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. tptacek · 1790441715 · focus · HN ↗

      Yeah, if Mullenweg really did control a majority of the voting shares, the previous board are the villains in this story no matter what you think of Mullenweg.

      1. Analemma_ · 1790443090 · focus · HN ↗

         What were they supposed to do? If you’ve been following Mullenweg’s behavior, he’s clearly unstable, and while this is admittedly armchair diagnosis, a lot of his recent writing gives me strong stimulant psychosis vibes. Granted maybe you shouldn’t take a job as a board member at a company where the CEO has 83% of voting shares to begin with, but once you’re there, you still have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for the company, so IMO they were obligated to at least try and eject him.

         1. chairmansteve · 1790451574 · focus · HN ↗

            > What were they supposed to do?

            The normal thing to do is to resign from the board. Maybe put out a statement explaining why.

            1. 7e · 1790472992 · focus · HN ↗

               Then they could be sued by a minority shareholder for knowing they should take action, but then failing to, and resigning instead. Failing to take an action is still breach of fiduciary duty.

               1. NetMageSCW · 1790537620 · focus · HN ↗

                  Only if you believe it is their fiduciary duty to remove him, and that is a long stretch unlikely to make it though the lawsuits.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.