5 ms·

> It was such a good deal for GM that it didn't matter. Exactly. There is literally no downside for GM. If it's a total scam and falls apart tomorrow, well -

> It was such a good deal for GM that it didn't matter. Exactly. There is literally no downside for GM. If it's a total scam and falls apart tomorrow, well - they didn't pay any money for the deal (aside from lawyer time). Oh well. If they can sell off their stock grant, that's free money. If they can actually make parts/vehicles for Nikola, that's even more money.

nickik 6y ago
Every engineer that works on working with Nikola is not working on trying to catch up in EV. When it was just Tesla it was fine for them to be bad at making EV. Now that VW and others are starting to get serious, they really need to make something happen.
samfisher83 6y ago
Until they get sued. Many of the people who made money of Madoff had to return the money they gained.
- hatsunearu 6y ago
  You're saying an investor (GM) can be held liable for what the limited liability corporation (Nikolai) did?
  - hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
    In some cases, yes.
    - nordsieck 6y ago
      >> You're saying an investor (GM) can be held liable for what the limited liability corporation (Nikolai) did? > In some cases, yes. Now I'm curious. Can you give an example? This[1] is a pretty good overview to piercing the corporate veil. I suppose it's technically possible for a company to be liable for what a company they invest in does, but there would have to be some pretty weird circumstances (for example, if the two companies had substantially co-mingled finances and leadership). I don't see any of it applying to the GM/Nikola deal. ___ 1. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Not necessarily held liable, but they'd probably have to return the money if it was earned from illegal activity.
blantonl 6y ago
Exactly. There is literally no downside for GM. We're going to find out over the next few weeks that isn't the case. There is tremendous reputational risk here. This episode could throw into question EV capabilities for GM for years to come. Don't be surprised to see heads roll all the way up in the C-suite at GM over this.
- warrenq 6y ago
  We are living in a post truth world. GM can just say fake news, hire propoganda and move on
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Reputational risk among who? The upper middle class people who poo-poo anyone who doesn't drive a Toyota or Tesla product? Nobody else is paying serious attention to the R&D ventures of the big automakers or at least if they are they aren't using it to influence purchasing decisions.
  - wasdfff 6y ago
    Seriously, this is auto/tech nerd news which is read by a sliver of car buyers. Folks will stroll into the dealership they bought their last GM 15 years ago and say ‘gee maybe ill give electric a shot for these lease terms considering my use lately.’

nickik 6y ago

Every engineer that works on working with Nikola is not working on trying to catch up in EV. When it was just Tesla it was fine for them to be bad at making EV. Now that VW and others are starting to get serious, they really need to make something happen.

samfisher83 6y ago

Until they get sued. Many of the people who made money of Madoff had to return the money they gained.

hatsunearu 6y ago
You're saying an investor (GM) can be held liable for what the limited liability corporation (Nikolai) did?
- hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
  In some cases, yes.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    >> You're saying an investor (GM) can be held liable for what the limited liability corporation (Nikolai) did? > In some cases, yes. Now I'm curious. Can you give an example? This[1] is a pretty good overview to piercing the corporate veil. I suppose it's technically possible for a company to be liable for what a company they invest in does, but there would have to be some pretty weird circumstances (for example, if the two companies had substantially co-mingled finances and leadership). I don't see any of it applying to the GM/Nikola deal. ___ 1. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...
- ric2b 6y ago
  Not necessarily held liable, but they'd probably have to return the money if it was earned from illegal activity.

blantonl 6y ago

Exactly. There is literally no downside for GM. We're going to find out over the next few weeks that isn't the case. There is tremendous reputational risk here. This episode could throw into question EV capabilities for GM for years to come. Don't be surprised to see heads roll all the way up in the C-suite at GM over this.

warrenq 6y ago
We are living in a post truth world. GM can just say fake news, hire propoganda and move on
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Reputational risk among who? The upper middle class people who poo-poo anyone who doesn't drive a Toyota or Tesla product? Nobody else is paying serious attention to the R&D ventures of the big automakers or at least if they are they aren't using it to influence purchasing decisions.
- wasdfff 6y ago
  Seriously, this is auto/tech nerd news which is read by a sliver of car buyers. Folks will stroll into the dealership they bought their last GM 15 years ago and say ‘gee maybe ill give electric a shot for these lease terms considering my use lately.’