Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

haha, this seems like total bullshit.

there's no WAY an experienced founder like kyle would have given 50% of the company away, especially without a vesting schedule.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

Given that the plaintiff has turned down multi-million settlement offers, and given that there's two quite reputable law firms working for the plaintiff who aren't in the habit of taking no-hoper cases, what's more likely - that the case is 'total bullshit', or that something actually was missed and overlooked in the early days that's now going to cost the company dearly?

If they initially agreed to a 50-50 split and then never nailed down the vesting paperwork or resolved the ownership issue after the plaintiff's departure - well, that's unfortunate, but that's on them.

the facts show there is no vesting schedule, i haven't seen anything that contradicts this yet.

Sam alludes to it in his blogpost...

a vesting schedule is standard and would not have been overlooked by someone who founded 2 companies w/ successful exits.

here's a direct quote from sam's post (http://blog.samaltman.com/cruise) : "Even if Jeremy had signed a stock agreement, he wouldn’t have reached the standard 1-year cliff for founders to vest any equity."

If there were an existent contract providing for a cliff, this would have been the place for him to say so. He didn't; he referred to the "standard 1-year cliff". The remaining question is, absent the signed stock agreement, what was the disposition of ownership? That should come out pretty soon here.

you are making assumptions (while are all are here too)... clearly something was overlooked to be in situation now.

but as he alludes to no agreement exists, there is no "standard" in contract terms to rely on.

i'm just reading the case as i see it. there might be more or less to this - but there were multiple opportunities for the guy to come forward especially after previous rounds.

no doubt Jeremy is opportunistic, but that doesnt really affect his claims legally if he was in fact identified as a cofounder when there is no contract in place to say otherwise.

A vesting schedule would not be missed unless...

unless it was assumed in the YC application. Thus not mentioned. Thus no evidence of a verbal agreement. Ergo it doesn't exist.

Therein lies the danger of assumptions.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact