zlacker

Could have been only Sam that was under Vote and Greg being forced to step down after he voted in his favour maybe in a second vote later.

>>cowl+(OP)
Ah, I really like that theory!

I mean, I still wonder though if they really only need 3 ppl fully on board to effectively take the entire company. Vote #1, oust Sam, 3/5 vote YES. Sam is out, now the vote is "Demote Greg", 3/4 vote YES, Greg is demoted and quits. Now, there could be one "dissenter" and it would be easy to vote them out too. Surely there's some protection against that?

>>cowl+(OP)
Why would Greg have said "after learning today's news" if he took part in the vote? If he decided to quit immediately after the vote then why would the board issue a statement saying he was going to stay on? I don't think he took part, the others probably convened a meeting and cast a unanimous vote, issued the statement and then contacted Greg and Sam. The whole thing seems rushed so that's probably how it would have played out.

>>throwa+65
After looking into it they would have had to give notice in case they wanted to attend but from the sounds of it they may not have bothered to go which would make sense if they knew they were screwed.

>>throwa+65
> If he decided to quit immediately after the vote then why would the board issue a statement saying he was going to stay on?

Why would they issue a statement saying that he was going to stay on without some form of assurance from him?

I mean, you're writing a release stating that you're firing your CEO and accusing him of lack of candor. Not exactly the best news to give. You're chasing that with "oh by the way, the chairman of the board is stepping down too", so the news are going from bad to worse. The last thing you want is to claim that said chairman of the board is staying as an employee to have him quit hours later. I find it hard to believe that they'd make mistake as dumb as announcing Greg was staying without some sort of assurance from him, knowing that Greg was Sam's ally.

>>pdpi+7g
> Why would they issue a statement saying that he was going to stay on without some form of assurance from him?

Maybe to make it clear that if he leaves, it is him quitting not him being fired. This would avoid potential legal issues.

Maybe they thought there was a chance be would stay.