• Re: Could Musk shut X down ?

    From Roy@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 5 15:03:32 2025
    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why Elon
    Muck could not just turn X off ?


    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI" While that is a
    "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial
    companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news: Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 5 14:43:25 2025
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why Elon
    Muck could not just turn X off ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Roy on Thu Jun 5 19:13:24 2025
    On 6/5/2025 6:03 PM, Roy wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why Elon Muck could not just turn X off ?


    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI"  While that is a "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news:  Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.



    They could certainly and probably would sue Musk if he just pulled the
    plug on the company. But as the principal stockholder and (I believe)
    chief executive answer, I think he does have full legal authority to
    shut the company down if he wants to do that. I'm sure employees and
    suppliers with contracts could sue for payment and things like that, but otherwise I don't know of a good legal theory that would force an owner
    to keep a company running that is not tied to public safety or something
    like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jun 5 20:06:03 2025
    On 6/5/2025 7:13 PM, Rick wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 6:03 PM, Roy wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why Elon >>  > Muck could not just turn X off ?
    ;

    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI"  While that is a
    "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial
    companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news:  Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly
    launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.



    They could certainly and probably would sue Musk if he just pulled the
    plug on the company.  But as the principal stockholder and (I believe)
    chief executive answer, I think he does have full legal authority to
    shut the company down if he wants to do that.  I'm sure employees and suppliers with contracts could sue for payment and things like that, but otherwise I don't know of a good legal theory that would force an owner
    to keep a company running that is not tied to public safety or something
    like that.



    While Musk is the CEO he does not hold a majority of the stock. I
    thought I saw somewhere that he is at 12%. X.AI Holdings is reportedly
    in talks with investors to raise around $20 billion which would dilute
    his holdings

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Roy on Fri Jun 6 08:30:27 2025
    On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:03:32 -0700, Roy wrote:

    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why
    Elon Muck could not just turn X off ?


    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI" While that is a "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news: Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.

    So post facto action ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Sat Jun 7 11:13:02 2025
    On 6/5/2025 7:13 PM, Rick wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 6:03 PM, Roy wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why Elon >>  > Muck could not just turn X off ?
    ;

    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI"  While that is a
    "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial
    companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news:  Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly
    launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.



    They could certainly and probably would sue Musk if he just pulled the
    plug on the company.  But as the principal stockholder and (I believe)
    chief executive answer, I think he does have full legal authority to
    shut the company down if he wants to do that.  I'm sure employees and suppliers with contracts could sue for payment and things like that, but otherwise I don't know of a good legal theory that would force an owner
    to keep a company running that is not tied to public safety or something
    like that.

    A corporation that is publicly held - that is, not restricted to a few shareholders - is supposed to be run for the benefit of those
    shareholders. In particular, it should make a profit - the largest
    profit the executives can manage, allowing for the fact that s--t
    happens: a product line or other change might have unexpected consequences.

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going. He wouldn't have to do that personally - he could resign as
    CEO and leave it up to the Board of Directors to choose another one. And
    as majority shareholder he could tell the Board to initiate a buyback:
    forcing the shareholders to accept a payment in return for their shares.
    That would have to be fairly close to the current market value. He could
    also sell it to another company, again at a price that is fair to the
    public shareholders.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sun Jun 8 08:06:43 2025
    On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:13:02 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going.

    But that implies that at some point when Musk says "Shut it down",
    whatever part of the organisation that would do that has the agency to
    reply "No, Mr. Musk. Instead we are going to file a court order telling
    you that you can't do that because of the shareholders."

    Or are company employees subject to a sort of Geneva convention whereby
    they have to refuse to follow instructions that might hurt shareholders ?
    And if so, how is Musk allowed to reduce the value of Tesla ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 8 13:26:33 2025
    On 6/8/2025 8:06 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:13:02 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The
    shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going.

    But that implies that at some point when Musk says "Shut it down",
    whatever part of the organisation that would do that has the agency to
    reply "No, Mr. Musk. Instead we are going to file a court order telling
    you that you can't do that because of the shareholders."

