Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

From the complaint:

"Vogt, as the sole Director of Cruise Automation, Inc., authorized the issuance of 50% of the Company’s stock to Guillory;"

That seems like a very clear statement. It's either true, in which case Guillory has a very strong case, or it's false and he doesn't.




This is false.


Then the YC application quotes are inaccurate? Incomplete? Fabrications?

"Cruise Automation is a Delaware C Corporation created in September 2013. 50/50 split between Kyle and Jeremy."

Edit: Added quote.


It looks like you can search Delaware's database if anyone has a spare $20 to pull information. [1]

[1] https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch...


You can search basic information without paying.

Just searching for Cruise Automation reveals Incorporation date as 24/09/2013


Ok but one would think that some enterprising lawyer at GM or Ycombinator or on retainer to Sam Altman, investor, would think to do this, right?

Without looking at the incorporation documents on file, I'm sure they don't say that Jeremy gets 50% of the stock. If they did, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. It would be cut and dry.

I think what Jeremy is arguing is that he and Kyle had an agreement in the early days before paperwork, and that that agreement was not properly documented when the paperwork was written up. This is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and Kyle and his investors will no doubt lean heavily on the actual paperwork to sway the court.


This is wrong. Both the original suit and counter-complaint directly reference the fact that Kyle founded the company before meeting/engaging with Jeremy.


You're right about the date of incorporation, so my comments about "before paperwork" were wrong.

Anyway, my main point above was that giving Delaware $20 to download the incorporation documents is not likely to resolve the case. Thanks.


I dont think it has officers names on that $20 report.

>If you are requesting the $20 detailed information option, this application will not return actual images of the documents on record. This application will return a page listing the 5 most recent filings, franchise tax assessment, total authorized shares if applicable and tax due. Officer and Director names and addresses are maintained on the images of the annual reports and are not available through this application. If you wish to order a copy of an annual report please call 302-739-3073 for more information


The YC application isn't a legal document and Kyle (having gone through YC) knows this. Legally he'd have full ownership and in the application specify 50/50 meaning if/when they formalize the relationship that is what the equity split will be. YC doesn't really care what the actual current/legal split is at the time you write the application. What they care about is what the split will be by the time you start YC because that is what is relevant to them.

And (my guess) is that the real reason they care about the split is that they're looking for red flags. i.e. is the cap table already messy with lots of people on it? Is the split NOT 50/50 signalling the founders don't consider each other equals which is a bad sign, etc.


> The YC application isn't a legal document

Of course it is. All documents are legal documents.


Email isn't a legal document, either, but putting things in writing, or even saying them, can change the shape of a legal negotiation.


Kyle Vogt said: "This is false."

Talk to your lawyer before posting on social media.


You should probably not comment.


Not sure if we can actually prove in court that the man behind the nick is vogt himself.


Well, I mean, presumably a lawyer associated with the case who was interested in proving it could depose Mr. Vogt and ask him under oath if he posted that comment.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994651

Also interesting because it makes reference to the earliest prototype.


Surely your lawyers advised you to keep silent?


That would seem to be the case. If Jeremy's claims were true there wouldn't be any lawsuit, as Jeremy would already have what he is currently suing for.

It amazes me from the other HN replies comments how much debate and confusion there is, about something so obvious.


I support your version of events. Hang in there!


This whole case is really surprising. I would expect intellectual property assignment agreements and a vesting cliff, particularly after cofounding Twitch.

On the other hand, I know how normal it can feel to trust each other, procrastinate on docs, and just get all over the tech.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: