41–50 of 91 posts
I don't understand why everybody thinks this fee is outrageous. These lawyers just saved Tesla's shareholders way, way more than that. Pay $6 billion to get $50 billion? I'll do that deal all day long and twice on Sundays.
Not if Elon decides to leave Tesla. In this case, this was a catastrophic failure.
I am confused. These are the lawyers that sued Tesla and won, not Elon/Telsa's lawyers, and they want that sort of payout due to the cost savings to Tesla? If so, I wonder who funded the original lawsuit -- was that not enough -- or was this the idea all along?
> The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.
Sounds like they need to hire more lawyers to argue that the first set of lawyers' pay is excessive.
I could see this as a recursive lawsuit. One set of lawyers negiotates the pay down to the payment down to 3 billion. The next set of lawyers argues two billion is too high and negiotates it down to 1 billion, all the way to zero. It's lawers all the way down!
I am confused. These are the lawyers that sued Tesla and won, not Elon/Telsa's lawyers, and they want that sort of payout due to the cost savings to Tesla? If so, I wonder who funded the original lawsuit -- was that not enough -- or was this the idea all along?
It's straightforward. The attorneys are arguing that because they have prevented what amounts to the embezzlement of $50b from Tesla and its shareholders, they are entitled to close to 10%. This is similar to SEC whistleblowers. > The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board, run by the shareholders, wanted that deal and put it in place. They must have thought that the value add was worth it. Granted, it seems many do not think they acted correctly, hence the ruling and the lawsuits. The point is that time will tell if this really saves money over the long run. I do not know the law and I am not questioning the board here.
// The board, run by the shareholders // If the board was representative of the shareholders wishes, the shareholders wouldn't have sued the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trolling. What, pray tell, is a fair wage? Who gets to decide? // people who took years out of earnings to learn a new skill // Here in Indiana, you have to have a Master's degree to be a teacher. Average wage is around $50k. Or you could get a B.S. in communications an and make 2-3x that doing P.R. Or you could just drop out of high school to become a "creator" at only fans and make zillions a year taking pictur…
A fair wage is what the market will pay. Unfortunately for most teachers, there is not a fair market, but a vise with government and unions on either side they’ve created for themselves. Also, when teacher salaries are evaluated at an hourly rate (30 hour weeks, 11-weeks of vacation per year), it’s not as bad as it seems.* * My wife was a teacher, my parents were teachers, my aunts and uncles were teachers, my grandp…
Well, I wouldn't go that far (cf. my example above on the pay differential between the oldest profession and the second-oldest profession) But it does at least set prices in a way which both buyer and seller agree on.
// they aren't educators, etc //
You have a way to let teachers make substantially larger wages? Let's hear it:-)
I don't understand why everybody thinks this fee is outrageous. These lawyers just saved Tesla's shareholders way, way more than that. Pay $6 billion to get $50 billion? I'll do that deal all day long and twice on Sundays.
The board, run by the shareholders, wanted that deal and put it in place. They must have thought that the value add was worth it. Granted, it seems many do not think they acted correctly, hence the ruling and the lawsuits. The point is that time will tell if this really saves money over the long run. I do not know the law and I am not questioning the board here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Set maximum billable rate at minimum wage. That seems only fair solution. It is enough for many workers, should be enough for anyone.
Minimum wage never meant livable wage. A specialized professional is typically paid a market rate many times higher than minimum wage. I’m not sure why lawyers should be treated differently (regardless of feelings towards some).
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
The idea that minimum wage was never a living wage and never meant to be is a rewriting of history.
IMHO, it's high time to stop paying lawyers, accountants, notary publics (in Germany) and similar professions in percentages. There is no way a bunch of lawyers deserves that kind of payout.
Is a notary public in Germany a notary in the British sense or in the American sense? Because American notaries get paid peanuts.
In Germany, the issue is with real estate - about 1% of the price go to notary fees, which is many thousands of euros for most purchases. No matter what, this is outrageous.