Posts tagged as:

drafting

Here’s a common set of angel-investor questions regarding a standard seed round term sheet for a tech company:

  1. Why are the shares divided into preferred and common?
  2. Why does the preferred stock have a limited “1x” return?
  3. What will happen with liquidation preferences in future rounds?
  4. What will happen with dividends?
  5. Does the preferred stock have to convert to common to get more than its money back? Why? How?
  6. Don’t these restrictions make preferred shares seem less “good?”

The short answer is that this is a standard seed round term sheet that balances all the issues in a reasonable industry-standard way that won’t hamstring follow-on rounds. What that means is that venture investors, and also their lawyers, expect to see companies with a structure that is within the normal variation of such things. The standard, as I’ve written before, is to see a Delaware C-corp with a reasonable division of equity among the founders, some sort of vesting, a clean balance sheet, and a reasonably clean cap table overall. Complications on any of these points can arise, and some variation is certainly common, and some variation is actually meaningful, purposeful, and beneficial to the company.

Of course there are two positions on each of these kinds of issues, but if you think about contracts as mechanisms for transferring risk from one party to another, then some structures make less sense because they’re economically inefficient by  not assigning a risk of loss to the person best able to prevent that loss.

Here are some longer and more precise answers:

  1. Preferred and common shares — this is the traditional structure for venture-financed companies. The two classes of stock help fine-tune the relationship between the investors and the founders in light of the risk/rewards appropriate for each. Preferred stock allows certain holders, i.e., the investors, to receive their investment back before any return accrues to the other holders, i.e., the founders. This is the general practice. The use of preferred stock also provides other high-level protections to investors even if they own less than a majority of the company, which would not be the case if they only held common stock; there are similar protections for founders holding common stock even if the preferred stock holders own a majority of the company on a fully diluted basis.
  2. The upside on the preferred shares is not limited. It is a 1x non-participating preferred. This means that the preferred stock holders have an option in the event of a liquidation event of some kind: (a) take their money back or (b) convert to common stock. The choice means that holders of preferred stock will, in the event the company is sold very early, not face a situation where they lose money and the founders make money.
  3. It is the company’s goal, and standard in the tech industry for venture-financed companies, to maintain the 1x non-participating preferred structure. Whether those terms would vary in the future for a round of venture financing with particular investors cannot be determined. But the protections of current preferred stock holders to approve certain additional issuances of preferred stock generally acts to prevent unfair future sales of stock.
  4. It is the company’s goal, and standard in the tech industry for venture-financed companies, to not actually declare and issue dividends. The basic assumption is that at the discount rates implicit in angel and venture valuations, it makes more sense for the relatively small amount of cash that dividends would represent to remain invested in the company for a far greater return. Also, since few early stage companies are producing cash, dividends are generally not distributions of free cash flow but just a deduction from cash on the balance sheet. That’s a very different corporate finance strategy, one that most startup CFOs would not suggest. The same points as it #3 regarding future rounds apply here except that dividend provisions rarely change; liquidation preferences are more likely to be different from round to round.
  5. Yes, conversion to common is generally deemed to occur immediately prior to the closing of the liquidity event, e.g, a merger or IPO. The specifics are spelled out in the transaction documents; the general format can be seen in the Series Seed documents linked below.
  6. Preferred shares are always thought of as better because they are protected on the downside. See Fred Wilson’s example in his post linked below for the basic scenario in which preferred stock investors are protected. As a general rule of thumb, in the absence of particularized 409A valuations, common shares are thought to be “worth” approximately 10% of the value of preferred shares; this ratio reflects the partial protection against downside risk that is the preferred return.

Some links:
Series Seed documents

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures discussing the liquidation preference: he discusses the point often on his blog; it could be helpful to read his comments.

{ 0 comments }

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, and tax matters). To their credit, although the typical reader in this situation won’t necessarily see it that way, the lawyers all mentioned that the poster should use a lawyer to get the right agreement.

Just because you can put down the same words on paper that a lawyer uses doesn’t mean you have a good agreement. (Personal example: I recently reviewed a document that the other lawyer assured me was used by several lawyers in that field and “no one had a problem with it.” That claim unfortunately led me to believe that several of the lawyer’s professional colleagues also could not draft well-written agreements. The caveat about copying down words not being the same as drafting applies to lawyers, too!)

After all, there is always a disconnect between the universe of possible terms and those that are right for you and your company and your team and your investors and your business partners and your suppliers and your customers.

This is why we have lawyers. I don’t create value by keeping a generic form secret from you. Good lawyers don’t create value by hiding explanations of the form from you (see my discussion of Wilson Sonsini’s term sheet generator).

Great lawyers create value by giving you reliable outcome-focused answers like these:

  • Here’s the absolute right answer.
  • Here’s the best answer for you, balancing everything in the way that I understand everything that I know is important to you and everything that I know would be important to you if you knew about it.
  • Here’s the mostly right answer for your situation, and the cost of having the wrong answer now isn’t worth the cost of getting the absolute right answer.
  • Here’s a good working answer, and we’ll hedge our bets in case I’m wrong.
  • I don’t know, and we’ll find the answer.
  • I don’t know, but I do know that this is a big freaking deal so don’t do anything until I come back to you with the absolute right answer.

… and explaining those things to you. What I do for clients, across all kinds of engagements, transactions, litigation, counseling, and advising, often falls into one of these big three areas: identifying risks, managing (by eliminating or mitigating) risk, and helping them make informed decisions.

That’s how a lawyer creates value for you. If you’re not getting that, and you don’t have the experience to supply those answers yourself, keep looking.

{ 1 comment }

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 ›

How to use venture capital “check the box” forms

12 August 2009

Writing about Ted Wang’s “simple series A” reminded me of this idea I came up with years ago. One alternative to drafting that I’ve always liked: “check the box” forms.” During any moderately stable period in Silicon Valley, certain terms become “market,” meaning that there’s little real dispute about them in substance and only some [...]

0 comments Read more ›