Tag Archives: startup incorporation

Investors don’t care where your Startup is Incorporated

Many founders I speak with are concerned about where their startup is incorporated and how this could impact fundraising opportunities in the United States.  In reality, this concern is unfounded.

Any sophisticated investor considers the product/service, team, market potential and other commercialization factors before, if at all, considering where a startup is incorporated.  In some circumstances, an investor may request that the startup alter its jurisdiction of incorporation but whether or not they proceed with the investment is determined 90% by quality of the company over jurisdiction of incorporation.  As relayed to me by Canadian founders, “if an investor passes because you’re a Canadian company, that’s not the real reason for passing“.

Where an investor requires your startup to be incorporated in the U.S. there is a simple process for creating this structure that I discussed in a previous blog post – The Canadian-U.S. Swap: Moving an Early-Stage Startup to the U.S.

Canadian founders should focus on building a compelling product/service and not waste energy worrying about minutia of incorporation.  Sell investors on your company and any issues concerning where your company is incorporated can be worked out between your legal counsel and investors.

Revisiting “Should I Incorporate my Canadian Startup in Delaware?”

It seems Canadians are still wrestling with whether to incorporate their startup in Delaware.  I wrote about this question back in September 2014  and since then the post has racked up over 1,000 views.  Back then, I concluded with this piece of advice, which I still stand by:

Don’t lock yourself into Delaware before you know where your investment comes from.  Based upon the cost and complexity of operating a Delaware startup from Canada, I recommend that you incorporate in Canada at the start.  Where a future U.S. investor requires you to incorporate in Delaware (or another state) your legal advisors can assist with this transition.  Conversely, Canadian investors may prefer to invest in a Canadian company!

Tip:  your product/service is important, not the place of incorporation.

Fully-Diluted Calculations

Congratulations, you received a term sheet!  While the main terms, such as valuation, are certainly important, there are numerous less noticeable terms that can have just as great an impact.  One such term is “fully-diluted”.

What is a fully-diluted calculation?

A fully-diluted calculation assumes that all options, warrants and other rights to acquire stock have been exercised or converted, regardless of whether they are actually vested or exercisable at the time of the offering.

Let’s illustrate the impact of a fully-diluted calculation compared to a funding round without full dilution.

Startup has issued 1,000,000 shares and 100,000 options.  None of the options are vested.  Investor desires to take 10% interest in the company.

Not fully-diluted:  Startup will use the number of issued shares only to calculate the 10%  and will issue investor 111,100 shares (representing 10%).

Fully-diluted:  Startup will use the total number of issued shares and options to calculate the 10% and issue the investor 122,200 shares.  However, since none of the options are vested, and may never vest, investor actually acquired a present-day interest of 10.89%.

While the above example seems benign given the .89% difference, that percentage could be worth a large sum if the company exits in the future.  What if you are selling an almost controlling interest in the company, perhaps 23.5%?  In that case, a fully-diluted calculation could result in a sale of a 25%+ (and controlling) present-day interest depending on the number of outstanding options etc.  In other situations, an investor may request that the entire option pool (even if no options have been granted) be factored into the fully-diluted calculation – in the case of a 12% option pool, this term would have a substantial impact.

In sum: while you may not be able to avoid a fully-diluted calculation in a term sheet, it’s important to understand its impact and to negotiate with that impact in mind.

Delaware vs Canada Startup Structure

Canadian startups are frequently influenced by U.S.-centric blog posts concerning startup company structure.  Relying on these posts ignores some fundamental differences in how Federal and British Columbia corporations can be incorporated compared to a Delaware corporation.  Indeed, Canadian startups should not ignore such differences as they permit a more lenient corporate structure from which to grow a company.

To start, here is an overview of the Delaware corporate structure typically recommended to startups:

  1.  Authorize 10,000,000 shares.  Delaware corporations must authorize a fixed number of shares at the time of incorporation.  This number can be altered in the future but will require shareholder approval.  The large number is used as: (a) it avoids fractional shares; and (b) looks expensive.
  2. Issue around 5,000,000 shares.  Shares are issued to founders but at least a 1/3 of authorized shares remain unissued for option pool grants and investment rounds.
  3. Allocated shares to option pool.  A certain number of shares are allocated to the option pool.  The art of structuring the option pool, especially in regard to finance rounds, will be discussed in a future post.

Once complete, assuming a 10% pool, 6,000,000 shares (5m founder shares and 1m pool) have been issued or allocated.  The remaining 4 million shares, or 40% of the company, will be reserved for future investment rounds and expansion of the option pool (if needed).

Conversely, Federal and British Columbia corporations are NOT required to authorize, and thereby set a cap on the number of, shares.  Instead, shares can be unlimited, thereby granting the Canadian startup great leeway in granting shares in the future without having to worry about running into the authorized share limit that Delaware corporations face.

Here is what the same startup, incorporated Federally or in British Columbia, would look like structurally:

  1. Authorize an unlimited number of shares.
  2. Issue about 5,000,000 shares.
  3. Allocate the option pool, fixed or rolling.  Given that shares are unlimited, you are not forced to set a fixed number of shares to constitute the option pool, although you could.  Instead, you can set the option pool size as a rolling % of issued shares creating an automatically adjusting pool size regardless of the number of shares issued in the future.

Ultimately, the Federal/BC startup is not faced by the same rigid share structure, governed by the authorized share requirement, that a Delaware startup is, thereby taking away a few of the corporate structure challenges that U.S. startups often face.  With unlimited shares, the Canadian startup’s future share grants are only restricted by the corporation’s constituting documents, agreements with shareholders or third parties and BC corporate law.  Conversely, the Delaware corporation needs to review how a share grant will reconcile with the number of authorized shares and, if needed, increase that number and seek shareholder approval to do so.

Of course, if you want to structure the company exactly like a U.S. startup, you certainly can authorize a fixed number of shares in your Canadian startup!