Mike Moyer's Blog, page 3

Slicing Pie on the Gonzo Experience

Special thanks to Anthony Testa for referring us to the Gonzo Experience!

Slicing Pie Case Study: MetaMythic

Many startups struggle with how to fairly divide equity given the varied and ever-changing commitment levels of early-stage founders. Learn how Christopher Lazzaro, CEO of MetaMythic, LLC, worked through these early challenges, the options he found, and how he discovered and applied Slicing Pie.

Get a peek behind the scenes of a successful Slicing Pie company and learn how they make decisions and implement the model effectively. Both Christopher from MetaMytic and Mike from Slicing Pie will be available for a live Q&A

Fair Equity Splits for Student Startups

This whitepaper outlines some of the common pitfalls of how student startup teams split equity between cofounders. Conventional wisdom can be misleading and put students on a path towards equity disputes that can derail an otherwise promising startup. However, getting a fair equity split for all participants is straightforward using the dynamic Slicing Pie model for founder equity.

Enter your email below for a free PDF copy!

Name

Email*

Download PDF

The 3.5 Types of Startup Investors

There are basically three types of investors with one type kind of in-between.

One: Grunts

The first type are those who are willing to work without current compensation. These are generally team members or other active participants who forgo salary and reimbursement of expenses in exchange for slices in the Pie that will eventually become equity in the business. These are the “Grunts” in Slicing Pie and they allow the startup to finance itself by simply not using cash.

Grunts also have the option of investing cash into “The Well” which is a pool of cash that the company has access to on an as-needed basis. The cash in the Well does not contribute slices to the Pie until it is spent at which point the Well allocates slices in proportion to each person’s ownership of the Well money. This allows the company to pay expenses from a company account which can be cleaner and more convenient for accounting and tax purposes.

Two: Angels

The second type of investor are people not participating in the business who invest their own money in amounts that are too small to fully fund the operation’s salaries and expenses. These people are called “Angels” and my consist of friends or family and other small investors. The current state-of-the-art tool for accepting their money is a convertible note, SAFE or other similar contract. The idea is the company cannot and should not negotiate a value at such an early stage in the company’s lifecycle. Doing so would cause a number of problems including possible tax issues for Grunts who later receive shares when the Pie bakes.

Because the funding during the Angel round(s) is not adequate to cover salaries and expenses the Pie continues to accumulate slices in lieu of current compensation. The Angel round is not part of the Pie although it does provide cash that would otherwise be provided by Grunts so there will be fewer slices accumulated. Angel rounds are good if the company needs resources from sources who are unwilling or unable to participate in the Pie.

Two and a Half: Angels who Become Grunts

Angels can also provide non-equity financing in the form of loans which must get paid back with interest. However, when using Slicing Pie founders can offer slices in lieu of skipped payments on the loan. This gives the investor the added security of a payable note, but with the flexibility to participate in the Pie if the company can make better use of the funds or is unable to pay.

This kind of “Slicing Pie Loan” may or may not be tied to personal collateral. It depends on the terms of the deal. If the investor accepts an allocation of slices for a skipped payment he or she is accepting the inherent risk of the startup and it would not be fair to try to recover unpaid amounts if the company fails. If the loan is secured with personal assets the investor can pursue payments in the event the company closes.

Direct Pie Investments

In some cases, an Angel might agree to invest directly in the Pie by covering expenses for the company, but not actively participate in the operations. I think it is better to use a convertible note, but your options may be limited. Unless the investor is paying bills on behalf of the company (not recommended), the Well can be used to take the investor’s cash into the company and convert it to slices alongside the other participants. It would not be fair to give a preference to one person’s cash over another. “Gaming” the logic of Slicing Pie could lead to termination for cause.

A Grunt who is only investing should be treated as any other participant and subject to the recovery logic in Slicing Pie. Investing is the person’s job. The team should set expectations with regard to how much the investor will invest and how it will be invested. If, for example, the investor commits to $60,000 over six months payable in chunks of $10,000 per month. If he or she fails to provide the funds in a timely manner they may be providing grounds for termination for good reason or resignation without good cause and lose their rights to later equity allocations.

Three: Venture Capitalists

The last type of investor is a professional investor who invests other people’s money in amounts that are large enough to fully fund operations in the foreseeable future. These people are called Venture Capitalists or Super Angels and they usually have the deal making experience to negotiate a logical valuation and price for the shares.

