Getting a Divorce from a VC

It’s been said taking money from a VC is like getting married but there is no divorce.  I actually got a divorce.  I think a real divorce might have been easier.

My lawyer who’s done over 1,000 deals (he has eleven attorney’s in his practice at a major firm) said he’s only seen it happen once.  I’ve talked to hundreds of entrepreneurs and been involved with four companies and I’ve only seen it happen once.  I would love to hear other experiences if people have examples.

There are a couple of factors going on:

  1. A VC fund lasts at max around ten years
  2. At the end of this time shares in an illiquid company are useless to the VC
  3. In order to “make” the fund VC’s need 10X returns on companies
  4. Every VC deal will certainly have preferred shares with special rights
  5. You as the Entrepreneur have signed up for this

Everybody agrees 90% of companies aren’t really VC material.  This isn’t an insult on the company it just reflects the fact you can’t leverage loads of money.  If you throw more money at the market it doesn’t grow.

We unfortunately were in this case.  We’d doubled sales staff and it didn’t leverage.  We spent tons of money on marketing which didn’t have an effect.  Most importantly however, we had watched three company’s raise more than $10M each in our space and all three had flamed out.  Unfortunately the market just wouldn’t move as fast as anybody hoped.  It wasn’t a bad space we could grow at double digit rates and make good money, but it wasn’t a hockey stick curve.  We had a great recurring revenue model and had 99% plus renewal rates.

It started to get to the end of the VC’s funds and the failing about began.

Our VC’s wanted to bring on a board member that had left a huge company that wanted more in board compensation that the founders were getting paid.  We politely (not really) said no.  Actually we told the VC’s they could pay the compensation and of course at that thought they got alligator arms.

We agreed to bring on some of his high paid consultant friends if they split the cost.  They agreed, the biggest recommendation was that we get better offices, wear better clothes (and probably lease expensive cars)…..what a load of shit.  The VC reneged on splitting the costs.

Meanwhile the board member came on anyway.  He really wanted to run a company.  The VC’s took me out to dinner and told me should really bring in some outside management it really was their fiduciary responsibility.  The board member was really pushing behind the scenes to get me fired.  All sorts of behind the scene machinations that only a person skilled in big company politics would even think of executing happened.  I was “unprofessional” I really couldn’t “scale” I had a simple response:

Buy me out.  Buy out 100% of my shares in cash and agree to buy out the other founders if they wanted and they could get what they wanted.  Again…..alligator arms.

I had seen this scenario too many times:

  1. Hire an expensive mercenary.
  2. They assemble a team of expensive VPs with a large support staff.
  3. Huge projections get made
  4. Everyone oooh’s and aaah’s at the PowerPoints and Excel charts that took person years to build.
  5. The big company execs don’t realize nothing happens at a small company unless you personally take initiative.  Nothing comes to you by itself.
  6. Nothing happens.
  7. Projections get remade, new initiatives with fancy names are dreamed up inside the company.  Expensive execs don’t realize that anything done internally doesn’t mean shit at a small company it only matters what you do outside of your company.
  8. The company runs out of money.
  9. The company can’t raise money because it has less traction than it did before.
  10. A bridge round is proposed.  This is a polite term for prison yard gang rape.
  11. The expensive execs are more than willing to take the bridge round and keep jobs for another six months.
  12. The founders shares are wiped out with anti-dilution clauses and full warrant coverage that happens when the bridge round isn’t repaid

It wasn’t going to happen to me, but I could see how if you were inexperienced you would go along for the ride, why not hire the super expensive great looking executive we’ll grow this thing for everyone.

Now it was on…..on like Donkey Kong

Outside board member fired.

Our board meetings devolved.  A highlight was when one of our VC’s got up and yelled at the top of his lungs: “you guys are so fucking unprofessional” and slammed the conference room door.  One of the founders suggested I lock the door as that would really be unprofessional.

The VC wasn’t responding well to our tactics.  He would propose hiring a consultant, an investment bank or friend, etc. and we would say no.  He would push and push and then we would propose a board vote (we controlled the board).  Not getting what you want really pisses off many VC’s they’re just not used to it.

