Comment by underdeserver
2 years ago
One could argue that the board by demolishing the company in one fell swoop effectively relieved Microsoft of some of their contractual obligations.
2 years ago
One could argue that the board by demolishing the company in one fell swoop effectively relieved Microsoft of some of their contractual obligations.
One could argue that by doing something it is legally allowed to do, the board has not relieved Microsoft of anything.
No matter how smart or dumb that move was.
Most contracts also have a clause that a breach of one part does not invalidate the remainder. There are elements that typically out live the end of a contract as well, often the poaching and non-compete clause
One could argue that firing the Loopt founder guy who was an at-will employee isn't a material event invalidating a contract unless the contract specifies exactly that.
Really? I'm a lawyer, and I can't even see an argument of how firing a CEO would affect investment agreements at all unless Microsoft specifically conditioned their investment on Altman remaining CEO forever.