Fifth Circuit Reminder: Words Matter in Employment Contacts, Restrictive Covenants

Sometimes the most fundamental legal concepts are so basic and intuitive that they tend to fall by the wayside in practice. Case in point is a recent Fifth Circuit opinion throwing out an arbitration agreement because the employer didn’t follow its own instructions spelled out in the agreement.

In this case, the Fifth Circuit sided with employee Kimberly Huckaba, who sought to nullify her arbitration agreement in a sexual harassment and retaliation claim against her former employer, Texas-based engineering and construction services firm Ref-Chem LP.

The appellate decision focused on a dispute resolution agreement signed by Ms. Huckaba that mandated arbitration for such claims and included boxes for both employer and employee to sign. No one from the company signed the document, which would not normally be a problem because Texas courts have previously held that such signature blocks are insufficient to establish that signatures are required. The problem for Ref-Chem is that the agreement specifically spelled out that both parties were required to sign for it to go in effect.

The case is Kimberly Huckaba v. Ref-Chem LP, case number 17-50341, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In this case, we have more than a blank signature block that speaks to the parties’ intent,” the opinion reads. “The agreement also contains language that the parties need to sign the agreement to give it effect or to modify it. Thus, the question of Ref-Chem’s intention is answered by the agreement it drafted.”

Writes Law360:

The panel wrote that if it adopted Ref-Chem’s argument, the words of the agreement would have no meaning, and also that the company could “have it both ways,” by arguing it did not intend to be bound because it didn’t sign the agreement, or argument it did because it kept the agreement on file.

When it comes to things like contracts, restrictive covenants and employment policies, words really do matter. Too often, employers simply hand new arrivals a stack of on-boarding documents and policy handbooks, but never bother to make sure they are returned or properly signed. Years later when faced with noncompete violations or any number of contract breaches, the company discovers, too late, that there is no contract or the one in hand has not been properly executed.

This case is a potent reminder for employers to review on-boarding procedures and ensure that polices and other contracts are properly memorialized.

Posted in Arbitration agreements, Executive contracts, Fiduciary Duty, Legal, Litigation | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Reminder: Words Matter in Employment Contacts, Restrictive Covenants

Dating App Execs Make Failed Tinder-Bumble Merger Personal

A nasty court fight unfolding between Texas-based dating apps Tinder and Bumble has all of the elements of a soap opera drama – romance, unfaithfulness, intrigue and, of course, revenge. The mess began just four years ago with a bitter breakup of a workplace romance between two Tinder execs that resulted in visionary cofounder Whitney Wolfe Herd filing a sexual harassment lawsuit and leaving the company after a settlement.

She relocated to Austin and created Bumble, a rival app that distinguished itself by its ability to empower female users to control the introductions with potential suitors. After Bumble took off and began gobbling marketshare, humbled Tinder execs approached with a series of acquisition overtures in 2017, reportedly offering as much as $1 billion.

The negotiations turned ugly quite suddenly earlier this year with Tinder suing Bumble for violating its patents and trademarks, and for a misuse of trade secrets. Four days later, Bumble purchased full-page ads in the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News calling out Tinder’s actions. “We swipe left on your attempted scare tactics, and on these endless games. We swipe left on your assumption that a baseless lawsuit would intimidate us. Given your enduring interest in our company, we expected you to know us a bit better by now,” the ad read.

Bumble then filed its own lawsuit, charging that Tinder’s claims were an attempt to damage the startup’s value in the eyes of potential investors and that the acquisition talks were only a pretext for tricking Bumble into sharing its trade secrets.

Here we have Exhibit A for why workplace romances are generally a bad idea. Cupid may be blind, but this is rarely – if ever – a good idea and almost always results in complications, sometimes in ways the parties could never anticipate. In situations involving executives, startups and highly competitive personalities, it’s not uncommon to see romances break up and confidential information being taken. In this case, the breakup almost certainly colored some of the actions that formed the basis of the lawsuit and the counterclaim, and what would have been a delicate acquisition between two rivals became exponentially more difficult.

With Facebook now promising to enter the online dating space, perhaps these two unicorns will soon be irrelevant.

