Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 639 posts

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#601

Post by bdowling »

booi wrote: post #521
friendzis wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the way it is calculated. All payments attached to employment contract are wages, be it regular salary, bonuses, vacation pay or severance. Say the contract defines severance of 1 month for each full year worked capped at 3 months: at the moment contract reaches 1 year anniversary, the employee should be owed 1 month worth of severance upon contract termination

I've worked in the sf tech industry my entire career and my employment contracts have never included guaranteed severance. I've seen severance being paid out to fellow employees but afaik it is done as courtesy and wasn't legally required. Are you European? Maybe it's different there.

> done as courtesy and wasn't legally required.

Usually severance is consideration for agreeing not to sue the company, not taking trade secrets, etc.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#602

Post by paulddraper »

pseg134 wrote: post #565
paulddraper wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Receivership doesn’t even require Cooperation of board/executives is not required but it is immensely helpful. "The easy way" vs "the hard way."

How would it possible help in this situation? The game is over and everyone knows exactly where all the money is. It will just be distributed back to the creditors and then remaining to the shareholders. Who needs the CFO for that? Basically anyone could run that process.

> everyone knows exactly where all the money is

Bank accounts, contacts, loans, real estate, equipment, IP, etc.

For a (once) multi-billion 1500-employee logistics business, it's more involved than you give credit for.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#603

Post by paulddraper »

PawgerZ wrote: post #580
paulddraper wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should they be allowed to walk away? Because we decided ages ago that compelled labor is a bad idea.

Sorry to be pedantic, but according to the 13th ammendment, compelled labor is allowed as a punishment of crime. To be real, if the executives at a company do commit crimes that lead to the failure of the company, I think they should be on the hook for that.

> if the executives at a company do commit crimes that lead to the failure of the company, I think they should be on the hook for that

Yes, e.g. Theranos.

But the majority of failed businesses fail for reasons that have nothing to do with crime.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#604

Post by s1artibartfast »

eru wrote: post #498
vidarh wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when US unions striked despite being met by a risk of people getting outright murdered. Without hyperbole, the 8 hour working day was won with blood. The question needs to be whether you think a strike is right and morally justified, and worth the potential consequences, not whether it is legal.

Leisure and comforts like the eight hour workday are what economists call a 'normal good'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good > In economics, a normal good is a type of a good which experiences an increase in demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand…

Im not sure I agree with your normal good characterization. It only applies to goods purchased with money - not ones purchased with time, blood, or death.

Someone with more income might exchange more money for time/comfort, if all things are held equal including the price.

I think the inverse is true when you consider exchanging things other than money for more comforts.

That is to say, people will pay more money because they have more of it the higher their income (because the marginal value of each dollar goes down)

Asking would you be willing to risk your life for more comfort, that answer changes. The higher your income/comfort/happiness, the less willing you are to risk your life for more comfort.

The less people have to work, the less they are willing to risk their lives for more free time.

Who would risk death protesting for more leisure: someone working 80, 40, 20, or 2 hours?

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#605

Post by apercu »

justrealist wrote: post #111
apercu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in whether the C-level got any severance or healthcare....

Why do you assume the worst, with absolutely no information? The company is shutting down. I'd bet you a lot of money nobody gets anything.

At higher levels you usually have insight that these things are coming and can negotiate retention bonuses and other benefits, or threaten to walk (sinking shop and all), and I think it's likely, so I asked the question....

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#606

Post by JALTU »

twic wrote: post #574
HWR_14 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While in general what you are saying is true, employees owed wages are the highest seniority of creditor. As long as you were selling furniture for reasonable prices to make payroll, you should be fine.

In case anyone is interested in the gory details, the priority order of creditors is here: https://usbankruptcycode.org/chapter-5-creditors-the-debtor-... Wages are fourth priority, but only up to $12,850 per person (one month's salary at ~150k a year). The three priorities above wages are child support (not really applicable to corporate bankruptcy i assume), liquidator's expenses, and some mildly complex case i don…

Fisherman, here. I have a few stories...

