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

Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 196 posts

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#71

Post by rhizome »

thinbeige wrote: post #57
onion2k wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's not the point. In this case it is quite obvious that the lawsuit is being employed to gain power and control. I don't see a clear fraud.

I don't see a clear fraud

Your not being a party to the ongoing case, this doesn't surprise me. I don't think any of us knows enough to judge.

Furthermore, "weeding out fraud" could certainly be seen as "gain[ing] power and control," but it's not the most charitable interpretation.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#72

Post by uhhhhhhh »

throwawy11111 wrote: post #61

Benchmarks in a bind and at war with travis; they need to liquidate their stake in next year or two. Softbank deal to buy out their shares fell apart in part b/c no CEO. Benchmark wants safe-hands leader who will cost-cut firesale their way to quick IPO. travis + allies being more long term; blocking benchmarks CEO picks (meg). so board civil war continues with benchmarks dirty tricks like this sour grapes lawsuit an…

>travis + allies being more long term

His actions and bad management hardly seem long term based thinking. While you could be right that is his intention, his actions to date, the bad management issues well documented, or his possible participation in fraud, to the antagonistic business practices hardly seem the best "long term" approaches.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#73

Post by surfearth »

cft wrote: post #64
gjem97 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they "need" to liquidate in the next year or two?

Prob because the lifetime of the fund that invested is coming to an end? It's usually 10 years

While most venture funds have a 10 year term, almost all are extended for at least an additional two years. The GP, together with the LP's, have lots of flexibility to extend beyond then if necessary, although there are typically negotiations around fee reductions and clarifying the path to liquidity. I have no insight into this particular fund, but it is very unlikely that it is purely fund term motivating Benchmark's desire to exit.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#74

Post by tim333 »

joering2 wrote: post #65
rmason wrote: post #8

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.

> Apparently unhappy with merely removing Travis from the CEO's chair Travis wasn't removed from CEO chair. He resigned temporarily due to passing of his late mother. He himself said multiple times once he is done greaving, he plans to come back.

"Travis Kalanick stepped down Tuesday as chief executive of Uber, the ride-hailing service that he helped found in 2009 and built into a transportation colossus, after a shareholder revolt made it untenable for him to stay on at the company."

is how the NYT put it.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#75

Post by goldenkey »

arikr wrote: post #58
bsaul wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe referring to the Benchmark Epinions stuff. Though from what I know Benchmark's rep is pretty solid. Particularly as a king-maker, with Uber and Snap.

Snap is grade A trash compactor

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#76

Post by geofft »

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #72
throwawy11111 wrote: post #61

Benchmarks in a bind and at war with travis; they need to liquidate their stake in next year or two. Softbank deal to buy out their shares fell apart in part b/c no CEO. Benchmark wants safe-hands leader who will cost-cut firesale their way to quick IPO. travis + allies being more long term; blocking benchmarks CEO picks (meg). so board civil war continues with benchmarks dirty tricks like this sour grapes lawsuit an…

>travis + allies being more long term His actions and bad management hardly seem long term based thinking. While you could be right that is his intention, his actions to date, the bad management issues well documented, or his possible participation in fraud, to the antagonistic business practices hardly seem the best "long term" approaches.

I was gonna say. Surely Travis and his allies are interested in Uber's long-term success, yes, but that's a very different claim from them being good for Uber's long-term success.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#77

Post by abiox »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #24
thebmax wrote: post #13

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.

It seems like newspeak to call people "greedy" for suing someone despite that they (nominally) made a lot of money for those people. It seems like the fund is insisting that its investments follow the law, not indemnify criminal actions, etc. Doing that to an investment that made you money seems the opposite of greedy. How are we seeing this so differently?

> It seems like the fund is insisting that its investments follow the law

the fund is not the police or courts, though... right? it's not their "job" to ensure the law is asserted upon the land - at least not beyond their own avoidance of wrongdoing.

> not indemnify criminal actions

IANAL, but the state is the plaintiff in criminal cases. this case just seems to be benchmark asking that newly added board seats be removed.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#78

Post by pge »

gjem97 wrote: post #67
cft wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prob because the lifetime of the fund that invested is coming to an end? It's usually 10 years

What is the lifetime of the fund? Just the amount of time that the VC firm has said they would have all the money (and more!) back to the limiteds? Clearly that's not a hard deadline, right?

It is a hard deadline because it is in the deal documents when the fund is formed. It is relevant because the fund management is guaranteed fees for that period. Extending it is usually straightforward, but the compensation of the fund management team during the extension is open for negotiation.

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#79

Post by EthanHeilman »

shallot_router wrote: post #55
EthanHeilman wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if (purely hypothically) all consequentialists could agree on the same set of standards for what constitutes positive and negative utility?

How do you think this purely hypothetical conspiracy of consequentialists would go about convincing people to follow that set of standards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Plato.27s_Republic

Re: Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud

#80

Post by pge »

sah2ed wrote: post #45
rmason wrote: post #8

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.

I think it's more like Bill Gurley not fully looking out for the interests of Benchmark [0] while dealing with Travis when he held the board seat at Uber on their behalf. Fun fact: Gurley has himself being sued by some founders of a startup (Epinions) in the past for misrepresenting material information [1] prior to a merger. [0] "Mr. Gurley has remained one of Mr. Kalanick’s few trusted advisers, and the two communi…

Fwiw, Gurley is legally obligated to make board decisions on behalf of all shareholders not to look out just for benchmark's interests. I don't know that it is relevant in this case but just correcting the common misconception that a board member's job is to look out for his employer's interests.
Post reply on HN