Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#131

Post by BiteCode_dev »

moomin wrote: post #27
alphabetting wrote: post #4

I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…

This is one of those things that could genuinely cause problem for the entire US (corporate) legal system. There’s a genuine danger that the result of this case will be “some people are too powerful to be regulated by the US system, and this is now obvious”.

That would be a good thing. Put some light on one of the biggest failure of our democracies.

Re: Elon’s Out

#132

Post by georgeburdell »

Musk holds a key piece of America’s future in space in SpaceX. I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before he starts dangling that to get what he wants in cases like this. I still am generally favorable toward Elon, but I think we’re seeing him transform into a villain

Re: Elon’s Out

#133

Post by jollybean »

eftychis wrote: post #21
jollybean wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter management is not incompetent, Musk set his own price. He should definitely pay a fine. You can't walk into a situation and cause major chaos - literally executive turnover, stock going crazy, all sorts of turmoil - and then walk away on bad faith and excuses. Also - he does not have unlimited resources. He literally cannot afford this deal right now.

He practically bought it; it's unlikely an agency or third party to intervene / object; only thing to "save" him is stating he doesn't have the monwy/funding was pulled due to lack of information. Even then, I doubt he would avoid it. Of course they can drag each other to the bottom until one gives up. I doubt Musk will and Twitter might have existential issues if it doesn't get bought with rumors related to their us…

The user base quality thing, irrespective of what the real answer is, is mostly a canard. The only way it could possibly get used is by Musk in the public commons to trash them.

Other than that, this will be a side-show court battle now, unless one party has reason to continue arguing about it in public sphere.

Re: Elon’s Out

#134

Post by theonemind »

anonu wrote: post #54
nabla9 wrote: post #2

This is a second time Musk has offered to buy a public company in bad faith. His reputation as a sufficiently reliable counterparty is gone.

Musk doesn't care about that one iota. He has more money than god. And he's done that by being fairly effective as the head of two big companies.

Reality doesn't care if Musk doesn't care. For certain purchases, there's a probability that Musk will simply find that his money is no good. Not for sale to Elon Musk at any price.

Re: Elon’s Out

#135

Post by towaway15463 »

pacificmint wrote: post #115
moralestapia wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Stewart avoided a loss of $45,673 by selling all 3,928 shares of her ImClone Systems stock on December 27, 2001, after receiving material, nonpublic information from Peter Bacanovic, her broker at Merrill Lynch. The day following her sale, the stock value fell 16%.[49] Martha Stewart went to jail for 5 months for a meager case of insider trading. Musk m…

> Martha Stewart went to jail for 5 months for a meager case of insider trading. I believe she went to prison for lying to investigators. The insider trading they couldn’t make stick. So in the end, maybe the cases aren’t so different?

Facts. She also just paid a fine for the insider trading. Her criminal case was due to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators.

Re: Elon’s Out

#136

Post by BobbyJo »

avalys wrote: post #108
BobbyJo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.

Musk owns about 25% of Tesla, mostly after investing about $50M in Tesla's early funding rounds. His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop…

Musk has sold billions in stock at this point, so this whole "it's stock that's increased in value independent of Musk" line of thinking is a bad misdirection.

Re: Elon’s Out

#137

Post by towaway15463 »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #78
edgyquant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally there’s not even a hint that Musk is above the law yet you’re calling it a cyberpunk future

Smoking weed makes you lose your security clearance, Musk did it on camera and still has his because of "reasons". That is one example of the rules that apply to most others not applying to him.

Probably also an example of a rule that should be retired. Either that or they should remove clearance if you enjoy whisky.

Re: Elon’s Out

#138

Post by camjohnson26 »

avalys wrote: post #108
BobbyJo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.

Musk owns about 25% of Tesla, mostly after investing about $50M in Tesla's early funding rounds. His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop…

It has become so valuable, more valuable than the rest of the auto industry combined at one point despite much lower revenue and sales numbers, because of loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve creating artificially inflated asset prices. The Federal Reserve is directly responsible for Musk’s disproportionate wealth as Tesla stock zoomed past ridiculous levels.

Tesla has been successful in many of its lines of business and succeeded when many thought they couldn’t, that is undebatable. The failure of our system is that its stock price is completely out of line with the reality that reflects that success.

Re: Elon’s Out

#139

Post by camjohnson26 »

kolinko wrote: post #102
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.

As someone who grew up in a communist country with literally zero rich prople - it’s not about wealth, it’s about power and influence. We’ve had just as many, if not way more, people above law as in capitalist countries.

Putin is rumored to be the richest person in the world, but of course you’ll never see him listed on Forbes because he hides it.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...

Re: Elon’s Out

#140

Post by throwaway09223 »

alphabetting wrote: post #4

I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…

> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no?

I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose.

If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his assets to compensate.

Is Levine seriously suggesting that US courts don't have the authority to impose financial penalties, find liability, and seize assets? This is such an absurd thing to say it's hard to find a way to charitably respond.

Post reply on HN