Legal Archives - BOLLYWOOD SURKHIYAN

Blogging – Are You Exposing Yourself To Legal Liabilities?

In November 2006, Blogging Asia: A Windows Live Report released by Microsoft’s MSN and Windows Live Online Services Business revealed that 46% or nearly half of the online population have a blog [Blogging Phenomenon Sweeps Asia available at PRNewswire.com].

Blogging Asia: A Windows Live Report was conducted online on the MSN portal across 7 countries in Asia namely Hong Kong, India, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. Interestingly, the report found that 56% of Malaysians blogged to express their views, while 49% blogged to keep friends and family updated.

This article focuses on Malaysian law however as the Internet transcends boundaries and jurisdictions therefore the laws of many countries may apply. In Malaysia, bloggers face legal risks that carry civil or criminal liabilities such as;

(a) copyright;

(b) trademark;

(c) defamation; and

(d) sedition.

Other than the above, a blogger must consider other legal risks such as fraud, breach of confidentiality and misrepresentation which will not be addressed in this article.

Copyright protects the way artists or authors express their idea or fact on a piece of work but not the underlying idea or fact itself. Copyright protects originality of the work and prohibits unauthorised copying. Copyright protection is eligible for the following works refer to Section 7 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1987:-

(a) literary works, such as written works, novels, source codes in computer program and web pages and content in multimedia productions;

(b) musical and dramatic works, such as musical score, plays and television scripts;

(c) artistic works, such as drawings, sculptures and photographs; and

(d) sound recordings and films, such as films (traditional celluloid and various video formats), records, tapes and CDs of music, drama or lectures.

Unfortunately, much of the copyright infringement occurring on the Internet goes undetected. New blogs at times use existing blogs for its content and this is done through copying or linking. Apart from that, posting copyrighted photographs, designs, product photos or product packaging from another website is also illegal.

There are “rules of thumb” to follow when creating or posting contents such as:- (a) create one’s own original image, graphic, code and words; (b) use licensed works within the scope of permitted use laid down by the owner; and (c) use free images off the Internet as long as the terms of the creator of the image are followed.

The same “rules of thumb” apply when posting programming scripts as it is normally a violation of copyright law to appropriate programming scripts from third parties. With regards to postings on one’s blog by third parties, the blog owner may receive an implied licence to the postings made by third parties. When offering podcast i.e. recorded and dowloadable audio file to be downloaded from blogs it is best that the podcast do not contain any copyrighted music belonging to others thus protecting oneself from any copyright infringement suits.

If copyright protects the way ideas or facts are expressed, trademark on the other hand protects words, designs, phrases, numbers, drawings or pictures associated with products and services.

A trademark owner enjoys exclusive right to use his mark in relation to his products and services refer Section 35 (1) of the Trademark Act, 1976. Trademark protection grants right to the trademark owner to prevent others from using identical trademark with identical goods or similar goods that is likely to cause confusion to the public refer Section 19 (1) and 19 (2) of the Trademark Act, 1976.

How does a blogger infringe trademark belonging to another? One example is when a blogger posts links on logos belonging to a trademark owner. When a visitor clicks on the trademark it will directly lead the visitor to the blogger’s blog instead of directing the visitor to the trademark owner’s website.

Such linking may cause confusion or deception as it raises serious risk that the blog is in some way connected with or related to the trademark owner’sproducts and services.

Generally, the term defamation refers to a false statement made about someone or an organization that is damaging to their reputation. The person publishing the statement must have known or should have known that the statement was false. While the Internet provides the arena in which defaming statement can be made or published, there is no specific legislation that deals with defamation on the Internet in Malaysia.

In Malaysia, the Defamation Act, 1957 applies to publications in printed materials and broadcasting through radio or television. Since the law applies to published or broadcast materials, hence in principle it applies to materials such as blogs and websites published on the Internet.

As defamation law is complex there is a need to distinguish whether a defamatory statement is a libel (written form) or slander (spoken words). In a case of libel, if it is determined that the statement is defamatory then there are presumptions against the author or the publisher. In the case slander, there is often the requirement to proof actual damages or special damages suffered due to the defamatory statement. Hence, slander law does not apply to blogs as it does not fall within the ambit of broadcasting the slanderous words by means of radio or television.

