• Index
  • About Yokum
  • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Yokum
  • FAQs

Startup Company Lawyer

  • Incorporation
  • Founders
  • Stock options
  • General
  • Convertible note
  • Series A
  • Down Rounds
  • M&A
You are here: Home / Archives for Yokum

Obama proposes no capital gains tax on qualified small business stock

May 13, 2009 By Yokum 13 Comments

This week, the Obama Administration released the first comprehensive summary of its budget proposal. The budget proposal is wide ranging, and includes, for example, proposed changes with respect to the taxation of “carried interests” in partnerships, as well as sweeping reform of the international tax area. One proposal would dramatically improve the treatment of “qualified small business stock” issued after February 17, 2009.

The budget proposal would modify IRC Section 1202 to provide for a complete exemption from capital gains tax for qualified small business stock issued after February 17, 2009 and held for five years, and the amount excluded would not be added back for alternative minimum tax purposes. If enacted, this would significantly enhance the tax incentives currently available for qualified small business stock. Under current law, the exclusion for purposes of the regular income tax system of 50% of the recognized gain on the disposition of qualified small business stock (which was increased by the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to 75% for issuances in 2009 (after February 17, 2009) and in 2010) is substantially undercut by the combination of the high rate of tax (28%) applicable to the non-excluded portion of the gain under the regular income tax and the interplay between the AMT rules and Section 1202. Thus, historically, the principal federal tax benefit of qualified small business stock has been the ability to achieve “rollover” treatment of the proceeds from the sale of qualified small business stock under IRC Section 1045.

In light of the potential for this significant benefit associated with qualified small business stock, all venture financings should be analyzed very closely from a qualified small business stock standpoint. In addition, post-financing transactions, particularly stock redemptions, that potentially could undermine qualified small business stock status should be carefully reviewed.

The relevant provisions of the summary of the budget proposal related to qualified small business stock are below.

ELIMINATE CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION ON INVESTMENTS IN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK

Current Law

Taxpayers other than corporations may exclude 50-percent (60 percent for certain empowerment zone businesses) of the gain from the sale of certain small business stock acquired at original issue and held for at least five years. Under ARRA the exclusion is increased to 75 percent for stock acquired in 2009 (after February 17, 2009) and in 2010. The taxable portion of the gain is taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. Under current law, 7 percent of the excluded gain is a tax preference subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT preference is scheduled to increase to 28 percent of the excluded gain on eligible stock acquired after December 31, 2000 and to 42 percent of the excluded gain on stock acquired on or before that date.

The amount of gain eligible for the exclusion by a taxpayer with respect to any corporation during any year is the greater of (1) ten times the taxpayer’s basis in stock issued by the corporation and disposed of during the year, or (2) $10 million reduced by gain excluded in prior years on dispositions of the corporation’s stock. To qualify as a small business, the corporation, when the stock is issued, may not have gross assets exceeding $50 million (including the proceeds of the newly issued stock) and may not be an S corporation.

The corporation also must meet certain active trade or business requirements. For example, the corporation must be engaged in a trade or business other than: one involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services or any other trade or business where the principal asset of the trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more employees; a banking, insurance, financing, leasing, investing or similar business; a farming business; a business involving production or extraction of items subject to depletion; or a hotel, motel, restaurant or similar business. There are limits on the amount of real property that may be held by a qualified small business, and ownership of, dealing in, or renting real property is not treated as an active trade or business.

Reasons for Change

Because the taxable portion of gain from the sale of qualified small business stock is subject to tax at a maximum of 28 percent and a percentage of the excluded gain is a preference under the AMT, the current 50-percent provision provides little benefit. Increasing the exclusion would encourage and reward new investment in qualified small business stock.

Proposal

Under the proposal the percentage exclusion for qualified small business stock sold by an individual or other non-corporate taxpayer would be increased to 100 percent and the AMT preference item for gain excluded under this provision would be eliminated. The stock would have to be held for at least five years and other provisions applying to the section 1202 exclusion would also apply. The proposal would include additional documentation requirements to assure compliance with the statute.

The proposal would be effective for qualified small business stock issued after February 17, 2009.

UPDATE (the following is from a WSGR client alert dated October 7, 2010)

The recent enactment of the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (SBJCA) may provide a substantial tax benefit to investors who acquire qualified small business stock (QSBS) on or after September 28, 2010, and before January 1, 2011. Entrepreneurs and investors considering forming or making investments in qualifying corporations, including owners of unincorporated businesses considering incorporation, should be aware of the potential advantages of acquiring QSBS during the relevant time frame.

Under the law prior to the enactment of the SBJCA, Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, allowed an individual taxpayer to exclude 50 percent of any gain from the sale or exchange of QSBS held more than five years. This exclusion was increased to 75 percent for QSBS acquired after February 17, 2009, and before 2011. A portion of the excluded gain has been treated as an item of tax preference for alternative minimum tax purposes.

Under the SBJCA, an investor may exclude 100 percent of the gain from the sale or exchange of QSBS held more than five years that is acquired after September 27, 2010, and on or before December 31, 2010. Importantly, such gain is also eligible for exemption from alternative minimum tax, thus effectively eliminating tax on such gain.

QSBS Background

Stock of a small business generally qualifies as QSBS if the stock meets certain requirements, including: (i) the small business is a domestic C corporation; (ii) the taxpayer acquired the stock at its original issue in exchange for money or other property (not including stock) or as compensation for services; (iii) the small business is engaged in a qualified trade or business and uses 80 percent (by value) of its assets in the active conduct of one or more qualified trades or businesses; (iv) the aggregate tax basis of the small business’s assets on the date after the stock is issued (including proceeds received in exchange for the stock) is $50,000,000 or less; and (v) with certain de minimis exceptions, the small business has not made any repurchases of stock within the two-year period starting one year prior to the date the stock was issued. A “qualified trade or business” is defined as any trade or business other than (i) any trade or business involving the performance of services, such as accounting, engineering, or consulting, or any other trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees; (ii) any banking or financial business; (iii) any farming business; (iv) any mining or oil or gas business; and (v) any business of operating a hotel, motel, restaurant, or similar business.

