What's new
By:

Lucid to sue eletric-vehicle over bankruptcy rumors.

The X post is gone.
 
Go Lucid Legal!!

The 1st Amendment was never suppose to cover libel or slander
 
hwy17er said:
Go Lucid Legal!!

The 1st Amendment was never suppose to cover libel or slander
Click to expand...
Many people lost money due to that guys lies…there has to be consequences. Hopefully they will end up closing the website. Mostly useless garbage!
 
hwy17er said:
Go Lucid Legal!!

The 1st Amendment was never suppose to cover libel or slander
Click to expand...
He’s in Germany, so the first amendment to the US constitution doesn’t apply regardless. But German law does, and they don’t much like libel/defamation either.
 
borski said:
He’s in Germany, so the first amendment to the US constitution doesn’t apply regardless. But German law does, and they don’t much like libel/defamation either.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there aren't 1A protections in Germany like there are in the USA (which many Americans find baffling but that's how it goes). However Libel and Slander laws have a much lower bar to proving damages in most of Europe than in the USA.
 
ke2 said:
Yeah, there aren't 1A protections in Germany like there are in the USA (which many Americans find baffling but that's how it goes). However Libel and Slander laws have a much lower bar to proving damages in most of Europe than in the USA.
Click to expand...
That’s what makes this interesting. Regardless of where someone is located, if they knowingly made false claims about a publicly traded company, I’d imagine the bigger question is going to be whether Lucid can actually prove the statements were false and caused measurable damage. Curious to see how this plays out.
 
Lucidchase said:
That’s what makes this interesting. Regardless of where someone is located, if they knowingly made false claims about a publicly traded company, I’d imagine the bigger question is going to be whether Lucid can actually prove the statements were false
Click to expand...
They can, as they were. Lucid made public statements the same day reiterating that point.

Lucidchase said:
and caused measurable damage.
Click to expand...
The stock tanked (to the tune of -60% or something) based on the “news,” media picked it up, and Lucid had significant reputational damage as a result. It’s pretty cut and dry, imho.

Lucidchase said:
Curious to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...
Me too. I’ve been warning about this for years, as this isn’t the first time he has done it.
 
Lucidchase said:
That’s what makes this interesting. Regardless of where someone is located, if they knowingly made false claims about a publicly traded company, I’d imagine the bigger question is going to be whether Lucid can actually prove the statements were false and caused measurable damage. Curious to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...
Proving damages may not be cut and dry. Yes there was a precipitous drop in the stock price following the claims and trading was halted as result. But the recovery was swift following the 8-K filing and press release from the company.

Lucid will likely need to establish clear financial harm to the company extending beyond the initial trade disruption. And they will need to establish that any harm sustained is separate and distinct from any financial or operational difficulties the company may have in subsequent months. They will need to show that losses and/or profits would have been materially different but for the false claims. A judgement will need to be granted on that basis and the defendant will have to be judgement worthy. And all of this comes at a significant legal cost. That’s not to say that Lucid won’t prevail. But it could very well be a Pyrrhic victory.
 
Northpointe said:
Proving damages may not be cut and dry. Yes there was a precipitous drop in the stock price following the claims and trading was halted as result. But the recovery was swift following the 8-K filing and press release from the company.

Lucid will likely need to establish clear financial harm to the company extending beyond the initial trade disruption. And they will need to establish that any harm sustained is separate and distinct from any financial or operational difficulties the company may have in subsequent months. They will need to show that losses and/or profits would have been materially different but for the false claims. A judgement will need to be granted on that basis and the defendant will have to be judgement worthy. And all of this comes at a significant legal cost. That’s not to say that Lucid won’t prevail. But it could very well be a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
Only time will tell; IANAL, and certainly even less so as relating to German law!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top