5 ms·

Twitter violated contract by failing to pay millions in bonuses, US judge rules

77 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

junnalist 3y ago
[flagged]
- Racing0461 3y ago
  i don't get it.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
epistasis 3y ago
It's hard to imagine worse mismanagement than this. The amount of arrogance signals that no one should ever trust Musk's word again. There are those who I respect who said that Musk built great companies, at least in the past. But now I wonder, how much is Musk and how much is it that Musk just raised a ton of money and the companies were run by people way smarter and more competent than him? And now, in his latest fits of, well, whatever this is, he can't even bother to grift off their better judgement? Such a shame. So much wasted empire for no good reason.
- irq 3y ago
  > But now I wonder, how much is Musk and how much is it that Musk just raised a ton of money and the companies were run by people way smarter and more competent than him? It is quite obvious that the more involved he gets in his companies, the more they fail, Twitter being the most obvious example, but SpaceX and Tesla both do as well as they do despite him, not because of him. He was able to moderate his ego better for those companies due to being less unhinged from reality earlier in his life, when he was putting more of his time into those companies.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    He didn't moderate his ego. The people at these companies built a system of advisors to manage their CEO the way that a kingdom with a 5-year-old king used to. He stormed into Twitter without letting them build that up, and now we're seeing the effects.
- pstuart 3y ago
  My take on the man is that his value was both as a salesman (with the overpromising and hype building), as well as the dictator who could cut through analysis paralysis by committee (a la Steve Jobs). I think it served him well for Tesla and SpaceX but without shielding from his own worst impulses (as in Twitter and Cybertruck at Tesla), his reputation has been squandered. Add that his social media interaction which has diminished him in the eyes of all but his acolytes....
  - irq 3y ago
    Steve knew the value of communication and respect, and when to give it and when not to, and how that strategically applied to Apple as a company. Elon knows none of these things - ego is his north star.
    - jtthe13 3y ago
      Thank you. It is hard not to be labeled as an Apple fan boy when I posit Musk and Jobs do not belong in the same category. Jobs made the point repeatedly about encouraging differences in opinins. Musk behaves as he's only surrounded by sycophants. He's high on his own hype.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        My only comparison was that where most companies have layers of management and committees that deliver accordingly, both were able to cut through with their decrees. It served Musk well earlier but Twitter has shown that he was lucky. It will be interesting to see how the Cybertruck fiasco impacts his ability to lead Tesla.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      Agreed. The only thing that Musk shares with Jobs is that he could make a decree and it would happen, as well as a sense of showmanship. It's easy to shit on Musk (and I'm happy to do it), but I think it's important to recognize past contributions for what they are. I have zero respect for him otherwise.
underseacables 3y ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 3y ago
  Of course. Why would you ever think differently? When you buy a business, what do you think you are buying? Edit: the comment I'm replying to has changed its entire content at least twice now. The current version is expressing doubt that this will hold up under appeal due to what was said. The first version expressed vague surprise that promises made before a company was sold hold up after it was sold. I have never seen somebody abuse the edit function in this dishonest way on HN before.
- clipsy 3y ago
  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you think this is ridiculous: can I ask why? Buying a company generally includes accepting their liabilities, I don't see why employee bonuses would be any different. Edit: Parent has edited their post to completely rewrite it. The original seemed to express incredulity at the idea that a company's new owners would be on the hook for the company's liabilities after a buy-out.
Freedom2 3y ago
During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid. This was with respect to severance packages. It'll be interesting to see what kind of reaction this gets this time around.
- clipsy 3y ago
  This is a prima facie absurd view of buyouts; if this were actually how things worked it would be fiscally irresponsible to lend money to any corporation (because the ownership might change, absolving them of their debt), for example. Or, succinctly: the owners of my bank made an agreement that I can withdraw my money at any time without fee. Should new owners suddenly be able to ignore that agreement? Impose fees? Perhaps even simply deny me the ability to withdraw money at all? I would hope the answer from any reasonable person would be a resounding "No."
  - Ajay-p 3y ago
    I sense a great deal of passion in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
    - jtthe13 3y ago
      I sense a great deal of sarcasm and a lack of constructive criticism in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      It’s… not an issue! To be clear, a change of ownership does absolutely not get a company out of its obligations. That is not how it works, at all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
082349872349872 3y ago
> Twitter's lawyers argued that the company made only an oral promise that was not a contract This is what is known as "vigorous representation": Twitter's lawyers would of course know that offer, acceptance, and consideration produce a contract, but if their client wants them to say something stupid, they have to do it...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Surprised there isn't some more complex argument they could make if they are high paid lawyers....
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    I mean, if you say you’ll pay someone something under certain conditions, they meet the conditions, and you don’t pay, er, there’s no complexity there. Particularly if you are a company.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      Yeah, but there is always some technicality... Eg. The person who made the offer wasn't authorized to speak on behalf of the company...
  - Natsu 3y ago
    Most contracts I've seen have a clause in them saying that the agreements are final and any modifications have to be in writing and signed by whomever to modify the agreement. I have no idea if there's one like that in play here, but, it's not necessarily a bad argument depending on the particular situation.
- pylua 3y ago
  What’s the point in seeing this through then — ultimately a lawsuit just delays the inevitable and will be more costly for Twitter considering legal fees. Is Twitter buying time ?
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
meepmorp 3y ago
Reuters messed up the headline and lede. Per their own article, that is not at all what the judge ruled: > In denying Twitter's motion to dismiss the case, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Mr Schobinger plausibly stated a breach of contract claim under California law and he was covered by a bonus plan. Twitter's lawyers filed to have the suit dismissed and the judge rejected the motion. The case is still ongoing, and no decisions were made about the outcome of the case itself, merely that it will be allowed to proceed.

