[650]

>In a statement provided to PhocusWire, the company said, “Rathi Murthy, Chief Technology Officer, and Sreenivas Rachamadugu, Senior Vice President, Core Services Product & Engineering, are no longer employed at Expedia Group. This decision is the result of a violation of Company policy.

Does this mean they had a relationship

[dboreham]

Doubtful that gets you fired. Something to do with money more likely? Or plotting to start a competitor?

[irjustin]

Agreed, money has to be involved.

Having a CTO and SVP axed in the same statement means rather specific circumstances. Realistically rules out harassment, performance, even "kickbacks". These you would only expect one or the other to be terminated. Whether you agree or not, a company does not want to terminate immediately (she was just on stage as key speaker) two such key positions at the same time in the same department. It's a very large gap in the org that represents a material risk to the business. So their actions have to be so "huge" to match.

Stealing, but more likely some form of colluded insider trading.

I'd wager that the SVP was helping perform trades of expedia stock on behalf of the CTO. They got caught before the SEC and were fired.

[ralph84]

Having two people involved doesn’t preclude kickbacks, it makes it easier. One of them submits the spending request, the other one approves it, they both share the kickback.

People trying to get away with insider trading don’t use someone else at the same company, they use friends or family.

[irjustin]

mmmm grain of salt because I have no details. I'm just having fun now.

> Having two people involved doesn’t preclude kickbacks, it makes it easier. One of them submits the spending request, the other one approves it, they both share the kickback.

Possible. Maybe the CTO brought in a relationship, maybe AI?, and the SVP caught wind of a kickback and got "cut in" as a result (Lord of War?).

Still, I'm not fully convinced because kickbacks, the speed is just too fast.

> People trying to get away with insider trading don’t use someone else at the same company, they use friends or family.

I wouldn't use friends or family that's what everyone else does and it becomes super obvious to the SEC. Someone within the company is not unlikely to trade the stock.

Is my best answer?

[sgerenser]

My thoughts immediately turned to insider trading as well.

[maxbond]

I don't get why someone at your company would be a natural accomplice (surely their trading is monitored too?), but the timing could make sense. They missed earnings on the 1st and dropped about 15%. Maybe it takes a week to catch them and a week to fire them.

[irjustin]

> I didn't get why someone at your company would be a natural accomplice (surely their trading is monitored too?)

Pure guessing, but, the employees are likely to trade the stock because of RSU's so the "hiding in plain sight" tactic.

[ralph84]

Soliciting or accepting kickbacks is always a possibility when it’s someone with spending authority.

[gnat]

What happened in Vegas didn’t stay in Vegas.