

Help from HN: Investor wants to sue me - throwaway4me

Hi all,<p>Throwaway here. I'm 21, I raised investment from an angel when I was 18 (or 19) - &#60;£100k, but a decent chunk of money. I raised this money in the days before I knew how stuff worked, and before I'd "learned my lessons" like, outsourcing your software dev rarely ends well. Hindsight is a fabulous thing.<p>Fast forward to now, we're 2 years into the investment, the money ran out 6 months ago, I stopped getting paid 12 months ago and we've been trying to make it work/recover ever since. I've even put all of the money I had into this (keeping the servers on etc).<p>Now I've been offered a job, it literally fell into my lap with a group of guys I used to work for - good salary, back in the city doing what I used to. Its brought us to a bit of a cross-roads because obviously I won't have the time to put into this to make it work.<p>(I have to accept the job due to financial commitments)<p>We've put a lot of blood sweat and tears into this.<p>I should preface this with, our investor isn't technical, and he's a bit direct - he believes what he believes and thats it.<p>Ultimately, he wants to sue us based on 2 things:<p>1) in the contract, he would give us the second batch of money when we told him the tech worked. This provision was there because they were worried we couldn't actually make the tech.<p>When our developers finished the code, we checked it and signed it off. The tech was then delivered to us.<p>We sat down post-second batch and said "hey, if we want this to fly off the shelves we have a few things we might want to add/change". The changes we made improved on what we had, and also allowed us to go after new markets. We discussed this with him and he agreed - he even wanted to send me abroad to where our developers were based.<p>He's now saying that we're in breach of contract because it should have been working when we said it was. Even though, well, it was and he agreed we should make the changes. As you software guys know you can add a couple of things and improve something massively. Its not as though its ever really "finished".<p>I even demo'd the software to him at his house. He saw it work.<p>I have a letter from the developers saying the software works.<p>2) in the email with the scanned letter confirming "the tech was working" our FD said "we're real excited we can get out and sell, and talk to the patent guys". We spoke to the patent guys who said we didn't really have anything patentable, we just had business methods and algorithms (and we're based in the UK) - he advised us to use the money to develop the product and work on competitive advantages.<p>This point came out of nowhere, two or three months after I think I managed to convince him his opinion about the tech above - was wrong. He said we'd promised to patent it, even though we just said we were going to look into it. He refuses to accept that we were advised otherwise.<p>----<p>I guess having written this I don't really know what I expect anyone to say. I guess if someone can answer the question "does he have any grounds to sue me/us?"<p>The thing is - none of the information he has, or has spoken to his lawyers about has come direct from the software developers, or from the patent attorney. He has formed an opinion literally from discussions we've had, he's interpreted some things completely wrong. I'm not talking about things that perhaps he could see differently, but in a way a non-techy would look at a software project. He doesn't appreciate that its not like solid goods, they have bugs, things might need to be changed when you get some customers testing it.<p>He's really difficult, his response to "the developers have written a letter saying the software worked when we signed the agreement and the patent attorney told us not to patent it" is just to repeat his earlier point.<p>He's literally going to sue us just because he can. I may very well go bankrupt, which to be honest doesn't really bother me. Our FD might have to put his hand in his pocket. I say that knowing that he has to win first, and I actually don't think we've done anything wrong. There is just no telling him.<p>If anyone can lend any advice I'd be greatly appreciative, I just don't think this is going to end well.<p>Can he sue us? What should I do? What do you think? What would you do?<p>Major thanks in advance.
======
pg
Usually the protection against an investor suing a startup is that no startup
in the future would take his money. But of course that only works if the
investor wants to invest in more startups in the future. Does he?

Incidentally, this is one (of many) reasons it's better to take money from
experienced angels. They have a brand to preserve.

~~~
throwaway4me
Hi - thanks for replying, much appreciated. No, he invests in anything that
can make him money (property, clothing etc). He has maybe two or three tech
investments.

You're absolutely right about taking money from experienced angels, I'd add
always take money from somebody who understands the sector. Seems obvious, I
know.

~~~
pg
If he wants to invest in more startups, it may work to point out to him how
tightly connected the founder community is. He may simply not realize the cost
of maltreating you. But an investor suing a startup he invested in is so rare
that a story about it could not fail to attract the attention of every other
startup in his market.

------
armored
Sit down with your investor and work something out. If you just split you may
be dooming his investment. You need to offer him a path that could possibly
lead to him recouping his investment at some point in the future. Can you find
a replacement? Can you give up some equity? Since you are done, is there
anything you can do to make things easier?

~~~
hkarthik
Agree on this, but find a replacement (or firm) that will be willing to take
on the project and work with the investor to make sure it gets done.

