Still surprised they managed to have one license. The reason of the non-renewal of it is their “approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility.”
Among the reasons see the greyball, the bribery scandal in Asia, the lawsuit with Google (Waymo) for theft of proprietary information and its gender-discrimination policy.
If three clues make one evidence, Uber is well pass the troubles-line.
Four ex-employees reported and provided evidence of VTOS, (“violation of terms of service”) and GreyBall, two programs approved by the legal department to, respectively, root out people it thought were using or targeting its service improperly and identify and circumvent officials who were trying to clamp down on the ride-hailing service.
Snapchat leveraged on the Jobs Act to apply for a Confidential Filing but the Wall Street Journal busted them red handed.
While it is common (although not the best option) to give investors few voting rights, Snapchat would enforce a three-layer structure company, based on different voting rights:
- The CEO would hold super voting powers
- pre-IPO investors would hav way softer powers, while
- post-IPO investors would have none.
Such trend is in steady decline at bigger companies and as the writer points out, inequality in voting rights doesn’t easily rhyme with positive returns. It’s no coincidence that companies like Groupon, Zynga and GoPro all came out with dual-classes structures and (A) didn’t generate profits since their public offering, nor (B) scored positively in corporate governance risk.
As the author points out, lack of external accountability, governance standards and secrecy around the company itself and its IPO filing are not good signs.
I’m a fierce opposer of this gig economy, I know, but I wouldn’t be surprised this was all a cover to hold the bubble back from bursting.
#1 too few disclaimers (therefore you should use Opening disclaimer, Benefits section qualifier, At-will reminder, Misconduct qualifier and an acknowledgment)
#2 Provisions that are too open to interpretation
#3 Requirements that are too stringent
#4 Protections that are too one-sided
Never punish an employee for whistleblowing.
Is a long-term perspective compatible with the current capitalistic market?
Nowadays a Corporate Governance system needs to focus also on flexibility, as least as much as to face the current pace of development.
The answer to most of Corporate Governance’s issues may depend on whether we can foresee a future with increasing or stable pace of develpments.
A Task-force of CEO, mixed up with tons of experience reached consensus on the principles to lead a company based on two principles:
- long-term perspective, and
- one size does not fit all
Outcome of the appeal to be issued by the end of the year.
Still not much lawelry in support of whistleblowing.
Klokkenluiden is verplicht voor bedrijven met 50 of meer werknemers, die zullen bescherming tijdens en na een eventuele rapport ontvangen.