Unlike Windsurf... who's 2nd employee only got 1% of what their shares were worth (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44673296)
- secondary transaction with the preferred shareholders (VCs) at some price that implies a 20b valuation
- founders quit and get new employment agreements
- some cash is transferred to the company as a license fee
- no acquisition means no DOJ approval
in this scenario the headline can be $20b but the cash expense can be much lower, you have full flexibility to direct whatever cash or equity you want to founders vs the rest of the company, as an up front payment or as retention/salary, and the founders have no hinderance from working on anything they touched at previous company because of IP license.
I actually bet this is how it went down. This is becoming the standard in the industry and it's just awful for the future of SV
You can’t stop the founders from leaving, but selling the crown jewel IP in a transaction that doesn’t benefit the shareholders seems a stretch.
as long as the transaction is reasonable, they've held up this fiduciary duty.
And the minority holders will need to sue for damages in any case, it's not an "automatic" crime. The cost of that suit will be more than the value of the gains and damages awarded.
Therefore, minority shareholders in a startup are highly likely to get screwed - not to mention they don't get a say in decisions being made at the top.
The only thing preventing this is social pressure (ala, reputational damage, if the founder did it). And if the payday is high enough, the reputational damage is irrelevant (you'd be out of the game with a big enough payday!)
In many cases this is so, but here we are talking about tens of billions in value. Even a few percent of value won is worth lawyering up to the hilt for.
> as long as the transaction is reasonable
What does “reasonable” mean? If the OP is correct and selling the IP guts the company then it seems hard to justify. I also don’t think you can reduce the concept of fiduciary duty in this way. It’s a well-defined term of art with specific precedent.
The counterpoint would be that 3 months ago they raised $750m at a $6.9B valuation. Unless they are burning through that cash so fast that they need to start raising immediately, the missed target shouldn’t be an existential blow.
Has there been any evidence yet that the VCs got paid for their shares but the left behind employees didn’t?
Unfortunately, we could likely find thousands of different ways not to pay employees given they don’t have board seats, and are typically on non standard equity.
Purely from a social contract lens, why would founders actively seek out ways to cut out their employees from a (potentially life changing) exit.