Because the VC round, or “Series A” rounds sets a price for the shares the conversion feature of the Angel’s convertible notes or SAFEs would convert to equity using the same terms as the Series A investors subject to the specific terms of the note which may include a valuation cap or discount on the purchase price.

The Pie usually bakes with the Series A investment because participants are no longer putting their salaries and expenses at risk. Equity would be issued to Grunts subject to the terms of the Series A round which often includes reverse vesting which means you have to immediately give up all your shares and get them back over time as they vest. Time-based vesting is a good retention tool and is appropriate at this stage. Time-based vesting is not appropriate or fair during the bootstrapping stage when Slicing Pie is being used.

No Series A

If the company reaches a breakeven point without the assistance of a Series A round of investment it will have to settle up with the Angel investors who have convertible notes. If this scenario is not outlined in the terms of the note the disposition of the notes will have to be negotiated. There are a variety of options including paying the note off or securing an independent 409(a) valuation and converting the note at the valuation price.

Summary

In a Slicing Pie company, the deal you strike with investors depends on their relationship with the company and the amounts of their investments. Participants in the business are investing their time and unreimbursed expenses in exchange for slices in the Pie as Grunts. Small investors are Angels and should get a convertible note so as to avoid setting a premature valuation. Professional investors who provide substantial funding can negotiate a priced round.

Lithuanian Founders Can Use the Slicing Pie Model

Standard Slicing Pie cofounder agreement template for pre-incorporation phase is now customized for Lithuania

Dynamic equity split based on the slicing pie method is very popular with founders as an alternative to the traditional fixed equity splits. Why? Because it is transparent, fair and future proof. And it provides an understandable and objective methodology. It also accommodates for the uncertain future, which is the main blind spot of the fixed splits.  

Vilnius: thanks to the efforts of Giedrė Rimkūnaitė – Manke, Legal Expert at Glimstedt, who customised for Lithuanian founders the Cofounder Agreement template using the dynamic equity split! The dynamic equity split is based on Mike Moyer’s slicing pie method. This is great news for Lithuanian early stage founders, as it gives them the opportunity to use the ‘fairest equity split tool’ and avoid many potential issues that are caused by fixed equity split in too early stages. 

Naturally, start-up founders do not invest into legal matters at early stages, at least not until the first round of investment. At this stage, however, it is often too late to start thinking about a share split and legal relations between the founders. When I first heard about Mike Moyer’s Slicing Pie method and localized template contracts, I wanted to make them available to Lithuanian start-uppers either, seeing them as a value for money option for startups at early stages. The Slicing Pie rules of the game are straight forward, clear, and effective. I hope that the Cofounder Agreement template customized for Lithuania will efficiently supplement them.

The solution is based on the standardised templates developed by Jana Nevrlka, the founder of Cofounding, who coordinates the development of the slicing pie solution for European founders together with great help and support of Mike Moyer and other local slicing pie experts. 

Mike Moyer, the US-based inventor of the Slicing Pie model, was pleased to hear the development  “Slicing Pie is used by thousands of companies all over the world and most countries encourage fairness, but it is always nice to give founders that extra certainty that the model is aligned with the local rules and have local Slicing Pie expertise available.”

About Giedre Rimkūnaitė-Manke, Glimstedt

Giedrė Rimkūnaitė-Manke heads Glimstedt Lithuania’s Intellectual Property, TMC and Data Protection practices. She is the initiator of “Glimstedt For Start-up Business” platform created to provide start-up business with many of legal services in an extremely efficient and prompt manner against a fair and reasonable fee known beforehand.

Giedrė is an active member of the International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw) and a member of the ITechLaw Start-up Committee. She is also an active member of the Intellectual Property Committee of the Lithuanian Bar Association.

Glimstedt has offices situated on both sides of the Baltic Sea – in Lithuania, Sweden, Latvia, and Estonia, that provide high-quality services to their clients in all parts of the world. At Glimstedt, we are open to challenges and are fiduciaries of our clients’ affairs, as well as their strategic partners. We resemble personal family doctors who are not only capable of making an accurate diagnosis of the client’s issues, but also undertake all preventive measures necessary to help the client to avoid those issues.

