From the article: "the firm's executives reportedly justified their strategy by saying it was best for the company. With the unvested shares, the executives believed they could attract more top talent with the promise of stock."
The answer is simple then - the executive who originally miscalculated how much stock to give away should be the person who is penalised by having their options reduced to make up the shortfall.
The answer is simple then - the executive who originally miscalculated how much stock to give away should be the person who is penalised by having their options reduced to make up the shortfall.
You know ... for the good of the company.