Due to rapid changes to the Internet and the convergence of technologies, one will wonder whether the courts will apply the libel law or slander law when blogs converted from text to speech format are transmitted on the Internet. However, all this depends on proving defamation and finding the identity of the blogger which can be an enormous task due to the anonymity of the Internet and its worldwide scope.

Another legal risk is when blogs are used to disseminate false,incomplete or misleading information regarding racial disturbances or contents that cause hatred or contempt towards the government or the ruler. In Malaysia, various offences are provided for in the Sedition Act 1948 such as it is an offence for any person to print, publish or distribute any seditious publication- see Section 4 of the Sedition Act, 1948 for other offences. Whether the provisions in the Act apply to publications on the Internet have not been judicially determined.

In Singapore the sedition law was applied in 2005 where the Singapore court jailed two users for posting seditious remarks on the Internet- Two jailed for ‘sedition’ on internet, South China Morning Post, Saturday, October 8, 2005. The South China Morning Post reported that the case is considered a landmark case underscoring the government’s attempts to regulate online expression and crack down on racial intolerance. The two cases represented the first time Singaporeans had been prosecuted and convicted for racist expression under its Sedition Act.

Arising from the case of the racist bloggers, on 8 November 2006 the Singapore Government proposed changes to its Penal Code taking into account the impact of technology such as the Internet and mobile phones- refer to Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, Consultation Paper on the Proposed Penal Code Amendments at page 2. The amendments cover offences committed via electronic medium such as Section 298 (uttering words, etc with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person) to cover the wounding of racial feelings as well, Section 499 (defamation) and Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) to expand and include those “published in written, electronic or other media” see Singapore Penal Code (Amendment) Bill at pages 8 and 20. These amendments when passed empower the police and state prosecutors to prosecute those with offending blogs- Cf.Sections 298, 499 and 505 of the Malaysian Penal Code (Revised 1997).

There are reasons why the authorities are taking blogging seriously as half of the people that took part in the Blogging Asia: A Windows Live Report survey believe that blog contents are as trustworthy as traditional media and a quarter of the respondents believe blogs to be the quickest way to learn about news and current affairs.

With such reliance on blogs, contents containing false, incomplete or misleading information posted on blogs not only may cause panic, anger, contempt or political scandals; it may also cause political and economic instability.

The Internet presents challenges to existing laws that are slow to provide adequate protection to a party with respect to the use and content of blogs. Currently, codes of practice for Internet users including bloggers have not been proposed as part of the Internet regulatory regime currently operating in Malaysia.

Instead, bloggers need to practise self-regulation and understand the legal implications of blogging to ensure that their blogs are written in a responsible and lawful manner. In order to protect themselves, bloggers may provide terms of use and proper disclaimer to offer some degree of comfort and protection from third parties postings on their blogs.

For those bloggers who are not self-aware of the legal risks, efforts should be made to educate and raise awareness to those bloggers. Perhaps the social responsibility lies on the Internet service providers and website service providers to create a blogger’s code of ethics to educate its bloggers to be ethical towards their readers, the people they write about and the legal ramifications of their actions.

First Published at Current Law Journal April Part 2 [2007] 2 CLJ i

Startup Law 101 Series – Distinctive Legal Aspects of Forming a Startup Business With a Founder Team

Introduction

A startup with a founding team requires a special kind of company formation that differs from that used by a conventional small business in several key ways. This article alerts founders to those differences so that they can avoid mistakes in doing their setup.

Attributes of a Typical Startup Business

A startup is a type of small business, of course, and its founders want to make substantial and long-term profits just as any small business does. Perhaps some of the empty “concept companies” of the bubble era did not ever intend to build for long-term value but that era is over. Today’s startups need to build value in a sustainable market or fail, just like any other business. Nonetheless, a startup that is anything other than a solo effort does differ strikingly from a conventional small business. Why? Not because the enterprise itself has any different goal other than that of building long-term and sustainable value but because of how its founders view their short-term goals in the venture.

