Posts tagged as:

venture capital

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 }

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 being simplistic.

In reference to a post on the use of the term aggressively, I wrote:

These comments seem like nitpicking and pedantry until you start to listen carefully and accept the empirical, outcome-based approach that Ken Adams has followed. What do courts do with our contract language? Isn’t that a significant goal of drafting? To tell parties to what standards they can expect to be held?

Every time I read one of these posts it energizes me to re-read my form contracts for even simple things like entity formation (startup and nonprofit), founder’s documents, and venture financing.

I have been in discussions with some of my colleagues around the country on creating both a new new set of startup and venture documents and some additional materials (still in stealth mode!) for entrepreneurs. If you’re interested in hearing about these directly when they’re available, sign up for free RSS updates, or send me an email at rick@rickcolosimo.com.

{ 0 comments }

Five-minute general counsel: when should I consider a convertible bridge?

5 September 2010

I have more than one client currently considering convertible bridge notes as a parallel angel/seed round funding technique, and I have one who recently closed a small convertible note that will convert in the upcoming seed round. What’s a convertible bridge note? A convertible bridge note is a not-uncommon financing instrument in venture capital. This [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: What is due diligence?

9 August 2010

Due diligence is the catchall phrase used to describe both the amorphous investigative process that prospective investors and acquirors go through before, during, and after their initial decision to proceed with a transaction with your company as well as the materials (paper, electronic, and Q&A) that they and their advisors receive in response to their [...]

1 comment 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 ›

Crowdfunding a startup: rags or riches?

20 May 2010

Crowd-everything is super hot, and super cool. The vastness of Wikipedia alone is sufficient to teach every one of us that when “crowd” is applied to your field, really neat and seemingly impossible things can happen. To me, “crowd” is just the plural of “open,” as in open data. But crowd doesn’t always work, and [...]

6 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 ›

Five-minute general counsel: incorporate a tech startup

12 October 2009

Another LinkedIn user asked about how to structure a startup that would be a typical VC-funded software company. Here’s my edited answer: As someone who’s represented dozens of startups, closed probably 100 venture deals, and cleaned up too many small companies to count, there is in fact a right way and wrong way to do [...]

4 comments Read more ›

Why do legal opinions matter?

12 August 2009

In a recent post referring to Ted Wang’s “simple series A” proposal, I noted that I would separately discuss legal opinions. Non-lawyers, and lawyers new to transactional practice, have probably never really heard of a legal opinion or what it does. Briefly, the legal opinion letter is a carefully prepared document that is designed to [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Will VCs adopt a “Simple Series A?”

12 August 2009

This article on a simpler approach to smaller Series A venture capital financings was written by Ted Wang, a partner at Fenwick & West, a well-known Silicon Valley law firm. Caveat: Ted and I worked on a deal several years ago where he represented the investors and I the company. So, my opinions of Ted’s [...]

3 comments Read more ›