money doesn’t grow on trees

Raising capital for your technology business is a tough gig. For most, just finding investors who are interested in taking a serious look at your company is hard work. But even once you have investors that you like on the hook, there is still a big hill to climb before the money hits your bank account.

where we come in

Our job is to help you negotiate a good term sheet, get through the slog of completing long form documents, and satisfy investor conditions with your sanity intact. It’s a job we are good at – we did 146 deals in 2020 alone.

read more about our 2020 capital raising numbers

getting ready for your capital raise

As well as helping companies get investment ready, we help founders and their teams to develop their capital raising strategy, including answering common questions e.g. what types of investors will be interested in our company? What sort of investment structure will they want? What rights will they require?

capital raising basics: getting investment ready
capital raising basics: investment mechanics and terms

agreeing terms

Because we see a large number of deals, we can provide useful behind the scenes input to companies as they negotiate headline terms with investors, including on investment amounts and pre-money valuations.

Once the big-ticket items are agreed, we help companies negotiate the term sheet. The key economic and control terms are recorded in the term sheet, making it the most important phase of an investment deal.

There’s often an imbalance of knowledge between first-time founders and repeat players like VCs and other investors. We can help you level the playing field.

formal documents

The style and friendliness of investment documents varies widely depending on the type of investor.

We draft and negotiate all of the types of documents used by seed, angel, VC, corporate, venture debt, private equity and pre-IPO investors. We’ve seen so many of these that we know the negotiating parameters that investors are likely to bring to the negotiation table and we share this knowledge with our clients.
We also promote better investment documentation and practices to founder and investor communities.

investors

We also act for a number of high net worth and venture capital investors.

“When you work with a range of investors on a global deal, you need a legal partner who can get the deal done. Kindrik Partners provided the best advice which got us a big outcome.”

capital raising resources

Increasingly, investment documents are incorporating rolling closes. A rolling close mechanism enables a company to complete part of the total investment round with one or more initial investors, whilst leaving the door open for the company to raise further money on the same terms.

pros and cons

Clearly, it is easiest to complete a transaction with all the investors in one single closing. Everyone signs the paperwork at the same time, the company is fully funded and all shares are issued together. But, in the current climate, investors are taking longer to complete their due diligence, and fund. In these situations, a rolling close mechanism allows companies to close some of the round and get cash in the door. Otherwise one small investor can delay the whole round and the company receiving vital cash.

how is it documented?

Typically, the subscription agreement signed by the initial investors will include language relating to the proposed rolling close. This would include a cap on the total amount that can be raised and, normally, a period of time to complete the process. The proposed issue of these additional shares will need to be excluded from certain provisions under the governance documents of the company which either (i) restrict the company from issuing new shares, or (ii) have pre-emptive rights on new share issues.

We have seen rolling closes dealt with in various ways, summarised below:

  • each rolling close investor signs their own subscription agreement with the company, on the same terms as the initial investors. Of course, this means paperwork is duplicated, taking time to draft. Additionally, the follow-on subscription agreements may need to be tweaked, as most of the closing conditions in the original subscription agreement may have already been satisfied.
  • each rolling close investor signs a deed of accession to the initial subscription agreement under which they receive the same rights as the initial investors. Subject to ensuring that there is no conflict between the documents, this is efficient and cuts down the paperwork.
  • occasionally, we have seen a mechanism in the initial subscription agreement enabling rolling close investors to accede to the overall subscription by simply adding their signature to the original document. We think this is not particularly customary and it brings into question the valid date of the document. Therefore, best to avoid.

shareholders’ agreement and constitution

The other issue is the new shareholders’ agreement and constitution. All investors will need to accede to the new shareholders’ agreement on becoming a shareholder, and be happy with the adopted constitution. Whilst small follow-on investors generally invest based on what the lead investor has already negotiated, they may have their own minor requests. Founders will need to manage this process by either pushing back, or potentially agreeing to side letters to avoid amending the main document, which would require everyone to re-sign.

round up

If a rolling close is likely to be required, founders should state this in the term sheet. The lawyers can then ensure the necessary amendments are built into the final investment documents. To cut down on the paperwork and admin, it is strongly recommended that the rolling close investors all complete on a single second completion date, rather than in dribs and drabs.

Finally, to avoid reaching out to shareholders more than once, a good tip is to ensure that your board and shareholder resolutions signed on the initial completion date approve the maximum amount of the capital raise, including the full amount of the rolling close.

The global economic downturn has inevitably hit the startup and venture capital ecosystem. Investors in startups, like everyone else, are impacted by falling stock prices and fund valuations, distracted from investing new money and busy supporting existing portfolio companies. These factors make it harder for startups to raise money right now.

