Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") respectfully moves this Court for an order to show cause why Defendant Elon Musk should not be held in contempt for violating the clear and unambiguous terms of the Court's October 16, 2018 Final Judgment as to Defendant Elon Musk (the "Final Judgment").On September 27, 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against Musk, the Chief Executive Officer of Tesla, alleging that he published a series of false and misleading statements to millions of people, including members of the press, using the social media platform Twitter. See Complaint as to Defendant Elon Musk, 1:18-cv-8865-AJN-GWG, Dkt. No. 1. Two days later, on September 29, 2018, Musk agreed to settle the SEC's charges. See Consent and Proposed Final Judgment as to Defendant Elon Musk, 1:18-cv8865-AJN-GWG, Dkt. Nos. 6-1, 6-2.On October 16, 2018, this Court entered a Final Judgment against Musk that, among other things, ordered Musk to comply with procedures implemented by Tesla that would require Musk to seek pre-approval of any written communications, including social media posts, that contained or reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or its shareholders. See Final Judgment of Defendant Elon Musk, 1:18-cv-8865- AJN-GWG, Dkt. No. 14, at 13-14. The SEC required this provision as a term of its settlement with Musk in order to prevent Musk from recklessly disseminating false or inaccurate information about Tesla in the future.On February 19, 2019, Musk tweeted, "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019." Musk did not seek or receive pre-approval prior to publishing this tweet, which was inaccurate and disseminated to over 24 million people. Musk has thus violated the Court's Final Judgment by engaging in the very conduct that the preapproval provision of the Final Judgment was designed to prevent.
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between CFA Institute ("Respondent" or "CFAI"), and the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section ("IER") (collectively "the Parties").I. BACKGROUNDWHEREAS, by letter dated July 31, 2017, IER notified Respondent that it had initiated an independent investigation, DJ# 197-80-39 ("IER Investigation"), to determine whether Respondent had engaged in unfair immigration-related employment practices prohibited by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b ("Act").WHEREAS, IER concluded based upon the IER Investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that from at least November 2016, until at least January 2018, Respondent engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory hiring based on citizenship status by: 1) preferring to hire individuals who hold or require sponsorship for temporary work visas; and 2) failing to consider U.S. workers for all available examination grading positions, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1)(B). Specifically, IER concluded that Respondent preferred to hire and rehire individuals holding or requiring H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas for certain grading positions that it set aside for them, based on their citizenship status, and that Respondent failed to consider qualified and available U.S. workers for those positions.WHEREAS, Respondent denies that it engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory hiring based on citizenship, and further denies the specific conclusions reached by IER. . . .
During the time Williams was registered with JPMS, he was also dually employed by JPMS's affiliated bank, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase"). In early 2017, facing financial difficulties, Williams initiated a kiting scheme to obtain and spend funds to which he was not entitled. Specifically, on January 18, 2017, Williams used the Chase online banking system to initiate a transfer of $10,000 from an outside bank account to an account he controlled at Chase (the "Chase account"). The outside bank account had been closed for several years and contained no funds. Williams used the provisional credit caused by the transfer to make on-line payments and debit-card purchases that he would otherwise not have been able to make because he lacked the necessary funds.In addition to the on-line payments and debit-card purchases, on January 20, 2017, Williams opened a new bank account at Chase and then immediately transferred $1,500 to it from the Chase account. On that same date, Williams also caused his paycheck from Chase, which had previously been direct-deposited into the Chase account, to be deposited going forward into his new account. The $1,500 transfer as well as the other payments and purchases he made using the provisional credit from the $10,000 transfer caused a debit balance in the Chase account of $2,254.06, not including overdraft and other fees. Williams has not repaid the debit balance.