this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
176 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3446 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Trump, a main draw for Truth Social users and many retail investors in the company, said earlier in September that he will not sell his stake. The stock price briefly shot up after his remarks.

Other early investors have made no such promises. They include ARC Global, a sponsor of the blank-check firm that took Trump Media public, and United Atlantic Ventures, an entity controlled by two former contestants on Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice.”

I believe it's not only that these investors made no promises not to sell, but that several of them specifically expressed that they would be selling as soon as they were legally allowed to do so.

It's hard to accurately value Truth Social. But I think if Trump were to leave the platform, its value would go to zero, and that makes it very risky. I just saw a price of 12.74. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still quite overvalued, and so it makes sense for those investors to try to sell at this price.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago (5 children)

And we know Mr Trump hasn't dumped his stock because ... he said so?

Are we back to believing anything this lying felon says?

[–] vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trump’s statements certainly weren’t enforceable under contract law, said Robert Bartlett III, a professor of law and business at Stanford Law School. The former president’s press conference remarks weren’t accompanied by the formalities that made the lockup agreement binding.

But securities law might have something to say if Trump didn’t mean it when he said he had “no intention of selling.” That would make it a misstatement, under securities fraud laws, said Bartlett. And given how much Trump Media stock moved after the Sept. 14 press conference, a plaintiff could argue that the misstatement was “material.”

A sale by Trump on Friday would be an easy case, said Adam Pritchard, a University of Michigan law professor who’s written extensively on securities regulation.

‘If he sold today, that would be fraud,” said Pritchard on Friday. “The chance of lawsuit would be exceedingly high and even the SEC might decide it was worth a lawsuit.”

But Trump didn’t say he intended to hold his stock forever. If Trump starts selling stock some weeks from now, it becomes harder to argue that his statement was false, said Pritchard.

https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/trump-djt-stock-sell-lockup-d4b275bf?mod=mw_quote_news

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

‘If he sold today, that would be fraud,” said Pritchard on Friday. “The chance of lawsuit would be exceedingly high and even the SEC might decide it was worth a lawsuit.”

Add it to the pile. Maybe we'll get around to punishing him for one of these things in the next decade.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)