Only after the taxman came over. And in most places the banks are preferred too.
In my case you are only first in line if you have a court order for them to pay (give them notice to pay, repeat three times, go to court). Otherwise you are above the shareholders only but it's not that hard to work around that so I have been told.
Well, no. As you write yourself, if you insist on pay, and they cannot get funded and have to wind down, you're first in the line. You may not get a large percentage of what's owed, but you'll get something. And if they can get funded, you almost certainly can get everything owed.
If you take equity and they cannot get funded, you get nothing. If they can get funded, the way they avoid showing the terms, it's extremely likely there are the kind of shenanigans TFA describes and you'll get nothing.
Really, the only scenario where taking the equity makes sense is if you believe the company will do well and the funding terms will be be favorable or at least balanced. And it sure doesn't look like that.
>> the start-up cannot meet its capex obligations and the current funding round is looking grim.
>> It is definitely going to be a down round and it ain't going to be pretty
they may also want to hide specifics if things are going great since then the employee may negotiate hard knowing how much they can get more
In Canada my understanding is that, if a company files for bankruptcy and you’re owed back pay, certainly the first recourse is getting said back pay from whatever assets the company has. But if that stone is bled dry, and employees are still screwed, the government steps in and pays their back pay (up to ~$8.5K). Not a thing in the US?
If it is a thing, the commenter would be smart to hold out for back pay. If they instead accept (almost certainly worthless) stock instead of back pay, they can likely no longer make claims like this if the company goes bankrupt.
That is, If you say "No, I don't want equity", they still owe your back pay, there are multiple ways to get it, AND if either "back pay" or "equity" is to have value, they must have more funding. Which means, out of that funding can immediately come your back pay.
So if you take the equity, or insist on pay, both are the same in the end.
In fact, by not showing you what you need to know? They're forcing you to go after any investment they get for backpay.
I've always found, in every single case, if someone doesn't want to show me something? It's because they know they're scamming you. Or selling false goods.
No one with a sensible, reasonable deal ever desires to hide what the deal is.
In fact, you should most insist and see what the founders are getting too. And the older investors. But either way, you are 100% owed salary, without dilution, and in most jurisdictions employee wages are class A, come first, before anyone gets cash -- investor or not.
Is this the case in your region?