Written by Erik | Haven Commerce LLC
How Preference Stacks, Blocking Rights, and Misaligned Incentives Create Structural Deadlock
A founder told me something last year that I keep coming back to.
She’d spent 18 months cutting costs. Reduced burn from $400K a month to $180K. Renegotiated vendor contracts, exited office space, reduced headcount by 40%. The business had real customers and real revenue. Unit economics were actually positive.
“I feel like I did everything right,” she said. “And I’m still stuck.”
She had. The operational problem was solved. But she’d never touched the structural one.
Her cap table had $19.5M in total liquidation preferences sitting above her common equity. The company’s realistic enterprise value was $8M to $10M. Every dollar of exit value was spoken for before she’d see anything.
That’s the cap table trap. And it’s not a corner case — it’s the defining feature of hundreds of stuck SaaS companies right now.
Most people think of the cap table as a record of who owns what percentage of the company. That’s technically accurate but misses the point.
The cap table is a set of contracts. Those contracts specify not just ownership percentages but also the order in which proceeds are distributed in any transaction, who has the right to approve or block specific corporate actions, and what obligations attach to the company and its officers under different scenarios.
When the company was growing fast and worth more than the total preferences, these contracts were irrelevant. Nobody reads the fine print when the waterfall flows through to common.
When growth stalled and enterprise value dropped below the total preferences, the contracts became the entire situation.
Here’s a realistic 2021-vintage cap table:
Now value the business. $3M ARR at 85% gross margins, flat growth for the past 12 months. A buyer today would pay somewhere between 2x and 4x ARR depending on growth trajectory and strategic fit. Call it $9M enterprise value in an optimistic scenario.
At $9M enterprise value, the Series B investor gets nothing. The founder gets nothing. The employees who’ve been grinding for three years get nothing.
Now look at it from the Series B’s perspective. They invested $12M expecting a $50M or $100M exit. Their liquidation preference guarantees them $12M back before anyone else participates — in a world where the company is worth more than $22M. In a world where it’s worth $9M, that guarantee is worthless. They’ll recover nothing whether they block a transaction or not.
Which creates a specific incentive problem.
Most VC-backed Delaware C-corps include protective provisions for preferred stockholders. These provisions give specific classes of preferred stock the right to approve or block certain corporate actions.
Common examples: amending the certificate of incorporation in a way that affects preferred rights, approving a merger or asset sale, creating new securities senior to existing preferred, or certain recapitalizations.
Here’s where it gets complicated in a stuck situation.
A single preferred series can hold a blocking right over the actions required for a restructuring — even if every other stakeholder (the other investors, the founder, the employees, the board) wants to move forward.
The Series B investor in our example holds a blocking right over any sale. Their rational strategy is to refuse any deal that doesn’t return their $12M preference in full. Even if refusing means the company continues to burn cash, lose people, and deteriorate toward zero.
Why? Because accepting a $9M sale and recovering nothing is the same outcome as letting the company die — but accepting the deal also crystallizes the loss, triggers LP reporting consequences, and removes any remaining optionality. Blocking preserves a theoretical option that probably won’t materialize, at no additional cost to the blocker.
This is how structurally sound businesses with real customers and real revenue sit unresolved for 12 to 24 months. The blocking party isn’t irrational. They’re responding rationally to a contractual position that makes refusal costless.
In any stuck SaaS situation with a layered cap table, you typically have three stakeholders with completely different incentive structures pointing toward different outcomes.
The later-stage investor (Series B in our example) holds a large preference and blocking rights. Their recovery at current enterprise value is near zero regardless of path. Their rational move is to wait, apply pressure for growth, and hope for a white knight strategic acquirer who values the product at a premium. Accepting a restructuring that converts their preferred to common at a discount feels like giving up contractual rights they paid for. It is — but the alternative isn’t better for them.
The earlier-stage investor (Series A) has a smaller preference that might actually be recoverable in a negotiated sale. They have more incentive to accept a deal, less blocking leverage, and a reputational interest in not being the fund that let a portfolio company slowly die when a resolution was available.
The founder has common equity worth zero at any realistic exit price. Their rational economic move is to leave and start something new. When they stay (and most do, out of obligation, exhaustion, or hope), they’re making decisions optimized for survival rather than value maximization: keep the lights on, avoid the hard conversations, don’t trigger a process that might end badly.
None of these three rational positions points to the same outcome. That’s not a failure of individual judgment — it’s the predictable result of misaligned contracts written for a world that no longer exists.
A preference haircut is a negotiated reduction in a preferred investor’s liquidation preferences, typically in exchange for equity participation in a restructured company or some other form of value.
The mechanics sound simple. The execution is not. But there’s a framework that works.
Step 1: Know your BATNA first. Before any conversation with any investor, model every scenario: restructured continuation, sale at current FMV, acqui-hire, ABC wind-down. Put real numbers on each path’s expected recovery. This isn’t a negotiating tactic — it’s the factual basis for every conversation. If the Series B investor can see that their recovery in a wind-down is $0 and their recovery in a restructured sale is $3M (after a haircut), you have a negotiation. If they don’t believe those numbers, you have an argument.
Step 2: Frame it as a conversion, not a concession. Convert preferred stock to common (or a restacked preferred with reduced liquidation amounts and broader participation) at a ratio that reflects the company’s actual enterprise value today, not the original investment basis. Investors keep meaningful ownership in a company that might recover. They stop blocking outcomes that could produce real value. The framing matters: this is about finding the highest-recovery path, not asking them to give something up.
Step 3: Build the coalition one investor at a time. Start with the earliest-stage investor whose preference is smallest and whose reputational benefit from a successful restructuring is largest. Seed investors and Series A investors often care more about their portfolio reputation — being known as constructive — than later-stage investors with larger positions. Once one investor agrees to restructure, social proof works in your favor.
Step 4: Pair the haircut with a credible operating plan. Investors won’t restructure the cap table and hand the company back to the same playbook that created the stuck situation. The preference negotiation happens alongside a restructured cost structure, a focused product strategy, a management carve-out for key employees, and a 90-day accountability framework. The haircut is the price of a second chance. The operating plan is the evidence it’s worth paying.
Step 5: Have the alternative ready. The most powerful moment in any preference negotiation is when the investor realizes that the ABC process is genuinely on the table — and that a wind-down produces worse recovery than the haircut they’re being offered. This isn’t a threat; it’s arithmetic. Make sure they’ve seen the same model you have.
The reason to go through this process is not just to distribute proceeds more fairly. It’s to create a company that can actually function.
A company with a clean cap table can attract new equity capital. New investors won’t touch a company with $22M in liquidation preferences sitting above their investment — there’s no scenario where they recover anything. After a recap at current enterprise value, the cap table reflects reality. That’s fundable.
A company with a clean cap table can close transactions. Buyers who love the product but walk away from the cap table complexity will re-engage when the structure is cleared. The product’s value was always there. The structure was the obstacle.
A company with a clean cap table can reset founder and employee incentives. When common equity has actual value again, the people running the company have a reason to optimize for outcomes rather than survival.
The cap table isn’t just a financial instrument. It’s the incentive architecture for every decision the company makes. When it’s broken, everything downstream is distorted.
If you’ve done the operational work and the company is still stuck, the cap table is almost certainly where the structural problem lives.
Ready to work through what a recapitalization could look like for your specific situation? . I’ll walk through the preference math with you and show you what the negotiation map looks like
Schedule a Conversation