Thread

1. xnx · 1790439571 · focus · HN ↗

   Fireship pointed out that the board members gave themselves a generous severance package in the very brief interim, so that was very possibly the whole plan.

   1. kingstnap · 1790443469 · focus · HN ↗

      Bizzare self dealing.

      Vote out dude who has 84% shareholder control.

      Immediately sign yourself a golden parachute deal for 8 million right before getting fired the next day.

      Seems like complete breach of fiduciary duty.

      1. hn_throwaway_99 · 1790451224 · focus · HN ↗

         Can you tell me where you see Matt has 84% voting control?

         I thought the reporting on this (at least in TechCrunch) was downright bizarre. The only thing that ever mattered was who had voting control, and I couldn't see anywhere that this was reported in TechCrunch. I can't even fathom how the other board members thought they could oust Matt if he had majority control. None of this makes any sense to me.

         Edit: I see the 84% number further down in the article. Still, that makes this make even less sense to me. How could the other board members vote out Matt as CEO with only a minority vote?

         1. runjake · 1790451919 · focus · HN ↗

            It makes a lot of sense when you see their severance package. I’m going with the hypothesis this was the whole point.
         2. NewJazz · 1790457216 · focus · HN ↗

            Possibly if the other board members were selected by shareholders (i.e. mostly Matt). He can replace them, but they represent his interests as a shareholder while they are on the board.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.