3 ms·
there is a small chance he’s playing a game. by not saying more about the funding , he’s fishing for a lawsuit that he expects to win. unlikely but possible.
by jiveturkey 8y ago
there is a small chance he’s playing a game. by not saying more about the funding , he’s fishing for a lawsuit that he expects to win.
unlikely but possible.
- gamblor956 8y agoI know techies like to think that Elon is somehow getting out of this, but legally, if the funding was not secured in full at the time of the tweet, he's fucked under US and EU securities law. And no one in their right mind tries to fish for a lawsuit. They are expensive, time consuming, and distracting.
- talltimtom 8y agoWhy would it have to be secured in full? He wrote “funding secured” that just implies a non-zero level of funding.
- gamblor956 8y agoNo, it implies that all the necessary funding was secured because he didn't qualify his statement. Not announcing that they did not have full funding would have been a material omission under securities laws and would have been just as actionable legally speaking.
- londons_explore 8y agoHis claim that existing shareholders can keep their stake could mean the projected amount of funding required is very small. It could mean his personal bank account could cover it.
- bob_theslob646 8y agoCan you quote or share said law that you speak of?