Tag: shareholder”
Parkland reaches deal with largest shareholder on board nominees
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League shows how shareholder culture is killing AAA
What on earth happened to Suicide Squad? Alex and I discuss in the video above how Rocksteady’s long-awaited return to the Arkhamverse strays disappointingly far from the formula that made them a success story.
Of course, we didn’t expect (or necessarily want) another Arkham game. The law of diminishing returns was in full effect by the time Arkham Knight rolled around. The odd rumour bubbled up about a Superman game, or a Justice League game, in a similar vein. Quite how that would have worked isn’t clear, although it’s not hard to see how, over the best part of a decade, those initial ideas might have morphed into Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League.
However we got here, though, one thing is clear: this game is about five years late to the party. Enthusiasm for superhero stuff, in general, is on a massive decline. We saw evidence of this last year with Marvel’s Midnight Suns: a fantastic game from a beloved studio which simply didn’t do the numbers. Anecdotally, from what we’ve gathered from comments etc on our own coverage, this could well be attributed to the fact that a lot of people are just so burnt out on Marvel after umpteen years of the MCU (another prominent example of the law of diminishing returns, quite literally in the case of Ant Man’s recent box office collapse).
Hybe announces deal to become biggest shareholder in rival K-pop powerhouse
Jury rules Elon Musk is not liable for shareholder losses after ‘funding secured’ tweets
Elon Musk is off the hook for his 2018 tweets claiming he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private for $420 a share. A jury found that Musk was not liable for Tesla investors’ losses, following a weeks-long trial in San Francisco.
The verdict is a major victory for Musk, who could have been liable for billions of dollars in damages. Musk had testified in federal court that just because he tweets something, it “does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly.” He also argued that he could have used his shares of SpaceX to fund the deal.
The shareholders who brought the class action suit had argued that Musk’s statements about funding were false, and that they lost vast amounts of money due to stock fluctuations in the aftermath of Musk’s tweets. But while the judge in the case concluded that the tweets were “objectively false and reckless,” the jury didn’t find that Musk had deliberately misled the public.
While the verdict ends the years-long saga of the “funding secured” tweets, the posts weren’t entirely without consequences for Musk. He settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018, and stepped down from his role as Tesla board chair as a condition of the settlement. Musk has long decried the SEC settlement and has said he was “forced to admit I lied to save Tesla’s life.”
In a statement to Bloomberg following the verdict, Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, said “the jury got it right.” Musk also weighed in — naturally, via tweet — saying he was “deeply appreciative.”
Thank goodness, the wisdom of the people has prevailed!
I am deeply appreciative of the jury’s unanimous finding of innocence in the Tesla 420 take-private case.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2023
Update 2/3 7:19 PM ET: Added Elon Musk’s tweet about the verdict.
Elon Musk defends ‘funding secured’ tweets in Tesla shareholder trial
Elon Musk said that just because he tweets something, it “does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly.” The Tesla chief took the witness stand in a San Francisco federal court to defend himself (and the tweets he made back in 2018) in a lawsuit filed by a group of the automaker’s shareholders. “I think you can absolutely be truthful but can you be comprehensive? Of course not,” he added, regarding Twitter’s character limits. If you’ll recall, Musk famously tweeted in August 2018 that he was “considering taking Tesla private at $420” and that he was already able to secure funding. “Investor support is confirmed,” he said in a follow-up tweet.
The CEO later revealed that he was in talks with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which reportedly expressed interest in Tesla as part of the country’s bid to lessen its reliance on oil. However, the deal didn’t materialize, and he later penned a lengthy post on the automaker’s website to say that it’s staying public.
As CNBC notes, shareholders blamed those “funding secured” tweets for their significant financial losses, leading them to file a class action lawsuit against Musk. Tesla’s shares apparently remained highly volatile in the weeks that followed. The executive, however, downplayed his tweets’ impact and said that they don’t necessarily affect stock prices: “There have been many cases where I thought that if I were to tweet something, the stock price would go down. For example, at one point I tweeted that I thought that, in my opinion, the stock price was too high…and it went went higher, which was, which is, you know, counterintuitive.”