    Or are company employees subject to a sort of Geneva convention whereby
    they have to refuse to follow instructions that might hurt shareholders ?
    And if so, how is Musk allowed to reduce the value of Tesla ?

    No, it is the shareholders themselves who would file for a court order
    to prevent the shutdown. In extreme circumstances, the Court (that is,
    the judge) will appoint a "Special Master" to act as CEO of the company
    (or appoint one) in order to safeguard the shareholders' interests.

    There is also a mechanism whereby the shareholders can act, usually
    without a special order. To summarize, if the holders of a majority of
    the stock demand an election, the company must start one within a time
    period specified by Federal and/or state law.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_fight

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Rick on Sun Jun 8 13:54:10 2025
    On 6/8/2025 1:25 PM, Rick wrote:


    The question is whether X is a private or public corporation.  I'm under
    the assumption it is considered privately owned by Musk's holding
    company (also privately held), so I think legally Musk can shut it down.
     But there is no question he can and most likely will be sued by
    employees with contracts, suppliers with contracts, minority
    shareholders, etc.


    X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now wholly owned by "xAI" xAI is a
    private company. Musk has a good number of shares (12%??) but not a
    majority

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sun Jun 8 13:25:28 2025
    On 6/7/2025 2:13 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 7:13 PM, Rick wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 6:03 PM, Roy wrote:
    On 6/5/2025 2:43 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Assuming it's technically possible, is there any legal reason why
    Elon
    Muck could not just turn X off ?
    ;

    "X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now owned by "xAI"  While that is a
    "private" company, shares are owned by various people and financial
    companies.

    Lots of share holders would be very upset if "X" shut down and would
    probably sue Musk and the xAI board of directors.

    Recent news:  Billionaire Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, is reportedly
    launching a $300 million share sale that values the company at $113
    billion.



    They could certainly and probably would sue Musk if he just pulled the
    plug on the company.  But as the principal stockholder and (I believe)
    chief executive answer, I think he does have full legal authority to
    shut the company down if he wants to do that.  I'm sure employees and
    suppliers with contracts could sue for payment and things like that,
    but otherwise I don't know of a good legal theory that would force an
    owner to keep a company running that is not tied to public safety or
    something like that.

    A corporation that is publicly held - that is, not restricted to a few shareholders - is supposed to be run for the benefit of those
    shareholders. In particular, it should make a profit - the largest
    profit the executives can manage, allowing for the fact that s--t
    happens: a product line or other change might have unexpected consequences.

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going. He wouldn't have to do that personally - he could resign as
    CEO and leave it up to the Board of Directors to choose another one. And
    as majority shareholder he could tell the Board to initiate a buyback: forcing the shareholders to accept a payment in return for their shares.
    That would have to be fairly close to the current market value. He could
    also sell it to another company, again at a price that is fair to the
    public shareholders.



    The question is whether X is a private or public corporation. I'm under
    the assumption it is considered privately owned by Musk's holding
    company (also privately held), so I think legally Musk can shut it down.
    But there is no question he can and most likely will be sued by
    employees with contracts, suppliers with contracts, minority
    shareholders, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 8 13:27:09 2025
    On 6/8/2025 8:06 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:13:02 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The
    shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going.

    But that implies that at some point when Musk says "Shut it down",
    whatever part of the organisation that would do that has the agency to
    reply "No, Mr. Musk. Instead we are going to file a court order telling
    you that you can't do that because of the shareholders."

    Or are company employees subject to a sort of Geneva convention whereby
    they have to refuse to follow instructions that might hurt shareholders ?
    And if so, how is Musk allowed to reduce the value of Tesla ?

    No, it is the shareholders themselves who would file for a court order
    to prevent the shutdown. In extreme circumstances, the Court (that is,
    the judge) will appoint a "Special Master" to act as CEO of the company
    (or appoint one) in order to safeguard the shareholders' interests.

