It's unclear who was actually affected (I believe only two PM-level execs attempted to file lawsuits), and there's some mention that Pincus cited underperforman

It's unclear who was actually affected (I believe only two PM-level execs attempted to file lawsuits), and there's some mention that Pincus cited underperformance as a warrant to the action. There's a bit too much controversy to do much more than speculate or editorialize just how bad the action was, but there are a few pieces of evidence that speak for themselves: * Pincus' memo defending his decision, citing a "meritocracy": http://fortune.com/2011/11/10/exclusive-mark-pincus-memo-to-zynga-employees/ http://fortune.com/2011/11/10/exclusive-mark-pincus-memo-to-... * A solid law review article that upholds the legality of the move but nevertheless finds the action counter to the goals of the company: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2752&context=lawreview http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... * The Zynga earnings statements. The business model wasn't reliable, and yet Pincus remained deeply convicted. It's somewhat important to distinguish between the party lines "Pincus and co tried to rob their employees!" with "Pincus and co were dangerously incompetent professionals!". The latter has more evidence. Furthermore, while we might one day forgive and forget incompetent, it's important to isolate the clawbacks as precedent of exactly what NOT to do when leading a young company. (We probably didn't need to learn this lesson, but now we did and have it in writing).