[trevelyan]

The article I read claimed it was an equity round with some strange preferred stock that had punitive warrants and other guarantees which effectively nixed the value of the existing common stock without technically repricing it. So two of the points are irrelevant (#2 and #4). I can easily imagine a source saying "over three" or "over three if you add up all of the guarantees" and having that become four (#3) while there is no denial of the general claim of punitive liquidation terms. Which leaves #1 as partially wrong and #5 as a he-said-she-said.

PrivCo is contextualizing an apparent leak with what it thinks it knows about the company finances and making a judgment call about the reliability of their sources. That isn't horrible journalism and if they are right this piece is miles above most of what passes for tech journalism online. And if it is wrong they have just tanked their reputation Judith Miller style and posters like the one above will be able to support their claims in the future.

In the meantime, dealing with this sort of thing is part-and-parcel of running a very public business that has taken nearly a billion dollars in outside investment. You are going to have aggrieved investors and employees when things go sour. They seem to be handling it professionally.