Skip to content

12. Board Dynamics and Governance

12.1 Executive Summary

  • Boards make day-to-day strategic decisions while shareholders vote only on major corporate actions (M&A, fundraising, fundamental changes)
  • Board composition matters more than voting percentages for effective founder control
  • Independent directors serve as tie-breakers and bring domain expertise without alignment biases
  • Information rights balance transparency and efficiency: Investors need visibility without micromanagement
  • Conflicts of interest are inevitable: Managing them through disclosure, recusal, and fair process protects all stakeholders
  • Case studies demonstrate range: From Uber's board battle (investor-driven CEO removal) to BharatPe's governance crisis (founder-board conflict)

Board dynamics determine whether a startup operates as founder-led with investor support, investor-controlled with founder execution, or collaboratively with balanced governance. This chapter explores how boards actually function, the mechanics of board composition and decision-making, strategies for founders to maintain strategic autonomy, and common governance failures with lessons learned.

12.2 The Board's Role: What Boards Actually Do

Decision-Making Authority Hierarchy

Corporate decision-making operates on three levels:

Level 1: Management Decisions (CEO Authority)

  • Day-to-day operations
  • Hiring/firing below executive level
  • Tactical business decisions
  • Contracts within approved budget
  • Implementation of approved strategy

Level 2: Board Decisions (Board Authority)

  • Strategic direction and business plan
  • Annual budget and capital allocation
  • Executive hiring/firing (CEO, CFO, CXOs)
  • Material contracts (above defined threshold, e.g., >$500K)
  • Fundraising strategy and terms (within board-approved parameters)
  • Significant capital expenditures
  • Opening/closing offices or major operational changes

Level 3: Shareholder Decisions (Shareholder Vote)

  • Mergers, acquisitions, or sale of company
  • New fundraising rounds (issuance of new shares)
  • Amendments to articles of association
  • Liquidation or winding up
  • Other fundamental corporate changes

Critical Insight: Boards control strategic decisions. Shareholders vote only on major corporate events. A founder who controls shareholders but not the board cannot control strategy.

Board Meetings: Cadence and Content

Typical Board Meeting Cadence:

Early Stage (Seed to Series A):

  • Quarterly board meetings (4 per year)
  • Monthly investor updates via email (board deck circulated but no formal meeting)
  • Ad hoc calls for urgent decisions

Growth Stage (Series B+):

  • Quarterly board meetings with formal presentations
  • Monthly operational updates (written)
  • Special meetings for major decisions (fundraising, M&A)

Late Stage (Pre-IPO):

  • Quarterly board meetings with committee meetings (audit, compensation)
  • Monthly financial reviews
  • Quarterly committee meetings (audit committee meets 4x/year)

Standard Board Meeting Agenda:

  1. Approval of Previous Minutes (5 minutes)
  2. CEO Update: Business metrics, key wins, challenges (30 minutes)
  3. Financial Review: Revenue, expenses, burn rate, runway (20 minutes)
  4. Strategic Discussion: Product roadmap, market opportunity, competitive threats (45 minutes)
  5. Operational Deep Dive: Sales pipeline, customer metrics, hiring, fundraising (30 minutes)
  6. Action Items and Next Steps (15 minutes)

Total: ~2-2.5 hours

Information Rights: Balancing Visibility and Burden

Investors negotiate information rights to monitor their investment without joining the board. Standard information rights include:

Monthly Information:

  • Unaudited financial statements (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow)
  • Cap table (current ownership)
  • Key metrics dashboard (MRR, churn, CAC, LTV, burn rate)

Quarterly Information:

  • Management presentations
  • Updated financial projections
  • Board meeting minutes or summaries

Annual Information:

  • Audited financial statements
  • Annual budget and business plan
  • Cap table with fully diluted ownership

Excessive Information Rights (Problematic):

  • Weekly reporting requirements (operational burden)
  • Access to all contracts and legal documents (sensitive information exposure)
  • Customer lists or detailed pipeline data (competitive sensitivity)
  • Real-time access to financial systems (security risk)

Negotiation Strategy:

Standard monthly/quarterly reporting is acceptable and helps build investor relationships. Push back against weekly reporting or overly detailed operational access as creating undue burden on small teams.

