3 ms·
Yes, it covers them. Hence it's not orthogonal. The fact that there are two agreements doesn't make them orthogonal. Many situations are covered by more than on
by danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Yes, it covers them. Hence it's not orthogonal. The fact that there are two agreements doesn't make them orthogonal. Many situations are covered by more than one contract (or law or regulation).
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoYou’re being intentionally obtuse. The source of the problem isn’t the lock-up agreement, which was negotiated independently of the RSUs. And the lock-up agreement is easily (and commonly) circumvented—the problem is intractable because it’s unrelated to the lock-up. (And pedantically, a 185-day lock-up is not common.)
- fragmede 2y agoEhhh 180 days is 6 months is fairly standard.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoWhich is why 185 isn’t. (Lock-ups have also gone into and out of vogue. And again, this is a problem with the company’s treatment of withholding. The lock-up agreement could go away and OP would retain their problem.)
- fragmede 2y agoThe extra 2.7% isn't material to OP's problem. As you note, OP's real problem is the withholding.
- dalyons 2y agoJust curious, how is a lock-up commonly circumvented? Might be relevant information for me, I would appreciate any tips