Unlike a small business, a startup founding team will adopt a business model designed to afford the founders a near-term exit (typically 3-5 years) with an exceptionally high return to them if the venture is successful. The team will often want stock incentives that are generally forfeitable until earned as sweat equity. It will typically want to contribute little or no cash to the venture. It will often have valuable intangible IP that the team has developed in concept and likely will soon bring to the prototype stage. It frequently encounters tricky tax issues because the team members will often contribute services to the venture in order to earn their stock. It seeks to use equity incentives to compensate what is often a loose group of consultants or initial employees, who typically defer/skip salary. And it will seek outside funding to get things going, initially perhaps from “friends and family” but most often from angel investors and possibly VCs. The venture will then be make-or-break over the next few years with a comparatively near-term exit strategy always in view for the founding team as the hope of a successful outcome.

The blueprint here differs from that of a conventional small business, which is often established by its founders with substantial initial capital contributions, without emphasis on intellectual property rights, with their sights fixed primarily on making immediate operating profits, and with no expectation of any extraordinary return on investment in the short term.

Given these attributes, company formation for a startup differs significantly from that of a small business. A small business setup can often be simple. A startup setup is much more complex. This difference has legal implications affecting choice of entity as well as structural choices made in the setup.

Startups Generally Need a Corporate as Opposed to an LLC Setup

An LLC is a simple and low-maintenance vehicle for small business owners. It is great for those who want to run their business by consensus or under the direction of a managing member.

What happens to that simplicity when the LLC is adapted to the distinctive needs of a startup? When restricted units are issued to members with vesting-style provisions? When options to buy membership units are issued to employees? When a preferred class of membership units is defined and issued to investors? Of course, the simplicity is gone. In such cases, the LLC can do pretty much everything a corporation can do, but why strain to adapt a partnership-style legal format to goals for which the corporate format is already ideally suited? There is normally no reason to do so, and this is why the corporate format is usually best for most founding teams deploying their startup.

A couple of other clinkers inject themselves as well: with an LLC, you can’t get tax-advantaged treatment for options under current federal tax laws (i.e., nothing comparable to incentive stock options); in addition, VCs will not invest in LLCs owing to the adverse tax hit that results to their LP investors.

LLCs are sometimes used for startup ventures for special cases. Sometimes founders adopt a strategy of setting up in an LLC format to get the advantages of having a tax pass-through entity in situations where such tax treatment suits the needs of their investors. In other cases, a key investor in the venture will want special tax allocations that do not track the investors percentage ownership in the venture, which is attainable through an LLC but not through a corporation. Sometimes the venture will be well-capitalized at inception and a founder who is contributing valuable talents but no cash would get hit with a prohibitive tax on taking significant equity in the company — in such cases, the grant of a profits-only interest to such a founder will help solve the founder’s tax problem while giving that founder a rough equivalent of ownership via a continuing share of operating profits.

In spite of such exceptional cases, the corporate format is overwhelmingly favored for startups because it is robust, flexible, and well-suited to dealing with the special issues startups face. I turn to some of those issues now.

Restricted Stock Grants – Rare for Small Business – Are the Norm for Startups with Founding Teams

An unrestricted stock grant empowers the recipient of such stock to pay for it once and keep it forever, possibly subject to a buy-back right at fair market value. This is the norm for a small business; indeed, it is perhaps the major privilege one gets for being an entrepreneur. It may not be worth much in the end, but you definitely will own it!

Unrestricted grants can be problematic in a startup, however. If three founders (for example) form a startup and plan to make it successful through their personal efforts over a several-year period, any one of them who gets an unrestricted grant can simply walk off, keep his or her equity interest, and have the remaining founders effectively working hard for a success to which the departing founder will contribute little or nothing.

Note that a conventional small business usually does not face this risk with anywhere near the acuity of a startup. Co-owners in a conventional small business will often have made significant capital contributions to the business. They also will typically pay themselves salaries for “working the business.” Much of the value in such businesses may lie in the ability to draw current monies from it. Thus, the chance for a walk-away owner to get a windfall is much diminished; indeed, such an owner may well be severely prejudiced from not being on the inside of the business. Such a person will occupy the no-man’s land of an outside minority shareholder in a closely held corporation. The insiders will have use of his capital contribution and will be able to manipulate the profit distributions and other company affairs pretty much at will.

In a startup, the dynamic is different because the main contribution typically made by each founder consists of sweat equity. Founders need to earn their stock. If a founder gets a large piece of stock, walks away, and keeps it, that founder has gotten a windfall.

