Anti-dilution in investment rounds: what startups and investors need to know

What is share dilution?

Startups and scale-ups often finance their growth through multiple investment rounds. In each round, new shares may be issued to existing or new investors, which increases the total number of outstanding shares.

An existing shareholder who does not participate in the new issuance on a pro-rata basis will see their percentage stake decrease. This is dilution.

Suppose an investor holds 10% of the shares in a startup. If the company subsequently issues new shares and the investor does not participate, their stake might drop to, for example, 8%. The investor still holds the same number of shares, but those shares represent a smaller portion of the total capital.

Incidentally, dilution does not automatically mean that the financial value of the shareholding decreases. A smaller percentage of a company that has become much more valuable after a successful funding round can be economically more attractive than a larger percentage beforehand.

Nevertheless, dilution can be significant for shareholders. The percentage of shares often helps determine how much influence a shareholder has within the general meeting. For example, an investor may have an interest in maintaining a certain voting percentage because it is effectively tied to an important position in decision-making.

This topic is particularly relevant for venture capital investors. They typically take a minority stake in a startup or scale-up and often invest with the expectation that additional funding rounds will follow. As a result, their position can change multiple times throughout the company's lifecycle.

Why is anti-dilution especially relevant in venture capital?

Venture capital is mostly used by young, innovative companies that do not yet generate sufficient cash flow to finance their growth independently. Think of technology companies that need capital for product development, commercial expansion, or further international growth.

An initial investment is often not the last. After a seed or Series A round, Series B, Series C, and other funding rounds may follow. During these, new investors may join and new share classes may be created.

This means that a venture capital investor must think about future dilution as early as their first investment.

This is generally less of an issue in private equity transactions. A private equity investor much more frequently acquires a majority stake and therefore has more control over future capital decisions. A venture capital investor usually does not have that control. Protection against dilution is therefore an important part of negotiations in venture capital deals.

This protection can take various forms. An investor can attempt to purchase new shares via a pre-emptive right, negotiate influence over the decision to issue new shares, or agree to a specific anti-dilution clause.

These instruments are similar but do not serve the same function.

Pre-emptive rights and anti-dilution are not the same

One of the most direct ways to prevent dilution is to participate in a new share issuance yourself.

If an investor can purchase new shares on a pro-rata basis, they can, in principle, maintain their existing percentage. The legal starting point for a private limited company (BV) is that every shareholder has a pre-emptive right to a share issuance in proportion to the total amount of their shares, subject to applicable exceptions.

However, that pre-emptive right is not an absolute guarantee against dilution.

For instance, there is no pre-emptive right for certain share issuances to employees. Furthermore, articles of association can limit or exclude pre-emptive rights. Additionally, unless the articles of association state otherwise, the general meeting can limit or exclude the pre-emptive right for a specific issuance.

During investment rounds, it is therefore not only relevant that a shareholder has a right of first refusal. At least as important is who can decide on a new share issue and under what conditions a right of first refusal can be excluded.

Governance can be just as important as the right of first refusal

Investors therefore often negotiate the decision-making process regarding future share issues. For example, an investor may require a qualified majority for a share issue or the exclusion of rights of first refusal.

Another possibility is that certain decisions cannot be made without the consent of a specific shareholder or group of investors.

For founders, such an agreement might seem like a technical governance point at first glance. In reality, it can have major consequences for future fundraising.

A startup wants to maintain sufficient flexibility during a subsequent financing round to raise new capital quickly. An investor wants to prevent that same flexibility from leading to their position being significantly diluted without their consent.

The trick, therefore, is to find a workable balance.

When does a true anti-dilution clause come into play?

A contractual anti-dilution clause, often referred to as anti-dilution protection, goes a step further than a right of first refusal.

With such an arrangement, the investor does not necessarily have to put more money into the company to receive protection. The arrangement can ensure that the investor receives additional shares to compensate for the dilution.

This protection specifically applies in the event of a down round.

A down round occurs when new shares are issued at a lower price per share than the price paid by a previous investor.

