The Former Employees Who Could Decide Better.com's Next Board

When Your Former Boss Wants Your Vote

In December 2021, Vishal Garg fired roughly 900 Better.com employees — about 9% of the workforce — on a widely circulated Zoom call. It became one of the defining management disasters of the pandemic era. Five years later, those former employees are back in Garg's orbit, but in an unexpected role: as shareholders he allegedly tried to recruit in a campaign to replace Better's board.

On September 24, 2026, Better's special committee announced it had opened an investigation into what it called "credible and serious allegations" involving Garg, the company's former CEO and current director. According to the committee, Garg allegedly sought to exchange company interests and property with former employees who remained Better shareholders in return for their consents to a board-replacement proposal.

That turns a standard corporate governance fight into something far stranger: a former CEO allegedly attempting to convert past employment relationships — including, presumably, some severed abruptly in 2021 — into present-day voting power.

The Mechanics of Employee Equity

The story works because of how equity compensation functions in venture-backed and newly public companies. Employees often receive stock options or restricted shares as part of their compensation. When they leave, they may retain those shares or have a window to exercise vested options. In a company like Better, which went public via SPAC in 2021, former employees can remain shareholders long after their last day.

That creates an unusual constituency. Former employees are not just ex-colleagues. They are voters with standing in shareholder matters. In a proxy fight or board election, their shares count. And if their departure was contentious — say, via a mass layoff delivered on video — their votes may carry personal weight.

Garg's alleged approach was unusually direct. Rather than mounting a conventional proxy contest or simply lobbying shareholders, he reportedly proposed trading company interests and property for consents to his board-replacement campaign. The committee did not disclose which former employees were approached, what assets were offered, their estimated value, or how many shareholder consents Garg was seeking. Those details matter. At this stage, the allegations are preliminary, and the investigation will determine what actually happened.

What Authority Did He Have?

Garg left the CEO role but remained a director. That means he retained formal standing in the company's governance — he was not an outside activist. But directors operate under fiduciary duties to the company and all shareholders, not just themselves. Offering company assets or interests in exchange for votes in a board contest would raise immediate questions about whether those duties were violated.

The specific nature of the assets allegedly offered is the most important unknown. Were they Garg's personal holdings? Company property requiring board approval? Rights contingent on shareholder consent? Each scenario carries different legal and ethical implications. The special committee's investigation will presumably address all three.

The Collision of Culture and Governance

Better is a consumer mortgage company, not an enterprise software vendor. But the episode is highly relevant to the broader B2B world because it illustrates how company culture can become a governance asset — or liability — long after an executive departs.

Founder-centric companies often tie their identity to a single executive. That can create loyalty, momentum, and a clear strategic vision. But it also means disputes become personal. A standard proxy fight is about strategy, board composition, and capital allocation. This one, if the allegations are substantiated, would be about whether personal relationships and past employment ties can be converted into corporate voting power.

Former employees are not passive actors in that dynamic. They may have grievances, equity, public platforms, or simply long memories. In a company where the workforce was famously dismissed en masse, those former employees are not just shareholders. They are a constituency with history.

The Unresolved Questions

The investigation is ongoing, and the most compelling details remain unknown. What exactly were the company interests and property allegedly offered? How many former employees received the proposal? Did any accept, reject, or report it? What authority did Garg have as a director to make such an offer? Could the episode change how public companies handle former employees who retain shares?

Those questions will determine whether this is a case of aggressive but legal shareholder activism, a governance violation, or something in between. But the premise alone is striking: the people once on the receiving end of a notorious layoff may now sit at the center of a shareholder battle involving the executive who delivered it.

That's not just a corporate governance story. It's a story about what happens when the personal and the professional refuse to separate — even years after everyone thought the chapter was closed.