77 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

junnalist 3y ago

[flagged]

Racing0461 3y ago
i don't get it.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

epistasis 3y ago

It's hard to imagine worse mismanagement than this. The amount of arrogance signals that no one should ever trust Musk's word again. There are those who I respect who said that Musk built great companies, at least in the past. But now I wonder, how much is Musk and how much is it that Musk just raised a ton of money and the companies were run by people way smarter and more competent than him? And now, in his latest fits of, well, whatever this is, he can't even bother to grift off their better judgement? Such a shame. So much wasted empire for no good reason.

irq 3y ago
> But now I wonder, how much is Musk and how much is it that Musk just raised a ton of money and the companies were run by people way smarter and more competent than him? It is quite obvious that the more involved he gets in his companies, the more they fail, Twitter being the most obvious example, but SpaceX and Tesla both do as well as they do despite him, not because of him. He was able to moderate his ego better for those companies due to being less unhinged from reality earlier in his life, when he was putting more of his time into those companies.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  He didn't moderate his ego. The people at these companies built a system of advisors to manage their CEO the way that a kingdom with a 5-year-old king used to. He stormed into Twitter without letting them build that up, and now we're seeing the effects.
pstuart 3y ago
My take on the man is that his value was both as a salesman (with the overpromising and hype building), as well as the dictator who could cut through analysis paralysis by committee (a la Steve Jobs). I think it served him well for Tesla and SpaceX but without shielding from his own worst impulses (as in Twitter and Cybertruck at Tesla), his reputation has been squandered. Add that his social media interaction which has diminished him in the eyes of all but his acolytes....
- irq 3y ago
  Steve knew the value of communication and respect, and when to give it and when not to, and how that strategically applied to Apple as a company. Elon knows none of these things - ego is his north star.
  - jtthe13 3y ago
    Thank you. It is hard not to be labeled as an Apple fan boy when I posit Musk and Jobs do not belong in the same category. Jobs made the point repeatedly about encouraging differences in opinins. Musk behaves as he's only surrounded by sycophants. He's high on his own hype.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      My only comparison was that where most companies have layers of management and committees that deliver accordingly, both were able to cut through with their decrees. It served Musk well earlier but Twitter has shown that he was lucky. It will be interesting to see how the Cybertruck fiasco impacts his ability to lead Tesla.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Agreed. The only thing that Musk shares with Jobs is that he could make a decree and it would happen, as well as a sense of showmanship. It's easy to shit on Musk (and I'm happy to do it), but I think it's important to recognize past contributions for what they are. I have zero respect for him otherwise.

