Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be sleazy? What if the investors got their money back and nothing more? Even if they got more based on preference, I don't see the problem. That TechCrunch article doesn't really present the event as a great exit, but more that the founders were hired to move on from a startup that wasn't really going anywhere. (the post specifically says that Google didn't technically acquire the company)
You don't see anything sleezy about an employee who put in both sweat equity and money getting nothing for his stock, while other shareholders are reimbursed for theirs? Seems both sleezy and a cautionary tale for those thinking of working at a startup from where I'm sitting...
So no. There's nothing sleazy about a preferred shareholder being treated preferentially, necessarily.