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
ITT: a bunch of laymen thinking their 2 second proposal will outlawyer the team of lawyers who drafted these.

>>beastm+Fz
You haven't worked with many contracts, have you? Unenforceable clauses are the norm, most people are willing to follow them rather than risk having to fight them in court.

>>throwa+nA
Bingo.

I have seen a lot of companies put unenforceable stuff into their employment agreements, separation agreements, etc.