Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
76 70 81 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
68 54 82 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 3 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 74 (likely 69 to 80, high confidence), from 96 claims: 82 factual claims, 14 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Bill Ackman's claims
42 claims
“holding cash and government securities while seeking a business combination does not make PSTH an illegal investment company, nor does it make any of the hundreds of other SPACs that do the same, illegal investment companies either.”
Bill Ackman, PSTH CEO, in investor letter 19 August 2021 Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. Provides Update to Investors (Pershing Square Holdings)
Holding cash and government securities while seeking a business combination does not make PSTH or other SPACs illegal investment companies.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
This is a legal claim. Judge it as of 19 August 2021, using the law and authority then existing, together with any later court ruling in the Assad v. Pershing Square Tontine Holdings litigation that decided this question for PSTH. TRUE: the Investment Company Act, SEC rules and guidance, and court decisions support the position that a SPAC holding cash and government securities while it seeks a business combination is not thereby an investment company, and no court or the SEC held otherwise for PSTH; broad expert consensus (such as the joint statement by numerous law firms) also counts in support. MOSTLY TRUE: that position was the prevailing view, but with recognised caveats (for example duration of the search or other facts-and-circumstances factors) that the claim's categorical wording passes over. MOSTLY FALSE: the question was genuinely unsettled or depended on the facts, so the categorical claim (for PSTH and for 'hundreds' of SPACs) is overstated, without any authority holding the opposite. FALSE: a court or the SEC determined that holding such assets while seeking a combination does make PSTH, or SPACs generally, investment companies.
Evidence
- New Lawsuits Alleging That SPACs Are Unregistered Investment Companies Face Significant Hurdles Paul, Weiss (client memo) · 30 August 2021
“Courts may approach the plaintiff’s ICA allegations with some skepticism in view of the fact that it is a longstanding view of practitioners and the SEC that temporarily investing in treasuries and qualified money market funds does not turn an entity into an investment company under the ICA.”
- New Lawsuits Alleging That SPACs Are Unregistered Investment Companies Face Significant Hurdles Paul, Weiss (client memo) · 30 August 2021
“A critical threshold issue is whether the SPACs are investment companies under the ICA, which courts do not appear to have addressed.”
- New Lawsuits Alleging That SPACs Are Unregistered Investment Companies Face Significant Hurdles Paul, Weiss (client memo) · 30 August 2021
“Although each of the SPACs in the three lawsuits to date appear to have been invested in government securities and money market funds for more than a year, other SPACs may be able to avoid liability if they consummate an acquisition within one year.”
- Lawsuits Targeting SPACs as Unregistered Investment Companies Goodwin (law firm publication) · 9 September 2021
“Of the more than 1,000 SPAC IPOs that have been reviewed by the SEC over the past two decades, none has been deemed to be subject to the ICA.”
Reasoning
Two independent law-firm sources support Ackman's position: Paul, Weiss calls it a longstanding view of practitioners and the SEC (E1), and Goodwin reports that none of the more than 1,000 SPAC IPOs reviewed by the SEC has been deemed subject to the ICA (E4). Paul, Weiss calls it a longstanding view of practitioners and the SEC that temporarily investing in treasuries and qualified money market funds does not make an entity an investment company (E1). Goodwin reports that none of the more than 1,000 SPAC IPOs the SEC reviewed was deemed subject to the Investment Company Act (E4). However, Paul, Weiss also says courts do not appear to have addressed the question (E2). It notes a caveat about timing: SPACs that complete an acquisition within one year may be able to avoid liability, while the SPACs in the lawsuits appear to have held such investments for more than a year (E3). The evidence includes no court or SEC ruling against PSTH, so the claim matches the prevailing view but its categorical wording passes over these recognised fact-dependent caveats.
Cite this claim
Bill Ackman, “Holding cash and government securities while seeking a business combination does not make PSTH or other SPACs illegal investment companies.” (said 19 August 2021). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_3cef12bbfa04, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_3cef12bbfa04
Claims without a verdict
- Unresolvable 135
- Not yet due 9
- Own records only 29
- Not researched 162
- Not checkable 431
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Bill Ackman? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.