The first installment of this series, The Business Case for Litigation Avoidance, discussed a simple point: litigation is expensive not only because of legal fees, but because it consumes management attention, creates uncertainty, disrupts relationships, and diverts resources away from business. Startups are often built during a period when founders are focused almost exclusively on business and product development, fundraising, and growth. Most founders understandably spend little time thinking about future disputes. But once a disagreement emerges, the company may find itself trying to solve problems it should have addressed long before. What could have been a minor issue often becomes a costly and distracting dispute that modest planning could have prevented. In some respects, preventing business disputes is not different from maintaining any important relationship: conversations about expectations, responsibilities, and what happens when circumstances change are easier when everyone is motivated, optimistic, and getting along. They become much harder once trust starts to erode or disputes arise. The following are a few practical steps that can help startups avoid many of the problems that repeatedly give rise to disputes. It’s not about slowing growth. It’s about putting a few basic systems in place that continue to work as the company grows. 1. Founder and Ownership Issues: Plan for the Breakup While Everyone Likes Each Other Founder disputes are often the most destructive. Unlike a disagreement with a customer or vendor, a founder dispute goes directly to ownership, control, and the future of the company. It can freeze decision-making, complicate financing efforts, undermine employee confidence, and in some cases threaten the survival of an otherwise successful business. Many startups begin with some version of the same story. A small group of founders agrees on an ownership split, often informally. Responsibilities are discussed at a high level. Difficult topics are postponed because they feel unnecessary or uncomfortable. Disputes are not always the result of bad faith. More often, they begin with perfectly reasonable people who never anticipated that circumstances would change. For example, what happens if one founder leaves after six months? What if a founder stops contributing but retains a substantial ownership interest? What if founders disagree about a financing round, the direction of the business, or a potential acquisition? What approval rights do investors have? Can an owner be forced to sell? If two equal owners disagree, who breaks the tie? Most of these issues can be addressed at the outset with relatively little effort. In fact, most startups can substantially reduce the risk of future founder disputes by creating a founder package consisting of: (i) a founder agreement addressing ownership percentages, responsibilities, vesting, and decision-making authority, (ii) provisions addressing departures, disability, death, or extended inactivity, (iii) deadlock mechanisms for situations where owners cannot agree, and (iv) transfer and buyout provisions governing what happens if a founder wants to leave the business. The point is not to assume the relationship will fail. It is to ensure the company can continue operating if circumstances change. Founder vesting can be particularly important. Without it, a founder who leaves shortly after formation may retain a substantial ownership position indefinitely, while the remaining founders continue building the business – a situation that can create both resentment and practical difficulties in future financings. Equity arrangements deserve particular attention. Informal promises of equity to founders, early employees, consultants or advisors can create significant problems later, particularly if the parties disagree about the amount promised, vesting terms or whether appropriate approvals were obtained. Equity grants should be documented when they are made, approved by the appropriate corporate body and promptly reflected in the company’s capitalization records. The same discipline should apply to options, warrants, convertible instruments and other rights to acquire equity. A cap table should reflect the company’s actual legal capitalization – not merely a current “understanding” of who owns what. Just as important, founders should revisit these documents periodically. A founder agreement that made sense when two friends were working out of a garage may not make sense after outside investors, employees, and a board become involved. Businesses evolve. Governance documents should evolve with them. The need to revisit governance arrangements becomes particularly important after outside financing. New investors may receive board designation rights, protective provisions, consent rights, preemptive rights or other contractual protections that affect how the company can operate and raise additional capital. Founders and management should understand these rights rather than discovering them for the first time when seeking approval for the next financing or strategic transaction. 