- A former employee is bringing WeWork to court over co-founder Adam Neumann, reported for a $ 1.7 billion gold parachute.
- The Natalie Soika lawsuit accuses Neumann and other WeWork directors of taking advantage of minority shareholders as their actions "clarify" the value of WeWork's stock and stock options.
- "It is not understandable why Neumann will be paid $ 1
- Read more about Business Insider's WeWork coverage here.
Former employee filing WeWork in court over Co-founder Adam Neumann reported a $ 1.7 billion gold parachute.
The lawsuit of Natalie Soika accuses Neumann and other directors of WeWork of taking advantage of the minority shareholders' xpense by breaching their trust obligation, creating corporate waste, unjustly enriching, misusing others, failing to control and failing. The case, filed in San Francisco Superior Court this week, also identifies the defendant's name, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son.
As part of SoftBank's takeover of startup coworking after its defective public listing, Neumann will receive nearly $ 1 billion for its WeWork shares, $ 500 million in personal loan repayments and $ 185 million in consulting fees, according to Wall Street Journal.
"Although it breached its trust by engaging in self-trading and mismanagement of WeWork so badly that the IPO had to be withdrawn, Neumann offered an incredible consulting fee of $ 185 million, despite the fact that SoftBank seems to recognize
"It is not understandable why Neumann will be paid $ 185 million to provide strategic guidance to the company when its" guidelines "lead to the virtual destruction of the company." , is called "The fee simply represents a standalone transaction and an undue personal payment to Neumann," he claimed.
WeWork, SoftBank and the law firm representing Natalie Soika did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
"WeWork believes in this lawsuit is useless, "a spokesman for Reuters said on Friday.
Jay works as an executive assistant and then leads a WeWork team for a 17-month period, according to her LinkedIn profile. During her time there, she received stock and stock options, and when she voluntarily resigned, exercised options to buy more shares after being told she would otherwise lose them.
Neumann's departure from the package was "materially unfair" and would cause "significant harm" to minority shareholders because the value of their shares and stock were "uprooted by Neumann's misconduct," the case alleges.
Jay seeks an injunction to prevent Neumann's conversion from passing, and offers a lawsuit on behalf of her and other minority shareholders.