Slashdot Mirror
Skype Execs Purged On Eve of MS Takeover
jfruhlinger writes "You might think that the executive team that engineered a lucrative buyout for their company would be rewarded. But eight execs from Skype instead found themselves fired just before their company was formally taken over by Microsoft. It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond; rather, the private equity firm that owns a 70 percent stake in Skype wanted to cut back on the payout to company execs that would normally accompany this kind of transaction."
It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond
There must be SOME way I can blame this on evil Microsoft. Were the fired execs open source, by any chance?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Always seems to be carrying a very sharp sword.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The spokeswoman declined to say whether the eight executives were laid off or resigned.
Someone knows something not in the linked article?
are other corporate psychopaths, it's hard to feel sympathy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That is a really slimy thing to do. However, usually the little guy gets hurt in mergers and aquisitions so I, in some ways, am happy to have the upper echelon get a taste of it. I think these executives that got affected might consider the smaller guys in their future roles, perish the thought.
I can't see how it was reasonable to expect that either side of this transaction would want to "reward" those that "engineered a lucrative buy-out" - either it costs the investors money (why give up money you don't have to?) or the buyer will be mad at the people that increased the price of your aqusition (why reward someone for driving up your cost?).
Ken
Lawsuit!
Ordinarily, even pathetic, abject failure verging on negligence isn't enough to get the People Who Matter sacked. These private equity guys must have some epic level suits on staff, if they are able to rightsize executives as though they were mere peons...
These suits ate little fish in their time. They got eaten by bigger fish. They will again start eating little fish once again. Just stay out of their jaws, if you can.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
No, it's not.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You know, every time a takeover happens some people get fired.
I am delighted to see that for a change it happens to you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And all I got was an effing T-shirt //true story //groove
...cue litigation in ...1...2...3...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
This submission, and the article referenced to, read entirely differently.
Where exactly does it say they were fired?
If the situation is what the summary suggests, the execs will sue them and the investor will end up paying legal fees AND whatever their obligation would have been had they not been fired.
A wise old CEO wheezed unto me: "A merger is a risk to everyone except one of the two CEOs - to everyone else it is a danger". Mergers reduce competition, so the market loses; mergers cost stockholders, at least in the short-run; mergers are engines of redundancy so it's a threat to all the employees. The only possible virtual gain is an investors' promise of less competition in the marketplace. Almost everyone loses. So the next time you read: "Massive-corp to buy out Macro-corp!" try not to cheer for the two original owners who get their one-time lottery prize, but instead pause in lament for the majority and progress in general.
...in action.
Drunk driving and 110 MPH crash. Fortunately they only took out themselves in a single-vehicle crash and didn't kill any other innocent motorists.
to pack their golden parachute?
If the executives are part owners, then they will be compensated according to their stake in the company. But if they hold no equity in the company, then why should they be rewarded as if they do? They are pulling in a salary just like everybody else who works there, and that salary is always subject to change (or termination).
Being executives, these individuals should be well aware that business is all about the bottom line.
What a bunch of aholes. More for me, one of the major problems with corporate America today. Expect lawsuits...
Jackass, rat's ass, fat ass, hairy ass, who GIVES a shit?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Now we can not say "Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft" let it spread like wildfire... let all top execs that are Microsoft Horny get laid off.
Don't care. At all.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I hope they purge their gui designer too, I'm still using skype 3.8 because of the horrible chat interface of skype 4 and 5, for example these days everyone has a widescreen, so why the fuck they waste vertical space by putting a huge contact list on the top instead of leaving it to the right? the chat content doesn't automatically resize with the window, you have to drag it, also there is no big visual difference between your and others text, with skype 3 you get a big blue/gray bar before the text, with skype 4-5 it's very subtle since it's only the nickname that changes color :P
I don't use osx but I've seen that they made a gui contest, this is the one that is winning right now http://macthemes.skype.com/themes/54 I wonder if skype mac user will become epileptic after using this theme
TFA just says they left. TFA specifically says it is unknown whether it was a layoff or they resigned. The word "fire" isn't on the page.
Jackass, rat's ass, fat ass, hairy ass, who GIVES a shit?
Those last three typically do.