2. Corporate Governance and Compliance: Not Just for Large Companies Many founders hear the phrase “corporate governance” and assume it applies only to large public companies. That is a mistake. In practice, governance is simply the process through which important decisions are made and documented. It often comes down to essential questions such as: Who can sign contracts? Who can issue equity? Which decisions require board approval? Which decisions require investor approval? How are important decisions documented? Who is responsible for monitoring compliance obligations? If the answers to those questions are unclear, governance problems are already developing and may eventually affect the company's operations, growth, profitability, and reputation. In some cases, they may lead to disputes or litigation. Startups do not need elaborate governance structures. But they do need basic rules and processes. As discussed in the previous section, such basic rules begin with a strong founder package addressing ownership-related questions. Beyond that, every startup should have appropriate organizational documents in place, such as its certificate or articles of incorporation (or operating agreement for an LLC), bylaws, board and shareholder resolutions, capitalization records, and procedures for documenting significant company actions. Just as important, startups should develop simple habits that become easier to maintain as the company grows: regular board or manager meetings, written consents approving significant decisions, organized corporate records, accurate cap-table management, documented equity issuances, and clearly assigned responsibility for legal and compliance matters. These items may seem overly administrative when the company is small, but they often become important during financing rounds, audits, acquisitions, disputes among founders or investors, and regulatory inquiries. And when disputes arise, well-maintained records often make the difference between a disagreement that can be resolved quickly and one that becomes more expensive than it should be. Governance issues also tend to surface at the worst possible time. A financing or acquisition often requires counsel to reconstruct years of corporate history, confirm that equity issuances were properly authorized, reconcile capitalization records and determine whether required board, shareholder or investor approvals were obtained. Problems that might have been simple to address when a company was young can delay a transaction – or create leverage for an investor or buyer—when discovered during due diligence years later. Maintaining accurate corporate records and capitalization information from the outset is therefore not merely a matter of good housekeeping; it can directly affect a company’s ability to raise capital or complete an exit. The same applies to compliance. Every business operates within some regulatory framework. For some startups, the applicable rules may be relatively straightforward. Others, particularly businesses operating in financial services, healthcare, energy, insurance, food, privacy-sensitive industries, or other regulated sectors, may confront significant compliance obligations from the beginning. Therefore, compliance should not be treated as a project performed immediately before a financing round or acquisition. Instead, startups should periodically evaluate whether new products, new customers, new employees, new jurisdictions, or new regulations have created obligations that did not exist before. Periodic risk assessments and compliance reviews do not need to be elaborate. They do, however, force a company to identify risks before regulators, customers, competitors, or plaintiffs’ lawyers do. The point is not to create bureaucracy. It is to avoid having to revisit foundational issues every time the company reaches a new stage of growth. 3. Intellectual Property: Make Sure the Company Actually Owns What It Thinks It Owns For many startups, the most valuable assets are not physical at all. They consist of software code, proprietary technology, product designs, branding, data, and other intellectual property. Surprisingly often, disputes arise not because intellectual property has been stolen, but because ownership was never documented properly in the first place. Founders frequently assume that if someone creates something for the business, the company automatically owns it. That assumption can prove incorrect and costly. Intellectual property developed before incorporation, by contractors, consultants, outside developers, advisors, or even founders themselves may not belong to the company unless ownership has been properly assigned. A useful exercise is to conduct due diligence on your own company. Could you easily demonstrate ownership of the software, branding, domain names, confidential know-how, customer data, and other core assets that drive enterprise value? If not, the issue deserves immediate attention. The solution is usually not complicated, but it requires discipline. We recommend that every startup maintain a simple intellectual property file containing all documentation establishing ownership of the company’s core assets. Founders should formally assign pre-formation intellectual property to the company. Employees, contractors, consultants, developers, and advisors who create intellectual property should sign appropriate invention-assignment agreements before they begin work, not after a dispute arises. Companies should also periodically inventory their intellectual property. Many do not realize how much of their value is tied to assets that have never been formally identified or catalogued. Identifying what the company owns is often the first step toward protecting it. 4. Protecting What Makes the Business Valuable Protection of IP ownership is a vital part of a successful company, but other protections matter as well. The following are a few examples of uncomplicated protections that avoid or minimize legal issues. For example, many startups depend heavily on confidential information that cannot easily be patented. Product roadmaps, source code, customer relationships, pricing strategies, proprietary processes, business plans, data sets, and technical know-how frequently derive much of their value from remaining confidential. Accordingly, founders, employees, contractors, consultants, advisors, and vendors should be subject to appropriate confidentiality obligations. Trade-secret protection should likewise be viewed as an