After marriage, but well before divorce, you can make a prenup-like agreement, but such agreements are more suspicious and may not be brought to justice. Generally speaking, the main reason why the spouse signs the spouse`s consent to a share purchase agreement is to reduce the risk that a spouse (or, more likely, an ex-spouse) will try to assert an interest in the shares and intervene under the terms of their issuance, which can lead to difficulties for a company. Some Clerky products involving the issuance of shares may allow the spouse of the beneficiary of the shares to be included as a party in the document set. Generally, the spouse is associated for the purposes of the spouse`s licence portion of a share purchase agreement and the optional Form 83(b). It therefore seems that the ex-spouse receives 50% of the founder`s shares. What`s going on? Since the founder founded the company during the marriage and probably issued shares in itself at about the same time, the share is joint ownership and the founder`s spouse is entitled to it at 50%. The division of collective property in California does not need to be divided « into nature » – not every physical object needs to be shared. For example, one spouse could get the house and the other could get other assets of equal value to offset it. However, the shares should be distributed in the middle. It is feasible to do so, and since so many intangible assets participate in the valuation of a start-up, it will likely be much more difficult to evaluate the stock to offset it with other assets.
For example, avoid standing out from your community account or borrowing a second mortgage to buy commercial equipment. It is ultimately up to the company to decide whether or not a spouse should be admitted as a party. If a business does not include the spouse, the documents are simply prepared as if the beneficiary of the shares were not married. If a founder is paid below market for the work he does for the business, the ex-spouse could then argue that he or she is entitled to more business assets because the family income has been reduced to the benefit of the business or because the founder has received equity to replace a lower salary. . . .