In addition to the exclusions described above, under Section 1045 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer who (i) holds QSBS for more than six months (the original QSBS); (ii) sells the original QSBS in an otherwise taxable transaction; and (iii) during the 60-day period beginning on the date of such sale, purchases new QSBS (replacement QSBS) generally will recognize gain on its original QSBS only to the extent that the proceeds from such sale exceed the amount invested in the replacement QSBS.

FURTHER UPDATE (December 17, 2010)

The 100 percent exclusion was extended to QSBS acquired before December 31, 2011.

Filed Under: Founders

What is TheFunded Founder Institute?

May 4, 2009 By Yokum 8 Comments

fundedfounderbwfounder-institute

Adeo Ressi, the founding member of TheFunded, recently announced the establishment of TheFunded Founder Institute.

The Founder Institute helps founders launch innovative companies by providing training, services, and company-building assignments, such as incorporating the business, filing provision patents, and setting up books and records. The Institute offers a four month program, called a Semester, hosted initially in the Bay Area and then expanding to locations around the world. The program participants, the Founders, receive extensive training in weekly sessions overseen by three Mentors – two seasoned CEOs and one domain expert for each topic.

The driving beliefs behind the Institute are that (1) great founders are often overlooked by the current entrepreneurial ecosystem, and that (2) innovative startups have a dramatic positive effect on the global economy. Startup companies consume resources intelligently, put people to work in efficient ways, and produce market driven products at lower costs. Helping smart people start new companies should, in fact, help the global economy.

TechCrunch initially reported on the Founder Institute in March 2009.  The Founder Institute has recruited 25 executives to serve as mentors for the founders participating in the program.  The mentors will also lead weekly evening training sessions on company-building tasks.  Founders are not expected to quit their day jobs to participate in the program, which starts on May 19, 2009 and ends on September 8, 2009.  Sessions will be held in the San Francisco Bay Area at locations such as Stanford and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.  Class sessions and course material will be available online.  Although founders outside of the San Francisco Bay Area are welcome, founders in the Bay Area who are able to attend sessions in person are likely to benefit the most from interactions with mentor and other founders.  Future semesters are expected to be held in other locations.

The Founder Institute will assist founders in setting up meetings with potential investors and other parties throughout the semester.

Applications

The Founder Institute intends to accept between 75 and 100 founders for the initial semester, although the size may be limited.  Applications are due by May 10, 2009.  Applicants must:

  • Have a preliminary idea and a passion to build something
  • Have not yet incorporated, though the Founder Institute will make some exceptions for existing businesses
  • Focus on a high tech or innovative sector, such as biotech, cleantech, and information technology
  • Possess reasonable training or domain expertise
  • Pass basic background and reference checks

The application fee is $50, which only partially offsets costs associated with processing applications.  If accepted, the founder must pay a $450 course fee to cover material and administrative costs.  Microsoft BizSpark has provided a limited number of scholarships to the program.  If a founder’s company raises more than $50,000 in debt or equity financing, excluding funds from the founder, within 18 months of formation, then the founder must pay a tuition fee of $4,500, which is used to cover the Institute’s expenses in providing the program.

Mentors

The Founder Institute has assembled 25 executives to serve as mentors for the participants and to lead weekly sessions.  Mentors for the Summer 2009 Semester include:

  • Trip Adler – CEO, Scribd
  • Michael Arrington – TechCrunch
  • Joe Betts-LaCroix – CTO, OQO
  • Jason Calacanis – CEO, Mahalo
  • Russ Fradin – CEO, Adify
  • Scott Heiferman – CEO, Meetup
  • David Higly – CEO Higley & Company LLC
  • Jay Jamison – Founder, Moonshoot
  • Philip Kaplan – Entrepreneur
  • Eugene Lee – CEO, Socialtext
  • Bubba Muraka – Business Development, Facebook
  • Scott Painter – CEO, Zag
  • Aaron Patzer – CEO, Mint.com
  • Peter Pham – CEO, BillShrink
  • Mark Pincus – CEO, Zynga
  • Alain Raynaud – CEO, FairSoftware
  • Ken Ross – Founder/CEO, ExpertCEO
  • Munjal Shah – CEO, Like.com
  • Jen Shelby – Managing Director, Astia
  • Jeff Stewart – CEO, Urgent Career
  • Brian Thatcher – CEO, Empressr
  • Joe Zawadzki – CEO, MediaMath

Additional mentors will be announced shortly.

Curriculum

The evening training sessions will be held weekly with various company-building “homework” assignments.  The curriculum is as follows:

Your Vision & Idea Types
May 19th, 2009: Identify a vision for your business
Description: How to articulate your vision and your passion. Does it involve intellectual property, model innovation, speed to market, market positioning? What is required for different types of ideas?
Mentors: Trip Adler | Philip Kaplan | Mark Pincus | Paul Harkins |

Basic Research
May 26th, 2009: Validate your idea with industry professionals
Description: Know your market, your competitors, and your idea. Can it be done? Will it work?
Mentors: Trip Adler | Mark Pincus | Jason Calacanis | Joe Betts-LaCroix |

Naming
June 2nd, 2009: Name your future business
Description: What’s in a name, and how do you choose a good one?
Mentors: Bryan Thatcher | Mark Pincus | Jay Jamison |

Intellectual Property
June 9th, 2009: File your provisional patents
Description: Practical strategy to getting your first patents quickly, cheaply, and with the necessary protections.
Mentors: Alain Raynaud | Eugene Lee | Joe Betts-LaCroix |

Roadmap
June 16th, 2009: Develop a plan to build your idea
Description: What it takes to get from an idea to an offering. What are common planning mistakes and how do you to avoid them?
Mentors: Trip Adler | Philip Kaplan | Munjal Shah | Jason Calacanis | Bubba Murarka |

Revenue
June 23rd, 2009: Create a revenue model for your business
Description: How to get it. How to grow it. How to track it. How to scale from the first sale to the millionth.
Mentors: Munjal Shah | Eugene Lee | Jay Jamison | Jen Shelby |

Books and Records
June 30th, 2009: Set-up accounting practices
Description: Set-up an accounting system to grow with your needs. What do you start with? Where do you end up after scaling?
Mentors: David Higley | Ken Ross |

Budgeting and Cash Flow
July 7th, 2009: Develop budgeting practices for your model
Description: What is right for a new business: annual, quarterly, or monthly budgets? What does a good budget process look like?
Mentors: Joe Zawadzki | Ken Ross |