12.3 Board Composition: Structure and Evolution

Board Composition Scenarios: Visual Comparison

Understanding board composition is critical. Here are two common scenarios:

Balanced Board (Founder-Friendly)

graph TD
    A[5-Person Board] --> B[2 Founder Seats]
    A --> C[2 Investor Seats]
    A --> D[1 Independent Seat]

    B --> B1[CEO]
    B --> B2[CTO/Co-founder]
    C --> C1[Lead Investor]
    C --> C2[Major Investor]
    D --> D1[Industry Expert]

    style B fill:#c8e6c9
    style C fill:#fff9c4
    style D fill:#e1f5ff

Key Features:

  • Founders maintain 40% board control (⅖ seats)
  • Investors have 40% board control (⅖ seats)
  • Independent director (20%) serves as tie-breaker
  • Aligned incentives: neither party can unilaterally control decisions

Investor-Controlled Board (Problematic)

graph TD
    A[5-Person Board] --> B[1 Founder Seat]
    A --> C[3 Investor Seats]
    A --> D[1 Investor-Appointed]

    B --> B1[CEO Only]
    C --> C1[Series A Lead]
    C --> C2[Series B Lead]
    C --> C3[Seed Investor]
    D --> D1[Investor's Industry Contact]

    style B fill:#ffcdd2
    style C fill:#fff9c4
    style D fill:#ffecb3

Warning Signs:

  • Founders have only 20% board control (⅕ seats)
  • Investors control 80% (⅘ seats including "independent" director they appointed)
  • CEO can be removed without founder consent
  • Misaligned incentives: investors can force decisions against founder interests

Negotiation Tip: Always negotiate for balanced board composition at Series A. Never accept investor control at early stages.

Typical Board Evolution by Stage

Incorporation (Pre-Funding):

  • 2 founders (100% founder control)
  • No investors yet
  • Founder board makes all decisions

Post-Seed:

  • 3 seats: 2 founders, 1 investor (lead seed investor)
  • Founder majority (2 of 3)
  • Investor observation rights and protective provisions

Post-Series A:

  • 3 or 5 seats:
  • 3-seat: 2 founders, 1 investor (founder controlled)
  • 5-seat: 2 founders, 2 investors, 1 independent (balanced)
  • First independent director often added
  • Protective provisions expanded

Post-Series B:

  • 5 or 7 seats:
  • 5-seat: 2 founders, 2 investors, 1 independent (balanced)
  • 7-seat: 2 founders, 3 investors, 2 independents (investor leaning)
  • Board committees may form (audit, compensation)
  • More formalized governance processes

Pre-IPO:

  • 7-11 seats with majority independent directors
  • Board committees required (audit, compensation, nominating/governance)
  • Professional governance standards
  • Preparing for public company board requirements

Independent Directors: Role and Selection

What Makes a Director "Independent"?

Truly independent directors:

  • No financial relationship with company beyond board compensation
  • No investment stake (or immaterial stake <1%)
  • No business relationships with founders or investors
  • Bring domain expertise relevant to company's business
  • Serve as neutral arbiters between founders and investors

Nominally Independent (Not Truly Independent):

  • Investor "recommends" independent director from their network
  • Director has received investment from investor in other companies
  • Director sits on boards of investor's other portfolio companies
  • Director is personal friend of founder or investor

Value of True Independence:

Independent directors provide:

  • Tie-breaking votes when founders and investors disagree
  • Domain expertise (industry, functional) without alignment bias
  • Neutral perspective on sensitive decisions (founder compensation, M&A)
  • Governance best practices and professional standards

Selection Process:

Collaborative Approach (Best Practice):

  1. Founders and investors jointly define desired background/expertise
  2. Each party nominates 2-3 candidates
  3. All board members interview candidates
  4. Board votes to appoint (requires majority or unanimous approval)

Avoid: Single party (founder or investor) unilaterally appointing "independent" director without other party's input

Compensation:

Independent directors typically receive:

  • Annual cash retainer: $15,000-$50,000 (varies by stage and company)
  • Equity grant: 0.25%-1% of company (vesting over 4 years)
  • Per-meeting fees: $1,000-$3,000 per board meeting

Early-stage companies may offer equity-only compensation (no cash) due to cash constraints.

