"I agree with Janice that it does not appear to apply." When you say that "it" doesn't appear to apply I can only guess that you are referring to the "Good Reason" paragraph of his contract, which obviously can't apply because that contract is done. I also didn't see where "Janice" said that it does not appear to apply. But my point, as corrected, stands: If he thought that he could establish "Good Reason" he gave up $400k by signing the Separation Agreement. Either he didn't think he could do that or felt it was not worth the effort, net of attorney fees and aggravation.
I believe that his position was untenable and he finally came around to accepting that. The elements that made it untenable for him in my view were posted in the linked post. I don't believe that they were entirely of his own making, but I obviously have no way of knowing whether he could have made a case for "Good Reason" as defined...just a suspicion: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87569620
ps. While I didn't notice where "Janice" said that "Good Reason" didn't apply, I did notice her response to this comment from another poster: "I'm currently leaning towards the idea that there was some bad blood between Rauber and Johny that finally reached the boiling point." Which was: "Funny how often that theme has repeated itself over the history of this company. Perhaps it's time for Bordynuik to go. Permanently."