TL;DR
Get home office essentials delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
Eric Gullichsen, who says he advised Nvidia in 1993, claims a signed option agreement entitled him to 9,375 more shares than the company recognized. He estimates that the shares, adjusted for stock splits, would now total 4.5 million, but says he and his lawyers concluded a lawsuit would probably be barred by the statute of limitations. Nvidia’s response is described only through Gullichsen’s account.
Eric Gullichsen, who says he advised Nvidia in 1993, has published an account claiming the company recognized only part of his stock option grant, leaving 9,375 original options unaccounted for. He says stock splits would turn those shares into 4.5 million Nvidia shares today, but he and his lawyers concluded that the decades-old claim was likely barred by the statute of limitations.
Gullichsen says Nvidia granted him 25,000 options in September 1993 after he demonstrated graphics technology to the company’s founders. He quotes the agreement as saying the options would vest in quarterly installments, with all shares vested one year after the grant date. In April 1996, he says, Nvidia’s chief financial officer wrote that 15,625 options had vested and needed to be exercised. Gullichsen says he exercised that amount and then set the matter aside.
He writes that he rediscovered the paperwork in 2024 and read the vesting language as a one-year schedule, rather than the four-year schedule he says Nvidia’s CFO and outside counsel, Cooley, had maintained. The difference is 9,375 options. Applying what he describes as a cumulative 480-for-one effect from stock splits, he calculates that the disputed amount represents 4.5 million shares. That is Gullichsen’s calculation; his account does not establish that Nvidia accepts the interpretation or owes the shares.
Gullichsen says his lawyers exchanged letters with Nvidia’s in-house counsel and Cooley for about a year. He reports that Nvidia did not challenge the option agreement’s authenticity but argued that the claim was time-barred. After a meeting between the legal teams, Gullichsen says his lawyers advised that the passage of roughly 30 years made it unlikely a court would let the case proceed past a motion to dismiss. He says they chose not to sue.
A Contract Dispute Shaped by Time
The account turns on two separate questions: what the 1993 agreement required and whether any claim based on it can still be brought. The potential share count is large by Gullichsen’s estimate, but a claimed value of about a billion dollars depends on the disputed reading of the contract and the applicable stock history. It is not a court finding or an acknowledged Nvidia liability.
The reported time-bar argument also illustrates a practical limit in old equity disputes: even a signed document may not resolve whether a claim remains legally actionable decades later. Gullichsen’s account does not identify the governing jurisdiction or provide a legal ruling, and no lawsuit was filed, so the limitations issue remains an argument described by one party rather than a judicial decision.
From 1993 Grant to 2024 Review
Gullichsen says the options followed work with Nvidia co-founder Curtis Priem on graphics technology, including biquadratic texture mapping. He recounts helping prepare a virtual reality demonstration on prototype Nvidia hardware in 1993. Those details explain his account of how he became an adviser; they do not independently determine the terms of the option grant.
He links Nvidia’s early financial difficulties to Microsoft’s decision not to support quadratic texture mapping in its newly released DirectX toolkit after the NV1 shipped in 1995. Gullichsen says the company laid off many employees and that he was living in Tonga when the 1996 CFO letter arrived. Three decades later, Nvidia’s much higher public profile prompted him to search his records. The source is Gullichsen’s own September 2026 narrative, and it does not include the company’s direct statement or the full correspondence.
““in a series of quarterly installments so that all shares shall vest upon the expiration of one year from Grant Date.””
— Eric Gullichsen, describing the option agreement
The Claim Has No Court Ruling
No court has ruled on the option agreement, the vesting schedule or whether the claim is time-barred, because Gullichsen says he did not file a lawsuit. His account does not include a direct response from Nvidia or Cooley, the complete agreement, the 1996 letter, or the attorneys’ correspondence. It is also unclear which law governs any potential claim and how a court would calculate the value or treatment of the disputed options.
The reported 4.5 million-share figure and billion-dollar characterization are Gullichsen’s estimates. The account does not specify a valuation date or share price for the dollar figure, and Nvidia’s position is presented through Gullichsen’s summary of the legal exchanges.
No Lawsuit Is Planned in the Account
Gullichsen’s September 2026 account says he and his attorneys decided not to sue after concluding that the claim faced a substantial limitations obstacle. It describes no pending court case, settlement, or further step by Nvidia. Any change in that status, or a fuller account from Nvidia or its counsel, would clarify how the company views the agreement and the disputed shares.
Key Questions
Who says Nvidia owes the disputed shares?
Eric Gullichsen makes the claim in a first-person account. The material provided does not include a direct statement from Nvidia.
How many shares does Gullichsen say are at issue?
He says 9,375 options from the original grant were not recognized. Applying the stock split adjustment he cites, he calculates that amount as 4.5 million shares.
Has a court decided whether the options vested?
No. Gullichsen says he and his lawyers decided not to file suit, so the dispute has no court ruling in the account.
Why did Gullichsen say he did not sue?
He says his lawyers believed the roughly 30-year delay made it unlikely the claim could get past a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.
Source: hn
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