ongoing discipline rather than a collection of legal documents. Fortunately, startups do not need to reinvent the wheel. Most can substantially reduce risk by working with counsel to create a relatively small package of standard documents and procedures. That package should include confidentiality agreements with employees and contractors (see also the section on employment issues below), vendor confidentiality provisions, and procedures governing access to sensitive information. Once these materials exist, they can be used repeatedly as the company grows. Getting such documentation in place is far easier and less expensive than trying to recover stolen or disclosed information. Another important protection is cybersecurity. The legal consequences of a security incident can extend beyond “just” operational disruption. Customer data, proprietary information, and confidential business information are often subjects of regulatory scrutiny, contractual claims, and litigation if they are affected by a cybersecurity breach. While startups do not need enterprise-level security infrastructure from day one, they should consider implementing basic safeguards such as cybersecurity training, multi-factor authentication, access controls, password protocols, data backup procedures, and incident-response plans. Depending on the nature of the business, cyber insurance may also be worth evaluating early rather than after an incident occurs. Relatedly, insurance is another important tool to protect a growing company. Depending on the nature of the business, companies should consider whether general liability, professional liability, errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability, and/or commercial property insurance is appropriate. Insurance will not prevent disputes, but it can substantially reduce the financial impact when problems arise. Startups should periodically review their coverage as the business grows, enters new jurisdictions, hires employees, or begins handling sensitive customer information. 5. Employment and Labor Issues: Getting the Basics Right Early Employment issues deserve their own installment in this series but a few points are worth mentioning here. For one, the proper documentation of relationships with founders, executives, directors, advisors, employees and independent contractors is critical from the beginning of any startup. Startups should not just rely on silent or oral agreements—such informal agreements create ambiguities, may violate employment and labor laws, and expose the company to a host of avoidable litigation risks. The solution is straightforward: adopt a number of essential employment-related templates such as employment agreements, contractor agreements, agreements for equity compensation, and separation and departure documents. As discussed above, the templates should also include confidentiality, invention assignment and non-solicitation provisions to the extent allowed by law. We recommend consulting with an employment attorney to create a strong set of templates that can then be used for any new hires or departures. As companies grow, employee handbooks, workplace policies, mandatory notices and trainings, and standardized performance expectations also become increasingly important. Another recurring issue, especially for startups, is worker classification. Companies frequently rely on consultants and independent contractors because hiring employees may not yet be feasible. Whether an individual is properly classified as contractor or employee, however, depends on legal standards rather than labels selected by the parties. For example, even if a new hire requests to be treated as an independent contractor, they may be classified as employee under the law with all the mandatory obligations for the employer. Misclassification can create substantial financial and legal exposure for a company. 6. When to Involve Lawyers One misconception among founders is that involving lawyers creates avoidable costs and slows things down. Done properly, legal advice should do the opposite: reduce future costs and remove obstacles to growth. Think about lawyers the same way you think about accountants: most successful companies do not wait for an IRS audit before speaking with their accountant. They build systems that make compliance easier and reduce problems before they occur. Legal counsel can serve a similar function. Rather than involving lawyers only when a dispute arises, startups should consider creating a basic “legal infrastructure package” at the beginning, consisting of founder agreements, employment and contractor templates, confidentiality and invention-assignment documents, commercial agreement templates, governance documents, and compliance procedures appropriate to the business. We recommend working with corporate and employment counsel to create these important documentations early on. Similarly, involving a litigator early can often prevent a disagreement from becoming a formal dispute. 