I think it’s not up to a third party to decide that a contract between two other parties was not ‘fair’, and certainly not five years after the fact.
If you can show me stories from the time saying that Elon was screwing over Tesla, that would be interesting. Because the ones I’ve seen said the opposite - that Elon was an idiot for offering the deal, and was going to get fleeced.
It was only after he did it that people objected to the deal.
So people get to materially misrepresent the facts during a contract, and not be held accountable later? Horseshit.
ETA also, the lawsuit was filed back in 2018. It just takes a while for the wheels of justice to grind up cheaters.
I never suggested that. My point was that they should have limited power to interject themselves into other’s deals, in part because rhey don’t (and shouldn’t) have skin in the game.
Good thing that’s actually how it works then isn’t it?
Having known quite a few people who have been screwed over by unfair contracts, let me go on the record to say I think contract law is good.
Am I completely missing something or is Sam suggesting that contract law should not exist?!
“Court of Equity” sounds totally woke.
The problem, as the judge saw it, was when the compensation plan with Musk was negotiated, the board refused to disclose their tight relationship with him, thereby depriving the shareholders of an opportunity to negotiate the deal in good faith. The fix was in from the get go, with Musk and the board colluding to make sure the shareholders would pass the compensation plan that Musk wanted with next to nobody actually representing the interests of the company’s shareholders.
I’ll also point out the opinion notes that Musk’s compensation was “30 times greater than its nearest comparable plan” and “250 times greater than the median peer 2017 CEO compensation”. This isn’t a case of Musk getting a just a bit higher compensation than others. It’s a case of Musk and the board colluding to give Musk an outrageously high compensation and taking away any good faith negotitating by the shareholders.
I never said anything about contract law in general. Of course you need contract law. I was talking about this case in particular.
I get so tired of, “So what you are saying is…” followed by something not even close to what I was saying.
It can be up to judge to decide that the agreement was deceptive, though.
I’m not sure I agree with this particular decision, though. A whole lot of investors in the recent past have fallen into a thrall over one “visionary” or another, and given them ridiculous latitude and ridiculously beneficial contracts — I’m think Theranos and WeWork, and frankly, I think they get what they deserve when their bets don’t pay off.
That is true. And I guess we’ll find out whether the judge overreached during the inevitable appeal.
How is “anyone but the people involved in the contract directly should mind their business” not essentially calling for contract law to be abolished? Of course an authoritative independent third party should be allowed to judge if the contract was fair and complied with law. Suggesting otherwise is insane.
I’ve wondered about this. My latest 41 followers are fake. Some have links indicating they are porn-bots. But others appear to be placeholders. I’m guessing following other accounts makes you less likely to be auto-banned by twitter. At some point the placeholders will be sold to other bad actors, who will benefit from the aged join date. Or maybe it’s just a private stockpile held in case the porn bots with links experience a mass banning.
They usually give a comment of mine a like, then a follow. The follow often happens immediately after I check their profile. How do they know that? Maybe it’s an artifact of the way twitter’s dataset updates itself.
ETA: They want me to follow back. Then they can proceed with further shenanigans. Duh.
Regarding the Delaware court decision, here’s Matt Levine’s take at Bloomberg. The gifted link is good for 1 week only:
Matt Levine is a funny and entertaining financial reporter. His missives trend rightwards (“Everything is securities fraud.”), but he isn’t a movement conservative guy and is devoid of the usual preening pompousness, so his positioning defies description. He’s an actual independent thinker, as opposed to a conventional thinker who will never shut up about how independent he is.
Best, he gives solid analysis that isn’t afraid to state it’s take, but also isn’t afraid to cover a range of conflicting evidence. He follows Carl Sagan’s dictum (again, without constantly reminding you that he does):
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. CARL SAGAN
Verge article:
La-la La-la…La-la La-la… Elmo’s Wrong…
One hour later:
For as much grief as Sam gets, I appreciate the progress he made here.
Oops.
BREAKING: Tesla did a whoopsie at their Fremont factory and polluted a bunch of water (pretty bad) and they can’t keep it contained to their property. Levels of major pollutants massively over what’s legal. Huge mess, no surprise.
Link below is to a PDF.
2024 starting off great for Elmo.
That would be something. But let’s get back to discussing what happened instead of something you made up.
Or that judges should only be allowed to do their jobs if they are shareholders in the company that is being sued? “Sorry judge, you have no skin in the game. Piss off.” It’s very confusing.
Well ya, you would say that. Because you have no skin in the game.
It’s like seeing “conflict of interest” and ignoring the word “conflict”.