Underwater options for early staff at a Kingston family business

The situation

'If someone's options are worthless right now, do I actually owe them anything?' That was the question Takeshi opened with, and it took most of the study that followed to answer properly. Takeshi had taken over his family's company in Kingston two years earlier, a business his parents had built from a small operation into one generating between twenty and sixty million dollars in annual revenue. Along with the company, he had inherited an employee stock option pool set up years before he took over, granted mostly to a handful of early employees who had joined when the business was much smaller and far less certain.

The company had a difficult year. Revenue held up reasonably well, but a valuation exercise tied to a refinancing came in well below where it had been the year before, and the options held by those early employees, priced against the company's earlier, higher valuation, were now underwater. On paper, exercising them would have cost more than the shares were currently worth. Two names came up again and again as Takeshi worked through the option register: Chamari and Kumari, who had joined the company in its scrappy early years, doing everything from answering phones to running inventory counts on weekends, back when the business was a fraction of its current size. Both had since built careers of their own outside the company, Chamari as a surgeon and Kumari as a dentist who now owned her own practice, but neither had ever exercised or sold the small stake she had been granted as a twenty-something employee. Increasingly vocal about what those options were actually going to be worth after years of watching the company grow without them, both had started asking pointed questions Takeshi did not feel equipped to answer.

What worried Takeshi more than the underwater options themselves was something he had come across while digging through the company's records to prepare for those conversations. Roughly a year into running the business, he had signed an amendment to the option pool agreement, presented to him by an advisor who was no longer with the company, that he now realized he had not fully understood at the time. It touched on how option values would be recalculated after a valuation event, and reading it again with fresh eyes, Takeshi could not tell whether it protected the early employees, protected the company, or created an obligation nobody had budgeted for.

Takeshi came to us not because a dispute had started, but because he could see one coming if he did nothing, and because he no longer trusted his own read of a document with his signature on it.

He had spent most of the two weeks before he called us going back through old files, comparing the original option pool agreement his parents had put in place against the amendment he had signed, trying to reconstruct what he had actually agreed to. He told us he remembered the meeting where he signed it only vaguely, remembered trusting the advisor's summary rather than reading every clause himself, and could not now separate what the document said from what he had been told it said at the time.

What made this urgent

Two things were converging at once, and either one alone would have been manageable. The first was the underwater options themselves, which on their own were not a legal problem so much as an economic disappointment for the employees holding them. Stock options give the right, not the obligation, to buy shares at a set price, and when the current value falls below that price the options simply are not worth exercising until the value recovers, if it does. That is an ordinary risk of holding options, and by itself it did not expose the company to a claim.

The second issue was what made the first one urgent. The amendment Takeshi had signed contained language about recalculating the exercise price after a valuation event, but it was ambiguous about whether that recalculation was automatic, discretionary, or tied to conditions that had not been clearly defined. Read one way, it could be understood as a promise to reprice the early employees' options downward whenever a lower valuation was recorded, which would have meant the company owed a repricing right now, with immediate cost implications and potential tax consequences for both the company and the employees if it were handled incorrectly. Read another way, it gave the board discretion to consider repricing without requiring it, which was a very different and far less costly position.

Chamari and Kumari had already begun asking, informally, whether their options would be adjusted given the down year, and Kumari mentioned in passing that a friend outside the company, in a similar situation elsewhere, had received a repriced grant automatically. If Takeshi answered those questions based on his own uncertain reading of the amendment, and that reading turned out to be wrong in either direction, he risked either overpromising the company into an obligation it had not budgeted for, or underdelivering on something the document actually required, which could easily become a dispute with two option holders who had watched the company grow from its earliest days and had every reason to feel entitled to a straight answer.

Getting the interpretation right before Chamari or Kumari acted on the old language, whether that meant pressing for a formal repricing, raising a grievance, or simply losing confidence in a company they had once helped build, was the entire point of coming to us when Takeshi did. Once an option holder acts on a disputed term, whether by exercising, selling, or walking away from the relationship entirely, the flexibility to simply fix the document quietly disappears.

