Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk performed down how a lot affect his tweets have on the corporate’s inventory value as he defended himself at a trial over his 2018 tweet about taking the electrical car-maker personal.

“It is troublesome to say the inventory value is linked to the tweet,” he advised jurors Friday in San Francisco federal court docket. “Simply because I tweet about one thing doesn’t suggest individuals imagine it or will act accordingly.”

The traders contend the tweets amounted to lies that price them massive losses from wild inventory value swings over a 10-day interval earlier than the plan was deserted. The trial requires jurors to delve into Musk’s frame of mind when he posted the messages, and to find out whether or not the billionaire’s social media posts actually influenced investor buying and selling. When requested by a lawyer for the traders if he must be correct along with his tweets, Musk replied that he is offering “info the general public ought to hear,” however that there is solely a lot that may be conveyed with a restrict of 240 characters in a Twitter submit.

Musk appeared on the witness stand sporting a black go well with and tie, eliminated his masks and briefly smiled to jurors as if he was acknowledging them.

Throughout questioning, Musk appeared to point out a extra relatable facet by telling the jury that 2018 was an “extraordinarily painful and troublesome yr.”

“I used to be sleeping within the manufacturing unit to make issues work,” Musk mentioned. “The sheer stage of ache to make Tesla profitable in 2017-2019 interval was excruciating for me and plenty of others.”

He reiterated his mantra that brief promoting must be made unlawful, telling jurors that short-sellers wished the inventory to go down and wished Tesla “to die very badly.” Musk’s legal professionals advised the jury throughout opening statements Wednesday that whereas his tweets had been rushed and contained technical errors, they precisely conveyed that he was honest about taking Tesla personal. Musk is anticipated to testify that the short-lived plan to take Tesla personal was strong based mostly on discussions he had with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.

The trial comes as Musk’s wealth has dwindled from a peak of $340 billion in November 2021. He grew to become the primary particular person in historical past to lose greater than $200 billion, all whereas he spent $44 billion to amass Twitter Inc. Final month, he was dethroned because the world’s richest particular person and Tesla’s inventory has plummeted 33 % since Dec. 1, with the electric-car maker dealing with elevated competitors and a looming recession.

Musk isn’t any stranger to courtroom battles – and has been nicknamed “Teflon Elon” for his capacity to flee unscathed. He took the stand and prevailed in trials in 2019 in Los Angeles and in 2021 in Delaware. He additionally testified in November in a Delaware investor case over his $55 billion Tesla pay package deal — however that one hasn’t been determined but.

The CEO tried to get this newest trial moved out of San Francisco, arguing that jurors within the area will most likely be biased in opposition to him due to current layoffs at Twitter and “native negativity.” U.S. District Choose Edward Chen rejected the request, expressing confidence that an “neutral” jury could be seated, and swore in a nine-person panel on Tuesday.

The jury has already heard from two Tesla traders who declare Musk’s Aug. 7, 2018, tweet led them to put bets on the inventory and ended up taking massive losses.

Shareholder Tim Fries, a household man with three youngsters in faculty, recounted Friday how the tweet prompted him to purchase 50 shares for $18,000 the following day.

“Right here we had Elon Musk telling the world he plans to take Tesla personal with ‘funding secured,’ Fries mentioned. “Contemplating the inventory value on the time, that felt like entry level.”

Fries misplaced $5,000 when the inventory fell. “I received concerned on this lawsuit as a result of I felt wronged; I felt that I misplaced cash attributable to a misrepresentation,” Fries mentioned. He added that the phrase “funding secured” to him meant there had been “some vetting, some important assessment of the sources” – which Musk’s legal professional Alex Spiro tried to make appear to be one other speaking level in his cross-examination.

Harvard College Professor Guhan Subramanian, referred to as by the plaintiffs as an skilled witness, testified about conventional practices and procedures in administration buyouts in addition to his expertise with the buyout of Dell Inc.

He referred to as Musk’s take-private proposal “incomplete,” “incoherent” and “illusory” in sure methods.

“It is an excessive outlier,” the professor mentioned, including that the notion {that a} deal of that dimension might come collectively in 30 days is “unattainable.”