In a significant legal development, a jury in San Francisco has concluded that Elon Musk is liable for defrauding investors by intentionally lowering Twitter’s stock value in the lead-up to his high-profile acquisition of the company in 2022. However, the jury cleared him of certain fraud charges, determining that he did not engage in a deliberate scheme to mislead investors.

The case revolved around a class-action lawsuit initiated shortly before Musk’s takeover of Twitter, which he has since rebranded as X. At the heart of the trial was the question of whether two tweets and Musk’s statements on a podcast in May 2022 constituted deliberate deceit aimed at Twitter shareholders, who sold their shares based on his communications.

The verdict was reached by the nine-member jury after nearly four days of deliberation, following almost three weeks of testimony and evidence presented since the trial commenced on March 2. The jury found Musk responsible for misleading investors with two specific tweets, one of which claimed the Twitter deal was “temporarily on hold.” However, they determined that a podcast statement did not contribute to any intentional scheme to defraud.

As a result, the jury awarded damages to shareholders ranging from approximately $3 to $8 per stock per day, totaling around $2.1 billion in stock and an additional $500 million in options, according to lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Musk’s wealth, primarily linked to his stake in Tesla, is currently valued at approximately $814 billion.

Joseph Cotchett, representing the plaintiffs, remarked on the broader implications of the verdict: “It’s an important victory, not just for investors of Twitter, but for the public markets. The jury’s decision underscores that wealth and influence do not exempt individuals from legal accountability. No person is above the law.”

Musk’s legal team referenced other cases Musk won and said they will appeal.

“Last month, Elon won the largest appellate victory in this country’s history after getting an unfair shake at the trial level. Earlier today, in a Texas court he won another appellate victory in which the trial judge was reversed,” the legal team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said in a statement. “We view today’s verdict, where the jury found both for and against the plaintiffs and found no fraud scheme, as a bump in the road. And we look forward to vindication on appeal.”

Much of the trial focused on Musk’s claims about the number of bots on Twitter. Musk testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5% it disclosed in regulatory filings. He used what he called Twitter’s misrepresentation of the number of fake accounts on its service as a reason to retreat from the purchase.

After Musk tried to back out, Twitter went to court in Delaware to force him to honor his original deal. Just before that case was scheduled to go to trial, Musk reversed course again and agreed to pay what he had originally promised.

The central question of the case was whether Musk sent out tweets — including one on May 13, 2022, that said the Twitter deal was “temporarily on hold” while he sought information on the number of fake accounts on the service — as a deliberate scheme to tank Twitter’s shares. The jury found that while Musk did mislead investors with two tweets, he did not do so with a statement he made on a podcast because it was an opinion. The jurors also absolved him of scheming to drive down the stock.

The nearly three-week trial in San Francisco federal court for the Northern District of California saw testimony from former Twitter executives including CEO Parag Agrawal and CFO Ned Segal, as well as Musk, who was on the stand for more than a day.

In his testimony, Musk maintained that Twitter’s leadership lied about the amount of bots on the platform and withheld information from him about how the number of fake accounts was calculated. He repeatedly described the information that Twitter’s board provided with an abbreviation for a bull’s scatology. “I did make it clear that I thought it was BS,” Musk said of Twitter’s calculations asserting that only about 5% of its accounts were bots.

Musk also asserted that his decision to follow through on the deal at the original sales price provided a huge windfall for most Twitter shareholders.

But Twitter’s shares fell below $33, or about 40% below Musk’s original purchase price, while the deal was hanging in limbo. That downturn cost shareholders who sold their stock during the uncertainty caused by what the lawsuit alleges was Musk’s deceitful behavior.

“I can’t control whether people sell their stock, but everyone who held the stock fared extremely well,” Musk said.

The plaintiffs argued that, as Tesla’s stock price declined and buying Twitter became too expensive for Musk, he tweeted statements that drove down the stock price in the hopes he could renegotiate the deal for a lower price or get out of it altogether.

Musk’s tweets, the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued, were not some “innocent mistake” or a “stupid tweet” off the top of his head, but carefully calculated to drive down’s Twitter’s stock price.

In closing arguments, Mark Molumphy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, asked jurors to hold Musk accountable and compensate thousands of investors who lost money because of tweets Musk sent, including one from May 13, 2022, that said the deal was “on hold.”

“He knew what he was doing,” Molumphy said.

