Re:Tesla, Musk must face shareholder lawsuit over going-priv...
by slg on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @06:56PM
(#22884130)
It doesn't make them bad. It makes them disingenuous. This Tweet did not do any damage to people who has held onto Tesla stock. It did damage to short term arbitrage seekers that were trying to make a profit by being the first to act on the news. These people were at one point shareholders, but they likely weren't shareholders before the Tweet and likely aren't shareholders now. I don't and I assume the general public doesn't have a lot of sympathy for that type of trader.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Tesla, Musk must face shareholder lawsuit over going-priv...
by akerl_ on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @07:21PM
(#22884319)
The definition of shareholder doesn’t require that somebody hold the shares for a given amount of time. It’s clear that you don’t have sympathy for people who aren’t long on Tesla stock, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were shareholders, and they were misled because Musk made false statements about the finances of his company to the public.
Re:Tesla, Musk must face shareholder lawsuit over going-priv...
by FireBeyond on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @07:42PM
(#22884492)
> It did damage to short term arbitrage seekers that were trying to make a profit by being the first to act on the news.
As opposed to long term traders, who are not trying to make a profit?
Re:Tesla, Musk must face shareholder lawsuit over going-priv...
by thaumasiotes on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @09:22PM
(#22885144)
As opposed to long term traders who are suing without having been harmed.
Ideally, in a lawsuit, you want the plaintiff to have suffered some kind of harm at the hands of the defendant.