In this question, the original poster has a hidden question in:
Giving up an equity stake puts me at a disadvantage from a voting perspective (or does it?) Can you structure it as a non-voting equity stake? How much equity, if any, is fair? Should there be a vesting schedule? Buy-back option?
I'm looking for an answer to the "(or does it?)" question.
For example, if three partners have a 49-49-2% split and both of the 49% partners are always in disagreement, the partner with 2% runs the company (assuming votes actually matter). I'm not interested in a mathematical analysis on voting theory, but rather practical advice on whether equity really has any bearing on things "coming down to a vote."
Guy Kawasaki at about 23/24 minutes seems to say that contested voting never happens. Is this true (and therefore the answer to my question)?
Thank you very much for the answers. Rather than a technical argument as to how voting is legally carried out, I am more interested in how these disagreements get resolved "behind the scenes" in order to maintain the illusion of unanimity despite deep dissent.