Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Equity Compensation Structures for Venture-Backed Companies Post-Enron
Equity compensation structures at venture-backed start-ups and other private companies have followed a standard pattern for many years ' restricted common stock or time-vested common stock options. The traditional principal structuring considerations for employee equity compensation have been business incentives, accounting impact and tax minimization. Although significant accounting changes have occurred over the last couple of years and perceptions have changed with respect to non-cash compensation, little has changed in equity compensation structures. That is unlikely to continue to be the case, with increasing awareness among sophisticated entrepreneurs and managers of the potential adverse impact on their equity from down-round pricing and deal structures such as multiple liquidation preferences.
Companies and their employees are beginning to explore alternative structures that afford some protection from these events. Among these structures are a) performance-based option vesting tied to achievement of individual or company-wide goals, b) options in which the number of shares varies depending on the return outside investors receive in a liquidity event, c) “make-whole” guarantees entitling the employee to a cash payment on a liquidity event hypothetically linked to a deemed conversion of preferred equity, with or without a minimum percentage equity guarantee, d) options on preferred stock, and e) acquisition/IPO cash bonus pools.
Start-ups typically issue restricted stock to founders and to early stage employees until the stock becomes too expensive for an employee to purchase because of valuations established by venture financings. Restricted stock is preferable to options from an employee's point of view since the employee will receive long-term capital gain treatment on a liquidity event if holding period requirements are met. In order to align the employee's incentives to the needs of the business, restricted stock typically has “golden handcuff” vesting provisions, meaning unvested stock is forfeited to the company at cost upon termination, with vesting occurring in increments over three or four years. Because the stock is purchased at “fair market value,” there is no charge to earnings if vesting is solely time-based and the number of shares is fixed.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?