What this basically means is the same type of executives that outsource operations and employees, needlessly eliminating thousands of positions at high tech companies for "cost cutting" purposes aka bonuses -- these very people are surprised they are being treated the same way by another greedy group of managers and money-men ?!
In denial on God, still.
God says...
programming Vegas guilty cheerful quit_it delicious Moses
ehh_a_wise_guy cheerful
Never watched the show, don't care, what does this have to do with this Slashdot story?
Because of our corrupt campaign finance system, neither Republicans nor Democrats will enforce the anti-trust laws. So we have constant mergers reducing the number of players competing in every market, but no force actively breaking up larger companies into smaller companies to apply pressure in the other direction.
The net result is less competition, and I shouldn't have to remind you that competition is the engine that drives a capitalist system.
let's buy a company, fire all the people who made it worth buying and promote our useless bureaucrats from within to "manage" the project right into the ground. oh yeah and we'll market the hell out of it so people will think we know what we're doing. here's a thought microsoft ... make something useful and people will use it. much more effective than your current model of putting lipstick on a pig and calling it windows 7, internet explorer, zune ... the list goes on.
Unfortunately, such a determination is always speculative because companies are usually not up-front about why top level executives leave.
You're right, "insignificant" would be more appropriate.
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
Submitter, do you have an evidence for your claims that these execs were stripped of their equity stakes when they separated from the company?
The linked article does not support the extraordinary claims in the summary.
What matter is whether they were the whole team, half the team. or deadwood statues of the team.
It's hard for outsiders to recognize the deadwood, and it's hard for insiders to fire their friends. Sometimes takeover time is a good time for insiders to let the outsiders clean house. Is this what happened or was the whole team let go?? This is something that an outside observer can figure just by visiting the parking lot.
Who cares if the were laid off. They are out in either case. Unless they turned into contractors.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
A story about sociopaths firing other sociopaths.
Proverbs 21:19
Everyone seems think those executives who were canned were fired, told to pack their shit, escorted to the curb, and then that's all. The article doesn't say but if it's like any other executive canning:
They were given a letter and that says the resigned along with a nice big fat severance along with their stock and options. They then call the executive recruiter who then starts pounding the pavement for them.
While they're "looking" for a new job, they're on the golf course talking to their buddies who will be looking for bigger and better things for them because - they have the Skype M&A on their resumes - something that I'd kill for to have on my resume! In the meantime it's golf, fine wine and scotch, trophy wives and mistresses and hanging out having fun!
Their next job will be a nice seven figure job with options and if their lucky, it's IPO or M&A will put them on the Forbes 400.
They'll be more than fine.
Usually, it's the little guys who get the axe while the executives get a parachute. Clearly there is more to this story than what we have available to us now. Perhaps there simply wasn't enough at the lower levels to cut to make a difference.
In the past, we have seen certain amounts of honor among the high level executive group offering each other golden parachutes and other deals that the regular people don't get. And what I read did not mention anything about exit compensation packages. They might have received some sort of package on their way out. It just wasn't mentioned. And the speculation about the 70 percent holder axing the executives seems to be just that. I think the submitter of the article added a bit much information that is not within the article. Is this insider information?
In any case, *citation required!*
We simply don't have the information on the subject needed to have any type of discussion on the topic.
Still, presuming the summary/opinion is accurate, it's nice to see them get a golden shower instead of a golden parachute.
Good for them.....
they should have done this with all the big bankers also that put us in the economic mess we've been in, so that after being fired would
touch 0 dollars upon exiting for being so lax with the loan assessment scenarios that put the whole world economy in jeopardy!
AFAIK, this sort of dismissal would be considered wrongful termination where I live.. the general settlement policy for wrongful termination typically being equivalent to about 1 year's salary or wages.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"You might think that the executive team that engineered a lucrative buyout for their company would be rewarded. But eight execs from Skype instead found themselves fired just before their company was formally taken over by Microsoft. It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond; rather, the private equity firm that owns a 70 percent stake in Skype wanted to cut back on the payout to company execs that would normally accompany this kind of transaction."