About Cofounding

Cofounding is creating tools and know how for founders, which include cofounder agreement templates, equity split tools and courses, and a proven 7 steps of cofounding the right way methodology, developed by Dr. Jana Nevrlka. It is summarised in an international bestseller, Cofounding The Right Way. Jana is driven by the mission of “No more failed business partnerships!” .. that could have been prevented. She is focused on helping founders build cofounding teams that win and last.

About Slicing Pie

Slicing Pie is a universal, one-size-fits-all solution for the allocation and recovery of equity in an early-stage, bootstrapped company. It is a formula that allows founders to divide equity based on the fair market value of each participant’s contribution. It is a fair, logical and structured way to align everyone’s interests and incentives. Slicing Pie is used all over the world. It is, by far, the fairest way to split equity in an early-stage, bootstrapped startup! Developed by Mike Moyer. 

Startup Equity Calculators are Not All Created Equal

A quick search online will likely point you to other startup equity calculators that claim to create a fair split based on a variety of inputs such as each person’s skillset, their relative importance to the firm, how much each person plans on working and other factors. Please don’t use these startup equity calculators. Like all traditional equity split models, they are based on highly subjective inputs and guesses about future events that will probably not come to pass.

I’m sure their creators are smart, educated, experienced people with good intentions. But it’s impossible to create a fair split with the underlying logic is fundamentally flawed.

The Slicing Pie model is, and probably always will be, the only fair way to split equity in a startup company. This is because fairness is a matter of facts, not opinions. Slicing Pie applies the logic of fairness to the actual contributions from each person and calculates a fair split. If the facts change, the split changes. What is unlikely to change (at least in the foreseeable future) is the logic of what is fair and not fair.

The Slicing Pie model does not claim to have invented fairness, it simply reflects fairness as it exists in our culture. It works in business because business is quantifiable. Everything in business can be expressed in fair market values. Because we can know the fair market values, we know the facts and, therefore can determine exactly the fair answer. No other area of life offers a convenient calculation. For example, we can never know what’s fair in love and war…

Occasionally, I’ll see a startup equity calculator that claims to use a dynamic model. Slicing Pie is dynamic, but dynamic alone doesn’t mean it’s fair. Some go as far as to imply that their calculators us the Slicing Pie logic. If they truly do use the Slicing Pie logic, they may work. But a loose interpretation of the model breaks its ability to deliver fair results.

I understand the appeal of a startup equity calculator that can produce an instantaneous, concrete result. It would be nice to know upfront what your share is going to be. The problem is that no matter what the calculator tells you it is going to be wrong. Slicing Pie does not give you the number up front, but you can rest assured that when you use Slicing Pie whatever you get will be the fair amount!

Tips for Lawyers for Implementing Slicing Pie

The goal of Slicing Pie is to create a fair split and it is used by startup companies all over the world to do just that.

As a lawyer, you may not have heard of the Slicing Pie model or maybe you have, and you are skeptical. I have been working with lawyers and startups to implement Slicing Pie for years and I can personally attest that it works 100% of the time and requires no customization or tweaking to yield fair results. Changes can only make it less fair.

Unlike traditional equity splits which require the team to decide fixed percentages upfront for each participant in anticipation of future contributions, Slicing Pie divides up equity based on what each person actually contributes. Because Slicing Pie is based on observable facts, instead of guesses about future events, it always creates a fair split.

To implement Slicing Pie from a legal standpoint it’s important to understand a few key concepts:

Slicing Pie is “dynamic” as opposed to traditional splits that are “fixed.” This means that it self-adjusts over time as the company develops. The actual changes to equity do not have to be dynamic, they can happen all at once when the Pie “bakes” or terminates. While this may seem uncomfortable for some people, it ensures that people get what they deserve based on their actions instead of their intentions.Slicing Pie is “dynamic” as opposed to traditional splits that are “fixed.” This means that it self-adjusts over time as the company develops. The actual changes to equity do not have to be dynamic, they can happen all at once when the Pie “bakes” or terminates. While this may seem uncomfortable for some people, it ensures that people get what they deserve based on their actions instead of their intentions.Slicing Pie is “dynamic” as opposed to traditional splits that are “fixed.” This means that it self-adjusts over time as the company develops. The actual changes to equity do not have to be dynamic, they can happen all at once when the Pie “bakes” or terminates. While this may seem uncomfortable for some people, it ensures that people get what they deserve based on their actions instead of their intentions.Slicing Pie is “dynamic” as opposed to traditional splits that are “fixed.” This means that it self-adjusts over time as the company develops. The actual changes to equity do not have to be dynamic, they can happen all at once when the Pie “bakes” or terminates. While this may seem uncomfortable for some people, it ensures that people get what they deserve based on their actions instead of their intentions.Slicing Pie is “dynamic” as opposed to traditional splits that are “fixed.” This means that it self-adjusts over time as the company develops. The actual changes to equity do not have to be dynamic, they can happen all at once when the Pie “bakes” or terminates. While this may seem uncomfortable for some people, it ensures that people get what they deserve based on their actions instead of their intentions.

