So . . . I'm confused as to why he had "founder" stock anyway. He wasn't a founder, he was aquired right before the Microsoft aquisition. Was he a founder of the post-Microsoft "Bungie LLC"?

Founder of the new entity that spun off from Microsoft, yes. Although O'Donnell was doing music for Bungie as far back as Myth, he was not an employee in those days, and I remember it being noted during Pentathlon proceedings that this meant he was not a member of the oldest school, along with original founders like Jones.

So . . . I'm confused as to why he had "founder" stock anyway. He wasn't a founder, he was aquired right before the Microsoft aquisition. Was he a founder of the post-Microsoft "Bungie LLC"?

That's how I interpreted the article that the one above links to, it mentions seven founders and Arete Seven LLC. If I remember correctly, as part of the breakaway some Bungie guys made sort of a placeholder company that then had Bungie's name and assets transferred to it, so that must be it. A quick check of Google suggests this is the case and says Bungie might even still be Arete Seven officially and just doing business as Bungie.

So . . . I'm confused as to why he had "founder" stock anyway. He wasn't a founder, he was aquired right before the Microsoft aquisition. Was he a founder of the post-Microsoft "Bungie LLC"?

I'd guess "founder stock" was part of the deal when he became a Bungie employee, and wasn't based on his status as an actual founder, which by the strictest definition I suppose only Jason and Alex could get. Marty was a fixture at Bungie long before he became an official employee.

I thought he still had stock and part-ownership, isn't that what he said in the interview here on DBO? Did Bungie inform him after that that they didn't see it that way?

It's possible that they informed him immediately, but given that his opinion on the matter was that they had acted improperly, he self-identified as a shareholder. A judge has now vindicated that position, although Bungie can still appeal.

Although Bungie apparently gave no officially documented reason for O'Donnell's termination, it seems unlikely to me that such extreme actions would be taken apropos of nothing; nor does it seem likely to me that O'Donnell is truly confused or ignorant of why Bungie (or at least Harold Ryan) initiated this sequence of events. It just appears that so far neither side is able or willing to make public statements about those reasons. The only open speculation I've seen indicates that it may have been done to prevent O'Donnell's shares from vesting with the release of Destiny. Presumably, however, that would have affected all shareholders with similar shares, so it still doesn't indicate why his shares were so targeted.

For the record, IANAL.

Dude.

TMI.

I was almost going to Google that acronym, but decided against it.

After some consideration, I'm taking it to mean I Am Not A Lawyer.

You win a kewpie doll.

Bungie's lawyers "objected that if O'Donnell's shares were restored, he would be a 'bothersome presence at board meetings and in the company,'" Venturebeat reports. The arbitrator, retired Judge Sharon Armstrong, overruled them.[/link][/i]"

Hmmm... I have to say, I don't think that's a valid reason for not fulfilling contractual obligations. Assuming there were any - which, given the ruling, there apparently were.

For the record, IANAL.

Dude.

TMI.

I was almost going to Google that acronym, but decided against it.

After some consideration, I'm taking it to mean I Am Not A Lawyer.

For the record, IANAL.

Dude.

TMI.

Am I to interpret this to mean that they tried to take away over 300,000 shares of stock from Marty?

More than that, actually.

Following his termination they forfeited his shares-- apparently the preferred as well as the common.

Then, at a shareholders meeting they held without notifying him (because they had forfeited his shares) they converted ALL of the company's preferred shares (the ones given to founders like O'Donnell) into common shares.

Without having Bungie's foundation documents (charters, etc) it's difficult to know exactly what this means, but it is not much of a stretch to think that someone at Bungie knew the forfeiture would not stand. The injunction the judge granted O'Donnell means he must have his shares returned to him, and if the company cannot issue preferred stock, it can issue him an equivalent value of common stock. This may be relevant as it applies to what voting rights different classes of stock have. How it really benefits the remaining shareholders, I'm not sure, since supposedly all of their preferred stock has also been converted, but unless they are also forced to undo any actions taken at shareholders meetings they held without O'Donnell, it is possible they took other steps not outlined here-- say, issuing other classes of stock, or golden shares, or something else similar that they might later argue they do not owe O'Donnell.

Given the remark that Destiny's release is relevant to the vesting of shares, this looks less and less like an employer/employee dispute and more like a struggle for control of the company.

For the record, IANAL.

Bungie's lawyers "objected that if O'Donnell's shares were restored, he would be a 'bothersome presence at board meetings and in the company,'" Venturebeat reports. The arbitrator, retired Judge Sharon Armstrong, overruled them."