"The fact that it triggered a clause to eliminate preferred voting shares is very odd. Either a complete oversight by the guy's lawyer, or if it was done intent

"The fact that it triggered a clause to eliminate preferred voting shares is very odd. Either a complete oversight by the guy's lawyer, or if it was done intentionally, I have no idea." It's probably not an oversight. E.g. in Hong Kong, it is mandatory to have a minimum amount of equity (I think 10%), otherwise you will lose all super-voting power. I don't think a similar requirement is present in the US, but the logic behind is valid: the super-voting power is for a founder / important member of the company to maintain control and therefore allow for a long-term strategy to be carried out, even after multiple rounds of financing. If you're no longer a major shareholder and working for the company, the super-voting power may no longer be appropriate, as your priorities and preferences may now differ from the company.