Case Study: Airbnb's Independent Directors

Structure:

Airbnb assembled a world-class independent board before IPO:

Independent Directors Included:

  • Kenneth Chenault (former CEO of American Express) - Financial services expertise, large enterprise experience
  • Ann Mather (former CFO of Pixar) - Finance and media expertise
  • Belinda Johnson (former COO of Airbnb, transitioned to board) - Internal operations expertise
  • Jeff Jordan (partner at Andreessen Horowitz, former CEO of OpenTable) - Marketplace expertise

Strategic Value:

Each independent director brought specific expertise:

  • Chenault: Payment systems and financial services (critical for Airbnb Payments)
  • Mather: CFO expertise to prepare for IPO
  • Johnson: Internal knowledge of operations and culture
  • Jordan: Marketplace dynamics and two-sided platform expertise

Founder Control:

Despite strong independent board, Brian Chesky maintained control through:

  • Dual-class share structure (10x voting shares)
  • 3 founder board seats (Chesky, Gebbia, Blecharczyk)
  • Independent directors chosen collaboratively (founder veto on appointments)

Lesson: High-quality independent directors enhance governance without threatening founder control when selection process is collaborative.

12.4 Managing Board Dynamics: Founder Strategies

Preparation Is Power: The Board Deck

The board deck is your primary tool for shaping board discussions. Well-prepared decks steer conversations toward strategic priorities and away from tactical minutiae.

Standard Board Deck Structure:

Slide 1-2: Executive Summary

  • Key wins since last meeting
  • Critical challenges or decisions needed
  • Preview of discussion topics

Slide 3-5: Business Metrics

  • Revenue/GMV trends (actual vs plan)
  • User growth and engagement metrics
  • Unit economics (CAC, LTV, payback period)
  • Burn rate and runway

Slide 6-8: Strategic Initiatives

  • Product roadmap updates
  • Market opportunity and competitive landscape
  • Go-to-market strategy and execution
  • Key hires or organizational changes

Slide 9-11: Financial Deep Dive

  • P&L variance analysis (actual vs budget)
  • Cash flow and balance sheet
  • Updated projections and assumptions

Slide 12-13: Asks and Discussion Topics

  • Specific decisions requiring board approval
  • Areas where board input/advice requested
  • Fundraising or M&A updates

Total: 12-15 slides maximum for 2-hour meeting

Best Practices:

✅ Circulate deck 48 hours before meeting: Gives board time to review, ask clarifying questions, and focus meeting time on discussion rather than information transmission

✅ Use appendix for detailed data: Main deck tells story, appendix provides backup data for deep dives

✅ Highlight asks clearly: Use visual cues (boxes, callouts) to make clear what you need from board

✅ Frame challenges as opportunities: "We're seeing higher CAC than planned; we believe investing in brand marketing will improve efficiency" (solution-oriented vs problem-focused)

✅ Pre-socialize controversial topics: If you need board approval for sensitive decision (executive termination, pivot, down round), call key board members individually before meeting to build consensus

Avoid:

❌ Using meeting time to present information (should be pre-read)
❌ Surprising board with bad news in meeting (call ahead)
❌ Defensive posture when challenged (board's job is to push back constructively)
❌ Overloading with metrics (20+ slides of charts creates fog)

Building Trust: Transparency and Communication

Board relationships succeed or fail based on trust. Trust comes from consistent transparency, especially when delivering bad news.

Good News is Easy:

When things go well, boards are supportive and helpful. The test of board relationships is how they handle difficulties.

Bad News Delivery Framework:

When you must deliver bad news (missed targets, executive departure, failed product launch, fundraising challenges):

  1. Call key board members individually before board meeting: Give them time to process emotionally before group discussion

  2. Lead with the bad news (no "burying the lede"): "We missed Q2 revenue target by 30%. Here's what happened, what we learned, and our recovery plan."

