
post
Often common stock implies the existence of preferred stock, i.e. the investors got paid out in low sale and everyone else had no money available. The increasingly dominant private equity corp biz probably got a great deal. The class divide widens as usual
I tried researching this a bit, and from what I understand, the company basically has no money, which in turn makes the stock worthless. So since the stock is effectively $0.00 per share, they can just "cancel" the stock completely.
This could be oversimplified or dead wrong, but I don't understand any other way this could work legally.
I think that's how it's been justified but the company just sold so it's not worthless anymore right? Can't have it both ways.
What the fuck? How is that even legal? Aren't stocks supposed to be ownership stakes in the company? How can they just take that away?
Because fuck you plebe!
I want off this earth guys.
In a liquidation sale, common stock holders only get paid if there is money left over after everyone else gets their cut. Creditors, bondholders and preferred stock holders are ahead of them in line.
It's also worth pointing out that the company is not publicly traded, it's privately owned, so in effect the shares were always worthless. It's not clear to me if they were actually ownership shares or just options against the possibility of the company going public at some point in the future.
Creditors, bondholders and preferred stock holders are ahead of them in line.
I can't believe capitalism still keeps surprising me with how fucked up it is.
It's not clear to me if they were actually ownership shares or just options against the possibility of the company going public at some point in the future.
See above.
Reading into this it's likely a distressed asset sale, a bankruptcy in all but name. They're toast and they know they're toast, but instead of bankruptcy they sell all the assets. They then use the money to pay off in order: wages, debts, preferred shares, common shares. Sounds like this is preferred over bankrupty, which when you get the courts involved is expensive and time consuming (so fewer debt holders get their money).
What the actual fuck
Grounds for serious litigation right there
I don't think it is unfortunately because this is completely legal as long as it was laid out in the terms of the stock when it was purchased.
This isn't preferred stock that we're talking about, this is common stock and most of the time that type of stock is given out to employees as like an incentive program and generally hold no actual weight in the company itself and is the least priority when these types of sales occur.
Basically, if they wanted to initiate litigation on this, their argument would have to be either that they were misled of the type of stock that they were purchasing, or that they didn't adequately state the financial risks of the stock.
By all means, I think they should try, especially that guy that said that they invested $10 million into that company and is losing it. I just don't think it will go anywhere.
Great, a new way to get screwed to worry about if the situation ever comes up. I wonder if there is any reasonable defense against this....
One time, I had my shares reduced in value when my employer sold. I didn't know they could just write them off at $0.
I suppose it could be argued that, as an "investment" stock's value (even pre-IPO) is fungible and not guaranteed. Still, this smells like theft.
i didn’t know you could do that
edit: also most evil two paragraphs you have ever read in your life? really?
Whoa. Not recommended to buy something that someone with an opposing financial interest can "cancel".
Fuck Philz coffee. Fuckin diabetes in a cup. I went in there and tried to order a latte once.
"Sorry, we don't DO espresso drinks here. We only do drip coffee, but I can promise it'll be the best coffee you ever had in your life!"
"Fine, whatever, I'll take it"
They put fucking condensed milk or something in there making it way too goddamn sweet. That was just the regular one. They also have flavored ones with presumably even more sugar. I don't see the appeal at all. They are selling Mr. Coffee ass drip coffee with some carnation condensed milk for like $8 or whatever. Absolutely trash coffee. I don't understand what people like about it.
I feel bad for the employees though, that's fucked. Am I surprised that the guy that got rich selling people the same shitty coffee they can make at home for a premium by simply adding something sweet and fatty in it is a shitty person? Far from it.
Dutch Bros set the cringe level for going public pretty high in just one image
But this could rival it for pathetic sleaze.
Seems highly doubtful this will pass
Can anyone help me understand the fine print, if there are any?
How can one sell the company and pocket all the money without considering other stockholders?


all 22 comments