That difference in issue price is central to anti-dilution. The underlying idea is that, in hindsight, the earlier investor entered at a higher price than the price used in the later financing round. The anti-dilution clause is used to correct their position for this.

For founders and employees who hold common shares, it is important to realize that this correction does not come out of thin air. When the investor receives extra shares, the other existing shareholders are further diluted as a result.

An anti-dilution clause therefore distributes the effect of a disappointing valuation among different groups of shareholders.

Anti-dilution is primarily about the down round

As long as every new financing round takes place at a higher price per share, a classic anti-dilution arrangement usually does not need to be applied.

The tension arises when the development of the company or the financing market leads to new capital being available only at a lower valuation.

For a startup, such a financing round may be necessary. For an existing investor, the same round is confrontational: new investors get more shares for the same amount than they did previously.

This is precisely why the wording of the anti-dilution arrangement deserves attention at the time an investment is made. At that moment, a down round may seem far off, but when it actually occurs, the interests are much more sharply opposed.

The choice of calculation method determines the level of protection the investor receives.

Full ratchet: maximum protection for the investor

The full-ratchet method is the simplest and most investor-friendly form of anti-dilution.

This method essentially acts as if the original investor had made their entire initial investment at the new, lower share price.

It does not take the size of the new funding round into account.

The latter can have far-reaching consequences.

Suppose an investor entered during an earlier round at a relatively high valuation. The startup later needs only a limited amount of additional funding but can only raise that capital at a significantly lower price per share. A full ratchet can then result in the existing investor being fully compensated for the price difference, even though only a relatively small amount of new capital was raised.

For the other shareholders, the resulting additional dilution can be significant.

The full ratchet therefore provides the earlier investor with strong protection against a lower valuation, but takes little account of the economic scale of the down round.

That is precisely why this provision can be very burdensome for founders and other existing shareholders.

One way to limit that impact is to have the full-ratchet protection apply only for a certain period. After that, another form of anti-dilution could apply, or the protection could expire entirely.

Weighted average: the size of the down round also counts

A less extreme method is the weighted-average approach.

This method considers not only the lower price of the new shares but also the size of the funding round. This makes the correction more nuanced.

In a weighted-average calculation, a small down round at a low share price has less effect than a large round at that same price.

This aligns better with the actual impact of the new issuance on the existing capital structure.

There are two main variants within this method:

1. broad-based weighted average;
2. narrow-based weighted average.

The difference lies primarily in the number of existing shares and other instruments included in the calculation base.

Broad-based weighted average

A broad-based weighted average uses a wide base. This takes into account the entire share capital outstanding immediately prior to the down round, including, for example, outstanding options and other instruments that may entitle the holder to shares.

Because the calculation base is relatively large, the new share issuance has a proportionally smaller effect on the adjusted price.

As a result, the protected investor receives less compensation than if a smaller calculation base were used.

Of the common weighted-average variants, the broad-based approach is therefore more favorable for founders and other existing shareholders than a narrow-based arrangement.

This does not mean the investor is not protected. The lower valuation is still adjusted, but the correction takes more account of the company's size and the new financing.

Narrow-based weighted average

A narrow-based weighted average includes a more limited group of shares in the calculation.

Exactly which shares are included depends on the wording of the provision and the company's capital structure. For example, the base may be more limited because certain options or specific categories of shares are excluded.

A smaller base ensures that the down round has a greater impact on the calculation.

The result is a lower adjusted share price, which may entitle the investor to more compensation shares.

Narrow-based is therefore more investor-friendly than broad-based.

Roughly speaking, the order is:

a broad-based weighted average offers the least extensive correction, a narrow-based weighted average provides a stronger correction, and a full ratchet offers the most extensive protection.

That difference can be significant in the event of a substantial drop in valuation.

Why the formula alone doesn't tell the whole story

In anti-dilution, a lot of attention is paid to the calculation formula. However, the name of the provision does not tell the whole story.

With a weighted-average clause, for example, it must be precisely clear which shares, options, and other instruments are included in the calculation base. The difference between a broad and a narrow definition can be exactly what determines the final compensation.