Musk’s lawyers motioned for a mistrial several times during the contentious trial, contending that the billionaire Tesla CEO can’t get a fair trial in San Francisco because of animosity toward him from the public.

This isn’t the first time that Musk has been dragged into court to defend himself against allegations of duping investors with his social media posts. Three years ago, Musk spent about eight hours testifying in a San Francisco federal trial about his plans to buy Tesla — the electric automaker that he still runs as a publicly traded company — for $420 per share in a proposed 2018 deal that never materialized. A nine-member jury absolved Musk of wrongdoing in that case.

Monte Mann, a business litigation lawyer who was not a part of the case, said the “verdict sends a clear message—if you move the market with your words, you own the consequences.”

“The law has always prohibited misleading statements. What’s new is the scale and speed,” Mann said. “When one person can move billions with a tweet, the consequences of those statements are amplified — and juries are starting to take that seriously.”

A California man has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a Los Angeles mother of six, less than a year after he was released on parole for a previous double homicide under a youthful offender provision, officials announced on Friday.

Darryl Lamar Collins, aged 55, received the life sentence for the tragic death of his partner, Fatima Johnson. The 53-year-old mother was discovered by her daughters in her apartment on July 4, 2021. Her wrists and ankles were tied with shoelaces and duct tape, and her mouth was covered with underwear and duct tape, ultimately leading to her death.

Prosecutors revealed that Collins took Johnson’s cell phone, jewelry, and Lexus. In the hours following the murder, he pawned two of her necklaces and sold the car to procure drugs.

Remarkably, this heinous act occurred just 364 days after Collins was released from prison, having served time for two separate murders. His freedom was short-lived, as he committed this crime within a year of his release.

The killing happened 364 days after he was released from prison for two previous murders. 

“Darryl Collins took three innocent lives. Today’s sentence isn’t just about punishment, it’s also about protection from this sociopath to ensure he will never walk free again,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said. “This case shows exactly what can happen when someone with a history of extreme violence is released from prison early. We can only hope that three families who have experienced unimaginable loss find some measure of peace knowing he will never again be back in our communities.” 

Collins had previously been convicted of two separate murders in 1995 and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life.

However, he was released after serving 25 years — half of his sentence — under a youthful offender parole provision enacted by state lawmakers in 2017. The law raised the cutoff for youthful offender parole from age 23 to age 25.

At the time of the two earlier murders, Collins was 24.  

“Had the state legislature not changed the law in 2017, almost 20 years after Collins’ sentencing, raising the age cutoff from 23 to 25 for youthful offender parole, Collins would have been behind bars rather than on the street and able to senselessly and brutally take another innocent life,” said Hochman. 

On Sept. 17, 1995, Collins carjacked Derrick Reese, 28, who was using a payphone. After taking the vehicle, Collins backed up and shot Reese at least twice, killing him.

Eleven days later, Collins tried to rob a diner where Thomas Weiss, 44, was working as a cashier. Collins held Weiss at gunpoint and fatally shot Weiss in the face.

On January 15, 1998, Collins was sentenced to 50 years to life imprisonment.

Gregory Vogelsang, 57, was granted parole by the California Parole Board, despite his history of child sex offenses. Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho spoke out against the decision on Thursday.  (Sacramentio County Sheriff’s Office )

The California Parole Board has come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks after it found two convicted serial child rapists — David Funston and Gregory Vogelsang – suitable for early release, despite at least one admitting that he still fantasizes about children. 

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., cited Collins’ criminal history while calling for a review of the board’s decisions and state early release laws. 

“California’s reckless laws and runaway Parole Board are getting our citizens killed,” he wrote on X. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Parole Board. 

<!–>

It’s high time we recognize Lakers star Luka Doncic as a leading contender for the NBA’s MVP Award. This isn’t merely about having his name tossed around when it’s time to complete the five-player ballot.

As Adam Schein of The Post articulates, this isn’t just a fanciful notion for Doncic and the Lakers. “The L.A. Lakers are a top-four team in the NBA,” Schein stated during Friday’s episode of “Schein Time.” He added, “If you don’t see that or believe it, you’re either a critic or simply unaware. Luka Doncic undeniably makes a compelling case for MVP. We’re no longer talking about possibilities; it’s a neck-and-neck race between Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Luka Doncic.”

Doncic has been on an extraordinary run, highlighted by a phenomenal performance on Thursday night where he scored 60 points in a victory over the Miami Heat. This impressive feat followed his 40-point contribution in the previous night’s win against the Rockets, cementing his status as one of the league’s most formidable players.

