Fair dealing. (Destiny)

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 11:05 (3462 days ago) @ car15

I'll grant that there could be some history between Marty and the board that goes beyond the scope of the court case, which could have predisposed them to fire him and treat him like shit, but there is never a justifiable reason to steal property from somebody just because "he's a big meanie" or whatever. Come on, Bungie, you're better than that.

What I find deliciously ironic about the whole situation is that Bungie's stated reason for firing Marty was (in part) the negative impact his behavior had on the game's publicity, but in reality, nothing he did had a more negative impact on the game's publicity than Bungie's poor management. This looks really bad, for both of them, but for Bungie in particular.

Looking at the decision, O'Donnell and Ryan were in agreement in objecting to Activision's handling of the trailer, and even though O'Donnell's public reaction to that seems to have sparked the dispute, the termination is described as being justified by an alleged work slow-down instigated by O'Donnell following that incident. By that time I imagine working relations may have been strained all around, and that's what led to the spectacular mishandling of the severance offer and the subsequent termination and re-issuing of shares.

I'm probably going to write something longer on it, but it is interesting to note that both O'Donnell and Bungie only prevailed on one claim each out of many, and the one that Bungie prevailed on was largely irrelevant.

What's more interesting, though, and not portrayed in the news summaries I've seen, is that O'Donnell prevailed not because what Bungie did actually broke any of the contracts between O'Donnell and Bungie. In fact, two of O'Donnell's claims that alleged that were denied. However, it was within Bungie's power to terminate O'Donnell without depriving him of all his shares, and since the arbitrator is empowered by the agreement and JAMS rules to decide what is fair and equitable, he decided it was fair and equitable to award O'Donnell 60% of his previously unvested shares, and that Bungie had violated the concept of "fair dealing" that underpins all contract law.

By the timing of the termination, Bungie determined whether or not O'Donnell's shares would vest according to the normal schedule or be forefeited by the termination. In light of O'Donnell's past performance, the importance of his work to Halo and Destiny, and the lack of any actual damages to the Bungie-Activision relationship as a result of his public statements, the arbitrator determined that Bungie did not deal fairly with O'Donnell in terminating him in such a way that triggered share forefeiture (and then reissuing all shares in an attempt to ensure O'Donnell got no voting rights as well, should he prevail in arbitration, which he now has).