Theranos To Investors: Please Don't Sue! Here, Have Some More Shares (siliconbeat.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Theranos To Investors: Please Don't Sue! Here, Have Some More Shares (siliconbeat.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday March 26, 2017 @04:34AM from the fumbling-founders dept.

Theranos "plans to give additional shares to investors who pledge not to sue," reports the Wall Street Journal. An anonymous reader quotes Silicon Beat: The deal, which hasn't been disclosed publicly, was approved by the Palo Alto-based company's board last month, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous "people familiar with the matter." They said most investors have tentatively agreed to the deal. Those extra shares are coming from none other than founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes' personal cache, the Journal reported. That means the beleaguered founder, who has remained stubbornly at the helm of her struggling startup even though federal regulators have barred her from running a medical lab for two years, would give up her majority ownership in the company.

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why is it all we here about from worthless news is by hsmith · 2017-03-26 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

how badly investors were harmed? How about the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results? She should be in prison.
Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 04:45 · Score: 0

While you're waiting, help yourself to some more stock.
http://imgur.com/r/TheSimpsons/q3xjdBI
1. Re:Oblig. Simpsons by youngone · 2017-03-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Once again the conservative sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!
Lock her up already by quonset · 2017-03-26 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

This scam has gone on long enough. Holmes has never subjected her tests to government scrutiny, nor allowed anyone to try and replicate the results. And there's a good reason for that. Her tests don't work. Her own labs don't even use the tests. They use standard, verified, tests to do their work.
Holmes has done nothing over the years to show she has any intention of providing a real service. All she's done is bleed investors of their money.
Anyone who thinks getting shares of this scam company will somehow make the problems go away is delusional.
1. Re:Lock her up already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  . All she's done
  
  Holmes was far from he only person involved in the Theranos catastrophy. From management, to employees, to (celebrity) directors, to government regulators and especially to promotional "allies" in the media, a minor industrial chain of scammers conspired to keep Theranos flying on fumes and bullshit for 10 years.
  Now that same machine is seeking at all cost to pin 100% of the blame on the borderline mental patient who fronted the scam. Qui Bono? Up and down. Never overlook the media.
2. Re:Lock her up already by msauve · 2017-03-26 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "All she's done is bleed investors of their money."
  
  They needed to get the blood for testing from somewhere. Since investors have dried up, they're now working on squeezing blood from a stone.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
3. Re:Lock her up already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's not clear that Holmes and Theranos did anything criminal, or that this was in the same league as Enron and the wave of accounting scandals that surfaced around the time of the dotcom bubble 15-20 years ago.
  What Theranos did was say, "no, you can't see the details, but trust us; good things are happening. We've got some of the brightest minds working on it."
  What Enron did was say: "We made $1 billion last quarter, our accountants have verified it" (when actually they lost $3 billion) or something (I made up those numbers).
4. Re:Lock her up already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:19 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Holmes has never subjected her tests to government scrutiny
  Which is not wrong. This is between her, her investors and her customers.
  --
  Urdacha
5. Re:Lock her up already by Hognoxious · 2017-03-26 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  Qui Bono?
  
  Qua Sinead O'Connor?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:Lock her up already by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-03-26 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  At this stage, why wouldn't shareholders sue? Or are they hoping that some trust in the company can be restored is a lawsuit is averted, giving them an opportunity to unload their shares to another sucker in the future? Also, from TFA:
  
  Theranos also has reached an agreement to buy back Rupert Murdoch’s shares — which he bought in 2015 for about $125 million — for just $1
  Why would he do that? By estimates in the article the company's valuation dropped by 90%: a huge amount but it hardly makes Murdoch's holdings worthless. Seems fishy to me.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re:Lock her up already by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 06:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Tax write-off. He knows the shares are worthless, so might as well realize the loss and use it to offset gains elsewhere.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:Lock her up already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Well she did lie to the investors, I guess it comes down to how directly she lied or if she just misled a little and let the investors jump to their own conclusions. This is why the SEC etc are investigating them. Investors that don't do due diligence don't get anything, but if they were intentionally misled that is a completely different matter.
9. Re:Lock her up already by Gumbercules!! · 2017-03-26 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  My assumption is he wanted to distance himself from the situation as fast as he can. There's a clear lawsuit or more coming for this company, which is privately owned, not publicly, and being a major shareholder in a privately owned company that's getting super-sued is ?possibly? bad news. That was my assumption - he wants the hell out before it gets worse.
10. Re:Lock her up already by rtb61 · 2017-03-26 20:01 · Score: 2
  
