As venture capital in India has matured, transaction structures have grown more complex yet certain, core investor rights remain standard across deals. Liquidation preference is one of them.

At its core, liquidation preference governs how proceeds are distributed among shareholders when a "liquidation event" occurs. In VC transactions, this term extends well beyond formal insolvency proceedings under the IBC. It typically covers mergers, restructurings, change-of-control transactions, sales of 50 percent or more of company assets, and transfers of majority voting securities - essentially, any event that fundamentally alters ownership or control.

The rationale is straightforward: these provisions establish a clear distribution waterfall, reducing ambiguity and aligning expectations between preference and equity shareholders from day one. They are ordinarily embedded in both the shareholders' agreement and the articles of association to give them binding, constitutional force within the company.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, preference shares carry a statutory right to priority repayment of capital upon winding-up, meaning preference shareholders rank ahead of equity shareholders by default. A similar priority framework is reflected in the IBC waterfall. That said, both these statutory positions can be modified through a company's articles of association, and neither extends automatically to the broader, contractually defined "liquidation events" typically found in VC shareholders' agreements.

This distinction matters. The statutory regime provides the baseline and is a key reason financial investors favour preference shares to begin with. But in practice, things get more layered. Investors holding equity shares arising from conversion of instruments like CCPS or CCDs often negotiate contractual liquidation preferences that rank above existing preference shareholders. Whether such arrangements where equity is contractually accorded superior rights over preference shares would be upheld in a formal statutory liquidation remains genuinely unsettled.

It sits at the fault line between contractual freedom and mandatory statutory provisions, and would ultimately turn on how the rights are structured in the investment documents and, if challenged, how courts choose to interpret them.

On the basis of seniority of receiving the liquidation preference can be divided into two categories:

(i) Pari-Passu: Under a pari-passu liquidation preference, all investors participate in the distribution waterfall on an equal footing, without any seniority among them, and receive their respective entitlements, whether a fixed multiple (e.g., 1×) or on a pro-rata basis, simultaneously.

(ii) Stacked preference: Stacked (seniority‑based) ranking arranges the investors in a hierarchy such that later‑round investors (for instance, Series B, C, or growth‑round funds) are placed ahead of earlier‑stage investors (such as Seed or Series A funds) in the liquidation waterfall.

In certain situations, the difference between stacked and pari-passu liquidation preference has minimal impact on founders. Where the liquidation proceeds only covers the total preference amount, preference shareholders are paid in full and founders receive nothing in either case. Similarly, when all investors hold 1× non-participating preferences and there is sufficient surplus, founders’ share remains largely unaffected. In such cases, the distinction mainly impacts how proceeds are distributed among investors rather than founders’ exit value.

Founders are adversely impacted where stacked liquidation preferences are combined with higher multiples (e.g., 2× or more), particularly when liquidation proceeds are modest relative to total invested capital. In such cases, senior investors absorb a disproportionate share of proceeds, often leaving little or no residual for founders. The impact is further exacerbated in participating liquidation preferences, where investors effectively “double-dip.”

Drag-along rights allow lead investors to compel all other shareholders to join a sale on identical terms ensuring a clean exit without holdouts blocking the deal. This right becomes particularly critical when founders are unable to deliver an exit within the agreed timeline, giving investors a mechanism to force one.

Once a drag-along sale closes, liquidation preference determines how the proceeds are split. Preference shareholders get paid out first per the agreed waterfall; equity shareholders receive whatever remains. In simple terms: drag-along controls who triggers the exit and when, while liquidation preference controls who benefits from it.

The two rights together can be a powerful and sometimes punishing combination. Where liquidation preference is structured aggressively, say with multiples above 1× or uncapped participation rights, founders and junior shareholders can see their returns significantly compressed, or wiped out entirely, in low- to mid-value exits.

Where liquidation preference is structured aggressively (for example, through multiples above 1× or uncapped participation), the combination with drag‑along can sharply compress, or even eliminate returns in low‑ to medium‑value exits of the shareholders not having seniority rights in the liquidation waterfall. Founders therefore often seek to moderate the preference (such as by opting for 1× non‑participating or capped‑participation structures).

1. Definition of liquidation events: From the company's perspective, the definition of "liquidation event" needs to be watched closely. A broadly drafted definition can trigger liquidation preference in situations that were never intended to be exit events and that's where things get problematic. The definition should be expressly limited to genuine value-realisation scenarios: a sale of substantially all assets (excluding inventory or stock-in-trade), a merger or acquisition, a winding-up, or a change-of-control with a clear carve-out for large primary funding rounds that are not structured as acquisitions. This matters because an overbroad definition can inadvertently pull in routine corporate actions  intra-group restructurings, recapitalisations, or internal share transfers  none of which involve any actual realisation of value. The liquidation waterfall should only activate when there is a genuine exit, not every time the capital structure is tidied up internally.

2. Multiplier: At an early stage, founders and the company should advocate for a 1× non‑participating liquidation preference, under which the investor receives the higher of its 1× investment amount or its pro‑rata share. This structure provides adequate downside protection for investors while preserving meaningful upside for founders and aligning both parties’ incentives to grow the company’s value.

3. Participating vs. non-participating: A company should choose a non‑participating liquidation preference because it gives investors a clear downside‑protection (e.g., 1×) without letting them also participate as equity shareholders in the same pool. This avoids “double‑dipping” and preserves a larger share of proceeds for founders.

Liquidation preference, though often buried in the boilerplate of term sheets and shareholders' agreements, is one of the most consequential provisions in any venture capital transaction. Its significance lies not merely in the arithmetic of a waterfall but in how fundamentally it realigns the risk-reward calculus between investors and founders particularly at the moment of exit, when interests tend to diverge most sharply.

The path to better outcomes, therefore, runs through better negotiation at the outset. Founders and counsel should prioritise capping preferences at 1× non-participating as the default position, narrowing the definition of liquidation events to genuine exit scenarios, and resisting uncapped participation clauses wherever possible. Investors, in turn, should recognise that overly extractive structures may protect the downside on paper but erode the alignment that makes a company worth backing in the first place.

About the author: Rahel Roy is a Senior Associate at SKS Advisor.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.