You are ultimately responsible for asserting your contractual rights. Your stock options had an expiry and you did not exercise them in time. The letter you received notifying that you had 15,625 vested options was not an award in of itself, it was only a courtesy notifying you that you had vested options to exercise before they expired. Even if due to ambiguous wording it could be argued that 25,000 options had vested at the time instead of 15,625, that was only relevant until the options expired. You needed to assert your rights to the [additional 9,375] vested options before they expired. So, this issue died in 1996.
I had a similar experience although over a shorter time horizon. I was in a dispute with a corporation which prompted me to pore over every word in every previously signed agreement. I discovered, due to an obvious typo in a stock option agreement, more options had vested than had been intended. After some pushback, they eventually relented and awarded me the options.
Given the amount of money involved, it was worth engaging lawyers to see if NVIDIA would pay you some money to save the hassle of dealing with it, but there is and was zero prospect of this ever being awarded in your favor by a court since the options expired.
They exercised 15,625 options of the 25,000. The OP sent $781.25 to NVIDIA. The remaining 9,375 options were not exercised, they expired 90 days after April 16th 1996.
Only in hindsight, 30 years later, has the OP realized that the other 9,375 had vested due to ambiguous wording in the agreement. The article is about the 9,375 that were not exercised.
Yeah. The issue being that at the time both the CFO and their external counsel Cooley told me in writing that 15,625 shares had vested. Those representations were incorrect. And I (quite reasonably) replied on them rather than checking the original documents. Which I did only 30+ years later. In legal terms, the CFO Gani’s 1996 letter is a negligent misrepresentation, a species of fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 1709-1710.
I'm no expert, but did your lawyers clarify if a statute of limitation start from the date you learned there might be a discrepancy, instead of all those years ago?
While no one's hands might be clean in this, at the end of the day the party with the resources and expertise is equipped differently.
It might not hurt to get some more opinions even if they end up in the same place.
This does not apply because he was in possession of the agreement (grant document) the whole time. You don't get a decades long extension of the statute of limitations because you neglected to check what an agreement in your possession actually said.
He's saying they didn't actually get exercised as-in stock was never made his. They took the money and didn't issue him the shares, but the statue of limitations is gone on the fraud.
No that’s not what’s being said. Nvidia gave him the wrong total. He paid for that total. He’s saying there’s a world in which he is owed the other 9k shares. He put some lawyers on it and it turns out it won’t be this world.
If he's arguing that he could effectively revoke his past final decision to sell it all at not-billions by demanding withdrawal of hypothetical now-billions from NVIDIA, I wouldn't be sure what system will happily grant him that...
> And I (quite reasonably) replied on them rather than checking the original documents.
Putting aside the fact that any claims here are almost certainly time barred after 30 years, ostensibly, your attorney explained to you that because you had the grant in your possession, claiming that you reasonably relied on the company's statement about what the grant said would weigh heavily against any misrepresentation or fraud causes of action in a lawsuit.
reticulates · · focus · HN ↗
I had a similar experience although over a shorter time horizon. I was in a dispute with a corporation which prompted me to pore over every word in every previously signed agreement. I discovered, due to an obvious typo in a stock option agreement, more options had vested than had been intended. After some pushback, they eventually relented and awarded me the options.
Given the amount of money involved, it was worth engaging lawyers to see if NVIDIA would pay you some money to save the hassle of dealing with it, but there is and was zero prospect of this ever being awarded in your favor by a court since the options expired.
kevmo314 · · focus · HN ↗
reticulates · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://colo.to/exercise.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://colo.to/exercise.pdf
They exercised 15,625 options of the 25,000. The OP sent $781.25 to NVIDIA. The remaining 9,375 options were not exercised, they expired 90 days after April 16th 1996.
Only in hindsight, 30 years later, has the OP realized that the other 9,375 had vested due to ambiguous wording in the agreement. The article is about the 9,375 that were not exercised.
donbox · · focus · HN ↗
Eric_Gullichsen · · focus · HN ↗
schneems · · focus · HN ↗
I think this is a typo.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
lazyasciiart · · focus · HN ↗
j45 · · focus · HN ↗
While no one's hands might be clean in this, at the end of the day the party with the resources and expertise is equipped differently.
It might not hurt to get some more opinions even if they end up in the same place.
binlog · · focus · HN ↗
ElProlactin · · focus · HN ↗
cloudbonsai · · focus · HN ↗
handfuloflight · · focus · HN ↗
m00x · · focus · HN ↗
yipbub · · focus · HN ↗
dcow · · focus · HN ↗
yipbub · · focus · HN ↗
numpad0 · · focus · HN ↗
ElProlactin · · focus · HN ↗
Putting aside the fact that any claims here are almost certainly time barred after 30 years, ostensibly, your attorney explained to you that because you had the grant in your possession, claiming that you reasonably relied on the company's statement about what the grant said would weigh heavily against any misrepresentation or fraud causes of action in a lawsuit.
qmr · · focus · HN ↗
Might as well sue.