8 ms·

Sounds like they offered $4.5m ("triple the last offer" of $1.5m) to go away. I assume the attorney would only make that statement if they had supportable docu

by aresant 11y ago

Sounds like they offered $4.5m ("triple the last offer" of $1.5m) to go away. I assume the attorney would only make that statement if they had supportable documentation. Given that Guillory appears to be a "needs a paycheck" guy that's an awful lot of money to walk away from without a damn good case.

imron 11y ago
From the complaint: the application that Vogt himself submitted to Y Combinator described repeatedly that Guillory was a founder of Cruise Automation and states unequivocally in response to a question asking “who are the shareholders and what percent does each own?” that “Cruise Automation is a Delaware C Corporation created in September 2013. 50/50 split between Kyle and Jeremy." If true, that could be worth hundreds of millions, which is an even larger amount of money to walk away from.
Natsu 11y ago
I wouldn't read too much into that or anything said in the complaint until the actual source documents are filed and we see the response to the complaint filed in court. That could very well be the nuisance value of the suit for them in their situation. Trying to judge a case from just the initial complaint is far too incomplete a picture to go on. I'd withhold judgement until there are more facts established that both sides have had a chance to argue over. Almost everything you read in the media is ill-informed analysis of non-lawyers. Haven't had much good coverage since Groklaw.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  I agree that the source documents are important. But the question shouldn't be whether Jeremy's side can produce them. If they couldn't, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening right now. Clearly, they think they have a significant chance of winning. Otherwise, Jeremy wouldn't have turned down $4.5 million.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant chance of winning at that point, and his lawyer must now believe there is some chance of winning or he wouldn't take the case, but we don't know that the lawyer would have advised turning down the 4.5.
    - _sentient 11y ago
      Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.
      - tempestn 11y ago
        Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
        Natsu 11y ago
        Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.
iandanforth 11y ago
The complaint suggests that he was asked to make up his mind really quickly without extended discussion with a lawyer. "Altman, also said he was authorized to negotiate on Cruise’s behalf and offered Guillory triple the amount of Vogt’s previous offer, but only if Guillory would agree to sign a formal settlement agreement that same day. Cruise’s attorneys then sent Guillory a lengthy settlement demand and Altman told him he could have only two hours to propose any changes. When Guillory told Altman he would not be able to meet that deadline because he needed to review the proposed terms of the agreement with legal counsel, Altman told Guillory he should fire his lawyer if he had already retained one, and offered to send him a list of lawyers to consult. Guillory could not comply with Cruise’s unreasonable deadline, and as a result, it passed on Friday, April 8, 2016."
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  That's damning if true, and paints YC and sama in a very poor light.
- nikcub 11y ago
  I find this hard to believe considering how strongly sama has come out against exploding offers: http://blog.ycombinator.com/exploding-offers-suck http://blog.ycombinator.com/exploding-offers-suck Even characterizing them as "terrible behavior"
  - joslin01 11y ago
    Right, but he also said: > Given the time pressure because of the pending merger, we had to set a Friday at 5 pm deadline for Kyle’s offer, which Jeremy let expire.
    - nikcub 11y ago
      Investor exploding offer: "Given the time pressure because of other deals we're looking at" Employer exploding offer: "Given the time pressure because of other candidates" Everybody has a way of dressing up an exploding offer. And FTR, I still don't believe that this is exactly what happen.
kirillzubovsky 11y ago
If he doesn't have the money to pay the attorney out of pocket, he is then most likely going to pay them with a big % of his "winnings", if he does succeed. In which case, the attorneys would fight tooth and nail to get as much as they could "for their client."

by aresant 11y ago

imron 11y ago

From the complaint: the application that Vogt himself submitted to Y Combinator described repeatedly that Guillory was a founder of Cruise Automation and states unequivocally in response to a question asking “who are the shareholders and what percent does each own?” that “Cruise Automation is a Delaware C Corporation created in September 2013. 50/50 split between Kyle and Jeremy." If true, that could be worth hundreds of millions, which is an even larger amount of money to walk away from.

Natsu 11y ago

I wouldn't read too much into that or anything said in the complaint until the actual source documents are filed and we see the response to the complaint filed in court. That could very well be the nuisance value of the suit for them in their situation. Trying to judge a case from just the initial complaint is far too incomplete a picture to go on. I'd withhold judgement until there are more facts established that both sides have had a chance to argue over. Almost everything you read in the media is ill-informed analysis of non-lawyers. Haven't had much good coverage since Groklaw.

enraged_camel 11y ago
I agree that the source documents are important. But the question shouldn't be whether Jeremy's side can produce them. If they couldn't, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening right now. Clearly, they think they have a significant chance of winning. Otherwise, Jeremy wouldn't have turned down $4.5 million.
- tempestn 11y ago
  I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant chance of winning at that point, and his lawyer must now believe there is some chance of winning or he wouldn't take the case, but we don't know that the lawyer would have advised turning down the 4.5.
  - _sentient 11y ago
    Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.
    - tempestn 11y ago
      Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.

iandanforth 11y ago

The complaint suggests that he was asked to make up his mind really quickly without extended discussion with a lawyer. "Altman, also said he was authorized to negotiate on Cruise’s behalf and offered Guillory triple the amount of Vogt’s previous offer, but only if Guillory would agree to sign a formal settlement agreement that same day. Cruise’s attorneys then sent Guillory a lengthy settlement demand and Altman told him he could have only two hours to propose any changes. When Guillory told Altman he would not be able to meet that deadline because he needed to review the proposed terms of the agreement with legal counsel, Altman told Guillory he should fire his lawyer if he had already retained one, and offered to send him a list of lawyers to consult. Guillory could not comply with Cruise’s unreasonable deadline, and as a result, it passed on Friday, April 8, 2016."

toomuchtodo 11y ago
That's damning if true, and paints YC and sama in a very poor light.
nikcub 11y ago
I find this hard to believe considering how strongly sama has come out against exploding offers: http://blog.ycombinator.com/exploding-offers-suck http://blog.ycombinator.com/exploding-offers-suck Even characterizing them as "terrible behavior"
- joslin01 11y ago
  Right, but he also said: > Given the time pressure because of the pending merger, we had to set a Friday at 5 pm deadline for Kyle’s offer, which Jeremy let expire.
  - nikcub 11y ago
    Investor exploding offer: "Given the time pressure because of other deals we're looking at" Employer exploding offer: "Given the time pressure because of other candidates" Everybody has a way of dressing up an exploding offer. And FTR, I still don't believe that this is exactly what happen.

kirillzubovsky 11y ago

If he doesn't have the money to pay the attorney out of pocket, he is then most likely going to pay them with a big % of his "winnings", if he does succeed. In which case, the attorneys would fight tooth and nail to get as much as they could "for their client."