DETROIT (AP) — A federal choose has rejected Elon Musk’s bid to throw out a securities fraud settlement over tweets claiming that Musk had the funding to take Tesla non-public in 2018.

Choose Lewis Liman on Wednesday additionally denied a movement to nullify a subpoena of Musk searching for details about potential violations of his settlement with the U.S. Securities and Alternate Fee.

Musk had requested the Manhattan federal courtroom to scrap the settlement, which required that his tweets be accepted by a Tesla lawyer earlier than being revealed. The SEC is investigating whether or not the Tesla CEO violated the settlement with tweets final November asking Twitter followers if he ought to promote 10% of his Tesla inventory. Limon’s ruling mentioned that Musk made the tweets with out getting pre-approval.

The entire dispute stems from an October 2018 settlement with the SEC that Musk signed. He and Tesla every agreed to pay $20 million in civil fines over Musk’s tweets about having the “funding secured” to take Tesla non-public at $420 per share.

The funding was removed from locked up, and the electrical automobile firm stays public, however Tesla’s inventory value jumped. The settlement specified governance modifications, together with Musk’s ouster as board chairman, in addition to pre-approval of his tweets.

Limon’s ruling clears the best way for the SEC to hunt a courtroom order imposing the subpoena, and for an investigation into one other potential violation of the settlement by Musk.

Musk lawyer Alex Spiro contended the SEC is utilizing the settlement and “close to limitless sources” to relax Musk’s speech. He wrote in courtroom paperwork that Musk signed the settlement when Tesla was a much less mature firm and SEC motion jeopardized the corporate’s financing at a essential time.

He additionally alleged that the subpoena from the SEC is prohibited, and that the company can’t take motion about Musk’s tweets with out courtroom authorization.

However in a 22-page ruling, Liman wrote that Musk’s declare that financial duress brought about him to signal the settlement is “wholly unpersuasive.”

Even when Musk was fearful that litigation with the SEC would break Tesla financially, “that doesn’t set up a foundation for him to get out of the judgment he voluntarily signed,” Liman wrote.

The choose additionally mentioned the argument that the SEC had used the settlement order to harass Musk and launch investigations was “meritless.”

“Musk may hardly have thought that on the time he entered the decree (settlement) he would have been immune from private SEC investigations,” Liman wrote. “It’s unsurprising that when Musk tweeted that he was desirous about promoting 10% of his curiosity in Tesla … that the SEC would have some questions.”

Now the SEC may ask Liman to implement the subpoena, which Liman wrote is the right authorized discussion board for Musk to problem it. Within the settlement, Musk additionally agreed to not deny the SEC’s allegations within the 2018 securities fraud grievance. The SEC additionally may examine Musk’s current denials.

Musk has contended in a current interview that he did certainly have the funding lined up in 2018. However a choose in a separate case dominated that his tweets about that have been false.

An SEC spokesman didn’t reply to a message asking whether or not it will attempt to implement the subpoena. A message was left Wednesday searching for remark from Spiro about whether or not Musk will enchantment Liman’s order.

Liman wrote in his ruling that the “funding secured” tweet allegedly was false. “Musk had not mentioned particular deal phrases with any potential financing companions, and he knew the potential transaction was unsure and topic to quite a few contingencies,” Liman wrote.

He additionally agreed with the SEC that Congress gave it broad powers to analyze if somebody has violated federal securities legal guidelines. “Musk may need it have been in any other case, however he stays topic to the identical enforcement authority – and has the identical means to problem the train of that authority – as another citizen,” Liman wrote.