Posted in Complaints Against Executives, Confidential Information, Covenants Not to Compete, Executive Management Style, Social Media, Trade Secrets, Workplace Romances | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dating App Execs Make Failed Tinder-Bumble Merger Personal

Trump-Daniels Affair Exposes Inherent Legal Challenges with Hush Agreements

There are plenty of clues that the so-called “hush agreement” between Donald Trump and porn actress Stormy Daniels (née Stephanie Clifford) was hastily crafted and poorly thought out. Executed just days before the 2016, the non-disparagement agreement has a wealth of careless errors (“disparagement” is misspelled in the document’s title and signatures are missing from both Trump and the notary who witnessed Daniels’ signature) and head-scratching legal points.

This is an odd legal document, starting with the use of fake names to represent the three parties in the agreement. I’ve seen a lot of highly sensitive confidential settlement arrangements, but I’ve never seen one using fake names (other than to protect the confidentiality of minors, of course). And that’s the problem here – how can you expect to enforce an agreement between parties using pseudonyms all the way around? The lawyers here got a little too cute for their own good.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements have an important place in business litigation, but parties must enter into them with eyes wide open because at the end of the day there is no absolute guarantee of confidentiality. The best you can do is build an attractive structure of incentives to ensure that sensitive information remains confidential. The most effective way to accomplish that is to schedule payments over time. That way, if confidentiality is breached, payments are stopped. There’s a balancing act at play because for confidentiality to be preserved, the value tied to staying quiet must be greater than any incentive to breaching the agreement. In this case, Ms. Daniels received a single early payment to stay quiet before the election, while the moral and financial incentive to breach the agreement skyrocketed after Trump’s win. I have never had an issue with a confidentiality settlement agreement being broken – on either side – but I have never had one involving party who later was elected president.

The Trump legal team is assuming the role of the gang that can’t shoot straight, resulting in death by a thousand cuts as this story churns through the national media, including a “60 Minutes” interview.

Posted in Complaints Against Executives, Confidential Information, Corporate culture, Legal, Litigation, Workplace Romances | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump-Daniels Affair Exposes Inherent Legal Challenges with Hush Agreements

In Buc-ee’s Retention Pay Squabble, Former Manager Scores Big Payback from Appellate Court

A Texas appellate court recently stiff-armed the Buc-ee’s convenience store chain for a poorly considered retention pay provision that amounted to “unenforceable restraints of trade.” The court’s interpretation of the retention pay provision is a learning opportunity for employers who are increasingly using techniques once reserved for high-skilled and specialized workers in an effort to reduce turnover of general employees in a tight labor market.

The October ruling stems from a dispute with former Buc-ee’s assistant manager Kelley Rieves, whose $55,000 annual income was divided on her paychecks between hourly pay and retention pay. In exchange for her retention pay, the contract required that Rieves remain employed for at least 48 months and provide six months’ notice before leaving for any reason. Finally, the contract required that she return the retention pay she had already earned if she quit for any reason during that time period, including if she was fired, took a job with a non-competing business or simply left the workforce altogether.

When Rieves resigned from Buc-ees after about three years and took a job with a non-competing employer, Buc-ee’s demanded that she return $67,720 that had been classified as retention pay. A Brazoria County trial court initially ruled in Buc-ee’s favor granting summary judgment and awarding attorney fees for Buc-ees, which increased the total penalty to nearly $100,000.

But a three-judge panel from the Texas 14th Court of Appeals had problems with the contract language, writing: “These provisions go far beyond protecting any legitimate competitive interest of Buc-ee’s, impose significant hardship on Rieves by clawing back substantial compensation already paid to her and on which she had paid taxes, and injure the public by limiting choice and mobility of skilled employees.”

The obligation that Rieves return her income was designed to prevent her from leaving Buc-ee’s, but that was not a reasonable restraint of trade under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 15.50 because it applied whether Rieves went to a competitor or to any employer at all. This is particularly true when an employment contract  requires the employee to pay back money they already received – which a lot of employees will have already spent – as opposed to simply forfeiting payments in the future.  Finally, it is helpful to tie the obligation to a legitimate business interest, such as working for a competitor. 

Accordingly, retention strategies like these are potentially problematic on several levels, particularly when used for non-skilled, rank-and-file workers. In such cases, employees typically lack bargaining power when they agree to such contracts and often don’t consider the consequences. The stiff penalties for leaving for another job make it difficult for workers to advance in their careers and increase their earning power. When it comes to executive-level or workers with highly specialized skills, employers can make a strong argument for such arrangements, which often hold up to legal challenges.

span style=”font-family: ‘Times New Roman’,’serif’; font-size: 12pt;”>The Buc-ee’s dispute is one several recent cases that should give employers pause when crafting retention clauses and non-compete agreements for lower-paid workers.

