4 ms·

Minister of the Supreme Federal Court Alexandre de Moraes has frozen Starlink's bank accounts in regards to an ongoing complication between X (Twitter) and the

Minister of the Supreme Federal Court Alexandre de Moraes has frozen Starlink's bank accounts in regards to an ongoing complication between X (Twitter) and the state of Brazil. It should be noted these are two entirely different companies. Hard to see this as anything else except Brazil having a "rocket man bad"-moment.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Why is them being separate companies relevant when they have the same ownership? If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  Americans and Europeans are used to a very specific definition of liability when it comes to large businesses.
  - pjerem 2y ago
    Which is an issue honestly. Not saying that Brazil have the good definition but it’s pretty infuriating how in US and Europe, you are pretty rarely accused when your company really misbehaves. I mean, we may have thousands of cases of companies killing people due to bad decisions and executives are mostly never prosecuted.
- waihtis 2y ago
  The legal dispute isn't with Elon Musk (the person) but X (Twitter) However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses If you can't see any difference here I really can't help you
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    The problem is that those other businesses aren't really his. There are too many other people on board. They're also not related businesses. It's one of thing if there's a cabal of companies acting in concert to stifle competition, but these companies are as different as they could possibly be. Now stockholders should be asking whether going into Brazil is worth the risk because any major stockholder might be punished for their position in an entirely unrelated company. The answer may be yes, it's worth the risk, but the question should definitely be asked.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Can't the rest of majority stockholder push Elon to comply with Brasilian court rules instead?
      - threatofrain 2y ago
        It's not just Elon who is punished. It's easier to track exposure to Brazil than exposure to any high level official in a company or stockholder who may be punished for activity in another irrelevant company. Also, imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
        brunoarueira 2y ago
        Yeah, this is basically a conflict of interest! Force someone to act because something is forced upon another.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    >However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses How else is the judge supposed to punish Elon then, if he doesn't live in Brasil? All the judge can do is go after his assets in Brazilian jurisdiction. Yes, 40% of a company is also an asset in many jurisdictions.
    - waihtis 2y ago
      Are you incapable of differentiating between X (Twitter) the corporate and Elon Musk, the human entity?
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        You can differentiate them and still see the relationship. Musk has businesses in Brazil, and needs to comply with local laws. You may agree with the law or not, but you may not claim ignorance of it in order to get away from punishment.
    - johnthewise 2y ago
      Why is he supposed to be punished personally tho? The matter is with the company, the company should be punished.
      - Rinzler89 2y ago
        Because I think CEOs should be held accountable for their companies not complying with laws.
        aPoCoMiLogin 2y ago
        you are the CEO of ACME company, one of your employee broke a law but in the name of your ACME company, you are going to jail. very shortcoming rhetoric
        Rinzler89 2y ago
- Sparyjerry 2y ago
  One of their shareholders is the same. Their total and majority ownership is completely different.
- wenc 2y ago
  Public companies are not personal assets though. These are public corporations with limited liability, not sole proprietorships. Limited liability is what made modern commerce what it is today.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    What are you referring to with "public companies"? As far as I'm aware, neither SpaceX nor Twitter are public.
    - wenc 2y ago
      Maybe not. But point about limited liability still holds.
venusenvy47 2y ago
Brazil has strong antitrust laws and can determine that different companies with a common major stakeholder are an "economic group". They have had issues in the past with wealthy people controlling multiple companies and creating an anti-competitive market, so they created these laws to combat such a thing.
- waihtis 2y ago
  Thank you, this is actually useful context
  - venusenvy47 2y ago
    An internet search with terms such as "Brazil" "CADE" (their regulatory body) and "economic group" will give good results. Here is an article that discusses a 20% threshold of ownership to be considered in an "economic group". https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-economic-groups/ https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-econom...

Rinzler89 2y ago

Why is them being separate companies relevant when they have the same ownership? If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.

aaomidi 2y ago
Americans and Europeans are used to a very specific definition of liability when it comes to large businesses.
- pjerem 2y ago
  Which is an issue honestly. Not saying that Brazil have the good definition but it’s pretty infuriating how in US and Europe, you are pretty rarely accused when your company really misbehaves. I mean, we may have thousands of cases of companies killing people due to bad decisions and executives are mostly never prosecuted.
waihtis 2y ago
The legal dispute isn't with Elon Musk (the person) but X (Twitter) However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses If you can't see any difference here I really can't help you
- threatofrain 2y ago
  The problem is that those other businesses aren't really his. There are too many other people on board. They're also not related businesses. It's one of thing if there's a cabal of companies acting in concert to stifle competition, but these companies are as different as they could possibly be. Now stockholders should be asking whether going into Brazil is worth the risk because any major stockholder might be punished for their position in an entirely unrelated company. The answer may be yes, it's worth the risk, but the question should definitely be asked.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Can't the rest of majority stockholder push Elon to comply with Brasilian court rules instead?
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      It's not just Elon who is punished. It's easier to track exposure to Brazil than exposure to any high level official in a company or stockholder who may be punished for activity in another irrelevant company. Also, imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
      - brunoarueira 2y ago
        Yeah, this is basically a conflict of interest! Force someone to act because something is forced upon another.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses How else is the judge supposed to punish Elon then, if he doesn't live in Brasil? All the judge can do is go after his assets in Brazilian jurisdiction. Yes, 40% of a company is also an asset in many jurisdictions.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    Are you incapable of differentiating between X (Twitter) the corporate and Elon Musk, the human entity?
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      You can differentiate them and still see the relationship. Musk has businesses in Brazil, and needs to comply with local laws. You may agree with the law or not, but you may not claim ignorance of it in order to get away from punishment.
  - johnthewise 2y ago
    Why is he supposed to be punished personally tho? The matter is with the company, the company should be punished.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Because I think CEOs should be held accountable for their companies not complying with laws.
      - aPoCoMiLogin 2y ago
        you are the CEO of ACME company, one of your employee broke a law but in the name of your ACME company, you are going to jail. very shortcoming rhetoric
        Rinzler89 2y ago
Sparyjerry 2y ago
One of their shareholders is the same. Their total and majority ownership is completely different.
wenc 2y ago
Public companies are not personal assets though. These are public corporations with limited liability, not sole proprietorships. Limited liability is what made modern commerce what it is today.
- Timon3 2y ago
  What are you referring to with "public companies"? As far as I'm aware, neither SpaceX nor Twitter are public.
  - wenc 2y ago
    Maybe not. But point about limited liability still holds.

venusenvy47 2y ago

Brazil has strong antitrust laws and can determine that different companies with a common major stakeholder are an "economic group". They have had issues in the past with wealthy people controlling multiple companies and creating an anti-competitive market, so they created these laws to combat such a thing.

waihtis 2y ago
Thank you, this is actually useful context
- venusenvy47 2y ago
  An internet search with terms such as "Brazil" "CADE" (their regulatory body) and "economic group" will give good results. Here is an article that discusses a 20% threshold of ownership to be considered in an "economic group". https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-economic-groups/ https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-econom...