국문 KR 영문 EN

A Stock Option Lawyer’s Perspective

Stock option disputes often turn on the exact wording of the agreement and how the terms were explained at the time of grant. In practice, a single clause—or the absence of one—can lead to disputes worth millions of dollars.
 

Stock options usually begin as an “incentive for talent.” However, when variables such as failed IPOs, resignation or termination, or changes in company valuation arise, stock options quickly become one of the most contentious legal issues in corporate disputes.
 

1. Why Do Stock Option Disputes Keep Occurring?

At their core, stock options are based on future value appreciation.
The company promises significant rewards if it grows, and employees commit their efforts based on that expectation.

Disputes arise when those expectations diverge. Growth may stall, valuations may decline, or unexpected resignation or dismissal may occur. At that point, one party often claims, “This was not the condition we agreed to.”

Common causes of stock option disputes include:

• Vague or ambiguous contract language open to multiple interpretations

• Key terms explained verbally but not documented in writing or email

• No clear rules governing exercisability upon resignation or termination

These gaps allow each party to interpret the agreement in their own favor, frequently leading to litigation.
 

2. Lessons from the Flex Case:

Cash-Settled vs. Equity-Settled Stock Options

A widely discussed case in the Korean startup ecosystem involving Flex, an HR technology company, highlights the importance of specificity in stock option agreements.

The central issue was whether the options were:

• Equity-settled (physical delivery): Shares are issued upon exercise, or

• Cash-settled (difference settlement): Only the difference between the exercise price and fair market value is paid in cash

Korean law explicitly allows cash-settled structures.
Under Article 340-2 of the Korean Commercial Act and Article 16-3 of the Special Act on Venture Business Promotion, companies may compensate the exercise gain in cash or treasury shares equivalent to the price difference.

Key legal issues a stock option lawyer examines in such cases:

• Explicit contractual language: Does the agreement clearly permit cash settlement? If not, courts may presume physical share delivery.

• Procedural clarity: Are the exercise method and payment mechanics clearly defined?

• Duty to explain: Did the company adequately explain the structure and risks (including tax implications), and is there documentary evidence such as emails or briefing materials?

3. Tax Risk: Why “Tax Bombs” Occur

Tax issues can be as damaging as legal disputes. In many cases, tax authorities impose substantial additional assessments years after the exercise.
 

• Valuation disputes: Stock option gains are generally taxed as employment income. For private companies, determining “fair market value” is critical. Even if tax was initially paid based on a low valuation, later discovery of third-party transaction prices may lead to reassessment and retroactive taxation.

• Loss of tax benefits: Failure to meet venture company tax exemption or deferral requirements in advance may result in losing valuable tax incentives altogether.

Without proactive tax planning, compensation can quickly turn into a liability.
 

4. Group Structures and M&A Complications

Legal complexity increases significantly in holding company, subsidiary, or M&A scenarios.
 

• Cost allocation issues: When a parent company grants stock options to subsidiary employees, determining who bears the cost—and whether it is tax-deductible—requires careful structuring and internal agreements.

• IPO failure or M&A scenarios: Many employees rely on “exercisable upon IPO” clauses. If the IPO is canceled or the company is acquired, options may become worthless unless the contract clearly addresses acceleration, succession, or cash compensation.

A well-drafted agreement must include a clear exit strategy covering changes in control, failed listings, and acquisition scenarios.
 

5. Stock Option Lawyers Start with Preventive Design

Stock options are not merely an HR matter—they are a core corporate legal issue.
Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team advises not only on dispute resolution, but also on preventive legal structuring.
 

Our approach includes:

• Compliance review: Articles of incorporation, shareholder resolutions, statutory procedures, and registrations

• Precision drafting: Clear distinction between cash-settled and equity-settled options; detailed rules for voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and disciplinary actions

• Contingency planning: Treatment of options in M&A, IPO cancellation, or control changes

• Tax risk management: Advance analysis of taxation timing and valuation risks

• Dispute resolution: Legal opinions, contract interpretation, and litigation support in damages claims

A well-structured stock option plan and clear explanatory materials serve as proof of a company’s credibility to both talent and investors.

With extensive experience from large corporations and in-house legal teams, Decent Law Firm understands internal decision-making structures and real-world business dynamics.

For complex stock option issues, Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team provides clear, defensible standards.