Posts tagged as:

governance

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: 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 ›

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 ›

Why you should back away from reverse mergers

18 June 2010

This LinkedIn question asking about reverse mergers is a question I’ve answered for a lot of entrepreneurs who get pitched by these folks and are invariably misled confused about where, how, and whether this deal brings money into the company. “What is a reverse merger or reverse IPO?” Short answer: “reverse merger” is almost always [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Getting crowdfunding wrong

28 May 2010

Here’s a link to a brief article about crowdsourcing as applied to startups. Grade for this article? Nominally 80% for 4 out of 5 right, but the wrong answer on financing can kill a company. This one gets a #FAIL from me. Hearkening back (or forward, since I don’t know if I’ve posted it yet) [...]

3 comments Read more ›

Why is asking “LLC or Corp?” the wrong question?

2 May 2010

Here’s another LinkedIn-derived question that merits a better answer. The question was essentially whether the fellow with some IP to build a business on should form an LLC or a corporation. In typical LinkedIn fashion, off-the-cuff answers that are specific end up being wrong. In my mind, if someone is asking this question, they either [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Governance failures in compensation

26 October 2009

Some time ago, I’d come across a Forbes article (now lost to three or four intervening moves and office clean-outs that discussed the effects on pension plans on executive compensation. One really interesting fact was that (as of June 9, 2003) only a “handful” of companies (including GE and Verizon) had excluded pension “earnings” from [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute lawyer: how to plan a nonprofit

25 October 2009

You’ve probably already seen our Five-minute Lawyer post on How to Form a Nonprofit, but sometimes people are at an earlier stage of the process, where they haven’t figured out what they exactly want to do. This process looks a lot like planning a for-profit business in the early stages, but here are a few [...]

2 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: where should I incorporate?

12 October 2009

I regularly answer corporate governance questions on LinkedIn. Where should I incorporate or form my entity? After you’ve decided that it’s in your interest to form an entity of some kind, the next question is where to form that company. Most people know that Delaware is the 800-pound gorilla in this field. Many have also [...]

1 comment Read more ›