People are downvoting this, and I'm guessing because they interpret it as saying it's fine that the technical co-founder is being forced down + out like this, o

People are downvoting this, and I'm guessing because they interpret it as saying it's fine that the technical co-founder is being forced down + out like this, or that they don't "deserve" their shot at vesting that 40%. Not my intent - it's immoral, and probably, illegal. Pulling this 1mo before the cliff is especially evil. The difficulty is the CEO has a lot of flexibility in equivalent legal actions like firing the co-founder, issuing 10X more shares, and diluting the 40% to 4%. Even if the technical co-founder does successfully walk away with 40% today and things go well, investors in funding rounds years from now will still pressure them to do so ("why is 40% of the company shares dead weight? That should go to new employees!"). The situation stinks, as does the negotiation position.