Live data from Hacker News

Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

axios.com

41–50 of 196 posts

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#41

Stakes: Per the complaint, Kalanick currently holds around a 10% equity stake in Uber, which most recently was valued at around $70 billion. Benchmark holds approximately 13 percent. This is interesting. I thought HNers were saying Kalanick had the biggest stake, which is why the board couldn't fire him. How does this work? If someone only has 10% equity, why was it so difficult to remove them? This is a useful tool…

Uber has different share classes with different voting rights

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/technology/uber-chief-tra... ---------------------------------

Even if a worker sells only 10 percent of his or her stock back to the company, that worker agrees to give Mr. Kalanick the voting rights to 100 percent of his or her stock. Each share of Class A stock comes with one shareholder vote, while each share of Class B comes with 10 votes.

Uber had 545.8 million Class A shares at the end of last year, which included 43.4 million employee stock options that had been issued, according to financial statements obtained by The Times. If all of the early employees who owned those options sold even a small part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 43.4 million shares, or an additional 7.9 percent of that stock class.

Uber also had 459.7 million Class B common shares at the end of 2016, which included 9.9 million employee stock options that had been issued. If all of the holders of those options sold even part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 9.9 million shares, or an additional 2.2 percent of that stock class.

Mr. Kalanick does not control those votes until he issues something called a “voting notice,” which requires the employee to vote all of his or her remaining stock in accordance with Mr. Kalanick’s wishes on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders, according to the agreement. If Mr. Kalanick issued such a notice to a Class B shareholder, the stock gets only one vote a share, which goes to Mr. Kalanick.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#43

Stakes: Per the complaint, Kalanick currently holds around a 10% equity stake in Uber, which most recently was valued at around $70 billion. Benchmark holds approximately 13 percent. This is interesting. I thought HNers were saying Kalanick had the biggest stake, which is why the board couldn't fire him. How does this work? If someone only has 10% equity, why was it so difficult to remove them? This is a useful tool…

I think there might be multiple stocks classes kind of like with Google. Some shares classes hold higher value for voting.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#44
post #8

If actual fraud is not found what sort of message does this send to entrepreneurs that Benchmark is founder friendly? Looks like a grudge match to me. Apparently unhappy with merely removing Travis from the CEO's chair they want to make certain he's never allowed to ever enter the building.

If actual fraud is not found what sort of message does this send to entrepreneurs that Benchmark is founder friendly?

I don't think "The VC company will sue me if they suspect I've committed fraud" is something many founders need to be concerned about.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#45
post #8

If actual fraud is not found what sort of message does this send to entrepreneurs that Benchmark is founder friendly? Looks like a grudge match to me. Apparently unhappy with merely removing Travis from the CEO's chair they want to make certain he's never allowed to ever enter the building.

I think it's more like Bill Gurley not fully looking out for the interests of Benchmark [0] while dealing with Travis when he held the board seat at Uber on their behalf.

Fun fact: Gurley has himself being sued by some founders of a startup (Epinions) in the past for misrepresenting material information [1] prior to a merger.

[0] "Mr. Gurley has remained one of Mr. Kalanick’s few trusted advisers, and the two communicate several times a week ... "

"Yet in many ways, Uber now epitomizes many of the excesses Mr. Gurley has publicly condemned, ..."

from

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/technology/bill-gurley...

[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/technology/founders-of...

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#46
post #8

If actual fraud is not found what sort of message does this send to entrepreneurs that Benchmark is founder friendly? Looks like a grudge match to me. Apparently unhappy with merely removing Travis from the CEO's chair they want to make certain he's never allowed to ever enter the building.

There's way too much money at stake here for this to be driven by grudges, emotions, or even reputations.

Benchmark's stake in Uber is worth $9.1b -- many, many times the size of their fund. They will do anything they can to protect this investment.

They very likely believe that the best way to protect their investment is to keep Travis out, and this is part of the process. Decisions like this aren't made at an individual partner level. The entire partnership decided to file this lawsuit, and that means it's a calculated decision.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to read it is, there is a report, Benchmark (the board) was not aware of it. It's an acknowledgement of the report - as it is from the court case - but not about its content.

If there wasn't anything bad in the report we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If there was anything bad in the report they would have come out and said so in the complaint. It's not a magic game of telephone.

they would have had a material impact on Benchmark's decision is probably the weakest possible complaint.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A question I've been pondering since the Martin Shkreli verdict, is fraud OK if the deceived parties still profit?

A consequentialist might argue that it is, but then, consequentialists are wrong.

Given human nature, widespread belief in consequentialism as an ethical system would likely result is very bad consequences. So from the position that consequentialism is correct it is probably unethical to advocate as a correct viewpoint.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#50
post #15

Among the complaints of bad behavior: "Kalanick [aquired] a self-driving startup that, according to a confidential report not disclosed to Benchmark (the "Stroz report") allegedly harbored trade secrets from a competitor . . . " The Stroz Report was created when "Otto and Uber jointly hired an outside forensic expert Stroz Friedman. Friedman interviewed employees, including Levandowski and Lior Ron, reviewed their di…

RE the stroz report: from what I've heard, AL did take a bunch of files, and he planned to use as leverage against google/waymo to get his 120m bonus, and Uber told him more or less "dont let that shit touch anything we do". He also had some kind of big google earth photo taking kit at his house for long after he quit google.
Post reply on HN