Such policies are also common in the fast-food industry, where franchises often agree not to hire each others’ workers, thus keeping wages down despite a tight labor market. A recent review of 40 fast-food companies found that 32 (including Burger King, Domino’s and Pizza Hut) imposed restrictions in which workers were often not allowed to take new positions without their bosses’ written permission. A lawsuit against CKE Restaurants Holdings and McDonald’s, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and Illinois District Court, seeks class-action status on behalf of tens of thousands of workers who claim the restrictions have hindered their career advancement. 

 

Posted in Clawback provisions, Covenants Not to Compete, Non-Competes, Restraint of trade, Retention agreements | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on In Buc-ee’s Retention Pay Squabble, Former Manager Scores Big Payback from Appellate Court

As Date Nears for Google v. Uber Trade Secret Trial, Uber Insiders Describe Culture of Espionage and Secrecy

In the year since Google’s autonomous vehicle subsidiary Waymo first leveled allegations that Uber had poached star engineer Anthony Levandowski knowing that he was bringing a raft of stolen trade secrets with him, the contentious litigation has consistently revealed new and tantalizing details about the high-octane culture and mercurial personalities within the two companies.

A recently released bombshell document supplied by the Department of Justice created more headaches for the Uber legal team. The letter from former Uber security analyst Richard Jacobs included claims that Uber had encouraged a culture of espionage and trickery to stay ahead in the highly competitive ride-sharing sector. The 37-page letter claims that Uber trained employees to steal trade secrets and hide their tracks, among other things. It also contained an unrelated allegation that Uber had paid a $100,000 ransom to a hacker who had stolen customers’ account information and never reported the data breach to customers or authorities.

If true, the workplace culture described in the letter could make it challenging for Uber to convince jurors that the theft of Waymo’s trade secrets was the work of a lone wolf. It’s also creating a credibility problem with U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who was not pleased to learn about the letter just days before the scheduled December 2017 start of the trial.

“I can’t trust anything you say because it’s been proven wrong so many times,” Alsup told Uber at the hearing. “You’re just making the impression that this is a total cover-up.”

Judge Alsup agreed to Waymo’s request to delay the trial into 2018, adding that “if even half of what this letter says is true, it would be a huge injustice to force Waymo to go to trial” as planned.

Posted in CEOs, Complaints Against Executives, Confidential Information, Corporate culture, Criminal Prosecutions, Defend Trade Secrets Act, Litigation, Trade Secrets | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on As Date Nears for Google v. Uber Trade Secret Trial, Uber Insiders Describe Culture of Espionage and Secrecy

5 Lessons About Protecting Digital Assets From ZeniMax v. Oculus VR

The November edition of DCEO magazine dives into the recent $500 million jury verdict against Facebook’s Oculus virtual reality subsidiary, describing the whopper verdict as a transcendent moment for businesses that have not yet taken steps to identify and protect their digital assets. DCEO’s Danielle Abril writes that businesses of all sizes and across sectors should consider the large monetary verdict as a warning sign to protect trade secrets and other intellectual property and get a handle on non-compete and non-disclosure agreements before problems surface.

In her article, “5 Things Companies Can Learn From the ZeniMax Lawsuit Against Oculus VR,” Abril turned to executive employment lawyer Joe Ahmad of Houston’s AZA law firm to comment on what businesses should take away from the verdict to avoid facing trade secret and non-compete disputes. Below are some of the lessons learned:

1. Identify intellectual property and protect it through patents, copyrights, trademarks and nondisclosure agreements (NDA). But that’s just the start because once the digital crown jewels are identified, businesses must be vigilant in protecting them. “An NDA is only good if you catch someone breaking it,” Ahmad tells DCEO. “There ought to be some things that are so important that you can’t risk that the other side will use it without you finding out.”

2. Recognize Risky Hires/Partnerships. There can be great value in hiring experienced workers from a competitor, but businesses must appreciate the legal risks that come with such strategies.

