>>How have they been...

Yes they make a mistake. That mistake is to bet on an unethical business man. The point is not that, the point is the CEO set different conditions for him and different for others.

While the senior execs were allowed to cash out, guys down the ladder weren't.

Which does not mean they have been "fucked over", or in which way have they?

How does the fact that senior execs cashed out relate to the fact that they don't get rich b/c their company has no sustainable business model and the stock crashed?

Well, I think the definition applies when the thought was that the reason the CEO was able to cash out was because he set different rules for himself from his employees, as was explained, and that he knew the true outlook of the company which was bad, as was explained. What more do you require to understand the situation?

I mean, if the CEO told everyone up front about the tactics he was going to use to allow him to cash out early that also prevented everyone else from doing the same at the same time and also that the future of the company was all downhill; then maybe you have a point.

Maybe saying they were cheated is a better phrase for you?

If you don't agree that that's fine. Which, by the way, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in...

You consider employees that don't have the same rules as the CEO "fucked over?"

Depends on the rules we're talking about.

If we're talking about pay structure and access to the executive washroom, then no.

If we're talking about employees and the CEO having equity in the same company but the CEO can cash his equity any time he feels like it while the employees cannot then there's a problem. Especially when said CEO seems to be doing questionable things to pump up the value of his stock that later collapses so that when employees finally can get money there's no money to be had.

I find it disturbing that you seem to think there's nothing wrong in this situation. There's no way you can say that the actions and behaviors of this CEO and company are the norm. If you don't understand that at this point then I'm unable to explain it to you. In this case we'll just leave it with you have your opinion and I have mine.

I never said I find it ok what the CEO did, but that's not the reason the stocks crashed, the reason being that Zygna just does not work as a business model.

And the reason they've lost their "money" is not because of the CEO having different rules.

Because, regardless of whether the company performed well or not the senior execs and the CEO considered their right to cash out.

But didn't hold the employees to have the same right.

Which actually speaks a lot about the intentions of those senior execs, which is clearly to play a hit and run game.

Don't be obtuse. The primary insiders of Zynga sold like there was no tomorrow immediately after the IPO. They should have had the same lock-up period as the employees. The entire company just reeks of sleaze. You don't have to be a crackpot to notice these things.