4 ms·
Surely their legal argument would be: we intended at that time to cut prices. Events in the market since then have forced us (unwillingly and with great regret;
by vijayr02 7y ago
Surely their legal argument would be: we intended at that time to cut prices. Events in the market since then have forced us (unwillingly and with great regret; tears in our eyes even) to revisit this decision and raise prices?
- ineedasername 7y agoIt doesn't natter. At some point, they changed their mind and didn't disclose it to investors. The investor suit would point out that when plans changed, investors were not notified and therefore were denied the opportunity to act on information that represented a risk to their investment. Public corporations are required to disclose risks. This is partly where Matt Levine's "everything is securities fraud" line of thinking comes from. The argument is that they knew, or should have known, that there was a risk, and risks must be disclosed.