Co-Founder and Startup Divorce: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
This article discusses the "divorce" of startup businesses. This article discusses how the separation process of said business occurs and what to consider such as assessing the value of the company, dividing up who owns what, evaluating an agreements (if there are any), the transfer process, and dissolving the IP.
October 23, 2024 at 10:39 AM
7 minute read
Breakups are painful, whether in personal relationships or business partnerships. Similar to the rising rates of marital divorce, whenever the markets get ugly, we see a surge of co-founder disagreements leading to what is often referred to as "business divorce." These separations can be just as emotionally taxing and legally complex as a marital split and just as often result in financial and operational issues for the founders, investors, and the startup itself.
Take, for example, Joe and his co-founder, who once shared a common vision and were eager to build a unique platform for their clients. However, as time passed, Joe shouldered more of the workload and generated most of the ideas. Resentment began to surface, and unfortunately, the partnership didn't last. Joe eventually decided it was time to move on and focus on his own company.
These kinds of co-founder breakups are not uncommon in the startup world. According to startup and co-founder psychologist Yael Daniely, 10% of co-founders end their working relationship within a year and an additional 45% part within four years. In The Founder's Dilemma, Harvard Business School professor Noam Wasserman suggests an astounding 65% of high-potential startups fail due to co-founder conflict.
While some of these separations are painless, such as when a founder decides to take a different job or when a co-founder gracefully steps down due to personal reasons, others can be much messier.
According to TechCrunch, 2024 has been particularly tough for founders and companies that are unable to raise sufficient capital are everywhere. This increases the pressure founders feel from their fellow co-founders and investors regarding the company's alternatives and next steps.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
4 minute readTrade Fixtures in New York Eminent Domain Cases—What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readTrump Files $10B Suit Against CBS Over Edits to Kamala Harris Interview
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.