4 ms·
Of note from the article: she complained and was refunded the money after being stood up for the meeting, but they never cancelled the contract she paid to sign
by atherton33 2y ago
Of note from the article: she complained and was refunded the money after being stood up for the meeting, but they never cancelled the contract she paid to sign that gave them the right to buy her out of her own company for pennies, so once it passed to bankruptcy the creditors still took her company.
- darkerside 2y agoWouldn't a contract like this be considered unenforceable? There were no services rendered, no exchange of value
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- unyttigfjelltol 2y agoThe issue is they dropped a bet-the-company litigation on 1,000 startups that are not positioned to do anything but close operations.
- darth_avocado 2y agoThe contract SHOULD be unenforceable, however, not sure if bankruptcy court will actually resolve that matter. Maybe it would be a separate lawsuit?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoIIUC, the problem is that the founders have no good way to force a resolution at all until whoever buys the warrants attempts to exercise them.
- langsoul-com 2y agoFounder has no money to pay for lawyers. No doubt those fees would bankrupt the company completely.
- deaddodo 2y agoIt's important to note that legal fees can be deferred in California, for this exact reason. In addition, if they have a strong case and a law firm believes they could gain more than their fees, they'll often still take the case. In other words: Do not let the idea of vague "legal fees" scare you off from pursuing a genuine grievance. At least consult with a few law firms.
- deaddodo 2y agoIt's not about the former point, in contract law, but the latter. They could have rendered services, but if they're far out scaled to what the other party offered they would be considered inequitable and breachable. This is the primary basis that California used to disqualify non-executive non-competes (before they were outright legislated out).
- lupire 2y agoCalifornia's basis was "reatraint of trade". Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete. The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability".
- deaddodo 2y ago> Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete. There was no equitable value, which directly led into economic restraint and servitude arguments. > The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability". Not sure what you're referring to here, but you should review "balance of contract" and "fair and equitable terms" in US and California contract law.
- tptacek 2y agoThey didn't directly take her company, right? They held on to warrants for some % of the company, which killed her chances of fundraising?