51–60 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about prison time for executives who use the legal system in bad faith? Refusing to pay is not permissible.
Sorry, wage theft is done by people in corporations, therefore it doesn't count as real theft, so going to jail for it is almost impossible. If you wanna get away with a crime, do it in a company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The July 12th lawsuit has some choice quotes[0] on exactly what was said. >38. Section 6.9 of the Merger Agreement provided that for one year following the closing of the merger, Twitter would continue to provide Plan participants with “Severance payments and benefits . . . no less favorable than” those provided under Twitter’s policies immediately prior to the merger. > 39. The same day the Merger Agreement was anno…
Note that Employees were not a party to the merger agreement. Does an acquisition FAQ bind the company? I believe the argument is that it was effectively an offer to employees to stick around, and employees who did so effectively accepted the offer, at the cost of other opportunities in the market, and hence this was a binding contract. This doesn't seem so solid to me.
That's established law, it's the only way to hold companies to any of their promises.
When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…
> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties. I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.
It is a serious amount of work to take people to work, requiring years of education and a ton of skill. Particularly when the opposition has pockets as deep as X/Twitter/Musk.
Hopefully there are large damages that go to those who have been wronged in addition to restitution and repayment of the legal fees
I can not understand why some body like Musk who has such as easy ability to do the right thing would instead choose a far loser costly and damaging right. It's absolutely idiotic, absolutely damaging to the word as a whole, and fuck Musk. Only the worst sort of shit bag steals money at this level. If somebody steals baby formula out of desperation, they will feel far more drastic legal consequences than Musk will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t contracts have to be two sided ? Like a promise to donate no strings attached, and then not donating is no breach of contract. If there are strings attached to donation and the other side promises signs off on the strings, then you have a contract but it’s not a one sided donation.
Giving up a large portion of your life to work for a company isn’t enough of a party to a contract in this regard? Someone could conceivably take this job over others, or not leave as early, if they have assurances of severance. It’s not a gift any more than paying someone for employment is a gift, so I don’t see how this has anything to do with charity.
When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…
Also Elon: Let’s not pay any of Twitter’s bills
I’m not an employment lawyer, but it seems these former employees have a decent shot. They will eventually win their severance in court. But will they ever be paid? By the time they win, will “X” even exist in its current corporate form? Or will it have gone bankrupt, only to have its assets purchased, leaving the employees standing in line with all the other creditors. Indeed, I wonder whether Elon Musk structured t…
However, in the event that it did, the US has a waterfall payment structure. Secured creditors get paid first, then lawyers, then employee wages and taxes, then unsecured creditors, then shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don’t contracts have to be two sided ? Like a promise to donate no strings attached, and then not donating is no breach of contract. If there are strings attached to donation and the other side promises signs off on the strings, then you have a contract but it’s not a one sided donation.
Is severance something that’s legally required?
These lawsuits are about enforcing contract terms. In business, if you don't honor agreements you get sued (and lose).
Unless you want future options with the person you are suing. Unless you need a reference. If you can afford it and if you are prepared to burn bridges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.