4 ms·

Making decisions that optimize outcomes for current founders over ex-founders is not the same as assuming there won't be founder disputes or exits. I just think

• Bluestrike2 11y ago
  I might have misread your intention then, but there shouldn't be a tradeoff between the two at all. If I understand your point correctly, then your agreements would prioritize founders after an exit by eliminating the likelihood of an equity dispute later on but not at the expense of the person who exited at the time of their exit. If that makes sense. In general, shareholders' agreements are all about fair dealing and codifying the nature of your relationships and potential business interactions with one another. They'll cover all sorts of different scenarios that go well beyond buy-sell provisions. Here's a very thorough sample from the ABA [0] for a closely-held corporation. Your attorney would work with you to tailor an agreement to your needs, obviously. In the end, you're just buying out their equity in the company at the time of the sale. Nobody really comes out "ahead." But because nobody really knows how they could arrive at that situation, it's important to ensure that your likely contingencies are covered and that the actual process is clearly defined. For instance, you want to make damned certain that someone can't come back for a second bite at the apple after the fact. Even if their claim is specious, it will still derail a deal. 0. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/real_property_trust_estate/step/2012/materials/rpte_step_2012_07_09_Dietrich_03_ACTEC_Shareholders_Agreements_CloselyHeld_2006_03.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/real_prope...