Re:Ask HN: Former Employees' RSUs at Risk After Startup's IPO
by danielmarkbruce on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @07:04PM
(#43031215)
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).
Re:Ask HN: Former Employees' RSUs at Risk After Startup's IPO
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @11:21PM
(#43032631)
You’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.)
Re:Ask HN: Former Employees' RSUs at Risk After Startup's IPO
by fragmede on Thursday February 13, 2025 @01:27AM
(#43033263)
Ehhh 180 days is 6 months is fairly standard.
Re:Ask HN: Former Employees' RSUs at Risk After Startup's IPO
by JumpCrisscross on Thursday February 13, 2025 @09:47AM
(#43036353)
Which 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.)
It covers them as equity holders, or people with the right to equity. I’ve negotiated lock-up agreements. Nobody is thinking about RSU holders. Hence how OP winds up in this mess.
OP’s problem stems from a draconian form of RSU. It doesn’t automatically vest on a liquidity event. It has the company collecting taxes. And it has a forfeiture clause.