7. Startup Litigation Avoidance Checklist The solutions discussed above can be summarized in the following checklist: Within the first 90 days Put a founder agreement in place that addresses ownership, roles, vesting, departures, and deadlock scenarios. Establish a process for documenting major company decisions and approvals. Understand and implement industry-specific compliance obligations. Confirm ownership of all existing intellectual property and transfer any pre-formation assets to the company. Create a standard set of employment, contractor, confidentiality, and invention-assignment templates. Maintain appropriate cybersecurity safeguards. Review insurance needs, including liability and cybersecurity coverage where appropriate. Review every 6–12 months Revisit founder and governance documents. Reconcile the cap table against the company’s underlying equity issuance documents and board/shareholder approvals. Update employment and contractor templates. Review compliance obligations in light of growth, new products, and new jurisdictions. Conduct an intellectual-property and cybersecurity checkup. Identify potential disputes before they become actual disputes. Common Mistakes to Avoid Relying on verbal understandings when important relationships are involved. Promising equity informally and before documenting it. Treating the cap table as a substitute for properly approved and documented equity issuances. Waiting until a founder or equity holder leaves to address ownership or control issues. Assuming the company automatically owns all intellectual property created for it. Treating compliance as a problem for larger companies. ***** The next installment will focus on employment-related litigation risks, including in connection with hiring, employment arrangements, worker classification, and departures. It is a topic with lots of pitfalls and avoidable issues. Stay tuned.

It has been approximately one (1) month since the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has launched a targeted review of broker-dealer activity in small-capitalization offerings involving foreign issuers—particularly those with operations in foreign jurisdictions such as China. The scope of the review extends across both public and private offerings of small-cap exchange-listed issuers and applies to firms that have acted as underwriters, bookrunners, syndicate or selling-group members, placement agents, or engaged in follow-on trading or omnibus account activity. For broker-dealers active in this market segment between January 1, 2023, and September 30, 2025, this initiative warrants immediate attention. FINRA’s focus underscores the need for firms to proactively strengthen compliance, supervisory and due-diligence frameworks before scrutiny is initiated. Implications for Broker-Dealers For broker-dealers that have acted in offerings of foreign-issuer small-cap companies, or engaged in corresponding trading, the risk of regulatory inquiry is now heightened. Firms should assume that FINRA may request detailed documentation of supervisory procedures, training materials, due-diligence records, compensation arrangements, and transaction lists. Potential exposure encompasses both the underwriting/placement side and the secondary trading side, particularly where omnibus accounts or affiliate-linked trading have occurred. Moreover, compliance weaknesses in this area may expose firms to broader regulatory focus given FINRA’s emphasis on market integrity and manipulative trading risks in small-cap IPOs. As a result, firms should view this not simply as a matter of historical transactions but as an active compliance priority for present-day operations and future offerings. Strategic Compliance Priorities and Action Plan Broker-dealers should undertake an immediate, firm-wide review of their involvement in relevant small-cap foreign-issuer offerings. This review should begin with an inventory of all transactions, public or private, in which the firm acted as underwriter, bookrunner, syndicate or selling-group member, placement agent, or participated in secondary trading during the relevant period. Firms should review whether their written supervisory procedures (WSPs), compliance manuals, training materials and internal guidance adequately address the risks particular to small-cap foreign-issuer offerings. This includes controls around due diligence of issuers, audit-firm and management backgrounds, beneficial-owner structures, cross-border legal/regulatory risks, syndicate compensation, and trading after the offering. Surveillance systems and trading desk controls should similarly be assessed to ensure they capture unusual trading patterns consistent with manipulative or coordinated activity. Firms should evaluate whether their AML/KYC programs are appropriately scaled to the enhanced risk of foreign issuers and thinly-traded securities, and whether their vendor-risk frameworks adequately cover third-party trading platforms, omnibus accounts, and algorithmic or remote trading tools. From a governance standpoint, senior management, compliance heads and the board should elevate this matter within their risk-assessment frameworks. Firms should consider whether internal audit scopes and independent reviews cover this business line, whether incentives or compensation structures may have encouraged participation in higher-risk offerings, and whether escalation procedures are clearly defined and monitored. Finally, firms should prepare for regulatory engagement by gathering and organizing deal files, training logs, supervisory review documentation, compensation records and transaction lists now, rather than waiting until a request arrives. Key Takeaways The targeted review by FINRA of small-cap foreign-issuer offerings signals a clear regulatory priority and a call to broker-dealers to raise their vigilance. For firms with exposure in this area, now is the time to act. Waiting until after a request is received may leave a firm scrambling and vulnerable to findings of deficient controls or documentation. The themes underpinning the review—cross-border risk, thin-traded securities, manipulative activity, and weak controls—are broader than the specific focus and should prompt firms to proactively enhance controls across the board. Senior leadership should not view this as a niche compliance issue, but rather as a signal of elevated scrutiny across multiple lines of business. With proper preparation, firms can not only respond to potential regulatory requests but demonstrate a thoughtful, forward-looking compliance program aligned with the evolving risk landscape.