[chollida1]

So I can see each pre I’ll investor in Lyft having a contract that prohibits shorting, though there are reports that the language is week enough that it’s possible that shareholders might actuallly be able to hedge their positions.

But what possible charge could Lyft bring against ms?

It’s not illegal for an investment bank to short a company nor is it illegal for them to write a bespoke contract that let The holder lock in a price for ther shares as long as they weren’t the ipo underwriter.

It’s also not uncommon for a hedge fund to buy a bespoke put on a company Colton an investment bank, I mean writing this type of instrument is a part of their trading desks business.

Also this fails a simple occam’s razor test once MS denied this.

[iakh]

From the article

> tortious interference with the lock-up agreements

[kerng]

I always wonder how these can be enforced anyway, same for employees. Employees carry a huge risk in case the Lyft stock falls flat, they still have to pay all the taxes and company might not withhold enough (dont have any details on that, but it's rather typical) - will be interesting to watch how this goes down.

[sjg007]

? You don't exercise your options if below the strike price. For RSUs, you hope they were issued far below the IPO price.

[fnpiop]

If things really go sour, you can have massive lawsuits. Discovery process with brokers could expose who shorted.