Post by Pwnallthethings / Redsky

If I recall correctly, the feds took large equity stakes in the companies it bailed out in the GFC. This is post hoc, but I think can be seen in that light.

aug 23, 2025, 1:46 am • 6 0 • view

Sure but this is not a bailout

aug 23, 2025, 1:46 am • 17 0 • view

Isn’t it?

aug 23, 2025, 1:47 am • 2 0 • view

Ann floated that this could be construed as settling claims related to the CHIPS funds but that’s far more of a legal fiction than a bailout

aug 23, 2025, 1:49 am • 13 0 • view

Completely agree - just think one should avoid getting too exercised by the feds taking an equity stake in a distressed company in exchange for needed cash.

aug 23, 2025, 1:54 am • 0 0 • view

Right. It's not clear what Intel is recieving as consideration, given that the funds are already legally theirs. But, yknow, not my wheelhouse

aug 23, 2025, 1:51 am • 26 1 • view

"Trump will not rage at us and our CEO" is both extremely corrupt and extremely valuable consideration.

aug 23, 2025, 1:53 am • 19 1 • view

When CHIPS and Science Act was passed, it gave the executive very broad leeway to use the funds as they see fit. Because Congress can't be bothered to actually set standards for use.

aug 23, 2025, 8:37 am • 0 0 • view

Sure, in the sense that I can see the board valuing that, but not obviously in the sense that it is a legitimate consideration

aug 23, 2025, 1:54 am • 14 0 • view

Like "I am giving the mafia money to not burn my business down" is a transaction where both parties in some abstract market sense receive something of value, but still, not a transaction that is legitimate

aug 23, 2025, 1:56 am • 38 4 • view

Also, anyone confident Trump would hold up his end of that deal is overconfident.

aug 23, 2025, 2:05 am • 1 0 • view

To be fair, that hasn’t actually been tested in front of the Roberts court, has it?

aug 23, 2025, 2:01 am • 5 0 • view

cut to @hurricanexyz.bsky.social saying about blackmail is speech

aug 23, 2025, 2:06 am • 7 0 • view

if intel made this deal outside the US, wouldn't this be textbook FCPA violating?

aug 23, 2025, 2:00 am • 10 0 • view

I think it is safe to say that if US companies were, in, say, 2014, interacting with the government of, say, Nigeria or Egypt in the same way they are acting with respect to the US government in 2025, the FBI would be indicting several of their directors

aug 23, 2025, 2:02 am • 40 9 • view

They need to meet certain requirements (including regarding their new A14A process) to get the rest of the money and it’s not clear, given how their business was going, that they could.

aug 23, 2025, 1:55 am • 0 0 • view

Those were legal. Also, the government actually invested money, meaning they paid for their shares.

aug 23, 2025, 1:48 am • 3 0 • view

I refer you to the discussion of the grants. Trump is totally playing Calvin ball here, but Intel definitely is benefiting as well.

aug 23, 2025, 1:50 am • 1 0 • view

How?

aug 23, 2025, 1:52 am • 0 0 • view

Because they're dead without the funds. They're very broke, and likely will default completely without the funds, at which point the US government takes over anyways, since chips have always been a national security asset.

aug 23, 2025, 8:51 am • 1 0 • view

Learn to read a cash flow statement.

aug 23, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view

I’m old enough to remember when people who called themselves “Republicans” or “conservatives” were against government ownership of private business.

aug 23, 2025, 3:03 am • 1 0 • view

At what point do stock holders sue because the company isn't upholding their fiduciary duty?

aug 23, 2025, 1:40 am • 12 0 • view

The government taking a stake and releasing funds is better news than most shareholders could hope for last week, especially with the AI bubble collapsing rapidly.

aug 23, 2025, 8:58 am • 0 0 • view

Well that's unfortunately quite a technical question

aug 23, 2025, 1:43 am • 17 0 • view

def not clear they’ve violated a duty

aug 23, 2025, 1:44 am • 24 1 • view

Moral duty? Sure. But you can't always sue over those

aug 23, 2025, 1:45 am • 8 0 • view

Or I guess you can, but they don't always go your way

aug 23, 2025, 1:45 am • 3 0 • view

Yeah. "We issued the government $8.9B in non-voting stock to unlock the $8.9 billion in funding the President was arbitrarily withholding, and to placate the President from more retaliation that courts would invariably uphold" is probably within the Board's fiduciary duty.

aug 23, 2025, 1:50 am • 75 7 • view

*not clear it's nonvoting, actually

aug 23, 2025, 2:00 am • 2 0 • view

There's no guarantee the transaction will actually take place either. The admin isn't competent. Who knows what they actually agreed to.

aug 23, 2025, 8:08 am • 0 0 • view

These disclosures will be a nightmare

aug 23, 2025, 1:57 am • 0 0 • view

Thing is, once federal courts held "the President can unilaterally terminate government appropriations, including federal employees, federal contractors, federal grants, even whole federal agencies" then it was all over. Any action to get your withheld money back is prudent and reasonable. 🤷‍♂️

aug 23, 2025, 1:54 am • 55 9 • view

Have they actually held that or just failed to enjoin the administration’s unlawful conduct? From a practical standpoint, I can put on my management hat and get there (and Intel probably would prevail). But at bottom, I’m still not convinced it’s not an illegal bribe and thus ultra vires.

aug 23, 2025, 3:03 am • 0 0 • view

100% it’s at will employment but make it everything

aug 23, 2025, 1:55 am • 31 0 • view

Yep. Look at NVDA & AMD cutting the feds a check from sales to China. This is absolutely preposterous, public companies voluntarily agreeing to a tax just on them. But... no choice. One court said "no, POTUS can't just make up tariffs" and instantly got their order stayed. Nothing else to do.

aug 23, 2025, 1:59 am • 47 9 • view

No, you guys are missing a key problem. For issuance of shares it’s NOT just a fiduciary duty problem (where the board has business judgment rule protection) It’s a DGCL problem — statutory. Issuance of stock must be for consideration. No consideration, no stock — it’s void.

aug 23, 2025, 2:03 pm • 1 0 • view

8 Del c. § 151, 152. 1) STAAR Surgical v waggoner 2) grimes v alteon inc 3) in re numoda corp.

aug 23, 2025, 2:04 pm • 0 0 • view