Raising venture capital is often a defining moment for a startup. It can unlock rapid growth, credibility, and access to experienced partners. But venture capital funding is never just about capital — it fundamentally changes how a company is owned, governed, and controlled.
When venture capital investors invest, they typically negotiate a package of rights designed to protect their downside and preserve their upside. These rights are market-standard, but if they are not properly understood or negotiated, they can materially affect founder control, future fundraising, and exit outcomes.
This article explains the key rights venture capital investors commonly require, why they matter, and what founders should think about before agreeing to them.
Why VCs Invest Through Preference Shares
Most venture capital investors do not invest through ordinary shares. Instead, they subscribe for preference shares, which carry additional rights not available to founders or employees.
Preference shares are designed to give investors priority and protection in higher-risk investments. While this is commercially reasonable, the specific rights attached to these shares can have long-term consequences for founders if not carefully negotiated.
What Is a Liquidation Preference — and Why It Matters
A liquidation preference determines who gets paid first if the company is sold, wound up, or undergoes a similar exit event.
In practical terms, this means that venture capital investors often receive their investment back before ordinary shareholders receive any proceeds. Depending on how the preference is structured, this can significantly reduce what founders and employees receive in a modest exit.
While liquidation preferences protect investors against downside risk, founders should understand how these provisions play out across different exit scenarios — not just best-case outcomes.
How Anti-Dilution Protection Works
As startups raise additional funding rounds, new shares are issued and existing shareholders are diluted. Anti-dilution provisions protect investors if a future round is raised at a lower valuation than earlier rounds.
These mechanisms can adjust the price at which an investor’s shares convert, effectively increasing their ownership percentage. While common, anti-dilution provisions can be complex and may disproportionately dilute founders and employee shareholders if triggered.
Understanding the difference between “soft” and “aggressive” anti-dilution protections is critical before agreeing to them.
Board Representation and Governance Influence
Venture capital investors frequently negotiate the right to appoint one or more directors to the board.
Board representation gives investors direct influence over strategic decisions, including budgets, senior hires, and major transactions. While experienced investor directors can add real value, founders should be prepared for shared decision-making and potential differences in strategic priorities.
Information and Reporting Obligations
Investors typically require regular access to financial and operational information. This may include management accounts, budgets, forecasts, and performance metrics.
While transparency is a normal part of a VC-backed business, founders should be aware of the administrative and operational burden that comes with increased reporting and oversight.
Pro-Rata and Pre-Emptive Rights
Pro-rata rights allow investors to participate in future funding rounds to maintain their ownership percentage. This signals long-term commitment but can complicate future raises if early investors cannot or choose not to follow on.
Pre-emptive rights often also apply to share transfers, giving existing shareholders first refusal when shares are sold. These rights help control the shareholder base but can reduce liquidity and flexibility.
Voting and Veto Rights
Certain investor decisions may require specific investor consent, even if investors do not control the board or majority shareholding. These “protective provisions” commonly apply to matters such as issuing new shares, selling the business, changing the nature of operations, or taking on significant debt.
While intended to protect investor value, excessive veto rights can slow decision-making and create deadlocks if not carefully balanced.
What Founders Should Take Away
Investor rights are not inherently “bad” — they are a normal part of venture capital investing. However, they are not one-size-fits-all.
The impact of these rights depends on:
-
the stage of the business;
-
the competitiveness of the funding round;
-
the experience of the founding team; and
-
how the terms interact with one another.
Founders who focus only on valuation often overlook the provisions that matter most after the deal closes.
A Practical Tip for Founders
Before accepting venture capital funding, founders should understand how investor rights affect control, dilution, future fundraising, and exit outcomes — not just in theory, but in realistic scenarios.
Early legal advice can help founders negotiate terms that protect investors while still preserving flexibility, control, and long-term growth potential.
Venture Capital Advice at O’Reilly Law
O’Reilly Law advises founders, startups, and investors across South Africa and Africa on venture capital transactions, including:
-
Term sheets and preference share structures
-
Shareholder and investment agreements
-
Governance and control frameworks
-
Founder protection and dilution planning
If you are considering venture capital funding — or reviewing a term sheet — we can help you understand what the terms really mean and how they will affect your business down the line.
📧 info@oreillylaw.co.za
📞 +27 21 948 8273
📍 Cape Town