Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Valmy]

Yeah, the personal liability imposed on officers and directors is such that nobody would hold those positions without liability coverage. 

Ok but what happens when those people are actually incompetent or malignant? Nothing at all. Is that a better situation?

I would rather have nobody want those positions.

[HVC]

Yeah, the personal liability imposed on officers and directors is such that nobody would hold those positions without liability coverage. 

Ok but what happens when those people are actually incompetent or malignant? Nothing at all. Is that a better situation?

I would rather have nobody want those positions.

Some things china does right 

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, the personal liability imposed on officers and directors is such that nobody would hold those positions without liability coverage. 

Ok but what happens when those people are actually incompetent or malignant? Nothing at all. Is that a better situation?

I would rather have nobody want those positions.

I answered that in the part of my post you did not copy.

[Valmy]

I answered that in the part of my post you did not copy.

You did? I am clearly not smart enough to make sense of it 

Neil, the coverage typically has an exclusion for acts committed outside the scope of the office. The big legal battle then is fought over whether there should be coverage or not.  The other twist is that typically plaintiffs want the acts to be covered, so claims are pled in such a way that the insurer has a hard argument to make if they want to void coverage.

 

[crazy canuck]

I answered that in the part of my post you did not copy.

You did? I am clearly not smart enough to make sense of it 

Neil, the coverage typically has an exclusion for acts committed outside the scope of the office. The big legal battle then is fought over whether there should be coverage or not.  The other twist is that typically plaintiffs want the acts to be covered, so claims are pled in such a way that the insurer has a hard argument to make if they want to void coverage.

 

Ok, what it means to be acting outside the scope of the office is (and I am simplifying a lot here) that they are acting in a way that was not reasonably contemplated. So for example, if they commit fraud there would be no coverage.

But as I said, it rarely comes to that sort of claim because the plaintiffs want the deep pockets of the insurer, so they plead their cases in a way that the insurance will still cover the act.  So, claims of negligence rather than intentional malfeasance.

edit: I should add that there a large number of regulatory offences which create personal liability for directors, for acts of the company that the director may not even know about, never approved, and would never have approved. But that is not a defence. In the law biz we call those strict liability offences.  That is one of the main reasons for the insurance.

[DontSayBanana]

It appears Twitter is experiencing some difficulties and went down recently.

I'm curious if anyone here knows what sort of vulnerabilities Twitter has.

I believe they can all be filed under "not enough." Sadly, as someone who deleted both the app and his account as soon as the sale to Musk was announced, I don't know any of the particulars.

I do absolutely love that they're backed so far into a rhetorical corner that they can't spin this as a hostile foreign actor instead of a pissed-off domestic base.

[PJL]

It appears Twitter is experiencing some difficulties and went down recently.

I'm curious if anyone here knows what sort of vulnerabilities Twitter has.

I believe they can all be filed under "not enough." Sadly, as someone who deleted both the app and his account as soon as the sale to Musk was announced, I don't know any of the particulars.

I do absolutely love that they're backed so far into a rhetorical corner that they can't spin this as a hostile foreign actor instead of a pissed-off domestic base.

Really? I heard earlier that Musk was effectively blaming Ukraine for the outage.

[Valmy]

So did Musk and Tesla commit fraud to get more Canadian rebate money?

https://carbuzz.com/tesla-surge-gamed-canada-ev-rebates-illegally/

Suspicious Tesla Sales Surge May Have Gamed Canada EV Rebates Illegally

Canadian officials are investigating a surge in Tesla sales in January, which depleted the country's subsidized EV rebate fund just days before the program was paused. The American EV company claimed it had sold 8,600 vehicles in just three days, which is 8,000 more than Ford sells of its wildly popular F-Series pickup in the same time period – although the Tesla Model Y is indeed a hot-selling EV, we're not sure it could have unseated Canada's most popular vehicle for decades in a single weekend. In fact, one retailer in Toronto claimed more than 1,200 sales in a single day, raising concerns over whether those new vehicle registrations were legitimate.

Tesla Surge Took Advantage Of A Program Before It Ended

According to the Toronto Star, the sudden surge in Tesla sales spurred $43 million CAD ($29.8 million USD) worth of rebates from a Canadian EV subsidy program, which paused on January 13. The government announced it would temporarily end the program on January 10, which might have encouraged Tesla retailers to take as much advantage of the system before it went away. Those 8,600 sales came from just four retailers – two in Toronto, one in Quebec, and one in Vancouver – to the tune of six Teslas sold at each dealer every hour.

According to the Star, that left 200 other Canadian retailers "stiffed" because the government's rebate fund ran out before they could offer rebates to their customers, unbeknownst to them. That left those dealers holding the bag to the tune of $10 million CAD ($6.9 million USD) because they promised the rebate to nearly 2,300 customers and now had to pay out of pocket to make up the difference. Those dealers now want answers as to how their 200 locations could be so severely outsold by just four Tesla retailers.

An Investigation Is Now Underway

Speaking to the television station CTV News, Canadian Auto Dealers Association representative Huw Williams said it defied logic that the company-owned stores could sell that many vehicles in one weekend. "There is something highly unusual about this," he continued. "It seems that somebody at Tesla may have been tipped off or that the registration gaming of this may have been inappropriate." The association urged the Canadian Transport Ministry to look into the sales and understand exactly how and why the claimed new vehicle registrations came into effect.

Transport Canada announced it would evaluate the 8,600 new-vehicle registrations claimed by the Tesla dealerships, although the automaker itself has remained silent on the matter, despite the surge far outpacing its 7,000 units sold in the entire first three months of 2024. Canada is reviewing the particulars of each sale to determine if Tesla dealers undertook any wrongdoing in claiming its billions from the rebate program, which according to CTV has incentivized the sales of more than 500,000 EVs in the country.

Original story was in the Toronto Star but it seems to be paywalled.

So...any thoughts Canadians? Is this story doing the rounds up there? Did our local Languish Toronto inhabitants go out and buy multiple Teslas at that one Toronto Dealership? Did Malthus pick up a few $1,200 Tesla strollers?

[crazy canuck]

Did Malthus pick up a few $1,200 Tesla strollers?

 

Thank you, that made my day!

[Jacob]

Definitely doing the rounds up here. I assume they did commit fraud. And I assume Musk will attempt to politicize it and roll it into the general US bullying of Canada.

[Razgovory]

So it was a pro-Pal group that is allied with Russia that hacked Twitter.  What an odd thing for them to do.