Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, Fred L with Electrek posted the four shareholders related to suits:

Bottom line is none of these four look like major shareholders

Tesla lists the 4 lawsuits:

  • City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A, No. 12711-VCS
  • Ellen Prasinos v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 12723-VCS
  • Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 12740-VCS
  • P. Evan Stephens v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 1275-VCS

Unless the two retirement funds have no faith in Elon's long term goals they shouldn't be complaining. As for individual investors, should we all be able to sue if TSLA doesn't meet our long term goals in 6 months, a year, five years or 10 years. As to claiming (not that I know they did), Musk is making "stupid/unwise" decisions, what makes them think they're smarter than he is.
 
many (most?) disagree with this currently (including the general market)

Still don't understand why, but maybe it's me.

I'm considering buying other few units of SCTY, which I can afford and I just regard them as a discounted TSLA.
I won't sell probably anything until M3 is out, Powerwalls are all the rage and Tesla is a reality also in Europe: so the fact that they are not "normal" TSLA shouldn't be a problem.

a.
 
I don't think there has ever been a public company merger deal that didn't generate lawsuits in recent memory. It's all part of the game. Pay off the ransom money to bottom-feeding plaintiff's attorneys and move on. To be clear, I am generally on the side of plaintiff's attorneys and I think they serve a very valuable watchdog function in our judicial system. All bets are off with shareholder derivative suits that pop up in every deal, though. These guys are scum and serve no purpose except to extract a settlement and increase transaction costs.

The "could delay the merger" language is your typical risk factor boilerplate disclosure that every deal has. Surprise, surprise, Tesla's utterly typical boilerplate legalese generates breathless headlines across the media. It's possible a judge could grant a temporary injunction (i.e., halt the merger to give time to explore a suit) but it's pretty rare. I wouldn't worry about the suits.

I am not a lawyer and did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night:rolleyes:, but Delaware is a small state and home to arguably the best Chancery Court in the nation. It is generally 'business friendly', one reason (there are several) that businesses incorporate in Delaware.

Delaware is also a small state where everyone knows several lawyers who make their living in Chancery Court. I asked two of them what they thought about this well known merger proposal and their opinion about the lawsuits. They were surprised there were only four and said the deal goes through.;)
 
I am not a lawyer and did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night:rolleyes:, but Delaware is a small state and home to arguably the best Chancery Court in the nation. It is generally 'business friendly', one reason (there are several) that businesses incorporate in Delaware.

Delaware is also a small state where everyone knows several lawyers who make their living in Chancery Court. I asked two of them what they thought about this well known merger proposal and their opinion about the lawsuits. They were surprised there were only four and said the deal goes through.;)
Exactly! It's sad but us lawyers are desensitized to this stuff. This extortion happens with every single deal. It's so routine I bet companies model the payoff in their transaction costs.
 
shocking...
:cool:

Exactly! It's sad but us lawyers are desensitized to this stuff. This extortion happens with every single deal. It's so routine I bet companies model the payoff in their transaction costs.

Most shockingly, when I said I have shares in both companies they wondered if my call was to add a suit of my own!

Before I get flamed...I answered. No:cool:
 
Last edited:
Exactly! It's sad but us lawyers are desensitized to this stuff. This extortion happens with every single deal. It's so routine I bet companies model the payoff in their transaction costs.

There are countries in the world where this doesn't happen, because the court system simply doesn't allow it. Cases which are without merit on their face are just not accepted to even be heard before the court.

Technically, the US *does* have restrictions about frivolous and vexatious litigation, but its so poorly applied it might as well not exist. Additionally, companies that have simply accepted that paying such settlements is part of the cost of doing business perpetuate the problem, by not fighting and getting this type of plaintiff clearly labeled as vexatious (which restricts their ability to file future suits like this).
 
IB has 0 shares to short and a 19% fee rate. It continues to climb.
One strange observation: I have a margin account with IB, so IB is allowed to lend out my shares (they receive 50% of the proceeds from lending, I receive the other 50%). They did so until August 16th. From there on they did not lend out a single TSLA share from my account.
It seems very strange to me, and i have no explanation for it.
Can anyone confirm whether their ib account currently behaves the same?
 
