Automattic’s interim CEO and legal chief signed reciprocal severance deals during Mullenweg’s brief ouster
Automattic’s interim CEO and legal chief signed reciprocal severance deals during Mullenweg’s brief ouster
Automattic 临时首席执行官与首席法务官在 Mullenweg 短暂被免职期间签署了互惠遣散协议
Last week, on September 9, Automattic’s board voted to put CEO Matt Mullenweg on paid leave, a decision the board still hasn’t explained publicly. Mullenweg, in a company-wide Slack message, accused CFO Mark Davies of “conspiring” with three board members behind his back to force the vote through, saying he was given only 50 minutes’ notice and was denied time to have the resolution reviewed by outside legal counsel. 上周（9 月 9 日），Automattic 董事会投票决定让首席执行官 Matt Mullenweg 带薪休假，董事会至今未公开解释这一决定。Mullenweg 在一则全公司范围的 Slack 消息中指责首席财务官 Mark Davies 在他背后与三名董事会成员“密谋”强行通过投票，并称他仅提前 50 分钟收到通知，且被拒绝给予时间让外部法律顾问审查该决议。
He returned to the role roughly 33 hours later, and the same board members who voted him out have since departed the company. They didn’t just walk out the door, though. In the 33-hour window between Mullenweg being put on leave and his return, two key executives at the company signed off on generous exit packages for each other. Davies, who became interim CEO during that window, and Chief Legal Officer Andy Missan, each signed the other’s severance agreement, effective September 10. 大约 33 小时后，他重返岗位，而当初投票罢免他的董事会成员此后均已离职。然而，他们并非仅仅是简单地离开。在 Mullenweg 被停职到他回归的 33 小时窗口期内，公司两名关键高管为彼此签署了丰厚的离职补偿方案。在此期间担任临时首席执行官的 Davies 和首席法务官 Andy Missan 分别签署了对方的遣散协议，协议于 9 月 10 日生效。
These agreements, effectively golden parachutes, provide each of them with 12 months of base salary paid out as a lump sum, an accelerated vesting schedule for their equity, the ability to exercise their vested stock options, and another year of health coverage, according to the severance documents reviewed by TechCrunch. Between the two of them, the full package — accelerated equity plus a year of salary — comes out to $8.15 million that Automattic would now owe both executives, since Mullenweg fired them upon his return. 据 TechCrunch 查阅的遣散文件显示，这些协议实际上是“黄金降落伞”，为每人提供了相当于 12 个月基本工资的一次性总付补偿、股权加速归属计划、行使已归属股票期权的权利，以及额外一年的医疗保险。两人合计的完整补偿方案（加速股权加上一年薪水）总额达到 815 万美元，由于 Mullenweg 在回归后解雇了他们，Automattic 现在需要向这两位高管支付这笔费用。
Automattic’s legal team is working to determine what the next steps are: pay out these sums or fight them by challenging their legal validity. (The company replaced its earlier counsel, Gibson Dunn, with Stephen Shackelford and Shawn J. Rabin of Susman Godfrey LLP, the company and Mullenweg jointly announced on Wednesday. Automattic’s general counsel, Jordan Hinkes, also had his company account deactivated, sources told us. Mullenweg has since stated on X that this move had been in the works for weeks, as Hinkes is joining an AI startup.) Automattic 的法律团队正在研究下一步行动：是支付这些款项，还是通过质疑其法律效力来抗争。（公司和 Mullenweg 周三联合宣布，公司已更换此前的法律顾问 Gibson Dunn，改聘 Susman Godfrey LLP 的 Stephen Shackelford 和 Shawn J. Rabin。消息人士告诉我们，Automattic 总法律顾问 Jordan Hinkes 的公司账户也被停用。Mullenweg 此后在 X 上表示，此举已筹划数周，因为 Hinkes 即将加入一家人工智能初创公司。）
Want to correct the record: Jordan Hinkes, with my support and encouragement, is joining an exciting AI startup as General Counsel. We’ve been planning this for weeks before anything started; he’s still fully @automattic through Friday. :)— Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) September 16, 2026 “需要澄清一下：在我的支持和鼓励下，Jordan Hinkes 即将加入一家令人兴奋的 AI 初创公司担任总法律顾问。我们在一切开始前几周就已经在筹划此事了；他直到周五仍完全属于 @automattic。:)”—— Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) 2026 年 9 月 16 日
Under the agreements, the executives only get their benefits if they sign a broad release of claims and continue to comply with confidentiality, nonsolicitation, and other legally binding post-employment restrictions. The agreements are also written in a way that favors the executives when it comes to how “cause” — the legal standard a company must meet to fire someone without owing severance — is defined. 根据协议，高管只有在签署广泛的索赔豁免书并继续遵守保密、禁止招揽以及其他具有法律约束力的离职后限制条款的情况下，才能获得这些福利。协议在定义“正当理由”（即公司在无需支付遣散费的情况下解雇某人必须满足的法律标准）时，也明显偏向高管。
