I recently ran into this situation around a very standard
About a year after the initial close, my client went to raise a
medium sized extension round. They found a lead for the
extension and everything went well. After some negotiation,
we got to the last issue in the term sheet: redemption. The
investor insisted that its redemption right be timed four years out
to coincide with the redemption for the initial investment.
The company, of course, insisted that redemption start at five
years. They quickly reached impasse.
The CFO then asked me what to do. He sent along an email
from the investor who explained carefully and reasonably that he
did not want to be behind the initial investors.
I then sent an email to the group stating that our understanding
was that all preferred would have the same redemption schedule
– beginning five years after the extension closing not
Needless to say, that closed the gap. The point is, I
think, that there never was a gap.
It doesn't make sense to have different redemption dates for
different series. The result of such an arrangement is that
one series is in danger of funding out another series. No
investor should ever agree to such an arrangement. Also, as
time passes and new investments are made the issuer is not going to
want to be in a position to have to spend money to buy out
investors rather than fund its business.
Redemption itself is not all that common a practice. It
appears in only a small percentage of west coast deals and only
about half (somewhat more than that actually) of New England
deals. It is a rarely used provision. I can't say
never but ask a few practitioners how often they have seen it
used. I bet the answer is almost never. I bet several
will say they have never themselves seen it used in their
practice. The fact that it is a rarely used provision makes
it an easy give. This, I believe, is the reason why it is a
minority provision on the west coast.
If you are going to have it, however, you probably want to make
sure it really works. Investors in Thoughtworks, tired to use
their redemption provision and discovered that the then usual and
customary language about how redemption was subject to the
board's discretion around availability of capital. The
NVCA form has addressed this issue and created a redemption
provision that actually works.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On March 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision imposing certain socio-economic contract requirements on subcontractors operating hospitals associated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers.
The Department of Defense has issued a new instruction that establishes internal DOD policies for detecting, avoiding, and remediating counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain, and allocates responsibility among various DOD offices and functions for administering or developing those counterfeit prevention policies.
In 1997, the Virginia Supreme Court sent a chill down the spines of many companies operating under teaming agreements with a Virginia choice of law provision. In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 493 S.E. 2d 514 (Va. 1997), that court held a teaming agreement to be unenforceable on the ground that "agreements to agree in the future" are "too vague and too indefinite to be enforced."