> Perhaps the discussion should be around improving this benefit for everyone?
Red herring
You're participating in mental gymnastics to validate what is essentially poor leadership. Why?
Red herring
You're participating in mental gymnastics to validate what is essentially poor leadership. Why?
We don't have enough information to know if it was reckless leadership. If the CEO had an email from a reputable lender saying we'll have funds in your bank account in two weeks, it would have been irresponsible for him to shut down the company to pay off creditors, preferred shareholders and severances.
I'm not advocating for the CEO. Just against condemning him while in the maelstrom. More fundamentally, there is a thread through this discussion which essentially holds that tech workers--we're highly paid!--should have post-termination benefits others don't.
Then you’ve thrown in another red herring claiming this thread argues that tech workers should have more options. Nobody said anything close. Rather, the argument is that letting your company run down to zero is irresponsible.
Convoy wasn't a pure software business. It didn't operate on massive gross margins; it was operationally (and financially) levered. Decades-old trucking companies are going down unexpectedly; I'm not sure why HN's armchair executives figure they could have called this cleaner.
Handwaving away things like you have doesn't add value - many of us have worked at startups, and the warning signs are common and repeated. A handwaving dismissal along the lines of "plenty of companies have turned things around at the last moment, running on fumes, so it would have been irresponsible for Convoy to do anything but run it to zero!" is disingenuous, fatuous or both.
They were laying people off every few months for over a year. There is a difference, however, between a material chance of default and being completely fucked.
> it would have been irresponsible for Convoy to do anything but run it it zero!"
They should have put severance terms into their original employment contracts. Providing employees with de novo severance after you know it's going under guarantees creditor lawsuits. (Remember: Convoy was heavily indebted.) One thing worse than getting shafted like these guys would be receiving a subpoena months later clawing back severance.
If there is a non-civic action item from this, it's to put good severance terms into your employment agreements before shit hits the fan. (Counterpoint: it could accelerate your demise.)
Citation needed. Providing executive suite with bonuses and parachutes does. Indeed, even law firms talk about this:
> Severance payments to “insiders” (generally defined under the Bankruptcy Code as officers, directors, persons in control of the business, and relatives of such individual(s)) could be subject to lawsuits to avoid or clawback the severance payments.
Fraudulent conveyance, there. No mention is made of creditors issuing lawsuits against rank and file employees.
Indeed, even for severance payments that were never in employment contracts, courts place them at/near the front of the line in bankruptcy proceedings, witness Toys R Us.
But I'd be very curious to see any cases where creditors have been able to block severance payments that are not to the C suite.
TL; DR The moment you find the business insolvent, it belongs to your creditors. Many commenters are treating Convoy like a run-of-the-mill equity-funded start-up.
> No mention is made of creditors issuing lawsuits against rank and file employees
Most likely, the creditors would file an injunction and put the company into bankruptcy on the basis of management having essentially said that it’s insolvent.
> even for severance payments that were never in employment contracts, courts place them at/near the front of the line in bankruptcy proceedings
Closer to the middle [3]. With Toys ‘R’ Us, the creditors voluntarily provided the severance [4]. No court forced it. And it wasn’t provided by management or shareholders.
[1] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/news...
[2] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2010/09/fifth-circuit-a...
[3] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10288.pdf
[4] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/21/18106545/toys-r-us-...
Your reference in [2] refers to an executive, an "insider", which is exactly what I said - that there is precedent against allowing such payments to insiders (hence the one-year clawback window).
I still can't find any cases where unsecured creditors have successfully injuncted a bankrupt company from making severance payments to non-executive employees.
> With Toys ‘R’ Us, the creditors voluntarily provided the severance [4].
The creditors did no such thing. From your source, emphasis mine:
> Two of the private equity firms that used to own the defunct toy store have allocated $20 million to a severance fund that will be distributed in the coming months."
The mediators who were handling part of the bankruptcy proceedings agreed to administrate the disbursement of funds.
Typically in exchange for value and in Chapter 11, where you’re trying to preserve asset values.
> can't find any cases where unsecured creditors have successfully injuncted a bankrupt company from making severance payments
Senior unsecured. Higher priority than employee claims.
> mediators who were handling part of the bankruptcy proceedings
Mediation is voluntary. In the Toys ‘r’ Us bankruptcy, the original equity was wiped and creditors took over. They may have owned both debt and equity. But they were acting qua former creditors.
I’m not going to argue who would win. What I will say is the creditors would sue. There would be months of litigation, not a smooth transition to handing the firm’s last cash to employees. (Different picture had they never issued debt.)