It has been a while since I put up a term sheet post so I thought I’d tackle a hard one today. While it’s fun to tease lawyers about math (and – actually – about anything), my co-author on this series Jason Mendelson (a lawyer) often reminds me that lawyers can do basic arithmetic (and occasionally have to resort to algebra). The* anti-dilution* provision demonstrates this point.

Traditionally, the anti-dilution provision is used to protect investors in the event a company issues equity at a lower valuation then in previous financing rounds. There are two varieties: weighted average anti-dilution and ratchet based anti-dilution. Standard language is as follows:

**Anti-dilution Provisions**: The conversion price of the Series A Preferred will be subject to a [full ratchet / broad-based / narrow-based weighted average] adjustment to reduce dilution in the event that the Company issues additional equity securities (other than shares (i) reserved as employee shares described under the Company’s option pool,, (ii) shares issued for consideration other than cash pursuant to a merger, consolidation, acquisition, or similar business combination approved by the Board; (iii) shares issued pursuant to any equipment loan or leasing arrangement, real property leasing arrangement or debt financing from a bank or similar financial institution approved by the Board; and (iv) shares with respect to which the holders of a majority of the outstanding Series A Preferred waive their anti-dilution rights) at a purchase price less than the applicable conversion price. In the event of an issuance of stock involving tranches or other multiple closings, the antidilution adjustment shall be calculated as if all stock was issued at the first closing. The conversion price will also be subject to proportional adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, combinations, recapitalizations and the like.

Full ratchet means that if the company issues shares at a price lower than the Series A, then the Series A price is effectively reduced to the price of the new issuance. One can get creative and do “partial ratchets” (such as “half ratchets” or “two-thirds ratchets”) which are a less harsh, but rarely seen.

While full ratchets came into vogue in the 2001 – 2003 time frame when down-rounds were all the rage, the most common anti-dilution provision is based on the weighted average concept, which takes into account the magnitude of the lower-priced issuance, not just the actual valuation. In a “full ratchet world” if the company sold one share of its stock to someone for a price lower than the Series A, all of the Series A stock would be repriced to the issuance price. In a “weighted average world,” the number of shares issued at the reduced price are considered in the repricing of the Series A. Mathematically (and this is where the lawyers get to show off their math skills – although you’ll notice there are no exponents or summation signs anywhere) it works like this (note that despite the fact one is buying preferred stock, the calculations are always done in as-if-converted to common stock basis):

NCP = OCP * ((CSO + CSP) / (CSO + CSAP))

Where:

- NCP = new conversion price
- OCP = old conversion price
- CSO = common stock outstanding
- CSP = common stock purchasable with consideration received by company (i.e. “what the buyer should have bought if it hadn’t been a ‘down round’ issuance”)
- CSAP = common stock actually purchased in subsequent issuance (i.e., “what the buyer actually bought”)

Recognize that we are determining a “new conversion price” for the Series A Preferred . We are not actually issuing more shares (you can do it this way, but it’s a silly and unnecessarily complicated approach that merely increases the amount the lawyers can bill the company for the financing). Consequently, “anti-dilution provisions” generate a “conversion price adjustment” and the phrases are often used interchangeably.

Got it? I find it’s best to leave the math to the lawyers.

You might note the term “broad-based” in describing weighted average anti-dilution. What makes the provision a broad-based versus narrow-based is the definition of “common stock outstanding” (CSO). A broad-based weighted average provision includes both the company’s common stock outstanding (including all common stock issuable upon conversion of its preferred stock) as well as the number of shares of common stock which could be obtained by converting all other options, rights, and securities (including employee options). A narrow-based provision will not include these other convertible securities and limit the calculation to only currently outstanding securities. The number of shares and how you count them matter – make sure you are agreeing on the same definition (you’ll often find different lawyers arguing over what to include or not include in the definitions – again – this is another common legal fee inflation technique).

In our example language, we’ve included a section which is generally referred to as “anti-dilution carve outs” (the section *(other than shares (i) … (iv)*). These are the standard exceptions for share granted at lower prices for which anti-dilution does not kick in. Obviously – from a company (and entrepreneur) perspective – more exceptions are better – and most investors will accept these carve-outs without much argument.