Damn, that's sneaky. Except wait - here are the eight execs:
The departures included David Gurle, vice president and general manager for Skype for Business; Don Albert, vice president and general manager for the Americas and Advertising; Doug Bewsher, chief marketing officer; Christopher Dean, head of consumer market business development; Russ Shaw, vice president and general manager; and Anne Gillespie, head of human resources. Two executives who joined Skype following its acquisition earlier this year of video-sharing utility Qik have also left. They are Qik founder Ramu Sunkara and senior vice president Allyson Campa.
Sooo... on what basis do we conclude that these eight execs engineered the deal? Let's also not forget that these were released in the months leading up to the buyout - it's not like on the eve of the approval they were all fired. I could also make a point of saying we don't *know* that they were fired - as TFA doesn't specify it - but the timing *does*seems awfully convenient if they all decided to quit. )
http://despair.com/acquisition.html
Now we blame everything on Apple..... and sometimes google.
Not everything, just the moderate amount of evil that isn't actually Microsoft's fault. Most of it can be fairly blamed on Apple, but this one kind of falls through the cracks. It's evil, but can't really be blamed on Microsoft or Apple or Adobe or Oracle (the usual gang of malefactors), Google haters are utterly stumped, and it's not even patent or DRM style evil.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Glad the owners realized that the execs are just employees, too. No mention, of course, of all the low levels workers who will probably be let go when the buyout happens. They're in a far worse position to ride out the times until they find a new job.
And executives wonder why there isn't any employee loyalty in a company any more? Perfect example of why the only way to get a raise is to take your skills and get a job with another company.
What's next for Skype? Easy: get rid of the superfluous programmers—you know, the guys that made Skype work—and hire telemarketers at less than 20% of the engineers' salaries to push the new business. Better: I'm willing to bet that this "private equity firm" owns a marketing business, which will soon get a nice, fat contract to promote Skype. Once it is drained dry, Microsoft will probably drop it citing failure to perform. I predict whatever is left of Skype will implode over the next one to two years.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
I find it extremely hard to believe that Microsoft would exist anywhere near its current dominant position if we actually did have capitalism. Instead, we have government protection of intellectual property, which is essentially the foundation of Microsoft's entire business model. Government force is not capitalism.
Know any history of Microsoft? Here it is in a nutshell -
Microsoft's fortune was built on business standardizing on MS-DOS. Once businesses committed to Microsoft they were made, millions and millions of dollars rolled in for copies of a relatively simple operating system. They imitated all and sunder. Then they made a half-a**ed copy of MacOS and called it Windows 95, started bundling free half-a**ed versions of other's software to expand influence - the companies and innovation they killed are legion. Like a heroin addict, business has found it now has to have Windows operating system and support, as Microsoft rolls out a new version every two years - what results in "The Microsoft Tax," as it is called - which ensures the billions keep rolling in, no matter how bad the product. Every version is promised to be better than the last, but every version needs more resources - if it weren't for Moore's Law you'd never get your PC to boot up in a day.
Microsoft is now a "Mature" company - their product releases are perfunctory (you really don't need a newer version of anything, except that they cut off support for older software.) They buy, rather than innovate - their own core product line is finally losing influence - lots of mis-steps, like Vista and notorious for poor coding practices leaving security holes by the hundreds - tablets and smart phones are eating away a once unassailable market position and Microsoft's own forays in the arena have been laughable at best.
Patents? Intellectual Property? Not so much, really, unless they want to tango with the likes of Google. Microsoft's key challenge is remaining relevant and necessary in a world were Apple has returned from the near-death with products which Microsoft can't match. Google has taken giant strides in new directions while Microsoft, who had easy early success based upon luck, can't figure out their next move.
What will Microsoft do with Skype? Probably try to find a way to force everyone to use it, bundle it with the XBox or something. I don't have high hopes. I think it's a poor acquisition for them.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They probably got a good pile of money in their pockets anyway
Also, from the same site: http://www.itworld.com/unified-communications/166637/5-skype-alternatives-linux-users
While many people use Skype for its free voice over IP (VoIP) services, Linux users have a love/hate relationship with it. Yes, Skype will run on some versions of Linux, but it doesn't run on all of them, and the Linux version (2.2-beta) lags far behind the Windows version (Skype 5.3). That's three major generations behind. Need I say more?
