Am I reading that document correctly? He had a clause for accelerated vesting upon termination and so vested 507885 shares immediately when they fired him in December (par. 36), and this suit is about the remaining 127386 "earn-out" shares that were dependent on hitting revenue targets? On the one hand that sucks and it sounds like he had a terrible time at Twilio; on the other hand he just got an extra 2.5 years' worth of stock without having to stick it out and is basically set up for life if he wants to be. Puts this in a slightly different light. (I have no connection to any of these people or companies, just interested in the story.)
It's common to have this sentiment, but it doesn't actually put anything in a different light, anymore than the fact that you're getting a salary of (say) $150,000/year makes your landord stealing your $5,000 deposit "in a different light". (If it looks completely unrelated to you, think about the deposit story from the point of view of someone who lives on $20/day).
I have not read the complaint, and have no knowledge of this case. But when you've been treated unfairly (in the legal sense), it is your right to seek compensation for that through the courts, and the fact that other agreements were honored (and put him in a good financial position) should not put anything in "a different light".
tdumitrescu|8 years ago
beagle3|8 years ago
I have not read the complaint, and have no knowledge of this case. But when you've been treated unfairly (in the legal sense), it is your right to seek compensation for that through the courts, and the fact that other agreements were honored (and put him in a good financial position) should not put anything in "a different light".
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
jondubois|8 years ago