Hiring and Firing
July 14th, 2009: Implement hiring policies and practices
Description: When to hire and when to fire? When is it ‘too late’? Choosing co-founders, and forming a founding team with a well-rounded skill set…
Mentors: Scott Heiferman | Joe Zawadzki | Jay Jamison | Paul Harkins |

Recruiting Success
July 21st, 2009: Identify world-class talent
Description: Who are the best in your field? Can you sell them on your vision?
Mentors: Jeff Stewart | Scott Heiferman | Russ Fradin | Bubba Murarka |

Exit Strategies
July 28th, 2009: Build a value generation plan
Description: How to prepare for an exit long before it happens. How to keep your start-up in the sights of both partners and buyers. How to build enterprise value every day. Don’t get caught off guard with an opportunity.
Mentors: David Higley | Peter Pham | Russ Fradin |

Vendors
August 4th, 2009: Select key vendors
Description: What to in-source. What to outsource. How to hire the best vendors for the best rates. What tools does the business need?
Mentors: Munjal Shah | Alain Raynaud | Peter Pham | Joe Betts-LaCroix |

Incorporation
August 11th, 2009: Incorporate the business
Description: How to set-up the right company structure to attract great employees and investors. What corporate formalities are required, and when?
Mentors: Ken Ross |

Marketing
August 17th, 2009: Create a messaging plan
Description: How to sell the story of your company and your offering.
Mentors: Bryan Thatcher | Scott Painter | Bubba Murarka | Joe Zawadzki | Jen Shelby |

Publicity
August 18th, 2009: Start outreach to key media sources
Description: Getting your vision and company name out there. From blogs to radio, what works and what does not?
Mentors: Philip Kaplan | Jason Calacanis | Peter Pham | Bubba Murarka |

The Funding Lifecycle
August 25th, 2009: Create a funding plan with targets
Description: What are the typical stages of the funding life cycle for different types of startup businesses? What kind of specific milestones should one expect to meet in order to progress through those funding stages?
Mentors: Scott Painter | Scott Heiferman | Russ Fradin | Paul Harkins |

Presentation
September 8th, 2009: Create a perfect pitchdeck
Description: How to explain and present your business to target partners and investors.
Mentors: Bryan Thatcher | Scott Painter | Eugene Lee |

Warrants and Bonus Pool

Each founder participating in a semester’s program will sign a Founder Agreement, which includes an obligation to grant a warrant to the Founder Institute to purchase 3.5% of the founder’s company’s fully-diluted capitalization immediately after an initial equity financing raising greater than $100,000.  The exercise price will be the price per share to other investors in the financing.  The founder’s company may terminate the warrant on or prior to the initial equity financing by paying the Founder Institute $100,000.  In addition, if the founder is removed or resigns as a director and does not certify to the reasonable satisfaction of the Founder Institute that such resignation or removal was voluntary, then the founder’s company must pay the Founder Institute $100,000.  Forms of the Founder Agreement and the warrant are available on the Founder Insititute website.

30% of the proceeds from the warrants received within five years from the start of a term shall be set aside in a bonus pool for the founders participating in a particular semester.  In addition, another 30% of the proceeds will be set aside for the mentors, with a portion of that based on founder reviews.

Founder friendly documents

The Founder Institute has developed Class F common stock, which provides founders with a maximum amount of control over the founder’s company.  TechCrunch and VentureBeat recently reported on this innovation and Adeo Ressi provided his thoughts in PEHub.  A form of Certificate of Incorporation that includes provisions for Class F common stock, along with a form of restricted stock purchase agreement are available on the Founder Institute website.  The Founder Institute requires founders to use these documents, or other documents approved by the Founder Institute, when forming a company.

[Disclaimer:  I represent the Founder Institute.]

Filed Under: Founders

How much should you pay an executive in a startup company?

May 1, 2009 By Yokum 7 Comments

CompStudy publishes an annual report of equity and cash compensation that provides compensation data on top management positions and Boards of Directors at private companies in technology and life sciences.  CompStudy covers more than 25,000 executives at 5,000 companies and is the largest study of its kind.

Data is analyzed by: founder/non-founder status, company revenue and headcount, geography, business segment, and number of financing rounds raised. Additional detail is provided on compensation for the Board of Directors, general organizational changes over time and other compensation trends.

The survey consists of a Web-based questionnaire, which can be filled out by a single member of a company’s executive team and takes approximately 45-60 minutes to complete.

CEOs or CFOs of startups in the US, China, India, Israel, or the UK in the technology or life science industry should consider taking the survey.   Participants who complete the survey will receive the full results at no cost. 

The 2008 results are available on Altgate and are also embedded below.

For example, below are the 2008 results for average equity granted at time of hire in IT companies:

  • CEO 5.40%
  • President/COO 2.58%
  • CFO 1.01%
  • Head of Technology/CTO 1.19%
  • Head of Engineering 1.32%
  • Head of Sales 1.20%
  • Head of Marketing 0.91%
  • Head of Business Development 1.23%
  • Head of Human Resources 0.24%
  • Head of Professional Services 0.60%

2008 CompStudy Report in Technology

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law startup equity

2008 CompStudy Report in Life Sciences

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law startup equity

Filed Under: Stock options

What is Class F common stock?

April 23, 2009 By Yokum 19 Comments

Adeo Ressi, the founding member of The Funded, recently announced the establishment of The Funded Founder Institute.

The Founder Institute helps founders launch innovative companies by providing training, services, and company-building assignments, such as incorporating the business, filing provision patents, and setting up books and records. The Institute offers a four month program, called a Semester, hosted initially in the Bay Area and then expanding to locations around the world. The program participants, the Founders, receive extensive training in weekly sessions overseen by three Mentors – two seasoned CEOs and one domain expert for each topic.

The driving beliefs behind the Institute are that (1) great founders are often overlooked by the current entrepreneurial ecosystem, and that (2) innovative startups have a dramatic positive effect on the global economy. Startup companies consume resources intelligently, put people to work in efficient ways, and produce market driven products at lower costs. Helping smart people start new companies should, in fact, help the global economy.

