A call to arms for anyone here who has unvested stock

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
I wish to share my experence at the most recent town hall with the group. It seems that the HR Group led by KFC is not in favor of our unvested stock becoming immediately vested in the case of a change of ownership.This is quite a surprise to me as I and several of my Management colleagues felt after the meeting with TC is that he is sticking by the employees. With the meeting with HR immediately following, and lead by KFC seems that the options were off the table. they feel the increase in stock price over the past 6 months should be MORE than enough compensation for not vesting the options.I only speak for one person, and as we all well know, Cafe Pharma is fulled with rumor and innuendo. My advice is to do your own due dilligance, and ask your manager what their take was regarding this meeting. If you feel unsatisfied, lets make a point of voicing our complaints to our direct supervisors, and asking them to do the same. PI, KI , or home office, we have all worked hard to get here, we deserve to be awarded what we have EARNED. No more no less.
Please look at this post and then raise the phone with your manager tomorrow. If you feel you do not want or need your unvested shares, I am sorry to have wasted your time. If you feel, like I do, that these shares were earned, please call your manager and peers of influence tomorrow.
 






Anonymous said:
I wish to share my experence at the most recent town hall with the group. It seems that the HR Group led by KFC is not in favor of our unvested stock becoming immediately vested in the case of a change of ownership.This is quite a surprise to me as I and several of my Management colleagues felt after the meeting with TC is that he is sticking by the employees. With the meeting with HR immediately following, and lead by KFC seems that the options were off the table. they feel the increase in stock price over the past 6 months should be MORE than enough compensation for not vesting the options.I only speak for one person, and as we all well know, Cafe Pharma is fulled with rumor and innuendo. My advice is to do your own due dilligance, and ask your manager what their take was regarding this meeting. If you feel unsatisfied, lets make a point of voicing our complaints to our direct supervisors, and asking them to do the same. PI, KI , or home office, we have all worked hard to get here, we deserve to be awarded what we have EARNED. No more no less.
Please look at this post and then raise the phone with your manager tomorrow. If you feel you do not want or need your unvested shares, I am sorry to have wasted your time. If you feel, like I do, that these shares were earned, please call your manager and peers of influence tomorrow.
Click to expand...

First of all, you haven't earned any shares that are unvested. Stop trying to reward yourself for no reason. Second of all, you should have done your do diligence, as so should your colleagues. One simple question in an interview would have made you aware of the no immediate vesting. This was one factor that helped deliver me to the conclusion that I ultimately turned down a position as Onyx. Please step begging for help on a decision that you made, all be it a potential bad one. And please stop acting like you are owed something.
 


















Rank has its privilege. If Onyx mgt has the same deal as Genzyme and many others everyone VP and above will have all RSUs and options vest upon sale. The sales folks only made money on the options vested at the date of the sale. Lots of wailing an nashing of teeth amongst the Genzyme folks a few years ago when that reality came to light.
 






Anonymous said:
Rank has its privilege. If Onyx mgt has the same deal as Genzyme and many others everyone VP and above will have all RSUs and options vest upon sale. The sales folks only made money on the options vested at the date of the sale. Lots of wailing an nashing of teeth amongst the Genzyme folks a few years ago when that reality came to light.
Click to expand...

Most of the Genzyme unvested options were underwater...that's why they didn't accelerate the vesting...I was there a hole. Learn your facts.
 






Dude...Genzyme was a hostile take over by Sanofi Aventis. The shot up dramatically upon the rumors of the buy-out (just like Onyx) and stayed at their high levels through out the negotiations (unlike Onyx). No one's shares were underwater. Even though the sales reps did not make the money that they were anticipating , they still did pretty well.
 






Anonymous said:
Dude...Genzyme was a hostile take over by Sanofi Aventis. The shot up dramatically upon the rumors of the buy-out (just like Onyx) and stayed at their high levels through out the negotiations (unlike Onyx). No one's shares were underwater. Even though the sales reps did not make the money that they were anticipating , they still did pretty well.
Click to expand...

Not true...after the bump most unvested options were underwater.
 






The average Genzyme rep had over 4 years of tenure, thus had plenty of unvested RSUs (which was their primary pain point) and options. Sorry to burst your bubble and sorry that your initial calculations on your windfall was a pipe dream.
 






