alt Hacker NewsI 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!
Replies
Yes. I noted this below. A lot of times you see a decimal point in the wrong place and the courts don't just say "oh well, I guess it's a billion then!"
The rulings are fact-specific, but clearly both parties here had a mutual understanding that the paper was only meant to reflect.
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.
>You made a mistake and now I can get a billion dollars more than we agreed to originally
The world "smart contract" enthusiasts dream of.
[flagged]
I think the issue is even simpler. When NVIDIA ended his advisory relationship in 1996, he had 90 days to exercise his vested options. That deadline passed nearly 30 years ago, regardless of whether vesting took one year or four.
He exercised the 15,625 options NVIDIA told him had vested. His claim now is that all 25,000 had actually vested, but NVIDIA’s letter gave him the wrong number. The letter was informing him of NVIDIA’s calculation; it did not change the option agreement. So the question is whether being given that incorrect information in 1996 gives him a claim today, despite both the exercise deadline and the statute of limitations having passed.