Venture capital and private equity: how capital structure, dilution, and exit rights work

Venture capital and private equity are similar, but they drive towards different objectives

Both venture capital and private equity involve risk-bearing capital in unlisted companies, with the goal of achieving returns in the long run. However, the comparison quickly ends there. For startups and scale-ups, this is relevant because the legal and economic implications of both models diverge significantly.

Venture capital primarily focuses on young, fast-growing, and often innovative companies. Think of businesses in software, biotech, medtech, digital healthcare, or sustainable technology. At this stage, there's often a strong product idea or market potential, but not yet a stable cash flow. Traditional bank financing is usually not feasible then. Venture capital investors therefore often invest through a capital injection into the company itself and typically take a minority stake. Besides money, they often bring strategic guidance, network, and governance. For many tech companies, this is at least as important as the investment itself.

Private equity, on the other hand, typically looks at a different category of companies. These are more often mature businesses where a fund aims to acquire a majority stake or even the entire share capital. The goal is not just financing, but active value creation: operational improvements, a sharper strategy, adjustment of governance, financial structuring, and sometimes a buy-and-build approach. Unlike venture capital, it often doesn't involve new capital flowing directly into the company, but rather an acquisition of existing shares, often financed with a combination of equity and debt.

This difference permeates everything. A venture capital investor seeks protection as a minority shareholder in a company that still faces much uncertainty. A private equity firm, conversely, operates from a position of control and builds a structure aimed at maximizing value upon a later sale. For founders and scale-ups, this means one thing: not only the valuation matters, but especially the type of investor and the logic behind their rights.

The capital structure determines who is protected and who is rewarded

In practice, capital structure is rarely just about the number of shares. It's about how the interests of the investor, founders, and management are aligned. That's often where the core of the negotiation lies.

In venture capital, the company often starts with common shares held by founders, sometimes supplemented with employee participation. As soon as external capital is needed, that picture changes. New investors often receive preferred shares with specific rights. This can involve additional voting rights, but especially economic protection in a downside scenario or upon an exit. Because such companies typically do not yet pay dividends and their returns primarily lie in the future, the structure is strongly focused on downside protection and upside potential. Funding is also often provided in tranches. This means that additional tranches only become available once pre-agreed milestones have been met. For startups, this is an important point: a high headline investment means little if part of the money only becomes available later and under certain conditions.

The time horizon also plays a role. Venture capital funds themselves have a limited lifespan and therefore invest in multiple portfolio companies simultaneously. Their participation in a startup or scale-up is thus almost always temporary. This explains why governance, follow-on funding, and exit considerations are so heavily weighted in the documentation from an early stage.

In private equity, the capital structure often looks fundamentally different. It regularly involves a layered group structure, an acquisition vehicle, and leverage. In a leveraged buy-out, a significant portion of the acquisition is financed with debt, with the assets and cash flow of the acquired company playing a significant role. Within the share capital, you often see a combination of common shares, preferred shares, and shareholder loans. Management participation is also usually tightly structured, for example, through a management strip, sweet equity, or other incentive structures. The idea behind this is clear: management should participate in value creation, but only after other financing layers have been satisfied first. Legally and economically, this is something entirely different from the classic founder's share in a venture-backed startup.

For tech entrepreneurs, this is an important insight. An investor who says they want to "align" with management doesn't always mean the same thing by that. Sometimes it means shared upside potential; sometimes it primarily means that management only benefits late in the waterfall. Those who only look at the share percentage often miss the real story.

Dilution is not a detail, but a question of power

As soon as multiple funding rounds come into play, dilution inevitably becomes a primary legal topic. This is not just about economic interest, but also about control, veto rights, and who remains at the table when the company goes through a difficult phase.

Issuance of shares and pre-emptive rights

For a private limited company (BV), the authority to issue shares is fundamentally a corporate law matter. In practice, what matters most is who can make the decision and with what majority. For minority investors, this is crucial, as an issuance can directly impair their position if they cannot or are not allowed to participate. The statutory pre-emptive right offers a first layer of protection: shareholders generally have a right to participate proportionally in a new issuance. At the same time, this right is not absolute. Exceptions apply, for example, for issuance to employees, and the articles of association or resolutions of the general meeting can limit or exclude the pre-emptive right.

Precisely for this reason, this is often a heavily negotiated point in investment rounds. Not only the question of whether a pre-emptive right exists, but especially who can override it. In venture capital transactions with multiple share classes, a tiered pre-emptive rights structure can also arise, where a higher class of preferred shares gets to subscribe first, and other shareholders only get their turn afterwards. For founders and legal teams, this is relevant because the impact on future rounds can be significant. What appears on paper to be a technical issuance provision can, in practice, determine who maintains their position and who loses ground.

Necessity funding: when not everyone can or wants to participate

As soon as runway is under pressure, the discussion shifts. Then it's no longer just about protection against dilution, but about whether the company can be financed at all. In such situations, agreements on necessity funding are often made. The idea behind this is that a share issuance must remain possible, even if not all shareholders cooperate. This allows a single financial investor to be the sole participant in a round needed to keep the company afloat.

