Blog Author
Popular tags
Popular articles
No items found.
February 17, 2025
Webinars
It's 2023, a promising cybersecurity startup, completed their Series A round at a healthy valuation of $15 million. The founders are focused on growing their business when their lead investor mentions the "exit period" clause in their termsheet. A closer look reveals that this four-year timeline could trigger a complex cascade of exit rights, potentially forcing decisions long before the founders feel that they are ready for an exit.
The exit period in a termsheet is much like a countdown clock that, once started, can set various exit mechanisms into motion. Typically ranging from 4-7 years in early-stage rounds, this timeline reflects investors' need to plan their portfolio returns while balancing the company's growth requirements. What many founders don't realize is that the exit period isn't just a simple deadline – it's the trigger that can activate a complex waterfall of exit rights.
In today's market, standard exit periods vary by investment stage. Seed rounds might see longer periods of 6-7 years, acknowledging the early stage of development. Series A rounds often compress this to 4-5 years, reflecting investors' return timeline expectations. However, the critical aspect isn't just the duration – it's understanding how this timeline interacts with various exit mechanisms.
Once the exit period begins approaching its end, it typically triggers a sequential series of exit mechanisms. Think of this as a carefully orchestrated waterfall, where each mechanism has its time and place in the sequence. Let's explore how these mechanisms typically unfold.
An IPO often stands as the first and most preferred exit mechanism in the waterfall. This isn't just about maximizing returns – it's about creating a sustainable path forward for all stakeholders. A well-structured IPO clause typically outlines specific criteria that constitute a "qualified IPO," serving as both a goal post and a protection mechanism.
When structuring IPO provisions, most termsheets will define requirements around:
The key here is balance – while investors need protection through minimum valuation requirements, these thresholds should remain achievable within the defined exit period.
Running parallel to IPO considerations, strategic sale provisions provide an alternative path to liquidity. These clauses typically activate either alongside IPO exploration or as a secondary option if IPO conditions aren't favorable. They require careful structuring to ensure all stakeholders' interests align during any M&A process.
A well-crafted strategic sale provision should address:
The dynamics of a strategic sale process are complex, involving multiple stakeholders and requiring careful balance between investor returns and founder autonomy. Key considerations include maintaining confidentiality during negotiations, protecting employee interests, and ensuring fair value realization for all shareholders.
Secondary sale rights serve as a critical pressure valve in the exit waterfall, offering investors potential liquidity without requiring a full company exit. These provisions typically come into play when full exit options (IPO or strategic sale) haven't materialized within expected timeframes, but the company continues to grow healthily.
The mechanics of secondary sales often revolve around the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) and tag-along rights. These provisions create an ordered process for share transfers while protecting the company's interests. Most termsheets will establish specific transfer windows and volume restrictions to ensure orderly transactions without disrupting company operations.
Key aspects of secondary sale rights include:
The implementation of these rights requires careful consideration of factors like:
The impact on cap table management and future funding rounds often becomes a critical consideration. Founders should ensure these provisions include appropriate standstill periods and information rights protections to maintain control over sensitive company information during any secondary sale process.
Company buyback provisions offer another pathway in the exit waterfall, allowing the company itself to provide investor liquidity. This mechanism becomes particularly relevant when the company is generating healthy cash flows but might not be suited for immediate IPO or strategic sale.
Structuring buyback rights requires careful balance between:
As we move further down the exit waterfall, drag along rights emerge as a powerful mechanism to ensure transaction feasibility. These rights allow majority shareholders (typically defined by specific thresholds) to require minority shareholders to participate in a company sale, preventing hold-up situations that might block valuable exit opportunities.
While potentially powerful, drag along rights require careful structuring to balance majority and minority interests. A well-crafted drag along provision typically includes:
The implementation of drag along rights often raises complex considerations around:
At the bottom of the exit waterfall sits the put option – often viewed as the investor's last resort mechanism for achieving liquidity. This right essentially creates an obligation for either the company or, in some cases, the founders personally, to purchase the investor's shares under specific conditions.
Put options typically activate when other exit mechanisms haven't materialized within the defined exit period. The structure of these rights demands particular attention as they can create significant obligations.
Put options that make founders personally liable are generally not seen widely in a standard investment round (unless there are specific nuances and past background involved). These clauses also defeat the spirit of a limited liability company that limits the personal liability of any founder. Hence these need to be pushed back by the founders.
When negotiating exit periods, founders should consider several key factors that will impact their company's trajectory. Market cycles play a crucial role – sectors like enterprise software might need longer periods to achieve meaningful scale, while fast-growing consumer tech companies might manage shorter timelines. The key is aligning the exit period with your company's realistic growth trajectory and market dynamics.
Understanding this exit waterfall isn't just about knowing each mechanism – it's about appreciating how they interact and influence company strategy. Founders should approach these provisions with a clear view of their growth plans and potential exit scenarios.
The exit waterfall in early-stage termsheets shouldn't be viewed as just investor protection – it's a framework for aligning stakeholder interests and creating clarity around future liquidity events. The key is building in appropriate flexibility while maintaining clear processes.
For founders navigating these provisions, remember:
By understanding and carefully negotiating each level of the exit waterfall, founders can create a framework that protects company interests while providing investors with appropriate liquidity options. The goal is to build a structure that supports rather than constrains company growth, while ensuring all stakeholders have clarity on potential exit paths.
.jpg)
