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

Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#91

Post by tmh79 »

loeg wrote: post #37
specular wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very difficult to answer this with specificity, but in general there are a number of factors that influence the amount of cash you ultimately net from a sale, including: - Cap table: what % is owed to other founders, investors, employees, etc? - The total acquisition price may include substantial legal and other fees that will lower the actual amount received by the owners or shareholders. - How much of the acquisiti…

His company existed for a seven months in 2016 before being bought by Uber. It isn't clear (to me) if there were third party investors or what the cap table was, broadly. Purportedly 90 employees at time of sale to Uber.

his contract to sell w uber had a significant earn out, the 680m was based on hitting different tech milestones. He hit none of them before he was fired.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#92

Post by tassl »

nobbis wrote: post #67

Google's SDC efforts are rooted in Anthony's work: he helped kickstart the entire industry. Mark Harris broke the story here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-intelligence/t... I don't know what IP is in question, but it seems to me that he had been working in AVs longer than almost anyone in the industry, so it's believable that Uber was valuing the Otto team's accumulated experience, rather than any st…

This is completely misleading. Even if his first company was the first self driving vehicle project ever (which was not) or the only piece in the puzzle (which it wasn't either), there were other cofounders of that startup. This is glorifying one person using other people's work.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#93

Post by humanlion87 »

tomerico wrote: post #6
zanek wrote: post #3

Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this

I wonder how he doesn't have more assets after he sold his company to Uber for $680 millions

Or maybe he off-shored the rest of his money? This < $100mil are the assets that are under his name and the rest are in tax havens/under different shell companies? Not sure whether that is possible. But it seems like rich people always have multiple ways of hiding their money.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#94

Post by tomerico »

rockinghigh wrote: post #74
tomerico wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how he doesn't have more assets after he sold his company to Uber for $680 millions

1) He did not own 100% of that company. 2) There were 4 cofounders and 90 employees. 3) He got paid mostly in Uber shares that vested over time and he left before they vested. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/ieee-analysis-shows-uber-pai...

Good link. It looks like half of the purchase price was supposed to go to Anthony, but under a vesting schedule.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#95

Post by sunstone »

zanek wrote: post #3

Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this

Yes less than $100m. Probably closer to $4.89 and some long time ago there was a trust in Singapore bulging with much more than $4.89.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#96

Post by jjeaff »

caf wrote: post #59
toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Primary residence in Florida is shielded from bankruptcy and creditors. Also retirement accounts (both IRAs and 401ks). Lease your expensive ride and you’re mostly judgement proof.

Can you shield additional liquid assets by installing solid gold toilets in your Florida mansion?

Probably, it is not uncommon for people to dump large sums of money into renovations to their property before a bankruptcy.

Although I would imagine if it was very egregious, like $1m toilets when essentially no one else has anything reasonably close to that, that a judge would probably strike that down and require you to liquidate it.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#97

Post by jjeaff »

zsandwich wrote: post #32
markdown wrote: post #11

> Ron settled last month with Google for $9.7 million. Smart guy.

He works for Uber. They paid his bill.

So did lewendowski when the event in question took place.

They are technically on the hook for his too but they will definitely try to argue that since an actual crime took place, their indemnity only goes so far. And I'm sure there is some language to that effect in their policies as well.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#98

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

projektfu wrote: post #28
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitration panel, in this case. The real answer is that the legal system is not set up to keep a globally consistent harm_done->liability map. For one thing, the contents of employment contracts may lead to different damages in otherwise identical circumstances. For another thing, even if the circumstances were identical, it would be inefficient for justices to have to search every other possible case to make sure t…

True, it shows that even highly valuable employees are Davids (or Sauls) against a corporate Goliath.

Not sure the relevance of the metaphor. In this case it seems like Goliath ended up stepping o David's head.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#100

Post by o-__-o »

mfkp wrote: post #52
gnicholas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP is referring to Florida’s generous homestead exception, which allows a debtor to keep his/her home (regardless of opulence) despite creditors’ claims.

Ah interesting, didn't know about that. Seems like a easily exploitable loophole if so.

Remember you may be able to claim an exemption on your $5m estate but you need to pay the taxes and electric bill and it’s hard to do that when up to 75% of anything you make beyond minimum wage is garnished (I don’t think any state even allows this much but maybe). To be fair some states only allow up to 25%. And some states you cannot garnish at all, you can only levy bank accounts
Post reply on HN