4 ms·

The founder and investor can fire him and easily dilute him down to 3% without violating any agreement. He’s got zero leverage here unless his agreement had ant

The founder and investor can fire him and easily dilute him down to 3% without violating any agreement. He’s got zero leverage here unless his agreement had anti dilution protections.

legutierr 6y ago
I am not a lawyer, but... Dilution of the sort you seem to be describing would expose the founder and investor to a minority oppression lawsuit from OP which could result in monetary damages, and/or the forced sale of all or part of the company at a price determined by the court. You can't just dilute people without there being any consequences, unless the new shares are being sold at a justifiable price and at an arm's length. The attempts made so far by the founder to push out the OP would color any future dilution, making it harder to justify that dilution in court, even if on the surface it appears legitimate. If the shares are not sold to a third-party arms-length investor, OP would have to be given the opportunity to participate in the share issuance on a proportional basis. If the founder and investor conspire to issue shares to themselves with the sole purpose of diluting OP, not only would that dilution possibly be reversed in court, but further sanctions could be imposed on the founder and investor as well.
- valuearb 6y ago
  I’m not a lawyer either, but these risks are easy to skirt. First they have time to just fire him, and without contractual protections she/he’s out before vesting a single share. Most US states are At Will employment, meaning they don’t need a reason. If the CTO wants to contest the firing, where will they get $30K+ to pay a lawyer sue over a nearly worthless business? If he/she is able to vest their first year before getting fired, but they then dilute the CTO further, where is the CTO going to get $30K+ to pay their lawyer sue over 10% of a nearly worthless business?

The founder and investor can fire him and easily dilute him down to 3% without violating any agreement. He’s got zero leverage here unless his agreement had anti dilution protections.

legutierr 6y ago

I am not a lawyer, but... Dilution of the sort you seem to be describing would expose the founder and investor to a minority oppression lawsuit from OP which could result in monetary damages, and/or the forced sale of all or part of the company at a price determined by the court. You can't just dilute people without there being any consequences, unless the new shares are being sold at a justifiable price and at an arm's length. The attempts made so far by the founder to push out the OP would color any future dilution, making it harder to justify that dilution in court, even if on the surface it appears legitimate. If the shares are not sold to a third-party arms-length investor, OP would have to be given the opportunity to participate in the share issuance on a proportional basis. If the founder and investor conspire to issue shares to themselves with the sole purpose of diluting OP, not only would that dilution possibly be reversed in court, but further sanctions could be imposed on the founder and investor as well.

valuearb 6y ago
I’m not a lawyer either, but these risks are easy to skirt. First they have time to just fire him, and without contractual protections she/he’s out before vesting a single share. Most US states are At Will employment, meaning they don’t need a reason. If the CTO wants to contest the firing, where will they get $30K+ to pay a lawyer sue over a nearly worthless business? If he/she is able to vest their first year before getting fired, but they then dilute the CTO further, where is the CTO going to get $30K+ to pay their lawyer sue over 10% of a nearly worthless business?