Anonymous said:
The average Genzyme rep had over 4 years of tenure, thus had plenty of unvested RSUs (which was their primary pain point) and options. Sorry to burst your bubble and sorry that your initial calculations on your windfall was a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Read what you just wrote...the options vested over four years so after four years their biggest chunk of options were vested. Add to that the turnover rate at Genzyme was very high across all divisions so a lot of people got had very little vested and even those who did most of them were underwater. Not sure what to tell you but I worked there during that time and know exactly how the deal went down. They actually told us upfront that accelerating the vesting schedule made no sense as the majority of unvested share were underwater or were of nominal value.
 


















Anonymous said:
First of all, you haven't earned any shares that are unvested. Stop trying to reward yourself for no reason. Second of all, you should have done your do diligence, as so should your colleagues. One simple question in an interview would have made you aware of the no immediate vesting. This was one factor that helped deliver me to the conclusion that I ultimately turned down a position as Onyx. Please step begging for help on a decision that you made, all be it a potential bad one. And please stop acting like you are owed something.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot! First, stock options with a vesting schedule are intended to be an enticement to stay with the company and a reward when you do so. If the company is sold that is 100% out of our control and it is not us ‘breaking the relationship’, hence why the right and most common thing to do is accelerate the vesting.

Secondly the majority of unvested options is with VP’s and above and you guessed it as part of their deal their shares automatically vest upon change of control. The very small percentage of unvested options that is held by those below the VP level (directors down) would be a small fraction of the purchase price and why most acquiring companies simple vest all options upon change of control.

All of this information is public and with a little leg work you will see how many unvested shares are with VP’s and above versus Directors and below. The ET---TC, MF, JL, SS, HT, and JW alone have more unvested shares combined than the directors and below…that’s not counting the board or all the VP’s we’ve added over the last two years!

My guess is TC will get ALL the options vested since the director and below represent a small fraction of unvested shares when compared to the automatically vested shares of VP’s and above.
 






Anonymous said:
You are an idiot! First, stock options with a vesting schedule are intended to be an enticement to stay with the company and a reward when you do so. If the company is sold that is 100% out of our control and it is not us ‘breaking the relationship’, hence why the right and most common thing to do is accelerate the vesting.

Secondly the majority of unvested options is with VP’s and above and you guessed it as part of their deal their shares automatically vest upon change of control. The very small percentage of unvested options that is held by those below the VP level (directors down) would be a small fraction of the purchase price and why most acquiring companies simple vest all options upon change of control.

All of this information is public and with a little leg work you will see how many unvested shares are with VP’s and above versus Directors and below. The ET---TC, MF, JL, SS, HT, and JW alone have more unvested shares combined than the directors and below…that’s not counting the board or all the VP’s we’ve added over the last two years!

My guess is TC will get ALL the options vested since the director and below represent a small fraction of unvested shares when compared to the automatically vested shares of VP’s and above.
Click to expand...

He's not an idiot. You are the idiot. Is there a clause of some sort that you agreed with the company that your shares would vest immediately? No. That is the end of the story motherfucker.

Consider your balls kicked. I'm not dancing over this or happy about it, but the sense of entitlement that you have is way over the top.
 






Anonymous said:
He's not an idiot. You are the idiot. Is there a clause of some sort that you agreed with the company that your shares would vest immediately? No. That is the end of the story motherfucker.

Consider your balls kicked. I'm not dancing over this or happy about it, but the sense of entitlement that you have is way over the top.
Click to expand...

Again...dumbass...it is the norm to accelerate the options not the exception. So that is not a sense of entitlement that is a sense of what the standard is. I can rattle off far more biotech's, oncology and other wise whose options WERE vested than you can rattle off those whose weren't. I know, you're not very smart and have never been through this before...nice to pop your cherry on this one, you'll learn a lot before it's through.
 






Anonymous said:
Again...dumbass...it is the norm to accelerate the options not the exception. So that is not a sense of entitlement that is a sense of what the standard is. I can rattle off far more biotech's, oncology and other wise whose options WERE vested than you can rattle off those whose weren't. I know, you're not very smart and have never been through this before...nice to pop your cherry on this one, you'll learn a lot before it's through.
Click to expand...

I just soiled myself, what if TC used not vesting options as a negotiation to get to $125?
 












I don't think that's a "what if." I think that's exactly what TC/Onyx did. There is no evidence in writing or by an "anonymous spokespeople" anywhere that points to automatic vesting. And nothing about retention. In fact, the only Change of Control information given in writing for regular employees has been the total opposite: super crappy severance policy updated earlier in 2013. Again, with zero mention of vesting options and zero acknowledgement of any kind of retention bonus.
 


















Top Bottom
Back
Quote