The Founder Institute recently published a sample certificate of incorporation that Adeo used when incorporating the Founder Institute, Incorporated.  Adeo was focused on creating mechanisms to protect founders who may lose control of the companies they created after raising financing from investors.  The current customary form of venture financing documents has not changed much since with mid-1970s when they first became widely adopted in Silicon Valley.

Therefore, Adeo wanted to include a number of extremely founder-friendly provisions in the certificate of incorporation for companies formed in connection with the Founder Institute.  These provisions include a special class of super-voting common stock, called “Class F” common stock, which is named for “Founders.”

  • Voting.  The COI includes Class A common stock, which has one vote per share, and Class F common stock, which has 10 votes per share.  Companies such as Google, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Broadcom and others have super-voting common stock.  Super-voting common stock is sometimes seen in companies where founders or a family wish to maintain control of a company after obtaining outside investment.
  • Protective provisions.  Similar to protective provisions in a Series A preferred stock financing, there are certain fundamental actions that cannot be taken without the consent of holders of more than 50% of the Class F common stock.  The Class F common stock protective provision basically provides:

As long as any of the Class F common stock is outstanding, consent of the holders of at least 50% of the Class F common stock will be required for any action that (i) alters any provision of the certificate of incorporation or the bylaws if it would adversely alter the rights, preferences, privileges or powers of or restrictions on the Class F common stock; (ii) changes the authorized number of shares of Class F common stock; (iii) authorizes or creates any new class or series of shares having rights, preferences or privileges with respect to dividends or liquidation senior to or common stock on a parity with the Class F common stock or having voting rights other than those granted to the Class F common stock generally; (iv) approves any merger, sale of assets or other corporate reorganization or acquisition, or the liquidation or dissolution of the Company; (v) increase the size of the board; or (vi) declares or pays any dividend or distribution.

  • Directors.  Holders of Class F common stock are allowed to elect one director.  The Class F director has 2 votes per director, as opposed other directors, who have one vote. Section 141(d) of the Delaware General Corporation Law permits a company to have directors with more than one vote per director. This may address a situation where there is a desire to keep the size of a board small, but ensure that board “control” is maintained by a particular group of stockholders.

The Class F common stock and the Class A common stock otherwise participate equally with respect to dividends and distributions and other economic rights.  The Class F common stock can be converted into Class A at any time at the option of the holder, and will automatically convert if the holder dies or if the Class F common stock is transferred to someone other than another Class F holder or an entity for the benefit of a Class F holder.

Whether any of these provisions will survive after a typical Series A venture financing depends on the negotiating position of the parties.  At a minimum, people like Adeo and blogs like Venture Hacks are educating founders about financing terms that may be detrimental to founders.

[Update:  Class F common stock is discussed in Techcrunch, VentureBeat, PE Hub and the WSJ.  In addition, Marc Andreessen has a blog post strongly supporting dual class stock structures in certain circumstances.]

Filed Under: Founders

WSGR online venture financing term sheet generator

April 22, 2009 By Yokum 3 Comments

[Below is the text of a WSGR email update.]

Always looking for ways to better serve the entrepreneurial community, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to announce the release of the WSGR Term Sheet Generator, a publicly available online tool that allows entrepreneurs and investors to generate an initial draft of a term sheet for a preferred stock financing. By answering a series of questions, users are guided through the principal variables contained in a venture financing term sheet. Brief explanations of the questions and typical deal terms are included. After answering as many questions as desired, users can generate, print, and save a Word version of the term sheet, which is intended to be useful in deal discussions between entrepreneurs and investors and in crafting a final, customized term sheet with the help of attorneys.

The term sheet generator is another example of the firm’s commitment to providing services to our clients more quickly and efficiently. Our attorneys use a more extensive version of the tool to generate initial drafts of documents for Series A preferred stock financings, including Certificates of Incorporation, Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, Investor Rights Agreements, Right of First Refusal and Co-sale Agreements, Voting Agreements, corporate approvals, and closing documents. By using this tool, we believe that we are able to represent clients and complete transactions more efficiently. We also have a similar tool for generating initial drafts of more than 20 start-up company formation documents. In addition to document automation, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati has developed other sophisticated knowledge management and related resources that enable our attorneys to better serve clients by tapping the essential expertise and experience of the entire firm.

Users with general comments regarding the WSGR Term Sheet Generator should contact partner Yoichiro (Yokum) Taku at ytaku@wsgr.com or Practice Resources Special Counsel Anthony Kikuta at akikuta@wsgr.com. To learn more about Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s entrepreneurial services, please click here.

[Update:  See below for various mentions of the term sheet generator.]

Altgate:  Law Firm Wilson Sonsini Now Preparing Term Sheets For Free (Furqan Nazeeri provides a review of the tool along with a sample term sheet that he created.)

Mendelson’s Musings: Wilson Sonsini Term Sheet Generator

Legal Blog Watch: Law Firm Replacing Itself With Free Term Sheet Generator

Guy Kawasaki:  Free Online Term Sheet Generator

WSJ Blogs: The Daily Startup: Putting Terms in Entrepreneurs’ Hands

ABA Journal: Wilson Sonsini Offers Free Document Assembly Tool

Adams Drafting:  The WSGR Term Sheet Generator: The Inoxerable Creep of Document Assembly

Prism Legal: New WSGR Term Sheet Generator – an Innovative Online Service

Law Shucks:  WSGR Term-Sheet Generator

Startup CFO:  Automatic Term Sheet Generator

The Startup Lawyer:  WSGR Launches Term Sheet Generator

VC Confidential: Term Sheet Tool

CenterNetworks:  Wilson Sonsini Launches Free Term Sheet Generator

Strategize:  Wilson Sonsini Term Sheet Generator

Sophisticated Finance:  Wilson Sonsini Term Sheet Generator

Kentucky Startup Blog: Term Sheet Generator

Steven Cox: Need a Venture Capital Term Sheet?  Here’s a FREE One

Legal Process Outsourcing:  Have Wilson Sonsini Read “The End of Lawyers?”

Barron’s:  For the Startup with No Money to Pay Pricey Lawyers:  Wilson Sonsini’s Do-It-Yourself Term Sheet Generator

Reuters:  Free financing tool to help startups get legal ball rolling

Reuters:  Hoopla over automated term sheet may be legit

WSJ Law Blogs:  Wilson’s Little Gift to the World

Xbusinessman:  WSGR term sheet generator (in Japanese)

The Lean Marketer: Online Term Sheet Generator for Venture Capital Funding

Filed Under: Series A

What is an accredited investor?

