Events do not show up in list of Pipelines for Hub Extension
I should be able to import a LinkedIn profile directly to an event. I cannot.
All Questions
1663We are joining Start Fund so now the system has changed the name of our fund to the exact legal name but this makes all of our emails which insert the fund name look stupid.
Need to have two separate substitution variables, one for the simple name (Reflect Ventures Core Disruption Fund 1) and one for the formal name (Reflect Ventures Core Disruption Fund 1, a Series of ...)
PRoblem with UK daylight savings time for events
Our event is on Oct 15 in London.
IF we choose London as our time zone then the Calendar event is the wrong time because it ignores Daylight Savings Time.
If we choose Germany (Berlin) as the time zone to get Calendar link correct then our time zone in the event page shows as Berlin time. @Woody Butler
[image.png]
Bug when entering a new prospect when his details already exist.
[Image]500 Internal Server ErrorSorry, we had a problem loading this page.
Please report this error with Get help and reference this error ID:
74a685e6-bb38-45c3-b148-fce50bb75893
Initiation capital for Venture Studio
Lets say its $10M venture studio fund. They have identified 2 problem spaces and have 5 founders building 3 start ups within it. Now the start ups need some funds for software, founder salary and permits.
How is that capital arranged?
LPA for Venture Studios
What additional provisions does an LPA need for a venture studio, especially for capital calls?
The ventures being built would require some initiation capital. How is that pooled in?
Exiting companies and how LPA governs it?
For companies like say Uber etc. what if the fund finds within like 3 years that staying invested in teh firm is more profitable than exiting the investment. With that in mind the period can exist for longer period like say 110-14 years where Uber stock was also divided and then grew etc. How do we manage such an investment, carry and then going forward fees for such an investment?
"Deal-by-Deal" or "Whole-of-Fund" in regards to biotech fund where exits can be much longer
The LPA lets the GP choose "Deal-by-Deal" or "Whole-of-Fund" carry distribution as alternative bracketed language. For a biotech fund where losers can surface late (after years of capital already deployed) and winners take even longer to exit (sometimes 10+ years), which structure better protects LPs from a GP getting paid carry early on one lucky deal before the rest of the portfolio's fate is known?
GP removal under Cornerstone needs a 66⅔% vote AND a final court adjudication of Material Breach — doesn't the court requirement make removal effectively unavailable, and do LPs negotiate it out?
Reading Sections 4.4 and 5.2 together: LPs holding a Requisite Majority can put the fund into Limited Operations Mode on an alleged Material Breach, which suspends the management fee. But actual removal of the GP requires that the breach be unresolved AND finally adjudicated by a court — or that all Key Individuals are incapacitated. Litigation to final judgment is slow and expensive, and the fund is frozen meanwhile. Is the court requirement intended as a deliberate protection against opportunistic removal, and in practice do sophisticated LPs push to replace it with a for-cause standard determined by the Advisory Committee, or a no-fault removal at a supermajority?
Has anyone actually enforced the Section 2.3 default remedy — selling a defaulting LP's interest at 50% of the lesser of contributions or Fair Value — and is it practical for a sub-$25M fund?
Section 2.3 gives the GP a strong set of remedies: 12% default interest, forfeiture of an unfunded interest, or a forced sale of a funded defaulter's interest at 50% of the lesser of contributions or Fair Value. On paper this is powerful. In practice, for a small fund with a concentrated LP base, I wonder whether it is ever used — you would need a buyer, and the relationship damage is obvious. Has anyone here actually invoked it, or is the real-world outcome usually a negotiated reduction of the commitment? I would also like to know how enforceable this is where the LP sits in a non-US jurisdiction.
The Cornerstone waterfall has no preferred return and no GP catch-up — is that deliberate, and how do LPs who expect an 8% hurdle react?
In both the American and European options in Article 3, LPs receive their Capital Contribution Value back and then the split goes straight to the Carried Interest Percentage. There is no preferred return step and no GP catch-up. Coming from a development finance and PE background where an 8% hurdle plus catch-up is standard, I want to understand whether this is a deliberate simplification for venture, and what happens when an institutional LP asks for a pref during negotiation. Do managers typically add one, or hold the line on the standard document?
Cornerstone LPA Section 4.7 says the GP values assets "at least annually" but the Decile Valuation Policy runs a quarterly Valuation Committee — should a GP amend 4.7 to reference the Valuation Policy?
Section 4.7 gives the GP the power to determine fair value "at least annually" and says those valuations are final, conclusive and binding on all LPs. The Decile Valuation Policy, by contrast, sets up a Valuation Committee that marks the book quarterly under ASC 820. For a first-time manager adopting both documents, is the annual language in 4.7 meant to be a floor that the policy sits on top of, or should the LPA be amended to point directly at the Valuation Policy? I am trying to understand which document controls if an auditor or an LP ever challenges a mark.
Trying to find my K-1
Trying to find my K-1 from Rebellion Ventures
Between Cornerstone's American (deal-by-deal) and European (whole-of-fund) distribution waterfall options, which is more common for a first-time $5M pre-seed fund, and why would an emerging manager pick one over the other?