    There is also a mechanism whereby the shareholders can act, usually
    without a special order. To summarize, if the holders of a majority of
    the stock demand an election, the company must start one within a time
    period specified by Federal and/or state law.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_fight

    But even if Musk owns more than half the shares, the other shareholders
    - mostly mutual funds or hedge funds - can still sue in court if the
    company's management (that is, the Board and/or the CxOs) are doing
    things that are likely to cost the shareholders a bunch of money.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 8 21:38:36 2025
    On 6/8/2025 8:06 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:13:02 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

    But just shutting down a corporation that is making a profit... The
    shareholders would undoubtedly sue for an order requiring Musk to keep
    it going.

    But that implies that at some point when Musk says "Shut it down",
    whatever part of the organisation that would do that has the agency to
    reply "No, Mr. Musk. Instead we are going to file a court order telling
    you that you can't do that because of the shareholders."

    Or are company employees subject to a sort of Geneva convention whereby
    they have to refuse to follow instructions that might hurt shareholders ?
    And if so, how is Musk allowed to reduce the value of Tesla ?

    I don't think the employees are involved. There's a certain amount of
    rigmarole involved in shutting down a publicly-held corporation.

    It's possible that Musk could say, "OK, everybody go home. You get two
    weeks(*) of severance pay and that's it. But you can bet that some of
    the shareholders are going to sue. And they would probably get a court
    order requiring Musk to keep the place going - at least enough so that
    the next CEO still has a company to run.

    (*) Or more if they have a contract saying so, or perhaps less if they
    don't have any contract beyond the default "at will" - you can leave
    without giving notice, and the corporation can lay you off without notice.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pamela@21:1/5 to Roy on Mon Jun 23 07:10:23 2025
    On 21:54 8 Jun 2025, Roy said:
    On 6/8/2025 1:25 PM, Rick wrote:


    The question is whether X is a private or public corporation.  I'm
    under the assumption it is considered privately owned by Musk's
    holding company (also privately held), so I think legally Musk can
    shut it down.
     But there is no question he can and most likely will be sued by
    employees with contracts, suppliers with contracts, minority
    shareholders, etc.


    X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now wholly owned by "xAI" xAI is a
    private company. Musk has a good number of shares (12%??) but not a
    majority

    As CEO Musk could choose to severely reduce the services X provides.
    Perhaps under the heading of a strategic realignment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Pamela on Mon Jun 23 09:26:47 2025
    On 6/23/2025 10:10 AM, Pamela wrote:
    On 21:54 8 Jun 2025, Roy said:
    On 6/8/2025 1:25 PM, Rick wrote:


    The question is whether X is a private or public corporation.  I'm
    under the assumption it is considered privately owned by Musk's
    holding company (also privately held), so I think legally Musk can
    shut it down.
     But there is no question he can and most likely will be sued by
    employees with contracts, suppliers with contracts, minority
    shareholders, etc.


    X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now wholly owned by "xAI" xAI is a
    private company. Musk has a good number of shares (12%??) but not a
    majority

    As CEO Musk could choose to severely reduce the services X provides.
    Perhaps under the heading of a strategic realignment.


    He could also put it behind a paywall, denying access to anyone but paid subscribers. This would almost have the effect of shutting it down,
    especially if he made the subscription price high enough.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jun 24 10:17:25 2025
    On 6/23/2025 9:26 AM, Rick wrote:
    On 6/23/2025 10:10 AM, Pamela wrote:
    On 21:54  8 Jun 2025, Roy said:
    On 6/8/2025 1:25 PM, Rick wrote:


    The question is whether X is a private or public corporation.  I'm
    under the assumption it is considered privately owned by Musk's
    holding company (also privately held), so I think legally Musk can
    shut it down.
       But there is no question he can and most likely will be sued by
    employees with contracts, suppliers with contracts, minority
    shareholders, etc.


    X" was known as "X-Corp" and is now wholly owned by "xAI"  xAI is a
    private company.  Musk has a good number of shares (12%??) but not a
    majority

    As CEO Musk could choose to severely reduce the services X provides.
    Perhaps under the heading of a strategic realignment.


    He could also put it behind a paywall, denying access to anyone but paid subscribers.  This would almost have the effect of shutting it down, especially if he made the subscription price high enough.

    Whatever he does, he'd better be prepared to justify it in terms of
    profit to xAI. If not, the shareholders (probably mostly mutual funds)
    will call a shareholders meeting and replace him as CEO.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)