4 ms·

Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. They were promised that someone else would reward them. That som

by Levitz 3y ago

Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. They were promised that someone else would reward them. That someone else disagrees. That looks like a problem coming from the first employer. Assuming this is all true, of course.

rpy 3y ago
The current management waived all rights to due diligence in the deal. They can’t complain now to learn facts they refused to engage with earlier.
rescbr 3y ago
> That looks like a problem coming from the first employer. It's the same employer, just the ownership that changed hands.
rsynnott 3y ago
There seems to be some fundamental failure to grasp this. The employer hasn’t changed. Its ownership has, but that’s irrelevant. If changed ownership was a get-out-of-jail-free for liabilities, no public company would ever owe anything.
Volundr 3y ago
> Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. It is the current managements "fault". They bought the company, all it's assets, all it's liabilities. They don't get to conveniently decide they get the company, but none of it's debts. > They were promised that someone else would reward them. They were promised Twitter would reward them, by people with the authority to make binding promises on behalf of Twitter. > That looks like a problem coming from the first employer. There is no first/second employer here. They were employed by Twitter before the acquisition, they were still employed by Twitter afterwards.
n2d4 3y ago
> It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. Of course it is! Elon bought Twitter and all that came with it, including all the contracts set up by the previous management. You could have an argument that if Twitter intentionally nuked their entire company between signing the deal and the acquisition date, the old management probably committed some kind of fraud, but that's not the case here; these bonuses seem pretty reasonable for a company like Twitter before Elon took over, to ensure the transition goes well.
gcr 3y ago
If we lived in this world, companies could just change hands whenever they wish to disgorge their debts. “We’re owned by a different shell holding company now, it’s not our problem.” See the issue? Here’s another way of framing this point: when selling a company, which liabilities do you feel should follow through to new ownership and which shouldn’t? Tax obligations? Real estate mortgages? Employee compensation? Selling a company shouldn’t be a one-way risk valve. You punch the ticket, you take the ride.

by Levitz 3y ago

rpy 3y ago

The current management waived all rights to due diligence in the deal. They can’t complain now to learn facts they refused to engage with earlier.

rescbr 3y ago

> That looks like a problem coming from the first employer. It's the same employer, just the ownership that changed hands.

rsynnott 3y ago

There seems to be some fundamental failure to grasp this. The employer hasn’t changed. Its ownership has, but that’s irrelevant. If changed ownership was a get-out-of-jail-free for liabilities, no public company would ever owe anything.

Volundr 3y ago

> Sure it's not their fault. It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. It is the current managements "fault". They bought the company, all it's assets, all it's liabilities. They don't get to conveniently decide they get the company, but none of it's debts. > They were promised that someone else would reward them. They were promised Twitter would reward them, by people with the authority to make binding promises on behalf of Twitter. > That looks like a problem coming from the first employer. There is no first/second employer here. They were employed by Twitter before the acquisition, they were still employed by Twitter afterwards.

n2d4 3y ago

> It's not the current management's fault either, that's the problem. Of course it is! Elon bought Twitter and all that came with it, including all the contracts set up by the previous management. You could have an argument that if Twitter intentionally nuked their entire company between signing the deal and the acquisition date, the old management probably committed some kind of fraud, but that's not the case here; these bonuses seem pretty reasonable for a company like Twitter before Elon took over, to ensure the transition goes well.

gcr 3y ago

If we lived in this world, companies could just change hands whenever they wish to disgorge their debts. “We’re owned by a different shell holding company now, it’s not our problem.” See the issue? Here’s another way of framing this point: when selling a company, which liabilities do you feel should follow through to new ownership and which shouldn’t? Tax obligations? Real estate mortgages? Employee compensation? Selling a company shouldn’t be a one-way risk valve. You punch the ticket, you take the ride.