Discussion Class Action Lawsuit Against nVidia Over Crypto Demand Drop

[BFG10K]

https://www.techpowerup.com/251095/...t-over-cryptocurrency-related-gpu-demand-drop

nVidia stock has taken a dump over the last few months. It basically asserts that nVidia deliberately downplayed the amount of revenue they got from mining sales.

Given they had to pay out at least twice in the past, it'll be interesting to see how this one pans out.

 

[Dribble]

Didn't see them complaining when nvidia's price was inflated too high. If you want to gamble then you've got to be prepared to loose.

 

[coercitiv]

Didn't see them complaining when nvidia's price was inflated too high.

Actually they did, when price was high they asked Nvidia if it was due to the crypto boom. Nvidia reportedly said No.

If you want to gamble then you've got to be prepared to loose.

That's exactly what's happening: Nvidia gambled with investor trust, and they lost.

 

[96Firebird]

Good luck proving it is due to anything other than the volatile tech market.

 

[sontin]

Actually they did, when price was high they asked Nvidia if it was due to the crypto boom. Nvidia reportedly said No.

nVidia said yes. They even broke out specific numbers of their mining cards.

That's exactly what's happening: Nvidia gambled with investor trust, and they lost.

Huh? They produced more GPUs because they could sell them. Their Y-Y growth this year will be around 20%. Without an increasement of the production in the first half they wouldnt even make so much.

 

[Geegeeoh]

Nvidia Executives Allegedly Sold Shares During Crypto Boom

 

[DontMessWithJohan]

Probably just the suing the law firm/clients trying to make back their losses after the stock market dive. Don't see them having any case against nVidia, but we'll see if this thing picks up any steam

 

[cytoSiN]

Nvidia Executives Allegedly Sold Shares During Crypto Boom

This makes it way more interesting.

 

[Headfoot]

that's where you can get into something real. Not super familiar with SEC insider trading and securities stuff, but at least on the corporate side officers owe a duty of loyalty and against self interested dealings to shareholders. Just having sold shares though isnt a smoking gun. Very typically officers and executives sell off shares they get on a regular basis, since they get that as part of their normal compensation practice. You gotta look at stuff like, sure they sold $18m in shares at the peak, but how does that compare to historical selling activity? If they sold $18m this year, $17m last year, $16m 2 years ago, $16m 3 years ago and so on then it looks a lot more like regular activity. Now if you historically have sold none, then out of nowhere almost totally divest, looks really bad. But its a matter of degrees.

Plus the very inconvenient fact for the plaintiffs... you want to buy low and sell high, and they were at historical highs so it could and probably was completely benign selling

 

[Headfoot]

I would not read "selling shares" as some super fact though. The fact they sold shares is literally the barest minimum sort of set of facts you need to even allege wrongdoing in the first place. Not familiar with this case, but even the most frivolous of suits will allege this because its basically a no-brainer because its pretty rare to find an executive who goes long periods with literally zero selling activity of any kind. This could just as easily be a fishing expedition to see if they can discovery their way into a smoking gun email of some sort. I generally have no faith at all that class actions are anything but a money making endeavor for the plaintiff attorney's firm.

 

[sontin]

that's where you can get into something real. Not super familiar with SEC insider trading and securities stuff, but at least on the corporate side officers owe a duty of loyalty and against self interested dealings to shareholders. Just having sold shares though isnt a smoking gun. Very typically officers and executives sell off shares they get on a regular basis, since they get that as part of their normal compensation practice. You gotta look at stuff like, sure they sold $18m in shares at the peak, but how does that compare to historical selling activity? If they sold $18m this year, $17m last year, $16m 2 years ago, $16m 3 years ago and so on then it looks a lot more like regular activity. Now if you historically have sold none, then out of nowhere almost totally divest, looks really bad. But its a matter of degrees.

Plus the very inconvenient fact for the plaintiffs... you want to buy low and sell high, and they were at historical highs so it could and probably was completely benign selling

Insider trading is public. Here from Nasdaq: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nvda/insider-trades

 

[Phynaz]

Insider trading is public. Here from Nasdaq: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nvda/insider-trades

Idiots at [H] with their “allegedly”. Guess they need to stir up the crowd with more falsehoods to get those page views.

And it worked, with people here linking to it. Wanna bet AMD executives sold stock during the crypto boom? Just for giggles I looked it up, AMD executive outflows were >30x of Nvidia executives.

“OMG!!! AMD executive sold 30M shares of stock last year!! Right during the crypto boom!!! Quick post it on the internet, obviously it’s shady!!!

This lack of knowledge is embarrassing...

Yup

 

[Dribble]

It doesn't take insider knowledge to realise that when the share price rockets from $30 to $280 it might be a good time to sell some shares...