3 ms·
Yeah, so Zynga did this... it's complicated and has many pitfalls. For example, their options expired after 7 years. There's also much debate around if the liqu
by zaroth 10y ago
Yeah, so Zynga did this... it's complicated and has many pitfalls. For example, their options expired after 7 years. There's also much debate around if the liquidity event can reasonably be construed as a legitimate "performance condition", and whether you have to start accounting for (and paying tax on) the otherwise vested shares once you can reasonable foresee a future liquidity event, not just after said liquidity event actually occurs.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1439404/000119312511326687/filename1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1439404/000119312511...
- sokoloff 10y agoIt doesn't have to be solely a performance condition. I don't think it would be hard to prevail on the facts arguing that a requirement for an IPO (or similar liquidity event) is wholly out of the employee's control and that a substantial risk of that not happening occurs up until the moment that it actually happens. IPOs fall apart/are withdrawn and mergers fail frequently enough that a substantial risk argument could probably be sustained.