Aboutwhy sjkplawyerspracticesInsightsCase StudyNewsLocations
Corporate

Founder Dispute

A founder who built the company may find that the board can replace them as CEO, that a financing round diluted their stake, or that investor consent is now needed for decisions they used to make alone.

Reviewed

01 GUIDE

Founder Dispute: what usually happens

Founder versus board and investors

Founder disputes often begin when control shifts after venture financing. Preferred stock commonly carries protective provisions and board seats, and voting agreements may dictate who fills those seats. Removal of a founder as an officer is usually a board decision, while removal as a director depends on stockholder votes and the governing documents. Disputes then follow over the terms of departure, such as unvested equity, repurchase rights, restrictive covenants, and severance. Many startups are Delaware corporations, so Delaware law and its courts frequently shape the analysis even for a company run from New York.

The documents that allocate control

Review the current charter, including amendments adopted in each financing, the bylaws, the investors' rights, voting, and right-of-first-refusal agreements, your employment or offer letter, and your equity grant documents. Board minutes and written consents show how decisions were actually made. If you are still an officer or director, keep acting within your authority and avoid unilateral steps such as changing system access or contacting investors with accusations, which can be framed as a breach of your own duties. Side letters with individual investors can also carry rights that do not appear in the main documents.

Choosing a strategy

Our first conversation focuses on where control currently sits and what you want: to remain involved, to leave on fair terms, or to challenge a decision you believe was improper. Founders sometimes hold rights to information, to notice of board actions, or to approve certain transactions, and those can matter in negotiation. A challenge to a dilutive financing or a removal usually raises fiduciary duty questions about the board's process and any conflicts of interest. We weigh those claims against the founder's continuing stake in the company's value, since a public fight can harm the very equity in dispute. Timing matters as well, because a pending financing or acquisition can change both sides' appetite for a settlement.

02 ATTORNEYS

Who you would be working with

Attorneys at our New York and Washington, D.C. offices handle matters like this one.

03 CASE RESULTS

Matters we have handled

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

05 HOW WE WORK

Client-centered service across jurisdictions

Global Coordination & Expertise

We deliver coordinated and effective legal services to our clients, utilizing our extensive legal resources and experienced attorneys in our well-integrated global network. Through our Washington D.C. and New York offices, together with our alliance

Multilingual & Cross-Border Communication

Our attorneys are experienced in both domestic and international matters and, with fluency in various languages, provide clear and consistent communication at every stage of your legal process.

Client-Centered Approach

Client service lies at the heart of our operations. From the initial consultation, we prioritize understanding your situation, listening to your goals, and providing regular updates and strategies tailored to your individual case.

Multidisciplinary & Efficient Solutions

Our multidisciplinary approach and established processes enable us to address cross-border challenges with efficiency.

06 OFFICES

Where we meet clients

Consultations are available in person or remotely.

New York

285 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10007
(855) 529-7557

Washington, D.C.

Suite 985, 1717 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
(855) 529-7557

Los Angeles

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 820, Los Angeles, CA 90067
(424) 561-7557

Attorney Advertising. This page is general information about founder dispute and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts of each matter, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laws differ by state and change over time.