Class action suit against Rivian

[Philip]

I'm hoping that these people are just doing a fishing expedition and that this doesn't get off the ground.

Class Action Filed Against Rivian Automotive, Inc. (RIVN) Seeking Recovery for Investors

Same lawyers have filed against others auto companies. Regulations need to stronger so lawyers can't easily open such suits in the future. Waste of time and and monies.

Sponsored

 

[RivianRunner]

Throwing BS at the wall to see if it sticks…

So, when Tesla is sued for over-promising, it's valid. But when Rivian is sued for over-promising, it's just BS.

Got it.

 

[Donna Faith]

Historically, every upstart, creative, entrepreneurial, client-loving attempt to introduce a new vehicle in the US has been met with resistance and often hardball tactics.

 

[COdogman]

So, when Tesla is sued for over-promising, it's valid. But when Rivian is sued for over-promising, it's just BS.

Got it.

What specific lawsuit are you speaking of? You are being deliberately vague. If you are referring to FSD, then you are really high on your own supply....

 

[Zoidz]

Between the disclaimers in the IPO documents and the extremely well documented fact that ALL EV companies over estimated demand and are suffering the consequences of a drop in demand, IMO this should be a no brainer to be dismissed.

As mentioned in other comments, most class action firms are greedy scum and keep most of any settlement while the class get pennies. I always think of "King Of Torts" by John Grisham when I read about these types of suits.

“Mass tort litigation was not practicing law. It was a roguish form of entrepreneurship.”
― John Grisham, The King of Torts

 

[RivianRunner]

Between the disclaimers in the IPO documents and the extremely well documented fact that ALL EV companies over estimated demand and are suffering the consequences of a drop in demand, IMO this should be a no brainer to be dismissed.

As mentioned in other comments, most class action firms are greedy scum and keep most of any settlement while the class get pennies. I always think of "King Of Torts" by John Grisham when I read about these types of suits.

“Mass tort litigation was not practicing law. It was a roguish form of entrepreneurship.”
― John Grisham, The King of Torts

Demand for EV's has not dropped, it continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate of growth.

It looks like the mainstream media has suckered you into believing something that is simply not true.

 

[Zoidz]

Demand for EV's has not dropped, it continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate of growth.

It looks like the mainstream media has suckered you into believing something that is simply not true.

Now you really are proving you are a troll. All the CEOs of EV companies have stated this. Nothing to do with media.

 

[Chewy734]

Imagine the precedent it would set.

 

[CharonPDX]

I've gotten money from another "class action against a declining stock" - I put the money right back into that same stock.

 

[CharonPDX]

Now you really are proving you are a troll. All the CEOs of EV companies have stated this. Nothing to do with media.

Tesla is the only EV maker (other than ones in direct financial trouble like Fisker) that has seen a significant slowdown in actual sales. Ford, GM, Hyundai/Kia, Volvo/Polestar, VW - they've all seen continued growth. The growth just isn't as fast as they had previously predicted.

 

[SciGuy]

So, when Tesla is sued for over-promising, it's valid. But when Rivian is sued for over-promising, it's just BS.

Got it.

In legal cases it’s almost always an “it depends” situation. FSD has been promised by Tesla for many years but has failed to materialize. Taking the company private was also promised, but that didn’t happen. As far as I can tell, Rivian has made no such similarly strong proclamations about its ability to deliver in any particular areas.

 

[RivianRunner]

FSD has been promised by Tesla for many years but has failed to materialize.

To be clear, Tesla never "promised" FSD would be complete in any given timeframe. Elon has made many off-the-cuff estimates, but none of them could even be loosely construed as a promise. And the legalese that every purchaser of FSD had to acknowledge before purchasing FSD made it abundantly clear that there was no guarantee Tesla's FSD development would be successful at all, let alone in any given timeframe.

Taking the company private was also promised, but that didn’t happen.

Tesla never promised to take the company private. In fact, investors begged Elon not to take it private (mostly because, as non-qualified investors, or as funds that were required to only invest in public companies, they would have to sell their shares). Elon reconsidered going private after hearing shareholder sentiment.

I'm just providing some historical facts to clear up your factual misstatements.

As far as I can tell, Rivian has made no such similarly strong proclamations about its ability to deliver in any particular areas.

I agree, at least based upon only the statements I am aware of. Both Tesla and Rivian (as well as most public companies) are careful not to overstep the bounds between making future estimations and promising things that are not a certainty. That doesn't stop greedy lawyers from making the case investors were misled.

A similar thing is happening with Tesla right now. The class action lawyers made the case that shareholders didn't understand Elon's compensation package when they voted overwhelmingly to approve it (and an activist judge agreed) even though I can tell you the investors I was in communication with, both in person and online, understood the plan very well. They knew if their shares increased in value by 10 times, and the company had the fundamentals to support that valuation, that Elon would receive unheard of compensation. We voted for it because Elon would only get paid if we became quite wealthy ourselves (for doing nothing beyond investing). The plan aligned Elon's goals with shareholders goals like no other CEO compensation plan in history. We owned the company when we voted for that plan, and we knew exactly what we were voting for. So, the nerve of that woke judge to take away our voice after the fact!

Not all legal rulings are correct from a legal or fairness standpoint. So, Rivian could win or lose this one. It's a distraction Rivian doesn't need that right now. And that's the whole point of the suit.

 

[RivianRunner]

Tesla is the only EV maker (other than ones in direct financial trouble like Fisker) that has seen a significant slowdown in actual sales. Ford, GM, Hyundai/Kia, Volvo/Polestar, VW - they've all seen continued growth. The growth just isn't as fast as they had previously predicted.

It's likely that Tesla will sell more vehicles in 2024 than they did in 2023. It's never good to look at sales on too granular of a basis. One quarter does not a year make.

 

[Noah Arc]

Like suing a casino because you lost at slots.....

 

[Noah Arc]

It seems that most people on this thread don't have a clue on how markets and investment works. Everyone is forgetting that rivian is loosing money on every vehicle that they sale. That difference is being financed by investors like myself who at one point owned 2500 shares. As management keeps making decisions based on RJ personal preferences and not based on the needs of the company, investors are selling out and the stock price falls. When making such decisions, management is breaking its fiduciary responsibility towards it's investors.
I don't see Rivian surviving through the end of 2025.

Sponsored