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

Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#141

Post by dgfitz »

kasey_junk wrote: post #91
dgfitz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you assume that not being constrained is somehow a bad thing for shareholders, which apparently is a logical fallacy some believe true.

It’s less a value judgement than a fact of law. Delaware has strict rules, precedents and courts that enforce shareholder protections. By leaving Delaware the company has signaled that giving that up is less if a downside than whatever upside they are getting in the new jurisdiction. In the case of Tesla it was an explicit repudiation of those rules that caused the company to leave, so it’s reasonable to see it as a…

Same point. Leaving a constrained environment for a less-constrained environment.

If shareholders don’t like this move, they are free to move on from their position. They are owed what they own, because of their belief in future profits. If shareholders think this move is detrimental to that, move on.

Like mentioned, Zuck owns the control. This isn’t a secret revealed to shareholders after they buy in to the gambit.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#142

Post by hedayet »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #87
hedayet wrote: post #73

"Year of Efficiency" -> "Year of Intensity" -> "Year of slavery"?

I'm wondering if the real slaves of today had access to the internet if they would object to you diminishing their situation

Of course I’m not comparing Meta employees to slaves, but with a finite level of stretch, I can see a path where CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk might eventually say things like, ‘Companies need more slavery energy’ or ‘Make America great again—back to pre-emancipation efficiency levels.’"

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#143

Post by kelnos »

Conscat wrote: post #48
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the laws are on the books, it makes legal action against the state - as well as the offender - likelier and more remunerative.

One would think, but the FAA consistently failed to do much more than submit letters to SpaceX, which resulted in the FAA themselves being investigated. I don't think much ever came out of that. Only in the past year has the FAA been actively concerned about whatever SpaceX does, and coincidentally, Elon Musk demanded the FAA administrator resign, who promptly did.

What's up with the residents of Boca Chica? I know suing a company like SpaceX is expensive, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't band together to cover costs, or find some legal team at a rights org to take it on for cheap or on contingency.

They could also sue the local and state government to try to force them to enforce the laws on the books.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#144

Post by kelnos »

bpodgursky wrote: post #8
Conscat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas allows SpaceX to illegally disrupt 5 endangered wildlife reserves, ignore rocket launch regulations, and illegally block roads, so perhaps that is some of the appeal. Last year the Texas government decided they can do basically whatever they feel like without any checks to their authority in other regards, so if Greg Abbott is personally telling billionaires he will protect their interests, I honestly believe h…

Dude have a sense of perspective. It's like 20 acres arguably degraded. Louisiana melts that much coastline into the Gulf of [Whatever] every ~hour~[1]. In exchange for being the world leader in spaceflight. There aren't like, vast stretches of unprotected coastline they can pick from. It's ALL either protected or densely populated. If you want ANY spaceflight, you have to give somewhere, and this is essentially the…

"$X is worse than $Y so we shouldn't bother trying to fix $Y."

Invalid logic, pleas try again.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#145

Post by asdasdsddd »

NewJazz wrote: post #105
asdasdsddd wrote: post #88

Seems like a lot of Californians are feeling insecure about this kind of news. Maybe its time to re-evaluate why this is happening instead of lashing out. California is a beautiful state with great weather, it has some of the most important trade and transit hubs in the west, and a robust education system. There's no reason we can't turn this around, almost all of our issues are governance related problems.

Meta isn't incorporated in California.

The angry people in the comments aren't from delaware.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#146

Post by mrguyorama »

reissbaker wrote: post #5
Conscat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas allows SpaceX to illegally disrupt 5 endangered wildlife reserves, ignore rocket launch regulations, and illegally block roads, so perhaps that is some of the appeal. Last year the Texas government decided they can do basically whatever they feel like without any checks to their authority in other regards, so if Greg Abbott is personally telling billionaires he will protect their interests, I honestly believe h…

What do you mean by "illegally"? If the government allows SpaceX to block roads, then... SpaceX blocking roads is legal. What other definition of "legal road closure" is there?

>the government

"The government" isn't a single unified entity. Texas has a long history of playing bullshit games saying "We can do this" and the feds saying "no you can't" and the courts have to solve it.

Texas insists that they have a legal right to secede. Any honest constitutional lawyer, and several founding fathers have addressed that point directly. There is no legal methodology within the context of the US system for any state anywhere to secede.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#147

Post by diogocp »

jedberg wrote: post #120
kjksf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pay package that was rubber-stamped by a conflicted-controller BoD Pay package was voted on by 75% shareholders, twice, so that's a gross misrepresentation of reality

No, it was voted on by 75% of shares . Musk alone is 12% of that.

> 72% of all votes cast (...), excluding votes of shares owned, directly or indirectly, by Messrs. Elon and Kimbal Musk.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000110465924...

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#148

Post by darth_avocado »

int_19h wrote: post #121
darth_avocado wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1 in get incorporated elsewhere. Step 2 is find political support to build an HQ (read financial incentives). Step 3 is move the HQ.

You don't need to be incorporated in Texas to move the actual facilities there, so why is that step 1?

I didn’t say you need to follow the steps. But this is the standard playbook for Billionaires seeking political favors and tax incentives.

Incorporating somewhere can get you political favor, which in turn can get you tax incentives. If you’re planning to move your Hq (which is a multi year long effort), it definitely helps if you have the first two steps lined up.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#149

Post by darth_avocado »

ryandrake wrote: post #130
tokioyoyo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, people will still move to California to start a business. When it gets threatened enough, it'll cave and play ball with other states to get back into the game. Having an insane upper hand with the climate based desirability will help them to get back on track, in my opinion. Now, I don't live in CA, and wouldn't want to move for some other reasons, but I genuinely don't think there is a better climate than SF, LA…

Various pundits have been really pushing this "People are leaving California in droves!" narrative, desperately hoping that it one day becomes true. They need it to be true in order to repudiate all the various political Californisms that they disagree with. The reality is that California's population declined less than 1% in one year out of the last 125 and stood approximately steady in one year. It increased the re…

Yet, tax revenues are dropping everywhere. At a state level and at local levels.

Re: Meta in talks to reincorporate in Texas or another state, WSJ reports

#150

Post by jedberg »

diogocp wrote: post #147
jedberg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was voted on by 75% of shares . Musk alone is 12% of that.

> 72% of all votes cast (...), excluding votes of shares owned, directly or indirectly, by Messrs. Elon and Kimbal Musk. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000110465924...

That's still shares though, not people. Ok, we've excluded two large shareholders, but there are still plenty other large holders who are friends and associates of the board.
Post reply on HN