51–60 of 196 posts
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? 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.
Sueing their CEO for no real reason but just as powerplay to get back control feels like an act of pure desperation from a mediocre VC but not Benchmark.
Would love to know which partner at Benchmark triggered this. Then we have a name to this insanity (Gurley?).
So the board agreed to create 3 new board seats over which Kalanick would explicitly have full control to appoint people. And now they're suing him because they regret that?
All in all when your biggest, earliest investor sues you, despite you having built them a fortune, you have probably been grossly negligent in some respect.
Agreed. Fuck Benchmark. Travis makes each partner $1 billion personally and this is how they treat him? They should be blackballed by every great founder out there. I had respect for benchmark but not anymore. They are greedy assholes.
A question I've been pondering since the Martin Shkreli verdict, is fraud OK if the deceived parties still profit?
Maybe it changes the charges and the sentencing, if there is no indication that the person sought to personally profit or steal from the investors, but lying is lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Agreed. Fuck Benchmark. Travis makes each partner $1 billion personally and this is how they treat him? They should be blackballed by every great founder out there. I had respect for benchmark but not anymore. They are greedy assholes.
> Travis makes each partner a $1 billion personally On paper.
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.
Who in their right mind, except for the utterly desperate, would accept money from Benchmark? Talk about letting the fox into the henhouse, you can't trust those guys whatsoever.
Care to provide details ? I don't live in the valley so i'm not up to date with the latest gossip. Last time i heard about this firm, it was pretty complimentary
Though from what I know Benchmark's rep is pretty solid. Particularly as a king-maker, with Uber and Snap.
The key point of conflict appears to be the following: The suit revolves around the June 2016 decision to expand the size of Uber's board of voting directors from eight to 11, with Kalanick having the sole right to designate those seats. Kalanick would later name himself to one of those seats following his resignation, since his prior board seat was reserved for the company's CEO. The other two seats remain unfilled.…
Board seats are part of bargaining chip during funding rounds.... they are very very important. If you lose control of the board as a founder, you basically are another employee at the company, at the mercy of your investors, who can choose to bring "adult" supervision anytime they seem it is fit to them. Having the founders control of the board did well to both facebook and google on the long term. On the other hand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is so much for both to lose if they delay - a settlement works better for the company and them
Eh? This is over control, not money. There is no "middle ground"; Benchmark wants Kalanick off the board and he wants to stay. I expect a tooth-and-nail battle, with much of it leaking into the public.
2) Softbank investing in US rideshare market
both are large events, and the outcomes of both events will be much worse in the case of an ongoing legal battle between shareholders and founder/ex-CEO.