For startups with different share classes, this becomes even more relevant.

After multiple investment rounds, a cap table may consist of common shares, Series Seed shares, Series A shares, Series B shares, and options or other rights to future shares. Which of these components are included in the anti-dilution calculation can directly determine who economically bears the consequences of a down round.

A term like “weighted average anti-dilution” is therefore not sufficient on its own. The actual calculation mechanism must be understood.

For founders, this is certainly relevant before signing an investment round. The consequences usually only become truly visible when a future round is disappointing.

Anti-dilution does not protect against every form of dilution

An important distinction is that a classic anti-dilution clause is aimed at an issuance at a lower share price.

It therefore does not automatically protect against every situation in which an investor's percentage decreases.

An investor who simply does not participate in a new share issuance can, for example, suffer percentage dilution. If those shares are not issued at a lower price, a clause that only activates during a down round does not necessarily have to provide compensation for that.

For that, other instruments are relevant, such as:

• pre-emptive rights;
• agreements regarding participation in future rounds;
• governance rights regarding new share issuances;
• requirements for qualified majorities.

A good investment structure therefore views these instruments in conjunction.

Anti-dilution is not a substitute for governance. Nor is governance automatically a substitute for anti-dilution.

Different share classes also play a role

Venture capital financing is often built up from different share classes.

Founders and early employees, for example, hold common shares, after which new investors receive different types of preferred shares in successive financing rounds.

Pre-emptive rights can also be adapted to that structure.

For instance, it can be agreed that holders of shares with a certain preference are given the first opportunity to participate in a new issuance. Other shareholders are then given the opportunity to the extent that the first group does not fully utilize its option.

For a scale-up with multiple investors, capital structuring quickly becomes more than just the question of what percentage each party owns.

The mutual ranking of rights can also be of great importance.

With every new funding round, it is therefore wise not only to look at the post-money percentages, but at the overall picture: voting rights, preferential rights, preferences, and any anti-dilution mechanisms.

Distress financing can strain relationships

A particularly sensitive situation arises when a startup is in urgent need of new capital.

In the case of distress financing, it may be necessary to issue shares quickly, even when not all shareholders are willing or able to participate. Both contractual agreements and the specific circumstances of the case can be relevant in this regard.

Such a financing structure can result in not every shareholder being able to maintain their usual position. In certain structures, a single financial investor may even provide the entire funding.

Sometimes a so-called catch-up provision is used. Non-participating shareholders are then given the opportunity to participate in the share issue for a certain period afterward. This effectively allows them to restore their position as much as possible after the fact.

For startups, such a mechanism can be important. On the one hand, the company must maintain access to capital in an urgent situation. On the other hand, distress financing can have major consequences for ownership structures.

That is precisely where an important legal tension lies.

Distress financing is not a blank check for extreme dilution

The fact that a company urgently needs funding does not mean that any degree of dilution is automatically justified.

A share issue that dilutes a minority shareholder is not necessarily unreasonable in itself. However, the reason for the financing and the extent of the dilution are relevant.

An actual necessity to avert bankruptcy can be a significant justification for a funding round in which existing shareholders are diluted. At the same time, such a situation should not simply be used to increase the power position of one shareholder far beyond what is justifiable for the financing.

This is an important point of attention for founders, investors, and directors.

It is not just the question of whether new capital is needed that counts. It must also be possible to explain why a particular structure, size, and distribution of the share issue was chosen.

The more the financing changes existing power dynamics, the more important that justification becomes.

Minority shareholders retain protection

The majority of shareholders can often make important decisions regarding a share issue, depending on the articles of association and the agreed-upon majorities. This does not mean that the position of minority shareholders becomes irrelevant.

When making decisions within the company, principles such as reasonableness and fairness between the parties involved remain important. The interests of a minority shareholder must also be handled with care when designing a share issue.

Various circumstances can be considered in this regard.

Why is the financing necessary? How significant is the dilution? What alternatives exist? How severely are the interests of the minority shareholder affected? And is the chosen solution proportionate to the objective of the transaction?

The extent to which other shareholders support a financing plan can also be relevant.

