[fourk]

I did not in any way expect this to be a serious windfall for me. I also didn't mean to imply that this was a windfall for investors (who were merely reimbursed), or anyone but founders (albeit a small one for them).

Also, while IANAL, that paperwork implied that the company was purchased by Google (at least technically), contrary to what Techcrunch said. Part of my reasoning for not wanting to name the company and founders was this exact reason: it's hard to get a full and complete picture of a complex situation from just one person through a couple sentences.

[Timothee]

Part of my reasoning for not wanting to name the company and founders was this exact reason

And I salute you for that. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to confront you or to expose the situation more than you wanted. (what I read is very easy to find anyway) It was more intended to the commenters who wanted names even though we had only your short account to go by.

Clearly, that kind of situations has happened to many startup employees (and will happen again and again…). I worked myself for a startup that folded, most people took their severance package and two months later the company was apparently sold. I don't think any of the employees really know the details of the sale, but I'd very surprised if it turned out that I had missed out on a big payout by not buying my options… :)

[blacksmythe]

  >> investors (who were merely reimbursed) ...

Unless the investors make money, no one makes money. This is almost a universal constant, even if in this case the founders somehow managed some perks (something I have never seen happen). It sounds like the perks are because they are valued as future employees, not because the business had any value.

There are plenty of cases of employees getting seriously shafted (investors made lots of money, but employees didn't). This is not one of those cases.