Jump to content

Keef

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    487
  • Joined

Posts posted by Keef

  1. 21 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

    Get an automatic transmission.  That’s not a given over there.

    This. And driving on the left side isn't bad on the highway, but the things that always threw me off were: (i) driving in the SUPER narrow country roads in the UK and in London neighborhoods; (ii) getting used to gauging distance on how close the opposite side of your car is when passing other cars (it's scary the first couple of times you drive past a fast-moving car on a two lane road going the opposite direction); (iii) remembering that the turn lanes function differently; and (iv) remembering that the fast lane on the highways is reversed.

    I'd also try calling Amex travel - they're usually great with this sort of thing.

  2. 15 minutes ago, immamac said:

    Vested RSU clawback is common? In what world do you live in? Show me which fortune 500 companies have clawback RSU 

    I take it you've never been a part of a PE backed company or a closely held private company, which almost always have them if they even let you keep your vested equity following termination (most have mandatory repurchase provisions).  Vested equity clawbacks are also very common in public companies (required now, by Dodd Frank, and many are more expansive than that).  Take a look at the "detrimental conduct" language in Bumble's EIP, for example: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1830043/000119312521045254/d106038dex106.htm.  People don't read their docs.

    Are they actually enforceable?  Depends on the state and depends on the judge, but a lot of companies have them because they like the scary language to point to so they can coerce separating employees into signing a separation agreement.  And put yourself in the CEO's shoes here.  You have a company where reporters constantly hound your employees wanting them to leak.  You just had a highly public spat with the board.  You are highly desirable as a place to work and you have plenty of cash to pay hefty salaries.  You want people to abide by their confidentiality agreements and the threat of cancelling their options is a great way to do that.  His job is to protect the company and its shareholder value, and I'd bet every dollar in my bank account they signed proprietary information and confidentiality agreements upon starting employment.

    Again, I'm not defending Altman.  There are plenty of reasons not to like him and we should focus on those.

  3. 37 minutes ago, hornbri said:

    I think it is become pretty clear, as smart as he may be. He has no business running a company as big as OpenAI. Between the unforced error with Johansson and this new equity claw back issue, you see the holes the business has. 

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/351132/openai-vested-equity-nda-sam-altman-documents-employees

    I've met Sam a couple of times - he's nice enough in person and his employees generally like him.  He's Silicon Valley to the core, with all the good and bad that comes with that.  Good: Smart, well connected, thinks creatively, is hardworking.  Cons: Has a transactional view of the world, Peter Theil-esque capitalist who enjoys way too much power with way too little oversight.  These problems existed before Sam Altman that our country is still grappling with.  Silicon Valley today is 1980s New York City with jeans and Patagonia vests - would you trust 1980s bankers with civilization changing technology without oversight?

    The vested equity thing is a stupid critique and not a big deal.  Yes, it's not common in SV necessarily, but it is outside of SV.  SV employees are special snowflakes that get employee friendly terms that others throughout the country often don't in equity incentives because: (i) the tech "standard" comes from California, which is generally quite employee friendly, (ii) equity is more akin to wages in start-up land because people often take less money to work at these companies in exchange for the upside of equity incentives, and (iii) there are no non-competes in California, so tech companies are always in danger of getting their best talent poached/desired candidates turning them down because they don't like certain provisions of the stock plan.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 8 minutes ago, troph said:

    I think non-solicitation clauses should be enforceable, obviously confidentiality and trade secret clauses too but straight up non-competes are bullshit - though high level executives it’s justifiable but those deals almost always come with a $1 for $1 severance package for the length of the non-compete. Looks like exec non-competes are still enforceable. 

    Right, but if you can't solicit customers (often defined to include prospective or even likely customers), employees, or consultants, and you are prohibited from using confidential information you learned in your old job in any way (with confidential information typically being defined broad enough to encompass anything under the sun), how is that practically speaking different than a non-compete?  And sure, maybe some portion isn't enforceable, but do you really want a lawsuit with your former employer on your record if you're an executive?  Plus, a lot of companies - especially PE backed ones - have language in their equity award agreements that if you violate any restrictive covenants post-termination, they can clawback their equity and sometimes even past proceeds.  Many states permit the equity clawback under the argument that isn't prohibiting you from competing - it is merely taking back some contingent compensation you were paid in the past.  See how this gets murky quickly?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

    All I know about is medical field sales and marketing; literally none of the companies give a shit. If they want a rep they hire the rep and park them somewhere for 6,9, or 12 months. With this I imagine they will have them start immediately and dare the old company to sue.
     

    I guess we will see but I really doubt you are going to see a slew of lawsuits related to bullshit IP allegations, and Client lists are a known risk (it’s usually the major reason for “poaching” the employee and workarounds are already in place)

     

    Yeah, we work in different industries.  For tech companies and most PE back companies, they care about this a ton.

  6. Just now, Sawbonz said:

    I’m pretty sure the employers are going to have to sue to enforce. Default interpretation will favor the employees. Nonsolicitation is valid concern but super easy to get around, and not many companies truly have trade secrets that the new employer is going to care about (and if they do that’s valid as well)

    It's still a practical problem.  Every competently drafted offer letter in the world has language where you're required to disclose any restrictive covenants that you're subject to.  Once disclosed, you have to convince your new employer that whatever restrictive covenants you have in place aren't enforceable and the old company won't sue you and them in order to try and enforce it.

  7. This is going to get held up in court for years and employers and are going to do what they what they are already do in California - make the non solicit and confidentiality provisions in the employment contract operate suspiciously like a non compete and dare the employees to sue. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Right but why does anyone have to pay to be free before they are proven (well, found is more accurate) guilty if they are considered innocent until then?

    You wanna let Timothy McVeigh or El Chapo walk out of prison because we haven't had the trial yet?  There are good arguments against the current bail system, but this isn't one of them.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  9. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    This.....this number is the one that is absolutely jaw-dropping.

    Imagine putting up a single Chick-fil-A franchise up on the stock market.....and it drawing the kabillion dollars of investment DJT has.  The entire world would be asking WTF?

    LOL.  Trying to imagine the annual proxy of a single Chick-fil-A franchise.  The Company's material risk factors include Ted getting too stoned to man the fryer or a disgruntled customer with a one-star vendetta on Yelp.  The summary comp table includes the owner and a couple of teenagers who incurred a lot of overtime.

    • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...