Startup Lawyers

It's not necessary but it can be a really good idea. You'll want to address things like the equity split, vesting schedule, each cofounder's contributions (cash, IP, time, etc.), how much time each cofounder will be expected to spend (and if someone is starting out part-time, when they are expected to go full-time), and you may want to address consequences for failing to meet the required contributions and time - for example, company can claw back shares at original price and expel the cofounder.

Good question. Convertible notes (as well as SAFE's, discussed below) differ from equity in several respects. The most fundamental difference is that a convertible note is debt. A second major difference is that, although the note is debt, its terms include the noteholder's right to acquire an equity position in the future; if a certain event later occurs (defined in the note, but typically the sale of preferred stock to a future investor (e.g. a venture capital firm), but also a sale of the company can have a similar effect), this will trigger the note to convert into equity and the note is "satisfied" ... that is, the debt is extinguished when the note converts and the holder thereby becomes an equity holder (typically coming to own shares of preferred stock very similar to that issued to the future investors in that triggering event). These two differences are related to a third. A convertible note is often issued without a valuation of the company. For example, when a startup business has no operating history, it is impossible for the startup founders or the investor to decide what the company is worth. Equity cannot be issued for a fair market value (FMV), since there is no basis to determine what the FMV is. A convertible note resolves that by giving the investor (the note holder) the right to convert the note into equity later on, when another investor and the company can agree on a company valuation. In other words, the convertible note allows the company to "kick the can (of valuation) down the road" to be dealt with at another time. But, since a convertible note is debt, is has a repayment provision, and normally carries interest. This means that the note is carried on the company's balance sheet as debt, and presents the company with the future obligation to repay the note if a conversion event has not happened before the note's maturity date. So, SAFE's are often used, especially now that they have become so familiar to investors. (SAFE stands for Simple Agreement for Future Equity). Essentially, as SAFE is a convertible note without the debt features. A SAFE carries no interest and does not have to be repaid. The investor in a SAFE will normally be sophisticated and able to assess the chances the company will do well enough for a conversion event (the issuance of preferred stock, or a sale of the company) to result in the investor's SAFE converting, and thus give the investor comfort that would otherwise be lacking in an instrument that has no repayment obligation. Like a convertible note, a SAFE kicks the can of valuation down the road, where a valuation can later be determined by the company and a future investor. Founders should exercise caution in issuing convertible notes or SAFE's. Among other reasons, founders commonly do not appreciate the impact that convertible notes or SAFE's can have on the founders' own ownership. Convertible notes and SAFE's often include a feature called a "valuation cap." This can result in surprising dilution, as well as the issuance of equity to the converting note or SAFE holder at what is effectively a very low price per share, costing the company far more than the founders may have expected. Also, notes and SAFE's with very similar, but different, terms can result in a complicated capitalization table, making negotiations with venture capital firms later on more difficult, an equity transaction more complex, and thus the process more time-consuming and (therefore) more expensive.

This is really a business question, as much as it is a legal question - although lawyers can certainly help you structure and document it once answered. That said, I think you're likely to find a spectrum of answers - on one end of the spectrum, there are 3 investors with equal shares (each having 1/3 of the equity - 2 of which receive their percentage in consideration for $ investments, while you receive yours for your efforts in running the business day-to-day- in this scenario, everyone and everything they bring to the table is equally valued); on the other end of the spectrum, there are 2 investors with equal or otherwise proportionate shares (each having 1/2 of the equity - or some other percentages that total to 100% - in consideration for their respective $ investments, which may differ depending on the value of the businesses underlying the loans), and you are considered an employee of the business (not an investor), who will receive compensation for running the business- presumably a salary and possibly including incentives based on the success of the business; and of course, there are some variations that could impact any or all parties in the middle of the spectrum. I suggest that you have a conversation with your potential partners to learn how each party views the value being brought to the enterprise by the others and begin the negotiation from there. Note also that this deal sounds simple in theory but may become a little complicated due to the funding mechanism being used on the back end.

HI Erin. Congratulations on starting your cold pressed juice venture. That is exciting. I do have experience drafting agreements between founders and investors. Vesting agreements can be very flexible to meet the needs of the parties. They are very useful when a party is investing sweat equity in addition to or in place of cash. I am happy to discuss such agreements with you and how they relate to your particular venture.

If you want to avoid dilution, then you need to fund the business with your own resources, and pay all your workers with money rather than equity. Otherwise, when building a business, dilution is simply a reality you have to live with. You can start out with a large amount of ownership, for example, 80% of the authorized shares, but over time dilution is inevitable. Which would you rather have, 90% of a company worth $200,000, or 55% of a company worth $1 million?