So let's say hypothetically you're Elizabeth Holmes and this kid ruined your company and everything that you've been working on for the past 13 years or so. You also have some pretty serious connections to people that have been in places of power. Would you just have this kid killed? I think I might go that route.
I still think there would be ways to get it done and even if you were the prime suspect to get away with it.
She could have donated couple of mil to the Clinton Foundation with the contingency that Hillary tell her how to have whistleblowers killed and not get caught...
I experienced Theranos first hand, as I was the pharmacy manager at one of the first two live testing locations inside of a Walgreens. Lots of really strange people from that company. Sat in on a small meeting with that Sunny guy and Elizabeth Holmes' brother. I'm sure there were a lot of other higher ups in attendance, but I didn't know them and wasn't introduced to them. Holmes herself was supposed to be in on one of the meetings, but something allegedly came up and she couldn't make it. I'm not pretending to be somebody that was privy to much, but they had us involved with the execution piece. We were personally performing the blood tests for the initial launch, but the company shifted away from their "technology" and started exclusively using phlebotomists to perform normal blood draws. The initial launch was pretty wild, because Theranos was nervous that people would try to steal their technology, and people really did try at first.
They also made us sign a bunch of non-disclosure agreements when they were first teaching the techniques.
I'm shocked their balance sheet was even that good. Not shocked they had no revenue in 2015-16. Shitty company, shitty CEO, shitty investor base, shitty board.
I'll bite. To whom? You can't sell preferred or common shares of a private company without triggering ROFR and Tag-Along previsions that would've made it nearly impossible. Also the discount on those shares would have been incredible (probably 75%+)
SHE LIKELY COULD NOT SELL HER STOCK AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Those of us in VC, know what standard VC terms look like. DFJ, while foolish here, isn't that foolish.
I'm guessing you are not going to show me the contract that she signed and merely going to opine about how superior your knowledge is? That's cute.
I don't think you understand just how standard certain terms of VC investments are. There are always transferability restrictions on founders' stock and some mix of equity requirements, ROFRs, tag-along rights, and/or options (in lieu of stock). It's as standard as a bank taking a mortgage in connection with a home acquisition loan.
Oh, which VC firm did you work for? You've done VC deals without stock restriction and tag long rights? That's pretty dumb of you.
This guy is a practicing physician, day trader (of oil stocks, no less), entrepreneur who has raised money from institutional VCs, and a venture capitalist. Impressive!
Non-disclosure agreement preventing saying where you worked? No VC firm could or would ask you to do that, because you have to establish a track record and be able to discuss with potential future LPs. Not to mention a large gap on your resume.
Academics have CVs. Doctors (which you might be, still unconvinced) have CVs. VCs and those in the business world have resumes.
Why do you need a CV if you're that successful? No need to present it to anyone if you're not looking for employment. But then again I'm a humble peasant with a resume.
Oddly enough I was in the class action lawsuit against theranos and received a $66 check from them lmbo