Legal Implementation

I am not a lawyer (a fact that I often lament). And the laws in each country – particularly tax laws – are key to advising on and structuring how to formally implement the Slicing Pie model. However, I’ve worked with numerous lawyers all over the world, and find that they usually implement  the Slicing Pie model in one of two ways: either by doing a buy-back, or Slicing Pie vesting (which is different than time-based vesting). Both of these methods can work even if allocations of equity are required at the outset.

BUY-BACK METHOD

Step One: Issue common shares or membership units in equal chunks to each participant when they join the venture.

I suggest 10,000 shares each so when the adjustment is made you can avoid fractional shares.At this point, ownership is meaningless because there is no financial benefit to the shares. The Pie will bake well before dividends are paid so there should not be a problem. Remember, Slicing Pie is used during the bootstrap stage when there is no profit[1]. Common shares generally have voting rights. If control is a concern, there are various ways this can be addressed, with co-founder rights, or by adding contractual voting.

Step Two: Stipulate in the stock purchase agreement that shares are subject to a buy-back option based on Slicing Pie. The buy-back price can be the original par value (or $0, if no money was paid for the shares and this is allowed under local law).

Slicing Pie terms can be included in the buy-back clause or the model can simply be referenced. Slicing Pie is fairly well known, and the Slicing Pie Handbook and accompanying spreadsheets and software provide a common set of calculations.I wish I could create a universal contract for this, but my talents do not include drafting legal contracts. If you create a contract with Slicing Pie terms, be sure to cover:The Allocation Framework describing cash and non-cash contributions and the formula used to derive the final split.             ((2 x Individual’s Non-Cash) + (4 x Individual’s Cash)) / ((2 x Total Non-Cash) + (4 x Total Cash))“Cash” means cash consumed (unreimbursed expenses), not cash invested“Non-cash” means the unpaid portion of the fair market valueThe recovery Framework, which determines the disposition of equity (slices) in the event of separation under various circumstances.Termination for cause or resignation without cause: participant would lose rights to equity and unreimbursed expenses would be paid back, when and if possible, by the company.Termination without cause or resignation with cause: participant would retain rights to equity and receive allocation upon termination of the Pie.Definitions for termination and resignation events are fairly standard and more detail can be found in the Slicing Pie Handbook.More detail can be found in The Slicing Pie Handbook and I would be happy to provide some sample agreement forms.

Step Three: Slicing Pie terminates (or “bakes”) when the Pie naturally stops accumulating slices. This happens when the company can adequately fund operations from revenues (breakeven) or Series A investment so there is no need for participants to continue working without being paid or reimbursed for expenses. When the Pie stops changing, the buyback is triggered. The company buys back a number of shares from each participant to match the Slicing Pie allocation.

Simple Example

Two partners, Dick and Jane, each take 10,000 shares at the outset of the venture. When the Pie bakes it shows a fair allocation of Dick at 33.3% and Jane at 66.6%. In share terms there are a number of ways this split can be achieved. For example, Dick could sell back 5,000 shares and Jane could keep all 10,000. Now the shares are Dick at 5,000 (33.3%) and Jane at 10,000 (66.6%).

VESTING METHOD

Another method that I like is using Slicing Pie as the vesting mechanism as opposed to time-based vesting or milestone-based vesting. The process is very similar to the Buy-Back method above, except that instead of buying back excess shares you’re simply vesting the right number of shares.

Step One: Issue restricted shares or membership units in equal chunks to each participant when they join the venture. In the US, file an 83(b) election.

