April 24, 2014

Convertible What?

For some time now, convertible debt has been the poison of choice for seed financings by angel investors. Basically, these deals involve the investor providing capital in exchange for a note that automatically converts into equity at a future financing round, usually either at a discount to the price of the round, or with the addition of a warrant “kicker” for the investor. The principal advantages of convertible debt in the seed financing context are (i) the ability to punt on valuation, thus avoiding a likely contentious and sometimes even deal killing negotiation, and (ii) it is, compared to a more traditional equity transaction, much simpler and cheaper to paper. (Click here for a more detailed review of convertible debt in the seed financing context). 

While the convertible debt structure is well-established, and has generally served angels and entrepreneurs alike pretty well, it does have its problematic aspects. First, as much as both parties may think of a convertible note as in substance equity, it is in fact a debt instrument. It has to be carried on the startups books as debt, which in many cases might render the startup technically insolvent. In addition, convertible notes almost always include a drop dead date, typically 12-18 months out, after which the holder of the note can demand payment. If the entrepreneur is not in a position to make the payment they give the note holder enormous leverage. There is also the matter of interest rates and payments, which adds a wrinkle to the accounting and the valuation issues.  Finally, for those angels who lie awake at night worried about legal issues, in most states these transaction require that the angel be a licensed lender (I am not aware of a lot of enforcement activity in this area).

Recently, Adam Ressi of and the Founder Institute teamed up with the folks at Wilson, Sonsini to devise a more entrepreneur-friendly alternative to convertible debt – convertible equity. Essentially, convertible equity is functionally equivalent to, and shares the advantages of, convertible debt, except there is no debt (and thus no liability on the balance sheet; no repayment obligation and no default-related control issues; no interest rate negotiations or accruals; and no need for the angel to be a licensed lender). What’s not to like?

Now I confess, there is a part of me that is thinking “if it isn’t broke, it doesn’t need fixing” and that the convertible debt seed financing vehicle doesn’t strike me as particularly broken. On the other hand, at least from the entrepreneur’s perspective, convertible equity looks like a modestly better deal – albeit at some expense to the investor. It is too early to say if convertible equity will ultimately emerge as a winning alternative to convertible debt. Stay tuned….


About the Author

paul a. jones, of counsel, michael best law firm
Of Counsel

Paul Jones is Of Counsel to the Business Practice Group and Co-chair of the Venture BestTM team. Mr. Jones writes a blog found here: His practice concentrates on representing emerging technology and life sciences companies in financing and other strategic transactions as well as general corporate matters. He also represents venture capital firms and other investors in emerging technology and other high impact businesses.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.