underseacables 3y ago

[flagged]

epistasis 3y ago
Of course. Why would you ever think differently? When you buy a business, what do you think you are buying? Edit: the comment I'm replying to has changed its entire content at least twice now. The current version is expressing doubt that this will hold up under appeal due to what was said. The first version expressed vague surprise that promises made before a company was sold hold up after it was sold. I have never seen somebody abuse the edit function in this dishonest way on HN before.
clipsy 3y ago
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you think this is ridiculous: can I ask why? Buying a company generally includes accepting their liabilities, I don't see why employee bonuses would be any different. Edit: Parent has edited their post to completely rewrite it. The original seemed to express incredulity at the idea that a company's new owners would be on the hook for the company's liabilities after a buy-out.

Freedom2 3y ago

During the layoffs, I've seen some commenters here express that any agreements were to the previous owners and since Musk is a new owner taking over the company, those previous agreements are no longer valid. This was with respect to severance packages. It'll be interesting to see what kind of reaction this gets this time around.

clipsy 3y ago
This is a prima facie absurd view of buyouts; if this were actually how things worked it would be fiscally irresponsible to lend money to any corporation (because the ownership might change, absolving them of their debt), for example. Or, succinctly: the owners of my bank made an agreement that I can withdraw my money at any time without fee. Should new owners suddenly be able to ignore that agreement? Impose fees? Perhaps even simply deny me the ability to withdraw money at all? I would hope the answer from any reasonable person would be a resounding "No."
- Ajay-p 3y ago
  I sense a great deal of passion in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
  - jtthe13 3y ago
    I sense a great deal of sarcasm and a lack of constructive criticism in your comment. Has this issue impacted your life in the past?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    It’s… not an issue! To be clear, a change of ownership does absolutely not get a company out of its obligations. That is not how it works, at all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

082349872349872 3y ago

> Twitter's lawyers argued that the company made only an oral promise that was not a contract This is what is known as "vigorous representation": Twitter's lawyers would of course know that offer, acceptance, and consideration produce a contract, but if their client wants them to say something stupid, they have to do it...

londons_explore 3y ago
Surprised there isn't some more complex argument they could make if they are high paid lawyers....
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, if you say you’ll pay someone something under certain conditions, they meet the conditions, and you don’t pay, er, there’s no complexity there. Particularly if you are a company.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Yeah, but there is always some technicality... Eg. The person who made the offer wasn't authorized to speak on behalf of the company...
- Natsu 3y ago
  Most contracts I've seen have a clause in them saying that the agreements are final and any modifications have to be in writing and signed by whomever to modify the agreement. I have no idea if there's one like that in play here, but, it's not necessarily a bad argument depending on the particular situation.
pylua 3y ago
What’s the point in seeing this through then — ultimately a lawsuit just delays the inevitable and will be more costly for Twitter considering legal fees. Is Twitter buying time ?

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]

meepmorp 3y ago

Reuters messed up the headline and lede. Per their own article, that is not at all what the judge ruled: > In denying Twitter's motion to dismiss the case, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Mr Schobinger plausibly stated a breach of contract claim under California law and he was covered by a bonus plan. Twitter's lawyers filed to have the suit dismissed and the judge rejected the motion. The case is still ongoing, and no decisions were made about the outcome of the case itself, merely that it will be allowed to proceed.