Hi all, I am working on a potential small insider bridge round for a portco (capped SAFE) and there are three key existing investors in the mix for this. The other two investors want to chat amongst ourselves about valuation etc. before responding to the CEOs proposal, which I feel is collusion (whether immoral or illegal, doesn't matter). I think the better course of action is for each of us to independently come up with what we feel is appropriate for the round, share that directly with CEO, and then the negotiations can commence. Any thoughts much appreciated! (NOTE: I was an operator until very recently so maybe I have too many scars from being on the other side of the table)
In most cases, your suggested approach is the right one. There are some exceptions such as when the founders did something bad or unethical, but in general, your approach is sound.
With insider rounds, the CEO needs to drive this process. They should have an idea of the construction of the round and terms. Then, they should speak 1:1 with trusted investors like yourself for feedback on the round. Then, they can go to all other insiders with the proposal. Consider proactively reaching out to the CEO to help them navigate this.
With insider rounds, the CEO needs to drive this process. They should have an idea of the construction of the round and terms. Then, they should speak 1:1 with trusted investors like yourself for feedback on the round. Then, they can go to all other insiders with the proposal. Consider proactively reaching out to the CEO to help them navigate this.