3 ms·

I really wonder if a court would entertain a temporary injunction forcing RH to reverse this move. Temporary equitable relief seems justifiable here -- not a s

I really wonder if a court would entertain a temporary injunction forcing RH to reverse this move. Temporary equitable relief seems justifiable here -- not a slam dunk but not outside the realm. Especially with the circumstantial evidence that RH is acting against its customers at the benefit of some of its owners. And surely RH wasn't so dumb to tell Citadel or anyone about this move in advance. Wouldn't that be a serious insider trading claim if they opened any short positions after learning about the move but before it became public?

jcranmer 6y ago
> I really wonder if a court would entertain a temporary injunction forcing RH to reverse this move. Almost certainly not. Quoting from a typical motion to deny a temporary injunction: > As courts have repeatedly emphasized, an injunction represents an “extraordinary remedy” that is never awarded as a matter of right. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). For a preliminary injunction to issue, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating all four of the following elements: (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction serves the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. How is there any irreparable harm here? The worst that a customer would face is that they lose money--which is the most reparable harm.
- ballenf 6y ago
  The irreparable harm is triggering a crash. Or just an unnatural price correction. Irreparable because no one can predict how the price would have moved under non-manipulated conditions.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    In a crash, you lose money. I can repair your harm of lost money with cash after the fact. Ergo, that is not irreparable.

3 ms·

I really wonder if a court would entertain a temporary injunction forcing RH to reverse this move. Temporary equitable relief seems justifiable here -- not a s

by ballenf 6y ago

jcranmer 6y ago
> I really wonder if a court would entertain a temporary injunction forcing RH to reverse this move. Almost certainly not. Quoting from a typical motion to deny a temporary injunction: > As courts have repeatedly emphasized, an injunction represents an “extraordinary remedy” that is never awarded as a matter of right. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). For a preliminary injunction to issue, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating all four of the following elements: (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction serves the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. How is there any irreparable harm here? The worst that a customer would face is that they lose money--which is the most reparable harm.
- ballenf 6y ago
  The irreparable harm is triggering a crash. Or just an unnatural price correction. Irreparable because no one can predict how the price would have moved under non-manipulated conditions.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    In a crash, you lose money. I can repair your harm of lost money with cash after the fact. Ergo, that is not irreparable.