This isn't really incompatible with the rumor mill of "Sam got fired for putting his interest above YC's." The situation described - where you are CEO of two d

This isn't really incompatible with the rumor mill of "Sam got fired for putting his interest above YC's." The situation described - where you are CEO of two different for-profit companies and one may have investments (and inside knowledge and advice) into firms that potentially compete with or buy from the other - is a textbook conflict of interest. It's reasonable for the board of one enterprise to ask the CEO to pick one or the other, and fire him if he refuses. Same situation that led to Eric Schmidt stepping down off the Apple board c. 2010. The white-glove treatment that PG describes is probably much closer to the rumors that PG flew back from London to fire Sam on the spot. At the exec level, things are usually done civilly, because you know that you'll have to deal with these people again. But the CEO knows that the board and shareholders are his boss, the law is on their side, and so if they want him gone, he will be gone. That motivates the CEO to amicably part ways rather than force the issue.