← All insights Commercial

When founders separate: the equity split is rarely the difficult part

One of the founders is leaving, and by the end of the first conversation the argument is about percentages. That argument is usually the most tractable thing in the room. What decides whether the business is still worth what it was sits somewhere else entirely.

Shareholdings have a record. There is a register of members, a filing at Companies House, and usually some note from the founding conversation. Two people can disagree bitterly about whether the split was ever fair, but they are disagreeing about something written down. Very little else in a founder separation has that quality.

The rest of the business was assembled when nobody was drawing a careful line between themselves and the company. The first version of the product, the brand, the domain, the supplier terms, the accounts won by one person picking up the telephone: all of it was treated as the company's because it was obviously the company's. A separation is the first occasion on which that is tested, and it is tested by the one person who knows where it is thin.

The instinct is to act quickly and visibly: reset the passwords, write to the customers, give the team a version of events. Each of those feels like control and each narrows what remains available afterwards. Closing an account in temper also removes the messages and histories that record what was actually agreed at the beginning.

The equity question is the one with an answer

Ownership of shares can generally be established from the register, the filings and whatever was signed at the outset, and where it genuinely cannot, the disagreement has a shape the courts of England and Wales are accustomed to handling. That does not make the argument pleasant or inexpensive, though it does keep it bounded, which is more than can be said for the questions underneath it.

The stake also matters for a different reason than founders expect. Its practical significance is rarely the slice of some future sale, but the fact that the person remains someone whose consent is needed. Investors and buyers want a clean register and a shareholder body that will sign what is put in front of it. A former founder with a grievance and no obligation to assist becomes a name on the list of signatures a transaction cannot complete without.

Because the equity conversation is the one that feels moral, it absorbs all the attention available, and while it runs the questions that decide what the company can do next go unasked.

What the company runs on may never have become the company's

Rights in something a person creates begin with the person who created it. Work made by an employee in the course of their employment generally belongs to the employer without anything further being signed. Founders are frequently the people that rule does not reach. Many never sign a contract of employment at all: they are directors, they take some combination of salary and dividends, and the paperwork applied to everybody hired afterwards was never applied to them.

Then there is everything made before the company was incorporated, which was made by individuals and stays with them until a document moves it. While the founders are present and aligned, nobody notices. A departure changes that position completely. The company is now using something owned personally by someone no longer on its side of the table, and that person has just been given a reason to look carefully at what they own.

The same pattern runs through the accounts a business depends on: domains registered against a personal email address, subscriptions bought on a personal card and expensed, a trade mark filed in an individual's name because the company did not yet exist, a selling account opened by whichever founder had identity documents to hand. Each was sensible when it happened. Each becomes a conversation with a value attached when the individual and the business come apart.

Customers attach to whoever they think they are dealing with

A contract is made with a company, and the person on the other side of it has usually concluded that one particular individual within that company is straightforward to deal with. That conclusion travels with the individual. Founders consistently underestimate this, because a customer list looks like a company asset and behaves like a personal one.

Restrictive covenants exist to address this, and they carry less weight than the people relying on them expect. Wording settled when the company was small and sold one thing sits awkwardly over the business it has since become, and a founder is frequently the person whose paperwork was never revisited as the company grew. A covenant given by a shareholder around their shares is also generally approached differently from one imposed on an employee, which is why the departure terms and the share terms are better considered together rather than by separate advisers at separate times.

There is a practical limit no drafting reaches. A covenant can restrain the leaver from approaching the customer. It does nothing to restrain the customer from approaching the leaver, and where the founder was the reason the account was won, that is usually what happens. The company's answer to that is not a legal one at all: it depends on whether anyone else in the business has a relationship of their own with that account, and most find out the honest answer at the worst possible moment.

Vesting, and the consequence of not having it

Vesting means a founder earns their shares across a period fixed at the outset, so somebody who leaves early keeps only what corresponds to their actual contribution and the rest returns to the company. It is close to standard in companies that have taken outside investment and frequently absent in those that have not, because it is a conversation nobody enjoys having with people they have just decided to trust.

Where it is absent the position is straightforward and unwelcome: the shares are theirs. The person leaving keeps their whole holding whatever they did or failed to do, and those who remain carry the business towards a value that person shares in. The obvious response, putting vesting in place now, meets the difficulty that it cannot be imposed. It needs the agreement of the person whose shares would be affected, and the moment the company wants it is the moment they can see what it is worth. Restructuring a shareholding also carries tax consequences that turn on how it is done, which is its own advice rather than a detail handled afterwards.

Vesting is usually explained as protecting the company against a founder who walks away. In practice its more common use is the opposite: it protects a founder from being pushed out once the difficult early work is done and the business no longer feels as though it needs them. Which of the two it does turns on how a good leaver and a bad leaver are defined, and those definitions are settled long before anyone can tell which category they will fall into.

Knowledge, access and credibility do not transfer on signature

Assume every ownership question resolves in the company's favour. A separation still leaves a problem no document reaches, because the person leaving holds three things nobody can assign.

The first is access. The recovery route into the systems a business runs on very often terminates at a personal mailbox or handset, whatever name the account itself is in. A company can be entirely correct about who owns an account and still be locked outside it, because the ownership and the route back in are separate things, and it normally discovers this under pressure.

The second is knowledge nobody wrote down because nobody needed to: why a supplier tolerates an arrangement that looks odd on paper, which customers pay late and are nonetheless good for the money, and what particular decisions inside the product were working around. That is what a handover is meant to capture, and a handover carried out once relations have soured captures almost none of it.

The third is credibility, and it is the hardest to replace. Where an investor, a landlord or a significant customer decided about a person rather than about a company, that decision does not carry over to those who remain merely because the company has not changed its name. Whether any of this is worth acting on is a judgement about how far the business depends on one individual rather than about the strength of any right, and it is not one that can be made honestly from inside the argument.

When not to make it a dispute

A great many founder separations need none of this. Where the person leaving holds a modest stake, signed something sensible at the outset, is going for reasons nobody contests, and the business depends on nothing held personally by them, the proportionate course is to document the departure properly and let it be.

It is worth being candid about what a founder dispute costs, and the professional fees are not the whole of it. Proceedings in England and Wales consume the attention and composure of the people the company most needs pointed at its customers, over a period neither side chooses and neither can shorten alone. A settlement leaving both sides mildly dissatisfied is often the better commercial result, including where one side would probably have won.

What repays effort early is establishing what the company actually holds and what it merely believes it holds, because that is a far smaller exercise than acting on it and it is the only thing that reveals whether there is a dispute worth having. The separation that ends quietly is the one agreed while both sides still expect to be civil to one another. Once positions have been taken in front of other people, that version is no longer on the table.

This guide is general information about how these matters usually run. It is not advice, and nothing becomes advice until terms are agreed in writing. Brandleys Legal Ltd delivers reserved legal activities alongside regulated partners.