One particular item to note is the last carve out: *(iv) shares with respect to which the holders of a majority of the outstanding Series A Preferred waive their anti-dilution rights.* This is a carve out that started appearing recently which we have found to be very helpful in deals where a majority of the Series A investors agree to further fund a company in a follow-on financing, but the price will be lower than the original Series A. In this example, several minority investors signaled they were not planning to invest in the new round, as they would have preferred to “sit back” and increase their ownership stake via the anti-dilution provision. Having the larger investors (the majority of the class) “step up” and vote to carve the financing out of the anti-dilution terms was a huge bonus for the company common holders and employees who would have suffered the dilution of additional anti-dilution from investors who were not continuing to participate in financing the company. This approach encourages the minority investors to participate in the round in order to protect themselves from dilution.

Occasionally, anti-dilution will be absent in a Series A term sheet. Investors love precedent (e.g. the new investor says “I want what the last guy got, plus more”). In many cases anti-dilution provisions hurt Series A investors more than prior investors if you assume the Series A price is the low watermark for the company. For instance, if the Series A price is $1.00, the Series B price is $5.00, and the Series C price is $3.00, then the Series B is benefited by an anti-dilution provision at the expense of the Series A. However, our experience is that anti-dilution is usually requested despite this as Series B investors will most likely always ask for it and – since they do – the Series A proactively asks for it anyway.

In addition to economic impacts, anti-dilution provisions can have control impacts. First, the existence of an anti-dilution provision incents the company to issue new rounds of stock at higher valuations because of the ramifications of anti-dilution protection to the common stock holders. In some cases, a company may pass on taking an additional investment at a lower valuation (although practically speaking, this only happens when a company has other alternatives to the financing). Second, a recent phenomenon is to tie anti-dilution calculations to milestones the investors have set for the company resulting in a conversion price adjustment in the case that the company does not meet certain revenue, product development or other business milestones. In this situation, the anti-dilution adjustments occur automatically if the company does not meet in its objectives, unless this is waived by the investor after the fact. This creates a powerful incentive for the company to accomplish its investor-determined goals. We tend to avoid this approach, as blindly hitting pre-determined (at the time of financing) product and sales milestones is not always best for the long-term development of a company, especially if these goals end up creating a diverging set of goals between management and the investors as the business evolves.

Anti-dilution provisions are almost always part of a financing, so understanding the nuances and knowing which aspects to negotiate is an important part of the entrepreneur’s toolkit. We advise you not to get hung up in trying to eliminate anti-dilution provisions – rather focus on (a) minimizing their impact and (b) building value in your company after the financing so they don’t ever come into play.

Pingback: The 411 on Startups

Pingback: How to not over-optimize your Series A term sheet - Venture Hacks

Pingback: Don’t let Lawyers dictate your Term Sheet « The Hip Lawyer

Pingback: The Convertible Debt v. Equity Financing Omnibus Post

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup | NexGen SEM

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup | Benton Pena @ technology + culture + life and everything in between

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup | Lee Harding Web Design in Widnes

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup | Stu Haugen

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup | CashKlick

Pingback: 8 Important Term Sheet Items to Evaluate Before Investing in a Startup

Pingback: The state of cleantech venture capital, part 3: The companies — Cleantech News and Analysis

Pingback: The state of cleantech venture capital, part 3: The companies | Tech News Aggregator

Pingback: The State of Cleantech Venture Capital, Part 3: The Companies | Secret Formula

Pingback: Q&A Roundup | Secret Formula

Pingback: Investing in a startup – Part 2 | Notes in the cloud

Pingback: The Convertible Debt v. Equity Financing Omnibus - [Dave Heal's] Observations & Reports

Pingback: Consistency and Modesty | Venture Square

Pingback: Consistency and Modesty | 르호봇

Pingback: Why Convertible Notes Are Sometimes Terrible For Startups | TechCrunch

Pingback: The Wright Computer Services » Why Convertible Notes Are Sometimes Terrible For Startups