“When you talk about hiring people, who do you think the good people are?” Ahmad tells DCEO. “They’re the people who have [proven] themselves by working for a competitor. If you want people with experience, almost by definition you’re hiring someone from a competitor.”  And sometimes that competitor will sue you to try to prevent you from hiring them because their employees have confidential information that could be used against them

Abril notes that Facebook/Oculus dropped the ball on this count. Oculus’ COO was not informed of the complications until after the lawsuit was filed, and it was this lack of oversight of the Oculus’ NDA with ZeniMax that resulted in the bulk of the $500 million verdict.

3. Beware of Transfers of Assets. An eyebrow-raising detail was that Carmack had particular information from ZeniMax stored on a USB drive that he then allegedly took to Oculus, Abril writes. After leaving Zenimax, he allegedly returned for a tool he created there and took that to Oculus, too. While it’s tough for courts to determine whether those specific items were used in development at Oculus, it’s a risk not worth taking. Companies should be vigilant about making sure that employees from competitors don’t take the competitor’s confidential information with them.

4. Act early. If systems are in place to track intellectual property, risky hires are assessed up-front, and companies are aware of all previous situations tied to new employees, it’s imperative that employers then act on any items that could create future problems, Abril writes. “It’s not what you did; it’s about the cover-up,” Ahmad tells DCEO. “If I knew an employee took info and I didn’t do anything, I could get into some trouble. I think you’re better off wearing the white hat. … You’re going to look better in litigation.”

5. Give the CIO a Board Seat. Abril stresses that it’s past time for executive leadership to value its chief information officer, and that means reserving a seat on the board for the CIO.

As companies struggle to keep up with the changing dynamic of business, strategy becomes essential to avoiding litigation, Abril writes. After all, no one wants to end up with a three-year-and-counting legal battle as Oculus and ZeniMax did.

Posted in Business Continuity, CEOs, Corporate culture, Non-Competes, Trade Secrets | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Lessons About Protecting Digital Assets From ZeniMax v. Oculus VR

Two-Plane Habit: GE Exec’s Travel Latest Example of Wasteful Corporate Culture

GE shareholders and much of the business world were surprised to learn about the wasteful business travel practices of recently retired CEO Jeff Immelt. The WSJ reported recently that for much of his tenure at GE, Immelt traveled in a corporate jet that was shadowed by a second, empty plane.

The rationale for the practice was that a second, redundant plane might be necessary in case of mechanical difficulties that could strand Immelt in remote locations. That’s some flimsy logic for a publicly traded company that has been under increasing shareholder pressure to watch expenses.  What’s even harder to explain is the response from Immelt and the Board after the news broke, with each claiming to have been unaware of the shadow plane. In fact, GE’s beleaguered board claims to have not found out about the plane until earlier this month, despite an internal complaint that was logged years ago.  Under the “business judgment” rule, executives generally get a lot of leeway in determining what a company should spend money on, as they should.  Everyone can be second guessed, no matter what the decision is (just ask the Dodgers’ manager).  But this seems a little bit too far. 

The WSJ calculated that the practice racked up $250,000 in expenses for a single Sept. 2016 international trip that Immelt took and that the plane operated under a code name and a bogus passenger manifest designed to make it appear occupied.

There’s no easy way for GE to spin this. It is beyond belief that both Immelt and the board could have been unaware.  And if they were, that raises even more questions, starting with who authorized such a wasteful practice and how did they engage in such a massive and wasteful expenditure without board and CEO authorization? Finally, if such a practice was in place without the knowledge of GE’s board and Immelt, it would appear to be a huge gap in internal controls that says a lot of about GE as an organization, and not in a good way. 

Immelt’s 16-year tenure at the helm of GE resulted in a massive drop in shareholder value, and GE is now the worst-performing stock on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Once the most valuable publicly traded U.S. company, GE lost more than $150 billion in market value under Immelt’s leadership.

New CEO John Flannery is now taking pains to tighten the belt and sending a message that wasteful corporate excesses are a thing of the past. The corporate jet fleet is grounded and the planes are for sale, while a company-car program for hundreds of GE execs is ending, among other things. That’s standard procedure for CEOs attempting to turn around a struggling company. Between its tanking stock, shareholder revolt and these corporate plane abuses, it will take GE some time to get past this hall of shame moment.

