3 ms·
I mean, Twitter is keeping them from liquidating the shares that they already own and have vested. It's easy to imagine that keeping savings in shares of a comp
by HWR_14 4y ago
I mean, Twitter is keeping them from liquidating the shares that they already own and have vested. It's easy to imagine that keeping savings in shares of a company as opposed to cash is reasonable.
How screwed would most people be if the stock exchanges all closed down and they were fired?
- dmix 4y agoThat's a good point and I'm sympathetic but this seems to be an exceptionally rare scenario. Not many companies are in an extended stock-buyout phase by a private entity.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago> I mean, Twitter is keeping them from liquidating the shares that they already own and have vested. That's false, someone commented to that effect in the response thread on LinkedIn. Blackout periods for insider trading reasons can't apply to you if you're no longer with the company and you own the shares. It's possible their broker fucked up and has some snafus, but it is not legally possible for them to prevent you from selling shares after you've been fired.
- HWR_14 4y agoYou might say that's not what should be happening, but apparently Charles Schwab is not letting them sell or move their shares. So, maybe CS is fucking up as opposed to a contractual issue, but how does that change things for the employees being denied access to their money?