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#607

Post by thereisnospork »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #582
thereisnospork wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point? It is a simple concept that wage liabilities, eg a last check that bounces, or 'wage theft'[0], can result in those liabilities passing through to become personal liabilities of the company's owner(s). Again IANAL, and ymmv based on specific circumstances, but piercing for unpaid wages is very much a thing in (at least) California law. [0]an obviously illegal activity?

I understand what you said, I just don't think it is true and none of the provided sources say so. Meanwhile, everything I have read says they are simply priority creditors up to a limit. Beyond the limit, judges will pay other creditors before employees. >Because claims for unpaid wages due to insolvency do not fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unless the employer willfully failed to pay wages owed and…

>I understand what you said,

You really don't seem to. The allowed recourse, under contention, for unpaid wages due to bankruptcy isn't via the FLSA, its a lawsuit against the company's owners. If you run a taco stand, don't pay your employee, and then declare bankrupcy - validly or not - you will plausibly be held liable, as person, not an LLC, in civil court for those wages. To be paid from your personal assets and or garnished from future income.

Also your quote literally says 'unless declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying wages.'

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#608

Post by FireBeyond »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #599
FireBeyond wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Normally "gambling company money" implies embezzlement, which is not what happened here. Huh, what? "In one instance, after a crucial business loan was denied, he took the company's last $5,000 to Las Vegas and won $27,000 gambling on blackjack to cover the company's $24,000 fuel bill." "Embezzlement is the fraudulent taking of property by someone to whom it was entrusted, usually involving theft from a business or…

Embezzlement as in, you bet the money and if it succeeds you pocket the excess. Or that you already stole money and you're desperately gambling company money to make it back and hide the theft. This is not embezzlement. It's reckless, not theft. > Sounds both unsanctioned and sociopathic to me. Very unsanctioned, but I don't see how you get sociopathic from that quote. Please explain what's sociopathic about it like…

How is this not theft?

He took company funds and gambled them. That he won and was able to replace them is immaterial. Martin Shkreli was convicted for misusing company funds even though he made his investors money. It's not "not theft" because you can or do put the money back.

I can't understand how you can't see that.

That $5,000 ($40,000 in today's money) might not have gone very far, but you are very eager to whitewash it because he ended up winning on his gamble, and FedEx has gone on to success. He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed credit card bills for his employees. How that isn't reckless and malfeasance, I don't understand. "We're screwed. I can use the last of this money to try to do something right, or fuck it, I'm going to Vegas!" isn't leadership.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#609

Post by s1artibartfast »

jessriedel wrote: post #586
s1artibartfast wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? normally piercing the corporate veil requires serious executive misconduct.

This seems to establish precedent that unpaid wages by a bankrupt company, even in the absence of serious misconduct, are sufficient justification for veil piercing: > The case therefore would up presenting a clear question of law: Where the workers are employed by a corporation, can an individual be held liable for penalties associated with statutory violations in the payment of wages where there was no allegation o…

>The only ambiguity to me in reading this is whether the court considered it different because the wages went unpaid for a while before bankruptcy.

This is my entire point.

If you go into chapter 7 bankruptcy, and a judge prioritizes senior creditors above unpaid wadges, you are clearly in different territory than if the corporation was neglecting wages before bankruptcy.

Everyone keeps linking cases for pre-bankruptcy cases, or ones without bankruptcy at all.

Meanwhile, There laws on the books about the prioritization or creditors, and where labors stands, and how much labor gets paid out before, and how much after other creditors.

Re: Trucking startup Convoy closes operations with no buyer

#610

Post by [deleted] »

thereisnospork wrote: post #607
s1artibartfast wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you said, I just don't think it is true and none of the provided sources say so. Meanwhile, everything I have read says they are simply priority creditors up to a limit. Beyond the limit, judges will pay other creditors before employees. >Because claims for unpaid wages due to insolvency do not fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unless the employer willfully failed to pay wages owed and…

>I understand what you said, You really don't seem to. The allowed recourse, under contention, for unpaid wages due to bankruptcy isn't via the FLSA, its a lawsuit against the company's owners. If you run a taco stand, don't pay your employee, and then declare bankrupcy - validly or not - you will plausibly be held liable, as person, not an LLC, in civil court for those wages. To be paid from your personal assets and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN