The billoin dollar question is why? Seems it could only be a handful of things:

Major health problem so the controlling stake won't matter.

Major unannounced issue that would cause the stock to drop precipitously (on paper he'd be facing prison time, but I think we all know he won't even if true).

Outside pressure, presumably from a government entity because I don't know what private party would have the juice to push him out.

Outside of that, unless he's just done with the rat race, planning on retiring and just not working anymore I've got a lot of nothing. When you have as much money as he has, I don't see why you'd give up control of your baby willingly as part of "normal estate planning" at his age.

It's probably not an oversight. E.g. in Hong Kong, it is mandatory to have a minimum amount of equity (I think 10%), otherwise you will lose all super-voting power. I don't think a similar requirement is present in the US, but the logic behind is valid: the super-voting power is for a founder / important member of the company to maintain control and therefore allow for a long-term strategy to be carried out, even after multiple rounds of financing. If you're no longer a major shareholder and working for the company, the super-voting power may no longer be appropriate, as your priorities and preferences may now differ from the company.

It's never illegal, as far as I know. When it's illegal it's tax evasion.

Doing it before creditors are interested in you, including even a spouse, shields those assets. With a good spendthrift clause even alimony couldnt get those assets. You dont get them with either though, but you can still direct control.

No longer on your balance sheet

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/crowdstrike-probed-over-32m-i...

> Subsequent filings from four trusts show that about half of his gifted shares were transferred to them. Those trusts have in turn sold most of the shares they reported receiving, netting at least $1.2 billion in proceeds so far.

Seems like the CEO thinks that it's downhill from here; I'm not sure what other reason there would be to do this.

> 1 or 2 large customers taking a massive stake avoid the business getting sued into the ground

?

America doesn't care about Russia. Russia is a threat to Europe, not to America, and America doesn't care about Europe either.

Likewise Europe doesn't care about China, and certainly countries like North Korea - China is a threat to America.

Europe has many problem, many of which were caused or fanned by Russia over the last couple of decades, from the refugee crisis to brexit to German gas reliance, all of which has increased European fragmentation (which was hardly a harmonious world in 2005) and weakened the continent. I'm not sure if Europe can work together enough to respond to the challenge -- it's failed to do so so far, and pro-russian elements are gaining popularity in recent elections in Europe, from the UK to Germany to Romania.

Interestingly outside of Russia's sphere of influence (Canada, Australia), elections have shown a different direction.