Seriously I can't take that site too serious now
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Does every Skype/MS related news out there feel the need to make it look like it's MS's fault, only to switch to someone else's fault during the article?
So, bashing MS all the time is still cool?
Felix Salmon has some analysis here. He's got a fair amount of experience from the finance side and here is his take on it:
This stands as a contrast to the Zappos/Amazon deal where at least the proceeds were shared with the people who developed things. Presumably this makes people more resistant to bring in private capital or at least try to spend some energy writing yet more complicated contracts and conditions, where it will take volumes of boilerplate to express what a normal person could say in three words: "Don't be jerks."
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
The modern executive animal possesses extraordinary foresight; written into their contracts are both buyout and early termination clauses.
They'll still get their golden parachutes, just not quite as much as if the stock valuation had happened.
They will use their parachute to gently land in the next company, with similar contracts, and use the "My company got sold to Microsoft, we were a success!" angle to get paid boatloads more money.
Poor executives. It's a hard knock life.
Right-to-work is the principle is that no employee should ever be forced to join a union in order to get a job. What this means in practical terms is that both employer and employee can sever their relationship at any time for any cause. Typically, employers do offer probationary periods followed by more permanent arrangements, with this difference: during the probationary period, if the employee is fired, it often is put immediately into effect, whereas after probation, the employer typically gives advance notice, usually 2 weeks.
Just because the government doesn't dictate the terms of employment, however, don't think that all employees are at the mercy of their employers. Larger companies have to compete for talent, so they usually provide competitive termination benefits such as severance pay, assistance in finding another job, etc. Small businesses, however, typically run without the padding of these kinds of benefits.
It actually works out pretty well. Right-to-work states (most of the South and Mountain states) are generally considered more business-friendly, and typically weather things such as the current recession better than unionized states, IMHO.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Yes, that one piece of evil seems to not fit any category. And to add insult to the injury, it is AGAINST the executives, not by them.
Rethinking email
Are we reading the same article? The one I see has nothing about venture capitalists, and says the execs departed. The summary seems like it was written by a paranoid schizophrenic after I read the article.
Companies have been burning the worker for years, we have so many exec's who rob a company blind, sell it off, while all the employees are screwed.
This time its the VC's to the execs, but the execs have excellent lawyers, but is it illegal? Sounds like it is.
Guess when wall street killed the middle class, the next logical victim is the execs.
Maybe the execs should unionize. ;)
*Amusing sidenote, firefox doesn't have unionize in its spell check.
1. If you were a startup would you want to do business with Silverlake having seen this?
2. If you were an exec working at a startup owned by Silverlake would you be reviewing your contract?
Dumb move. In business if both sides don't feel that there is a win for them in a deal, then the "winner" will shortly have very few people to do business with.
If we're voicing how we think informal conversation ought to be...
Your bile is off-putting. Especially as overreaction.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure those 'ousted' execs each walked away with no less than $10 Million *each* (and some of them probably quite a lot more).
I'm with the parent, it's really hard to feel bad for those poor, rich executives.
so why are not the fired exec's funding a breach of contract suit against the company - to frack up the merger - this is just the same as nortel making a subsidary bankrupt and all the employees (apart from the senior ones employed by the parent) didn't get statutory redundancy payments.
And id would also see I there are any discrepancies in age sex race to do them under those laws.
In addition to what others have said, large companies will usually also have an employee handbook which spells out processes, benefits, etc.
The employee handbooks have been determined to be a contract, in most states, so if the process for firing a person in that are not followed than you have a legal case.
The VCs behind Skype are some really smart guys that happen to have made a good decision in this case. Get rid of some cruft to benefit the senior engineers and people that actually built the product.
It's good to remember that people above you in the corporate structure aren't necessarily evil idiots. They are just evil idiots 95% of the time.
Felix Salmon dug deeper into the story and it's even worse than originally described, with significant deliberate obfuscation on the part of Silver Light, the financiers, mostly, as well as Skype. Wow. Supposedly, to "retain the best and the brightest," they buried a clause in a subclause in a contract which allows them to repurchase options at the original price, completely antithetical to the whole idea of vesting options. If this becomes a precedent, people are going to have to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers multiple times per year to comb through stuff looking for things like this. From Felix:
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.