They could have known they wouldn't succeed but they could have decided their fiduciary duty requires them to either try or resign.

▲

hoten 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Didn't they craft themselves a nice golden parachute if fired? Then proceeded to kick off events that would guarantee their dismissal?

That's less fiduciary duty and more hacking a payday.

▲

throw0101a 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That's less fiduciary duty and more hacking a payday.

A large golden parachute for firing a board member could be a disincentive mechanism to do it: a 'poison pill' of a kind.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_rights_plan

They could have felt they were doing the right thing, and making a public statement of the situation, but knew it was a bit of a kamikaze tactic and so made it more painful for when the eventual backlash occurs.

▲

fwipsy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regardless of intent, if true (haven't verified myself) it seems like a hell of a perverse incentive.

	▲	throw0101a 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		IMHO so it tying CEO pay to stock price. Unless the options/cash-out is delayed for 5+ years after they leave the position, they can 'juke the stats' in the short-term while leaving the company in a bad place long-term (obligatory Boeing-being-run-by-MBAs reference).

▲

awb an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If it was a poison pill then why make the severance $8M instead of the majority (or all) of the value of the company?

▲

collingreen 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Getting out of a toxic job while failing up. Business can be strange sometimes.

▲

doikor 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah the minority share holders can’t sue them for not trying to do their job even if it lead to them getting fired. (They could have quit too)

If they truly believe the CEO was destroying the company/its value.