4 ms·

Wait. The guy essentially says “I committed a crime, will pay US$XXX million, but we had it in our contract that the guys who hired me would take the blame, so

Wait. The guy essentially says “I committed a crime, will pay US$XXX million, but we had it in our contract that the guys who hired me would take the blame, so make them pay me US$X billion.” Am I reading that correctly? Can that contract even remain legally recognized? Sorting out quarrels between entities who were found cooperating in a crime, evaluating whether one should compensate the other for failing to uphold its part of the deal, certainly looks like the best use of a country’s justice system.

bagacrap 6y ago
No, it's a bit more complicated as Lev alleges he was unfairly screwed out of ownership of Otto (Uber Freight).
- strogonoff 6y ago
  From the filing: > As part of the transaction for the acquisition of Otto, Uber agreed to indemnify Mr. Levandowski for claims Google might raise against him. These claims included claims Google might assert for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, breaches of various restrictive covenants, and trade secret misappropriation. > Uber was aware of Mr. Levandowski’s conduct through the extensive investigation it conducted prior to and after entering into the indemnity agreement with him, and long before it purported to rescind. To the extent Uber claims it was unaware of certain facts, those facts were not material and were fully available to Uber had they cared to look more carefully at the materials it was provided by Mr. Levandowski. In fact, Mr. Levandowski repeatedly told Uber to search those devices for the most accurate information. > Mr. Levandowski therefore commences the Adversary Proceeding to obtain declaratory relief as to the impact of Uber’s purported rescission on the parties’ respective rights and obligations, to enforce Uber’s obligations arising from the Otto transaction, and to disallow the Proof of Claim. If I’m reading it correctly, Levandowski says Uber was in on the whole thing as early as Otto’s acquisition (if not earlier), and Uber did not deliver on what was promised per their arrangement. That makes whatever was promised for Otto essentially reward for a crime, which incredibly Levandowski expects to rectify in a court of law.

bagacrap 6y ago

No, it's a bit more complicated as Lev alleges he was unfairly screwed out of ownership of Otto (Uber Freight).

strogonoff 6y ago
From the filing: > As part of the transaction for the acquisition of Otto, Uber agreed to indemnify Mr. Levandowski for claims Google might raise against him. These claims included claims Google might assert for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, breaches of various restrictive covenants, and trade secret misappropriation. > Uber was aware of Mr. Levandowski’s conduct through the extensive investigation it conducted prior to and after entering into the indemnity agreement with him, and long before it purported to rescind. To the extent Uber claims it was unaware of certain facts, those facts were not material and were fully available to Uber had they cared to look more carefully at the materials it was provided by Mr. Levandowski. In fact, Mr. Levandowski repeatedly told Uber to search those devices for the most accurate information. > Mr. Levandowski therefore commences the Adversary Proceeding to obtain declaratory relief as to the impact of Uber’s purported rescission on the parties’ respective rights and obligations, to enforce Uber’s obligations arising from the Otto transaction, and to disallow the Proof of Claim. If I’m reading it correctly, Levandowski says Uber was in on the whole thing as early as Otto’s acquisition (if not earlier), and Uber did not deliver on what was promised per their arrangement. That makes whatever was promised for Otto essentially reward for a crime, which incredibly Levandowski expects to rectify in a court of law.