top of page



Time spent on this attempt: 0H 0M 53S


Email to Candidate

From: Senior Partner

Sent: 25 April 2024

To: Candidate

Subject: Consultation Request for GreenTech Innovations Ltd

Dear Candidate,

I recently had the pleasure of meeting with Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson, who are in the process of launching GreenTech Innovations Ltd, a company focusing on sustainable technology solutions for the agricultural sector. They have developed a revolutionary irrigation system that conserves water while enhancing crop yield. Sarah and Mark have collaborated on various projects in the past and plan to spearhead this venture together.

Initial Meeting and Investment Details

Sarah and Mark have invested a significant amount of their savings into developing the prototype. To bring their product to market, they require additional capital. They have managed to attract interest from an investment group led by Elizabeth Clarke, a renowned angel investor, and Raj Patel, an entrepreneur with a background in agricultural technology startups.

During an initial investment meeting, Elizabeth and Raj agreed to invest a total of £120,000 in the venture. Sarah and Mark have already contributed £30,000, and the investors have proposed contributing the remaining £90,000. It was decided that the company would be incorporated as GreenTech Innovations Ltd, with Sarah serving as the CEO and Mark as the CTO.

Following the meeting, Elizabeth and Raj forwarded a document outlining their investment terms and expectations (Attachment 1), along with a proposed company structure (Attachment 2).

Background and Expectations

Elizabeth and Raj have emphasized the high-risk nature of their investment and expect a swift return. However, they are open to negotiation on the terms. Sarah and Mark are keen on moving forward but wish to ensure they remain in control of the company's direction. They prefer to reinvest profits into the company's growth and maintain decision-making autonomy.

Given the above, Sarah and Mark seek advice on the proposed investment structure and how they might negotiate more favourable terms while considering what might be acceptable to Elizabeth and Raj.

Your Task

Please prepare an analysis and advice for Sarah and Mark, addressing the following:

  1. Based on the proposed structure, can Sarah and Mark be ousted from their positions by Elizabeth and Raj? Recommend changes to strengthen their roles within the company.

  2. Suggest alternative structuring options for the investment that might be more advantageous for Sarah and Mark while remaining appealing to Elizabeth and Raj. Discuss the pros and cons of these alternatives from both parties' perspectives.

Note to Candidates:

  • Assume Sarah and Mark's interests align and will not diverge in the future.

  • Focus on preliminary advice only; detailed incorporation or tax advice is not required at this stage.

  • Ensure your advice includes relevant legal principles, tailored to individuals with limited company management experience.

I look forward to your analysis and recommendations.

Warm regards,

Senior Partner


ATTACHMENT 1: Elizabeth and Raj's Investment Terms and Expectations

To: Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson
From: Elizabeth Clarke and Raj Patel
Date: 23 April 2024
Subject: Investment Proposal for GreenTech Innovations Ltd

Dear Sarah and Mark,

Following our fruitful discussions about your innovative irrigation system, we are excited about the potential impact your technology can have on sustainable agriculture. We believe that GreenTech Innovations Ltd has the capability to drive significant advancements in water conservation techniques.

To formalize our interest, we propose the following investment terms:

1. Investment Amount: We are prepared to invest a total of £90,000 into GreenTech Innovations Ltd.

2. Share Allocation: In exchange for our investment, we would like a combined ownership of 60% in the company, allocated as follows:

  • Elizabeth Clarke: 35%

  • Raj Patel: 25%

3. Roles and Responsibilities: While we do not seek active roles in the day-to-day operations, we would like the option to appoint one board member to ensure our investment is being utilized effectively towards achieving the company's goals.

4. Return on Investment: Given the early stage and high-risk nature of this venture, we expect a structured return on our investment, prioritized over other distributions.

5. Future Funding: We are open to providing further funding, contingent upon reaching specific milestones that demonstrate the company's growth and sustainability.

We understand that these terms may necessitate further discussion and are open to negotiating to find a mutually beneficial agreement. Please review these terms and let us know if you have any proposals or concerns.

Warm regards,

Elizabeth Clarke
Raj Patel


ATTACHMENT 2: Proposed Company Structure and Share Allocation

Company Name: GreenTech Innovations Ltd

Proposed Directors:

  • CEO: Sarah Jennings

  • CTO: Mark Thompson

Company Secretary: To be appointed

Registered Office: [Address], [City], [Postcode]

Shareholders and Share Allocation:

  • Elizabeth Clarke: 35% ownership through £1 ordinary shares

  • Raj Patel: 25% ownership through £1 ordinary shares

  • Sarah Jennings: 20% ownership through £1 ordinary shares

  • Mark Thompson: 20% ownership through £1 ordinary shares

Articles of Association: To adopt the Model Articles for private companies limited by shares, with amendments to reflect the investment terms as proposed by Elizabeth Clarke and Raj Patel.

Shareholders’ Agreement: To be drafted to include clauses on:

  • The appointment rights of Elizabeth and Raj to the company's board

  • Preferential return on investment for Elizabeth and Raj

  • Provisions for future funding rounds

  • Decision-making processes and veto rights on specific major decisions

Directors’ Service Contracts: Terms including remuneration, roles, and responsibilities for Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson to be agreed upon following the finalization of investment terms.


31 March 2024

To address the consultation request for GreenTech Innovations Ltd regarding the proposed investment structure and negotiations, a comprehensive analysis is necessary. This analysis focuses on ensuring Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson maintain control over the company while making the investment appealing to Elizabeth Clarke and Raj Patel.