  Bleed the investors, you have to be joking. Those investors were scum insiders who were expecting to cash in on the IPO. They knew full well the whole thing was one giant fucking scam and were in on it from the beginning, it just all blew up before they could cash in on the multibillion dollar IPO. Now like rats abandoning a sinking ship, they want to take as much as they can and fuck the other investors. A scam from the get go planned and plotted by a psychopath and a bunch of other insider psychopaths joined in and funded the scam. Who created that fake multibillion dollar value, the banksters, doing exactly what they always do and the second they sold their shares in the IPO, you know, you fucking know, they would have bet the company was going down big and made even more money on that.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
11. Re:Lock her up already by HornWumpus · 2017-03-27 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's good for the share s/he already has, but any shares gained in a lawsuit would start with the low/near zero value as basis.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
12. Re:Lock her up already by swillden · 2017-03-27 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Tax write-off. He knows the shares are worthless, so might as well realize the loss and use it to offset gains elsewhere.
  That makes no sense. Effective tax management means finding ways to report every possible loss, not creating actual losses just so you can report them. Creating $100 in actual losses to offset $100 in gains elsewhere lowers your tax liability by somewhere between $15 and $40, depending, which means you're actually throwing away $60-$85 in the process. Better to keep the gain and pay the tax.
  There may be reasons to want to realize the loss *now*, rather than in the future, but that could have been done by selling the shares for more money -- assuming buyers could be found. Perhaps Murdoch believes that no one would be willing to buy his shares for more money? That seems unlikely. Hell, I'll give him $2. I have no reason to believe that the shares are worth that much, but the odds that they are are probably higher than the odds that I'm going to win the lottery and I have bought a lottery ticket a time or two.
  Something else is going on here. Perhaps Murdoch has a personal friendship with Holmes, or some other non-financial motivation. But it makes no sense to artificially inflate your real losses in order reduce your tax liability, because the reduction in tax liability will always be less than the losses.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
13. Re:Lock her up already by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-27 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  People aren't asking for shares in the lawsuit - they want money (and blood). Why would anyone want more shares in a business that is subject to more lawsuits in the future? That defrauded them in the past?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
14. Re:Lock her up already by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-27 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense. He's disposing of them now because in his estimation there is no upside to owning them, but he can save money by declaring the full loss (the value he paid for them, not the current value) and save more on taxes than the current book value of the shares.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
15. Re:Lock her up already by swillden · 2017-03-27 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't actually rebut my point at all. Maybe you need to re-read it. Selling for $1 is not his only option to realize the loss now.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
16. Re:Lock her up already by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-28 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The tax department won't accept anything short of disposal of the shares for him to realize the loss.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The whole thing seems fake by js290 · 2017-03-26 04:49 · Score: 1

Elizabeth Holmes seems like an actress fronting a ponzi scheme.

--
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
1. Re: The whole thing seems fake by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  But she is still daddy's little girl and he still loves her. He'll fix it for her so she can still live the good life.
Stopid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 04:51 · Score: 0

Stupid Bitch, what about plan " b"
Now your paying people to not sue.
its because of bitches like u, carly, meg, and melissa the womens movement in sillicon valley is a fucking joke. Go back to doing what your good at, what ever that is figure it out. This stupid shit is not working and now your fucking with peoples income and life it self..
With all that wizdom and money, lets see how long u survive in downtown detroit, or New York..
Stupid, pathetic, unethecial, head up ass bitch..
1. Re: Stopid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Right because women have a monopoly on fuckin up companies. /sarcasm
2. Re: Stopid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Only like 50% of male CEOs ruin their companies, with women it's about 90%.
3. Re:Stopid.. by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  She's "paying" them with worthless shares.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
4. Re: Stopid.. by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Right because women have a monopoly on fuckin up companies. /sarcasm
  Well, men certainly have a pretty strong record of f*cking up countries. Though the UK's May is going for the silver (Trump has a lock on the gold).
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re: Stopid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  What has he actually wrecked, though? Certainly nothing in the league of Harper or Reagan. Looks like he might trash the US' healthcare system, but from what I hear, that was never really available to most people in the first place.
  Captcha: services
6. Re: Stopid.. by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  He's doing exactly what I figured he'd do - wrecking the republican tea-party by trying to give them exactly what they want. Just goes to show - be careful what you wish for.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
7. Re: Stopid.. by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  Looks like he might trash the US' healthcare system, but from what I hear, that was never really available to most people in the first place.
  The vast majority of Americans have access to healthcare. The vast majority of poor people can/do get medicaid. There's just a small sliver of people in the space between "poor enough for medicaid" and "rich enough to get employer paid insurance" where people have trouble.
  