Posted in CEOs, Complaints Against Executives, Corporate culture, Executive Management Style, Fiduciary Duty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Two-Plane Habit: GE Exec’s Travel Latest Example of Wasteful Corporate Culture

On the Court or in the C-Suite, Leaders Embrace Win-at-All-Cost Drive at Their Own Peril

The NCAA basketball kickback scandal is just getting started and it’s already bagged a big one – Louisville’s Rick Pitino, who was forced to resign after details of the wide-ranging probe were unveiled. Expect many more heads to roll as investigators unravel an unseemly network of shoe company reps, sports agents, financial advisors, Division I coaches, and parents – all angling to feed from the trough of collegiate athletics.

Pitino’s fall from grace raises a fundamental question – why would a marquee coach already under a multimillion dollar salary risk involvement in such a scheme that has now cost him his job and reputation and could lead to criminal charges? Considered one of the most ethically challenged coaches of his generation, Pitino was personally familiar with the NCAA notoriously toothless role as a regulator. Perhaps participation in a scheme like this had simply become the cost of doing business for him.

Writes Seth Davis in The Fieldhouse: Neither Pitino nor anyone on his staff was among the ten men who were arrested Tuesday morning. None of the head coaches at the four schools where assistants have been charged were fired. But given the fact that Louisville is already on NCAA probation, and given Pitino’s own sordid past, the school had no choice but to cut him loose.

He is unquestionably one of the most brilliant coaching minds ever to prowl the sidelines. He is also one of the most ethically compromised. For more than four decades, the shine of his talent has been greater than the shadows of his controversies – until today, that is, when the University of Louisville put him on unpaid administrative leave in the wake of revelations about an FBI investigation into college basketball.

Likewise in the business world, leaders in many cases are too willing to break the rules – not necessarily for personal enrichment – but to maintain a competitive edge. Take the case of former United Airlines CEO Jeff Smisek , who was forced to resign in 2015 after he was caught up in the Bridgegate scandal, which revealed that he had been pressured by Port Authority Chairman David Samson to create an unprofitable twice-weekly flight between Newark and Columbia, South Carolina, to curry favor with Samson, who had a vacation home near Columbia. The scandal cost Smisek his position at the helm of United Airlines; he took a controversial combined $28.8 million severance that included a stipulation that he cooperate with criminal investigations and an agreement to return the funds if the investigation leads to a conviction.

The motive for Smisek – and perhaps for a coach like Pitino – was not a desire to enrich their own pocketbooks. Instead, it was the pressure to gain a competitive advantage. Only after they’re caught, it seems, do they have the bandwidth to contemplate whether it was worth it.

Posted in CEOs, Complaints Against Executives, Corporate culture, Criminal Prosecutions, Executive Management Style, Sports contracts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On the Court or in the C-Suite, Leaders Embrace Win-at-All-Cost Drive at Their Own Peril

Study Finds Public Losing Patience When CEOs Act Out

Add Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Amazon’s entertainment chief Roy Price and KB Home’s Jeffrey Mezger to the growing list of executives making headlines for the wrong reasons.

One of the most powerful producers in Hollywood, Weinstein was forced out after national news reports detailed numerous incidents ranging from aggressive harassment to sexual assault of female employees, actresses and models, along with a culture of complicity within the Weinstein Company that included the use of nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and aggressive legal tactics to keep victims quiet. Weinstein’s deplorable behavior over several decades has been described as one of the worst-kept secrets in the industry.

The Weinstein fallout is spreading through the entertainment world, with Amazon suspending Price over allegations of sexual harassment, as well as Price’s close business relationship with Weinstein.

Mezger, the leader of one of the largest homebuilders in the country, lit up the internet in September after an audio recording from a home surveillance camera captured him shouting profanities and derogatory comments toward his neighbor, the comedian Kathy Griffin. In response to the PR crisis, KB’s board moved quickly and announced that it would cut Mezger’s bonus by 25 percent.

Until recently, boards found it easier to look the other way when executives acted badly. With social media able to spread the shame and public opinion on executives turning, public sentiment is changing when it comes to CEOs behaving badly. Execs should know by now that they’re only one bad decision away from a pink slip.

Writes the LA Times: The homebuilding company’s prompt reaction to its CEO’s public misbehavior suggests that the ground has been shifting beneath the feet of top executives who stray over the line. In years past, a board might take months to ponder discipline for a CEO who was caught using abusive language (typically against subordinates), engaging in sexual harassment or even consensual adultery, or doing something otherwise immoral. There would be an internal investigation, the commissioning of a report by an outside law firm, followed by a carefully calibrated punishment, up to and including dismissal.

