No, the 'spin' of the founder puts on this makes no sense - by your very own logic. >>>> If there was 'no future good outcome' for the company then in what way

No, the 'spin' of the founder puts on this makes no sense - by your very own logic. >>>> If there was 'no future good outcome' for the company then in what way is the founder's 'threat' to 'not sell' credible in any way? <<<<< Why would he 'march on for 5 more years with little hope of exit' (by your very own projection?) He's threatening to 'not sell' and therefore probably end up with $0? That's an empty threat - and it's also acting agains the best interest of shareholders, which is his legal duty. The situation is obvious: They have an offer for $4M, it's probably their only way out, it's a nice 'few million' for the founder, the investors get their 1x participating + a tiny bit. That's it. It's not uncommon. What kind of person would even think to sell a company 'on the premise that the other investors get nothing'? He basically told the investors to bugger off and that's that. 'There is no significant goodwill' for the investors. There is however some 'bad PR' for the founder unfortunately. It's plain as day.