Former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has fired back at the lawsuit filed against him by one of the company’s top investors, calling it “a fabrication” and accused the firm of threats and intimidation.
According to reports, Kalanick believes that the suit by Benchmark Capital, which owns 13 percent of Uber and controls 20 percent of the voting power, has been designed with the intent to oust him from the ride-hailing firm’s board.
A Reuters report noted that Kalanick, in the first court filing in response to the lawsuit, said Benchmark’s legal action is part of a larger scheme to oust him from the company he helped found and take away power that is rightfully his. He also argued that the legal quarrel should take place in arbitration and that Delaware’s Chancery Court, where the lawsuit was filed, lacks jurisdiction.
On 10th August 2017, Benchmark sued Kalanick accusing him of undermining the ride-hailing company’s search for a new chief executive.
Benchmark also alleged that the former Uber CEO hid a number of misdeeds from the board, including allegations of trade-secret theft and misconduct by Kalanick and other executives in handling a sexual assault case by an Uber driver in India; and conned the firm into allowing him to fill three board seats with the intention to pack the panel with allies willing to keep him as a director after he resigned as chief executive officer in June.
However, Kalanick’s court filing said that at the time of the board change, “Benchmark was fully aware of all of the allegations.”
The venture firm made no mention of fraud and continued to publicly support Kalanick through May, according to the filing.
Kalanick said in the court papers that he was forced to resign after Benchmark threatened to launch a public campaign against him.
Benchmark has made an initial $12 million investment in Uber in 2011. With the ride-hailing firm’s $68 billion valuation last year, Benchmark’s stake would be worth almost $9 billion.
The company has yet to name a new CEO since Kalanick’s resignation. It has also failed to fill a number of other top positions, including hiring a chief operating officer.
