Hacker News Reader

Not necessarily. There are likely key person clauses in the prior round docs.

It has happened in the recent past (2-4 years ago?); I can't remember both the acquirer and the hollowed-out startup, and searches are returning chaff, but it got to the HN frontpage.

IANAL, but at-will employment cuts both ways- thr best an employer can do on behalf of investors, are golden handcuffs - and people can be bought out of those.

That’s not quite actually true and it is a bit more nuanced than that. For example, while non-competes and non-solicits are unenforceable in CA for employment agreements, they absolutely are enforceable for mergers and acquisitions.

The laws governing employment are a subset of the laws governing M&A.

VC funding rounds don't quality as an acquisition, AFAIK.

I agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant?

The context at the root of the discussion, where potential acquirer's plan b is to hire the team instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com