Loadıng
The evaluation and structuring of investments in early-stage projects entail multifaceted challenges that demand meticulous attention from both founders and investors. One critical aspect is the determination of project valuation, which often faces discrepancies stemming from information asymmetry between founding shareholders and potential investors. While founders hold an advantageous position regarding technical feasibility, investors may possess superior insights into market feasibility and economic viability, leading to the notorious 'Gold Ring Problem' where subjective valuations diverge. This discordance underscores the necessity for transparent exchange of private information, yet incentives for misrepresentation persist on both sides, necessitating mechanisms like independent valuation or auctions. Additionally, concerns surrounding further funding and confidentiality loom large, urging the implementation of safeguards such as 'pay-to-play' provisions and non-disclosure agreements to mitigate risks and preserve sensitive intellectual property.
Founding shareholders have an informational advantage in relation to the technical feasibility of the project. However, the situation may be reversed when it comes to the market feasibility and economic viability of the project- the question of whether there is a market for the project at all, and how big is the competition in the market . In this regard, investors may have superior information due to their industry expertise, a typical "Gold Ring Problem" in which they may assign a high subjective value to the company and the founders cannot, ex ante, incorporate this subjective value into the price .
To value the project properly, both parties should reveal their private information truthfully. However, it may be advantageous for each side to misstate its private information. For investors understanding his private information can be advantageous since it increases his stake in the financial return of the company. The founders might solve this problem by seeking independent valuation or by an auction , as they have done so. Note, however, that even the auction procedure may not reveal the true value of the company, as the bidder is not required to disclose her special idiosyncratic risk that affects the company's value. Thus, the bidder may compete to outbid the next highest bidder without reflecting the company's actual value.
Although it is extremely unlikely, the founders confront the possibility that the investors may not have sufficient funds for their equity investment in the company. Given that the Founders' primary objective is to secure financing for the company's expansion, this risk could jeopardize the deal and should be governed by a share subscription agreement.
Throughout the venture's lifecycle and especially in subsequent funding cycles, the company may require additional funding. To ensure this, the founders should have included a "pay-to-play" provision in the Article of Association of the company, whereby, for example, investors who fail to contribute at least 75% of their pro-rata share of financing are penalized by losing their rights to dilution protection. In this way, investors are therefore encouraged to participate in subsequent financing rounds. If investors chooses not to participate in the next round of financing, this will convey to potential investors that they may be purchasing a lemon. On the other hand, the founders may also potentially discourage the investors who are interested in participating in privileged shares and not subsequent funding rounds by inserting such provision. Nevertheless, this provision would mitigate the founders’ risk not to secure further financing.
During the negotiation and due diligence stage, the founders may have revealed significant unpublished technical knowledge. In case the investors are looking for more than one potential venture to invest or already have similar companies in their portfolio, which are operating in the same industry as the Founder did, the latter may have some confidentiality concerns in terms of protecting their ideas. To preserve their commercially and technically sensitive information, the founders may require investors to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This would be an important milestone for founders, once the investors are not well-reputed.
However, note that, venture capital firms have traditionally refused to sing NDAs for a number of reasons, including a desire to avoid restricting their ability to seek out and evaluate potential investments and a desire to continue acting in an advisory capacity for their portfolio companies . The investors may also claim that the company is a “naked start-up” consisting of nothing but the founders and unproven technology, thereby, compared to a mature company in a mature industry, the company would have no confidential information other than their ideas . The recent trends may have reversed this reluctance, and many of the venture capital investors seem no longer appear reluctant to break rank with peers in the industry and sign the NDA .
In conclusion, the complexities inherent in early-stage project evaluation underscore the need for robust mechanisms to navigate information disparities and mitigate risks. Transparent communication, independent valuation, and contractual safeguards such as 'pay-to-play' provisions and non-disclosure agreements serve as pillars for fostering trust and protecting intellectual property. As founders and investors engage in this intricate dance of negotiation and due diligence, striking a balance between opportunity and risk becomes paramount, laying the foundation for successful ventures poised for growth in dynamic markets.
Copyright 2023, GKS Law & Consultancy. All rights reserved.
