A 1x liquidity preference is standard, but it is common now to see larger multiples - especially in high-value later stage rounds, where the preference to those investors would also be stacked before earlier investors.
So, yes, I doubt common holders got much here, it is also possible that earlier investors didn't get much either.
For founders and employees this is usually made up with a separate bonus or earn-out from the acquiring company - which has been the source of conflict of interest claims from investors in some of these deals (where the acquisition price is much less than the 1x preference but the founders get a separate payout/earnout/signing bonus).
I am in a similar situation in another acquisition and would love to receive your feedback, mainly if we (the common stockholders) should make a "sanity check" with a lawyer or completely forget about the issue.
The company was acquired recently and has some debt, so they returned money to the preferred stockholders, our common stock "was cancelled and extinguished" and one of the directors received 1 million.
You're always welcome to consult a lawyer, but odds are there won't be much you can do. It's not uncommon to wipe out common shareholders where the preferred stock and other debtholders take all the money out of the acquisition.
It's also difficult to weigh in without knowing the specifics, and even then the specifics from your perspective might be very different from the perspective or facts the board is running with.
I realize the director receiving 1 million may seem unfair (and it may even BE unfair), but it might also be whatever his/her agreement is with the company.
Talk to a lawyer. If a director, not an investor, got money out and the shareholders didn't, that may be a breach of fiduciary duty. Directors have a responsibility to the shareholders.
So, I think you probably meant to reply to the GP, and yes, directors have a fiduciary duty, but I suspect the director was also an investor or preferred shareholder.
Straight-up malfeasance is pretty rare in cases with professional investors, as there are lawyers involved and people who know what's going on.
Matt has covered it in his reply which i'll second - there isn't a lot you can do. The people affected tend to talk about it, which is why you hear these stories a lot.
I've been surprised by the number of exits that are portrayed as 'successful' in the media actually left founders and employees with little or nothing after preferences.
Golden parachutes are pretty common. It's a way of aligning company leadership financial interests with stockholders. The legality is highly dependent on specifics. If there is a lot of money at stake, I'd talk to a lawyer.
So, yes, I doubt common holders got much here, it is also possible that earlier investors didn't get much either.
For founders and employees this is usually made up with a separate bonus or earn-out from the acquiring company - which has been the source of conflict of interest claims from investors in some of these deals (where the acquisition price is much less than the 1x preference but the founders get a separate payout/earnout/signing bonus).