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).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.)