Two former cofounders with a combined 1% of equity should not have any effect on the future of the company. Even if it did have some minor impact, those shareholders earned and deserve their shares. Companies regularly give shares to advisors, board members, employees, friends, landlords, etc...
I could be off a bit, but I don't think "extra" shareholders become an issue unless their stake is large (>5%) or there are a large number. Regardless, two minor former cofounders hardly seems a significant burden, and eliminating their stake for minor convenience is suspect.
If this was the justification used by the continuing founders, they were either ignorant or taking advantage of their former partners' ignorance.
> I wouldn't be suprised if the current CEO were to pay them on the backend regardless of his dance.
I wouldn't count on it. This is not generally human nature, nor is it compatible with the behavior reflected in this article.
I could be off a bit, but I don't think "extra" shareholders become an issue unless their stake is large (>5%) or there are a large number. Regardless, two minor former cofounders hardly seems a significant burden, and eliminating their stake for minor convenience is suspect.
If this was the justification used by the continuing founders, they were either ignorant or taking advantage of their former partners' ignorance.
> I wouldn't be suprised if the current CEO were to pay them on the backend regardless of his dance.
I wouldn't count on it. This is not generally human nature, nor is it compatible with the behavior reflected in this article.