3 ms·
Hertz explicitly stated that shareholders were highly likely to get absolutely nothing. I think it's also highly obvious to even retail investors that this is a
by ineedasername 6y ago
Hertz explicitly stated that shareholders were highly likely to get absolutely nothing. I think it's also highly obvious to even retail investors that this is an incredibly risky bet with potential for a total loss. I don't think there's a strong argument here that buyers didn't know what they were getting in to.
Besides, how is this different than any other shareholder selling their stock, also knowing full well it is entirely likely to be worthless?
- PebblesRox 6y agoOne difference is it increases the supply, no? With shareholders selling existing shares it's more of a zero sum game. I don't know if that's an important difference, but it has a different feel to it.