Tag Archives: Juries

Elon Musk, Tesla Poised for Trial Over Tweets Proposing to Take Car Maker Private

Elon Musk

is headed to court in a securities-fraud trial over tweets from 2018 in which he floated the possibility of taking

Tesla Inc.

private, with in-person jury selection poised to begin Tuesday. 

The class-action case originates with an Aug. 7, 2018 tweet in which the Tesla chief executive said, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” 

An investor,

Glen Littleton,

sued Tesla, Mr. Musk and members of Tesla’s board at the time, alleging that Mr. Musk’s tweets were false and cost investors billions by spurring swings in the prices for Tesla stock, options and bonds. In court filings, Mr. Musk has said he was indeed considering taking Tesla private and believed he had the support of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund to do so. The deal, which would have been valued around $72 billion, never materialized.

U.S. District Judge

Edward Chen,

who is overseeing the San Francisco jury trial that is scheduled to run through Feb. 1, has ruled that Mr. Musk’s tweets about taking the company private weren’t true and that he acted recklessly in making them. 

Questions for the jury include whether Mr. Musk’s tweets were material to investors and whether he knew they were untrue.

The case is unusual in that securities-fraud cases usually resolve before going to trial, such as through a settlement, said

Jill Fisch,

a securities-law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The defendants in this case face “an uphill battle” in light of the judge’s pretrial decision about the veracity of Mr. Musk’s statements, she said.

Attorneys for the lead plaintiff didn’t respond to a request for comment, nor did an attorney for Tesla, Mr. Musk and the other board members.

Twitter has been in turmoil since Elon Musk took over. To get a sense of what’s going on behind the scenes, The Wall Street Journal spoke with former Tesla and SpaceX employees to better understand how Musk leads companies. Illustration: Ryan Trefes

Mr. Musk is expected to take the stand as early as Wednesday, some two months after he did so in Delaware in a trial over his pay package at Tesla. In 2021, he also appeared before Delaware’s business-law court to defend Tesla’s roughly $2.1 billion 2016 takeover of home-solar company SolarCity Corp. 

Also on the list of possible witnesses are Tesla board chair

Robyn Denholm,

board members

Ira Ehrenpreis,

James Murdoch

and

Kimbal Musk

—the CEO’s brother. The head of investor relations,

Martin Viecha,

also may be called.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What do you think will be the outcome of the case over Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla tweet? Join the conversation below.

This week’s trial comes at a busy time for Mr. Musk, who has been scrambling to turn around Twitter Inc. after buying the social-media company last fall in a deal valued at $44 billion. His rocket company SpaceX is pushing for the first orbital launch of a new rocket Mr. Musk wants to use for deep-space missions. 

Tesla, meanwhile, has slashed prices across its vehicle lineup, with some of last week’s cuts in the U.S. nearing 20%, in a bid to juice demand. The company’s stock has fallen roughly 70% since its peak in November 2021, erasing around $850 billion in market value. Mr. Musk’s personal wealth has fallen more than $200 billion in that time, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Court proceedings involving Mr. Musk can be feisty. In the SolarCity case, for example, Mr. Musk called opposing counsel a “bad human being.”

Tesla has reduced prices across its vehicle lineup in an effort to boost demand.



Photo:

Jay Janner/USA TODAY NETWORK/Reuters

In advance of this week’s trial, Mr. Musk asked the court to move the trial to Texas on the basis that potential jurors in San Francisco could be biased against him. Judge Chen rejected the request. 

“It isn’t that hard it seems to me to find 15 people,” he said.  

The court requires nine jurors and six alternates to proceed with the case. Roughly 190 potential jurors were asked to fill out questionnaires about their views of Mr. Musk and other issues. The court plans to bring in about 50 of them for further questioning Tuesday. 

Opening arguments could start as early as Tuesday after the jury is selected.

The lead plaintiff is seeking damages for investor losses he alleges stemmed from Mr. Musk’s and Tesla’s statements. Tesla stock closed up 11% the day Mr. Musk initially tweeted about potentially taking Tesla private, later giving back all those gains and falling further as questions emerged about the deal. 

