The problem vesting solves

Three founders incorporate. Each gets one-third of the shares on day one. Six months later, one founder walks. The remaining two are left running the business with a one-third shareholder who contributes nothing further. Without vesting, the early-departing founder retains the full stake.

What founder vesting actually is

A vesting agreement is a contractual arrangement (typically in the shareholders' agreement, founder agreement, or a separate restricted-share agreement) under which a founder's shares are subject to forfeiture or buy-back if certain conditions are not met. The most common metric is continued service to the company over a defined period.

The market-standard structure

  • Four-year vesting with a one-year cliff.Nothing vests in the first 12 months; if the founder leaves in that period, all "unvested" shares are forfeited. After 12 months, 25% vests in a lump sum; the remaining 75% vests monthly over the next 36 months.
  • Good leaver / bad leaver distinctions. A founder who is terminated without cause, becomes incapacitated, or dies may receive accelerated vesting or fair-value treatment. A founder who resigns voluntarily or is terminated for cause typically forfeits unvested shares at par.
  • Acceleration triggers. Single-trigger acceleration vests all remaining shares on a change of control. Double-trigger requires both a change of control and a subsequent termination, the more common compromise.

Implementation in Malaysia

Malaysian law does not regulate vesting directly. The mechanics are usually implemented contractually through one or more of:

  • A buy-back option in the SHA at a defined price (par for bad leavers; fair value for good leavers);
  • A separate restricted-share agreement with conditional transfer-back triggers; or
  • A trust or holding structure where shares are issued to a vesting trustee and released as conditions are met.

Buy-back mechanics interact with the share buy-back regime under section 127 of the Companies Act 2016 and the solvency requirement in section 117, as well as the financial assistance rules in section 123. The drafting should be tested against the company's actual financial position so the buy-back can lawfully be carried out when the trigger arises.

Why founders resist, and why they should not

A founder who refuses to vest is signalling that they want the equity regardless of whether they stay to do the work. That is a red flag to co-founders and to future investors, who will require vesting at the first priced round anyway and often demand retroactive application. Negotiating vesting at incorporation, between aligned co-founders, is always cheaper than negotiating it under investor pressure two years later.

If your founder agreement does not yet include a vesting schedule, or your existing terms have not been pressure-tested against the Companies Act 2016 buy-back rules, please contact us before the next round closes.

归属安排所要解决的问题

三位创办人成立公司，第一天各持三分之一股权。六个月后，其中一位离开。剩下两位继续经营业务，却得与一位不再出力的三分之一股东共处。若没有归属安排，提前离场的创办人将保有其全部股份。

什么是「创办人股权归属」

归属安排是一份合同安排（通常写入股东协议、创办人协议，或独立的受限股份协议），约定创办人之股份在不满足特定条件时可被回购或没收。最常见的衡量标准，是创办人在约定期间内对公司之持续服务。

市场标准结构

  • 四年归属，附一年悬崖期。首 12 个月内不发生任何归属；若创办人在此期间离开，全部「未归属」股份被没收。满 12 个月时，25% 一次性归属；其余 75% 在其后的 36 个月按月归属。
  • 「好离场」与「坏离场」区分。非因过错被终止、丧失行为能力或身故之创办人，可获加速归属或按公允价值处理；自愿辞任或因过错被终止之创办人，通常按面值放弃未归属部分。
  • 加速触发条件。「单触发」在控制权变更时全额归属；「双触发」则须同时满足控制权变更及随后终止，后者是较常见的折衷。

在马来西亚的落地方式

马来西亚法律并未直接规范归属安排，其机制通常通过下列一种或多种合同安排实现：

  • 股东协议中按约定价格的回购选项（「坏离场」按面值；「好离场」按公允价值）；
  • 独立的受限股份协议，附带条件性回转触发；或
  • 信托或持股结构，股份发行至归属受托人，按条件释出。

回购机制与《2016 年公司法令》第 127 条之股份回购制度、第 117 条之偿付能力要求，以及第 123 条之财务协助规则存在交互。起草时应结合公司之实际财务状况进行检验，以确保回购触发条件成就时可依法执行。

为何创办人会抗拒，以及为何不应该抗拒

拒绝接受归属安排的创办人，实际上是在表明：无论是否留下来做事，他都想要那份股权。这对其余共同创办人与未来投资人而言都是警讯，投资人在首轮定价时几乎必然要求归属，且往往要求溯及既往。在成立时与立场一致之共同创办人协商归属安排，永远比两年后在投资人压力下协商便宜得多。

若您的创办人协议尚未设置归属安排，或现行条款未对照《2016 年公司法令》之股份回购规定进行压力测试，请在下一轮融资完成之前与本所联系。