April 3, 2009 By Yokum 9 Comments

Under the Securities Act of 1933, a company that offers or sells its securities must register the securities with the SEC or find an exemption from the registration requirements. In addition, the company must also comply with securities laws in each state where securities are offered.

The Act provides companies with a number of exemptions from federal registration requirements. For some of the exemptions, such as rules 505 and 506 of Regulation D, a company may sell its securities to what are known as “accredited investors” defined in rule 501 of Regulation D.  Offerings to accredited investors are exempt from the registration requirements on the theory that accredited investors are sophisticated enough to protect their own interests.

The following types of individuals are accredited investors:

  • a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities;
  • a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase; or
  • a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year.

Net worth includes the value of houses and automobiles.  Thus, many homeowners are accredited investors due to the value of their houses.  The $1 million net worth and $200,000 income standards were established in 1982 and have not increased with inflation.

The following types of entities are accredited investors:

  • a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company;
  • an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million;
  • a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million;
  • a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors; or
  • a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes.

UPDATE

SEC Proposes Amendments to the Net Worth Standard for Accredited Investor Status

On January 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to propose certain amendments to the net worth standard for determining accredited investor status under the rules promulgated by the Securities Act of 1933. These amendments reflect the requirements of Section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Although Section 413 was effective on July 21, 2010, upon enactment by operation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is still required to revise the Securities Act rules to reflect the new standard. In addition, the SEC is proposing technical amendments to Form D and a number of rules to conform them to the language of Section 413(a) and to correct cross-references to former Section 4(6) of the Securities Act, which was renumbered Section 4(5) by the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rules are available here.

New Net Worth Test

Under proposed Securities Act Rules 215 and 501, the value of a person’s primary residence would be excluded for purposes of determining whether the person qualifies as an “accredited investor” on the basis of having a net worth in excess of $1 million. Previously, the net worth standards required a minimum net worth of more than $1,000,000, but permitted the primary residence to be included in calculating net worth.

The proposed amendments would define an accredited investor, among other things, as:

“Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of purchase, exceeds $1,000,000, excluding the value of the primary residence of such natural person, calculated by subtracting from the estimated fair market value of the property the amount of debt secured by the property, up to the estimated fair market value of the property.”

Neither the Securities Act nor the Securities Act rules define the term “net worth,” so the proposing release states that the purpose of adding the phrase introduced by the words “calculated by” is to clarify that net worth is calculated by excluding only the investor’s net equity in the primary residence. The SEC believes this approach is consistent with and advances the regulatory purposes of Section 413(a) because it reduces the net worth measure by the amount or “value” that the primary residence contributed to the investor’s net worth before enactment of Section 413(a). The SEC also notes that some of its existing rules are similar in approach to the proposed rules. For example, Rule 701 under Regulation R provides for the exclusion of the value of a person’s primary residence in applying a net worth standard and also provides for the exclusion of “associated liabilities,” such as mortgages.

The proposed rules do not define “primary residence,” although they provide that issuers and investors should be able to use the commonly understood meaning of the term—the home where a person lives most of the time.

Effectiveness of the Proposed Rules

There is no transition period for the new accredited investor net worth standards, since these new standards were effective upon enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the current rules, a company or fund is not permitted to treat an investor as accredited if the investor subsequently loses that status, even if the investor has previously invested in the company or fund at a time when it satisfied the accredited investor standard. Investors must satisfy the applicable accredited investor income or net worth standard in effect at the time of every exempt sale of securities to the investor that is made in reliance upon the investor’s status as such. The proposed amendments would not change this situation. Nevertheless, the SEC is seeking comment on whether some transition and other rules might be appropriate to facilitate subsequent investments by an investor who previously qualified as accredited but was disqualified by the change effected by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Section 413(b) specifically authorizes the SEC to undertake a review of the definition of the term “accredited investor” as it applies to natural persons, and requires the SEC to undertake a review of the definition “in its entirety” every four years, beginning in 2014.

Effect of the New Net Worth Test

Among other things, the changes required by Section 413 of the Dodd-Frank Act impact the legal requirements governing unregistered offers and sales of securities, i.e., “private placement” exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act relied on by companies in raising private capital from individuals. One of the requirements of certain private placement exemptions is for capital to be raised from accredited investors. By excluding the value of an investor’s primary residence in calculating net worth, indebtedness secured by the primary residence would be netted against the value of the primary residence up to the fair market value of the property. This may cause fewer individuals to qualify as accredited investors, thereby reducing available private capital.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is still possible for individuals to qualify as accredited investors on other grounds. For example, Rule 501 of the Securities Act provides that an accredited investor shall also mean any person who comes within, or who the issuer reasonably believes comes within, any of the following categories:

  • any director, executive officer, or general partner of the issuer of the securities being sold, or
  • any natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

As a result, while the net worth test promulgated pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act may be more restrictive, natural persons may still qualify as accredited investors under one of the other definitions provided in Rule 501.

What You Should Do Now

Because Section 413(a) became effective upon the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and it requires the exclusion of the value of a person’s primary residence for purposes of determining whether such person qualifies as an “accredited investor,” all companies that have not already done so should revise their standard forms of accredited investor questionnaire and investor representations and warranties in their standard forms of financing documents to ensure that an individual’s net worth is properly calculated.

Filed Under: General

What type of entity should I form?

March 12, 2009 By Yokum 23 Comments

C corps, LLCs, and S corps differ significantly in the areas of taxation, ownership, fundraising, governance and structure, and employee compensation.  Almost all technology startup companies that I work with are C corps.  Any company that raises venture financing will need to be a C corp in order to issue preferred stock.

If founders want the benefit of flow through tax treatment with respect to losses prior to an outside financing, an S corp election may make sense as long as there are no entity or non-U.S. citizen/resident stockholders.  However, S corp losses can only be used to offset personal income up to the founders’ basis in the S corp stock, which may decrease the utility of the S corp election. In any event, the S corp election can be easily revoked at the time of a financing. The legal documentation for an S corp is basically identical to an C corp.

