3 ms·
As an aside it would be interesting to see the legal structure of this transaction. At that age you can't (iirc) enter into a contract, at least not in the US.
by larrys 14y ago
As an aside it would be interesting to see the legal structure of this transaction. At that age you can't (iirc) enter into a contract, at least not in the US.
Obviously his parents would need to be involved in this. It's possible also that one of the big draws for the investor was the obvious publicity potential (for the venture) of funding someone 15 yrs old vs. someone who is (ho hum) 20. This type of angle plays well in the media.
- citricsquid 14y agoI believe in the UK you can be a director of a company at 16 and you can hold shares in a company at any age. I would guess that Nick has a registered company and the investment is in that company, which probably has his parents involved somehow in some nominal capacity. edit: upon investigation it would appear that Summly Limited has his mother as a director ("MS DIANA JULIA D'ALOISIO") and he is listed as secretary ("NICHOLAS D'ALOISIO-MONTILLA") -- search for "summly" via http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk and then select the option to order information. edit edit: so from the filing the following is true: Summly Limited has Nick's mother as a director along with the investors, he is a secretary. The company has 900,000 shares. 600,000 "Ordinary" are allocated to his mother ("DIANA JULIA D'ALOISIO") 120,000 "Series A Preferred" are allocated to GERSHWIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and 180,000 "Series A Preferred" are allocated to TWINHILLS LIMITED. So it seems that Nick has no actual stake in the company and is using his mother as the proxy for his ownership. edit edit edit: Something might be worth noting, the site lists "Summly Inc" as the company responsible for Summly, not Summly Limited.