Elon Musk’s SpaceX has confidentially filed for an IPO with the Securities and Exchange Commission, sources told CNBC’s David Faber, bringing Elon Musk’s rocket company one step closer to what’s expected to be a record public offering.

Bloomberg was first to report on SpaceX’s confidential filing, citing people familiar with the matter, and adding that the company could seek a valuation of $1.75 trillion, with a listing around June.

Founded by Musk in 2002 to develop and operate reusable rockets, SpaceX has turned into NASA’s biggest launch partner after the agency ended its space shuttle program in 2011. The company merged with Musk’s xAI in February, creating a combined entity that he valued at the time at $1.25 trillion.

When SpaceX eventually lists, Musk will become the first person to helm two separate trillion-dollar publicly traded companies. Musk is the world’s richest person, with a net worth of close to $840 billion, according to Forbes. Tesla, which Musk has counted on for the vast majority of his liquid wealth, has a market cap of around $1.4 trillion.

A confidential filing allows companies to submit their financials to the SEC for regulatory review before revealing them to the public and prospective investors. SpaceX will have to release a public filing at least 15 days before its IPO road show.

While SpaceX still has numerous hurdles to clear to reach the public market, the offering — assuming it does happen — will be packed with superlatives. With the company reportedly looking to raise up to $75 billion, it would be more than three times the size of the biggest U.S. IPO to date. China’s Alibaba raised $22 billion in 2014, putting it ahead of Visa, which raised close to $18 billion in 2008.

SpaceX has received over $24.4 billion from its work with the federal government since 2008, according to FedScout, which researches federal spending and government contracts. That includes contracts from NASA, the Air Force and Space Force, among others agencies.

Reena Aggarwal, a professor of finance at Georgetown and an IPO expert, said that even with all hype around Musk and SpaceX, the company still needs a receptive public market. Stocks have been volatile of late due largely to the U.S.-Iran war and spiking oil prices. The Nasdaq is coming off its steepest weekly drop in nearly a year.

“You can have a great company, with great fundamentals and a lot of investor interest — and an IPO can still flop if the markets have turned south, if there’s too much volatility in the market,” Aggarwal said. Hopefully the current geopolitical situations will have cooled down by June and there will be less uncertainty.”

WATCH: SpaceX has filed confidentially for IPO

A jury in California found that Elon Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders during the runup to his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company, according to a verdict issued on Friday.

Total damages could reach up to $2.6 billion, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

The class action lawsuit, Pampena v. Musk, was originally filed in October 2022, after Musk completed his purchase of Twitter for $54.20 per share. He later renamed the company X, before merging it with his artificial intelligence company xAI, and then with SpaceX, his reusable rocket manufacturer.

“This is a great example of what you cannot do to the average investor — people that have 401ks, kids, pension funds, teachers, firemen, nurses,” Joseph Cotchett, an attorney for the Twitter investors, told CNBC at the San Francisco courthouse. “That’s what this case was all about. This was not about Musk. It was about the whole operation.”

In an emailed statement, Musk attorneys with Quinn Emanuel said, “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.”

After Musk bid to buy Twitter in April 2022, his sentiment towards the deal quickly soured as he cast doubt on the company’s claimed level of bots, spam and fake accounts on its platform. Musk wrote in a tweet the following month that his acquisition was “temporarily on hold” until Twitter’s CEO could prove its inauthentic account levels were around the 5% reported in the company’s SEC filings.

Musk’s tweets and additional comments sent shares of Twitter sliding by almost 10% in a single session. The jury deliberated for four days and unanimously found that Musk’s tweets on May 13 and May 17 were materially false or misleading.

Former Twitter shareholders, including retail investors and options traders, argued that Musk’s remarks amounted to a scheme to pressure the company’s board to sell to him for a lower price than his original offer. They claimed he was motivated by stock price declines at Tesla, which would require him to sell even more shares in the automaker than he’d intended in order to finance the buyout.

The plaintiffs in the suit said they sold shares below $54.20 following and in response to Musk’s posts and comments during press interviews. The potential damages figure is based on expert estimates of how much Musk’s flip-flopping affected the share price during the class period.

Attorneys for the Twitter investors said it will be about 90 days before claims administration is set up, and it will then take a couple of months for the government to process claims and for investors to begin to recoup some of their losses.

Musk’s attorneys argued their client’s remarks were based on well-founded concerns about bots, spam and fake accounts on Twitter, and did not amount to securities fraud or a scheme to depress the company’s stock price.

The jury said that though Musk had made false and misleading statements that harmed some Twitter shareholders, he did not engage in a specific scheme to defraud investors.

While the verdict marks a stinging rebuke for Musk, the financial implications are minimal considering his net worth, which currently sits at about $650 billion, according to Bloomberg.

WATCH: Why Tesla is pivoting

Tesla is suing California’s Department of Motor Vehicles to reverse a ruling that found the automaker violated the law by falsely promoting its cars’ self-driving capabilities.

The suit comes two months after the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings determined that Tesla engaged in false advertising, and said the DMV could temporarily suspend the company’s licenses to manufacture or sell cars in the state.

The DMV instead asked Tesla to clean up its marketing language. By Feb. 17, the agency said Tesla had done so appropriately and no license suspension would be required.

But Tesla, which is banking much of its future on robotaxis, wants the DMV to go further. In their complaint, dated Feb. 13, attorneys for the automaker alleged that the agency “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled Tesla a “false advertiser” for its prior use of the terms “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”

Tesla now uses the brand name “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to describe its partially automated driver assistance system, and it sells it only on a subscription basis. In the past, Tesla packaged partially automated driving features in Autopilot standard, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving tiers, and it offered some customers “beta” or early access to new features, which are not yet fully debugged. It sold the systems for a single up-front fee.

The DMV did not immediately provide a comment. Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has long promised investors and customers that the company’s cars would be upgraded over time via over-the-air software updates that would turn them into robotaxi-ready vehicles. That hasn’t happened yet, though the company’s systems have become more sophisticated.

After sales of its electric vehicles declined last year, Tesla’s future success hinges largely on its ability to deliver driverless systems that make their cars safe to use without a human at the wheel, ready to steer or brake at any time.

Tesla is now testing a handful of automated vehicles in its Robotaxi pilot in Austin, Texas. Last week, the company announced the start of production of its forthcoming Cybercab, a two-seater designed without a steering wheel or pedals, in Texas.

Tesla has for years presented its systems as if they were safe to use without an attentive driver. For example, in 2018 Musk appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” driving in a Model 3 with Autopilot engaged and correspondent Lesley Stahl in the passenger seat. Musk kept his hands off the wheel and told Stahl that he was “not doing anything,” while the car was driving itself.

However, Tesla’s owners manuals specify that drivers should not use FSD (Supervised) features without paying attention to the road.

In filings with California’s OAH, lawyers for the state’s DMV wrote that Tesla’s marketing for “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” falsely suggested the cars are capable of operating autonomously.

Tesla’s attorneys alleged that the DMV never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.

When Tesla used those brand names, the company’s attorneys argued, “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”

In a separate class-action lawsuit that’s winding its way through California courts, customers who purchased FSD expecting their cars to be upgraded into robotaxi-ready vehicles over time are asking for their money back.

Tesla was also held partly liable for a fatal crash involving Autopilot. During the trial, the Tesla owner said he had dropped his phone while driving and scrambled to pick it up, but thought the car’s Enhanced Autopilot system would brake if an obstacle was in the way. The suit resulted in a $243 million verdict against Tesla to be paid to the family of the deceased and an injured survivor of the crash.

WATCH: Nancy Tengler says Tesla is still a generational opportunity