  The other difficulty is when you quit your job (while looking for a new one, or taking a break, or whatever), insurance can lapse.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re: Stopid.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Which explains why over 50% of Americans never go to the dentist and 40% regularly choose between medical care and eating due to cost.
  Your "sliver" is about half the US population, and God help you all if you get really sick.
  US healthcare is a disgrace.
9. Re: Stopid.. by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  As one of the 50% percent who never goes to the dentist, I can assure you it has nothing to do with cost. The percentage without healthcare is at 9%.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
10. Re: Stopid.. by thomn8r · 2017-03-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  What you're missing here is that a huge part of the "success" of Theranos hinged on the Cinderella story of a brilliant young woman creating her own company from scratch. We now know that it was all bullshit, but she took that narrative to the bank. People seem to be reluctant to call out attractive women on their bullshit #include
Here... by jlowery · 2017-03-26 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny

we'll give you millions of zero dollars. Feel better?

--
If you post it, they will read.
1. Re:Here... by Brett+Buck · 2017-03-26 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  How come this $100 bill has Jefferson Davis' picture on it?
Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 04:59 · Score: 1

Women aren't liars and thieves like men are. She's probably just been scammed herself by her employees who lied to her about their results, and now she is trying to set that right.
Haven't you seen her picture? See how pretty, friendly, and trustworthy she looks? Honestly, does she look like a liar and a thief to you?
1. Re: Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well I've heard her talk, and she sounds like a guy.
2. Re: Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah she has the ugliest voice for a woman I've ever heard. She was gifted with a the voice of a 40 year smoker from birth.
3. Re: Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  That's a man, baby
4. Re:Maybe not... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  Women aren't liars and thieves like men are. She's probably just been scammed herself by her employees who lied to her about their results, and now she is trying to set that right.
  >
  
  Leona Hemsley - "taxes are for little people." Mata Hari, Tokyo Rose, mass murderer Jane Toppan (31 victims), Nannie Doss (11 killings), Miyuki Ishikawa (103), Juana Barraza (dozens), Dagmar Overbye (up to 25), and in goody two-shoes Canada, Karla Hololka, who raped and killed her sister and two others with the help of her husband Paul Bernardo, and currently, former nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer is accused of murdering 8 patients in nursing homes via insulin injections.
  None of this changes the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are men, but to say that women aren't "liars and thieves like men" when women can be serial killers is a bit ... well ... not buying it.
  And obviously, you aren't either ... but this being slashdot, there's going to be some who need <sarcasm> tags ...
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  I also observe a pattern of light sentences for the women you listed. Not only would men committing the same crimes get harsher punishments, but in at least one of your examples (Karla Holoka), her male accomplice got a severe sentence and she got a slap on the wrist by lying and claiming she was a victim (and the tapes proved she lied).
  Culturally we automatically trust women, especially when they claim to be a victim. This is very dangerous, as the investors in Theranos have already learned and (so it seems) will soon learn again.
6. Re: Maybe not... by cunina · 2017-03-26 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  http://villains.wikia.com/wiki... I think this explains a lot.
7. Re:Maybe not... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Homolka's lawyer knew where the tapes where but didn't reveal the location to police, instead cutting a deal with the crown. Kind of hard to go back on the deal, since she wasn't the one withholding evidence, and the lawyer isn't required to disclose evidence that can convict his client.
  But yes, women do tend to get lighter sentences. Parents starved their kid to death, withheld all medical treatment, the mother got house arrest while the father went to jail for a few months. WTF??? (Fortunately, the sentences are being appealed).
  I guess one moral is if you're a guy going to commit a crime, get a sex change first.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ok so how is Tokyo Rose a liar/thief? And do you mean Iva Toguri (who was acquitted and pardoned) or all the women who were collectively known as Tokyo Rose?
  Especially in this day and age propaganda is close but not quite lying. Trump lies and thinks it is innocent propaganda.
9. Re:Maybe not... by youngone · 2017-03-26 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, does she look like a liar and a thief to you?
  Of course not, and the black turtle-necks she wears show what a visionary she is, because visionaries wear black turtle-necks.
10. Re:Maybe not... by BinBoy · 2017-03-26 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not, and the black turtle-necks she wears show what a visionary she is, because visionaries wear black turtle-necks.
  If she was actually that smart, she'd wear glasses.
11. Re:Maybe not... by youngone · 2017-03-26 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the lack of glasses was the missing piece, without which the whole thing failed.
12. Re:Maybe not... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-26 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Propaganda IS lying. That you don't see it just goes to show how far the rot has set in.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  Homolka is one of the very few people in Canada that could get stabbed to death in the middle of Dundas Square on a Saturday afternoon and "nobody would have seen anything". She is that loathed by the public. To be honest I am kind of surprised that someone hasn't done something about her already. It's not like she's hiding or anything of that nature.
14. Re:Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  I guess one moral is if you're a guy going to commit a crime, get a sex change first.
  It's a pretty good strategy, since then you can also claim victimhood due to transgenderism.
15. Re: Maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  At 33, she still has a few more years working in porn to recover some of the investor's money, after that it's on the corner with her.
  Neither activity requires her to talk. She's not done until her prolapsed pussy is dragging on the ground behind her.
16. Re:Maybe not... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-03-27 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  She left the country after hiding in Quebec under another name. But yes, her and Paul Bernardo are two people, who if they were on fire, nobody would bother to waste the piss to put it out.
  My problem with the whole thing is the same as with Dr. Guy Turcotte, the cardiologist who killed his children. There are some crimes that, even if intentional and premeditated, you really have to have more than a few screws loose to have committed. They simply go beyond all understanding. You can't fix sh*t like that. Ever.
  All you can do is acknowledge that such people exist - trying to understand them risks becoming like them - seeing the world through their eyes and thinking "I can see how someone can think that's a viable course of action."
  I wonder if, in some deep recess of their minds, they don't know the true evil of what they've done, or if they're totally, totally self-absorbed. Even Judas killed himself when he realized what he had truly done. I don't think these people will ever let themselves be honest with themselves. They can't. It would be too destructive, seeing what they had done with the perspective of others. In a weird way, it's probably more merciful that they don't. Who would be able to live with the knowledge they had done something like that? The guilt. The fear that it could happen again. The certainty that there's something fundamentally repulsive and wrong and monstrous about how you think.
  And for the rest of us, "there but for the $GRACE_OF_DIETY_OR_WHATEVER go I." We know what seemingly normal people did under the nazis. We know that under the right circumstances, most people will follow orders, follow the crowd, and are capable of brutal behaviour, and that the ones who are so rigid that they say "I'll never do that" are the ones most susceptible. Humans are scary shit!
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Old Joke by Brett+Buck · 2017-03-26 05:02 · Score: 3, Funny

