zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
- Cant be a personal scandal, press release would be worded much more differently

- Board is mostly independent and those independent dont have equity

- They talk about not being candid - this is legalese for “lying”

The only major thing that could warrant something like this is Sam going behind the boards back to make a decision (or make progress on a decision) that is misaligned with the Charter. Thats the only fireable offense that warrants this language.

My bet: Sam initiated some commercial agreement (like a sale) to an entity that would have violated the “open” nature of the company. Likely he pursued a sale to Microsoft without the board knowing.

>>baidif+aq
Or rejected a sale without the board knowing.

>>romanh+Hs
Are non-profit businesses allowed to sell? Who gets the money?

>>giveme+cD
Why not? They could take all the profit from the sale and distribute it to the executives and remain non-profit.

Even If that didn’t work, it would just mean paying taxes on the revenue from the sale. There’s no retroactive penalty for switching from a non-profit to a for-profit (or more likely being merged into a for-profit entity).

I am not an accountant or lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.