3 ms·
We know why they did it. They're greedy jerks. They weren't thinking of the 'company', they were thinking of themselves and thought they could fool hard-worki
by wccrawford 15y ago
We know why they did it. They're greedy jerks. They weren't thinking of the 'company', they were thinking of themselves and thought they could fool hard-working people into a con.
And that much of the plan worked.
What they didn't expect was that those hard-working people would fight back, tell the entire internet, and (I expect) engage in a legal battle that could possibly damage the company irreparably.
And on top of that, any employee that understands the contract would be a bad one. You don't keep hard-working people by locking them in like that. But you CAN keep lazy jerks that way. They'll simply sit and do a half-arsed job and wait for a downsizing to get rid of them and collect their shares then. Because that's the ONLY way to collect your shares! You can't quit or be fired for cause and still collect them. They have to fire you without cause.
- jbjohns 15y agoWell, as bad as this is, it is probably the best that it happens a few more times very visibly. Until people are aware of the dangers and do something to fix it.
- zacharypinter 15y agoBest case scenario: we start calling contracts like this the "Skype Option Plan" and it forever carries a negative stigma.
- joe_the_user 15y agoI'd be interested in any lawyer's take on this. IANAL but I know that it is possible in some instances to challenge a contract which is written to seem to give you X but really gives you nothing. My non-lawyer-y understanding of the situation would be that a lawsuit would turn on the fact that the employees weren't made aware that "vested" didn't mean vested in the contract.
- random42 15y agoArrington is a lawyer.
- jamesbritt 15y agoIANAL but I know that it is possible in some instances to challenge a contract which is written to seem to give you X but really gives you nothing. I've read some of the contract clauses and would love to know if that kind of obscurant legalese is common. I know that legal documents often use very specific language in order to express very particular claims and conditions, but this looked to be deliberately confusing, like some kind of Dada-infused Post-modernist Johnnie Cochran.
- wglb 15y agoGrellas is a lawyer in this space and he has offered a comment, which as I write this is at the top.
- alain94040 15y agoWe know why they did it. They're greedy jerks The PE firm, for sure. What about the VCs? Why didn't they say anything? Ignorance, or complicity?
- r00fus 15y agoI would be very suprised if Andreesen Horowitz would be ingnorant of this - most likely that would indicate that they're inept in some way. That leaves complicity. They did make millions (50M?) in a very short period.
- alain94040 15y agoThe cool thing to do would be for AH to step in and tell the engineer that they'll pay him for what his stock should have been worth, taking it out of their payout. That would be a classy move.