For startup directors, this means that a funding round should not be viewed solely as a technical cap-table exercise. Especially when existing shareholders face significant dilution, the decision-making process also deserves attention.

Even anti-dilution protection is not always absolute

A contractual anti-dilution clause can be powerful, but it does not exist in a vacuum, independent of the circumstances in which it must be applied.

In exceptionally dire situations, the interests of the company and other stakeholders may outweigh the contractual protection of a single shareholder. This could even mean that a provision specifically agreed upon for dilution scenarios cannot be invoked without limitation.

This does not mean that a startup can simply disregard an anti-dilution clause as soon as financing becomes difficult.

The point is precisely that anti-dilution is part of a broader legal and economic relationship between shareholders. Necessity, proportionality, the consequences for the parties involved, and the specific circumstances remain relevant.

For investors, this is a reason not to view anti-dilution as an isolated guarantee. For founders, it is no reason to accept the provision lightly in the expectation that it can simply be set aside later.

What does anti-dilution mean for founders?

For founders, an anti-dilution clause can feel quite abstract at the time of a successful funding round.

The startup is raising capital, the valuation looks good, and everyone expects growth. The discussion about what happens in a future round at a lower valuation may seem theoretical at that point.

However, it is precisely at that moment that the rules of the game for a potential down round are established.

A strong anti-dilution provision can mean that founders are hit twice in the event of a disappointing subsequent round. First, their shares are diluted because new shares are issued. Subsequently, additional dilution can occur because an earlier investor receives compensation shares.

That effect can also impact other holders of common shares, including management and employees.

Founders would therefore do well during negotiations not only to ask whether anti-dilution will be included, but especially:

• when the provision is triggered;
• which calculation method applies;
• which shares and options are included in the calculation;
• how significant the correction can be in the event of a minor down round;
• whether the protection is limited in time;
• how the arrangement interacts with pre-emptive rights and decision-making rights.

The economic outcome often lies in these details.

What does anti-dilution mean for investors?

For investors, anti-dilution is a way to distribute the risk of a future lower valuation.

This is particularly understandable in venture capital. The investor enters a company with a high risk profile at a relatively early stage, while future capital rounds are likely and the ultimate development of the valuation is uncertain.

At the same time, the most extensive protection is not automatically the best outcome for the company as a whole.

When an anti-dilution provision leads to very heavy dilution of founders and management during a down round, it can also significantly alter the mutual interests within the company.

The chosen capital structure must therefore strike a balance between protecting invested capital and providing sufficient incentive for founders and management to continue creating value.

That tension runs like a common thread through many venture capital structures.

Look at the cap table before the next round

Anti-dilution becomes most visible when it is least convenient: during a down round or an urgent need for financing.

That is not the ideal moment to discover for the first time exactly how a clause works.

For startups and scale-ups, it is therefore wise to gain insight into how different scenarios affect the cap table before a new financing round.

It is not just the base case that deserves attention. A lower valuation can also be calculated.

What happens to the founders in a down round? How much compensation does an existing investor receive? What is the difference between a broad-based weighted average and a narrow-based variant? What would a full ratchet mean? And what voting percentage does each party retain after the round?

This makes a legal provision much more concrete.

Anti-dilution is ultimately a question of distribution

Anti-dilution sounds like a technical investor term, but it touches on a fundamental question: who bears the consequences when a startup has to raise new capital at a lower valuation later on?

A full ratchet places a large part of that risk on the other shareholders. A weighted-average approach distributes the consequences in a more nuanced way and also takes the size of the new round into account. Pre-emptive rights offer yet another form of protection, as they allow a shareholder to invest themselves to maintain their stake.

In addition, the governance surrounding share issuance, the position of minority shareholders, and any emergency financing remain important.

For founders and investors, the relevant question isn't just whether a term sheet includes "anti-dilution protection." The real question is what actually happens if that provision ever needs to be triggered.

A well-structured agreement makes those consequences clear in advance. While this doesn't prevent a down round from being painful, it does ensure that the legal and economic impact isn't only discovered during a financial crisis.

‍