Can you tell me where you see Matt has 84% voting control?

I thought the reporting on this (at least in TechCrunch) was downright bizarre. The only thing that ever mattered was who had voting control, and I couldn't see anywhere that this was reported in TechCrunch. I can't even fathom how the other board members thought they could oust Matt if he had majority control. None of this makes any sense to me.

Edit: I see the 84% number further down in the article. Still, that makes this make even less sense to me. How could the other board members vote out Matt as CEO with only a minority vote?

Possibly if the other board members were selected by shareholders (i.e. mostly Matt). He can replace them, but they represent his interests as a shareholder while they are on the board.

It makes a lot of sense when you see their severance package. I’m going with the hypothesis this was the whole point.