I generally avoid LLCs as most technology startup companies need to grant options to employees and consultants, and there is no easy “off the rack” method to do this.  In addition, the conversion of an LLC to a C corp results in additional legal and accounting expense.  However, LLCs may make sense for businesses like consulting companies.

The primary differences between C corps, LLCs and S corps are outlined below.

Taxation

  • C Corps. A C corp is a separate taxable entity independent from its stockholders. Thus, the earnings of a C corporation are generally taxed twice: once at the corporate level on the corporation’s taxable income and a second time at the stockholder level on dividends or distributions. In addition, C corps often must pay higher state franchise taxes than LLCs or S corps.

Although the double-taxation feature of C corps may be undesirable, its impact may be diminished where a company does not pay dividends or generates taxable income at a lower marginal tax rate than the rate applicable to the individual stockholders. If a C corp generates net operating losses rather than net income, these are carried forward to offset future corporate taxable income. However, such operating losses may not be used to offset taxable income of the individual shareholders.

  • LLCs. LLCs are flow through entities for tax purposes, meaning that taxable income earned by the entity is passed through to individual members. Thus, earnings are taxed only once, at the member level. An LLC may elect to be taxed as a C corp, an S corp, or a partnership. It may specially allocate items of income or loss among its various members. It may use taxable losses generated at the entity level to offset taxable income of the individual LLC members. However, such flexibility is countered by increased compliance costs due to the application of complex partnership tax rules that also apply to LLCs.
  • S Corps. Similar to LLCs, S corps receive flow through tax treatment. However, an S corp must allocate its taxable income to the individual stockholders according to their ownership stakes in the company. Taxable losses at the entity level may be used to offset personal taxable income of the individual stockholders, but only to the extent of the tax basis of their interests in the entity.

Ownership (Stockholders)

  • C Corps. C corps may have an unlimited number of stockholders (subject to SEC reporting requirements if the number exceeds 500). The owners do not need to have a relationship with one another nor have a role in running the day-to-day affairs of the company. Additionally, they may transfer their ownership freely and readily (by selling their stock) without affecting the continuing existence of the business or the title to its assets. Thus, the perpetual existence of the entity is unaffected by the death or withdrawal of any one shareholder.
  • LLCs. Similar to a corporation, an LLC may have an unlimited number of members. However, ownership transferability for an LLC is not as flexible as that for a C corp. Generally, a member needs the approval of other members before selling an interest in the LLC. Also, a death, withdrawal, expulsion, or other departure of a member may constitute a termination of the LLC and a deemed liquidation for federal tax purposes.
  • S Corps. Unlike C corps. and LLCs, S corps are limited to 100 domestic stockholders. Stockholders must be individuals, with limited exceptions for certain trusts, estates, and exempt organizations. Stockholders must also be U.S. citizens or residents.  Ownership transferability is flexible and similar to that of C corps. Finally, the perpetual existence of the S corp is unaffected by the death or withdrawal of any stockholder.

Fundraising

  • C Corps. Most venture and institutional investors favor C corps because they may have separate classes of stock, allowing for the creation of various levels of preferences, protections, and share valuations. A C corp is also the easiest type of entity to take public in an initial public offering.
  • LLCs. Although LLCs may be attractive to businesses financed by a small number of corporate investors and/or individuals, they are often not suitable for companies planning to attract venture capital or pursue multiple rounds of funding. LLCs require complicated operating agreements that may render the operation of the LLC undesirably difficult with a high number of members. They may be unattractive to tax-exempt venture fund investors because their investment in a flow through entity may produce unrelated business taxable income. Finally, investors simply may be less familiar with LLCs and therefore less willing to invest in them.
  • S Corps. S corps are not a popular entity choice because, in addition to presenting the same challenges to tax-exempt venture fund partners as those presented by LLCs, S corps are limited to one class of stock (meaning no preferred stock financings) and 100 stockholders. Such inflexible features are typically unattractive to venture investors.

Governance/Structure

  • C Corps. C corps have well-defined structural accountability, with governance responsibilities held separate and apart from the owners. Management is accountable to the board of directors and therefore has the ability to transact business without stockholder participation in each decision. However, corporations are required to pay attention to formalities that legislatures and courts have determined to be significant (e.g., meetings of boards of directors and maintenance of corporate bylaws, corporate minute books, stock ledger books, separate bank accounts, etc.).
  • LLCs. LLCs operate more informally then C corps and are either managed directly by the owners or managed by one or more owners (or an outside party) designated to fulfill such responsibility. Unlike corporations, they are not bound by corporate formalities such as holding regular ownership and management meetings. However, in contrast to corporations, they do not operate under a well-defined regime of uniformity and legal precedent.
  • S Corps. S corps operate in a manner similar to C corps. and must therefore adhere to statutory formalities for decision making.

Employee Compensation

  • C Corps. Businesses that plan to use equity incentives (e.g. stock options) to attract and retain talent often prefer to operate as C corps. C corps can offer incentive stock option plans that allow employees to defer tax on the equity compensation until they sell the underlying stock. Additionally, C corps. may offer certain fringe benefits to employees that are tax-deductible to the company and also tax-free to the employee.
  • LLCs. While an LLC may reward employees by offering them membership interests in the LLC, the equity compensation process is awkward and may be unattractive to employees. Furthermore, LLCs are not able to offer certain forms of equity compensation available to C corps., such as incentive stock options.
  • S Corps. Although S corps can grant stock options, they should not be granted to non-U.S. residents. S corps are less flexible than C corps with regard to fringe benefits and must either report the benefits as taxable compensation to the employees or forfeit the fringe benefit deduction available to the company.

Filed Under: Incorporation

What state should I incorporate in?

March 3, 2009 By Yokum 29 Comments

I think there are three primary choices for the state of incorporation for most technology startup companies:  (i) Delaware, (ii) the state where the company has its headquarters (i.e. California), and (iii) the Cayman Islands.

Almost all of the companies that I represent that intend to receive venture financing are incorporated in Delaware.  I represent a few pre-VC financed California companies were already incorporated by the time that I met them.  I also represent a few Cayman companies that have headquarters outside the U.S.

Reasons to incorporate in Delaware

Regardless of where the operations of a business entity are located, Delaware is frequently chosen as the state of incorporation for the following reasons:

  • Investors insist on Delaware

Almost all investors, regardless of where they are located, are familiar with Delaware corporate law.  They may also be familiar with the corporate law of state where they are located.  Because of the various advantages that Delaware law provides, most venture capital investors insist on investing in a Delaware entity. 

