Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's an unrealistic number. The guy hacked the system and downloaded information, distributing that which caused the stock price to dip. Tesla has a definitive loss. What that exact number is could be up to debate, but just because the defendant is a person instead of a company does not diminish the level of damage done to Tesla.

View on HN

> distributing that which caused the stock price to dip. Tesla has a definitive loss.

How did a stock price dip cause a loss to Tesla?

For starters, it affects how easily they could raise cash by borrowing money, during a time when they desperately needed capitol.

The problem with that legal theory is that Musk insisted at that time that Tesla did NOT plan to raise capital: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-continue...

Perhaps that was decided because it was costly?

Saying you do not plan to do something, does not mean that you won't change your mind if circumstances change in the future

so for starters it's some unquantifiable handwavey opportunity cost

Stock price caused Tesla be valued less. Bonds, stock options, add more collateral to cover loans, sold to cover loans....?

But apparently Tesla was valued less because of these actions at that time.

Tesla also have some convertible bonds out there that can be converted to stock if the stock price is above a certain number, but otherwise I think Tesla has to pay it back in cash.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/elon-musks-tesla-stock-boost...

the loss of...being exposed for deceiving its shareholders

the level of damage done shall not be diminished, folks

FYI, his whistle blower case has fallen apart and he is now having to represent himself on that since his lawyers have abandoned him on that

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

Is saboteur really the right word for that though? Maybe it's just the association I've made but that to me denotes something much more active and directly damaging than just leaking damaging information.

That's literally the accusation, that he doctored information he then gave to jurnalist to harm the company

Not what I meant, I mean actually damaging something not just reputation or stock price. Even just deleting some critical file that had to be restored from a backup but just releasing information about the company doesn't fit my mental model of sabotage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com