But for those startups that are still raising money, what is the approach of investors? Is the VC term sheet about undergo a change?

valuations

Startup valuations are falling.  For those companies that have raised a previous round of financing, founders will want to avoid a down round – a fundraising in which a company issues shares at a lower price than the previous investment round – at all costs, as doing so may trigger investors’ anti-dilution rights. If anti-dilution rights are triggered, founders could face significant further dilution.

If company cash is low, existing investors may need to support a new financing. If so, founders will need to negotiate hard with both new and existing investors. Anti-dilution rights can be fully or partially waived on a fundraising at the end of the day. If anti-dilution rights are triggered, founders may then need to ensure that they remain sufficiently incentivised following the dilution, for example via an increased portion of the company’s ESOP.

extension rounds and convertible notes

Extension rounds at the same price as the last financing round may be an alternative to a down round. With no increase in valuation, startups will want to classify such investments as a bridge or extension. Therefore, expect to see investment rounds using preference share class terminology such as series A2, series B+, pre-series A or similar.

We also anticipate more convertible notes will be used in the market. This not only avoids initial dilution but pushes the whole difficult discussion on current valuation to another day. This, of course, also has its disadvantages. To some extent, founders are just kicking the valuation debate down the road and it will still have to be addressed at some point. In the current market, it also seems inevitable that SAFEs will be less common than traditional convertible notes carrying repayment obligations. We also expect investors to be more aggressive on setting lower valuation caps and fluctuating price discounts depending on the timing of conversion into equity.

tranched investments

Now is the time to get money into the business to give it runway for a decent period of time. Tranched investments conditional on financial performance are best avoided by startups at the best of times. Right now, it is very difficult to forecast traction and performance over the next 12-18 months. Unfortunately, given the uncertain economic environment, investors may well think the opposite and insist on structuring investments in tranches subject to KPIs.

warrants

Warrants, which provide an option to purchase more shares at a future date at a fixed price, may also be a tool for investors to use in the current environment. The exercise price of such warrants is key – the lower the price, the more potential dilution. If warrants are issued and/or exercisable down the line, based on company performance, the true share price of the financing round may be considerably less than initially agreed.

redemption / buy-back rights

Investors sometimes include redemption or buy-back rights which entitle them to their money back in certain circumstances. Usually this is where there is some kind of event of default by the company or its founders.

However in difficult times, investors tend to broaden the circumstances in which such redemption or buy-back rights can be enforced (e.g. financial performance deteriorates or being unable to satisfy a key commercial arrangement or deliverable). In this uncertain economic period, investors may look to de-risk transactions even further using such a mechanism. Founders should be cautious about agreeing to any broad redemption or buy-back rights triggered by anything other than a material breach or default.

liquidation preference

Liquidation preferences provide investors with downside protection if a company is either sold or wound up.  In such an event, investors are entitled to receive an agreed amount of the proceeds before anything is paid to other shareholders. During the good times, founders and startups have become accustomed to 1x non-participating liquidation preference in most cases – a generally accepted VC market standard. With stormy clouds above, we can expect that to change, with liquidation preference carrying higher multiples, and also participating preferences returning.

Further, for companies that have raised previous rounds of investment, incoming investors are more likely to seek a senior class of shares, than rank alongside existing preference shareholders, which is common in normal market conditions.

exit rights

Exit rights give investors a way to sell their shares if the company hasn’t got to a liquidity event (e.g. a trade sale or IPO) within a set period. We may see shorter time periods before these rights kick in. The remedies provided to investors vary, but we could see more instances of the following:

  • a right to require the company to buy-back investors’ shares at a specified price (for example, based on fair market value)
  • investors having the option to reconstitute the board giving them greater voting control
  • an obligation on the board to engage an investment banker to find a buyer, coupled with a drag-along right so that shareholders (including founders) can be forced to sell at a price determined by investors

venture debt

Finally, venture debt is likely to become a more important source of financing in the short term, in most cases complementing an equity financing. As an alternative capital raising option for high growth companies, venture debt is a good option for entrepreneurs looking to extend their runway, using an instrument that results in less dilution.

round up

Right now VC firms and other investors will be taking a closer look at downside protection in their term sheets. Of course, not all investors are predatory, nor will the majority take advantage of the difficult economic climate to seek further influence in startups. But now is certainly the time for founders to reach out to lawyers at the term sheet stage to understand what is, and what isn’t, market standard, and how this may be changing.

Occasionally investors request that their investment amount be paid in tranches against achievement of milestones. While this tranching approach is not common in New Zealand, it does appear as an option in the NZ Angel Association’s template documents – albeit with a note that tranching is not common.

We thought it would be helpful to provide a reminder about tranching, and why, other than in limited cases, it is not generally in the best interests of the company, or investors.

tranching investments in new zealand

In New Zealand, tranching is most often seen in life sciences companies, where the company requires regulatory approvals to commercialise its product.  Tranching can be appropriate here because the achievement of regulatory approvals is pivotal to the success of the company.

