Elon Musk is being accused of insider trading in a proposed class action by investors accusing the Tesla CEO of manipulating the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, costing them billions of dollars.
In a Wednesday night filing in Manhattan federal court, investors said Musk used Twitter posts, online influencers, his 2021 appearance on U.S. TV program "Saturday Night Live" and other "publicity stunts" to trade profitably at their expense through several Dogecoin wallets that he or Tesla controls.
Hear from top executives from Renault, Toyota, Stellantis, Polestar, Ford and Hyundai on Making Sustainability Profitable.
Register today and join us in Paris to be part of the discussion about key issues driving the industry’s growth and success during this transformative time.
Investors said this included when Musk sold about $124 million of Dogecoin in April after he replaced Twitter's blue bird logo with Dogecoin's Shiba Inu dog logo, leading to a 30 percent jump in Dogecoin's price. Musk bought Twitter last October.
A "deliberate course of carnival barking, market manipulation and insider trading" enabled Musk to defraud investors, promote himself and his companies, the filing said.
Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Musk, declined to comment on Thursday. A lawyer for Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The investors' lawyer did not immediately respond to a separate request.
Investors have accused Musk, the world's second-richest person according to Forbes magazine, of deliberately driving up Dogecoin's price more than 36,000 percent over two years and then letting it crash.
They included their latest accusations in a proposed third amended complaint, in a lawsuit that began last June.
Musk and Tesla had in March sought a dismissal of the second amended complaint, calling it a "fanciful work of fiction," and on May 26 said another amendment was unjustified.
In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said he would "likely" allow the third amended complaint, saying the defendants would not likely be prejudiced.
The case is Johnson et al v. Musk et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-05037.
