Previous employer bought out. Who do I put on my resume/LinkedIn?

So, basically, my previous company got bought out by a big name household SV tech company that many people use on a regular basis. The kind that looks really, really good on a resume. The actual company I worked for is moderately well known in my city, but nothing special, especially when looking at it from outside Vancouver.

I haven't been employed there since December. The official announcement happened a few months ago, and the actual paperwork will happen sometime at the end of this year (October/November). I believe that for a short while, my old place will function under its own name, but will then be absorbed as a business unit into the bigger company.

I'm wondering, what would be both an ethical and common sense solution?

The way I see it, I have 3 options:

1. Leave it as "Small Company." Mention in interviews they got bought out by the bigger company.

2. Put it down like "Small Company (now part of Big Company)." In my mind most logical solution and doesn't involve deception.

3. Put it down as "Big Company" and if it comes up in an interview or anywhere else, explain that I was working in their Vancouver acquisition.

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View Boot Camps

Comments

TechGuru80

So it sounds like you are planning on leaving soon?

Did your email change yet? Or are the contracts/business cards/etc. starting to say the new company? If the acquisition is FINALIZED and public, I would just put the more well known company name....of course this is assuming it won't be named "Company XYZ, an entity of Company ABC" and will fully take on the purchasing company's name.

Another thing you can look at is your pay checks....which company does it list? The chance of you getting some meaningful offer between now and November (~1 month) is so small that it really doesn't matter either way.

LeBroke

I actually already left in December.

But yes, the acquisition is finalized and public as of several months ago. It is my understanding, it will simply become "Big Company" at some point soon, not "Small Company, an entity of Big Company."

More wondering how I should treat this in the future.

TechGuru80

LeBroke wrote: »

I actually already left in December.

But yes, the acquisition is finalized and public as of several months ago. It is my understanding, it will simply become "Big Company" at some point soon, not "Small Company, an entity of Big Company."

More wondering how I should treat this in the future.

Oh gotcha...I misunderstood...in that case I would list it as it was when you worked there...if the merger happened after you left, then use the small company name as background checks probably will always list that and won't update. It's like if you left as a CEO of a startup that went on to be worth $1 billion...you cannot take credit for something you didn't do or weren't around during.

draught

If your references are called will they say you worked at the prestigious company or the smaller one? That's really all that matters. Don't put anything on your resume you can't back up if you're called out on it.

From the sound of it though you're being contentious making sure the company name is updated. I would change the name on my resume if I knew my manager or coworkers were working at the same place but with a different company name.

dave330i

Option 2.

Danielm7

If you never actually worked at the larger company after the takeover I don't think it's really fair to list the name on your resume.

techie2018

I would do something like:

new company formerly known as old company, and just explain it in the interview. Whatever you put down just make sure you can account for it in the interview or in the background check

iBrokeIT

Had a similar situation happen for last two companies and I do option two.

LionelTeo

Option 2, from my perspective its more like trying to make it as accurate as possible on the resume. Selecting option 2 seems like the best choice if background check was ever required. Your old contract/legal document is in line with the small company name and it is easier for your future employer to trace it to the big company.

scaredoftests

I worked for a company whose president fled the country with all the money, so the company had to declare bankruptcy. An interesting conversation starter in every interview. LOL (I can laugh about it now). The scumbag was eventually caught.

Danielm7

I had a similar situation but I worked at the new company for a year or two after so I listed Startup / MegaCorp for the 7 year block of time and then broke it out below.

A few years ago I interviewed a security architect, he listed current job as a C level at a company about as known as Microsoft. We were like... um.. what, why? Turned out he was in a similar situation, the company was bought out by the bigger known company, and the C level title was his old title before they were bought out, not his current one. Everyone sort of shook their heads with "So you're not actually a CIx?" then?

E Double U

On my CV (and LinkedIn) I have it listed as small_company (acquired by large_company).

yoba222

I'd be inclined to list it as big_company (as small_company).

paul78

I have this situation with a couple of previous employers - and I always use option 2. The only time that I would say that I worked at the acquirer is if I actually had stay post-merger/acquisition. In that situation - I list both companies separately with an annotation that the company was acquired because normally my job function changes post-merger or acquisition.

stryder144

I am in the same situation as you. When I update things I plan on putting Company A (pre-Company B buyout) or something similar. It is about clarifying the relationship between entities and when I worked there.