Step Two: Slicing Pie terminates (or “bakes”) when the Pie naturally stops accumulating slices. This happens when the company can adequately fund operations from revenues (breakeven) or Series A investment so there is no need for participants to continue working without being paid or reimbursed for expenses. When the Pie stops changing, the vesting is triggered. A number of shares from each participant vest to match the Slicing Pie allocation.

Simple Example

Two partners, Dick and Jane, each take 10,000 restricted shares at the outset of the venture. When the Pie bakes it shows a fair allocation of Dick at 33.3% and Jane at 66.6%. 5,000 of Dick’s shares would vest and all 10,000 of Jane’s shares would vest. Now the shares are Dick at 5,000 (33.3%) and Jane at 10,000 (66.6%). Theoretically, you could vest one share for Dick and two shares for Jane and the result would be the same.

Slicing Pie vs. Time-Based Vesting

With Slicing Pie, time-based vesting is irrelevant because the model provides all the protection needed in the case of separation.

Time-based vesting provides inadequate protection. For instance, a developer could quit out of the blue with an incomplete application and keep vested shares. With Slicing Pie, the developer would lose his or her slices and expenses would be reimbursed for expenses when the company has the money, a much more logical consequence.

Conclusion

I work with lawyers all over the world to implement Slicing Pie. Each country has its quirks that must be dealt with to implement Slicing Pie within a legal framework. I try to remind people that Slicing Pie, at its core, is a decision-making framework for how to allocate equity. All equity splits change over time as the startup evolves. How people decide to make those changes depends on how they make decisions. People can guess based on predictions about future events (aka the “Crystal Ball” method) or they can use Slicing Pie to make sure it’s fair. What this means is that no matter what legal structure you put in place, Slicing Pie can always be used to make decisions about changes.

As a decision-making model, Slicing Pie fundamentally changes how founders make equity allocation decisions, it does not fundamentally change how equity or business formation works! I encourage you to implement Slicing Pie as simply as you can, and stick to the model. Otherwise in my experience, fairness can start to break down.

Please do not hesitate to contact me through the Slicing Pie website (www.slicingpie.com) if you have any questions or concerns.

[1] I define profits as revenue minus expenses and salaries. For tax purposes classifying revenue minus expenses (not including salaries) as “profits” can be done for tax purposes. I don’t consider dividends and compensation the same thing. Dividends should be paid after salaries. You should, however, do what you can to manage taxes!

Case Study: Shift/Co Launches Business GROWTH Platform based on a Win-Win-Win Mindset

Serial entrepreneur and social impact investor Terri Maxwell had an business concept that would require outside investment. Several clients encouraged her to start a community for Conscious Entrepreneurs based on her authentic business growth methods. 

The Shift/Co team at a pre launch event in February 2020

She knew her Conscious Business Growth Platform could benefit the millions of purposeful entrepreneurs wanting to make a bigger impact through their business, but she’d already lost money investing in purposeful concepts through equity-based partnerships that failed to meet their potential.

Equity splits are often unfair, and partnerships are frequently fraught with disagreements that ultimately lead to failure. Maxwell’s concern was that if she created an equity partnership with several other entrepreneurs based her conscious business growth methodology, that the equity calculations would be not only difficult to navigate, but hinder the success of the entity. At the same time, she understood that collaboration would make the conscious business growth community significantly more successful. 

Then her friend and confidant Elizabeth Eiss told her about Slicing Pie. As soon as she heard about it, she watched one of Mike Moyer’s videos, and was hooked.

“I devoured the Slicing Pie Handbook that weekend, and then emailed Mike. I was seeking a “triple win” model that would allow us to create a powerful investment vehicle for investors (Win #1), as well as protect my Intellectual Property the business would be based on (Win #2), but also keep the total investment low so the platform’s price would be reasonable (Win #3). Slicing Pie seemed to meet all of those requirements. Mike provided a digital copy of the book for potential inventors interested in joining our start-up team, which helped them understand how we would collaborate fairly and still launch within a year.” Terri Maxwell said.

Key Impacts:

Six months after investors signed on, Shift/Co pre-launched its prototype, which allowed early customers to provide feedback as the platform was being built.Within a year, Shift/Co completed development of the technology to support the Conscious Business Growth Platform. As the business was nearing the break-even point and finalizing its entity structure as a Public Benefit Corporation, Shift/Co, PBC froze its investment pie.The “pie slices” from the Slicing Pie model were calculated and shares in Shift/Co, Public Benefit Corporation were granted.