This risk is precisely what necessitates the use of so-called “restricted” stock for most startups. With restricted stock, the founders get their grants and own their stock but potentially can forfeit all or part of their equity interest unless they remain with the startup as service providers as their equity interest vests progressively over time.

The Risk of Forfeiture Is the Defining Element of Restricted Stock

The essence of restricted stock is that it can be repurchased at cost from a recipient if that person ceases to continue in a service relationship with the startup.

The repurchase right applies to x percent of a founder’s stock as of the date of grant, with x being a number negotiated among the founders. It can be 100 percent, if no part of that founder’s stock will be immediately vested, or 80 percent, if 20% will be immediately vested, or any other percentage, with the remaining percentage deemed immediately vested (i.e., not subject to a risk of forfeiture).

In a typical case, x equals 100 percent. Thereafter, as the founder continues to work for the company, this repurchase right lapses progressively over time. This means that the right applies to less and less of the founder’s stock as time passes and the stock progressively vests. Thus, a company may make a restricted stock grant to a founder with monthly pro rata vesting over a four-year period. This means that the company’s repurchase right applies initially to all the founder’s stock and thereafter lapses as to 1/48th of it with every month of continuing service by that founder. If the founder’s service should terminate, the company can exercise an option to buy back any of that founder’s unvested shares at cost, i.e., at the price paid for them by the founder.

“At cost” means just that. If you pay a tenth of a penny ($.001) for each of your restricted shares as a founder, and get one million shares, you pay $1,000. If you walk away from the startup immediately after making the purchase, the company will normally have the option to buy back your entire interest for that same $1,000. At the beginning, this may not matter much.

Now let us say that half of your shares are repurchased, say, two years down the line when the shares might be worth $1.00 each. At that time, upon termination of your service relationship with the company, the company can buy up to 500,000 shares from you, worth $500,000, for $500. In such a case, the repurchase at cost will result in a forfeiture of your interest.

This forfeiture risk is what distinguishes a restricted-stock buy-back from a buy-back at fair market value, the latter being most often used in the small business context.

Restricted Stock Can Be Mixed and Matched to Meet the Needs of a Startup

Restricted stock need not be done all-or-nothing with respect to founder grants.

If Founder A has developed the core IP while Founder B and Founder C are just joining the effort at the time the company is formed, different forms of restricted stock grants can be made to reflect the risk/reward calculations applying to each founder. Thus, Founder B might get a grant of x shares that vest ratably over a 48-month period (at 1/48th per month), meaning that the entire interest can be forfeited at inception and less-and-less so as the repurchase right of the company lapses progressively over time while Founder B performs services for the company. Likewise for Founder C, though if he is regarded as more valuable than Founder B, he might, say, have 20% of his grant immediately vested and have only the remainder subject to a risk of forfeiture. Founder A, having developed the core technology, might get a 100% unrestricted grant with no part of his stock subject to forfeiture — or perhaps a large percentage immediately vested with only the balance subject to forfeiture.

The point is that founders have great freedom to mix and match such grants to reflect varying situations among themselves and other key people within the company. Of course, whatever the founders may decide among themselves, later investors may and often do require that all founders have their vesting provisions wholly or partially reset as a condition to making their investment. Investors most definitely will not want to watch their investments go into a company that thereafter has key founders walking away with large pieces of unearned equity.

Restricted Stock Requires an 83(b) Election in Most Cases

In an example above, I spoke of a $500 stock interest being worth $500,000 two years into the vesting cycle of a founder, with two years left to go for the remainder. If a special tax election — known as an 83(b) election — is not properly filed by a recipient of restricted stock within 30 days of the date of his or her initial stock grant, highly adverse tax consequences can result to that recipient.

In the example just cited, without an 83(b) election in place, the founder would likely have to pay tax on nearly $500,000 of income as the remaining stock vests over the last two years of the cycle. With an 83(b) election in place, no tax of any kind would be due as a result of such vesting (of course, capital gains taxes would apply on sale).

Tax issues such as this can get complex and should be reviewed with a good business lawyer or CPA. The basic point is that, if an equity grant made in a startup context is subject to potential forfeiture (as restricted stock would be), 83(b) elections should be made in most cases to avoid tax problems to the recipients.

