Anti-Dilution Provisions – A New Twist


We are all familiar with the modified ratchet and full ratchet anti-dilution provisions that relate to subsequent down rounds in the financing of start-up and emerging growth companies.  A new twist on anti-dilution provisions is raising its head and, according to the Wall Street Journal, becoming more and more common.  See “Startups Boosting the Risk” published on December 26, 2013.  Some start-ups and emerging growth companies are now providing anti-dilution protection by guaranteeing investors a certain price per share on the initial public offering of the company’s stock.  If the initial public offering price does not reach the designated price, the investor is entitled to additional shares in order to receive the value it would have received if the initial public offering price had reached the designated price.  It seems to me that only companies with little or no leverage would agree to such a provision.   To date, these provisions have, in at least some cases, seemingly been the cause of significant downward pressure on the post-IPO price of the stock of the companies that have agreed to them because the companies were required to issue significant additional shares in the IPO.  Case in point:  Tremor Video guaranteed investors $13.997 dollars a share in its IPO but actually went out at $10 a share.   In its Registration Statement on Form S-1, Tremor disclosed that “The terms of our Series F preferred stock provide that the ratio at which each share of such series automatically converts into shares of our common stock in connection with the offering will increase if the anticipated initial public offering price is below [the designated price].”  Tremor’s stock was down 15% from the IPO price in a single day.  (It has since continued to decline presumably due to its failure to meet revenue expectations.)  Results such as these happened during a bull market.  I can only imagine the results in a bear market.  While investors have touted the provision as a significant way to protect themselves – and in one case as the “only” way to protect themselves – these anti-dilution provisions come at a high price and should be considered carefully before entering into a final agreement.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Winstead PC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.