🚀 Register for our upcoming free Capital Raising workshop 👉 Register
Launching a startup with co-founders is exhilarating as you share a vision, energy, and purpose. But as the business evolves, so do individual contributions, roles, and expectations. When those shifts aren’t reflected in your ownership structure, tension builds. Before long, what started as a small disagreement can spiral into a founder equity dispute that threatens both the business and relationships.
This guide walks you through how equity disputes arise, what they look like in practice, and how to prevent or resolve them. Think of it as a short consultation in blog form, the same principles we teach founders at Allied Legal every week.
A founder equity dispute occurs when co-founders disagree about ownership percentages, contributions, or control. It’s not always about greed, as it’s often about misalignment between expectations and documentation.
Let’s unpack what this looks like in practice.
Jane and Mark co-founded a Sydney-based health tech startup, agreeing on a 50/50 equity split at launch. Over time, Jane brought in clients and capital, while Mark focused on operations. When they began fundraising, Jane argued her contribution justified a larger share. Mark disagreed.
Without a shareholders agreement or vesting schedule, the dispute stalled investment and strained their relationship.
This is a classic founder equity dispute. Two founders with evolving contributions but a static ownership structure. It’s rarely about the money alone; it’s about fairness and recognition.
Ask yourself, if your startup doubled in size tomorrow, would your current equity split still feel fair? If the answer is no, now is the time to review your structure.
In Australia, equity ownership and disputes are governed primarily by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), along with your company’s constitution and shareholders agreement.
This document is the foundation of any startup’s structure. It sets out:
At Allied Legal, we often see startups operating without a shareholders agreement or using a generic template that doesn’t reflect their real-world dynamics. This is risky and often the source of later disputes.
The constitution governs internal operations such as share transfers, director powers, and voting rights. It complements your shareholders agreement and provides additional legal structure.
Every founder should sign an IP assignment agreement ensuring the company owns the intellectual property they create. Disputes often arise when this isn’t clearly documented.
Vesting schedules are a smart way to align equity with contribution. Shares are earned gradually over time or upon hitting milestones, protecting the startup if someone leaves early.
Example: A 4-year vesting schedule with a 12-month cliff means a founder earns 25% of their shares each year. If they leave before 12 months, they get nothing.
Many founders split equity based on enthusiasm rather than contribution. Over time, as roles evolve, one founder feels shortchanged.
Try this: Create a contribution matrix listing what each founder brought to the table: time, capital, skills, IP, and opportunity cost. You’ll quickly see if your equity split matches reality.
New funding rounds often dilute existing shares. If founders haven’t planned for this, disagreements can arise over who loses more control.
Before your next round, ask:
When a founder leaves, tension arises over whether they should keep their shares or sell them back. Without a buy-back mechanism or vesting clause, the situation can become messy fast.
Founders sometimes claim ownership of key IP after leaving, especially if they developed it before incorporation. A clear IP assignment agreement can prevent costly disputes later.
Let’s get practical. Here’s how to build a structure that prevents equity issues before they happen.
Avoid handshake agreements. Every discussion about ownership, roles, or contributions should be documented in a shareholders agreement.
Vesting ensures founders earn their equity over time, keeping everyone motivated and reducing tension if someone leaves early.
Misunderstandings about effort or expectations often lead to resentment. Clearly outline each founder’s scope, KPIs, and decision-making authority.
Discuss how future investment rounds will impact ownership. Include these terms in your shareholders agreement to avoid surprises.
Include mediation and arbitration clauses. They give founders a path to resolve disputes without going to court.
☑ Draft a shareholders agreement early
☑ Include vesting schedules and exit terms
☑ Document roles and contributions
☑ Assign IP rights to the company
☑ Review equity before fundraising
☑ Revisit agreements every 12–18 months
We always tell our clients: your shareholders’ agreement is a living document, it should evolve as your startup grows.
If you’re already facing conflict, here’s the approach we typically recommend to clients.
Have an honest discussion about contributions, expectations, and goals. A well-facilitated conversation can often prevent escalation.
A neutral third party can guide the discussion and help you find a fair middle ground.
A startup lawyer can review your documents, explain your rights, and help negotiate a solution that protects your company’s value.
Court action under the Corporations Act should be a final step. It’s costly, public, and can damage your brand and investor confidence.
Before your next funding round, product launch, or new hire, take a moment to assess your equity arrangements.
Ask yourself:
If not, now is the time to fix it, not after conflict arises.
At Allied Legal, we work closely with Australian startups to structure and protect founder relationships. Our lawyers specialise in:
We understand the unique dynamics of startups and approach every situation with commercial empathy and legal precision. Whether you’re forming your founding team or resolving an existing dispute, our goal is to protect your business and preserve your relationships.
If you’re facing a founder equity dispute or simply want to future-proof your startup’s structure, reach out to Allied Legal today.