Among these topics: Any information about Tesla's financial condition; potential or proposed mergers; production number or sales or delivery number; and new or proposed business lines. It also includes "non-public legal or regulatory findings or decisions", as well as any topic the company or its board may "request" if they believe that pre-approval "would protect the interests" of the shareholders.
The updated decision has not yet been approved by federal judge Alison Nathan. Her thumb would be a beneficial result for Musk: If he lost this final match in his ongoing sweep with the SEC, Musk could have been in big fines or lost his job as CEO. The recently proposed terms do not impose any fines or penalties for his non-compliance.
Musk and SEC had been in each other's neck for months. The saliva came mostly because of Musk's frequent and informal use of Twitter, which he uses to not only chat with customers and share memes, but also to publish information about Tesla's views.
The latter is the kind of thing that first landed Musk in hot water with the SEC last year when he claimed in a tweet that he "considered" to take Tesla privately at $ 420 per share and that he had secured funding for the deal.
First, Musk signaled that he would fight the agency. But weeks later, regulators announced that he and Tesla had agreed to settle agreements that saddled them with $ 40 million in fines and demanded Musk to go down as the company's leader. He retained the role of CEO.
The relative peace does not last long. Musk's latest legal battle with the SEC arose in February after the agency claimed that Musk broke up the deal when he tweeted that Tesla would make 500,000 total cars in 2019. Hours later, he managed to reach Tesla's 500,000 car per year production rate by the end of 2019 and delivers 400,000 cars this year.
The two sides appeared in court on April 4, where Judge Nathan ordered them to put their "reasonable pants on" and attempting to settle their difference outside the courtroom. That was what eventually led to Friday's agreement.
"I think it's a very reasonable approach," said Marc Leaf, a securities partner at Drinker Biddle in New York and former SEC lawyer. "It recognizes that investors are clear enough to distinguish between tweets that are material information – and Elon is Elon."
Charles Elson, professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware, disagreed. He said he believed the deal reflected the weakness of the SEC.
"When someone is disdained by the agency in this way, they must react strongly to keep their credibility with others accused of breaking" agreements, he said.
Tesla refused to comment.