[unsatchmo]

If she’s rich and married a successful tech founder, I don’t understand why she didn’t get a lawyer to draft these investment papers to keep herself from getting fleeced. Like the amount she was dropping could probably have been recouped from a buyout without much fuss if the contracts were a bit more assertive.

[necubi]

As an angel, you do not get to set weird terms for your 10k check. The startup is raising on standard paper (these days almost always a SAFE) and you take them.

But no terms are going to save you from the reality that a failing startup that needs to raise more money will have to accept dilutive terms. You might be able to restrict it, but the alternative is that they can’t raise at all and shut down.

[danielmarkbruce]

It's not a legal issue. If you invest your money in failed businesses, you lose. There is no legal machinations that will help.

[swyx]

too blithe. range of outcomes between failed and IPO.

TFA identified a few exits that should have returned some money that did not. ensuring protection of minority shareholder rights so that this doesn't happen is an important "plug leaks in your game" hygiene

[danielmarkbruce]

Too dumb.

Most exits in that range are where the exit is less than the capital raised, or a little more but where the last round raised was questionable and was done on terms that the minority shareholders may complain about but where they didn't have any other option - they were hosed no matter what.

I've seen hundreds of them. And it has little to do with size of position, it's where you sit in the preference stack. Anyone who thinks that early round investors should get a pay out on an exit no matter what just doesn't understand pretty basic finance.

"exit" != success, for anyone involved, usually.