Some investors in OpenAI, the firm that created ChatGPT, are considering taking legal action against the board after the directors fired CEO Sam Altman and perhaps caused a mass resignation of staff members, according to those acquainted with the situation.
Investors are studying their alternatives with the help of legal advisors, according to sources. Whether or whether these investors will sue OpenAI was not immediately apparent.
With the hottest firm in the quickly expanding generative AI space, OpenAI, the jewel in some investors' portfolios, potentially collapsing, investors fear they could lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
There were no comments available from OpenAI.
The for-profit running corporation is 49% owned by Microsoft, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Semafor claims that other investors and staff hold 49% of the company, with the nonprofit parent of OpenAI owning the remaining 2%.
Altman was let go by the OpenAI board on Friday following a "breakdown of communications," as per an internal memo seen by the media.
By Monday, the majority of the more than 700 workers at OpenAI had vowed to quit if the board wasn't changed.
However, OpenAI is governed by its nonprofit parent business OpenAI Nonprofit, which was founded to serve "humanity, not OpenAI investors." Unlike venture capital investors, who typically retain board seats or voting power in the companies in their portfolio, OpenAI is under the nonprofit organization's authority.
As a result, according to Minor Myers, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, employees have more power to pressure the board than the venture capitalists who assisted in funding the company. "There is nobody exactly who is in the seat of an injured investor," he stated.
That is a benefit of OpenAI's organisational structure—it was founded as a nonprofit but in 2019 it established a for-profit subsidiary in order to attract funds—rather than a flaw. Operating under control allowed the organisation to maintain its "core mission, governance, and oversight," as stated on the business website.
Legal duties are owed by nonprofit boards to the organisations they manage. However, those responsibilities—like the need to use caution and abstain from self-dealing—leave a great degree of room for discretion in leadership choices, according to experts.
According to Paul Weitzel, a law professor at the University of Nebraska, these duties can be further curtailed under a corporate structure like OpenAI, which uses a limited liability company as its operating arm, potentially further shielding the nonprofit's board from investors.
Weitzel stated that investors would have a "weak case" even if they were able to file a lawsuit. Legally, businesses are free to make any commercial decision they want, even if it ends badly.
"You can fire visionary founders," Weitzel said. Apple (AAPL.O) famously fired Steve Jobs in the 1980s, before bringing him back around a decade later.
(Source:www.business-standard.com)
Investors are studying their alternatives with the help of legal advisors, according to sources. Whether or whether these investors will sue OpenAI was not immediately apparent.
With the hottest firm in the quickly expanding generative AI space, OpenAI, the jewel in some investors' portfolios, potentially collapsing, investors fear they could lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
There were no comments available from OpenAI.
The for-profit running corporation is 49% owned by Microsoft, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Semafor claims that other investors and staff hold 49% of the company, with the nonprofit parent of OpenAI owning the remaining 2%.
Altman was let go by the OpenAI board on Friday following a "breakdown of communications," as per an internal memo seen by the media.
By Monday, the majority of the more than 700 workers at OpenAI had vowed to quit if the board wasn't changed.
However, OpenAI is governed by its nonprofit parent business OpenAI Nonprofit, which was founded to serve "humanity, not OpenAI investors." Unlike venture capital investors, who typically retain board seats or voting power in the companies in their portfolio, OpenAI is under the nonprofit organization's authority.
As a result, according to Minor Myers, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, employees have more power to pressure the board than the venture capitalists who assisted in funding the company. "There is nobody exactly who is in the seat of an injured investor," he stated.
That is a benefit of OpenAI's organisational structure—it was founded as a nonprofit but in 2019 it established a for-profit subsidiary in order to attract funds—rather than a flaw. Operating under control allowed the organisation to maintain its "core mission, governance, and oversight," as stated on the business website.
Legal duties are owed by nonprofit boards to the organisations they manage. However, those responsibilities—like the need to use caution and abstain from self-dealing—leave a great degree of room for discretion in leadership choices, according to experts.
According to Paul Weitzel, a law professor at the University of Nebraska, these duties can be further curtailed under a corporate structure like OpenAI, which uses a limited liability company as its operating arm, potentially further shielding the nonprofit's board from investors.
Weitzel stated that investors would have a "weak case" even if they were able to file a lawsuit. Legally, businesses are free to make any commercial decision they want, even if it ends badly.
"You can fire visionary founders," Weitzel said. Apple (AAPL.O) famously fired Steve Jobs in the 1980s, before bringing him back around a decade later.
(Source:www.business-standard.com)