In addition to the shareholder lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk over his tweets, calling them “false and misleading statements” that could be constituted as fraud. Musk and Tesla paid $20 million each to settle with the SEC, and the executive had to step down as board chairman. The SEC also required company lawyers to approve any Tesla-related tweet Musk makes — a condition the CEO tried (and failed) to get out of last year.
Aside from defending his tweets, Musk criticized short sellers during his testimony, telling the court that short-selling “should be made illegal.” He added: “It is a means for, in my opinion, bad people on Wall Street to steal money from investors. Not good.” Another piece of information to take away from his time on the witness stand is that nobody can tell Musk to stop tweeting. When lawyers asked him about the advice he got to refrain from posting on Twitter after calling a British cave diver a “pedo guy,” Musk said: “I continued to tweet, yes.”
According to Reuters, Musk only testified for less than 30 minutes and that he’s not done answering lawyers’ questions. He’s expected to take the witness stand again to explain why he wrote the funding tweets and why he insisted that he had Saudi Arabia’s backing.
: Faraday Future gives supervoting rights to large shareholder amid financial crunch
Court rejects Elon Musk’s request to move Tesla shareholder trial out of San Francisco
A federal judge has denied Elon Musk’s request to move his upcoming trial against a group of Tesla shareholders to Texas, according to Bloomberg (via The Verge). On January 7th, less than two weeks before the trial was scheduled to begin on the 17th, Musk’s legal team asked to move proceedings out of California, claiming “a substantial portion” of the potential jury pool in San Francisco was likely to hold a bias against the billionaire, in part due to the ongoing layoffs at Twitter.
The upcoming civil trial stems from a class action lawsuit related to “false and misleading” statements Musk made in 2018 when he said he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share. Musk’s “funding secured” tweet drew the attention of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, eventually leading to a $40 million settlement.
The shareholders involved in the suit allege Musk’s tweet affected Tesla’s stock price. They’re asking the court to order Musk to stop his “public campaign to present a contradictory and false narrative” of the episode. They say he should also be accountable for potential damages. The group won an early victory last spring when District Judge Edward Chen concluded Musk had “recklessly made the statements with knowledge as to their falsity.”
Of the approximately 200 candidates the court is considering for the jury, 82 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Musk in a pre-trial questionnaire. Ahead of the recent hearing, Alex Spiro, Musk’s lawyer, said the sheet showed “not only that a vast majority of potential jurors hold ill-will toward Mr. Musk. but that they are not afraid to declare it proudly and vividly to the court.” However, Judge Chen didn’t buy Spiro’s argument. Alluding to the recently concluded Theranos trial, Chen said a fellow judge in a nearby courthouse was able to assemble an “unbiased” jury to decide whether Elizabeth Holmes was guilty of criminal charges. He also dismissed the idea of moving the case to Texas, noting Tesla’s main office was located in California when Tesla shareholders sued Musk.
Elon Musk asks court to move Tesla shareholder trial to Texas over potential juror bias
Elon Musk has asked a federal judge to move his upcoming Tesla shareholder trial out of San Francisco. Per the Associated Press, Alex Spiro, the billionaire’s personal lawyer, filed the request late Friday, less than two weeks before the trial is scheduled to kick off on January 17th. Musk’s legal team argues “a substantial portion” of the potential jury pool in San Francisco is likely to hold a bias against Musk due to recent media coverage criticizing his actions at Twitter and the seemingly never-ending layoffs at the company. Musk has asked to move the trial to Texas, which has been home to Tesla headquarters since late 2021.
The class action lawsuit involves “false and misleading” statements Musk made in 2018 when he said he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share. Musk’s now-infamous “funding secured” tweet landed the billionaire in trouble with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, eventually leading to a $40 million settlement with the agency. The shareholders involved in the suit won an early victory last spring when federal judge Edward Chen concluded that Musk had “recklessly made the statements with knowledge as to their falsity.” The upcoming trial will determine whether Musk’s tweet affected the automaker’s stock price and if he should be held accountable for potential damages.
“Musk’s concerns are unfounded and his motion is meritless,” Nicholas Porritt, one of the lawyers representing Tesla shareholders, told the Associated Press. “The Northern District of California is the proper venue for this lawsuit and where it has been actively litigated for over four years.” On Saturday, Judge Chen told the two sides he would hear Musk’s request on January 13th.