How appropriate that the battle over the future of Uber’s board and soul has come down to a public fight, full of high-minded rhetoric as everyone tries to look like the most righteous player.
There’s Benchmark’s open letter to Uber’s employees:
We know that many of you are asking why Benchmark filed a lawsuit against Travis last week. Perhaps the better question is why we didn’t act sooner. As you know, Travis resigned in June at the request of a large group of shareholders which included Benchmark. It was a rare and extremely difficult step for us. But we acted out of a deep conviction that it would be better for Uber, its employees, and investors to have a fresh start. We believed then, as we believe now, that failing to act would have meant endorsing behavior that was utterly unacceptable in any company, let alone a company of Uber’s size and importance.
There’s ousted CEO Travis Kalanick’s legal response, pointing out-- rightly -- that ousting a CEO who should have been ousted years ago just as he was mourning his mother wasn’t a good look:
"It executed its plan at the most shameful of times: immediately after Kalanick experienced a horrible personal tragedy."
Both sides blamed the other for making fraudulent statements. And Kalanick-- strangely-- rebutted the idea that the board-- mired in a lawsuit and seemingly unable to hire any C-level employees-- was dysfunctional...