The defendants have said the plaintiff won’t be able to prove to a jury that the statements were materially false. Mr. Musk was considering taking Tesla private, the defendants have said, even if some of his assertions about the deal may not have been literally accurate.

Defendants, in a trial brief, said Mr. Musk believed he had secured backing to take the car maker private from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund. A lawyer for the defendants said Friday that his team had chosen not to enforce subpoenas calling on fund representatives to testify. The sovereign-wealth fund didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk and Tesla each agreed in 2018 to pay $20 million to settle civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission over the same tweets. Mr. Musk also agreed to step down as chairman of the company, while remaining CEO. He later said in legal filings that he felt pressured to settle with the SEC. Last year, a federal judge denied Mr. Musk’s request to scrap his settlement.

Write to Rebecca Elliott at rebecca.elliott@wsj.com and Meghan Bobrowsky at meghan.bobrowsky@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here

Iowa jury gives $27 million verdict in misdiagnosed flu case

A jury has returned a $27 million verdict against a central Iowa medical clinic after a man with bacterial meningitis was misdiagnosed with the flu, suffered strokes and said he has been permanently injured

DES MOINES, Iowa — An Iowa jury has returned a $27 million verdict against a Des Moines medical clinic after a man with bacterial meningitis was misdiagnosed with the flu, suffered strokes and said he has been permanently injured.

The Polk County jury returned the verdict Monday in the lawsuit filed in 2017 against UnityPoint Clinic Family Medicine in Des Moines.

Joseph Dudley and his wife Sarah Dudley filed the lawsuit after Joseph became ill in February 2017 and went to the clinic in southeast Des Moines. They reported he had dizziness, delusions, a headache, high fever and a cough.

A physician’s assistant in charge of the clinic at the time diagnosed him with the flu although tests returned negative, said Dudley’s lawyer Nick Rowley. Dudley was given Tamiflu and a pain reliever and sent home.

Two days later he went to the emergency room at UnityPoint Iowa Methodist Medical Center, where a doctor diagnosed the bacterial meningitis resulting from a heart valve infection. Dudley was put into a medically induced coma and was in intensive care for eight days during which he had a series of strokes causing the loss of hearing in his right ear, vertigo and dizziness, numb feet and legs, and much slower thinking and reaction time, Rowley said.

“Mr. Dudley will suffer from a lifetime of permanent brain damage because they failed to perform a simple blood test, a complete blood count,” said Rowley, founder of Trial Lawyers for Justice.

West Des Moines, Iowa-based UnityPoint Health has 400 clinics, 20 regional hospitals and 19 community network hospitals in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin.

UnityPoint Health spokesman Mark Tauscheck said the company believes it met well-established standards of care.

“We respect the jury process but strongly disagree with this verdict and are exploring all options including an appeal,” he said.

Read original article here

Ford to appeal $1.7 billion verdict in Georgia truck crash

WOODSTOCK, Ga. — Ford Motor Co. plans to appeal a $1.7 billion verdict against the automaker after a pickup truck crash that claimed the lives of a Georgia couple, a company representative said Sunday.

Jurors in Gwinnett County, just northeast of Atlanta, returned the verdict late last week in the yearslong civil case involving what the plaintiffs’ lawyers called dangerously defective roofs on Ford pickup trucks, lawyer James Butler Jr. said Sunday.

Melvin and Voncile Hill were killed in April 2014 in the rollover wreck of their 2002 Ford F-250. Their children Kim and Adam Hill were the plaintiffs in the wrongful death case.

“While our sympathies go out to the Hill family, we do not believe the verdict is supported by the evidence, and we plan to appeal,” Ford said in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.

Butler said he was stunned by evidence in the case.

“I used to buy Ford trucks,” Butler said on Sunday. “I thought nobody would sell a truck with a roof this weak. The damn thing is useless in a wreck. You might as well drive a convertible.”

In closing arguments, lawyers hired by the company defended the actions of Ford and its engineers.

The Michigan-based automaker sought to defend the company against accusations “that Ford and its engineers acted willfully and wantonly, with a conscious indifference for the safety of the people who ride in their cars when they made these decisions about roof strength,” defense lawyer William Withrow Jr. said in his closing arguments, according to a court transcript.

The allegation that Ford was irresponsible and willfully made decisions that put customers at risk is “simply not the case,” another defense lawyer, Paul Malek, said in the same closing argument.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had submitted evidence of nearly 80 similar rollover wrecks that involved truck roofs being crushed that injured or killed motorists, Butler’s law firm, Butler Prather LLP, said in a statement.

“More deaths and severe injuries are certain because millions of these trucks are on the road,” Butler’s co-counsel, Gerald Davidson, said in the statement.

“An award of punitive damages to hopefully warn people riding around in the millions of those trucks Ford sold was the reason the Hill family insisted on a verdict,” Butler said.

Read original article here

Bill Cosby civil trial jury must start deliberations over

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — After two days of deliberations in which they reached verdicts on nearly all of the questions put before them, jurors in a civil trial who were deciding on sexual abuse allegations against Bill Cosby will have to start from scratch on Monday.

By the end of the court day Friday, the Los Angeles County jury had come to agreement on whether Cosby had sexually assaulted plaintiff Judy Huth at the Playboy Mansion when she was 16 in 1975, and whether Huth deserved any damages. In all they had answered eight of nine questions on their verdict form, all but one that asked whether Cosby acted in a way that should require punitive damages.

Judge Craig Karlan, who had promised one juror when she agreed to serve that she could leave after Friday for a prior commitment, decided over the objections of Cosby’s attorneys to accept and read the verdict on the questions the jury had answered. But he had to change course when deputies at the Santa Monica Courthouse appeared and required him to clear the courtroom. The courthouse has a required closure time of 4:30 p.m. because of no budget for deputies’ overtime

Karlan refused to require the departing juror, who had been chosen as foreperson, to return on Monday, so jurors will have to begin again with an alternate in her place.

“I won’t go back on my word,” Karlan said.

It was a bizarre ending to a strange day of jury deliberations. It began with a note to the judge about what he called a “personality issue” between two of the jurors that was making their work difficult.

After calling them to the courtroom and getting them to agree that every juror would be heard in discussions, the jurors resumed, but had a steady flurry of questions on issues with their verdict form that the judge and attorneys had to discuss and answer. One question was on how to calculate damages.

After the lunch break, Cosby lawyer Jennifer Bonjean moved for a mistrial because of a photo taken by a member of Cosby’s team that showed a juror standing in close proximity to a Cosby accuser who had been sitting in the audience and watching the trial.

Karlan said the photo didn’t indicate any conversation had happened, and quickly dismissed the mistrial motion, getting assurances from the juror in question, then the entire jury, that no one had discussed the case with them.

The accuser, Los Angeles artist Lily Bernard, who has filed her own lawsuit against Cosby in New Jersey, denied speaking to any jurors.

“I never spoke to any juror, ever,” Bernard told the judge from her seat in the courtroom. “I would never do anything to jeopardize this case. I don’t even look at them.”

Karlan fought to get past the hurdles and have jurors deliberate as long as possible, and kept lawyers, reporters and court staff in the courtroom ready to bolt as soon as a verdict was read, but it was fruitless in the end.

Jurors had begun deliberating on Thursday morning after a two-week trial.

Cosby, 84, who was freed from prison when his Pennsylvania criminal conviction was thrown out nearly a year ago, did not attend. He denied any sexual contact with Huth in a clip from a 2015 video deposition shown to jurors. The denial has been repeated throughout the trial by his spokesman and his attorney.

In contentious closing arguments, Bonjean urged the jurors to look past the public allegations against Cosby and consider only the trial evidence, which she said did not come close to proving Huth’s case.

Huth’s attorney Nathan Goldberg told jurors Cosby had to be held accountable for the harm he had done to his client.

The Associated Press does not normally name people who say they have been sexually abused, unless they come forward publicly, as Huth and Bernard each have.

———

Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton



Read original article here