Yes, I agree with your take. But please reread the comment which is the root of this discussion: > The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitl

Yes, I agree with your take. But please reread the comment which is the root of this discussion: > The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company. I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages. Whether Musk specifically is owed damages is something a judge has to decide.