4 ms·

I think what we’re all saying is that while what he did wasn’t illegal, it should have been, and probably once was but we’ve allowed corporations to pay off our

I think what we’re all saying is that while what he did wasn’t illegal, it should have been, and probably once was but we’ve allowed corporations to pay off our politicians to make laws legalizing actions like his.

mbesto 7y ago
But who is precisely harmed as a result that wasn't already well informed of the risk that was posed to them? I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens. The only thing I can think of is that some of WeWork's investor LP's might be public pension funds, but even then, the individuals who are responsible for deploying that capital (LP representatives) should be held accountable then.
- bguillet 7y ago
  The company itself and most importantly WeWork employees were harmed (some of them won't have a job soon, and were promised a huge IPO)
  - chii 7y ago
    As an employee it sucks, but an IPO was never a garantee, and it's not grounds for a suit. As for job security, as long as any contractual severance package is honoured, there's also no grounds for a suit. The way the system works is not in favour of an employee, and it ain't gonna be changing any time soon unfortunately. This is why working for yourself is the best option, and only use employers as a stepping stone towards that. See https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/ https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/ - it's not different in Google or Facebook, and certainly going to be the same in WeWork.
    - cowsandmilk 7y ago
      > As an employee it sucks, but an IPO was never a guarantee, and it's not grounds for a suit. Why not? Returns in any company are not a guarantee. Yet, you are allowed to sue as a shareholder. Owning shares in a company when it is private does come with less privileges, but certainly does not prevent a shareholder from suing the company.
- cowsandmilk 7y ago
  > I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." Fortunately, that's not how the American legal system works. And if it worked that way, it would harm the US tremendously. Generally, investors are more ready to invest in places where there is a rule of law and functioning judicial system. Sure, the American justice system is not perfect, but it is better than many places. Foreign investors can confidently put their money into American companies, including through VC funds, and know there are some protections. If those protections only applied to American citizens or US public pension funds, we would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US.
  - mbesto 7y ago
    > "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." <Chinese people on visas in the US> != <Foreign fund with no physical presence in the country> Big difference, I'm not sure how that's relevant. > and know there are some protections. To my knowledge, the only protection the SEC provides for private investment is when the seller provides deliberately fabricated documents.[0] To my knowledge, this has not happened with WeWork - everything was pretty much out in the open. > We would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US. This isn't just any foreign capital, but a sovereign wealth fund, which had a foreign GP (SoftBank) that poorly executed its due diligence. The US doesn't need this type of capital - it's not the norm. In fact, it's probably better that the US doesn't promote investors who act recklessly and potentially mislead non-accredited US persons who have a stake in a private business (e.g. WeWork employees). [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securities-fraud-can-happen-with-private-transactions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securi...
    - fennecfoxen 7y ago
      It is difficult to express precisely how distressing the attitudes in this comment are. You propose we abandon all pretense of enforcing the law as a neutral arbiter, in favor a world where the executive branch uses selective enforcement as a crude political cudgel against parties who they disfavor (or should disfavor). Taking this approach is a great way to corrode society, to make sure that politics and enforcement of the law are power games centered about punishing the regime's political enemies, without any regard to justice whatsoever. It is the dark ooze of pure corruption, and you are advocating for it. If you want an honest ban of Saudi investment money, here is what you do: you bring it to Congress, and get them to pass a law that makes the investment illegal. Then, until the moment that the last of their money is returned to them, you give them fair and equal treatment under the law and the same access to justice you would give your best friends. The alternative is monstrous.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> I think what we’re all saying is that while what he did wasn’t illegal I don't think that's what anonu was saying: > Adam Neuman should go to jail. The self-dealing was well publicized - certainly - and illegal
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mbesto 7y ago

But who is precisely harmed as a result that wasn't already well informed of the risk that was posed to them? I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens. The only thing I can think of is that some of WeWork's investor LP's might be public pension funds, but even then, the individuals who are responsible for deploying that capital (LP representatives) should be held accountable then.

bguillet 7y ago
The company itself and most importantly WeWork employees were harmed (some of them won't have a job soon, and were promised a huge IPO)
- chii 7y ago
  As an employee it sucks, but an IPO was never a garantee, and it's not grounds for a suit. As for job security, as long as any contractual severance package is honoured, there's also no grounds for a suit. The way the system works is not in favour of an employee, and it ain't gonna be changing any time soon unfortunately. This is why working for yourself is the best option, and only use employers as a stepping stone towards that. See https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/ https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/ - it's not different in Google or Facebook, and certainly going to be the same in WeWork.
  - cowsandmilk 7y ago
    > As an employee it sucks, but an IPO was never a guarantee, and it's not grounds for a suit. Why not? Returns in any company are not a guarantee. Yet, you are allowed to sue as a shareholder. Owning shares in a company when it is private does come with less privileges, but certainly does not prevent a shareholder from suing the company.
cowsandmilk 7y ago
> I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." Fortunately, that's not how the American legal system works. And if it worked that way, it would harm the US tremendously. Generally, investors are more ready to invest in places where there is a rule of law and functioning judicial system. Sure, the American justice system is not perfect, but it is better than many places. Foreign investors can confidently put their money into American companies, including through VC funds, and know there are some protections. If those protections only applied to American citizens or US public pension funds, we would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US.
- mbesto 7y ago
  > "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." <Chinese people on visas in the US> != <Foreign fund with no physical presence in the country> Big difference, I'm not sure how that's relevant. > and know there are some protections. To my knowledge, the only protection the SEC provides for private investment is when the seller provides deliberately fabricated documents.[0] To my knowledge, this has not happened with WeWork - everything was pretty much out in the open. > We would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US. This isn't just any foreign capital, but a sovereign wealth fund, which had a foreign GP (SoftBank) that poorly executed its due diligence. The US doesn't need this type of capital - it's not the norm. In fact, it's probably better that the US doesn't promote investors who act recklessly and potentially mislead non-accredited US persons who have a stake in a private business (e.g. WeWork employees). [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securities-fraud-can-happen-with-private-transactions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securi...
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    It is difficult to express precisely how distressing the attitudes in this comment are. You propose we abandon all pretense of enforcing the law as a neutral arbiter, in favor a world where the executive branch uses selective enforcement as a crude political cudgel against parties who they disfavor (or should disfavor). Taking this approach is a great way to corrode society, to make sure that politics and enforcement of the law are power games centered about punishing the regime's political enemies, without any regard to justice whatsoever. It is the dark ooze of pure corruption, and you are advocating for it. If you want an honest ban of Saudi investment money, here is what you do: you bring it to Congress, and get them to pass a law that makes the investment illegal. Then, until the moment that the last of their money is returned to them, you give them fair and equal treatment under the law and the same access to justice you would give your best friends. The alternative is monstrous.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

> I think what we’re all saying is that while what he did wasn’t illegal I don't think that's what anonu was saying: > Adam Neuman should go to jail. The self-dealing was well publicized - certainly - and illegal

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]