From the category archives:

Five-minute lawyer

Several years ago, I switched my law practice from mass torts (plane crashes and shipwrecks) in New York City to corporate law at a large Silicon Valley law firm. As a result of that experience and clients I worked with in the years following the dotcom bust, I developed a number of simplifying rules about corporate transactions, particularly general corporate, corporate structure and corporate governance.

One question almost every first-time entrepreneur (and most second-timers) have is “How do I incorporate?” When you do it properly, this isn’t particularly earth-shattering legal work; I’ve done this sort of work for companies using firm quotes of $2000 + state filing fees for a full incorporation package, including a lot of form documents necessary to engage new employees, issue stock to founders, etc. That figure includes my time advising on everything from the number of directors to how to divide up stock to what provisions founders need to protect themselves from each other. It’s clear that the fee involves mostly the ancillary advice about what to do, not filling out forms.

For the purposes of this question, you should have already determined that you (a) need to form an entity, (b) that entity should be a corporation, and (c) you want to be expedient while avoiding future expenses.

In general, companies should incorporate in Delaware if they’re going to be venture-funded and have the modest amount of extra money to lay out for administrative costs. That said, many, many companies in the SF Bay Area simply incorporate in California to reduce those expenses, particularly if they’re going to bootstrap for a while. VCs and other investors in the area are very familiar with California companies and don’t get bothered by it at all. What I would recommend against, in general, is incorporating anywhere else besides those two states. The costs will go up for regular compliance and administration, and you’ll only have to reincorporate later if you get funding.

You will likely  need specific advice on the entity selection question, which depends heavily on the type of business you’re considering and the plans you are making. Sometimes a corporation isn’t the best choice.

{ 0 comments }

“Joint venture” is a sloppy term used to describe a number of different business operations. The important thing to remember is that it is too vague to be meaningful legally.

A project that is called a joint venture might legitimately be structured like any of these:

  • a brand new entity with shared ownership
  • a subsidiary of one partner
  • a ‘project’ with some shared or contributed resources

The differences between these are huge, and yet there’s no right answer without knowing the specifics of any situation. Well, I take that back: the *right* answer is knowing what you want, what you’re dealing with, and how to figure out if there’s a good fit between the two. If I had to pick a default answer, I’d say always form a new company so that everything that’s in the box is in the box, who owns what’s in the box is easy to figure out, and the rules about the box are well-known and clear to everyone, inside and out.

Someone recently asked “what is an equity share profit interest?” in a joint venture?

The specifics matter greatly, including the language of the terms, the type of entity, if any, that the joint venture is, and what is intended.

Usually, however, someone using the phrase “profit interest’ should mean that there is an interest in a piece of the profits that does not include ownership rights (or responsibilities) in the joint venture entity itself. This type of structure, like phantom equity, shadow equity, or other stock-option equivalents or even dual-classed common stock, is designed to separate the returns on the business from the ownership and control of the business. And most people don’t really care: they want the portion of the money that their stake represents as if it were true equity ownership. But many people don’t vote their shares in big publicly held companies nor do they want to be engaged in day-to-day management. Accenture and KPMG Consulting are two companies that come to mind where stock option equivalents were used as part of employee compensation.

Back to joint ventures: the idea of a profit-only stake might be appropriate when the joint venture doesn’t have a separate existence. It might be a true project operated by two or more companies: there’s no way to give anyone ownership in anything and so profits are all that can be shared. Or someone might be a much smaller participant than others who are determined to control the direction of the joint venture.

{ 0 comments }

Five-minute general counsel: What’s in a seed round termsheet?

1 February 2011

Here’s a common set of angel-investor questions regarding a standard seed round term sheet for a tech company: Why are the shares divided into preferred and common? Why does the preferred stock have a limited “1x” return? What will happen with liquidation preferences in future rounds? What will happen with dividends? Does the preferred stock [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: Why legal advice is always custom

30 January 2011

I recently came across a LinkedIn question asking about entity selection for a social enterprise. The generic question for a generic business is what people often conceive of as an “easy question” with a simple answer. Here’s my answer: Laura, the question you ask is only properly answered in light of more important questions. I’ve [...]

1 comment Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: how to structure a board meeting

22 November 2010

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures wrote about his board meeting and ugly travel schedule some time ago. It’s refreshing to hear him talk about being excited to go to board meetings. I’ve sat in too many where a VC (even a monster big-name guy) ended up talking about the format of financials being presented [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Great lawyers don’t sell forms

17 November 2010

Here’s a LinkedIn question about LLC operating agreements. The poster wonders whether the operating agreement he received from the entity formation company is a little “generic” and asks the forum for specific advice about what should be included. The answers point to some provisions that should be included (division of gains and losses, breakup/buyout/dissolution schemes, [...]

1 comment Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: what nonprofits want

15 October 2010

Nancy Lublin’s column in Fast Company is always interesting, even moreso when I disagree with her. A column from February, “We Really Need to Talk,” (oddly renamed on the web as “Foundations’ Four Biggest Faux Pas”) is a little list of four points she’d make to foundations. To me, they boil down to versions of [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: can a nonprofit change mission?

15 October 2010

This LinkedIn question asked about mission drift for non-profits. There are a couple different layers of answer, depending on what’s going on and who’s asking. First, the fundamental concern: will the change of mission jeopardize nonprofit status (and that typically means jeopardize 501(c)(3) status, which means deductibility of donations by donors)? The answer depends on [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Draft better contracts by paying attention to words

12 October 2010

This post on the use of the term immediately, one of many similar explorations by Ken Adams, is the sort of thing that attracts me to contract drafting. There is a lot to be said for using the right language to convey an idea: language that is clear, concise, hard to misconstrue, and simple without [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: should I be a social enterprise?

9 September 2010

Here’s a question on quasi-nonprofits that I’ve been hearing more often: Do I need to have a nonprofit status to become a social entrepreneurial enterprise? I found this LinkedIn question to be interesting for two reasons: first, it’s very related to a nonprofit question I field all the time, and second, I have a current [...]

1 comment Read more ›