HR Legal

Em­ploy­ees lost stock op­tions after ter­mi­na­tion

Legal news
23 February 2025
Denmark

The Danish Supreme Court has ruled that two employees of an American electric car manufacturer in Denmark lost their rights to the value of unvested stock options when the company terminated their employment. The reason was that the award agreements were made after the new Danish stock option rules came into effect.

Share video

Two employees in Denmark had received Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and stock options, which were granted after January 1, 2019, when the new Danish stock option rules came into effect. The stock plan itself was established before 2019 but was later amended. The employees were offered both RSUs and stock options through individual agreements, which they had to accept (Award Agreements). We have previously written about the case when it was in the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, here.

The stock option rules were significantly changed for programs established after 1 January, 2019. For stock options granted by agreement, it is stated in the preparatory work to the Bill that the new rules apply to grant agreements made after that date. Under the old rules, employees were entitled to the value of the RSUs and stock options upon termination. Under the new rules, they lost that right.

In the previous case, the Maritime and Commercial Court found that the RSUs and stock options were covered by the old rules, as the program itself was established before 2019. The later amendments were not significant enough to consider the stock program as a new program.

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the RSUs and stock options were covered by the new rules because the employees only became entitled to them through grant agreements made after the new rules came into effect.

IUNO's opinion

The case confirms that RSUs and stock options granted by agreement after the new rules came into effect are covered by the new rules.

IUNO recommends that companies be aware of the risk that stock options and similar stock programs for employees may still be covered by the old rules. Companies can consider designing the program to be covered by the new rules.

[Supreme Court’s judgment of 21 February 2025 in case BS-8841/2024-HJR]

Two employees in Denmark had received Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and stock options, which were granted after January 1, 2019, when the new Danish stock option rules came into effect. The stock plan itself was established before 2019 but was later amended. The employees were offered both RSUs and stock options through individual agreements, which they had to accept (Award Agreements). We have previously written about the case when it was in the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, here.

The stock option rules were significantly changed for programs established after 1 January, 2019. For stock options granted by agreement, it is stated in the preparatory work to the Bill that the new rules apply to grant agreements made after that date. Under the old rules, employees were entitled to the value of the RSUs and stock options upon termination. Under the new rules, they lost that right.

In the previous case, the Maritime and Commercial Court found that the RSUs and stock options were covered by the old rules, as the program itself was established before 2019. The later amendments were not significant enough to consider the stock program as a new program.

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the RSUs and stock options were covered by the new rules because the employees only became entitled to them through grant agreements made after the new rules came into effect.

IUNO's opinion

The case confirms that RSUs and stock options granted by agreement after the new rules came into effect are covered by the new rules.

IUNO recommends that companies be aware of the risk that stock options and similar stock programs for employees may still be covered by the old rules. Companies can consider designing the program to be covered by the new rules.

[Supreme Court’s judgment of 21 February 2025 in case BS-8841/2024-HJR]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Similar

HR Legal

28 March 2025

EFTA Court: Norway can restrict hiring of temporary agency workers

HR Legal

27 March 2025

Self-organiser was not a self-organiser

HR Legal

27 March 2025

Police assistant was dismissed for several data breaches

HR Legal

7 March 2025

Employee became liable for competitive activities

HR Legal

27 February 2025

Employee was not bound by unfair non-competition clause

HR Legal

21 February 2025

New rules from the EU on platform work

The team

Alexandra

Jensen

Associate

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Senior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Elias

Lederhaas

Legal assistant

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Sunniva

Løfsgaard

Legal assistant

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner