> so even if they nominally represent the founder they’re not going to do anything that would jeopardize their prospects for future business with the private equity firm.
Ouch! Seems like there should be some 'unionised' legal representation for founders. Seems like representation for founder and VC to be a conflict in interests.
This seems to be much heavily emphasised on capital vs talent.
Ouch! Seems like there should be some 'unionised' legal representation for founders. Seems like representation for founder and VC to be a conflict in interests.
This seems to be much heavily emphasised on capital vs talent.