[ziszis]

Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0...

The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation:

"Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20­day period."

[guelo]

This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.

[abvdasker]

If the risk of testifying/cooperating with the investigation outweighs the massive financial incentive Levandowski had to cooperate then that risk must be pretty enormous...

[draw_down]

From what I have read elsewhere, he already has quite a lot of wealth. So "not going to the pokey" probably has a lot higher value than whatever millions he is leaving behind.

[United857]

IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?

[mikeryan]

"Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back.

Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.

[Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd]

I don't know. If the court thinks there was a deal between Uber and Levandowski where they "fired" him for the duration of the trial, only to hire him back as soon as possible, that could lead to contempt of court charges, I feel. But IANAL either.

[jeeyoungk]

I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.

[euyyn]

Sounds like that, yeah. Standard procedure I guess?