zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
The only way I can see this being a valid contract is if the equity grant that they get to keep is a new grant offered the time of signing the exit contract. Any vested equity given as compensation for work could not then be offered again as consideration for signing a new agreement.

Maybe the agreement is "we will accelerate vesting of your unvested equity if you sign this new agreement"? If that's the case then it doesn't sound nearly so coercive to me.

>>jp57+Ft
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.

>>apsec1+Qt
But a general release is not a non-criticism clause.

They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause.

But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.

>>w10-1+Fv
And they won’t have that equity available to borrow against to pay for that lawyer either.