"The chef burned the fries, so we gave you extra"
funny how that works. by nimbius · 2017-03-26 05:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

theranos: for the love of god and all thats holy, please do not litigate.
Uber: every week we get a new lawsuit, cities are outlawing us, countries have banned us or taxed our business model, workers have united and are forming unions, we actively thwarted regulatory attempts with greyball, our drivers have turned out to be serial killers and rapists, and our president just quit...but uh...i guess we're still worth ten billion dollars ya know!?

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:funny how that works. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  While I'm not exactly a fan, Uber is at least making good on their purpose: to build a userbase for when self-driving cars come out so the market is already cornered.
2. Re:funny how that works. by HornWumpus · 2017-03-27 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you know what the word 'cornered' means in market context.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
one word to describe the events unfolding by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:09 · Score: 0

CUNT.
Like the rest of your bitchy clan, go home.
Marissa, Meg, Carly, DeVoe
Prime examples of women fucking up when stepping up.
U should all go home, back to what your all good at..(as per previous statements)
rite person for the right job.
all of u cunts are neither of those. Please stop hurting the people and environment around you and us.. No reason to create all of this stuff over an unrealistic reason expectation.
Ya, Go the fuck home
1. Re:one word to describe the events unfolding by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that stupid guido bitch who ruined Lucent...
2. Re:one word to describe the events unfolding by GerryHattrick · 2017-03-27 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  For balance, remember Ann Wojcicki, semi-detached from a Google founder through no fault of her own, who co-founded cheery '23andMe' for web-friendly genetic testing, got hit by the full might of the US's 'FDA' and came out smiling with a new-style offering that is compliant. As one North American school says in its motto 'Girls CAN do anything' (maybe only some of them).
Another female CEO, another crook and failure! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 05:14 · Score: 0

How many more companies need to be ruined before people learn their lesson?
Jail by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 05:24 · Score: 2

She isn't in jail yet? It seems like textbook case of fraud.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Jail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  She's rich. On top of that she is a pretty white blonde.
  "No reasonable prosecutor would take the case" just ask James Comey.
2. Re:Jail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  She's rich. On top of that she is a pretty white blonde.
  "No reasonable prosecutor would take the case" just ask James Comey.
  I was with you up to the "pretty" part... It appears that Comey doesn't go for that type... Rich, however, is apparently universal...
Re: Why is it all we here about from worthless new by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 06:02 · Score: 0

