Loading...
Answers
MenuWhat problems can arise if two Founders of an early stage startup share the same equity, but one of them is appointed as the CEO?
We are 4 Founders- 2 Business Guys (45% split equally) & 2 Tech Guys(35% split equally).The rest we have kept aside for fundraising. I have read splitting equally is not a good arrangement. Since I'm acting as CEO, should I be aware of potential problems that may arise out of this in near future? Should I keep my stake a little more than others?
Answers
This is personal opinion, more than an answer.
You really needed to decide all this when you first set up the company. You needed to discuss with your partner how much money he was bringing to the table, and if not money the value of his contribution to the company.
In the end CEO, COO, CTO, any other alphabet soup you wish to create are just titles, titles are used for talking wth other companies so that they know what your job is in an organization.
As you grow, you will maybe get a larger board of directors, these will be share holders, and in order to get these you will need to each part with initial A shares in the company, what you need to worry about then is you and your partner always keeping a controlling interest.
But at any time, if you or your partner have a falling out, one or the other of you could get the other members of the board to side with you, giving that board member the voting power to remove or buy out the other, that is just how businesses work. I give Steve Jobs as an example, he founded a company, was CEO, gave up the position of CEO to another, and was eventually voted out of his own company by the board.
If this is what is worrying you, then you are wasting your energy, energy that could be used to make your company great. So stop doing that, and remember this... The past is the past, all you can do is learn from it, the future is uncertain, and you have no real control of it, so all you can do is work on right now, and that is where you should be focusing your energy.
I am sure that others say that one person or the other should have controlling interest and that, I think depends on how they set up their businesses. You started this with a partner, someone I assume you like and want to work with, so why(in my opinion) are you try to gain leverage over your friend?
My last opinion is that perhaps you should add one more person to your board, only because you do not have a deciding vote if things really did come to a 50/50 split. This person does not really need to have any A stock, it just needs to be in your bylaws to say that in the event of a 50/50 split vote by the board this person has the deciding vote. In the future, this person could be the CEO because in most large companies the CEO answers to the board, and is not the controller of the board. But all of this you need to sit down and discuss with all your controlling partners. In your case that is the four of you.
Have you seen The Social Network? :)
I've seen maybe a dozen companies with many partners utterly melt-down. One of which I was a part of.
This is something you'll largely need to answer for yourself. Everybody thinks their situation is different, but where partners are concerned, greed always seems to rear its ugly head somewhere, in some way you never expected.
My advice is to have a strong operating agreement, that nails down what to do if somebody goes and blows all the company's money at the club or other (soundingly insane, but) real things that happen. Also, the more obvious stuff that's usually covered by your attorney and a boilerplate doc - tie-breaking votes, voting when someone's unavailable, etc.
In order to avoid a deadlock (tie) situation, it is preferred that there not be an equal allocation of shares. In this case, it isn't exactly equal seeing how the only situation of a deadlock would be if 1 'tech guy' and 1 'business guy' vote against the other two.
You can solve this by deciding, in the founders agreement, that the chairman of the board of directors (in the company or in the venture), or the CEO, has an extra vote in the event of a deadlock situation. Another option is to appoint an external professional (lawyer/businessman who is familiar with your startups field/market), and he decides if a deadlock arises (for this option you need someone neutral who you can all agree on).
I've successfully helped over 300 entrepreneurs and I'd be happy to help you. Good luck
Related Questions
-
How do I write an NDA with the right jurisdiction/governing law?
From a legal standpoint: an NDA is an agreement - something contractual, and therefore is not limited (by law) to any specific jurisdiction. So, you can select Delaware or California, or India for that matter. From the business aspect, the best jurisdiction to select would depend on: 1. Jurisdictions that are known to be 'friendly' to your type of business. 2. Jurisdictions in which your lawyer is licensed to practice / the cost of lawyers isn't too expensive. 3. Somewhere not to far from where you are physically located - in case you actually have to go to court. Lastly, best to add a required arbitration or mediation clause if you don't have one. Good luckAB
-
How do I deal with a partner/investor that hasn't delivered on his end of things and now wants his money back?