This is impactful, precisely because such a structure can override the ordinary pre-emptive right. To somewhat balance that, a catch-up mechanism is often used. Non-participating shareholders then get the opportunity to join in during a certain period and effectively still participate. For startups and scale-ups, this is a recognizable dynamic: in a bridge round or crisis situation, speed and fairness must constantly be weighed against each other.

Anti-dilution provisions: particularly relevant in a down round

Anti-dilution protection goes a step further. In this case, the investor doesn't necessarily have to inject additional capital to be protected against dilution. This protection is especially relevant in a down round, meaning when new shares are issued at a lower price than in a previous round.

The most investor-friendly variant is the full ratchet. Here, the lower price from the new round is fully applied to the earlier investment, regardless of the size of the down round. This can have a harsh impact on founders and common shareholders, especially when the company needs only limited new capital while its valuation has significantly decreased. In such cases, the adjustment can feel disproportionate.

That's why weighted-average protection is often used in the Netherlands. This method considers not only the lower price but also the size of the round. Within this system, the narrow-based variant is more favorable for the investor than the broad-based variant, because the calculation basis is smaller, leading to a stronger adjustment. For founders, this might sound like spreadsheet work, but the effect is very concrete: it determines how many additional shares an investor receives and, consequently, how much of the downside pain falls on existing shareholders.

Another point often underestimated in practice is that anti-dilution clauses from different rounds can interact. Especially if multiple series of preferred shares exist, a new round can have unexpected consequences for older protection layers. In such cases, it helps to let old protection lapse or to precisely define how the interplay works. Exceptions are also essential. Issuances under an employee stock option plan, conversions, or an IPO are often excluded from anti-dilution protection. And with a pay-to-play provision, protection can even be made conditional on actually participating in the financing of the down round. This prevents free riding but simultaneously increases pressure on existing investors.

Exit provisions ultimately determine where the proceeds go

For both venture capital and private equity, the true return often only becomes apparent upon an exit. Dividends typically play no role or only a limited one in these structures. Therefore, exit provisions are not a concluding chapter for later, but rather core stipulations from the outset.

The most well-known economic exit provision is the liquidation preference. With this, shareholders agree that in the event of a liquidation or exit, preferred shareholders receive a certain amount first before common shareholders are paid. This deviates from a simple pro-rata distribution. For investors, this is important protection: they bear early risk and want to prevent a mediocre exit from disproportionately impacting their capital. For founders and employees, the consequence is clear. A good sale price on paper does not automatically mean that the proceeds will be distributed proportionally among all shareholders.

With multiple classes of preferred shares, the discussion becomes even more precise. It must then be determined whether a later series has priority over an earlier series, or if different series share pari passu. In private equity, the waterfall is often even more strictly defined. There, exit proceeds are first used to repay debt and cover costs, then for shareholder loans and preferred instruments, and only after that for common shares. For management participating in the structure, this means that the actual upside often only materializes after earlier layers have been fully satisfied.

The moment a preference is triggered is also important. A formal liquidation is different from a contractually defined deemed liquidation event. Documentation often designates mergers, acquisitions, sales of substantial assets, changes of control, or restructurings as events where the preference must be applied. This distinction is particularly important for scale-ups considering a strategic sale or restructuring. The economic effect of an exit does not automatically follow from the deal value, but from which event is contractually affected and how the distribution order is structured.

Furthermore, exit provisions extend beyond just the distribution of proceeds. In practice, tag-along rights, drag-along rights, transfer restrictions, and conversion rules for preferred shares also play a role in determining whether an exit is legally feasible and economically predictable. For startups and scale-ups, the lesson is simple: you don't read an exit clause only when a buyer emerges, but already at the moment you raise the investment.

What does this mean specifically for startups and scale-ups?

At Startup-Recht, we regularly observe that companies primarily negotiate valuation, ticket size, and board seats, while the real shift often lies in the underlying structure. This is understandable but risky. Especially in venture capital and private equity, the economic reality is hidden in preferences, thresholds, majorities, adjustment mechanisms, and exit waterfalls.

For founders, this means you should have at least five questions clear for every round. Which shares are being issued and with what rights? Who can push through an issuance or exclusion of pre-emptive rights? What happens if the next round occurs at a lower valuation? Which issuances fall outside anti-dilution protection, for example, under an employee plan? And how will exit proceeds actually be distributed if the company is sold?

For scale-ups, there's an additional factor. As the cap table becomes more crowded with multiple investors, employees, and management layers, the risk of friction between old and new rights increases. What was manageable in the seed phase can evolve into a complex matrix of preferences and exceptions in a Series A or B. In such cases, simply aiming to be "market-standard" isn't enough. You primarily need to understand what the market formula leads to in your specific cap table.

Conclusion

Venture capital and private equity both bring capital, but they also bring their own legal logic. This logic is reflected in the capital structure, in anti-dilution protection, and in how an exit is ultimately paid out. For startups and scale-ups, this is not a legal detail, but a direct predictor of control, negotiation leverage, and economic outcome.

‍