this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
300 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19166 readers
6052 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
[–] [email protected] 52 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The story honestly delivers much better than the simple schadenfreude that the headline would imply.

TMTG was set to go public via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) called Digital World Acquisition. However, Litinsky and Moss are now alleging in their lawsuit that Trump sought to "drastically dilute" the shares of the company in an "11th hour, pre-merger corporate maneuvering" scheme.

Initially, Trump's stake was 78 million shares, valued at roughly $3.5 billion. UAV's stake in the company amounted to seven million shares valued at approximately $339 million. However, the lawsuit alleges Trump then engaged in a "dilution scheme" to increase the number of total shares to one billion, which they said had "no legitimate business purpose." UAV accused Trump of possibly scheming to distribute the additional shares among himself and his family, while significantly decreasing their stake in the company to less than 1%.

"[UAV was] promised 8.6 percent of this company and sadly its business partners are baselessly trying to renege," Litinsky and Moss' attorney, Christopher J. Clark — who has previously represented Hunter Biden, Elon Musk and Mark Cuban — told the Post.

"They feel like: We made Truth Social for you. You get 90 percent. But some people just aren’t happy with 90 percent."

It's like a perfect Russian-nesting-doll storm of greed, incompetence, and malice. In ordinary circumstances, I would say it's plausible that the whole thing is a ploy to delay the IPO, because no one would be greedy and illogical enough to fuck up the process of inflating their 90% stake by spending any attention on a craven and self-defeating attempt to claw the last 10% away from the people who are, as far as I know, still actually doing all the work.

But this is Trump. Craven and self-defeating is in him at a molecular level. I would guess that some lawyer of his has already been on the receiving end of a HUGE yelling fit about how unfair it is that someone would try to stop him taking the remaining 10% as is his God given right.

[–] Geobloke 17 points 8 months ago

To be fair, he really needs that last $339 million

[–] khannie 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah the article is fascinating. I'm really surprised that the company constitution didn't have anti-dilution built into it though. That's a child level error when getting into business with someone like Trump.

Still shocked they gave him 90% just for his name essentially. Also surprised at just how high it's valued.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

They also claimed they were going to become a streaming platform that would replace Netflix and Disney+ and they would have 80 million users in their first year, pretty sure most of that valuation is imaginary. Didn’t they only make it to around 5 million users?