3 ms·
I'm confused. You state that there's a 36 month vesting agreement with a 1 year cliff. Why doesn't the vesting agreement make this a non-issue?
by jey 11y ago
I'm confused. You state that there's a 36 month vesting agreement with a 1 year cliff. Why doesn't the vesting agreement make this a non-issue?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hoodoof 11y agoYou got rid of the guy the day after getting new paperwork in place? Man, you guys don't know how to play a subtle game.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jacalata 11y agoThose are months, not days. 1/2016 = January, 2/2016 = February
- ScottBurson 11y agoAh, interesting. I was just about to ask you for the details, if only to warn others what not to do. So, in your termination offer to this person, did you specify the amount that would have been vested under the original agreement, or the new one? [Added] I wonder if a counteroffer that clearly satisfied the spirit of the original agreement would be accepted. After all, litigation will cost him money, too, and he might lose. Even just splitting the difference -- offering one of the two unvested years' worth of stock -- might be worth trying. They problem is, you'll have to convince them you're not just bluffing when you say that this is the most they'll get out of you without taking you to court.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tommynicholas 11y agoOof. I hate to say this because you're the one getting screwed over here, but that was wrong. If you had any idea you were going to let this member go when you had them sign those documents, you may be legally in the wrong and I definitely consider that unethical. 100% understandable but you just can't do that.