a vesting schedule is standard and would not have been overlooked by someone who founded 2 companies w/ successful exits.
here's a direct quote from sam's post (http://blog.samaltman.com/cruise) : "Even if Jeremy had signed a stock agreement, he wouldn’t have reached the standard 1-year cliff for founders to vest any equity."
If there were an existent contract providing for a cliff, this would have been the place for him to say so. He didn't; he referred to the "standard 1-year cliff". The remaining question is, absent the signed stock agreement, what was the disposition of ownership? That should come out pretty soon here.
i'm just reading the case as i see it. there might be more or less to this - but there were multiple opportunities for the guy to come forward especially after previous rounds.
no doubt Jeremy is opportunistic, but that doesnt really affect his claims legally if he was in fact identified as a cofounder when there is no contract in place to say otherwise.
here's a direct quote from sam's post (http://blog.samaltman.com/cruise) : "Even if Jeremy had signed a stock agreement, he wouldn’t have reached the standard 1-year cliff for founders to vest any equity."