Pingback: Latest Stock Market and Wall Street stories » Why Convertible Notes Are Sometimes Terrible For Startups

Pingback: Why Convertible Notes Are Sometimes Terrible For Startups | Startup Help

Pingback: Why Convertible Notes Are Sometimes Terrible For Startups | Gaster Tech Blog

Pingback: The Truth About Convertible Debt at Startups and The Hidden Terms You Didn’t Understand

Pingback: I Look Good In Design | The Truth About Convertible Debt at Startups and The Hidden Terms You Didn’t Understand - I Look Good In Design

Pingback: The Truth About Convertible Debt at Startups and The Hidden Terms You Didn’t Understand | WikiCloud

Pingback: xbox 360

Pingback: Carlo Ermatinger

Pingback: cheap edu backlinks

Pingback: get a free ipad

Pingback: best 60 inch led tv

Pingback: penis advantage scam

Pingback: quality backlinks

Pingback: free xbox 360

Pingback: cheap portable dvd player

Pingback: the truth about abs review

Pingback: does penis advantage work

Pingback: mike geary

Pingback: penis advantage review

Pingback: Lianne Glasson

Pingback: Kristine Iams

Pingback: Rocco Sprehe

Pingback: edu link building

Pingback: free ipads

Pingback: best 32 led tv

Pingback: penisadvantage

Pingback: cheap backlinks

Pingback: xbox 360 giveaway

Pingback: portable dvd player for kids

Pingback: the truth about six pack abs

Pingback: penis advantage

Pingback: Annamaria Gaydosh

Pingback: Nick Kayser

Pingback: Aretha Knightly

Pingback: Aretha Knightly

Pingback: Amberly Mcwayne

Pingback: Roy Hequembourg

Pingback: Phylis Shelvin

Pingback: Barbie Duffer

Pingback: Everette Ferron

Pingback: Roy Hequembourg

Pingback: Irvin Canela

Pingback: Celestine Gasse

Pingback: Sherry Sees

Pingback: Lyla Diepenbrock

Pingback: Sal Moreida

Pingback: Angelo Baltruweit

Pingback: Tamica Sebold

Pingback: Roland Creese

Pingback: Barbie Duffer

Pingback: Carolann Meehleder

Pingback: tao of badass

Pingback: tao of badass reviews

Pingback: Claretta Rusert

Pingback: Beverley Waldrep

Pingback: Teena Aleff

Pingback: Annalisa Narrow

Pingback: Princess Guidaboni

Pingback: Toby Plant

Pingback: Sal Moreida

Pingback: Cedrick Gorius

Pingback: Keith Conigliaro

Pingback: Bryan Minehan

Pingback: Arnulfo Aquas

Pingback: Portia Vanderen

Pingback: Marisa Stogner

Pingback: Luciano Lavigna

Pingback: Kelsey Redman

Pingback: Josefina Lampman

Pingback: Fred Warburton

Pingback: Franklyn Cargile

Pingback: Dallas Mana

Pingback: Kortney Matrisciano

Pingback: Abe Maines

Pingback: Eugenie Bennick

Pingback: Shanae Wolfing

Pingback: Elwanda Vickroy

Pingback: Zoila Torris

Pingback: Staci Lerwick

Pingback: Sparkle Plesant

Pingback: Katherin Tipple

Pingback: Alayna Gelle

Pingback: Mark Biro

Pingback: Eden Cachola

Pingback: Laverne Lobos

Pingback: Octavio Zilka

Pingback: Sherman Anadio

Pingback: Charise Dasgupta

Pingback: Shaun Escher

Pingback: Larae Fratrick

Pingback: Daisy Jessel

Pingback: Roseanna Venner

Pingback: Jame Puterbaugh

Pingback: Grace Norder

Pingback: Antwan Driesenga

Pingback: Terrilyn Oganyan

Pingback: Herma Heckers

Pingback: Hobert Dentel

Pingback: Virgil Kiker