  3. Provide context and analysis: Explain root causes (market shift, execution failure, incorrect assumptions)

  4. Present mitigation plan: Show you've thought through solutions, not just problems

  5. Be direct about implications: If miss impacts runway, fundraising timeline, or strategic plan, state clearly

  6. Ask for specific help: "We'd value board input on go-to-market strategy adjustment" or "Can investor board members intro us to potential advisors in this space?"

Example: Bad News Delivery

Poor Approach: "Q2 was challenging but we're optimistic about Q3. Revenue came in a bit below plan but we have some good pipeline building."

Strong Approach: "We missed Q2 revenue target significantly — $800K actual vs $1.2M plan. Primary driver was enterprise sales cycle extended from 45 days to 75 days as buyers demanded more proof points. We've adjusted Q3 plan to $900K reflecting longer cycles, and we're implementing pilot program to de-risk enterprise deals. This impacts our runway—we now have 11 months vs 14 months previously, so we'll need to accelerate Series B timeline. I'd like board input on pilot program structure and intros to potential Series B leads."

Why Strong Approach Works:

  • Specific numbers (not vague "a bit below")
  • Root cause identified (sales cycle extension)
  • Mitigation plan stated (adjusted plan, pilot program)
  • Implications acknowledged (runway impact)
  • Specific asks made (pilot input, fundraising intros)

Managing Conflicts: Founder-Investor Disagreements

Disagreements are inevitable. Healthy boards work through conflicts constructively; dysfunctional boards let conflicts fester or escalate to board battles.

Common Disagreement Scenarios:

  1. Spending/Burn Rate: Investors want slower burn to extend runway; founders want to invest aggressively in growth
  2. Fundraising Timing: Investors push to raise early (18 months runway); founders want to wait for better traction (12 months)
  3. Strategic Direction: Investors want to focus on core product; founders want to expand into adjacent markets
  4. Executive Changes: Investors believe founder needs to hire experienced CXO; founder wants to promote from within
  5. M&A: Investors see acquisition offer as acceptable exit; founders believe company worth more

Conflict Resolution Process:

Step 1: Understand Underlying Interests

Surface the "why" behind positions:

  • Investor pushing for lower burn: Are they worried about fundraising environment? Trying to preserve ownership? Preparing for down round?
  • Founder resisting experienced hire: Financial cost? Cultural fit concerns? Fear of losing control?

Step 2: Find Creative Solutions

Often conflicts arise from false dichotomies. Explore middle ground:

  • Spending conflict: Tie burn rate to milestone achievement (if we hit X users, we increase spend)
  • Hire conflict: Bring in experienced advisor or part-time executive before full-time hire
  • M&A conflict: Counter-offer with strategic partnership or acqui-hire instead of full acquisition

Step 3: Escalate Thoughtfully

If disagreement persists:

  • Seek independent director input (neutral tie-breaker)
  • Bring in external advisor (industry expert, previous founder)
  • Use data to resolve (run pilot, test assumptions)

Step 4: Document Decision

Once resolution reached, document:

  • What was decided
  • What assumptions or conditions apply
  • What triggers would cause revisiting decision

Prevents same argument recurring in next board meeting.

Case Study: Uber's Board Battle and Travis Kalanick's Ouster

Background:

Travis Kalanick built Uber into $68 billion company by 2017 but corporate culture and governance failures created board crisis.

The Conflicts:

February 2017: Bloomberg published video of Kalanick berating Uber driver, revealing toxic culture February 2017: Former engineer Susan Fowler published blog post detailing pervasive sexual harassment March 2017: Waymo sued Uber for stealing self-driving car technology
April 2017: Attorney General Eric Holder investigation found systemic cultural problems

Board Dynamics:

Initial Board Support:

  • Early investors (Benchmark, Lowercase Capital, First Round) supported Kalanick through controversies
  • SoftBank and later investors wanted governance reforms
  • Board split: Early investor loyalty vs late investor reform push

May 2017: First Board Action

  • Board forced Kalanick to take indefinite leave of absence
  • Board hired Eric Holder to investigate culture
  • Kalanick maintained CEO title but stepped back from operations

