At first I thought this title was a poorly timed April Fools Joke.
I would imagine there are only a few decisions the founders make that ever come down to votes based on shares. Off the top of my head: Selling the company, firing the CEO, electing a new board, diluting existing shareholders, dividends.
The impact of this decision is probably heavily based on how often Felicis has a big enough stake to be a factor in shareholder voting.
Comments
At first I thought this title was a poorly timed April Fools Joke.
I would imagine there are only a few decisions the founders make that ever come down to votes based on shares. Off the top of my head: Selling the company, firing the CEO, electing a new board, diluting existing shareholders, dividends.
The impact of this decision is probably heavily based on how often Felicis has a big enough stake to be a factor in shareholder voting.
Minority protections probably already cover the cases you describe (eg veto rights).
Shareholder agreements typically cover even more of them (drag-along, tag-along, first right to refuse and so on).