I feel like I'm going crazy reading the comments, and I guess, big props to the author for writing this in a way that pulls it off.
The issue here is, IMHO, not "Nvidia owes me stock in an ironclad way and gets away with it because of statue of limitations", but "I accepted an offer from Nvidia but the paperwork between the offer and the options grant differed in a way that both benefits me, and nobody noticed or cared about until now".
The original offer was for 25k shares, vesting over 4 years.
The options paperwork says 25k shares, vesting over 4 _quarters_.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a securities lawyer, but that seems like it could be reasonably chalked down to a clerical error on the options paperwork? "You made a mistake and now I can get a billion dollars more than we agreed to originally" doesn't feel like a great lawsuit!
Yeah, it's a little unclear but I think your interpretation is correct. The key is the paragraph beginning with:
> Imagine my surprise: according to the duly signed option agreement, my options were meant to vest over four quarters, not four years, as both NVIDIA’s CFO and their outside counsel, Cooley, had asserted back in 1996.
On first reading it did give me pause because it's the first time "four years" is mentioned. But on another scan I agree it's cleverly written and never actually claims the agreement was four quarters, only that the paperwork says that.
Still it is a funny story, similar to those "I spent 20 Bitcoins on a pizza" ones, I guess.
They should just offer to settle at a reasonable value as if it had been just the four quarters previously agreed, but a smart decision was made to sit on the shares.
It was meant to be four quarters, though. This was a clerical error, so why not offer to settle as if the clerk hadn't made a typo? "Yes technically you are owed this ridiculous amount of money, but it was meant to be a fraction so you get nothing unless you sue" seems harsh from Nvidia.
On the other hand this could open precedent in other cases, current and future, so it's an understandable position not to offer to settle preemptively just for a display of good faith.
It’s not clear what was “meant” to happen since the stated offer was for a 4 year vest. While the cover letter for the actual options grant says 4 quarters. It would be interesting to see what the actual governing documents referenced in the cover letter say since those are the actual terms. Presumably they match with the cover letter since lawyer time was spent on this at all, but it could of course also say a completely different 3rd vesting schedule
klausa · · focus · HN ↗
The issue here is, IMHO, not "Nvidia owes me stock in an ironclad way and gets away with it because of statue of limitations", but "I accepted an offer from Nvidia but the paperwork between the offer and the options grant differed in a way that both benefits me, and nobody noticed or cared about until now".
The original offer was for 25k shares, vesting over 4 years.
The options paperwork says 25k shares, vesting over 4 _quarters_.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a securities lawyer, but that seems like it could be reasonably chalked down to a clerical error on the options paperwork? "You made a mistake and now I can get a billion dollars more than we agreed to originally" doesn't feel like a great lawsuit!
globular-toast · · focus · HN ↗
> Imagine my surprise: according to the duly signed option agreement, my options were meant to vest over four quarters, not four years, as both NVIDIA’s CFO and their outside counsel, Cooley, had asserted back in 1996.
On first reading it did give me pause because it's the first time "four years" is mentioned. But on another scan I agree it's cleverly written and never actually claims the agreement was four quarters, only that the paperwork says that.
Still it is a funny story, similar to those "I spent 20 Bitcoins on a pizza" ones, I guess.
gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
fn-mote · · focus · HN ↗
Misreading. S/quarters/years/
gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
On the other hand this could open precedent in other cases, current and future, so it's an understandable position not to offer to settle preemptively just for a display of good faith.
tpmoney · · focus · HN ↗