Pingback: Cyrus Kirkbride

Pingback: Kent Yanez

Pingback: Lisette Arseneau

Pingback: Tammara Drozd

Pingback: Manuel Simi

Pingback: Hung Wilkin

Pingback: Mac Coyier

Pingback: Rosina Crary

Pingback: Karine Donivan

Pingback: Krishna Dealmeida

Pingback: Anton Fermo

Pingback: Valentine Tenley

Pingback: Fanny Mckenley

Pingback: Heriberto Washler

Pingback: Aiko Moultrie

Pingback: Vallie Morrone

Pingback: Aracely Warrior

Pingback: Keiko Staniford

Pingback: Miguel Polit

Pingback: Bette Tourigny

Pingback: Cletus Randhawa

Pingback: Lue Blackstone

Pingback: Jenine Baumberger

Pingback: Tegan Vigo

Pingback: Cyrus Huprich

Pingback: Boris Wanzek

Pingback: Nickole Ancel

Pingback: Tarsha Replin

Pingback: Cole Bahl

Pingback: Taren Varady

Pingback: Clinton Debutts

Pingback: Karole Eilderts

Pingback: Antoine Cress

Pingback: Ervin Schwander

Pingback: Rubie Blette

Pingback: Wes Ozbun

Pingback: Alonso Connoly

Pingback: Van Fogo

Pingback: Victor Hulin

Pingback: Rolando Breitbarth

Pingback: Bennett Stilley

Pingback: Ian Verville

Pingback: Wallace Caiafa

Pingback: Sarina Swires

Pingback: Horacio Neuburger

Pingback: Maire Tortoriello

Pingback: Kalyn Blackhurst

Pingback: Sabrina Iamiceli

Pingback: Vinita Luebbert

Pingback: Abraham Kobialka

Pingback: http://lawsonblogs.cupertino.k12.ca.us/groups/cbl/wiki/0ba05/What_One_and_all_Must_Find_out_about_the_Truth_about_Six_Pack_Abs.html

Pingback: Myrta Schriefer

Pingback: Shela Holz

Pingback: http://blogs.gips.org/groups/podcasts/wiki/7ea46/Just_what_exactly_One_and_all_Has_to_Understand_about_the_Truth_about_Six_Pack_Abs.html

Pingback: Pat Epler

Pingback: Junior Trundy

Pingback: http://173-164-158-161-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net/groups/thisisthedifferencebetweenawikiandablog/wiki/c1951/Unlock_your_extraordinary_new_music_expertise_while_using_very_best_defeat_producing_software_applications.html

Pingback: Corliss Scopa

Pingback: Olin Obanner

Pingback: Fredric Guetersloh

Pingback: Cher Reihl

Pingback: Julian Melzer

Pingback: Mathilda Eull

Pingback: Collin Kardashian

Pingback: Mohamed Ifversen

Pingback: Sueann Ottem

Pingback: Alease Glew

Pingback: Sharice Fundis

Pingback: Lenny Bernstein

Pingback: Ross Krider

Pingback: Ben Haumesser

Pingback: Kasey Vandeberg

Pingback: Buddy Ledet

Pingback: Lien Petosa

Pingback: Carma Leeker

Pingback: Adina Eidinger

Pingback: Devin Winley

Pingback: Dane Wrightington

Pingback: Keena Brocato

Pingback: Tod Hakey

Pingback: Brigette Berthelsen

Pingback: Darrell Tomlinson

Pingback: Bernarda Ancelet

Pingback: Alia Duryee

Pingback: Dale Cisco

Pingback: Maria Leners

Pingback: Trudie Zamperini

Pingback: Sterling Fuentes

Pingback: Robbie Vollmar

Pingback: Iva Cargill

Pingback: Clifford Egwuohua

Pingback: Kara Boundy

Pingback: Na Sonza

Pingback: Mertie Ancona

Pingback: Marcie Caloca

Pingback: Ernest Kuboushek

Pingback: Doretha Wand

Pingback: Lewis Bierbower

Pingback: Wilburn Winklepleck

Pingback: Carlota Estep

Pingback: Dalene Lugar

Pingback: Audrea Canning

Pingback: Clarence Ruka

Pingback: Verlie Oliff

Pingback: Philomena Nicolaides