I really don't know enough about this: why, in general do people step down from the board of directors? Is is as simple as him not owning enough stock to justify it anymore, or are there considerations like whether he's running a competing business? It seems strange for him to leave - since as far as I can tell there's no cost to having him on the board and as the founder he brings a certain level of trust to the operation.
> and as the founder he brings a certain level of trust to the operation
He wasn't exactly portrayed as a symbol of trust in the media. I guess you could say, for PR purposes, his active involvement became a liability. I don't see Uber having trust issues as a result of him leaving.
And, in rare cases board members can be held responsible for the actions of the board. In that sense you have a lot more to lose as a board member than as a shareholder.
So if you think that the board might be held liable by shareholders for something in the future it is usually a prudent step to create as much distance between you and the board as a shareholder as you can so you don't end up on both sides of a lawsuit.
Is that true? Many people are on multiple corporate boards, and some boards meet only a few times a year. I've only been on charity boards, but it wasn't a particularly demanding commitment.
I guess the reputation cost is a good point, but Kalanick is always going to be associated with Uber, whether he's officially on the board or not.
Certainly, being below a certain threshold would be one important factor.
He was a contentious figure, and Uber might want to see him off - remember that he got in a huge boardroom war with other board members - so this is likely something they want. His departure could have been part of the long term deal, or possibly in his contract somewhere.
Though there's definitely cred in having the founder around, I suggest this is not that kind of situation.
There's only so many board seats as well, there may have been angling for others to step in.
Personal choice matters a lot as well - he simply may not really want to do it for a variety of reasons.
To me it seems there are no hard rules for boards: it's not like hiring staff or even execs wherein you're generally looking for things, often, the board is just the 'gang of people with the power' duking it out for influence and control etc. so things can be very nuanced, political etc..
Sorry, but at this level people don't make multi billion dollar decisions for spite. Also, "told to leave the board" doesn't mean anything - he's either voted out or not. He was previously kicked out as CEO, someone else is in charge, and he obviously doesn't believe leaving his capital there is a good use of his money.
I would think at his level it would be the opposite. He has FU money. They did kick him out of the company he made. Maybe he wants to tell Uber something.
It doesn't really make sense for him to do this, if his reputation is to carry with him to Cloud Kitchens. People would be quite wary of future business dealings. If "getting back" at Uber is acceptable, he may decide to "get back" at Cloud Kitchens -- in other words, it sets a bad precedent.
I don't think most people would sell 3.5 billion dollars worth of stock haphazardly to temporarily spite a group of people a little bit. At %4 per year you can spend $380,000 every day for the rest of your life. There are probably better ways to get even and even better things to do with your time and freedom.
Increasing supply of the stock combined with the knowledge that the founder, who is an insider and large shareholder, is selling stock puts downward pressure on the price which makes the board look like they mishandled the situation.
> There is nothing particularly strange about this. At one point—basically before June 2017—Kalanick was the founder-CEO of Uber and owned an appropriate amount of stock for a founder-CEO, and now he is not the founder-CEO and is working his way down to an appropriate amount of stock for a non-founder-CEO.
…
> He has sold stock every day since the lockup expired. He has accounted for about 7.8% of Uber’s volume during that time
Great points, but it is highly unusual that someone in his situation would sell all of their stock so quickly. He probably couldn’t have sold it much faster.
Because Directors have fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company and its stockholders--even more than the CEO does. To the extent he wants to do his own thing now, that can be an issue/liability.
> I really don't know enough about this: why, in general do people step down from the board of directors?
If it is voluntary, then they step down because they want to ( for whatever reason - pursue other opportunities, etc ).
If it is involuntary ( forced out ), then it's pressure from shareholders ( especially a major shareholder or a group of major shareholders ).
Board of directors are elected by shareholders and they serve the interests of the shareholders. Only shareholders can remove board of directors. Of course if you have more than 50% of the voting shares and are on the board of directors, then you are golden. In that case, only legal action could get you removed, but that bar is very very high.
