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

Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#41

Post by psidebot »

lolinder wrote: post #36
crazygringo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how this is materially different from Axios' analysis? Because Axios is saying: > This raises major questions about the future viability of direct listings, which some companies believe are a more efficient alternative to IPOs. / In practice, SCOTUS told investors in direct listings that they should not rely upon information contained within stock registration statements. Given that giant warning sign,…

Money Stuff doesn't say it'll be the end of direct listings, but they do say that section 10 is much harder to sue under and therefore removing section 11 limits the company's liability a lot. It doesn't seem that far fetched to go from there to "so investors will avoid the risk".

But it also seems likely that companies will decide to take advantage of the reduced liability (especially now it's confirmed and not just theorized) and investors will just price in the risk difference.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#42

Post by yieldcrv »

nawgz wrote: post #30
yieldcrv wrote: post #10

> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts ruling directly violating the spirit of their confirmation hearings and the usual role of the court could be controversial.” My, grandma, what large bad faith you have!

Another example where they said elected officials can handle it, no matter how disruptive.

I see consistency.

A court that was acting like a super legislature along partisan lines could easily have taken much further advantage than that, and …. didn’t? They didn't say “its banned, bye”. they said “elected officials should be handling this” no matter how disruptive that is, which is only disruptive because elected officials did not address the issue because they were hoping to be elected again

yes, lying to get appointed is a common strategy in the US. I dont think that has bearing on the merit of the ruling itself. I see consistency and congruence, and I dont see absurd wild interpretations that people suggest is occurring

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#43

Post by bhawks »

nawgz wrote: post #30
yieldcrv wrote: post #10

> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts ruling directly violating the spirit of their confirmation hearings and the usual role of the court could be controversial.” My, grandma, what large bad faith you have!

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#44

Post by jquery »

rkunde wrote: post #14

Unless something on the regulatory side changes, nothing will happen to direct listings. People want to own stocks that they believe will go up. That’s the long and short of it. Retail investors don’t read IPO prospectuses. Institutional investors will be more hesitant, naturally, but they have the resources and expertise to asses the risks, and any public company still has to comply with disclosure requirements, IPO…

A bit of an aside, but dual class shares should have a mandatory sunset clause no longer than 5 years. That way companies still can get public money via IPO for risky initiatives without fear of a quick takeover, but you avoid a situation where a company becomes little more than a slush fund for the obsessions of a wayward CEO (Facebook).

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#45

Post by nawgz »

yieldcrv wrote: post #42
nawgz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts ruling directly violating the spirit of their confirmation hearings and the usual role of the court could be controversial.” My, grandma, what large bad faith you have!

Another example where they said elected officials can handle it, no matter how disruptive. I see consistency. A court that was acting like a super legislature along partisan lines could easily have taken much further advantage than that, and …. didn’t? They didn't say “its banned, bye”. they said “elected officials should be handling this” no matter how disruptive that is, which is only disruptive because elected off…

Hahaha what, they literally overrode 2 past court’s rulings after saying they wouldn’t. The judicial branch overrode a decision ruled on TWICE, decisively, bipartisanly, with no new legislature involved. That’s only consistent with interpreting them as partisan hacks who don’t respect their institution.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#46

Post by nawgz »

bhawks wrote: post #43
nawgz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts ruling directly violating the spirit of their confirmation hearings and the usual role of the court could be controversial.” My, grandma, what large bad faith you have!

[flagged]

Sure, it’s unsurprising, but goes directly against how the GP was implying the court behaves. Adjacent political commentary isn’t wrong but is a different conversation

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#47

Post by jquery »

psidebot wrote: post #41
lolinder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money Stuff doesn't say it'll be the end of direct listings, but they do say that section 10 is much harder to sue under and therefore removing section 11 limits the company's liability a lot. It doesn't seem that far fetched to go from there to "so investors will avoid the risk".

But it also seems likely that companies will decide to take advantage of the reduced liability (especially now it's confirmed and not just theorized) and investors will just price in the risk difference.

In such a situation, honest companies will get hurt and dishonest companies will get helped. How is this good for the ecosystem? Reminds me of crypto ICOs.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#48

Post by DigiDigiorno »

yieldcrv wrote: post #10

> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…

Lawyer here.

"[A]nyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions" is the pertinent part of your comment. That is a very small group of people,* and usually a very quiet one that doesn't jump to the conclusion that the court is "illegitimate". The vast majority of the 50+ decisions each year do not make the news and the plurality of them are decided unanimously.**

* Basically nobody, unless it's their job, reads every case. However it is normal to follow a site like SCOTUSblog.com and get summaries to stay in the know.

** I guess check out any of the years here: https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#49

Post by jessriedel »

crazygringo wrote: post #12
puzzledobserver wrote: post #6

Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…

Not newspaper articles in general, just this one. It's a total mess.

This one is extreme, but tons of newspaper articles are weird and confusing in the same general way.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#50

Post by yieldcrv »

nawgz wrote: post #45
yieldcrv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example where they said elected officials can handle it, no matter how disruptive. I see consistency. A court that was acting like a super legislature along partisan lines could easily have taken much further advantage than that, and …. didn’t? They didn't say “its banned, bye”. they said “elected officials should be handling this” no matter how disruptive that is, which is only disruptive because elected off…

Hahaha what, they literally overrode 2 past court’s rulings after saying they wouldn’t. The judicial branch overrode a decision ruled on TWICE, decisively, bipartisanly, with no new legislature involved. That’s only consistent with interpreting them as partisan hacks who don’t respect their institution.

The blind spot with this common and oft-repeated perspective is that this was near the median amount of time it takes for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Meaning this wasn’t unique or rare or an outlier.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962613

the rationale presented in the case was a reversion to the mean, where the court doesn't function as a surrogate for the legislature. grasping at the procedural aspects of appointment because the judicial review was sound but disruptive suggests that these aren't strong arguments about the judges.

Post reply on HN