This is a really tough policy to get right because there is a continuum of cases. At one end, someone has vested shares and is pushed out for being harmful to the company. At the other you have a valued loyal employee that is going to business school for two years and hopefully coming back. It is a no-brainer that the employee going to school should get the exercise period extended--but if the toxic employee doesn't want to risk cash, why should the staying employees take dilution on what was probably unhelpful service?
It is really hard to make a contract that fully reflects what's fair.
I think the thing that gets missed a lot in these discussions is that just because default docs are super company favorable (i.e. assuming the former rather than the latter), in the opposite case one can make an exception.
It is really hard to make a contract that fully reflects what's fair.
I think the thing that gets missed a lot in these discussions is that just because default docs are super company favorable (i.e. assuming the former rather than the latter), in the opposite case one can make an exception.