@Hangover2,
In your last post, you challenged some of the statements that I made, for reasons not entirely clear.
The concluding statement was
So while I agree that the system is not perfect, it does not follow that taking action is pointless or that enforcement cannot work in practice. My disagreement was about the conclusion, not about the imperfections of the legal landscape.
and I simply do not grasp how you
a) can disagree with a conclusion from my side, if I do not intend to conclude at all, (and)
b) cannot understand my motivation to post on this particular topic.
Let me explain a bit.
Imperfections in the legal landscape do matter, since these imperfections determine what actually happens and what the legal outcome will be.
Consider yourself being a CEO of a company with annual profit of 50 billion and also faced with a threat of being fined 2 billion for market abuse.
That CEO would simply shrug his shoulders and say "paying 2 billion once to get 50 billion of profit each year ...... it is not difficult math!"
That CEO would be more practical and more savvy and investigate the legal landscape and the legal consequences of the fine.
That CEO would spend 150 million (or more) to create legal opposition, combat the legal grounds of the 2 billion fine, all in the knowledge that imperfections in the legal landscape would at least give you 3 to 5 years before the fine will become final and inevitable.
In the case that the legal opposition will result in a fine that is - for instance - 500 million lower, the costs of legal opposition are an investment with return.
That CEO sees legal opposition as an investment with a return!
That CEO would also realize that legal opposition is allowing the company to realize 50 billion profit per year DURING 3 to 5 years of legal opposition, whilst the fine of 2 billion will not change in worst case scenario and will be mitigated or even null in best case scenario.
That CEO really will understand that he does not oppose the fine itself, but simply
uses the legal landscape to turn a punishable action with a punishment into a business model itself : an investment with a return on investment.
Why can a punishable action (market abuse) with a punishment (fine) become a business model?
Well, the fine is too low.
That is the legal landscape offered by the European Union and the EU law concerning market abuse : fines are too low.
Sure, considerable numbers of complaints can help, lots of investigations by EU authorities can help ...... but they will not, if "punishment" is not scaring away the market abusers.
So, all of the above is simply (and again) an explanation of why one should take the role of the EU in combatting market abuse a bit lightly.
With all the good intentions of the world, the EU cannot even make a dent.
Nevertheless, I do not disagree with you : it can never do harm to file complaints, lots of them.
It simply allows the EU to take action or improve action or, even more important, to determine where the legal framework has to change.
So, I do not understand why you disagree with me ...... if I agree with you?
That is essentially also a big problem here, on this forum.
The main language is English, but it seems to be the case that everybody has its own variant of English, making communication a bit biased.
Now, concerning my motivation to post on this topic and this forum in general.
It is NOT my life mission to attempt to convince people of my views and opinions.
It is NOT the intention to confront people with facts that they tend to ignore or simply want to ignore.
My motivation simply follows from my personal intention to either prevent a lopsided discussion or to prevent unnecessary misfortune or disgruntlement.
Consider the disgruntled client of
@manni ........
who is disgruntled by the actions of the shareholders of Plesk.
Everybody seems to forget that Plesk, Plesk Team, Plesk customers and so on do NOT need or want price increases and these discussions.
Only the shareholders behind Plesk want to have a "decent return on investment", as they would call it - hence, the price increases.
Only the shareholders behind Plesk will try to increase prices, as long as they can get away with it - complaints and fines will not stop that.
So, if price increases are to be expected each and every year, why still post on this matter?
Well, if there are only different opinions concerning this matter, then there is no reason for me to post.
However, individual cases like that of
@manni do create a reason to post : the danger that one Plesk customer is being confronted by an idiotic disgruntled client is sufficient reason to post!
I am not only creating a post to guide
@manni with some simple legal facts and some assurance that he has nothing to fear.........
........ but I am also creating a post in the hope that the disgruntled customer of
@manni is an active Plesk forum user who understands from my posts that his issue is (a) not a viable legal court case and (b) certainly not a court case where the company of
@manni is the liable counterparty.
@Hangover2, I do appreciate your posts, I absolutely do.
However, you should be aware of the fact that reality is a bit different than theory.
We can discuss the differences between factual and theoretical reality ..... and we already do in a pleasant way.
However, as opposed to exchanging views and opinions, it would and should be of greater importance TO HELP OTHER FORUM USERS.
Helping them simply by stating and EXPLAINING that they have nothing to fear from their customers, if those customers threaten to go to court.
That is practical reality in the presence of (incomplete) legal frameworks concerning market abuse : the court cases will not stick.
@manni, you should really understand that some people will never be able to grasp the practical reality of legal proceedings.
If your disgruntled client actually goes to court (the idiot!), then you should
1 - instantly send invoices with prices equal to the last price that your client did not object to,
2 - go ahead and insist that the legal proceedings will continue : your disgruntled client does not have legal grounds for suing you, due to fact 1,
3 - go ahead and insist that the legal proceedings will continue : in the end, you will have a verdict of a judge that you can increase prices retroactively,
and that is that : both the legal landscape and its flaws and the idiotic actions of your disgruntled client will work against him.
Needless to say, that verdict will also entail that you are not responsible for market abuse with respect to items your company is reselling and that verdict will also give you the legal fundament to impose price increases upon other clients (if you wish to impose them).
So, actually, your disgruntled client could actually do you a favor - hence the consistent use of the word "idiotic".
There should not be any fear of what such a "client" wants to do - just let the client do what he wants and play the game right.
Kind regards.....
Facebook
Twitter