Absolutely. What assholes.
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by Frosty+Piss · 2017-03-26 06:23 · Score: 2

Here / Hear...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Once again the Simpsons were right by HockeyPuck · 2017-03-26 06:37 · Score: 3, Funny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arENYYkYBts
A dotcom company paying Lisa and Bart in shares...
Because we don't really regulate companies by rsilvergun · 2017-03-26 07:13 · Score: 2

in America. We pretend to. We've been attacking 'useless bureaucracy' for 30+ years. Mostly because we don't like waiting in line t the DMV. But instead of shorter lines for our kids' drivers license we get phony medicine and lead in our water.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Because we don't really regulate companies by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-03-27 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  But instead of shorter lines for our kids' drivers license we get phony medicine and lead in our water.
  Sucker! I got phony medicine, lead in the water, and shorter DMV lines!
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by gweihir · 2017-03-26 07:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Naaa, she is Wonder Woman and according to Feminist Theory, it cannot have been her fault!

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Makes sense by drolli · 2017-03-26 08:28 · Score: 1

The investors see that now they would only have to take the loss, since there is currently nothing to fetch. The company would immediately be bankrupt, the founder would be bancrupt, but it would not help the investors much. From their perspective the likeliness that the value of the company rises again is not zero and the current value is probably negligible.
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by exomondo · 2017-03-26 09:20 · Score: 0

How about the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results
There are ongoing lawsuits. Frankly an offer of effectively worthless shares in the company that did fake blood tests on you would be pretty offensive.
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by gravewax · 2017-03-26 09:27 · Score: 1

The problem becomes if they are suing a company with no value then the lawsuit is also worthless, Shares while probably worth the same perhaps has some "gambling" value if a miracle occurs and one of her scientists comes up with some amazing product or even creates the test (unlikely but then so is getting money from a lawsuit of a worthless company)
Wow, that's a deal... by mhkohne · 2017-03-26 10:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is...quite something. She's still in charge (and collecting a paycheck, presumably). She'll get rid of some of her shares, AND drop being majority stakeholder, so she can get fired by the board, instead of quitting, thus triggering whatever golden parachute she's got. If she's smart she'll sell off the rest of her shares before the whole things winds down.
From the investor's side, I guess it makes sense - if they start suing, the lawyers probably end up with all the money, so just letting it play out might be their best hope for a return.
Sigh. For all the problems it has (and the FDA has many), this kind of nonsense is why it exists in the first place.

--
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Re: im suprised/shocked by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 11:19 · Score: 0

I hope you realize that's not a normal or healthy way to think. Do you have a problem with all women or just powerful women?
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-26 12:53 · Score: 1

Theranos is a PRIVATELY held company. There are only a handful of shareholders, and they already control the board. So they would just be suing themselves.
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by exomondo · 2017-03-26 16:00 · Score: 1

They apparently have in the order of $200 million in cash on hand. Plenty to settle those lawsuits.
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by exomondo · 2017-03-26 16:02 · Score: 1

Theranos is a PRIVATELY held company. There are only a handful of shareholders, and they already control the board. So they would just be suing themselves.
Huh? the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results were shareholders who control the board?
How about giving some time with her pussy? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 17:39 · Score: 0

That'd be more value than shares...
Re: im suprised/shocked by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 17:42 · Score: 0

Do consider Bernard Madoff to be a "powerful man"? I consider him, and her, criminals.
Perfect solution by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 02:13 · Score: 0

Put the QA guy back in his role, only this time not answerable to her or her family, only to the shareholders.
these hackers are the best by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 03:04 · Score: 0

Hi people, I confirmed the excellent works of these certified hackers last week and I was amazed, they helped me hack an email account and phone's texts and I was able to check the mails entering the email account and the texts sent and received on the phone. Contact them on ZEUSHACKERS01@OUTLOOK.COM.They also hack websites, fix credits,instagram hacks, kik hacks, upgrade school grades,tracking device,whatsapp hacks, fix credits, gmail account hack, iCloud hacks, facebook hacks and lots of hacking services. Tell them I referred you
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 04:52 · Score: 0

Honest question that I'll never come back to read the answer to.
Do you honestly feel you were contributing anything worthwhile with that comment?
Re:Why is it all we here about from worthless news by gweihir · 2017-03-27 10:45 · Score: 1

A "honest question" you do not intend to hear the answer to? Talk about being a liar and stupid.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.