Again, you're taking the words of a BayStar managing member at face value. Why? He has a reason to lie and deflect blame. There is no other supporting evidence.

Again, you're taking the words of a BayStar managing member at face value. Why? He has a reason to lie and deflect blame. There is no other supporting evidence. Nothing else rings true about his story either. Like for example, you don't make a big investment as private equity firm based on flimsy (at best) guarantees. Regardless, had that guarantee actually happened and BayStar really believed it, they would have sued Microsoft just to embarrass them and force a settlement. I'm sure Microsoft was applauding the lawsuit but that doesn't mean they funded it as OP just outright stated. > It seems plausible that the SVP was just paid a lot of money to quit and not refute the blame placed on him after the rest of MS decided to wash their hands. Only if you're conspiratorial minded because that doesn't seem plausible at all. I think your dislike of Microsoft clouds your judgment.