I think there might be a miss alignment of values here. It all depends on what you see the purpose of the company to be. Some people are dedicated to the comp

I think there might be a miss alignment of values here. It all depends on what you see the purpose of the company to be. Some people are dedicated to the company as an entity of it’s own and the product they build and the people working there. It is a valid and respectable way of looking at things. From your post, I have a sense you might fall into this category. Assuming you subscribe to this point of view, it makes sense to consider the retreat an abuse. Other people do not see companies like this. Instead, they see the company as an means to an end. A tool to use for enhancing financial opportunities and abilities and living a full, luxurious, rich and comfortable life. I believe this too is a valid and respectable way of approaching things. This is how I personally view companies and their purpose. With this point of view, a vacation expensed on the company is not an abuse. It’s the intended purpose. If you would like to see a decent portrait of this different philosophies I would recommend seeing the difference between Dany Crane and Paul Lewiston in Boston Legal. Of course it might also be the case this was a miss alignment of business strategy and not fundamental values. If he invited the business partners perhaps he saw it as a business opportunity to renew contracts, perhaps upsell more services, etc. Whatever the case might be, I think a very frank discussion between the two of you is in order. Business strategy should be aligned, yes, but far more importantly, fundamental outlook on what the company is for. Best advice I can give you is, don’t leave this unaddressed but address it in a professional manner in order to understand where the other co-funder is coming from. Once you understand his position you will be in a position where you can make an informed decision about your future and the future of the company.