Skip to main content

Decoding a co-founder agreement

 A Co-founder Agreement is an agreement between Co-Founders laying down the ownership, initial investments and responsibilities of each Co-Founder. This agreement acts as a safeguard in the event of any dispute, as it can provide protection to show what the co-founder agreed too.

 

Equity and salaries of each founder

Under this clause, equity ownership, profit or loss sharing and the salary of each founder is to be clearly stipulated. It is advised to include how change in salaries will be addressed as well.

 

IPR 

When you are working on building a product/company, business plan, you are  creating intellectual property (IP) for the company. This clause states that every IP developed belongs to the company and not the individuals creating it.

 

The direction of the company

This clause contains information about how the firm is going to run, how are the operations set to happen and in what direction,how things will proceed when you decide to expand the firm and hire new people under you, what happens in case of  an acquisition or closure.


Roles and responsibilities

Each founder is in the business for a specific set of roles and responsibilities. Those have to be stated under this section. Ensure that you clearly define the duties of each founder so that there is not duplication of work or any confusion of “who is to handle what” at a later stage. This clause should be so clear that, each founder knows exactly what he has to handle and what jobs do not fall under his umbrella of work.

 

Co-Founder details

This section talks about the founders, their family background, education details and work experience. It is mainly used for evaluation purpose by outsiders to check if the founders are actually capable enough of handling the business.

 

Equity breakdown and initial capital contributions

This section talks about the breakdown of assets – who owns what. It also talks about how much capital has each founder invested in the business. This section is and will always remain as proofs of investment by each founder. It should also cover important aspects like what percent of the equity is vested etc.

 

Management and approval rights

Under this section, the founders negotiate and agree upon decision making rights and approval rights. Who is going to approve budgets? Who is going to sign the cheques? Who is going to take decisions on everyday decisions? All these questions are answered in this section. Usually it is always better to have all the founders approvals and signs on all big decisions and the active partner can be responsible for all the day to day petty decisions.

 

Non-compete and confidentiality clauses

This clause includes all the confidentiality statements, which are private only between the founders and need not be disclosed to anyone except them.


Resignation, dissolution and removal of directors

This is the final requirement which talks about how everything is going to be distributed amongst the founders, in case of liquidation or closure of the company. It also talks about on what terms will one founder have the right to terminate another founder. Questions like what happens when one founder leaves need to be addressed.  Does the company or the existing founders have the right to buy back that founder’s shares and at what price?


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more