Restricted Stock Grants Are Complex and Do Not Lend Themselves to Legal Self-Help

Restricted stock grants are not simple and almost always need the help of a lawyer who is skilled in the startup business field.

With restricted stock, complex documentation is needed to deal with complex issues. This is why the LLC normally does not work well as a vehicle for startup businesses. The value of the LLC in the small business context lies in its simplicity. Entrepreneurs can often adapt it to their ends without a lot of fuss and without a lot of legal expense. But the LLC is ill-suited for use with restricted grants without a lot of custom drafting. If your startup is not going to impose forfeiture risks on founders or others, by all means consider using the LLC as a vehicle. If, however, forfeiture risks will be in play and hence restricted stock will be used (among other tools), there likely is no special benefit in using the LLC. In such cases, it is usually best to use a corporate format and a good business lawyer to assist in implementing the setup.

Startups Also Use Other Equity Incentives Besides Restricted Stock

Unlike a conventional small business, a typical business startup will want to offer other equity incentives to a broad range of people, not just to founders. For this purpose, an equity incentive plan is often adopted at inception and a certain number of shares reserved to it for future issuance by the board of directors.

Equity incentive plans usually authorize a board of directors to grant restricted stock, incentive stock options (ISOs), and non-qualified stock options (NQOs). Again, complex decisions need to be made and a qualified lawyer should be used in determining which incentives are best used for which recipients. In general, though, restricted stock is normally used for founders and very key people only; ISOs can be used for W-2 employees only; NQOs can be used for W-2 employees or for 1099 contractors. Lots of issues (including securities law issues) arise with equity incentives — don’t try to handle them without proper guidance.

Make Sure to Capture the IP for the Company

All too many startups form their companies only after efforts have been well under way to develop some of the key IP. This is neither good nor bad – it is simply human nature. Founders don’t want to focus too much on structure until they know they have a potentially viable opportunity.

What happens in such cases is that a good number of individuals may hold rights in aspects of the intellectual property that should properly belong to the company. In any setup of a startup, it is normally imperative that such IP rights be captured for the benefit of the company.

Again, this is complex area, but an important one. Nothing is worse than having IP claims against the company pop up during the due diligence phase of a funding or an acquisition. IP issues need to be cleaned up properly at the beginning. Similarly, provision needs to be made to ensure that post-formation services for the company are structured so as to keep all IP rights in the company.

Don’t Forget the Tax Risks

Startups have very special tax considerations at inception owing to the way they typically are capitalized — that is, with potentially valuable IP rights being assigned, and only nominal cash being contributed, to the company by founders in exchange for large amounts of founders’ stock.

Tax complications may arise if the founders attempt to combine their stock grants of this type along with cash investments made by others.

Let’s assume that two people set up a company in which they each own 50% of the stock, and they make simultaneous contributions, one of not-yet-commercialized IP rights and the other of $250,000 cash. Because the IRS does not consider IP rights of this type to be “property” in a tax sense, it will treat the grant made to the founder contributing such rights as a grant made in exchange for services. In such a case, the grant itself becomes taxable and the only question is what value it has for determining the amount of taxable income earned by the founder as a result of the transaction.

In our example, the IRS could conceivably argue that, if an investor were willing to pay $250,000 for half of a company, then the company is worth $500,000. The founder who received half of that company in exchange for a “service” contribution would then realize taxable income of $250,000 (half the value of the company). Another argument might be that the IP rights really didn’t have value as yet, but in that case the company would still be worth $250,000 (the value of the cash contributed) and the founder assigning the IP rights would potentially be subject to tax on income of $125,000 (half the value of the company, owing to his receipt of half the stock).

There are various workarounds for this type of problem, the main one being that founders should not time their stock grants to coincide in time with significant cash contributions made by investors.

The point, though, is this: this again is a complex area and should be handled with the help of a qualified startup business lawyer. With a business startup, watch out for tax traps. They can come at you from surprising directions.

Conclusion

All in all then, a startup has very distinctive setup features – from forfeiture incentives to IP issues to tax traps. It typically differs significantly from a conventional small business in the way it is set up. The issues touched upon here illustrate some of the important differences. There are others as well. If you are a founder, don’t make the mistake of thinking you can use a do-it-yourself kit to handle this type of setup. Take care to get a good startup business lawyer and do the setup right.

