Nvidia Denied Stock Claim Due to Time Limits
Nvidia rejected a former advisor’s claim for 4.5 million shares, citing the expiration of the legal window.
Updated on Oct. 4, 2026 in Public Companies
Live Poll
Should companies be held liable for decades-old contract disputes regardless of statute of limitations?
Nvidia rejected a demand from early advisor Eric Gullichsen for 9,375 stock options, which he claims were owed from a 1993 agreement. Due to a 480-for-1 stock split, those options represent 4.5 million shares worth approximately $1.05 billion.
Why it matters
The dispute highlights the strict enforcement of statutes of limitations on long-dormant equity agreements. For operators, it underscores the necessity of clear, contemporary documentation and the legal risks posed by unresolved employment or advisory claims over multi-decade time horizons.
The disputed 9,375 options equate to 4.5 million shares at the company's 480-for-1 split ratio, holding a value of $1.05 billion based on the $233.95 closing share price. California law generally mandates a four-year statute of limitations for written contracts.
The players
Nvidia
A California-based designer of high-performance graphics and AI computing hardware with a massive global market capitalization.
Jensen Huang
The co-founder and long-serving CEO of Nvidia who oversaw the company's growth from a startup to a market leader.
Eric Gullichsen
An early advisor to Nvidia who served during the company's formative years in the early 1990s.
Cooley
An international law firm that serves as outside counsel for major technology corporations.
The details
Nvidia’s outside counsel, Cooley, asserted that the claim is time-barred as it arrived 30 years after the initial agreement. While a 1993 offer letter from Jensen Huang specified vesting over four years, the signed agreement contained language indicating vesting occurred after one year. The discrepancy became the focal point when Gullichsen re-examined the documents in 2024.
Timeline
In 1993, Nvidia granted 25,000 stock options to Eric Gullichsen.
In April 1996, Nvidia’s finance chief claimed 15,625 of those options had vested.
In 2024, Eric Gullichsen reread the original option agreement.
October 2026 is the publication date of the article.
Market Landscape
This dispute over historical equity vesting is governed by California's four-year statute of limitations for written contracts. It follows a pattern of legacy equity disputes where long-term employees or advisors challenge the interpretation of initial hiring documents as company valuations soar.
Owners should ensure that all equity agreements are reconciled annually to prevent stale claims that become difficult to audit after decades. Consult with legal counsel to maintain accurate records and clearly define vesting milestones at the time of issuance.
The takeaway
Legacy equity disagreements emphasize the danger of failing to resolve discrepancies in vesting schedules during the early stages of a company's lifecycle. Entrepreneurs should implement a regular cadence for reviewing and documenting all outstanding equity obligations to mitigate future liability.
Further reading
For more on how equity structures impact growth, visit Public Companies.
Source note: This article includes information reported by BeInCrypto.
Live Poll
Should companies be held liable for decades-old contract disputes regardless of statute of limitations?
