|
|
|
|
|
by winterchil
5362 days ago
|
|
Sounds like the transition to the corp is the root of the problem. Realistically there are very few restrictions on how to do this and it's SOP for non-contributing minority owners to get seriously diluted. Harsh but fair: this is as it should be. Ownership based on work/effort/invention rather than invested capital is contingent on that work continuing for a LONG period. Generally these arrangements have a cliff also - so if you leave in less than 12 months your ownership is drumrole nothing. This isn't true only with startups - look at inventors in other businesses... in exchange for an idea and sample they get 1% of the royalties, it's small because sales & marketing & production are more important than the invention It's entirely possible you have a case, but your description sounds like the prototypical ex-founder nightmare. Based on pattern-matching, you may get some cash, but nowhere near what you're saying you're entitled to have. There's a risk though, if you have any entrepreneurial aspirations you'll burn all your future potential with the lawsuit. VCs and potential co-founders will be very wary of dealing with someone who has taken this route. |
|