Startup Law 101 Series – Ten Essential Legal Tips For Startups at Formation

Here are ten essential legal tips for startup founders.

1. Set up your legal structure early and use cheap stock to avoid tax problems.

No small venture wants to invest too heavily in legal infrastructure at an early stage. If you are a solo founder working out of the garage, save your dollars and focus on development.

If you are a team of founders, though, setting up a legal structure early is important.

First, if members of your team are developing IP, the lack of a structure means that every participant will have individual rights to the IP he develops. A key founder can guard against this by getting everyone to sign “work-for-hire” agreements assigning such rights to that founder, who in turn will assign them over to the corporation once formed. How many founding teams do this. Almost none. Get the entity in place to capture the IP for the company as it is being developed.

Second, how do you get a founding team together without a structure? You can, of course, but it is awkward and you wind up with having to make promises that must be taken on faith about what will or will not be given to members of the team. On the flip side, many a startup has been sued by a founder who claimed that he was promised much more than was granted to him when the company was finally formed. As a team, don’t set yourselves up for this kind of lawsuit. Set the structure early and get things in writing.

If you wait too long to set your structure up, you run into tax traps. Founders normally work for sweat equity and sweat equity is a taxable commodity. If you wait until your first funding event before setting up the structure, you give the IRS a measure by which to put a comparatively large number on the value of your sweat equity and you subject the founders to needless tax risks. Avoid this by setting up early and using cheap stock to position things for the founding team.

Finally, get a competent startup business lawyer to help with or at least review your proposed setup. Do this early on to help flush out problems before they become serious. For example, many founders will moonlight while holding on to full-time jobs through the early startup phase. This often poses no special problems. Sometimes it does, however, and especially if the IP being developed overlaps with IP held by an employer of the moonlighting founder. Use a lawyer to identify and address such problems early on. It is much more costly to sort them out later.

2. Normally, go with a corporation instead of an LLC.

The LLC is a magnificent modern legal invention with a wild popularity that stems from its having become, for sole-member entities (including husband-wife), the modern equivalent of the sole proprietorship with a limited liability cap on it.

When you move beyond sole member LLCs, however, you essentially have a partnership-style structure with a limited liability cap on it.

The partnership-style structure does not lend itself well to common features of a startup. It is a clumsy vehicle for restricted stock and for preferred stock. It does not support the use of incentive stock options. It cannot be used as an investment vehicle for VCs. There are special cases where an LLC makes sense for a startup but these are comparatively few in number (e.g., where special tax allocations make sense, where a profits-only interest is important, where tax pass-through adds value). Work with a lawyer to see if special case applies. If not, go with a corporation.

3. Be cautious about Delaware.

Delaware offers few, if any advantages, for an early-stage startup. The many praises sung for Delaware by business lawyers are justified for large, public companies. For startups, Delaware offers mostly administrative inconvenience.

Some Delaware advantages from the standpoint of an insider group: (1) you can have a sole director constitute the entire board of directors no matter how large and complex the corporate setup, giving a dominant founder a vehicle for keeping everything close the vest (if this is deemed desirable); (2) you can dispense with cumulative voting, giving leverage to insiders who want to keep minority shareholders from having board representation; (3) you can stagger the election of directors if desired.

Delaware also is an efficient state for doing corporate filings, as anyone who has been frustrated by the delays and screw-ups of certain other state agencies can attest.

On the down side — and this is major — Delaware permits preferred shareholders who control the majority of the company’s voting stock to sell or merge the company without requiring the consent of the common stock holders. This can easily lead to downstream founder “wipe outs” via liquidation preferences held by such controlling shareholders.

Also on the down side, early-stage startups incur administrative hassles and extra costs with a Delaware setup. They still have to pay taxes on income derived from their home states. They have to qualify their Delaware corporation as a “foreign corporation” in their home states and pay the extra franchise fees associated with that process. They get franchise tax bills in the tens of thousands of dollars and have to apply for relief under Delaware’s alternative valuation method. None of these items constitutes a crushing problem. Every one is an administrative hassle.

My advice from years of experience working with founders: keep it simple and skip Delaware unless there is some compelling reason to choose it; if there is a good reason, go with Delaware but don’t fool yourself into believing that you have gotten yourself special prize for your early-stage startup.

