I wonder whether you could create a clause that allows you to publically register your dissatisfaction with being ignored without (legal) consequence?
I mean, if you're at the 'blogging your rage' stage you probably don't care if you still work there tomorrow, but nailing down that if they screw up, you're allowed to publically state that on the way out might at least make it possible for future founders to reconsider their deal options.
It's not about the legal consequences. It's about money and reputation.
Suppose you quit an acquiring company and bad-mouth it in the press.
First, you're probably losing money just by quitting. If they kept you around, they probably gave you some sort of incentive to stay. E.g., stock that gradually vests, or a portion of the acquisition price that was held back.
Second, you probably own a good chunk of the company's stock. If your bad-mouthing is successful, that price will go down. So you've just lost money that way.
Third, if you had partners or employees who also have stock, you've just cost them all money. Man, they'll love you for that.
Fourth, you are now on record in the press as the kind of person who bad-mouths the company you're working for. That might mean that the next people you work for won't cross you like that. But it certainly means that people are going to be more reluctant to hire you or acquire your next company.
Generally, I think the better play is to be classy about it. If you keep a strong reputation, odds are good somebody will eventually ask you on the quiet about the acquiring company or one of the executives involved. That's your chance to stick the knife in. Rather than making a little quickly-forgotten noise, you might be able to kill an important deal.
It's not the legal consequences that matter in this example but the financial consequences. In this example, the acquisition apparently had a big stock component. So now his financial interests are aligned with the rest of the company's owners. If his hypothetical rage-blogging were effective, it might hurt the company's value which be a big hit to his finances.
The point of the anecdote is that these deals are designed to align the acquired with the company if there are personal-career-satisfaction/play-along-nicely conflicts.
edit: typos and a recognition that this point was already made well while I was typing.
I mean, if you're at the 'blogging your rage' stage you probably don't care if you still work there tomorrow, but nailing down that if they screw up, you're allowed to publically state that on the way out might at least make it possible for future founders to reconsider their deal options.