the new theory. Apparently, some guy not too far from Sacramento, Denis Kaufman, is alleging things having to do with handwriting analysis and that causes consternation to the people organizing the news conference today. All this adds up to… ?

Attention Zodiac theorists! Don’t worry about what other people are doing. If you have physical evidence, turn it over to the authoritahs. It’s not really necessary to make a documentary, however therapeutic it may be, right? (Lot’s of luck to anyone from Edward Lozzi & Associates public relations trying to gather a crowd in the 415 anytime soon. You’ll need it.)

Was Guy Hendrickson the Zodiac? Maybe yes and maybe no. That was true yesterday and that’s still true today.

Now about those glasses. Here are the ones Deborah claims to be from taxi driver Paul Stine…

…and here are the ones from poor Paul Stine in 1969, shortly before he was killed. Maybe he had another pair? Maybe Deborah also has the original Killian documents as well? (Wouldn’t Dan Rather be pleased to hear that!)

All this fuss today to promote a movie?