 Public tolerance is wearing thin, however. A survey earlier this year by Stanford’s business school concluded that the public wants to see punishment meted out severely and quickly to misbehaving CEOs. Lying about the company’s product was deemed the worst offense, with nearly two-thirds of respondents saying the CEO should be fired. Bad language and behavior, even in private, was ranked the second-worst offense, with more than half of respondents saying the executive should be fired, followed by having an affair, lying about other matters, financial chicanery, and holding inappropriate views.

There was a time when board members were inclined to look the other way when leaders abused their power and privilege. Many no doubt still prefer to sweep the details under the rug. But public tolerance for this kind of behavior is changing, and that means if you run the company, you could be held responsible for just about anything you say and do in public. And smile, you may just be on camera.

There’s a growing list of CEOs who have lost their jobs for their behavior, including (courtesy NY Times):

  • Matt Harrigan of PacketSled ranted on social media on election night about killing President-elect Trump (2016)
  • Scott Thompson of Yahoo was found to have padded his résumé (2012)
  • Kenneth Melani of Highmark got into a fight with the husband of his then-girlfriend, who was also an employee (2012)
  • Brendan Eich of Mozilla donated $1,000 in support of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, causing outrage in Silicon Valley (2014)
  • Klaus Kleinfeld of Arconic wrote to a hedge fund manager without the board’s knowledge (2017).
  • Brian J. Dunn of Best Buy had a relationship with an employee (2012)

There was a time when board members were inclined to look the other way when leaders abused their power and privilege. Many no doubt still prefer to sweep the details under the rug. But public tolerance for this kind of behavior is changing, and that means if you run the company, you could be held responsible for just about anything you say and do in public. And smile, you may just be on camera.

Posted in CEOs, Complaints Against Executives, Corporate culture, Executive Compensation, Executive contracts, Executive Management Style, Legal, Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study Finds Public Losing Patience When CEOs Act Out

Uber Leadership Vacuum Exposes Strings Attached to Startup Financing

The executive leadership vacuum at Uber and a series of PR missteps and management blunders is exposing the contentious push-pull dynamic between private equity and venture capital investors and startups that usually plays out behind the scenes and rarely makes headlines.

The rancor has revealed divisions within Uber’s early investors and its founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick as players with large controlling interests in the company jostle with management over control.

At the heart of the issue is the real and perceived power wielded by early Uber funders like Benchmark Capital who feel entitled to some degree of say-so over management decision-making in exchange for making a relatively risky investment in unproven startups. In the case of Uber, these investors are increasingly concerned by the executive leadership vacuum and want to protect the company’s sky-high valuation in light of recent PR problems, workplace culture and executive shakeup.

Writes the Wall Street Journal:

Benchmark filed a suit against Mr. Kalanick, claiming he knew about misbehavior at Uber, including alleged sexual harassment, in June 2016 when he persuaded Benchmark and other shareholders to allow him to add three board seats under his control. The misbehavior led to a months-long probe into Uber’s culture by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm, which issued an internal report in June. This contributed to Mr. Kalanick’s ouster as CEO that month.

Benchmark is seeking to force Mr. Kalanick off the board and have control of the three seats returned to the board. It said this week that it acted in part because Mr. Kalanick was impeding the search for his replacement.

There’s often a deal-with-the-devil quality to investment relationships between startups and VC funders. For startups with no track record, let alone profits, these are the investors that are willing to come to the table, and the funding has real and implied strings attached. Meanwhile, Kalanick is the poster boy for founder’s syndrome, in which charismatic founders wield disproportionate power and influence, leading to a wide range of problems as a business evolves beyond startup mode.

While we’re unlikely to see a power squabble out in the open like this, it’s undeniable that private equity investors are increasingly likely to throw their weight around and impose their will if they sense that their investment is a risk. One thing is certain, a situation like this where management is at odds with the owners is bad for everyone involved. 

Posted in Business Continuity, CEOs, Change of Control Agreements, Complaints Against Executives, Corporate successsion, Executive Management Style, Legal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uber Leadership Vacuum Exposes Strings Attached to Startup Financing