That is the point. He only violated it if you take the obviously wrong interpretation that the 500k was a new material statement. It was not.
The agreement only covered new, material information, not repeating a previously given the high-end estimate.
Also, note that the market was closed at the time of the tweet and the second tweet clearing up any possible confusion, thus, having no impact on the stock.
No, he was required to get pre-approval even if he was repeating previously released information verbatim. They probably wouldn't have caught him if he was actually repeating it verbatim, but he still would have been breaking the requirement to get pre-approval.
> According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication or even releasing a verbatim pre-approved Written Communication more than two days after it has been pre-approved requires that the pre-approval be reconfirmed. Even if the exact substance of the 7:15 tweet had been pre-approved 20 days before, Musk cannot credibly claim that he thought he was not required to obtain pre-approval again under the plain terms of the Policy. In fact, the written communication in the 7:15 tweet was not pre-approved 20 days earlier or at any time. Musk’s claim that he thought he was simply restating information from the January 30 communications is not credible.
> Written Communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to Tesla or its stockholders must, prior to posting or other publication, be submitted to Tesla’s General Counsel and Disclosure Counsel (or in the event of the General Counsel’s unavailability, Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer and Disclosure Counsel) for pre‐approval. Authorized Executives are not authorized to post or publish Written Communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to Tesla or its stockholders without obtaining pre‐approval.
Whether it's new information or not, he was supposed to get approval first.
> Also, note that the market was closed at the time of the tweet and the second tweet clearing up any possible confusion, thus, having no impact on the stock.
Feel free to argue to a judge that the law knocks off overnight.
In any case: the judgement sought by the SEC is for civil contempt for breaking his agreement. It matters that he didn't follow the procedure that he had promised to follow.
Also, note that the market was closed at the time of the tweet and the second tweet clearing up any possible confusion, thus, having no impact on the stock.