The v3.0 change log added the European option in Section 3.2 alongside the existing American structure. For a small first fund with a concentrated LP base, does the choice mostly come down to LP preference/negotiating power, or are there structural reasons (e.g. GP clawback risk) that make one more common at this fund size?
Why does the Cornerstone LPA carve tax provisions into a separate exhibit instead of the main agreement body?
I was asked to read the LPA "excluding any tax exhibits." What kinds of provisions typically live in that tax exhibit (K-1 mechanics, ECI/UBTI blockers, tax distributions?), and why do fund formation lawyers keep them out of the core partnership terms?
Why did Cornerstone v3 move conflict-of-interest approval from the Advisory Committee to a Majority in Interest of LPs?
The change log says the SEC was concerned that Advisory Committees can themselves be conflicted. For an emerging fund with only one or two LPs on that committee, is a Majority-in-Interest LP vote actually more protective, or does it just shift diligence burden onto LPs who may have less bandwidth than a committee would?
What are warehoused investments and why would a manager list them as a Cornerstone Exception?
The sample exceptions language in the Cornerstone LPA refers to partners consenting to the purchase of interests in companies listed in a Schedule of Warehoused Investments. I understand these are companies acquired before the fund existed and then transferred in, but I would like to understand why a manager does this, how the transfer is priced, and what limited partners look for when reviewing it.
What are the consequences of choosing a ten-day Capital Call Notice Period rather than thirty?
The Cornerstone LPA offers ten, fifteen or thirty days for limited partners to deliver capital after a call notice. A shorter period presumably helps the manager move quickly on deals, but I imagine it creates friction with investors. What is standard, and what actually happens when an investor cannot fund within the window?
Does a first-time manager on a small fund need audited financial statements, or is a review sufficient?
The Cornerstone LPA allows financial statements to be certified by the general partner, reviewed by a certified public accountant, or fully audited. For a first fund of around ten million dollars, what do limited partners actually expect, and roughly what does each option cost annually?
For a pre-seed fund of about thirty-five companies, what Maximum Portfolio Investment Percentage is appropriate?
The Cornerstone LPA offers five, ten or twenty-five percent as the cap on how much of total commitments can go into any single company. For a ten million dollar pre-seed fund making around thirty-five investments with reserves for follow-ons, which is the sensible setting, and what goes wrong at each extreme?
What does setting the Successor Fund Threshold to zero actually mean in practice?
The options are fifty percent, seventy percent or zero. I can see it governs when a manager can begin raising the next fund, but I am not clear what choosing zero implies or why a manager would want that. What do limited partners generally expect here for a first fund?
What are the trade-offs of setting the Recycled Amount at zero versus twenty percent?
The Cornerstone LPA lets you set recycling at zero, ten or twenty percent. I understand the mechanic, that distributions can be reinvested rather than returned, but I do not have a feel for the practical consequences. What does a higher recycling percentage do to a fund's ability to deploy, and how do limited partners typically react to it in negotiation?
What promoted a need for v3.0 of Cornerstone LP agreement what are the key changes that it came after 2.0 and why?
Whenever the new rev comes out, the natural curiosity is around why new rev and what kind of escaped from previous versions.
Are there additional details that are useful to add to LPAs for funds with accelerator programs?
The Cornerstone LPA mentions an accelerator a few times, briefly. If a GP knows it will have an accelerator from the start, are there additional details it should include in the LPA besides the excerpts below?
Under SPV clause: "the Key Individuals may provide services to or for the benefit of [identify accelerator____________] that directly and indirectly invests in early-stage private technology companies, and directly or indirectly receive compensation in connection with such services, in each instance without liability or accounting to the Fund or any Limited Partner."
Accelerator clause: "Affiliates of General Partner operate an accelerator program that provides services to entrepreneurs and startups. The Fund may invest in certain of the accelerator’s participants. Affiliates and the persons operating such accelerator program may be receiving compensation in the form of equity or otherwise in such companies."
What are successful examples or provisions for impact fund LPAs, and what should be avoided?
The Cornerstone LPA includes elements where impact could be integrated (e.g., fund thesis, prohibited sectors, the optional Mensarius Oath). However, an impact fund might want to go beyond that. What do impact funds layer into standard LPAs? What has worked well, what has not worked well, and under what conditions?
VC Lab has an article on impact venture funds below, but it does not delve deeply into mechanics.
VC Lab's article on impact venture funds: https://govclab.com/2023/05/22/impact-venture-funds/
Examples in a 2023 article on "impact carry": https://impactvc.substack.com/p/lets-talk-about-impact-carry
Cornerstone LPA questions
After reading through the cornerstone LPA I am still a little confused on a couple things that I feel like this community can help clarify for me:
2. How does the LPA hold the GP to stick to the fund's thesis and not deviate from it? Is that possible or should the GP have some flexibility?
4. What should be left out of an LPA or is inappropriate to include in an LPA?
6. How do taxes work in a GP fund? Like what taxes are paid on interest earned by the General Partner before being distributed out to the LPs?
Loading more posts...