4 ms·

> it's so incredibly outlandish to hear someone claim that they brought in a business plan and some ideas, and that ideas alone should represent an equal percen

> it's so incredibly outlandish to hear someone claim that they brought in a business plan and some ideas, and that ideas alone should represent an equal percentage ownership to someone who actually worked on building a business for multiple years. I really don't understand your view here. If the value of the business plan didn't merit equal percentage, that should've been made clear at the onset. At the time, according to Jeremy's complaint it was valued at 50% of the company: ... Vogt agreed that Guillory should be a co-founder and 50% equity owner of Cruise. If the business plan and some ideas didn't merit 50% ownership, Vogt shouldn't have agreed that Guillery should be a 50% equity owner of Cruise. Simple as that.

foota 11y ago
Presumably because equity is also for the work done?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Assumptions aren't contract law. If someone says you own 50% of the company with them, even if you do nothing, you own 50%.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - hashkb 11y ago
    It's super rare that founder shares don't vest. YC would have advised it.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      What happens to ownership interests/claims that YC isn't aware of?
  - pbreit 11y ago
    What if they stop working with you and buy out your worthless stake?
jamiequint 11y ago
Ownership as stated in a Y Combinator application 100% of the time implies there is also a vesting agreement. I've filled out my own (successful) YC application which stated that I owned 50% of my company. My own equity was still subject to a vesting agreement requiring that I continue to be employed at the company. A proposed (or even stated) equity split doesn't grant outright ownership. It would be impossible to raise investment from any professional Series A/B investor (anything involving a priced round) without founder and employee vesting, typically on a 4 year vesting schedule with a 1 year cliff at the very least.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Ownership as stated in a Y Combinator application 100% of the time implies there is also a vesting agreement. An ownership agreement doesn't require vesting, unless one was agreed to. An implication is worthless. > A proposed (or even stated) equity split doesn't grant outright ownership. In a YC boilerplate stock vesting agreement, perhaps. Doesn't apply to contract law as a whole. EDIT: > It would be impossible to raise investment from any professional Series A/B investor (anything involving a priced round) without founder and employee vesting, typically on a 4 year vesting schedule with a 1 year cliff at the very least. You can raise investment from someone if they never know of an outstanding ownership claim until an event occurs.
  - jamiequint 11y ago
    I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong. There has to be a definitive and clearly stated offer to do something in exchange for valuable consideration to make a valid contract. A document that simply says what the proposed ownership is doesn't make said ownership legally valid.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Consideration takes many forms. Just because a small, niche population like HN thinks something isn't consideration, doesn't mean a jury of 12 is going to see it the same way.
    - 11y ago

foota 11y ago

Presumably because equity is also for the work done?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Assumptions aren't contract law. If someone says you own 50% of the company with them, even if you do nothing, you own 50%.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hashkb 11y ago
  It's super rare that founder shares don't vest. YC would have advised it.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    What happens to ownership interests/claims that YC isn't aware of?
- pbreit 11y ago
  What if they stop working with you and buy out your worthless stake?

jamiequint 11y ago

Ownership as stated in a Y Combinator application 100% of the time implies there is also a vesting agreement. I've filled out my own (successful) YC application which stated that I owned 50% of my company. My own equity was still subject to a vesting agreement requiring that I continue to be employed at the company. A proposed (or even stated) equity split doesn't grant outright ownership. It would be impossible to raise investment from any professional Series A/B investor (anything involving a priced round) without founder and employee vesting, typically on a 4 year vesting schedule with a 1 year cliff at the very least.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Ownership as stated in a Y Combinator application 100% of the time implies there is also a vesting agreement. An ownership agreement doesn't require vesting, unless one was agreed to. An implication is worthless. > A proposed (or even stated) equity split doesn't grant outright ownership. In a YC boilerplate stock vesting agreement, perhaps. Doesn't apply to contract law as a whole. EDIT: > It would be impossible to raise investment from any professional Series A/B investor (anything involving a priced round) without founder and employee vesting, typically on a 4 year vesting schedule with a 1 year cliff at the very least. You can raise investment from someone if they never know of an outstanding ownership claim until an event occurs.
- jamiequint 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong. There has to be a definitive and clearly stated offer to do something in exchange for valuable consideration to make a valid contract. A document that simply says what the proposed ownership is doesn't make said ownership legally valid.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Consideration takes many forms. Just because a small, niche population like HN thinks something isn't consideration, doesn't mean a jury of 12 is going to see it the same way.
  - 11y ago