This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
Asset 3
  • About
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • Careers
  • Public Interest
  • Inclusion
  • Contact us
    Contact us
  • Locations
    Locations
  • Search
    Search
  • About
    • About
    • Message From the CEO
    • Firm History
    • Alumni
    • Alumni
    • In Memoriam
  • People
  • Capabilities
    • Practices
    • Industries
    • Global Reach: The Law Firm Network
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Transactions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Investment Management 
    • Life Sciences
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Bankruptcy Litigation
    • Mass Torts Bankruptcy
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Patents
    • Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Civil Fraud Litigation
    • Employment Practices and Litigation
    • Government Contracts Litigation
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Insurance Recovery
    • Litigation Funding
    • M&A and Private Equity Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • UK Tax Controversy & Litigation
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Distressed Debt & Claims Trading
    • Litigation Funding
    • Finance
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Transactions
    • Capital Markets
    • Cross-Border Transactions
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Employment
    • Finance
    • Franchising
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Economic Sanctions & Export Controls
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Energy
    • Energy Transition
    • Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Sports
    • Investment Management
    • Fund Formation
    • Private Equity Transactions
    • Distressed Debt
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Family-Owned & Closely Held Businesses
    • Private Equity Litigation
    • Life Sciences
    • BR BioAdvisory Services
    • Technology
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
    • Digital Commerce
    • Fintech
    • Real Estate
    • Hospitality & Leisure
    • Distressed Real Estate
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Wireless Network Infrastructure
  • Insights
    • Client News
    • Firm News
    • Briefings
    • Events
  • Careers
    • Experienced Lawyers
    • U.S. Law Students
    • London Trainee Program
    • Business Professionals
    • Professional Development
  • Public Interest
    • Brown Rudnick Charitable Foundation
    • Pro Bono & Community Service
  • Inclusion
    • Inclusion
    • Women in Business Series
  • Contact Us
  • Location
  • Search
  • About
    • About
    • Message From the CEO
    • Firm History
    • Alumni
    • Alumni
    • In Memoriam
  • People
  • Capabilities
    • Practices
    • Industries
    • Global Reach: The Law Firm Network
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Transactions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Investment Management 
    • Life Sciences
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
    • Bankruptcy Litigation
    • Mass Torts Bankruptcy
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Patents
    • Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Civil Fraud Litigation
    • Employment Practices and Litigation
    • Government Contracts Litigation
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Insurance Recovery
    • Litigation Funding
    • M&A and Private Equity Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)
    • UK Tax Controversy & Litigation
    • Special Situations, Distressed Debt and Debt Trading
    • Distressed Debt & Claims Trading
    • Litigation Funding
    • Finance
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Transactions
    • Capital Markets
    • Cross-Border Transactions
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Employment
    • Finance
    • Franchising
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Tax
    • White Collar Defense, Investigations & Compliance
    • Economic Sanctions & Export Controls
    • Energy & Environmental
    • Energy
    • Energy Transition
    • Environmental
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Brand & Reputation Management
    • Intellectual Property
    • Sports
    • Investment Management
    • Fund Formation
    • Private Equity Transactions
    • Distressed Debt
    • Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital
    • Family-Owned & Closely Held Businesses
    • Private Equity Litigation
    • Life Sciences
    • BR BioAdvisory Services
    • Technology
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
    • Digital Commerce
    • Fintech
    • Real Estate
    • Hospitality & Leisure
    • Distressed Real Estate
    • Real Estate Special Situations
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Wireless Network Infrastructure
  • Insights
    • Client News
    • Firm News
    • Briefings
    • Events
  • Careers
    • Experienced Lawyers
    • U.S. Law Students
    • London Trainee Program
    • Business Professionals
    • Professional Development
  • Public Interest
    • Brown Rudnick Charitable Foundation
    • Pro Bono & Community Service
  • Inclusion
    • Inclusion
    • Women in Business Series

Search People

Search by last name

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

see all people

Asset 3
  • LinkedIn
  • X (formerly known as Twitter)
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Threads
  • YouTube
  • rss
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap
  • LinkedIn
  • X (formerly known as Twitter)
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Threads
  • YouTube
  • rss

© 2024 Brown Rudnick LLP. Attorney advertising.

All Rights Reserved.

All Posts Subscribe
print-logo
1/17/2023 4:00:31 PM | 4 minute read

Creating a Solid Framework for a Founding Team

4
7
Brown Rudnick
Brown Rudnick
featured image
4
7

Not all great companies are the product of great founding teams, but few companies can survive a dysfunctional founding team for very long. That is why it is critically important to find co-founders with whom you can work effectively and who complement your skills and mitigate your weaknesses. Much of this comes down to personality, work ethic and other intangibles that can only be truly tested and proved when you are in the trenches together building a company. This leads to the obvious question of how founders can protect themselves and their companies if the person they thought was the peanut butter to their jelly turns out to be anything but. The answer is creating a solid legal framework that (a) establishes clear expectations for the roles and responsibilities of each founder, (b) provides a mechanism for resolving disputes, and (c) sets out a framework that will allow co-founders to part ways while without destroying the company.

