[beagle3]

It was not in the US - it was in a country where shareholders in private companies actually have rights - and I was contracting for a company where this was actually used for good: founders tried to screw early employees (already vested and exercised) out of some rights through a restructuring (that was essential for business reasons) - and the employees managed to level the playing field using such an approach. It was good for everyone.

But it could also have been used by a single vengeful employee to effectively stop or delay that restructuring, which would have been bad for everyone.

All I said was that there was nuance. A good lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction would know what it is.