Surely there's a "change of control" clause in their contractuals?
[deleted]
“X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
11–20 of 139 posts
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#12This reminds me, did Parag and other in the top management get their money? I didn't see any update on that.
Every shareholder got their money at the buyout price: $54.20 per share.
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#13Is severance something that’s legally required?
When you promise it, sure.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
> X agreed to pay severance in employees' initial offer letters and later confirmed workers would receive severance at least as favorable during the post-merger period as they had under the old management. The severance plan entitled laid-off workers to at least two months of base salary, pro-rated performance bonuses as though all triggers for such bonuses had been hit, the cash value of any restricted stock units that would have vested within three months of separation, and a cash contribution for the continuation of health care coverage. Instead, the company paid two months of base salary to comply with the notice requirements of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, plus one month of severance pay, according to court documents.
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#14Is severance something that’s legally required?
Not in most of the US, but as detailed in the article, telling people you're paying two months severence (presumably in writing no less) and then not paying it is likely a breach of contract law.
Doesn't the WARN act require 60 days notice minimum (or 60 days worth of pay and vesting off all rewards in such period) in the case dog layoffs?
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#15Is severance something that’s legally required?
Heavily depends on locale and what the employment contract says. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severance_package But Musk did publicly promise severance, then didn’t deliver. That would almost certainly be breach of contract. And also given that Twitter universally refused to pay severance in all markets, including those with mandatory severance, I suspect Twitter’s decision isn’t coming from a legally sound place.
Article is not clear. For instance:
> In October, shortly after taking Twitter’s reins, Musk laid off more than half of its employees, promising most at least two months’ salary plus a week’s pay for every year they’d worked at the firm.
Key word here is the severance was promised to “most”, not “all” employees. Was that how it went down? I dunno, the article doesn’t say. Now you’re saying that no one was paid severance (“universally refused to pay severance in all markets”). Seems like there’s a lot of uncertainty here.
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#16This reminds me, did Parag and other in the top management get their money? I didn't see any update on that.
Every shareholder got their money at the buyout price: $54.20 per share.
That's not what the parent comment was referring to. Senior execs had golden parachutes they were due if they were terminated.
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#17This reminds me, did Parag and other in the top management get their money? I didn't see any update on that.
Every shareholder got their money at the buyout price: $54.20 per share.
The parent post is referring to the "golden parachute" execs are entitled to when fired by new ownership in situations like this. This is different from getting the $54.20 for shareholders. The purpose of these payments are to help align the incentives of leadership with shareholders so they cooperate in getting these complex deals closed.
I also haven't heard any updates.
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#18Surely there's a "change of control" clause in their contractuals?
Who do you think that clause would benefit and how?
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#19Is severance something that’s legally required?
[deleted]
Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees
#20This reminds me, did Parag and other in the top management get their money? I didn't see any update on that.
Supposedly, they were dismissed for cause minutes before they would have been awarded millions in severance when the sale closed. I’m fairly sure I recall that Parag and colleagues sued because the dismissal for cause was an obvious stretch of the imagination.