4 ms·

But they didn't have to lie about it.

• bink 4y ago
  They're in a pretty tough position if they're negotiating a merger/purchase. Don't those talks usually include an agreement not to disclose them? Something about not wanting it to be used to solicit competing offers? If they're in the middle of talks and someone blabs and an employee asks about it, they effectively either have to blow up the deal, lie, or say "I can't talk about it" (which would be seen as a yes anyways).
• Zobat 4y ago
  There's every possibility that they had to lie about it. The rules are strict about how and when you can release information that can or will affect the value (or valuation) of the company. You being told "in advance" that a company will be letting people go gives you "inside information" and the opportunity to buy or sell your shares before everybody else knows about it. So while it seems unethical to lie to your face telling the truth might be illegal.
  • HFguy 4y ago
    They are not legally obligated to lie. They are legally obligated to not say certain things. Which is different. So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t.
    • jcelerier 4y ago
      > So, they should just say, that, as always, it is a possibility. Which is both true and doesn’t provide info they shouldn’t. Is there anyone on earth who would not interpret "it is a possibility" as "pack your bags" ?
      • handoflixue 4y ago
        "We're legally obliged not to talk about that topic" seems pretty safe, especially if you use it consistently. The more it gets used, the less people can infer anything useful from it, so it's also a valuable norm to encourage.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]