We had three things going for us:

  1. We didn’t raise a ton of money
  2. We kept a majority of shares
  3. We were profitable.

After several months it just became too painful.  The lead VC exercised his put and dragged the other VC along.  It was painful for us as well.  Paying your VC’s more than double their money back in these times was hard but we were able to do it.  The thing that really hurts is that you pay back a multiple of the attorney’s fees which you never got as well.   You really sit there and think I’m working my ass off just to pay these guys their multiple, but it’s what we signed up for and it’s what we did.  I’m sure the feeling is mutual and from a VC prospective you’d say these guys promised me a huge growth company and didn’t deliver.  Divorce is never fun.

  • http://charliecrystle.blogspot.com/ Charlie Crystle

    We should get together sometime.

  • Phil Sugar

    People view this as a tale of woe I view it as a tale of joy.

    The only thing I really didn’t like was the underhanded politics but everything else really is what you should expect.

  • Phil Sugar

    I am super happy, there are tons of great technology companies as I point out that don’t achieve “rock star” status, I am living at one.

    I think real value gets lost at the sixty percent. Nobody doesn’t want a big hit but that is the outcome everyone agrees a majority of the time. If those companies get driven into the ground which I see happen often, value is lost for everyone

  • Phil Sugar

    I’ll see you this fall.

  • Phil Sugar

    There really aren’t good books about it and nobody really likes talking about it because it is the underbelly of the industry.

    I’ll take the other side here. If I was a VC I’d say look you said it was going to be a bit hit in 7 years or less. You didn’t succeed. You used my money. I want something different. As a VC what can you do??? The only real thing is to change management.

    I have not seen one of these cases work out, and that’s not just me. Mark Suster agreed with me on this one.

    The real pain is that you end up wasting money spending it on expensive people and expensive marketing. As I point out when you have to pay this back two-fold it hurts.

  • Phil Sugar

    It is the standard playbook for all but top tier VCs

  • http://jasonkolb.com jasonkolb

    You sound like an excellent exec with a rock-solid vision of where you want your company to go.

    Bravo for sticking to your guns, if you're willing to go through what you did to maintain control you obviously believe in what you're doing.

  • http://technbiz.blogspot.com paramendra

    Thanks for sharing.

  • http://twitter.com/LDLoeb Lawrence D. Loeb

    Sounds like a really bad experience. Generally,a fund expects 20% of investments to fail, 20% to be big hits (hopefully home runs), and 60% that can't scale to IPO size.

    When the LP clock runs out, they need to find some type of exit (usually LPs don't want to hold illiquid shares in a private company – and it's probably not a good thing for the company either).

    If they can't dress the company up for a sale, they need to come up with some other means of exiting.

    The description you provide indicates they were far from upfront about what they were doing. For some reason they lost trust in their relationship with the company (if they ever had it).

    I'm glad you were able to come to an agreement. As you said, you agreed to the terms when you took the cash.

    Sorry your firm didn't grow to where you had hoped. I hope the existing size works for you and your partners.

  • http://www.justinpirie.com Justin Pirie

    Great post- if you're ever in the UK- I'd love to buy you a beer.

    Justin

  • http://twitter.com/LDLoeb Lawrence D. Loeb

    Sounds like a really bad experience. Generally,a fund expects 20% of investments to fail, 20% to be big hits (hopefully home runs), and 60% that can't scale to IPO size.

    When the LP clock runs out, they need to find some type of exit (usually LPs don't want to hold illiquid shares in a private company – and it's probably not a good thing for the company either).

    If they can't dress the company up for a sale, they need to come up with some other means of exiting.

    The description you provide indicates they were far from upfront about what they were doing. For some reason they lost trust in their relationship with the company (if they ever had it).

    I'm glad you were able to come to an agreement. As you said, you agreed to the terms when you took the cash.

    Sorry your firm didn't grow to where you had hoped. I hope the existing size works for you and your partners.

  • http://terezan.tumblr.com/ Tereza

    ohmigod.

    thanks, phil.

  • Darrel

    I wonder, does anyone reading this know of a very good book that could help people without painful first hand or observational experience navigate these waters? Something covering the legal and business concerns and general practices, even unspoken factors, at play in these sorts of situations would be a help.

