One person (their VP Product) was on paternity. You don't fire people like that unless they did something very very wrong.
Misrepresenting spam/bot accounts would fall under that bucket. If the number of spam accounts is like 20% (instead of 5%), not only would the deal fall through, other shareholders would sue twitter.
Not sure this misrepresentation would count as financial misrepresentation (which results in jail etc under Sarbanes-Oxley)
Pretty sure twitter have a dashboard with these numbers, and don't do it manually. So if this dashboard makes data up, I'm pretty sure VP of Product's head is on the table, since it's a really sensitive data to report wrong.
And twitter firing him can be a way to protect the top exec from the SEC, blaming him for everything.
> You don't fire people like that unless they did something very very wrong.
That's assuming the firings are fully rational, and no self-interest was involved.
I can easily imagine a number of scenarios where Parag fired the guy knowing he had done nothing wrong in order to attempt to protect himself in some way.
Misrepresenting spam/bot accounts would fall under that bucket. If the number of spam accounts is like 20% (instead of 5%), not only would the deal fall through, other shareholders would sue twitter.
Not sure this misrepresentation would count as financial misrepresentation (which results in jail etc under Sarbanes-Oxley)