Related Quiz
What is the primary reason for the US court's order requiring Sridhar Vembu to post a $1.7 billion bond?
To prevent potential prejudice to Pramila Srinivasan's rights over marital property.
To ensure Vembu could afford to support his son with autism.
To prevent potential prejudice to Pramila Srinivasan's rights over marital property.
To pay for legal fees associated with the divorce proceedings.
To facilitate the transfer of Zoho's intellectual property to India.
What is the core issue of the divorce dispute, according to the passage?
Vembu's alleged abandonment of his wife and son after moving to India.
Disagreement over child custody arrangements for the couple's 26-year-old son.
Vembu's alleged abandonment of his wife and son after moving to India.
Srinivasan's refusal to accept 50% of Vembu's Zoho shares.
Disagreements about who should control Zoho's intellectual property.
Advertisement
What is Pramila Srinivasan's primary claim against Sridhar Vembu regarding Zoho?
That Vembu transferred Zoho's intellectual property and ownership stakes to India without her consent, violating California community property laws.
That Vembu has been working on his own personal projects.
That Vembu has refused to share his salary with her.
That Vembu transferred Zoho's intellectual property and ownership stakes to India without her consent, violating California community property laws.
That Vembu is being dishonest with the public.
Who owns the largest share of Zoho, according to the article?
Radha Vembu, with an estimated 47.8% stake.
Sridhar Vembu, with approximately 5% ownership.
Pramila Srinivasan, because of community property laws.
Radha Vembu, with an estimated 47.8% stake.
Sekar Vembu, with around 35.2% ownership.
What response did Christopher C. Melcher, Vembu's lawyer, give regarding the bond order?
He mentioned that the bond order was issued based on misleading claims and is under appeal.
He stated that the bond order was justified and necessary to protect Srinivasan's rights.
He expressed that the bond order was valid and would be complied with immediately.
He mentioned that the bond order was issued based on misleading claims and is under appeal.
He indicated that the bond order was a fair reflection of the situation.
Your Score
2/10
Share
2/10