Uber's board, minus Kalanick and Benchmark's Matt Cohler, say in statement they are “disappointed” in Benchmark's suit, effectively declining to endorse it
Long time VC watcher, writer … Ryan Lawler / TechCrunch : Uber board ‘disappointed’ by Benchmark's lawsuit against former CEO Kia Kokalitcheva / Axios : Uber board “disappointed” in Benchmark dispute with Kalanick Carl Velasco / Tech Times : Things At Uber Just Got Worse: Benchmark Is Now Suing Former CEO Travis Kalanick For Fraud Tweets: Kara Swisher / @karaswisher : Sigh. I was hoping for @ariannahuff thunderbolt: Uber's board says it is ‘disappointed’ by the Benchmark v. Kalanick http://www.recode.net/...
Context & Ripple Effects
Benchmark's fraud suit against Travis Kalanick just failed to get the one endorsement that would have made it a board action rather than a shareholder attack: the rest of Uber's board — notably excluding Kalanick himself and Benchmark's own Matt Cohler — issued a statement of 'disappointment' rather than support. The statement lands a day after [[a:921360|Shervin Pishevar and two other investors demanded Benchmark surrender its board seat and sell its shares]], turning a legal filing into an open fight over who governs Uber.
The non-endorsement matters because it splits the board down the middle at the exact moment Uber needs unity: a CEO search is underway, and Benchmark's subsequent open letter to employees — citing warnings it gave Kalanick and hints of findings from the Holder report — shows both sides now campaigning publicly rather than negotiating.
First-order effects
- Benchmark's suit is now a lone-investor action rather than a board-backed one, weakening its legal and political standing inside the company while Kalanick can claim the board (minus the interested parties) did not side against him.
- Matt Cohler's absence from the statement leaves Benchmark with no visible ally among the other directors, isolating the firm's board seat at precisely the moment Pishevar's group is demanding it be vacated.
Second-order effects
- The CEO search hardens into a proxy fight: with the board publicly divided, candidates face a governance question no recruiter can answer, and the search devolves into a personal struggle between Kalanick and Benchmark with others caught in between.
- The standoff spills into dealmaking — by November, the SoftBank investment is in jeopardy after Kalanick pushes back on a provision requiring majority board approval of his future director appointments, making board composition the price of new capital.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, control disputes at founder-led companies will be settled through litigation, public letters, and shareholder blocs rather than boardroom consensus — with investors' board seats becoming liabilities their portfolio companies can contest.
- The episode sets up a governance template other late-stage startups will study: a single investor suing a founder can paralyze fundraising and succession, pushing boards toward explicit provisions on director removal and future appointments before disputes erupt.
The trend: Founder-investor control battles at high-value startups are migrating from private boardrooms into public litigation and shareholder campaigns, with board seats — not equity alone — as the contested asset.