Elon Musk’s legal team is claiming that a federal jury in San Francisco “mocked” him by assigning damages of “$4.20” in a class action lawsuit that accuses the billionaire of misleading Twitter investors.
Defense attorney Alex Spiro expressed his concerns in a letter to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, saying the ruling showed bias and was “corrupt,” which, he argues, deprived Musk of a fair trial.
Spiro is calling for an investigation and intends to file a motion seeking either a judgment in favor of Musk or a new trial.
He pointed out a handwritten verdict where the jury included “$4.20” for one particular damages item, contrasting it with the rest of the items written in different inks.
Spiro claims this was no accident, suggesting it was a pointed remark against Musk, tying back to his well-known association with the number 420.
“It’s clear that the jury intended to send a message to Mr. Musk,” the attorney noted.
He criticized jurors for bringing in “outside influence” into what he believed should have been neutral discussions.
The number 420 is widely recognized as slang for marijuana, a joke Musk frequently references.
Back in 2018, he tweeted about potentially taking Tesla private for “$420,” an act that led to an SEC fraud case, followed by his pinning the takeover price for Twitter at $54.20 per share.
A jury recently determined that Musk misled investors by intentionally lowering the stock price before acquiring Twitter Inc. in 2022, then rebranding it as X.
Spiro reiterated in his Thursday letter that the jury wasn’t genuinely “judging a securities fraud case” but rather making a statement about Musk himself.
“Their focus on the $4.20 figure seemed to mock the numbers linked to Mr. Musk historically, suggesting that the verdict itself was a farce, reflecting not on any alleged fraud but on their perception of him,” he argued.
He concluded, “No rational, experienced person could trust that this process was fair or that the verdict was just.”
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Musk’s public comments relating to spam accounts and other dealings caused Twitter’s stock price to drop, adversely affecting traders who sold stock and options during that time.
The jury ruled that Musk was responsible for some of the fraud claims but dismissed a key allegation that he schemed to manipulate Twitter’s stock price.
Spiro also contended that the plaintiffs’ attorneys had sidelined him as an attorney of choice, as they indicated a desire to call him as a witness—something that complicates attorney-witness dynamics.
A lawyer from the prominent Manhattan law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan stated he withdrew from being a juror because of this situation, although the plaintiffs didn’t end up calling him to testify.
Spiro criticized the trial venue, asserting that due to Musk’s negative public image in San Francisco, finding an impartial jury was nearly impossible.
He referenced Judge Breyer’s comment that perhaps a different location could yield a different jury as evidence of bias.
The court had to accept jurors with pre-existing views; the process of eliminating all potentially biased candidates proved impractical, according to Spiro’s letter.
These points collectively build a case for a motion for a new trial or mistrial that could potentially overturn the recent verdict.
In an interesting note, Spiro mentioned another legal battle happening in Delaware, criticizing Treasury Minister Catherine McCormick for previously denying Musk significant claims from Tesla shareholders.
Spiro highlighted McCormick’s public response to a court ruling where she seemingly celebrated a victory against Musk on LinkedIn.
Musk has since called for her resignation from the Delaware class action lawsuit concerning Tesla.
In response, McCormick commented that her reaction could have been coincidental or perhaps something else entirely.
“Either I didn’t click on the ‘Support’ icon at all or I clicked it by mistake,” she stated, adding, “I don’t think I clicked it by mistake.”
The Post has sought comments from the plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in the San Francisco case.
