I'm skeptical of the source of this article. My guess is Zenefits spoke off the record to do damage control in Sacks' favor. I have no proof but will lay out wh

I'm skeptical of the source of this article. My guess is Zenefits spoke off the record to do damage control in Sacks' favor. I have no proof but will lay out why below. > In a Feb. 1 meeting at its blandly luxurious Sand Hill Road offices, venture firm Andreessen Horowitz urged the chief executive officer of one of its most prized and promising companies to resign. 1) The first sentence references a meeting that very few people would know the details of. Likely only those at a16z plus a few executives around Parker/Sacks. Unlikely Parker is talking to the press, given the legal issues swirling. > Days after Chief Operating Officer David Sacks gave that information to Lars Dalgaard, an Andreessen partner who sits on Zenefits’ board, Conrad was out, say three people familiar with the matter. At Conrad’s suggestion, they replaced him with Sacks 2) Sacks gave the information to a partner, then Conrad (basically blamed for fraud) suggested they replace him with Sacks. Which raises some questions: a) Why trust Conrad? He's fired + off the board + likely under legal investigation. b) As COO, no question as to whether Sacks knew anything or that they needed fresh blood? Also, he was suggested by the person who was just removed for fraud. Lastly, we get a picture that sounds a lot less like Conrad giving a voluntary recommendation: > At the meeting, Conrad tentatively agreed to resign, relinquish his board seat, and make Sacks CEO, say three people close to the company.