Papering a Friends-and-Family Round Before the Cheques Cleared

The situation

Omar had built a construction company from a two-truck operation into a firm doing roughly $38 million a year in revenue, mostly commercial and municipal work across eastern Ontario. His crews were good, his reputation was solid, and when a municipality awarded his company a large infrastructure contract, it should have been a win. Instead, it created a cash problem.

Winning the contract meant mobilizing immediately: buying and leasing specialized equipment, posting a performance bond, and carrying payroll for several months before the first progress payment arrived. Omar's bank was willing to extend the company's operating line, but not by enough to cover the gap, and not on a timeline that matched the mobilization schedule. He needed roughly $1.2 million within a few weeks, and a bank term loan of that size, underwritten properly, would not close in time.

Omar mentioned the problem to a close friend, Andriy, a specialist physician who had known Omar's family for over a decade. Andriy and his wife Iryna had savings they were comfortable putting to work, and the two of them offered to lend the company the money directly. Omar was relieved. He also, to his credit, knew enough not to simply shake hands and deposit the cheque. He called our office before any money moved.

The legal problem

Friends-and-family financing is common, and it fails often enough that it has a well-earned reputation for wrecking relationships. The reasons are almost always the same: the parties agree on the headline number and then treat everything else as understood between friends. Understood, but never written down.

Several things needed to be pinned down before any funds moved. First, was this a loan or an investment? Andriy had used both words in the same conversation with Omar — at one point calling it "lending you money" and at another asking whether he and Iryna would "own a piece of the company." Those are legally different transactions with different tax treatment, different rights on default, and different exit paths. A loan gets repaid with interest regardless of how the company performs. An equity investment shares in the upside, and the downside, and usually comes with some say in how the company is run.

Second, raising money from private individuals in exchange for a share of a company touches Ontario securities law, which regulates the sale of investments to protect people who might not understand the risk. There are exemptions that let closely held companies raise money from people with an existing personal relationship to the business without the far more expensive process of a formal prospectus offering, but those exemptions have specific conditions, and getting the categorization wrong can put both the company and the investors offside.

Third, Iryna had not been part of the early conversations even though the money was coming from a joint account she and Andriy shared. That is a common gap in friends-and-family rounds — the more socially prominent party negotiates, and the other party discovers the terms after the fact. It is also a reliable source of later disputes, because Iryna had her own views on risk that had never been raised.

Finally, Omar's company was family-owned, and Omar's adult children worked in the business with an eye toward eventually taking it over. Any equity stake for outside investors, even trusted friends, would sit inside that ownership structure permanently unless the agreement built in a way out.

What we did

1. Got both investors talking to us together, early. Before drafting anything, we asked Omar to arrange a call that included Andriy and Iryna both, so we could hear directly what each of them wanted from the deal rather than relying on Omar's account of a conversation. Iryna, it turned out, wanted her and Andriy's money protected by more than trust in Omar's character — a reasonable position that had simply never been said out loud.
2. Characterized the transaction honestly. We recommended structuring the deal as a secured loan rather than an equity investment. This kept the company's ownership and control with Omar's family, avoided the securities law analysis that a share issuance would have required, and gave Andriy and Iryna a fixed, predictable return rather than a stake whose value depended on the company's future performance — which several conversations suggested was actually closer to what Iryna wanted, even though Andriy had been thinking in terms of ownership.
3. Negotiated a convertible feature to bridge the disagreement. Andriy still wanted some upside if the contract performed well, so we proposed a loan with a right, exercisable at Andriy and Iryna's option after a fixed period, to convert a portion of the outstanding balance into a small non-controlling equity interest at a pre-agreed valuation formula. This gave Andriy the upside he wanted without requiring Omar to give up control immediately, and without triggering a securities filing at the time the loan was made.
4. Secured the loan against specific assets. Rather than an unsecured personal favour, the loan was registered as a security interest against a defined pool of company equipment, giving Andriy and Iryna a real claim if the company ran into trouble, ranking behind the bank's existing line but ahead of unsecured creditors.
5. Built in a personal guarantee, but capped it. Omar offered a personal guarantee to reassure his friends. We negotiated a cap on that guarantee tied to a percentage of the loan, rather than an open-ended promise, so that a shortfall on the company side would not automatically become an unlimited personal liability years later.
6. Set clear repayment and default terms. The note specified a fixed interest rate, a repayment schedule tied to the municipal contract's progress payment milestones, and defined what would count as a default, so nobody would be arguing months later about what “paying it back when the money comes in” was supposed to mean.
7. Addressed information rights instead of a board seat. Andriy had raised the idea of a board seat. Omar did not want an outside voice in day-to-day decisions about a company his children were being trained to run. We proposed regular financial reporting and inspection rights instead, giving the investors visibility into how their money was being used without giving them a vote on how the company was managed.

The outcome

The final agreement was a compromise, and everyone involved knew it going in. Andriy did not get the equity stake and board seat he had first floated with Omar. Omar did not get the simple, no-strings favour he had originally imagined. Iryna got the secured, interest-bearing structure she wanted once she was actually part of the conversation, plus the conversion option that kept some upside on the table for her and Andriy if the contract went well.

The $1.2 million funded within the timeline Omar needed, and the company mobilized the contract on schedule. About eighteen months later, with the contract substantially complete and the company's cash position strong again, Omar refinanced the loan through the bank and repaid Andriy and Iryna in full, including the accrued interest. They chose not to exercise the conversion right — the fixed return had performed reasonably well, and neither side wanted to complicate a friendship with an ongoing ownership relationship once the immediate need had passed.

The friendship survived the deal, which was not guaranteed. Omar later said the hardest part was not the paperwork but the conversation where Andriy heard, in front of Iryna, that his friend wanted a loan rather than a partner. That conversation happened at the negotiating table, with terms on paper in front of everyone, instead of surfacing later as a misunderstanding after the money was already spent.

What you can learn from this