Comment by gchamonlive
13 hours ago
They should just offer to settle at a reasonable value as if it had been just the four quarters previously agreed, but a smart decision was made to sit on the shares.
13 hours ago
They should just offer to settle at a reasonable value as if it had been just the four quarters previously agreed, but a smart decision was made to sit on the shares.
> They should just offer to settle at a reasonable value
Since litigation is costly, the acceptable range for a settlement is centered around the expected outcome of a trial, plus or minus each party's cost of litigation (including opportunity cost).
In this case, "the claim is barred by the statute of limitations" implies that the expected outcome of litigation would be approximately $0. The net range for a settlement is then the 'nuisance value' of a lawsuit including any PR damage for airing the case publicly; that would be orders of magnitude below the $1bn claim.
So basically a lower compensation is too low to justify the costs so it's either all in court or nothing? This design seems heavily biased towards the part with larger resources. Cost of litigation should be proportional to a reasonable settlement.
That’s why there are contingency agreements. There are a lot of lawyers out there. If one of them thinks there’s a good chance he’ll win, they’ll take the case.
> Cost of litigation should be proportional to a reasonable settlement.
What you’re really saying is that attorneys’ fees should proportionate to claim size. But I don’t think that works. If I am bound and determined to take a dispute for a $3 refund all the way to the Supreme Court, why should me attorney be required to do all that work for $1 or whatever?
3 replies →
> Cost of litigation should be proportional to a reasonable settlement.
What do you mean by this?
5 replies →
Welcome to America. Our legal system is heavily biased towards parties with more resources.
1 reply →
> just the four quarters previously agreed
Misreading. S/quarters/years/
It was meant to be four quarters, though. This was a clerical error, so why not offer to settle as if the clerk hadn't made a typo? "Yes technically you are owed this ridiculous amount of money, but it was meant to be a fraction so you get nothing unless you sue" seems harsh from Nvidia.
On the other hand this could open precedent in other cases, current and future, so it's an understandable position not to offer to settle preemptively just for a display of good faith.
It’s not clear what was “meant” to happen since the stated offer was for a 4 year vest. While the cover letter for the actual options grant says 4 quarters. It would be interesting to see what the actual governing documents referenced in the cover letter say since those are the actual terms. Presumably they match with the cover letter since lawyer time was spent on this at all, but it could of course also say a completely different 3rd vesting schedule