all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 69 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Grounds for serious litigation right there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Is that legal? Seems ripe for a class action lawsuit.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago*

    Dutch Bros set the cringe level for going public pretty high in just one image image

    But this could rival it for pathetic sleaze.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Seems highly doubtful this will pass

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • 21 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 100 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [+] 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The article doesn't say so but it might be part of bankruptcy proceedings or something similar. The company is sold off to pay debts but there isn't enough money to pay everyone, debts are paid off in a legally determined order, and stock or option holders aren't near the front of the line. I know folks who worked for First Republic and lost all their stock and options (and accrued vacation time, which is also apparently a debt) like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    That's the only way this makes sense.

    *There are usually laws that the first debt in line is unpaid wages. I'm surprised that vacation time wouldn't be included in that. Employees' stock and options though are the same as any other stock: worthless.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    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).

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    song as old as time
    Tale as old as rhyme
    Capitalism and the disease

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    This place has gross drinks. No idea how they stay in business.

  • source