4. Use restricted stock for founders in most cases.

If a founder gets stock without strings on it, and then walks away from the company, that founder will get a windfall equity grant. There are special exceptions, but the rule for most founders should be to grant them restricted stock, i.e., stock that can be repurchased by the company at cost in the event the founder leaves the company. Restricted stock lies at the heart of the concept of sweat equity for founders. Use it to make sure founders earn their keep.

5. Make timely 83(b) elections.

When restricted stock grants are made, they should almost always be accompanied by 83(b) elections to prevent potentially horrific tax problems from arising downstream for the founders. This special tax election applies to cases where stock is owned but can be forfeited. It must be made within 30 days of the date of grant, signed by the stock recipient and spouse, and filed with the recipient’s tax return for that year.

6. Get technology assignments from everyone who helped develop IP.

When the startup is formed, stock grants should not be made just for cash contributions from founders but also for technology assignments, as applicable to any founder who worked on IP-related matters prior to formation. Don’t leave these hangning loose or allow stock to be issued to founders without capturing all IP rights for the company.

Founders sometimes think they can keep IP in their own hands and license it to the startup. This does not work. At least the company will not normally be fundable in such cases. Exceptions to this are rare.

The IP roundup should include not only founders but all consultants who worked on IP-related matters prior to company formation. Modern startups will sometimes use development companies in places like India to help speed product development prior to company formation. If such companies were paid for this work, and if they did it under work-for-hire contracts, then whoever had the contract with them can assign to the startup the rights already captured under the work-for-hire contracts. If no work-for-hire arrangements were in place, a stock, stock option, or warrant grant should be made, or other legal consideration paid, to the outside company in exchange for the IP rights it holds.

The same is true for every contractor or friend who helped with development locally. Small option grants will ensure that IP rights are rounded up from all relevant parties. These grants should be vested in whole or in part to ensure that proper consideration exists for the IP assignment made by the consultants.

7. Protect the IP going forward.

When the startup is formed, all employees and contractors who continue to work for it should sign confidentiality and invention assignment agreements or work-for-hire contracts as appropriate to ensure that all IP remains with the company.

Such persons should also be paid valid consideration for their efforts. If this is in the form of equity compensation, it should be accompanied by some form of cash compensation as well to avoid tax problems arising from the IRS placing a high value on the stock by using the reasonable value of services as a measure of its value. If cash is a problem, salaries may be deferred as appropriate until first funding.

8. Consider provisional patent filings.

Many startups have IP whose value will largely be lost or compromised once it is disclosed to the others. In such cases, see a good patent lawyer to determine a patent strategy for protecting such IP. If appropriate, file provisional patents. Do this before making key disclosures to investors, etc.

If early disclosures must be made, do this incrementally and only under the terms of non-disclosure agreements. In cases where investors refuse to sign an nda (e.g., with VC firms), don’t reveal your core confidential items until you have the provisional patents on file.

9. Set up equity incentives.

With any true startup, equity incentives are the fuel that keeps a team going. At formation, adopt an equity incentive plan. These plans will give the board of directors a range of incentives, unsually including restricted stock, incentive stock options (ISOs), and non-qualified options (NQOs).

Restricted stock is usually used for founders and very key people. ISOs are used for employees only. NQOs can be used with any employee, consultant, board member, advisory director, or other key person. Each of these tools has differing tax treatment. Use a good professional to advise you on this.

Of course, with all forms of stock and options, federal and state securities laws must be satisfied. Use a good lawyer to do this.

10. Fund the company incrementally.

Resourceful startups will use funding strategies by which they don’t necessarily go for large VC funding right out the gate. Of course, some of the very best startups have needed major VC funding at inception and have achieved tremendous success. Most, however, will get into trouble if they need massive capital infusions right up front and thereby find themselves with few options if such funding is not available or if it is available only on oppressive terms.

The best results for founders come when they have built significant value in the startup before needing to seek major funding. The dilutive hit is much less and they often get much better general terms for their funding.

Conclusion

These tips suggest important legal elements that founders should factor into their broader strategic planning.

As a founder, you should work closely with a good startup business lawyer to implement the steps correctly. Self-help has its place in small companies, but it almost invariably falls short when it comes to the complex setup issues associated with a startup. In this area, get a good startup business lawyer and do it right.