Promising equity to early-stage startup contributors is one of the most powerful tools in a founder’s toolkit. Cash-strapped and selling a vision more than a finished product, founders routinely offer equity in lieu of market-rate cash compensation. The pitch is simple and compelling: “help me build this now and you will share in the larger success down the road.” But a specific and often-overlooked exception to the Statute of Frauds — codified in UCC Section 8-113 — means that casual equity discussions can create binding legal obligations before a single document is signed.
Most founders intuitively rely on the Statute of Frauds as a safeguard: contracts for significant value (over $500) or lasting longer than one year must be in writing to be enforceable. Because startup equity agreements are almost always high-value and typically include vesting schedules extending well beyond one year, founders often assume that a verbal promise or unsigned term sheet carries no legal weight. Not so fast…
UCC Section 8-113 fundamentally changed New York securities law when it became effective on July 1, 2001, and it is a critical warning for any founder discussing equity compensation. The statute provides that “a contract or modification of a contract for the sale or purchase of a security is enforceable whether or not there is a writing signed or record authenticated by a party against whom enforcement is sought, even if the contract or modification is not capable of performance within one year of its making.” This provision reversed the former UCC Section 8-319, which required written agreements for securities transactions. In plain terms: an oral agreement or promise to issue or transfer startup equity can be fully enforceable in New York — even without a signed document.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the policy underlying this change, noting that “oral contracts for the sale of securities are sufficiently common that the Uniform Commercial Code and statutes of frauds in every State now consider them enforceable.”[1]
For founders, UCC 8-113 presents a material risk in early-stage equity discussions — even where no binding agreement is intended. Casual statements like “we’ll give you equity” or “you will be part of the founding team,” made to a co-founder, early employee, advisor, or contractor, can become enforceable agreements without any formal documentation or equity issuance. New York courts have further held that payment by way of services to the company may constitute sufficient part performance to uphold oral securities agreements.[2]
Years later, those statements can form the basis of a claim that surfaces at the worst possible moment — right before a venture financing, acquisition, or merger. Unresolved cap table uncertainty at that stage can trigger a cascade of serious consequences:
- Delays or obstruction of the financing, sale, or acquisition while the dispute is investigated
- Heightened due diligence scrutiny from investors or acquirers
- Downward pressure on company valuation
- Disputes among existing shareholders over dilution or cap table accuracy
- Post-closing indemnification claims and significantly increased legal costs
The takeaway for founders is straightforward. Avoid informal or ambiguous language about equity compensation, and explicitly condition all equity discussions on a final, written agreement. Retain qualified corporate counsel to document equity arrangements promptly, define terms, vesting schedules, and conditions clearly, maintain an accurate cap table, and ensure all issuances are properly authorized and documented. If UCC 8-113 exposure already exists, consult corporate counsel before any financing or exit event to assess and mitigate the risk.
About Us:
For over 50 years, Newman & Lickstein, LLP has served as trusted business attorneys in Syracuse and Central New York advising clients on:
- Business and Corporate Law
- Commercial Real Estate Transactions
- Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A)
- Venture Capital and Startup Law; and
- Complex commercial litigation
We partner with our clients to innovate, grow, and protect what matters most for their businesses, families, and communities. The firm represents a diverse client base of technology startup and growth-stage companies, real estate developers, content creators, professional and college athletes, and family businesses. The firm advises clients throughout the full business lifecycle, from formation and funding to expansion and exit transactions.
We solve complex business and corporate transactions, real estate matters, and litigation disputes. Our attorneys draw upon their expertise in business, technology, and intellectual property law to advise early- and growth-stage technology businesses, many of the world’s most popular streaming talent and content creators, management firms, gaming brands, and a range of other technology-focused industries through all phases of their businesses’ lifecycle, including venture capital transactions and mergers and acquisitions.
[1] Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Intern. Holdings, Inc., 532 U.S. 588 (2001).
[2] Palmerton v. Envirogas, Inc., 80 A.D.2d 996, 997, 437 N.Y.S.2d 483, 485 (1981).
