That theinformation.com article alleges that Toptal CEO Taso Du Val has all the stock, despite that employees and investors, including Andreessen Horowitz, expected to get stock.
Since our industry has become the 1980s Wall Street of ethics, not much behavior surprises me anymore, but a successful startup allegedly backstabbing a prominent VC does.
What do you mean by "expected" stock ? Is stock in some way similar to a baby that might get born on a given date or is stock assigned by lottery or whims of a deity?
Did they have a contract that promises them stock? If yes, then they should demand that in court; if not, then they shouldn't have been "expecting" it - especially if we're talking about seasoned investors, which shouldn't be "expecting" anything other than what they themselves explicitly wrote in the investment paperwork. If they have a contract that promises them stock when pigs fly, then they shouldn't have been expecting that stock - they probably shouldn't have also accepted the disadvantageous contract, but that's a different issue.
I was trying to be concise and not to make a case, so stated it intentionally weaker than my impression from the details in the article. Are you speaking of this particular case (e.g., that they shouldn't have expected the subsequent funding round), or making a more general point about contracts and "expected"?
Since our industry has become the 1980s Wall Street of ethics, not much behavior surprises me anymore, but a successful startup allegedly backstabbing a prominent VC does.