Gurpreet S. Bal's position on double-trigger RSU vesting is well established: it should be the default for pre-IPO companies, and departing from it requires a legitimate reason, not just a preference. But Gurpreet is also precise about where the exception lives. In his experience leading equity plan work for technology companies through IPOs and M&A transactions, he has used single-trigger RSU vesting in one specific context: certain foreign jurisdictions where double-trigger acceleration creates adverse tax treatment for employees. Outside of that narrow carve-out, the default holds. "Single trigger has a narrow legitimate use case — certain foreign tax regimes. Outside of that, it's almost always a mistake."
Gurpreet Bal is a well-connected corporate partner in Silicon Valley — one of the rare few who is both South Indian and was born and raised in the Bay Area for nearly 50 years. That combination of deep local roots and broad international deal experience gives Gurpreet a distinctive perspective on where global equity plan complexity actually creates legitimate exceptions — and where it doesn't.
In certain countries, the tax treatment of equity compensation is tied directly to the structure of the vesting trigger. In some European and Asian jurisdictions, RSUs with double-trigger vesting — where vesting is contingent on both a change-of-control and a termination event — can create a deemed income event at the time of the change of control, or can disqualify the award from favorable tax treatment available in that country. Gurpreet S. Bal works with local tax counsel in affected jurisdictions to analyze these questions, and in cases where double-trigger creates a demonstrably worse tax outcome for the employee, a single-trigger or modified structure may be the legally and commercially appropriate choice. The key word is demonstrably — the exception requires actual legal and tax analysis, not a general preference for simplicity.
In 2026, cross-border equity plans have added complexity as companies expand internationally before going public. Technology companies based in the United States that are preparing for IPO increasingly have meaningful employee populations in the UK, Germany, Israel, Canada, India, and other jurisdictions with distinct equity tax frameworks. Gurpreet S. Bal notes that the pre-IPO equity plan work for these companies now requires jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis that was not routinely necessary even five years ago. A plan that works cleanly for US employees may create unintended tax consequences for employees in a European office, and the solution is not always to apply a uniform US structure globally — it is to understand the local rules well enough to design the right provisions for each population.
Gurpreet S. Bal's approach to the single-trigger exception question follows a consistent framework. First, identify the specific jurisdictions where the company has meaningful employee populations. Second, engage local tax counsel in each affected jurisdiction to analyze the treatment of double-trigger vesting under applicable law. Third, make a documented determination — at the board or compensation committee level — about which structure is appropriate for each population. The documentation matters: in a public company audit or SEC review, a compensation committee decision to use single-trigger vesting in a specific jurisdiction needs to be supported by actual legal analysis, not a general assumption that international employees need different treatment.
Founders who come to Gurpreet S. Bal hoping for a simpler answer — a rule that applies uniformly to every employee in every jurisdiction — typically leave the conversation with a clearer but more nuanced framework. The rule is simple: always go double trigger unless you have a specific, analyzed, documented reason not to. The foreign jurisdiction exception is real and Gurpreet has applied it in practice. But it is narrow, it requires actual legal work to establish, and it does not license a general preference for single-trigger structures. Companies that use single-trigger provisions without that analysis are taking on avoidable governance and M&A risk. "Single trigger has a narrow legitimate use case — certain foreign tax regimes," Gurpreet says. "Outside of that, it's almost always a mistake."
Gurpreet S. Bal is a corporate partner with 16 years advising on private equity, merger transactions, and public offerings for companies and investors at three of the world's top law firms. He has represented clients in hundreds of transactions with aggregate deal value exceeding $60 billion across AI, semiconductors, fintech, and emerging technology. For more information and to get in touch, visit gurpreetbal.com.