    I'd rather be a success story than a cautionary tale.

  • http://twitter.com/rkteck1245 Fred T

    Thanks for sharing this and I am at a loss on what you just imparted with us. Please keep going no matter what.

  • philsugar

    Its not a tale of woe is actually a tale of joy

  • philsugar

    It really is just the standard playbook

  • philsugar

    When you think about it other than the politics its what happens.

    I'll take the VC point of view. You took my money, you said you would have a big hit, and it didn't happen.

    What is my only recourse? Change management. Does it work?? I've never seen it work and neither have many others including several top VC bloggers.

    But that is what is going to happen

  • philsugar

    I am at a GREAT technology firm. Is it a “rock star” status firm…nope. Do I love going to work? Absolutely.

    I have always said I think there is tremendous value wasted with the majority (I'll agree with your 60% that are in the middle)

    From a VC perspective its always the management (and I mean that sincerely, they don't work at the company, they can't judge the market). But if it is the market you can destroy a ton of value by driving the company into the death spiral I've seen, over, and over and over.

  • http://terezan.tumblr.com/ Tereza

    LOL — that's good to hear.

    I applaud your setting and keeping hold of the agenda. That's really awesome.

  • http://www.jeffreylu.com Jeff Lu

    *applause* Thanks for sharing.

  • Thomas

    Phil,
    Your post highlights a fundamental tension in the VC/Startup world which is: VCs do not want to deal with savvy, experienced managers who understand how to negotiate forward value. This is why so many 20-somethings are funded and given CEO titles when they're clearly inexperienced and incapable of driving value. All else being equal, a VC wants to deal with someone who doesn't understand the game and is willing to give up value to the VC without a fuss.
    To be fair, given the supply of eager, inexperienced entrepreneurs willing to do so and the fact that cash is king, they're willing to make a business on these terms.
    What they need to ask themselves however, is whether or not they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. I think this means they are implicitly excluding savvy executives who understand value and complex negotiations and don't leave economics on the table without a fight. Because of this, the nature of the executives who are VC-friendly are arguably less capable or willing of driving that extra piece of value in a company.
    Now I understand that you have to give value to get value and it takes a village to raise a company and that most entrepreneurs think they are the next Larry Ellison or Mark Zuckerberg when in fact they couldn't run a hot dog stand, but I still think that the VCs have skewed too far in favor of the unsophisticates and this is why they are having a realized value drought. The guys they are willing to fund aren't able to see real value and aren't able to fight back and defend the concept of the company when attacked by a bought of anxious ignorance or unfortunate impatience. And these things are probably a factor in holding down venture returns.
    Congrats for holding your ground and good luck on your entrepreneurial journey. And remember 1.5X liquidation prefs max.

  • David Lokshin

    How does the story end for you and the company?

  • philsugar

    Remember there are two types of preferred the first is the preference, and the second is the dividends…..

  • philsugar

    So far very happily ever after.

  • deitcher

    Phil,

    What a great story. Of course, there are unprofessional VCs, and there are unprofessional managers, and unprofessional founders, so it goes all ways.

    You knew what the company could do, given market and strategy, and you stuck to your guns, and although you didn't hands-down win – the VCs got their money back and then some – you managed to survive, as did the company. I second the drink comment. I live in Israel, spend a lot of time in New York, I will buy you a drink as well.

    Separately (your comment below): vast majority of firms are not going to be hugely scalable businesses, but funding for them is weak to non-existent. Once heard of a guy who went to a VC, had a great business idea, but the business was *only* going to be a recurring $20-25MM revenue business. The VC's response? “That is viable, not valuable.”

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    Loved this post too Charlie.

  • Phil Sugar

    Look at my “lifestyle” business comments. Most people have viewed this post as a nasty tale about VC’s. It really is not. A $20M business that can’t be sold isn’t going to work for a VC. Both party’s sign up to return the VC’s fund within 5 years. Trying to replace me is nasty but so is getting rid of your VC’s….all divorces end up ugly.

    Edit…the issue is nobody KNOWS what is going to happen but once you find out what happens then is the time to deal with the reality.