Illon Musk is obliged to testify again in the case of violations of the "Twitter" agreement

A California Federal Court ordered that the order to call on US billionaire Elon Musk to testify before the US Securities and Exchange Commission about possible violations of the federal security laws regarding his purchase agreement for Twitter. The court ruled that the evidence collected and fundamental in the investigation of the US Security and Exchange Commission, and that the Certificate of Musk is not unnecessarily exhausting, according to the court file on Saturday. The two parties ordered the agreement within a week and drafted the date and location of the certificate. Mask had given his testimony twice before in sessions that span a few hours during July 2022. But the government has since received ‘thousands of new documents’ from different parties, including some documents written by Musk himself, and wants to question him for new information. Musk’s lawyer agreed with the commission to testify in September last year before requesting to postpone his attendance for one day and then refused to be questioned later, according to the file issued last Saturday. Musk’s objections to the investigation The government is trying to obtain information on the purchases of Musk for Twitter shares before obtaining the company, and the statements he made about his investments. The commission sent a letter to Musk in 2022 asking information about the reason for the delay in the detection of his share in “Twitter”, which was announced a week after the letter was sent. The court files said that the CEO and co -worker of “Tesla”, who completed his acquisition on “Twitter”, now known as “X” in October 2022, denied the accusations against him to reach the authority and describe it as bare, and according to the court documents claimed to seek unrelated information. Musk also claims that the subpoena exceeds the authority of the Commission because of its issuance by one of the commission’s employees appointed by the Director of the Department of Enforcement in the Commission, and not by an employee appointed by the head of the Commission, the Court or the Head of a Federal Department. The court denied this on Saturday, saying that the summary order was allowed in terms of the share legislation, which is the first responsible for organizing security transactions in the secondary market.