Yeah. The issue being that at the time both the CFO and their external counsel Cooley told me in writing that 15,625 shares had vested. Those representations were incorrect. And I (quite reasonably) replied on them rather than checking the original documents. Which I did only 30+ years later. In legal terms, the CFO Gani’s 1996 letter is a negligent misrepresentation, a species of fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 1709-1710.

▲

cloudbonsai an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What happened to 15,625 shares you did exercise? I guess they are worth over $1.5 billion as of today?

	▲	handfuloflight an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I would venture the fate of the bygone shares would be the same as those 15,625. Sold early. Paperhands (aren't most of us?).
	▲	yipbub 7 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		He's saying they didn't actually get exercised as-in stock was never made his. They took the money and didn't issue him the shares, but the statue of limitations is gone on the fraud.
	▲	m00x an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I imagine he sold all of it by now

▲

lazyasciiart 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, the bad news is that the statute of limitations on that appears to be three years in California.

▲

schneems 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> replied on them

I think this is a typo.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

j45 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm no expert, but did your lawyers clarify if a statute of limitation start from the date you learned there might be a discrepancy, instead of all those years ago?

While no one's hands might be clean in this, at the end of the day the party with the resources and expertise is equipped differently.

It might not hurt to get some more opinions even if they end up in the same place.

	▲	binlog an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They learned about it when they signed the contract. Saying “I forgot about it“ doesn’t reset the statute of limitations.