4 ms·
I don’t think the technicalities of incorporation and branding matter that much, it’s a “Elon Musk company”, unfortunately.
by isodev 2y ago
I don’t think the technicalities of incorporation and branding matter that much, it’s a “Elon Musk company”, unfortunately.
- andsoitis 2y agoThat’s thuggish, lawless behavior that undermines trust in Brazil’s business environment.
- viraptor 2y agoIt's possibly immoral? It's not really lawless if the local Supreme Court makes the decision.
- aaomidi 2y agoSome countries hold executives and figureheads responsible cross companies. This is actually a good thing. The SpaceX board can now decide if they want to keep someone like Elon up. If this cost is worth keeping Elon around then the free market has spoken :)
- mr_toad 2y agoMusk has nearly 80% voting control, and 40% equity. So he has more control over the board than they do over him.
- coffeebeqn 2y agoIt sounds like they’re freezing one companies payments due to the conduct of another company. Aren’t these two totally distinct legal entities? Whether they share a figurehead that doesn’t sound like a place I would want to start my business in ?
- cassianoleal 2y ago[flagged]
- Sirizarry 2y agoDid I miss something? How is musk using spaceX to evade justice?
- cassianoleal 2y agoMusk ceased Xitter operations in Brazil to evade justice.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoHe effectively controls both
- Sirizarry 2y agoRight. Many people control more than one company but how is musk using them to evade justice in this case in Brazil?
- isodev 2y agoI think it's normal to hold the CEO/high suits of a company ultimately accountable.
- Grum9 2y ago[dead]
- waihtis 2y agoisnt it funny how its completely obvious, yet the mere mention of this attracts a downvote brigade on this site.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoIf there is one place where technicalities should matter, that is in a court of law. SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.
- jltsiren 2y agoSometimes what matters is voting control, not ownership. If the same entity has >50% control in two companies, the companies may not be seen as fully independent before the law.
- andsoitis 2y agoThe fact that the same person owns both does not necessarily make them dependent on one another unless they are structured or operated in a way that intertwines their activities, finances, or management.
- isodev 2y agoI think the point is that if the same person is accountable for both, they're pretty much "intertwined".
- threatofrain 2y agoImagine 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. This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
- isodev 2y agoThe idea is that responsibility is held by the CEO/owner in control. So if someone owns companies A and B and they do something illegal through company A, then it's logical to say that the CEO/owner of company B has committed something illegal (it's the same person!). I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard. I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?