5 ms·
Yes, I think this could be a very big deal. As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once
by thrill 10y ago
Yes, I think this could be a very big deal.
As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once certain evidence was presented) and gather and present evidence of massive fraud, etc., and working entirely as an amateur in this effort, managed to aid in recovering assets and capturing the former CEO and sending him to prison for several years, I find stories of (allegedly) fraudulent action (and solid response) like this heartwarming.
If Uber had no self-driving car program to speak of before talking with Levandowski, and discovery shows they basically started from that conversation, then that would seem to open up all of Uber to any discovery process - they can't justifiably claim "it's the self driving car division that did all this". This seems much more than a civil process from my reading of it. It could be great theater.
If I was on Uber's BOD, I'd immediately relieve the CEO simply based on the allegations here, and if I didn't have the votes to do that, I'd immediately resign my seat.
- ontoillogical 10y ago>As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company ... That sounds like an interesting story! Have you told it elsewhere?
- thrill 10y agoHeh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as their adviser.
- pthreads 10y agoI want to know the whole story so bad. You should write a book. :-)
- thrill 10y agoIf only I could write as well as the screenplay for Dave Barry's "Big Trouble".
- ethbro 10y agoFind an author without a story. Interesting things + ability to write = great story! Doesn't matter if it comes from one or two people. And I would guess that the next four years will be a popular market for legal stories of corruption (from people of all political affiliation).
- bobwaycott 10y agoI'd help you write. Or at least edit. :)
- phasetransition 10y agoMy friend is a professional ghostwriter, if you ever consider a book seriously. Sounds like an interesting read.
- abakker 10y ago...Can I buy you a beer? or a few?
- prodikl 10y agooh damn this looks interesting > Heh no longer interested
- niuzeta 10y agoI'm willing to buy you several beers for a story! this sounds totally worth it.
- jacquesm 10y ago> usually after a few beers I'm not near to you and I'm not sure what the options are to ship crates of beer but count me in. I'll swap you a story of attempting to help the father of a friend who was CEO of some company that ended up with me fronting the bill for a lawyer to keep him out of jail.
- dnautics 10y agoWow. The story of the sec attorney sounds even juicier than the story of the original CEO. Are you in the bay area? Drop a line!
- tomphoolery 10y ago> His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated He who smelt it...must certainly have dealt it.
- ptero 10y agoRemoving a CEO based simply on allegations sounds to me as a pretty extreme response. Would you feel the same if the company in question would not be Uber (whose CEO may be a liability for Uber ATM anyway) but, say, IBM? This is an honest question.
- st3v3r 10y agoTo be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.
- sauronlord 10y agoWhat crimes or violations was he convicted of? Enough accusations and then you are guilty until proven innocent? Wtf
- bigiain 10y agoHaving not been convicted of a crime (with the assistance of one of the world's largest legal budgets) is not the usual measure of being the sort of respected and trusted person you'd want at the helm of your corporation. The man is unquestionably toxic - it's entirely possible the entire company is toxic.
- sauronlord 10y agoInnocent until proven guilty as a legal prescription has nothing to do with respect and trust and some peoples (filtered) opinions.
- bigiain 10y agoExactly. Board members and shareholders aren't responsible or particularly concerned with innocence or guilt, but are very concerned with trust and respect that customers (or potential-investors/business-partners/governments) have in their company's leadership. They're not deciding whether to put him in jail or not, but board members are legally obligated to determine whether or not he's adding or detracting from shareholder value. Even if every single accusation against him and the culture he's built is false - the public perception needs addressing. Perhaps "remove" is the wrong wording, but if you're an insider/board member who thinks every single accusation and report is false - you'd at least have to seriously consider asking Travis to publicly "recuse" himself while the investigations are under way - without that anything coming out of the investigation is going to be about as believable as the Police Union guy announcing "We've investigated the matter and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!".