3 ms·

There are opposing issues here. 1) The article highlights that a16z is founder-friendly. 2) The lawsuit alleges that Andreessen acted against the behalf of sh

There are opposing issues here. 1) The article highlights that a16z is founder-friendly. 2) The lawsuit alleges that Andreessen acted against the behalf of shareholders that he has a legal obligation to protect. Part of the thesis that a16z operates under is that great companies keep their founders as CEOs longer and more often than non-great companies. So on the surface being founder-friendly doesn't have to imply a legal conflict. The argument that the lawsuit rests on is that common shareholders would be better off (had a high price) if Zuckerberg lost his special voting rights. In the end it's a moot point. If the board wouldn't let him do it, he would have postponed the charitable foundation.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Right, and Andreeson was appointed to the special committee as someone who had the least financial jeopardy from whatever decision was made to protect the interests of those common shareholders, i.e. specifically to investigate contrary viewpoints. Instead, he sent a crib sheet to Zuck, scripted potential responses to questions so Zuck "knew what they wanted to hear", and even texted him in the board meetings to provide live coaching. There's no way that this is not a bad move.