What we did

1. Read the original option pool agreement and the amendment side by side. The two documents needed to be interpreted together, and the amendment's repricing language only made sense once we understood what the original agreement said about how the exercise price was set in the first place. This gave us a clear baseline for whether the amendment had actually changed that mechanism or simply layered ambiguous language on top of it.
2. Determined that the amendment's language was genuinely ambiguous, not just poorly explained to Takeshi at signing. We concluded the repricing clause could reasonably support either interpretation Takeshi had been worried about, which meant the risk was real and not just a product of him misreading it. That confirmation mattered, because it meant the fix had to happen at the document level, not just in how the situation was communicated to employees.
3. Reviewed the board minutes and correspondence from when the amendment was adopted. We looked for anything that might show what the board actually intended when it approved the amendment, since that context can sometimes resolve an ambiguous clause without needing to rewrite it. The record was thin and did not clearly settle the question either way, which reinforced the need for a fresh, unambiguous version rather than relying on an interpretation of intent.
4. Modelled the cost of each possible interpretation against the company's current financial position. Before recommending a path forward, we worked out what an automatic repricing obligation would actually cost the company across all the outstanding options, not just the two employees who had raised the question, so Takeshi understood the full scope of what was at stake before choosing how to resolve the ambiguity.
5. Recommended a board resolution adopting a clear, discretionary repricing policy going forward. Rather than trying to argue for the more favourable reading of the ambiguous amendment after the fact, which risked a dispute regardless of who was technically correct, we drafted a new, unambiguous policy giving the board discretion to consider repricing after a valuation event, informed by defined factors, without creating an automatic entitlement the company had not planned for.
6. Had every current option holder sign an acknowledgment of the updated terms. We circulated the new policy to every employee holding options, not just Chamari and Kumari, and had each one sign an acknowledgment confirming they understood it. This replaced the old, ambiguous language with something every employee could read and rely on for themselves, closing the door on a future dispute over what the earlier document actually meant, whoever raised it.
7. Prepared Takeshi for the conversation with the two employees before it happened. We gave him plain language to explain the change, honest about the fact that their options were currently underwater and that the company was not committing to an automatic repricing, while being clear about the discretionary process the board would now follow. We also walked through the questions Chamari and Kumari were most likely to ask, so Takeshi would not be caught improvising an answer he had not thought through.

The outcome

Neither Chamari nor Kumari filed a grievance or raised a formal dispute, because there was nothing left to dispute by the time they were told about the change. The new policy was in place, explained clearly, and signed off before either of them had made any decision about their options based on an assumption the old language might have supported. Kumari told Takeshi directly that she appreciated knowing exactly where she stood, even though the answer was not the one she had hoped for.

The company avoided what could have become a costly obligation if the ambiguous amendment had been read as an automatic repricing right applied across every outstanding option. It also avoided the opposite risk, a dispute with two option holders who felt misled after years of holding a stake in a company they had helped build, if the company had simply ignored their questions or given an answer that did not hold up. Neither outcome happened, because the ambiguity was resolved before it had to be tested against a real decision by a real option holder.

Takeshi has since made it a practice to have every board resolution and amendment reviewed before he signs it, rather than after a question forces him to go back and reread it years later. The company's next valuation, whenever it comes, will apply against a policy everyone understands rather than a document open to two very different readings. Chamari and Kumari still hold their original grants from those early years, and their options remain underwater for now, an ordinary risk of the kind that comes with holding equity, rather than a legal problem the company is carrying without knowing it.

Takeshi also asked us to look at the rest of the paperwork he had inherited from the transition, not just the option pool documents, once he realized how much uncertainty had been sitting in a single ambiguous clause for two years without anyone noticing. That broader review turned up nothing as serious, but it gave him a clearer picture of what he actually owned and had agreed to as the company's owner, rather than what he had assumed based on conversations he could no longer fully reconstruct.

What you can learn from this