Electric-vehicle startup Lordstown Motors is, to put it mildly, in a bit of a trouble. Actually, it’s in quite a lot of trouble, so much so that it’s no longer clear which Tesla wannabe is presently in the most trouble. There’s the Securities and Exchange Commission probe and fraud lawsuit and the fact that its president is making misleading statements in the same week that its CEO resigned for making misleading statements and that it’s not, you know, making trucks, or really in any danger of making any trucks anytime soon. Healthy companies, after all, rarely throw open houses to show off a handful of half-built prototypes. Of course, top executives of healthy companies also rarely sell off much or just about all of their stock therein immediately in advance of an unhappy earnings report and an even unhappier short-seller’s report. But, again, Lordstown is in a spot of trouble.

Five top executives, including the company’s president and its former chief financial officer, sold more than $8 million in stock over three days in early February, according to the filings.

Lordstown Motors, which went public in October and plans to build electric trucks at a former General Motors Co. plant in Ohio, reported year-end results for the first time as a listed company in mid-March. Its net loss of 23 cents a share for the quarter was more than double analysts’ expectations, according to FactSet.

One of its executives, Chuan “John” Vo, who oversees Lordstown Motors’ propulsion division, sold almost all of his vested equity—99.3%—on Feb. 2, leaving him with 717 shares and proceeds of more than $2.5 million, the filings show….

On June 14, the company said a special committee formed by Lordstown Motors’ board had looked into the executives’ stock sales and concluded they “were made for reasons unrelated to the performance of the company.”

Of course not. After all, why would Vo or any of his colleagues assume bad news would matter at all?

In the past month, it said it missed its targets on costs and production, acknowledged it overstated preorders, told investors it didn’t have enough money to start full production and parted with its CEO and CFO.

Yet the company’s investors are rather unfazed: Lordstown’s share price is roughly the same as in mid-May….

“Normal fundamental and economic analysis would lead you to a pretty dire outcome” for some of the companies, said Jon Lopez, an analyst who covers the new-electric vehicle companies for Vertical Group. But the financial world is awash with money and starved for investments that grow quickly….

Lordstown Motors Executives Sold Stock Ahead of Reporting Results and Before Troubles Came to Light [WSJ]
EV Startups Are in Trouble. Investors Don’t Care. [WSJ]
Lordstown Motors Opens Up Its Electric Truck Factory to Show Progress [NYT]

For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.

Related

vw

German Fondness For Puns Not Shared By U.S. Regulators

As the Teutons should know, there are rules, and they are not to be joked about.

By Mariuszjbie (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Everything Is The Same At Kodak As Before Except The SEC Probe And Stock Price

And those two things aren’t correlated as you might expect.

By Mariuszjbie (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The SEC Would Also Like To Know Why, How Kodak Shares Are Up 600%

What did CEO Jim Continenza know, when did he know it and what did he do with that knowledge?

(Getty Images)

Jay Clayton Doesn’t Want To Start Smacking Insider Skulls, So Don’t Make Him

He’s this close to not having to give a s**t about any of this any more, you guys. Come on.

After The STOCK Act It Will Still Be Legal To Trade On Congressional Inside Information*

Here's a sort of touching monologue from David Einhorn's call with Punch: If you’ve done the analysis, and come to the conclusion that on it’s own, the company is not going to make it, it makes all of the sense in the world to raise equity at whatever the price is, so that you can know that the company, you know, is – is going to make it. Now, what that brings to my mind though is, you know, obviously we haven’t done your analysis, we haven’t done -- signed an NDA; I don’t know that we’re going to sign an NDA, because we prefer to just remain investors, but from my perspective, and I’ll be just straight up with you, is that gives a lot of signalling value. And the signalling value that comes from figuring out the company has figured out that it’s not going to make it on it’s own is that we’ve just grossly misassessed the -- you know what’s going on here. And -- and that, that will cause us to have to just reconsider what we’re doing, which is not the end of the world to you. You will continue on even if we don’t continue on with you. You could sort of see why the FSA read that to mean that he was insider trading. Like ... (1) You have told me something with signalling value. Sorry - "a lot of signalling value." (2) I will now act on that signal. (3) Don't be mad. "Signalling value" sure sounds like it means "material nonpublic information," doesn't it? Now as we've discussed before, trading on that information would not be enough to make Einhorn guilty of insider trading in the US, though maybe it wouldn't be exactly a great idea here either. Why? Because in our weird but sort of sensible insider trading laws, it's just not illegal to trade on material nonpublic information. It's only illegal to trade based on material nonpublic information that was obtained in violation of some sort of duty of confidence. Since Einhorn didn't sign an NDA, he had no duty of confidence. And since the Punch CEO and bankers weren't tipping him for nefarious purposes, but were instead sounding him out on the company's behalf as a shareholder and potential investor in a new capital raise, they weren't breaching their duty of confidence. You could quibble with the details of that but it's basically the law here. In England not so much. That also seems to be the law for our friends in Congress, who recently passed a law making it illegal for them to insider trade, which is worrying some people who make their living from trading on Congressional inside information:

gavel-money-bills-law-legal-litigation-finance-300x221

Another Timely Dealbreaker Warning Not To Confess To Securities Fraud In Public

“Insider trading is part of my investment strategy” is a funny joke only if it’s not. Otherwise, it’s an admission of guilt.