June 2017: The Confrontation

  • Five major investors (Benchmark, Menlo Ventures, Lowercase Capital, Fidelity, First Round) sent letter demanding Kalanick resign
  • Investors represented 40% of voting power (not majority, but significant bloc)
  • Threatened public campaign if Kalanick refused
  • Kalanick resigned as CEO, remained on board

August 2017: The Lawsuit

  • Benchmark sued Kalanick for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract
  • Sought to remove Kalanick from board and invalidate his board appointment rights
  • Alleged Kalanick concealed scandals from board when negotiating board control

December 2017: SoftBank Investment Reshapes Power

  • SoftBank invested $7.7 billion, shifted power dynamics
  • Board expanded, Kalanick influence diluted
  • Multi-class voting structure eliminated

2019: Kalanick Exit

  • Kalanick sold most shares and resigned from board
  • IPO proceeded without founder involvement

Lessons:

  1. Board control is temporary: Even with super-voting shares and board appointment rights, founders can be removed if enough investors unite
  2. Corporate culture creates vulnerability: Scandals gave investors ammunition they wouldn't have had with strong performance
  3. Later capital shifts power: SoftBank's $7.7B investment reset governance and diluted earlier investors
  4. Legal mechanisms can override founder rights: Benchmark's fraud lawsuit demonstrated contractual rights can be challenged
  5. Crisis creates opportunity for change: Board dysfunction during crisis opened door for governance reset

12.5 Conflicts of Interest: Types and Management

Common Conflicts in Startup Boards

Conflict Type 1: Cross-Portfolio Competition

Scenario: Investor on your board also invests in competitor
Example: Accel invests in both Flipkart and Snapdeal (competing e-commerce companies)

Risks:

  • Information sharing between competitors (even inadvertently)
  • Investor allocating time/resources unequally between portfolio companies
  • Investor steering strategy to avoid head-to-head competition (helping one portfolio company at other's expense)

Management:

  • Investor recuses from competitive discussions at both boards
  • Investor designates separate partners for each portfolio company (Chinese walls)
  • Clear confidentiality agreements and information firewalls

Founder Protection:

Request contractual provision: "Investor shall not disclose confidential Company information to portfolio companies operating in same market segment. Investor shall recuse from board discussions involving competitive strategy if conflict exists."

Conflict Type 2: Board Member's Company Provides Services

Scenario: Independent director's company becomes service provider to startup
Example: Independent director runs marketing agency; company hires agency for campaign

Risks:

  • Self-dealing: Director steers business to their company
  • Overpayment for services (due to board relationship)
  • Lack of objective evaluation of service provider performance

Management:

  • Full disclosure of relationship before engagement
  • Arm's-length pricing (comparable to market rates)
  • Director recuses from board approval of contract
  • Alternative vendors evaluated and documented

Best Practice: Avoid hiring board members' companies entirely. If unavoidable, create special board committee (excluding conflicted director) to approve terms.

Conflict Type 3: Investor Self-Dealing in Down Rounds

Scenario: Company struggling, needs capital urgently; existing investor offers bridge round at highly favorable terms (high liquidation preference, full ratchet anti-dilution)
Risk: Investor uses information advantage and company desperation to extract predatory terms

Management:

  • Seek multiple term sheets from different investors (even if existing investor seems like only option)
  • Hire independent financial advisor to evaluate fairness
  • Create special committee of disinterested directors to approve terms
  • Document that terms are fair given circumstances

Indian Legal Requirement:

Companies Act 2013 Section 188 requires shareholder approval for related party transactions above specified thresholds. Major investor transactions may trigger this requirement.

Case Study: BharatPe Governance Crisis

Background:

BharatPe, a fintech unicorn, faced governance crisis in 2022 involving conflicts between co-founder Ashneer Grover and board.