If a company is incorporated in another state, such as California, and needs to reincorporate in Delaware in connection with a venture financing, the company will incur additional legal expenses in connection with the reincorporation.  If a company ultimately undertakes an initial public offering of its stock, the underwriters will usually require that the entity be incorporated in Delaware.  In order to complete a reincorporation, a California company typically creates a subsidiary in Delaware and merges into it, with the Delaware company surviving.  Compliance with securities laws may be problematic if there are lots of shareholders. All contracts of the company must be reviewed in order to ensure that the reincorporation doesn’t accidentally terminate an agreement.

One example of a material difference in corporate law between states is the stockholder vote necessary to sell a company.  California corporate law provides that a merger requires the approval of a majority of the outstanding shares of each class of the corporation. This means preferred stock as a class and common stock as a separate class.  In contrast, Delaware corporate law provides that a merger requires the approval of a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote.  The fact that holders of common need to approve a merger of a California corporation is one reason why venture funds prefer Delaware. Venture funds don’t want common holders to have the ability to block a merger.

  • Delaware has a predictable, fair and well-developed body of corporate law

Delaware has a specialized court (the Court of Chancery) that has original jurisdiction over corporate law matters.  Because of its unique expertise on corporate and business law matters, the Court of Chancery has produced a large body of decisions that has clarified and interpreted the Delaware corporate statutes. In addition, the Court of Chancery (and the Delaware Supreme Court which hears appeals from the Court of Chancery) is focused on the timely resolution of corporate law disputes.  An appeal from the Court of Chancery may often be heard and ruled upon by the Delaware Supreme Court in a matter of days.

  • Directors of Delaware corporations are afforded a high degree of protection

While the directors of Delaware corporations have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the stockholders, Delaware courts will, as a general matter and absent fraud or self-dealing, defer to the good faith business judgments made by the directors.  In addition, Delaware corporate law allows for a corporation to indemnify its directors for losses that they may incur from being sued.  Attorneys are generally more comfortable advising directors on their fiduciary duties under Delaware law as opposed to the law of any other state.

  • Complying with procedural formalities is efficient in Delaware

Observing proper corporate formalities under Delaware law is efficient, which is critical to preserving the limited liability feature of corporations.  Delaware was one of the first states to allow voting by electronic proxy and attendance at stockholder meetings through the Internet.  Additional areas of flexibility include the ability of less than all stockholders to act by written consent and the allowance of electronic signatures.  Filings, such as an amendment to a company’s certificate of incorporation in connection with a venture financing, can be made electronically and are generally accepted upon submission within a day.

In addition, Delaware law is more flexible with respect to the number of directors.  When a California corporation has two shareholders, it must have two directors, and when it has three or more shareholders, it must have three directors.  Delaware corporations are only required to have one director.

Reasons not to incorporate in Delaware

There are some reasons why a company may not want to incorporate in Delaware, including the following:

  • Delaware franchise taxes

An entity that operates in a state other than Delaware will need to comply with tax and regulatory requirements in both Delaware and the state in which it operates (including qualifying to do business as a “foreign” corporation in that state and paying the relevant fees).  In particular, Delaware has an annual franchise tax that it levies on its corporations, although this amount is generally negligible for a start-up company with few assets and stockholders.  If a company is not going to raise venture financing and will not otherwise be forced to reincorporate to Delaware, then incorporating in the state where it conducts business will save the company from paying Delaware franchise taxes.  However, the cost and hassle of reincorporating to Delaware in the future may be greater than any tax savings in the early stages of the company.

  • Non-U.S. businesses

Some companies may be initially incorporated in the U.S., but may determine that establishing an off-shore parent entity is beneficial for investment or tax reasons.  For example, some non-U.S. venture funds are prohibited from investing in U.S. companies.

Companies incorporated in tax-favorable jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda are not subject to taxation in their jurisdiction of incorporation, although depending on the nature of their operations, they may be taxed on their earnings in higher tax jurisdictions.  Thus, a Cayman company may avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes on a portion of its worldwide income. 

However, there are serious tax issues associated with establishing an off-shore parent company when there is an existing U.S. entity or if intellectual property originates in the U.S.  Thus, if there is some reason that a company may need to establish an off-shore parent company in the future, then legal and tax advisors should be consulted prior to incorporation.

The Cayman Islands has become the preferred jurisdiction for many Chinese companies.  Only companies established in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, China and Hong Kong are pre-approved for listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.  In addition, Cayman corporate law has enough flexibility to permit U.S. style preferred stock financing arrangements and most venture capital investors that regularly invest in companies with headquarters in China are familiar with Cayman law and the documents used in these financings.

Filed Under: Incorporation

What are bylaws?

February 15, 2009 By Yokum 4 Comments

The bylaws of a corporation set forth various procedures affecting the governance of the corporation.  Delaware law allows a corporation’s bylaws to contain any provision relating to the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, or the rights or powers of its stockholders, directors, officers or employees, so long as the provision is lawful and consistent with the certificate of incorporation.

Generally, the bylaws set forth the responsibilities of the directors and officers, the number or range of numbers of directors, the manner of calling meetings of the stockholders and directors (including the required notice), the maintenance of corporate records, the issuance of reports to stockholders, voting and proxy procedures, the regulation of the transfer of stock and other general corporate matters.

Bylaws generally may be adopted, amended or repealed by either the board or by a vote of the stockholders.

Bylaws for startup companies are rarely customized. Occasionally, companies may include an IPO lockup or a right of first refusal on stock transfers in bylaws. This might occur if shares were not originally issued with these restrictions and a company merges into a newly-formed company in order to force these restrictions on prior stockholders in connection with a venture financing.

When a company goes public, the bylaws are typically amended to prevent stockholder actions by written consent, limit the ability of 10% stockholders to call a special meeting, and provide advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and director nominations.

Filed Under: Incorporation

What is a certificate of incorporation?

January 25, 2009 By Yokum 6 Comments

A Delaware corporation is considered to exist when its certificate of incorporation has been filed with the Secretary of State.  Generally, the certificate is brief because very few items must be covered in the certificate to make it effective.

