Does this mean they had a relationship
Having a CTO and SVP axed in the same statement means rather specific circumstances. Realistically rules out harassment, performance, even "kickbacks". These you would only expect one or the other to be terminated. Whether you agree or not, a company does not want to terminate immediately (she was just on stage as key speaker) two such key positions at the same time in the same department. It's a very large gap in the org that represents a material risk to the business. So their actions have to be so "huge" to match.
Stealing, but more likely some form of colluded insider trading.
I'd wager that the SVP was helping perform trades of expedia stock on behalf of the CTO. They got caught before the SEC and were fired.
Pure guessing, but, the employees are likely to trade the stock because of RSU's so the "hiding in plain sight" tactic.
People trying to get away with insider trading don’t use someone else at the same company, they use friends or family.
> Having two people involved doesn’t preclude kickbacks, it makes it easier. One of them submits the spending request, the other one approves it, they both share the kickback.
Possible. Maybe the CTO brought in a relationship, maybe AI?, and the SVP caught wind of a kickback and got "cut in" as a result (Lord of War?).
Still, I'm not fully convinced because kickbacks, the speed is just too fast.
> People trying to get away with insider trading don’t use someone else at the same company, they use friends or family.
I wouldn't use friends or family that's what everyone else does and it becomes super obvious to the SEC. Someone within the company is not unlikely to trade the stock.
Is my best answer?