The Conflicts:

January 2022: Audio clip leaked allegedly showing Grover verbally abusing Kotak Mahindra Bank staff over IPO financing
January 2022: Board initiated third-party audit into alleged financial irregularities
February 2022: Allegations emerged of related-party transactions and vendor payments to Grover family
March 2022: Audit found irregularities in travel, vendor payments, and internal controls

Board Dynamics:

Board Composition:

  • Ashneer Grover (co-founder, executive director)
  • Sequoia India, Coatue Management, Ribbit Capital (investor directors)
  • Independent directors

Conflicts:

  • Grover accused investors of conspiring to remove him to install CEO of their choice
  • Investors concerned about governance violations and reputational damage
  • Related-party transactions involving Grover's wife's company (Madhuri Jain as head of controls) created structural conflict

March 2022: The Confrontation

  • Board voted to remove Grover as CEO and managing director
  • Grover resigned as CEO but initially retained board seat
  • Board stripped Grover of all titles and positions
  • Grover lost founder shares vesting (subject to ongoing litigation)

The Scandal:

  • Allegedly $6M-$7M in fraudulent transactions including fictitious vendors
  • Related-party payments to Grover family companies
  • Lavish spending on travel and perks without board approval

Outcome:

  • Grover departed entirely, lost significant equity value
  • BharatPe appointed new CEO (Suhail Sameer, later replaced by Nalin Negi)
  • Company survived crisis but reputation damaged
  • Ongoing legal disputes between Grover and investors

Lessons:

  1. Related-party transactions require strict governance: Grover's wife managing controls while receiving payments created impossible conflict
  2. Board independence matters: Independent directors and investor directors united to remove founder when violations discovered
  3. Internal controls are critical: Lack of expense controls and approval processes enabled alleged fraud
  4. Reputation matters: Public scandal damaged company despite strong business fundamentals
  5. Founder agreements have teeth: Grover lost vesting and equity due to termination for cause provisions

12.6 Indian Regulatory Context

Companies Act 2013 Board Requirements

Section 149: Constitution of Board

Minimum/Maximum Directors:

  • Minimum: 2 directors for private limited companies
  • Maximum: 15 directors (can be increased by special resolution)

Resident Director:

  • At least one director must be resident in India (stayed in India for 182+ days in previous calendar year)
  • Critical for foreign investors: Requires Indian resident on board

Independent Directors (Not Required for Private Companies):

  • Public companies must have at least ⅓ independent directors
  • Private limited companies have no independent director requirement
  • However, SEBI listing regulations require majority independent board for listed companies

Board Meetings:

  • Minimum 4 board meetings per year
  • Maximum gap between meetings: 120 days
  • Quorum: ⅓ of directors or 2 directors, whichever higher

Covered Transactions:

  • Sale, purchase, or supply of goods/services
  • Leasing of property
  • Appointment of related party to any office or profit
  • Availing or rendering services

Approval Requirements:

Board Approval: Required for all related party transactions
Shareholder Approval (Ordinary Resolution): Required if transaction exceeds:

  • Sale/purchase of goods: 10% of annual turnover or ₹100 crore, whichever lower
  • Other transactions: 10% of net worth or ₹100 crore, whichever lower

Disclosure Requirements:

  • All related party transactions must be disclosed in board report
  • Interested directors must disclose interest and abstain from voting

Penalties:

  • Violating Section 188 can result in penalties up to ₹25 lakh
  • Interested director may be liable for disgorgement of profits

Fiduciary Duties (Section 166)

Directors have seven fiduciary duties:

  1. Act in accordance with articles of association
  2. Act in good faith to promote company's objects
  3. Exercise duties with due care, skill, and diligence
  4. Not involve in conflict of interest
  5. Not achieve undue gain or advantage
  6. Not assign office
  7. Not allow ultra vires acts

Liability: Directors breaching fiduciary duties can be held personally liable for losses caused to company.

12.7 Action Items

  1. Map current board structure: Document board seats, appointment rights, voting thresholds, and committee structures. Identify who has control on what decisions.

  2. Establish board meeting cadence: Set recurring quarterly board meetings with clear agendas circulated 1 week in advance.

  3. Create board deck template: Develop standard deck structure covering metrics, strategic initiatives, financials, and asks. Use consistently for every board meeting.

  4. Implement information rights: Set up monthly investor updates (email with key metrics dashboard) and quarterly board packages.

  5. Identify independent director candidates: Build list of 5-10 potential independent directors with relevant expertise for future board expansion.