This sounds as a deja vu to me. I have been in a similar situation back in 2000, we could only solve the issue thanks to a good mediator. However every situation is different and hence your route to a solution might be different. It also depends where you are in the world that defines how an email and/or verbal agreement might be a sufficient ground for legal actions. I am not a lawyer and can not judge that.PS
-
What is the best business structure for a tech company?
It depends :) Financing: When you're ready to start raising funds, C Corps (especially Delaware) are still preferred in the VC world although some angels are increasingly willing to invest in LLCs. Risk: When you're just starting off it's okay to have a holding LLC with DBAs. As you grow one or more of the ideas, you may want to separate out the risk so that if one company has issues it doesn't hurt the others. But it isn't necessary when you're early on. Once you add employees, cofounders, and/or investors, it's probably time. Your holding LLC could have equity in the idea and you could setup the idea as a C Corp. It's a good structure. Also -- this ain't legal advice. Just general blahblahblah about legal structure. Really good article from a fellow Seattle startup attorney here: http://www.startuplawblog.com/choice-of-entity/BH
-
What legal precautions can I take to make sure nobody steals my startup idea?
I've discussed ideas with hundreds of startups, I've been involved in about a dozen startups, my business is at $1M+ revenue. The bad news is, there is no good way to protect ideas. The good news is, in the vast majority of cases you don't really need to. If you're talking to people about your idea, you could ask them to sign an NDA ("Non Disclosure Agreement"), but NDAs are notoriously hard to enforce, and a lot of experienced startup people wouldn't sign them. For example, if you asked me to sign an NDA before we discussed your Idea, I'd tell you "thanks, but no thanks". This is probably the right place though to give the FriendDA an honorable mention: http://friendda.org/. Generally, I'd like to encourage you to share your Ideas freely. Even though telling people an idea is not completely without risk, generally the rewards from open discussions greatly outweigh the risks. Most startups fail because they build something nobody wants. Talking to people early, especially people who are the intended users/customers for your idea can be a great way to protect yourself from that risk, which is considerably higher than the risk of someone taking off with your idea. Another general note, is that while ideas matter, I would generally advise you to get into startup for which you can generate a lot of value beyond the idea. One indicator for a good match between a founder and a startup is the answer to the question: "why is that founder uniquely positioned to execute the idea well". The best way to protect yourself from competition is to build a product that other people would have a hard time building, even if they had 'the idea'. These are usually startups which contain lots of hard challenges on the way from the idea to the business, and if you can convincingly explain why you can probably solve those challenges while others would have a hard time, you're on the right path. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to set up a call. Good luck.DK
-
In a startup with a globally-spread remote team, does it still make sense to incorporate in U.S./Delaware vs. somewhere overseas?
Delaware C-Corp I usually Delaware is the best choice for any startup looking for fundraising with a US focus. However, if you are a remote and global team, an overseas or foreign corporation or US tax purposes might make sense. You'd have to talk to an advisor who can dive into your situation, but it would be more difficult for the US owner come tax time, as he'd likely have to file form 5471 to the IRS for any controlled foreign corporation, and form 90-22.1 for any foreign bank accounts. There are a lot of other concerns I didn't hear you raise that entrepreneurs usually have and ask me about, namely banking and merchant accounts/ payment processors. In terms of accepting online payments, any US corporation or LLC is far and away the best option for a company. It's difficult to suggest without knowing more about the company but you might explore Delaware, Wyoming, Hong Kong and other offshore jurisdictions for your legal entity. Each tend to have positives and negatives and there is no one size fits all solution. I do write about issues of incorporation quite regularly on my website FlagTheory.com - so you can read those articles for free, or we can schedule a call - Clarity.fm/incorporation when you have specific questions. Thank you and hope this was helpful!EJ
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.