Liquidation Preference Explained: A Startup Founder’s VC Guide

Liquidation Preference Explained: A Startup Founder’s VC Guide

Venturing into the realm of start-up funding can be a treacherous journey, where terms like 'liquidation preference' often become pivotal in the fate of founders and their companies. It's a concept that, if not thoroughly understood, can lead to surprising outcomes. As a founder, you might find yourself in a situation where your company sells for a substantial sum, say $100 million, yet due to the nuances of liquidation preference, you could end up with nothing. This stark reality underscores the importance of grasping liquidation preference to safeguard your interests and ensure fair financial rewards for your entrepreneurial efforts, both in successful exits and less favorable situations.

Decoding the Legal Language of Liquidation Preference:

The legal language surrounding liquidation preference might initially seem like a labyrinth of complex terms, but its implications are quite direct and significant for a company’s stakeholders. At its heart, this clause ensures that in any event leading to the liquidation of the company — be it a sale, merger, or even bankruptcy — preferred stockholders (the investors) are positioned at the front of the line to recover their investments. This priority is set before the distribution of any cash to common stockholders (founders and employees). 

To illustrate the practical impact of this clause, consider a scenario where you, as a founder, raise $100 million from investors with a 1x liquidation preference. Post-funding, you manage to retain half ownership of your business. Good job. Now, if your company is later sold for an amount less than what was raised — say, $90 million — the situation becomes challenging for you as a common shareholder. Despite owning a substantial 50% of the company, you would be fresh out of luck and recieve $0 from this sale. The entire $90 million would first go to satisfying the investors' 1x liquidation preference, leaving nothing for the common shareholders. This example starkly demonstrates how even significant ownership in a company does not guarantee financial returns. 

Understanding this legal language and its potential outcomes is crucial for founders. It highlights the importance of being fully aware of the terms you agree to when raising capital, as they have the power to define your financial rewards, or lack thereof, in future exit scenarios. It also underscores why thorough negotiation and a deep understanding of these terms are vital during the fundraising process.

 Key Features and Their Implications:

  • The Multiple: This defines how much investors get paid before common shareholders. While 1x is standard, more than 1x (like 1.5x, 2x, etc.) means investors get multiple times their investment back before the founder sees a dime. This is often a red flag, indicating either a distressed company or aggressive investor terms.
  • Participating vs. Non-Participating: To further complicate things, participating preferences allow investors to double-dip - getting their initial investment back and then sharing in the remaining proceeds, while non-participating preferences offer a choice between initial investment or conversion into common shares.
  • The Cap: Caps are set to prevent excessive payouts to investors, especially in participating scenarios. They limit the total payout to a certain multiple of the investment.
  • Seniority Structures: This defines the order in which different classes of investors get paid in a liquidation scenario.

Negotiating Liquidation Preference Terms: A Critical Aspect of Venture Financing:

Negotiating liquidation preference terms is more than just a critical part of venture financing; it's a tightrope walk for founders. This balancing act involves protecting their own financial interests and those of their early employees while still presenting attractive terms to secure funding from investors. The challenge lies in crafting terms that are both fair and appealing, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the company while also appealing to the risk profile of potential investors.

Understanding and strategically negotiating these terms can make a significant difference in the eventual financial outcome for all parties involved in a startup. Founders need to approach these negotiations with a clear understanding of their company’s valuation, growth potential, and the implications of various liquidation preference structures. It's about finding a middle ground where the risk and reward are equitably shared between the investors who provide crucial capital and the innovators who are building the business.

Learning from Case Studies: The Story of Good Technology:

Analyzing case studies like Good Technology offers a window into the real-world impacts of liquidation preferences. When Good Technology was acquired by BlackBerry for $425 million, on the surface, it appeared as a lucrative deal for the founders and employees. However, the reality was starkly different due to the 2x liquidation preferences held by later-stage investors. This arrangement meant that these investors were entitled to receive twice their invested amount before any payouts were made to common shareholders, including the founders and employees who had worked tirelessly to build the company.

This situation created a whirlpool effect, where the substantial portion of the sale proceeds was consumed by the investors' liquidation preferences, leaving the common shareholders with a fraction of what they expected, or in some cases, nothing at all. This outcome starkly illustrates how crucial it is for founders to understand and carefully negotiate the terms of liquidation preference. It serves as a cautionary tale that even a significant exit like a $425 million sale can result in minimal financial benefit for those holding common stock if the liquidation preference terms are not navigated wisely.

These insights underscore the importance of being well-prepared and strategic in venture financing negotiations. Founders must not only focus on the immediate need for capital but also consider the long-term implications of the terms they agree to, ensuring they align with the overall vision and fairness for all shareholders in the company.

Strategies for Founders:

  • Comprehensive Understanding: Fully grasp each term's implications.
  • Expert Consultation: Seek advice from financial and legal experts.
  • Long-term Vision: Align fundraising strategies with your long-term goals.
  • Transparent Communication: Keep your team informed about the company's financial structure.

Avoiding Common Traps:

  • Watch for Overbearing Terms: Be cautious of high multiples and participating preferences.
  • Seek Balance: Aim for fair terms that protect both investors and founders.
  • Negotiation Skills: Engage in term sheet negotiations with a focus on mutual benefits.


Understanding and skillfully negotiating liquidation preference is a critical key when taking money from investors. This knowledge is vital for founders to ensure alignment and protection of interests for all parties involved.


This post aims to educate and empower founders with knowledge to negotiate better terms and protect their interests. We encourage readers to SUBSCRIBE for regular updates and access our exclusive RESOURCES PAGE. Follow us on TIKTOK for additional content and insights into the startup world.

Legal disclaimer for TFA website, Blog and social channels

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the content (including posts, podcasts, videos) on The Founder Advisor website, its associated social media platforms, and other content distribution outlets are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer, or company. 

This content is intended for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, or investment advice.

The information provided on this site is accurate as of the date of publication and is subject to change without notice. While we strive to provide timely and accurate information, The Founder Advisor makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of any information contained herein. Users should not rely solely on this information in making any investment, legal, or business decision and should consult their own Legal counsel and advisors for specific advice tailored to their situation.

Any references to external websites or third-party information are provided for convenience and informational purposes only, and The Founder Advisor is not responsible for the content or accuracy of external sites or third-party information. The inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by The Founder Advisor.

The use of this website and its content does not establish a client-professional relationship between you and The Founder Advisor. All content and information on this website are provided “as is,” with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied.

By using this website and its content, you agree to these terms.