1. Potential for Sarah and Mark to Be Ousted and Recommendations

Given the information, the possibility of Sarah and Mark being ousted depends on the specifics of the investment terms and the company's articles of association. Typically, investors may seek certain rights, including board representation or specific voting rights, which could potentially influence management decisions and strategic direction.

Recommendations to Strengthen Roles:

  • Voting Rights: Ensure Sarah and Mark retain majority voting rights, possibly through a class of shares with enhanced voting power. This arrangement allows them to maintain control over significant decisions.
  • Board Composition: Structure the board to include Sarah and Mark with permanent seats, alongside investor representation. This can balance influence and ensure founders' participation in decision-making.
  • Protective Provisions: Include protective provisions requiring unanimous consent for certain actions, such as altering the company's business direction, changing the articles of association, or removing directors, to safeguard their positions.

2. Alternative Structuring Options

Alternative investment structures can align interests and offer protections to both parties.

A. Convertible Notes:

  • Description: Debt that converts into equity at a future financing round, typically at a discounted rate.
  • Pros for Founders: Retain control initially; delay equity valuation, potentially favorable in later stages with higher company valuation.
  • Pros for Investors: Opportunity for early investment at a lower price; provides downside protection as debt if the company doesn't succeed.
  • Cons: Interest obligations; dilution of ownership upon conversion.


Great effort in analyzing the proposed investment structure and negotiations for GreenTech Innovations Ltd. Your analysis delves into the potential risks faced by Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson regarding their positions within the company. You correctly identified the importance of safeguarding their roles while ensuring the investment remains attractive to Elizabeth Clarke and Raj Patel.

Areas for improvement:
1. Clarity and Structure: Ensure a clear and structured presentation of your analysis, similar to the reference answer. Organize your points logically under headings for better readability and coherence.

2. Legal References: Incorporate legal provisions and case law to support your recommendations. For instance, referencing the Companies Act 2006 regarding director removal and the importance of shareholders' agreements for protecting directors' roles would enhance the legal basis of your analysis.

3. Expansion of Recommendations: While your recommendations are sound, consider expanding on potential negotiation strategies and protective measures for Sarah and Mark. Providing detailed suggestions, such as specific clauses for shareholders' agreements, can strengthen your analysis.

4. Consistency in Formatting: Maintain consistency in formatting and style throughout your analysis to enhance professionalism and readability.

Keep up the good work and continue to deepen your understanding of legal principles and their practical applications in corporate scenarios. Well done!



Sample Answer: GreenTech Innovations Ltd Investment and Structure Analysis

To: Senior Partner
From: Candidate
Date: 30 April 2024
Subject: Legal Analysis and Advice for GreenTech Innovations Ltd

Dear Senior Partner,

Following a thorough review of the proposed investment and structure for GreenTech Innovations Ltd as outlined by Elizabeth Clarke and Raj Patel, I have identified several key considerations and potential negotiation strategies for Sarah Jennings and Mark Thompson. My analysis aims to ensure their interests are safeguarded while also accommodating the investors' expectations.

1. Possibility of Director Removal by Investors:

Under the current proposed structure, Elizabeth and Raj collectively hold a 60% majority shareholding in the company. This significant stake could potentially allow them to exert considerable influence over the company, including the removal of directors. According to the Companies Act 2006, directors can be removed by a simple majority (over 50%) of shareholder votes at a general meeting. Given Elizabeth and Raj's combined shareholding, they would possess the necessary votes to remove Sarah and Mark as directors if they so chose.

Recommendations to Strengthen Director Positions:

  • Shareholders' Agreement: A key recommendation is to negotiate a shareholders' agreement that includes provisions to protect the roles of Sarah and Mark as directors. This could include clauses that require a higher threshold (e.g., 75%) for the removal of directors, thus ensuring that Elizabeth and Raj alone cannot remove them.

  • Director Service Contracts: Implementing fixed-term service contracts with clear terms for early termination can offer additional protection. Such contracts should include compensation clauses for unjustified early termination, providing a financial deterrent against removal.

2. Alternative Investment Structures:

Considering Sarah and Mark's desire to retain control over the company's direction while accommodating the investors' needs, several alternative structures could be proposed:

  • Convertible Loans: Instead of immediately obtaining equity, Elizabeth and Raj could provide funding through convertible loans. These loans would convert into equity at a later stage, possibly after achieving certain milestones or during a future funding round. This structure allows Sarah and Mark to maintain greater control initially while still offering a clear path for Elizabeth and Raj to benefit from the company's success.

  • Phased Investment: Another approach could involve phased investment, with Elizabeth and Raj contributing their investment in stages based on the achievement of specific milestones. This method aligns investor contributions with company progress and can be structured to gradually increase their shareholding, subject to mutual agreement.

Pros and Cons:

  • Convertible Loans: This option provides flexibility and immediate financial support without diluting control. However, it may involve higher costs in the long term due to interest or more favourable conversion terms for investors.

  • Phased Investment: Aligns interests by linking investment to performance, encouraging both parties to focus on growth. It may require more frequent negotiations and agreements as milestones are reached, potentially slowing down decision-making processes.

In conclusion, while Elizabeth and Raj's investment is crucial for GreenTech Innovations Ltd, it is important to structure this investment in a way that aligns with the long-term interests and vision of all parties involved. By considering alternative structures and protective measures for Sarah and Mark's roles, it is possible to foster a mutually beneficial relationship that supports the company's growth and innovation goals.

Warm regards,


bottom of page