An early technical adviser to Nvidia claimed that about 30 years ago he missed out on shares now worth about $1 billion because of document discrepancies over stock option contract terms.

Gigazine reported on Sept. 29 that Eric Gullichsen (에릭 굴릭센), who served on Nvidia's technical advisory board, said he reviewed an old contract again in 2024 and found that vesting conditions Nvidia provided in 1996 differed from the signed option grant document.

Gullichsen received stock options for 25,000 shares from Nvidia in September 1993. An early invitation letter from Chief Executive Jensen Huang (젠슨 황) said the options would vest over four years. A signed option document Gullichsen disclosed states that rights vest quarterly and that all options vest one year from the grant date.

In April 1996, Nvidia's chief financial officer notified Gullichsen that 15,625 shares, or 62.5 percent of the total, had vested and told him to exercise them within 90 days. Gullichsen exercised that allotment at $0.05 per share. He says that if the signed document's one-year condition applied, all 25,000 shares should have vested at the time. He said he therefore did not exercise the remaining 9,375 shares.

After reflecting Nvidia's cumulative 480-for-1 stock splits, 9,375 shares would now equal 4.5 million shares. Gullichsen estimated their value at about $1.03 billion based on the stock price at the time of writing. The amount needed to exercise the options at the time was $468.75.

Gullichsen said he hired a lawyer and negotiated with Nvidia for about a year. He said Nvidia did not dispute the authenticity of the option document itself but argued that the claim had already passed the statute of limitations. Gullichsen and his lawyers decided that because about 30 years had passed, a lawsuit would likely be dismissed and abandoned legal action.

The case has not been reviewed by a court, and Nvidia has not formally recognised Gullichsen's contract interpretation or the $1 billion rights. Different contract wording from 30 years ago has resurfaced as a dispute tied to Nvidia's sharply higher share price today.