4 ms·
One could argue that the board by demolishing the company in one fell swoop effectively relieved Microsoft of some of their contractual obligations.
by underdeserver 3y ago
One could argue that the board by demolishing the company in one fell swoop effectively relieved Microsoft of some of their contractual obligations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- verdverm 3y agoMost contracts also have a clause that a breach of one part does not invalidate the remainder. There are elements that typically out live the end of a contract as well, often the poaching and non-compete clause
- CPLX 3y agoOne could argue that firing the Loopt founder guy who was an at-will employee isn't a material event invalidating a contract unless the contract specifies exactly that.
- croes 3y agoOne could argue that by doing something it is legally allowed to do, the board has not relieved Microsoft of anything. No matter how smart or dumb that move was.
- mminer237 3y agoReally? I'm a lawyer, and I can't even see an argument of how firing a CEO would affect investment agreements at all unless Microsoft specifically conditioned their investment on Altman remaining CEO forever.