...options, Your thoughts? I need an outside opinion on an employee contract with stock options.
I was hired in February of 2009. I have been working with this start-up company for nearly a year now. In October, i was "laid off" due to "budget cuts" (they were in the middle of expanding operations). In reality, i was fired because of office politics - I found out later that was the case because someone says i did something that i didn't which was not revealed as it wasn't discussed during my "exit interview" where they claimed they just couldn't afford to keep me on and intended to rehire me when the product was ready for sale. The product goes on sale in two months - i've been back without a contract since october of 09.
After talking with the CEO, he felt it wasn't right that i was let go and still had value in the company and brought me back to the company work directly for him two weeks later. My title changed from marketing director to business developer, and my new responsibility was to raise money.
While being employed there, the share price was already raised to .75 cents - i was still vesting under my original contract at .50 cents.
However, i was still being asked to do some work i was previously responsible for and even today i am still involved in aspects of marketing, research and development. They still come to me with questions as i've been there longer than any of my coworkers in the marketing department, including the new VP of marketing - so i was the go to guy for answers for months after.
My original employment agreement was that i was going to receive 250k options vesting over 3 years at .50 cents.
They think that my new employment contract should be 250k options at .75 cents over 3 years.
I personally feel that my stock options should not change from .50 cents to .75 cents whatsoever as i still fulfill some of the duties that i was previously responsible, and the work i did in that capacity will still benefit the company forever - this means marketing ideas, slogans, branding, product names, product development, features, benefits, contacts, partnerships - you name it, i had my hands in it - and they still benefit from it all today.
The CEO feels that he cannot give me my new contract at .50 cents, but feels it should be at .75 cents because the share price was already raised when i was re-hired two weeks later. He touts that the other executives (who have been there for approx 5-6 months now) have shares vesting over a longer period of time. Logically, i've been there double the time they have.
Do you think that because i was a victim of office politics, my efforts should be belittled and my stock options reduced in value as a result of someone having an issue with me that was never discussed even though i still contribute to that same position's responsibilities today?
Or does the CEO have a point that he cant reduce the price because the share price was already raised before i was fired? That i should be thankful that i have stock options because the executives with more experience than i do weren't getting what i was?
Please keep in mind that if the stock price goes to $20.00 per share, at 50 cents thats 5million dollars. At 75 cents, thats 3.333mil. A difference of nearly 1.7m.
Do i deserve to lose 1.7m because someone didnt like me then, even though everything is fine today?
Does this mean that i deserve to lose that because my title changed?
Does this also mean that when its time to sell the product and my title changes again im going to lose my contract again?
Bookmarks