The certificate must include:

  • the name of the corporation (this name must contain a corporate ending such as “Company,” “Corporation,” “Incorporated,” or an abbreviation thereof);
  • a statement of business purpose;
  • the address of the corporation’s registered office in the State of Delaware and the name of the registered agent at such address;
  • a statement of the total number of shares of stock authorized to be issued and a description of the different classes of stock (if there is more than one class); and
  • the name and address of the corporation’s incorporator(s).

However, there are many matters that the corporation might choose to include.  Certain provisions are effective only if they are contained in the certificate.  Some examples of such provisions are as follows:

  • creating, limiting and regulating the powers of the corporation, the directors, and the stockholders;
  • granting any Delaware court the power to order a meeting of the corporation’s creditors and/or of the stockholders to agree to any arrangement or reorganization of the corporation;
  • granting stockholders the preemptive right to subscribe to additional issuances of stock;
  • limiting the corporation’s duration;
  • increasing the required number of votes for actions by stockholders and directors over the voting requirements set forth by statute;
  • limiting certain liabilities of directors and permitting certain indemnification of corporate agents; and
  • imposing personal liability for the debts of the corporation on its stockholders.

Delaware law allows a corporation to amend the certificate in any way it desires, so long as the amendment is lawful at the time the corporation chooses to add it to the certificate.  Before the corporation has issued its stock, the certificate may be amended by a writing setting forth the amendment and certifying that the corporation did not receive any payment for its stock.  The writing should be signed by a majority of the incorporators, if the directors have not been elected or listed in the original certificate, or by a majority of the directors if they have been elected and named in the original certificate.  Once stock has been issued, the certificate generally may be amended or repealed by approval of the board and both the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote and the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of each class of stock entitled to vote.  Once an amendment is adopted, the corporation must file a certificate of amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State to make the amendment effective.

In some states such as California, the certificate of incorporation is referred to as the articles of incorporation.  Many people use the term certificate or articles interchangably to describe the certificate/articles of incorporation.

A sample certificate of incorporation is below:

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
[INSERT COMPANY NAME]

ARTICLE I

The name of the corporation is [insert company name] (the “Company“).

ARTICLE II

The address of the Company’s registered office in the State of Delaware is [Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801]. The name of its registered agent at such address is [The Corporation Trust Company].

ARTICLE III

The purpose of the Company is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the Delaware General Corporation Law, as the same exists or as may hereafter be amended from time to time.

ARTICLE IV

This Company is authorized to issue one class of shares to be designated Common Stock. The total number of shares of Common Stock the Company has authority to issue is [10,000,000] with par value of $[0.001] per share.

ARTICLE V

The name and mailing address of the incorporator are as follows:

[insert name of incorporator]
[insert mailing address of incorporator]

ARTICLE VI

In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred by statute, the board of directors of the Company is expressly authorized to make, alter, amend or repeal the bylaws of the Company.

ARTICLE VII

Elections of directors need not be by written ballot unless otherwise provided in the bylaws of the Company.

ARTICLE VIII

To the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, as the same exists or as may hereafter be amended from time to time, a director of the Company shall not be personally liable to the Company or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director. If the Delaware General Corporation Law is amended to authorize corporate action further eliminating or limiting the personal liability of directors, then the liability of a director of the Company shall be eliminated or limited to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, as so amended.

The Company shall indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any director or officer of the Company who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (a “Proceeding“) by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Company or is or was serving at the request of the Company as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, including service with respect to employee benefit plans, against expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with any such Proceeding. The Company shall be required to indemnify a person in connection with a Proceeding initiated by such person only if the Proceeding was authorized by the Board.

The Company shall have the power to indemnify, to the extent permitted by the DGCL, as it presently exists or may hereafter be amended from time to time, any employee or agent of the Company who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any Proceeding by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Company or is or was serving at the request of the Company as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, including service with respect to employee benefit plans, against expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with any such Proceeding.

Neither any amendment nor repeal of this Article, nor the adoption of any provision of this Certificate of Incorporation inconsistent with this Article, shall eliminate or reduce the effect of this Article in respect of any matter occurring, or any cause of action, suit or claim accruing or arising or that, but for this Article, would accrue or arise, prior to such amendment, repeal or adoption of an inconsistent provision.

ARTICLE IX

Except as provided in Article VIII above, the Company reserves the right to amend, alter, change or repeal any provision contained in this Certificate of Incorporation, in the manner now or hereafter prescribed by statute, and all rights conferred upon stockholders herein are granted subject to this reservation.

I, the undersigned, as the sole incorporator of the Company, have signed this Certificate of Incorporation on [insert relevant date].

______________________________________
[insert name of incorporator]
Incorporator

Filed Under: Incorporation

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 11
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • What is convertible equity (or a convertible security)?
  • Is crowdfunding legal?
  • What are the terms of Yuri Milner/SV Angel’s Start Fund $150K investment into Y Combinator companies?
  • Is convertible debt with a price cap really the best financing structure?
  • Can a California company have unpaid interns?

Recent Comments

Announcements

Subscribe to my RSS feed if you want to receive updated content. If you don't know what RSS is, read this article on "What is RSS?". Or you can subscribe via email.

Tom Taulli of Business Week says that in Hiring the Right Lawyer When Raising Capital "[S]ome startup attorneys have incredibly valuable blogs, such as Yokum Taku's Startup Company Lawyer ..."

Freelance Folder says that Startup Company Lawyer is one of the "20 Must-Read Blogs for Online Entrepreneurs."

Furqan Nazeeri says that "If Linus Torvalds Were a Lawyer ... he'd be Yokum Taku."

Jay Jamison asks "Yokum Taku - the Valley's Best Start-up Lawyer?"

Sachin Agarwal says that Startup Company Lawyer is "indispensible for budding and active entrepreneurs."

Venture Hacks includes Startup Company Lawyer as part of the "Startup MBA" blog list.

Recent Posts

  • What is convertible equity (or a convertible security)?
  • Is crowdfunding legal?
  • What are the terms of Yuri Milner/SV Angel’s Start Fund $150K investment into Y Combinator companies?
  • Is convertible debt with a price cap really the best financing structure?
  • Can a California company have unpaid interns?

Copyright 2007 to 2016 Yoichiro Taku