  6. Document conflict of interest policy: Create written policy requiring directors to disclose conflicts and recuse from conflicted decisions.

  7. Review related party transactions: Audit all transactions with founders, family, or director-affiliated companies. Ensure proper approval and disclosure.

  8. Establish board decision log: Maintain record of major board decisions, including rationale and any dissenting views.

  9. Schedule one-on-one investor calls: Set up monthly or quarterly calls with each board member individually to build relationships outside formal board meetings.

  10. Prepare board evaluation process: Implement annual board self-evaluation to assess effectiveness and identify improvements.

12.8 Key Takeaways

  • Boards control day-to-day strategic decisions while shareholders vote only on major corporate actions, making board composition more important than voting percentages for founder control
  • Standard board evolution: 2 founders (pre-seed) → 3 seats with 1 investor (seed) → 5 seats with 2 investors and 1 independent (Series A/B) → 7 seats with 3 investors and 2 independents (later stage)
  • Independent directors provide tie-breaking votes and domain expertise without alignment bias, serving as neutral arbiters between founders and investors
  • Well-prepared board decks (12-15 slides circulated 48 hours in advance) steer discussions toward strategic priorities and away from tactical minutiae
  • Transparency builds trust: Deliver bad news early and directly with context, mitigation plans, and specific asks for board help
  • Conflicts of interest are inevitable (cross-portfolio competition, related party transactions, down round self-dealing) and must be managed through disclosure, recusal, and fair process
  • Uber's board battle demonstrated that even founders with super-voting shares can be removed when scandals provide investors with leverage and crisis creates opportunity for governance reset
  • BharatPe crisis highlighted importance of internal controls, proper related-party transaction governance, and independent board oversight in preventing founder abuses

12.9 When to Call a Lawyer

  1. Board dispute or governance crisis: Any disagreement escalating to potential founder removal, investor lawsuit, or board deadlock
  2. Fiduciary duty questions: Conflicts of interest requiring legal analysis of proper disclosure and approval processes
  3. Related party transactions: Any significant transaction with founders, family members, or director-affiliated entities requires legal review for Companies Act compliance
  4. Board restructuring or governance changes: Changing board size, composition, voting rules, or decision authorities requires legal documentation
  5. Founder removal or involuntary departure: If board considering removing founder or founder facing termination, immediate legal counsel essential
  • Board structure and governance documentation: ₹150,000-₹400,000
  • Related party transaction review and approval: ₹100,000-₹300,000
  • Board dispute resolution: ₹500,000-₹2,000,000
  • Governance crisis management: ₹1,000,000-₹5,000,000+

12.10 References

  1. Feld, Brad, and Jason Mendelson. Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist. 4th ed., Wiley, 2019.

  2. Horowitz, Ben. The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers. HarperBusiness, 2014.

  3. The Companies Act, 2013. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Sections 149, 166, 173, 177, 178, 188. https://www.mca.gov.in/

  4. Isaac, Mike. Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

  5. Benchmark Capital Partners v. Kalanick. Complaint, Delaware Court of Chancery, August 10, 2017.

  6. Forbes India. "BharatPe's Ashneer Grover ousted: Timeline of events." March 2, 2022. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/bharatpes-ashneer-grover-ousted-timeline-of-events/74927/1

  7. Economic Times. "BharatPe-Grover saga: Governance lessons for startups." March 2022.

  8. SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. https://www.sebi.gov.in/

  9. Harvard Business Review. "Building Better Board-Management Relations." Multiple articles 2015-2024.

  10. Airbnb Inc. S-1 Registration Statement. SEC Filing, November 16, 2020. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1559720/000119312520294801/d81668ds1.htm

Previous: Chapter 11: Dark Patterns - Predatory Terms to Avoid
Next: Chapter 13: Down Rounds and Difficult Situations
Back to: Table of Contents

Related Chapters:

Disclaimer

This chapter provides educational information about startup funding and is not legal, financial, or investment advice. Every startup situation is unique. Consult qualified professionals (lawyers, accountants, financial advisors) before making any funding decisions.

Last Updated: November 2025

The Founder's Guide to Startup Funding - Swimming with Sharks | Product Hunt