[underdeserver]

One could argue that the board by demolishing the company in one fell swoop effectively relieved Microsoft of some of their contractual obligations.

[croes]

One could argue that by doing something it is legally allowed to do, the board has not relieved Microsoft of anything.

No matter how smart or dumb that move was.

[verdverm]

Most contracts also have a clause that a breach of one part does not invalidate the remainder. There are elements that typically out live the end of a contract as well, often the poaching and non-compete clause

[CPLX]

One could argue that firing the Loopt founder guy who was an at-will employee isn't a material event invalidating a contract unless the contract specifies exactly that.

[mminer237]

Really? I'm a lawyer, and I can't even see an argument of how firing a CEO would affect investment agreements at all unless Microsoft specifically conditioned their investment on Altman remaining CEO forever.