11–20 of 234 posts
Does anybody know if investors sometimes win these cases? I imagine they must have done some serious due diligence before investing 100m.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, the "web" link is exactly for this. Paywalled sources get penalized in Google's search results, so most of the time searching for the article's title and clicking the Google search results link gets you the full article.
That used to work for me; it doesn't any more.
Does anybody know if investors sometimes win these cases? I imagine they must have done some serious due diligence before investing 100m.
there is a chance that the primary purpose of this lawsuit is for the fund to be able to address the concerns of their LPs. in other words, it could be more about optics and less about actually recouping losses.
One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is a chance that the primary purpose of this lawsuit is for the fund to be able to address the concerns of their LPs. in other words, it could be more about optics and less about actually recouping losses.
As in -- "trust us investors, look we are going after a failed company to try to recoup the investment we convinced you to make in us and them" -- that doesn't seem like great optics unless they have some possible chance of recouping cash ...
Like it's nice that for once it's not the "little guy" getting screwed over.