Maxwell knew that in the conscious entrepreneurial start-up space as well as Social Impact ventures, there should also be a balance between Investor ROI (Return on Investment) and stakeholder value to keep the product affordable for customers, while creating value for shareholders. 

To accomplish this balance, an enterprise needs “sweat equity” (work delivered at no cost in exchange for equity.). This reduces the financial investment requirements, however it typically involves risk for those providing the sweat equity.

“I’ve tried several equity calculators and models over the last decade, and never found one that equitably balanced the benefits of cash investments compared to sweat equity/expertise, both of which are critical to a start-up striving to keep its costs low. In addition, it’s always hard to value the core intellectual property. Slicing Pie is a perfect solution to balance these various resources and create the Triple Win we were searching for.” Maxwell noted.

Cover Design Feedback

Mike Moyer's new book, Will Work for Pie, will be available in May of 2021. We are finalizing the cover design and would like your feedback. Please take a moment to complete the following design survey:

Does Equity Compensation Substitute a Minimum Wage?

Special thanks to Slicing Pie-friendly attorney Matt Rossetti for legal guidance on this post.

The answer is simple: no, but keep reading. Slicing Pie should help prevent claims.

There are more than twenty federal laws that regulate employer-employee relationships. Federal, state, and sometimes local law mandates an employer’s minimum wage. On the federal level, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) mandates a minimum wage of $7.25 (as of the date of this post) for employees of covered employers.

“Covered employers” are those businesses with $500,000 or more in total annual sales or engaged in interstate commerce. So, while many startups have under $500,000 in revenue, most will not be exempt because they are likely to be engaged in interstate commerce. “Interstate commerce” is a fairly broad term which captures any business-related transactions across state lines. So, if you have customers, vendors, or employees in another state, you are likely engaged in interstate commerce.

Given that your startup is probably considered a covered employer, the next thing that you must determine is whether founders and early contributors are indeed employees. Under the law, most startup founders and early contributors will be classified as employees or independent contractors. If, for example, founders choose to organize their business as a C-Corporation, then the founders are corporate officers and corporate officers are employees according to the Internal Revenue Service. Even if a founder is not an officer, the founder may be considered an employee under applicable state and local law. Some folks, however, (like the graphic artist you hire to make a logo) may be considered independent contractors.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to claim that your entire company is made up of purely independent contractors. All companies have employees. The difference between an employee and independent contractor can be nuanced but think of it this overly-simplistic way: if the person’s contribution has a strategic impact on the business or is directly managed by someone who has a strategic impact, that person may very well qualify as an employee and, thus, is subject to minimum wage laws.

Unfortunately, providing equity grants or slices in the Pie in lieu of cash payments won’t get you off the hook.

What Can Happen if You Do Not Pay Minimum Wage:

In some jurisdictions, the employee may sue the company and the company’s officers and agents personally for twice the amount of unlawfully withheld wages. Note that wage claims are initiated by employees (with some exceptions).

It is extremely rare for a venture’s majority stakeholder to file a wage claim against their own venture. Wage claims occur most often when minority stakeholders are forced out of a venture for any reason or no reason at all. These claims are filed because employees and stakeholders believe that they were treated unfairly.

Minimum Wage and Slicing Pie

Using the Slicing Pie model will not protect you from wage claims, but it will probably reduce the likelihood that one is brought against you. This is because the separation logic in Slicing Pie is abundantly clear so in the event of separation, participants are less likely to feel they were treated unfairly and they will better understand that even though the law grants them right to make a claim, that does not mean that it is fair to do so. If the Slicing Pie model is implemented correctly, there will not be any case where a wage claim is fair.

Starting a business is an inherently risky endeavor. Many founders see themselves as the exception to laws, rules, and regulations. I speak to many founders who believe it is fair to distribute their risk to contractors, employees, family, friends, and even their legal counsel. This is not a prudent course of action. While equity compensation is useful for businesses to use as a tool to incentivize employee performance, it is not a substitute for paying employees a minimum wage and it is not a tool for founders to distribute their risk in starting a venture to their cofounders or third parties.

Remember, not adhering to laws, rules, and regulations exactly as promulgated is always a risk. However, there are many ways to mitigate your venture’s risk of a wage claim. If your venture has not already engaged competent legal counsel to help you navigate these issues, schedule a free consultation with Matt Rossetti now.