Anyone else looking forward to shorts whining if q3 numbers are much better than expected because Tesla gamed the quarterly results by doing pretty much exactly what they've been beating tesla over the head for (e.g., take foot off growth spending accelerator, focus on production/deliveries and profitability).
Yes, but if the PR leash was taken off the strategists for a minute, they could easily answer with "Yes, we intentionally shifted costs and profits just to prove a point, that we CAN make a profit if we WANT to, but right now, we're INVESTING in our future in a big way, so this next quarter, we're going to be spending money to make even more money, again, so deal with it." They can still complain. Questions can still be asked. But, there will be a general sense that they threw a switch to make profit and did on purpose, and then said "that was just to show you we can, but have better plans in mind, so we're going back to our medium-term normal now, of heavily investing for the future". I think this can all be said in a similar way if the numbers show up closer to profit, too, even if profit isn't actually made.

I also think it's nice to take a breather for the company and practice salesmanship, since they need to have an idea of how to make that work when Model 3 comes into full swing pretty soon, and they didn't really have a lot of practice with the smaller market segment S & X. This September they're probably collecting all sorts of data about how to grow their company. If I were Tesla, I'd be holding off on opening up more Tesla Stores until the Solar City merger goes through and they can start setting up some Solar City + Battery displays in the stores during design phase, look at what they look like, run dry run sales events (which is funny since in Tesla land that means sales associates standing around not doing much, but it's what they do that matters so it still needs doing), and then when that's worked out, take the .... wait, no, they could start selling Solar City + batteries right there. Why take it down? There's a gap between purchasing Solar City and integrating products in a way that would make a good impression on the marketplace (customers). Tesla will have to be careful not to sell too many solar panels + batteries under the Tesla brand while the old Solar City sales team channels are still in place and the batteries are not being made in high quantities. So, I'm returning to my original prediction, that after dry runs, they'll hide the Solar City and Tesla Energy product displays (behind false walls?), slowly ramp down the .... I haven't heard the plans. This is exciting.
 
Last edited:
The bump up in SP during the first hour of trading today was expected. I'm thinking the reason the SP then lost the morning's gain was because the market doesn't like uncertainty, and the lawsuits add uncertainty. I would personally like to see new shares to short held up by the recall date creep for another week and a half or so, which would allow expectations of October 1-3 release of Q3 numbers to firmly establish an uptrend before shorts are rearmed and allowed to work their mischief.

Tesla obviously wants to get both the SCTY vote and the capital raise behind them. Which do you think comes first? The SCTY merger vote has more of a chance of success if capital has already been raised, but the big money may want to see the results of the SCTY merger vote before investing in TSLA. Maybe the answer depends upon the market reaction to Q3 results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrendTrader007
B
Anyone else looking forward to shorts whining if q3 numbers are much better than expected because Tesla gamed the quarterly results by doing pretty much exactly what they've been beating tesla over the head for (e.g., take foot off growth spending accelerator, focus on production/deliveries and profitability).
To the degree that it's driven by production and deliveries (finally getting the X production problems behind them) how can that not be a big plus?

Although the 5k cars not delivered at the end of Q2 do look a little suspicious :D.
 
Tesla obviously wants to get both the SCTY vote and the capital raise behind them. Which do you think comes first? The SCTY merger vote has more of a chance of success if capital has already been raised, but the big money may want to see the results of the SCTY merger vote before investing in TSLA. Maybe the answer depends upon the market reaction to Q3 results.
I think the merger comes first. I don't think Tesla is in any hurry to do the raise.
 
OK, I've had a chance to look at the S-4/A. Nothing much of note has changed.

The only thing that caught my eye was the number of outstanding shares. It rose from 149,238,810 on August 19 to 149,789,276 on September 15, an increase of 550,466. Insider shares only changed about 9k during this period, so it's not like Tesla issued a bunch of awards or a bunch of options were exercised (which would have been reported on Form 4 anyway). Plus, no one would exercise options at Tesla right now unless they were expiring. I can think of 3 possibilities:

- companywide restricted stock was awarded to non-executive officers (and thus not reported). Collectively, I suppose it could add up to this large 550,000 number. However, equity awards are typically granted in Q1 for a variety of reasons so I don't think this is it.
- something to do with the note redemption. I think Tesla was hedged with options or something; perhaps they exercised? There were some excellent exchanges here several weeks ago but I have the memory of a goldfish. Brian and neroden, could use your expertise here. I think this is likely the culprit.
- possible delay in delivering shares to participants in the equity raise? This seems pretty unlikely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.