|
|
|
|
|
|
by JonathanWCurd
5571 days ago
|
|
|
Whats their reasoning for the shares that were not vested transferring to the other remaining players. Wouldn't they just be unvested and thus irrelevant. If not I'd like to hear their reasoning on this. I think the three of you would have a higher percentage of the available shares (since some would have been unvested when others left) but still the same number you were originally granted. Simple example each of you got 10 shares of a possible 70.
Since 4 of the people left without vesting you should now have 10 of 30 possible. |
|
|
Shares were "promised" but the vesting and unvesting never actually occurred.
My shares were allocated to me after getting very annoyed, 7 months down the track. :/ boink!
I raised that point you mentioned. "Why didn't the shares get spread across the remaining people when they were taken back?" Answer was, "this is my company." :(
What happened was, we started working together before anything was property allocated and signed. :-o not good. I recommend people that can't afford lawyers to, at the very least, write something down on paper in words that make sense to both parties and sign that. It's not great, but at least it's an interim until money is made, then just go straight to the lawyer when possible.
I look back now and also tell them, we should have just downloaded and signed a standard partnership agreement. All the hassles of this weird setup we have would not be with us. Note: there's a weird income / share of profits layer too that I didn't go into. Partnership, or JV agreement would help that side too.