David Lee files lawsuit against former partner Ron Conway
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
It might be a tactical move where they still hope to settle out of court, but that's not what I would see as "threatening to sue".
That is only true in the sense that the court will now view it as "something" rather than "nothing". You are not being sued until a lawsuit is served, and the difference between having a lawsuit filed against you and having a lawsuit served against you is massive. A lawyer has a decent amount of liability for filing a lawsuit that turns out to be total bullshit, but that liability skyrockets once it is served, so if the public is trying to determine how seriously to take a suit, whether it is threatened/filed/served are three very different tiers.
If the liability skyrockets there should be a decent number of cases where the suing party has a change of heart and does not take it to the next tier of seriousness. If there isn't the difference is without distinction.
There is little incentive to use the filing as a seperate tactical step and then not try to serve or delay it (for the plaintiff). I'd say the filing is the start of the lawsuit for the plaintiff, the serving is the start for the defendant. Which makes the filing the overall start of the lawsuit.
It is definitely not a mere threat.
How is this possible? VCs are masters of terms and veteran VCs are grandmasters of terms.
What the tax code is trying to do here is to incentivize VCs and entrepreneurs to take risks. At the same time, you need anti-abuse to keep people from unfairly taking advantage of the incentives. This ends up being complicated.
Maybe something like a 10% corporate AMT would help. Your WSGR startup lawyer will strongly recommend against trying A Double Irish Dutch Sandwich. Apple can do this because they will hire an army of lawyers to keep the Feds busy. You can't but at the same time you have to compete with Apple and Google and .... A corporate AMT would help level that playing field.
Won't happen.
Can anyone clarify how this would be considered skimming? Here's a definition of a Fee Waiver from Mondaq.com:
A management fee waiver or conversion is a strategy whereby the general partner or management company of a private equity fund "waives" the management fee (often up to 2 percent of assets or committed capital per annum), which would typically be paid quarterly and treated as ordinary income for tax purposes, in exchange for an increased "carried interest," which often qualifies for long-term capital gain treatment. In many cases, the receipt of an additional carried interest pursuant to a fee waiver can be used to satisfy the general partner's capital contribution obligation. The key to the strategy is to change the management fee, which is unconditionally payable, into a payment that is conditioned upon future profitability of the fund. However, that does not necessarily mean that the fund has to have an overall net profit for the general partner or manager to earn the waived fee. In many variants of the strategy, the additional carried interest obtained as a result of the waiver results in a priority allocation of the fund's profits from certain investments and/or during certain fiscal periods, unlike the basic carried interest. In these cases, the general partner can realize some carried interest (and, effectively, some portion of the "waived" management fee) even if the fund has a net loss at the end of the overall investment lifecycle.
If the structure is upheld, a management fee waiver effectively allows the general partner to largely convert ordinary income (management fee), currently taxed at a maximum federal rate of 35 percent, into capital gain, currently taxed at 15 percent. There also may be a deferral benefit — delaying current taxation on the waived management fee income and pushing the tax to later years when the gains that produce the additional carried interest are realized. Limited partners who are individuals may also avoid limitations that might otherwise apply to management fee deductions. Finally, the waived amount is categorized as a "profits interest," which is not subject to employment taxes, whereas management fee income generally is.
For New York taxation purposes, there is no rate differential between ordinary income and capital gains, although there could be a deferral benefit. In addition, some non-resident general partners who waive their management fees take the position that no New York income or New York City unincorporated business tax is due on the additional carried interest.
Using contractual details to pay yourself in a way you then don't make clear to your partner easily meets a lay definition of skimming.
Maybe they should have described their firm to themselves as a knife fighting ring or something?
They don't seem to be related.
You are off-topic, but I downvoted your comment for being lazy. HN isn’t your mobile operating system’s virtual assistant.