And he calls them vested shares though, not vested options, though maybe he's incorrect.
And it's not like you forfeit them instantly after leaving anyways. You usually have at least 90 days. And the fact that the value of the company is so much lower now is favorable, if you think the value will recover.
But again, none of this has anything to do with the "1% payout" here that is still totally unexplained.
But how could Google require that?
> If you didn’t agree then you would be left holding your shares of a company that is now gutted.
Which is what is sounds like he wound up doing anyways? Which I don't even understand why.
At the executive level they may not want you holding shares in a direct competitor because it presents a conflict of interest. But even then you generally have a period to divest.
Can nobody explain what the actual demand was here? What did Google offer vs. what did they demand, and why? And why would Google be buying your shares...? None of this makes any sense the way it's been presented.