There are a variety of approaches to tranching, but at a high level it usually works like this:

  • the company and the investor agree on the total amount to be invested
  • the total amount is divided into two or more tranches
  • the company and investor agree upon the milestones that must be met for payment of the second and later tranches, including the dates for achieving each milestone. Common milestones for early stage companies include completion of product development for commercial release, achieving regulatory approvals (particularly important for life sciences companies), signing [x] number of customers or achieving $[y] sales targets, or completing key hires such as a CFO, CTO or sales director
  • the first tranche is paid on completion of formal investment documentation and satisfaction of any conditions
  • subsequent tranches are paid subject to achievement of the agreed milestones by the agreed dates
  • if a milestone is not met by the agreed date, the investor will have the option not to proceed with the next tranche of the investment.

should you avoid tranche investments?

Investing in tranches helps investors to manage investment risk. The smaller the amount of money invested up front, prior to key business milestones being met, the lower the risk for investors.

On the other hand, tranching generally increases risk for companies, because receipt of the balance of the investment is conditional upon future events. The further out the milestones are, the harder they are to achieve and the greater the risk for the company.

We usually advise companies to avoid tranching if they can. The obvious reason is the risk associated with a conditional funding commitment. However, a number of other problems can arise, some of which can hurt investors as well as the companies they invest in:

  • founders and management can become overly focussed on achieving milestones, to the detriment of the business as a whole, for example because non-milestone related risks or opportunities are overlooked
  • the business plans of early stage companies tend to change, as companies develop a deeper understanding of their markets, customers and competitors. Milestones that make sense when an investment deal is signed can become less relevant to the success of the business over time, and a company can end up pursuing milestones that have become of little value to the company
  • while it is possible for investors and founders to agree new milestones to adapt to changing circumstances, this can be quite difficult as it has financial consequences for both parties. Renegotiating milestones can cause friction between investors and founders, and can damage relationships.

the issue with valuation and tranched investments

In our experience, tranching causes particular problems when it is used to bridge a significant valuation gap. This occurs when an investor is sceptical of the valuation sought by the company, and addresses this by setting financial or commercial milestones for subsequent tranches which justify the valuation from the investor’s perspective. In this scenario, investors can see the company’s valuation as a placeholder, to be renegotiated if the company’s actual performance is below target.

However, companies and their founders who have had difficulty agreeing a valuation up front will obviously be unwilling to renegotiate the valuation after the fact, regardless of any performance based evidence that the investor now has to justify a lower valuation (the phrase reality distortion field comes to mind). In our experience, what tends to happen is:

  • the company’s founders become hyper-focussed on achieving the required milestones in order to avoid a reduction in their valuation, regardless of the impact on the business as a whole. This is particularly problematic where milestones were poorly chosen in the first place
  • if it becomes apparent that the company will miss a milestone, the focus may turn to other means of avoiding a valuation reduction. One approach is to try to find a new investor who will buy in at the original or a higher price, with all the attendant distractions that capital raising brings. Another is to slow down the company’s cash burn, to defer or remove the need for the next tranche, even if this harm’s the company’s growth prospects.  Worst case, a company’s founders may be prepared to risk the failure of the company rather than be forced to draw down a tranche at a lower valuation (sounds far-fetched, but it happens!).

For these reasons, we think it is much better to try to do the hard yards up front to agree a valuation that both sides are happy to go forward with, or to not do a deal at all.

what to do if your investors insist on tranched investment

If investors insist on milestones, we advise companies to:

  • ensure that milestones are specific, tied to objective achievements (not subject to the judgement of the investor) and that above all are achievable
  • try to chose milestones that support their core business proposition, so that that they will continue to be relevant even if the detail of the business plan changes over time (this is hard)
  • try to limit the period for tranching to the shortest time possible, ideally no more than 6 months. The longer the period for payment of tranches, the greater the uncertainty and risk for the company
  • structure the investment so that shares are issued progressively only as tranches are paid, as opposed to issuing all of the shares to the investors up-front (which is what some investors ask for).

If you have any concerns or questions surrounding tranched investments, get in touch with one of our capital raising lawyers.

subscribe to our newsletter and get the latest templates and tips for fast-growing startups in New Zealand

read our capital raising case studies

Shuttlerock developed a SaaS platform to help brands collect content and use it in online video advertisements. Read more about how they closed their round of ~$1.6m in late 2017.
Jude was created by New Zealand fintech company Jude Limited to automatically handle those routine but easily overlooked parts of managing your bank accounts. Read about their seed round with Ice Angels.
Software company Nyriad has developed an ultrafast, low-power GPU-based storage solution, and recently closed a series A capital raise, with Kindrik Partners handling the legals.

are you based in southeast asia?

If so then you may prefer kindrik.sg