“The L.A. Lakers are a top-four team in the NBA,” Schein said on Friday’s episode of “Schein Time.” “And if you don’t believe that, or if you don’t see that, you’re a hater and you’re a critic, and Luka Doncic absolutely has an unbelievable case here for the MVP. He’s no longer a candidate. I think we’re talking about a real down to the wire, head to head with [Shai Gilgeous-Alexander] and Luka Doncic.”

Doncic, who dropped a 60-piece in Thursday night’s win over the host Heat, is among the NBA’s hottest players. He scored a combined 100 points in Wednesday’s win over the Rockets and the victory against the Heat to continue his hot streak.

And the Lakers, who are on a season-best eight-game winning streak, have as good of a chance to compete for the NBA title outside of the Thunder, Spurs and Celtics.

All while LeBron James, Austin Reaves and coach JJ Redick find their grooves in their respective roles for the franchise.

Airline ticket prices are surging as the aviation sector grapples with challenges reminiscent of the post-9/11 era, a global aviation leader commented yesterday, amid the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

Willie Walsh, the former chief executive of British Airways, addressed an industry gathering in Brussels, highlighting that ticket prices for US-UK transatlantic flights would be the most severely and swiftly impacted.

Walsh acknowledged that while the current crisis isn’t as extensive as the Covid-19 pandemic—when air travel nearly came to a standstill—he noted, “It’s more comparable to the transatlantic disruptions following 9/11.”

After the United States faced its most devastating terrorist attack, the demand for transatlantic travel drastically decreased, requiring several months for recovery.

Walsh explained that, unlike their UK counterparts, US airlines tend not to purchase jet fuel in advance in large quantities. As a result, the increased costs due to the conflict are being passed directly to passengers more quickly.

Now boss of global industry body The International Air Transport Association, he added: ‘The US carriers have to put prices up, which means the [non-US] competitors at the other end will match the price increase because that’s the nature of the industry.

‘But it’s not just transatlantic prices that will rise, its prices everywhere. They’re already doing it, they’re putting prices up.’

Former BA boss Willie Walsh said crisis sparked by Iran war is ‘akin to the post-9/11 transatlantic issues’ at industry summit in Brussels 

He said he believed airlines would be more likely to hike prices than cancel flights to recoup costs, adding: ‘I don’t think they’ll reduce capacity.

‘I think what will be done in the short-term is they’ll try and adjust the pricing so as to continue flying without running the risk of getting into debt. It’s a challenge.’

He said that while bookings were holding up, travellers are opting more for Western and Southern Europe and North Africa rather than eastern European destinations such as Cyprus or Turkey, which are closer to the conflict.

Whether or not airlines face having to cancel flights or increase fares can depend on how well ‘hedged’ they are.

This refers to how much fuel they bought in bulk at a certain price. Some airlines bought months’ worth of fuel before the conflict when oil prices were as cheap as $67 a barrel.

But as these stocks start dwindling, airlines face having to pass on higher costs or consider cancellations.

Several UK airlines are known to be well hedged, meaning steep fare rises for short-haul carriers like easyJet and Ryanair are likely to take longer to filter through.

However, if the Iran conflict drags on for several months, fares will almost certainly be hiked by the summer across most airlines.

The price of jet fuel in Europe soared to a record high this week – almost double what it was before the conflict started.

And there are fears of shortages if Iran’s retaliatory blockade of the Strait of Hormuz continues to squeeze Western oil supplies.

Ministers are drawing up plans for dealing with jet fuel shortages in the event the war drags on for months and months, according to Government sources.

If this transpires, ministers are expecting supply to be ‘constrained’, putting getaways at risk if airlines are asked to ration fuel.

Scandinavia’s largest airline – SAS – this week became the first major carrier in Europe to scrap flights because of surging fuel prices triggered by the Iran war.

On Tuesday it said it was scaling back flights because of the ‘sharp ⁠and sudden increase’ in jet fuel costs.

Air France-KLM and SAS have already said they will have to hike ticket prices due to the rising cost of jet fuel, while Finnair has warned that jet fuel supplies may run out due to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

There are fears that more airlines across Europe and in the UK will be forced to do the same if the conflict drags on.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: ‘We are engaging with British carriers to support their operations against the backdrop of war in the Middle East, and to limit the impact on industry.’