~~~
armored
I sort of agree with everyone who says "talk to a lawyer", but once you start
communicating via lawyers it's more likely that everyone loses. When I say sit
down, I suggest meeting in some neutral territory in an off the record
context. If you are past this then you need to lawyer up.

~~~
alexqgb
Everything posted here suggests that these guys are WAY past the point of
amicable resolution. Given the (now total) destruction of goodwill trust
between the parties, there is no reasonable expectation of their salvaging a
working relationship. Accordingly, the only course of action is for both sides
to cut their losses and move on.

Unfortunately, the investor seems to have little interest in simply moving on.
Assuming that the OP is being accurate about his own limited finances, it's
fair to say that the investor has no hope of recovering even a fraction of his
~$150k. Accordingly, this is not a rational (if exceedingly hard-nosed)
attempt to recover money. Rather, it looks like an emotional, vindictive, and
exceedingly ill-advised attempt to destroy another human being, which is
pretty much the opposite of moving on.

This would remain true even if the OP had actively defrauded the investor,
who'd naturally feel that his attempt to inflict pain was entirely justified.
Indeed, in the event of outright fraud, the desire for serious retribution
would be normal - even healthy. But the fact remains that, faced with an
individual whose only discernible motive is inflicting maximum personal
damage, you have precisely zero room to negotiate, unless you considers a
discussion about which kneecap to sacrifice a 'negotiation'.

Assuming that the OP acted in good faith (which his own significant financial
contributions suggest he did), he still has some leverage in his ability keep
what appears to be egregious conduct on the part of the investor confidential.
Obviously, a trial would mean full public disclosure of the guy's true nature
- something which could have significant impact on his other investments. A
good lawyer would recognize this immediately, and use it to maximum effect
when responding. More importantly, a good lawyer would be able to make
credible threats a way that it consistent with the law, which is something
that the OP is almost certainly unable to safely do on his own.

One more thing the OP has in his favor is a clear appreciation that a loss
would be personally catastrophic, which makes him far more dangerous in a
fight. Indeed, the investor may have overplayed his hand by insisting on his
full pound of flesh. With bankruptcy a foregone conclusion, the investor's
irrational, go-for-the-jugular approach frees the OP to become VERY aggressive
in his own defense. This is something else that a good lawyer will recognize
as a valuable piece of leverage, and will use to maximum effect. As a wise
fortune cookie once said, "never chase a dog into a dead-end alley".

~~~
armored
I agree with what you are saying for the most part. The relationship seems
trashed. However, I don't think that the investor is at a disadvantage
legally, at least he wouldn't be in the US. Here the legal system is the
perfect tool for a rich individual/organization to bully and harass anyone
without a sizeable legal warchest. See: Scientology. So my advice is still to
try every diplomatic strategem you can. Don't just assume this investor is
just a total dick. There is some evidence to the contrary: he funded this
young guy in the first place. If it is all about emotion, then try to find a
psychological solution.

~~~
alexqgb
From what I understand, UK law recognizes this avenue for abuse, and responds
(in a way American law doesn't) by making a suit's loser automatically
responsible for their opponent's legal costs.

It's also worth noting that bullies (which is something the investor seems to
be in spades) are famously unresponsive to anything but genuine fear and
humiliation. It's a big part of what makes them such a scourge, since peaceful
people of good will are so naturally reluctant to respond in kind. All the
more reason to hire an experienced lawyer, since they're not only capable of
making credible and effective threats, but can safely do so within the narrow,
and highly technical constraints permitted by law.

If the OP is still interested in being diplomatic, he can honestly say that he
and his investor have found themselves at a legal impasse that their contract
did not clearly anticipate. For this reason, he's retained a lawyer to advise
him on what's likely to be the most mutually beneficial resolution, and will
be letting this individual handle the conversation from here.

------
arethuza
Honestly, talk to an experienced litigation lawyer, yes it might cost you some
money but it can potentially save an awful lot of grief.

Trying to handle things yourself and being "reasonable" probably won't work -
I know from a nasty experience when I was a start up founder and a customer
who I was very friendly with turned round one day and sued us over an IP issue
- probably the most stressful experience I've ever had.

NB If you are in Scotland I can probably recommend a suitable lawyer if you
want.

------
detokaal
You've made a mistake writing all of this and placing it in public. It can now
be used in court in any way his attorney sees fit. Don't talk to anyone or ask
for anyone's advice. Get a lawyer now and turn it the case over to him or her
ASAP.

------
abbasmehdi
He is suing you because you can't get a patent (2) and you wanted to fix some
bugs (1) which you did?

So why haven't you made him any money, which would make him want to be your
friend? Was there ever a plan to make money?

------
petervandijck
Talk to a laywer please.

