Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

Post by azernik » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is standard practice, in the valley, to make the company that acquired your company defend you in the event that the acquisition resulted in a lawsuit, but this revelation just adds another red flag to the already long list of red flags that Uber ignored when acquiring Otto. IMO, Uber clearly knew what he did, either through disclosure or due diligence, and disregarded it. Considering their company cultu…

Post by rory096 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 10:46 PM UTC

macrael wrote: post #12

ethbro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you on Slashdot when SCO was ongoing? If not, this is what a corporate titan proxy war looks like in the news cycle. And it's objectively defensible. The outcome of this lawsuit will shape what an incredibly important future technology looks like and who controls it.

SCO?

Post by alain94040 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 10:50 PM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is standard practice, in the valley, to make the company that acquired your company defend you in the event that the acquisition resulted in a lawsuit, but this revelation just adds another red flag to the already long list of red flags that Uber ignored when acquiring Otto. IMO, Uber clearly knew what he did, either through disclosure or due diligence, and disregarded it. Considering their company cultu…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 10:52 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #11

bitmapbrother wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is standard practice, in the valley, to make the company that acquired your company defend you in the event that the acquisition resulted in a lawsuit, but this revelation just adds another red flag to the already long list of red flags that Uber ignored when acquiring Otto. IMO, Uber clearly knew what he did, either through disclosure or due diligence, and disregarded it. Considering their company cultu…

Not just in the Valley, and not just in the case of M&A events; generally companies sign agreements with their executives to defend them in the case of lawsuits for actions they take in their professional roles. Often, to avoid conflicts of interests between corporate counsel and individual counsel, this works out as the company paying either directly for lawyers for the company officer, or paying for individual liab…

Post by tyingq » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 10:55 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #11

bitmapbrother wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is standard practice, in the valley, to make the company that acquired your company defend you in the event that the acquisition resulted in a lawsuit, but this revelation just adds another red flag to the already long list of red flags that Uber ignored when acquiring Otto. IMO, Uber clearly knew what he did, either through disclosure or due diligence, and disregarded it. Considering their company cultu…

Not just in the Valley, and not just in the case of M&A events; generally companies sign agreements with their executives to defend them in the case of lawsuits for actions they take in their professional roles. Often, to avoid conflicts of interests between corporate counsel and individual counsel, this works out as the company paying either directly for lawyers for the company officer, or paying for individual liab…