Some WeWork board members want to remove Adam Neumann as chief executive of the company, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, citing people involved in the talks.

It appears that Neumann has lost the confidence of the real estate startup’s largest investor. SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, who has invested billions in WeWork, supports Neumann’s removal, according to CNBC.

WeWork has a growing presence in the Research Triangle area and across North Carolina.

Why now?

The potential move against Neumann comes after WeWork’s parent company was forced to delay a planned IPO because of tepid demand from investors. The company’s expected valuation had reportedly fallen to about a third of the $47 billion achieved in its most recent private fundraising round.

WeWork sought to address investor concerns by overhauling its governance. But new questions have emerged about Neumann’s personal conduct. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the CEO had carried marijuana across international borders while traveling to Israel on a private jet.

Report: WeWork picks Nasdaq for its IPO, plans ‘sweeping’ changes in its governance

What happens next?

Neumann may prove difficult to sideline. The company has seven board members, including Neumann. SoftBank is also represented on the board.

According to the Journal, the situation is “fluid” and Neumann “still has allies among the directors and the ability to fire the entire board thanks to shares he controls that carry extra votes.” The newspaper said the board is expected to meet as soon as this week.

One potential outcome: The board could consider a proposal to remove Neumann as CEO and make him the company’s non-executive chairman.

Skeptics abound

Investors were already concerned about what they read in WeWork’s prospectus, or S-1, including potential conflicts of interest involving Neumann.

Here’s what Dick Costolo, the former CEO of Twitter, told the Wall Street Journal last week about the worries:

“This is not the way everybody behaves,” said Costolo. “The degree of self-dealing in the S-1 is so egregious, and it comes at a time when you’ve got regulators and politicians and folks across the country looking out at Silicon Valley and wondering if there’s the appropriate level of self-awareness.”