4 ms·

So someone explain this. The amount seem to be in the low 100k area? Why bother suing? Du Val has hoarded all this stock, apparently it has worked, you can ar

by bruceb 7y ago

So someone explain this. The amount seem to be in the low 100k area? Why bother suing? Du Val has hoarded all this stock, apparently it has worked, you can argue the ethics of it, but he seems to have pulled it off. Why not just write off this relatively small amount for a company with $200m revenue? Why draw attention to yourself and your company? Is it an ego thing?

vitalychernobyl 7y ago
Looks like it was more than that (plus he's now trying to claim he owns a part of the company and/or entitled to $2MM.. again, according to the doc) "[redacted]'s at-will employment was terminated for the reasons herein explained, and [redacted] left Toptal’s employ unjustly enriched, and with amounts owed by him to Toptal in the form of unpaid loan amounts, unreimbursed credit card charges of a purely personal nature, and restitution for amounts caused to be embezzled and diverted to his girlfriend and for an unapproved, self-awarded bonus, totaling at least $629,850.46."
- bruceb 7y ago
  Thanks. I just read first the few pages, thought it was lower. If the COO just kept quiet, I think it would have been worth it to forget even $630k, but I guess could say it also sends a message. I don't think most people on HN knew about the interesting events related to ownership of Toptal, so good for us the suit happened.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- elsewhen 7y ago
  from the lawsuit: "47. On July 3, 2019, [redacted] wired $466,373.67 to Toptal." so, this whole lawsuit seems to be about: $163,476.79
  - vitalychernobyl 7y ago
    Yeah - they said that.. but then they had the whole $629k+ in the actual ask in the suit.. there is either more in addition, or they don't "accept" the pay-back (or just trying to make it look bigger to benefit the case)
topaway 7y ago
I used to work there and ego / control is definitely a motivator for the CEO. He's the type who would absolutely pursue a law suit like this regardless of the cost/benefit, just to make a point. He said as much to the company when they were having issues with confidential information leaking.

by bruceb 7y ago

vitalychernobyl 7y ago

Looks like it was more than that (plus he's now trying to claim he owns a part of the company and/or entitled to $2MM.. again, according to the doc) "[redacted]'s at-will employment was terminated for the reasons herein explained, and [redacted] left Toptal’s employ unjustly enriched, and with amounts owed by him to Toptal in the form of unpaid loan amounts, unreimbursed credit card charges of a purely personal nature, and restitution for amounts caused to be embezzled and diverted to his girlfriend and for an unapproved, self-awarded bonus, totaling at least $629,850.46."

bruceb 7y ago
Thanks. I just read first the few pages, thought it was lower. If the COO just kept quiet, I think it would have been worth it to forget even $630k, but I guess could say it also sends a message. I don't think most people on HN knew about the interesting events related to ownership of Toptal, so good for us the suit happened.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
elsewhen 7y ago
from the lawsuit: "47. On July 3, 2019, [redacted] wired $466,373.67 to Toptal." so, this whole lawsuit seems to be about: $163,476.79
- vitalychernobyl 7y ago
  Yeah - they said that.. but then they had the whole $629k+ in the actual ask in the suit.. there is either more in addition, or they don't "accept" the pay-back (or just trying to make it look bigger to benefit the case)

topaway 7y ago

I used to work there and ego / control is definitely a motivator for the CEO. He's the type who would absolutely pursue a law suit like this regardless of the cost/benefit, just to make a point. He said as much to the company when they were having issues with confidential information leaking.