Under these terms, the company must notify the executive in writing within 60 days of learning about the conduct, give them 30 days to cure the conduct if curable, then get a majority of the board to agree that cause exists. “Cause” itself is narrowly defined in the agreements as gross negligence that materially harms the company; knowing dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation causing material harm; a material legal violation causing material harm; a material confidentiality or IP breach; or a felony or crime involving “moral turpitude” (a legal term for conduct considered inherently dishonest or morally reprehensible). 根据这些条款，公司必须在获悉相关行为后的 60 天内书面通知高管，给予其 30 天的时间（如果可补救）来纠正该行为，然后获得董事会多数票同意认定“正当理由”存在。协议中对“正当理由”本身的定义非常狭窄，包括：对公司造成重大损害的严重疏忽；造成重大损害的蓄意不诚实、欺诈或虚假陈述；造成重大损害的重大违法行为；重大的保密或知识产权违规；或重罪或涉及“道德败坏”（法律术语，指被认为本质上不诚实或道德上应受谴责的行为）的犯罪。
In Davies’ case, the agreement also specifies that his removal from the interim CEO role won’t count as “Good Reason” — a legal term that normally lets an executive resign and still collect severance, on the grounds that their job conditions changed for the worse — as long as he remains CFO. While that clause itself is not strange for a legal agreement, it suggests the document was drafted with Davies’ precise circumstances in mind —becoming interim CEO — effectively ensuring Automattic won’t owe him severance once his temporary CEO stint ends, as he can’t claim that alone as a reason to resign. 在 Davies 的案例中，协议还明确规定，只要他仍担任首席财务官，他被免去临时首席执行官职务将不被视为“正当理由”（这是一个法律术语，通常允许高管以工作条件恶化为由辞职并领取遣散费）。虽然该条款在法律协议中并不罕见，但这表明该文件在起草时充分考虑了 Davies 的具体情况——即担任临时首席执行官——从而有效地确保了在临时首席执行官任期结束后，Automattic 无需向他支付遣散费，因为他不能仅以此为由辞职。
While it’s not necessarily improper that the executives signed each other’s agreements, in the context of a governance struggle at Automattic, it is noteworthy. Another factor that has recently come to light is that Davies held no Automattic stock at the time of his departure, according to an HR document viewed by TechCrunch. (One source at the company said Davies sold the stock a “few months ago,” but TechCrunch cannot confirm the time of the sale. Davies did, however, still hold a large number of outstanding vested options, the HR document showed.) 虽然高管互相签署对方的协议未必是不当行为，但在 Automattic 治理斗争的背景下，这一点值得注意。最近曝光的另一个因素是，据 TechCrunch 查看的一份人力资源文件显示，Davies 在离职时并未持有任何 Automattic 股票。（公司的一位消息人士称，Davies 在“几个月前”卖掉了股票，但 TechCrunch 无法确认出售时间。不过，人力资源文件显示，Davies 确实仍持有大量未行权的已归属期权。）
These events can be interpreted in two very different ways. In one scenario, Automattic’s board is responding to an internal leadership crisis, voted to put Mullenweg on leave, and then established protections for the executives who could face adverse consequences if the intervention failed (as it now has). Automattic’s legal battle with hosting provider WP Engine could come into play here. In July, WP Engine accused Mullenweg of destroying evidence in legal filings, specifically text through messaging apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram. If the directors believed Mullenweg’s behavior had become a serious corporate risk, putting him on leave and changing management could help demonstrate to the court that the board took the concerns seriously. This could potentially help reduce any possible sanctions or fines or improve settlement terms. (Mullenweg’s X post on September 10, which referenced the alleged destruction, or “spoliation,” of evidence right after the board action, could support this theory.) 这些事件可以有两种截然不同的解读。一种情况是，Automattic 董事会是在应对内部领导危机，投票让 Mullenweg 休假，然后为那些如果干预失败（正如现在发生的那样）可能面临不利后果的高管建立保护措施。Automattic 与托管服务提供商 WP Engine 之间的法律纠纷可能与此有关。7 月，WP Engine 在法律文件中指控 Mullenweg 销毁证据，特别是通过 Signal、WhatsApp 和 Telegram 等通讯应用发送的短信。如果董事们认为 Mullenweg 的行为已成为严重的商业风险，让他休假并更换管理层可能有助于向法院证明董事会认真对待了这些担忧。这可能有助于减少任何可能的制裁或罚款，或改善和解条款。（Mullenweg 在 9 月 10 日的 X 帖子中提到了董事会行动后所谓的证据销毁或“灭失”，这可能支持这一理论。）
In another scenario, it could appear that Automattic’s board was trying to create a window of control for some other reason — perhaps a strategic transaction — by putting Mullenweg on leave and taking the reins. According to sources, this is the theory Mullenweg suspects — though by his own account, the board never gave him a stated reason for the vote to begin with, leaving him, like outside observers, largely to speculate about the underlying. 另一种情况是，这看起来像是 Automattic 董事会试图通过让 Mullenweg 休假并接管大权，为其他原因（也许是战略交易）创造一个控制窗口。据消息人士称，这是 Mullenweg 所怀疑的理论——尽管据他自己所述，董事会从一开始就没有给他任何投票的明确理由，这让他和外部观察者一样，只能对背后的原因进行猜测。