Establishing clear expectations for the roles and responsibilities of each founder requires an open and honest conversation about the value each founder brings to the table and how that value should be compensated. These conversations usually reveal some differences in how each founder views their value and the value of other founders. Recognizing these differences early, when founders are still in the honeymoon stage of their relationship, allows the founders – usually with the help of counsel – to come up with creative ways of bridging the gaps between each founder’s expectations. 

One effective mechanism for doing this is by subjecting a portion of each founder’s equity in the company to “vesting” based on the achievement of certain personal or company performance targets. The performance targets should be thoughtfully established based on the differences in expectations among the founders, as should the amount of the founder’s equity that vests upon achievement of the performance target. It is particularly important that either achievement of the performance targets be easy to ascertain or a clear process for determining achievement be established so there is unlikely to be any disagreement over whether the target was achieved. 

While using performance-based vesting can be a very effective way to help founders establish clear expectations of their roles and responsibilities, because every founder in a startup is expected to wear many hats, it is best that most vesting be tied purely to time served to discourage any founder from focusing on achieving performance targets to the detriment of the company’s overall business needs.

The appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes among founders often depends on the relative power of each founder over company decisions. If there is one principal founder who will own a majority of the equity in the company and have the final word on all decisions, a dispute resolution mechanism may be unnecessary. But where there are circumstances in which a disagreement among the founders could prevent the company from functioning, it is helpful to have a means of breaking the deadlock. 

The most common method is by providing for a process by which, after allowing some time for the founders to reach a compromise, each founder has the right to buy out the other founder(s) or require the other founder(s) to buy them out. There are a number of variations on this type of “buy-sell” mechanism, but the result is always one founder being bought out by another. 

Regardless of the specific process, it is important that both the means for determining the purchase price and the terms of payment should be clearly established. Often a third party is brought in to value the company if the founders are unable to agree, and the company typically insists on payment over 2-5 years in order to spread out the considerable expense of repurchasing shares from a founder.

To prevent the departure of a founder from sinking a company, particularly where the departure is not under good circumstances, founders should establish a clear framework for what will occur in various circumstances. There are at least four scenarios the founders should consider: (1) the company or the other founders decide to terminate the employment of a founder because the founder has done something materially detrimental to the company (what is generally referred to as “cause” for termination); (2) the company or the other founders decide to terminate the employment of a founder without “cause”; (3) a founder leaves voluntarily, which may include a founder’s death; or (4) a founder leaves because the company has deliberately taken action to make their employment more difficult (what is generally referred to as “good reason” for leaving). In the case of scenarios 1 and 2, a key question the founders should address at the outset is whether the company’s decision to terminate a founder’s employment requires approval of one or more of the other founders. 

For all four scenarios, the founders must decide how much of the departing founder’s ownership in the company they get to keep. Typically, a founder gets to keep all their “vested” equity and the company has the right to repurchase the unvested equity for a de minimis price, but if the founder is terminated for cause the company often gets the right to repurchase all of the founder’s equity and if the founder is terminated without cause or the founder leaves for good reason, some or all of the founder’s unvested equity might immediately vest and therefore not be subject to repurchase.

Whether you are starting a company with your best friend or a few people you met at a coffee house, you can’t predict how the relationship among founders will change over time. Many companies (and friendships) have been ruined because a difficult situation arose and the founders could not agree on how to resolve it. To prevent disputes among founders from destroying your company, founders should work with the company’s counsel to establish a legal framework that spells out what the founders’ rights and obligations are towards each other in certain circumstances.

Tags

startups, legal framework, business structure, founders, corporate, emerging growth companies & venture capital
Brown Rudnick
Brown Rudnick
DOJ Updates White-Collar Enforcement Priorities
5/15/2025 8:37:21 PM

DOJ Updates White-Collar Enforcement Priorities

By Daniel Sachs Steven Tyrrell Stephen Best Angela Papalaskaris +1 more...

Show less

DOJ Updates White-Collar Crime Enforcement Priorities  On May 12, 2025, the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)...

Latest Insights

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) and Tax Disputes: Navigating a Complex Compliance Landscape
5/12/2025 12:30:58 PM

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) and Tax Disputes: Navigating a Complex Compliance Landscape

By Matthew Sharp
2
2
Raising the Stakes: UK Government Consults on the Tax Treatment of Remote Gaming and Gambling
5/9/2025 2:45:43 PM

Raising the Stakes: UK Government Consults on the Tax Treatment of Remote Gaming and Gambling

By Matthew Sharp Menelaos Karampetsos
1
14
15
[2025] UKUT 00124 (TCC) George Mantides Limited v HMRC: Further Ammunition for HMRC in Its Battle Against Self-Employment in Healthcare?
5/1/2025 2:34:46 PM

[2025] UKUT 00124 (TCC) George Mantides Limited v HMRC: Further Ammunition for HMRC in Its Battle Against Self-Employment in Healthcare?

By Matthew Sharp
39
39