It's possible that he perceived his ownership stake as having negative value - e.g. due to tax reasons or other regulatory overhead (needing to participate in board meetings or whatever), legal risk (they get sued for doing something desperate and dumb and he needs to participate in the lawsuit) etc. But you can't just dissolve your shares, you have to either shut the company down entirely or sell your stake to someone. If he thought the company was truly worthless / negative expected value then $100 is fair consideration.
A famous example of this is Ronald Wayne selling his 10% stake in Apple for $800 because he was worried that Jobs would incur a bunch of risky debt that he'd be liable for.
i would've imagined that a limited liability corporation means that the lowest value it can go is zero, not negative.
A shareholder cannot and should not ever be responsible for the debts of the company imho. As for time costs, the shareholder could just not attend or do anything, if they perceive the work to be of worthless value, and thus, should therefore have zero as the floor, rather than negative!
In case anyone is out of the loop here, UPS drivers have a strong union and negotiated a great rate of pay. The story being spun in the media is that us tech workers are angry about this for some reason.
It's one of the most blatant attempts to pit workers against workers and undermine unions that I've ever seen.
Is any of it a substantial stake in an operating generative-AI company? If so, I'll buy it for $100; I literally don't intend to do more diligence than that to find a likely overlay.
According to the account of someone who has a substantial vested interest in that being the case. (It might be the case, in which "they got what they asked for".)
In a case where each side has a substantial vested interest in their story being accepted as true, it's wise to be skeptical of the claims on both sides and look for other, corroborating or contradicting evidence.
A famous example of this is Ronald Wayne selling his 10% stake in Apple for $800 because he was worried that Jobs would incur a bunch of risky debt that he'd be liable for.