3 ms·
This is worse than a legal term sheet in my opinion. The language is new, and using plain english instead of "Legal" english creates grey areas. Is this pre-
by davidu 11y ago
This is worse than a legal term sheet in my opinion.
The language is new, and using plain english instead of "Legal" english creates grey areas.
Is this pre- or post-money?
The language around the board seat, which is a critical aspect of building and operating your company, so cavalier as to not be worth including. If you can't sort that out in the term sheet, you have no business moving forward on a financing.
The language around re-vesting is also highly ambiguous, and unclear.
Gosh, I would run away from this. If you want something in english, you can nail it in a few paragraphs, but this isn't it. This is a step backwards. And for what it's worth, most term sheets are pretty easily read even in legal language that is well-used and well-worn (ie, tried and true).
- sjtgraham 11y agoHaving known all three partners myself for 5 years I am pretty confident they're just trying to be founder friendly. IMO it is intended to give a 30,000 ft view of the general terms and it clearly says it's bilaterally non-binding; so if you breached the no-shop clause and they smacked you with their legal bill you could technically tell them to take a hike. The sheet refers to their "standard legal document" being the actual deal document so you can assume things are less ambiguous there.
- rokhayakebe 11y agoI do not know these guys but I also thought the reason they have it was to be as clear as possible. I thought that was commendable. Unfortunately you cannot share anything anymore without it being negatively criticized.