When business owners and executives hear the phrase ‘corporate governance,’ they often assume it refers exclusively to the obligations of public companies — the SEC disclosure rules, Sarbanes-Oxley requirements, proxy advisory firm guidelines, and exchange listing standards that generate headlines in the financial press. But corporate governance is not a creature of public markets. It is a fundamental aspect of how any corporate entity is organized, managed, and held accountable, and it applies with full force to private companies of every size and structure. For the closely held family business, the venture-backed startup, the private equity portfolio company, and the LLC with multiple investor classes, governance failures carry real consequences: fiduciary duty litigation between shareholders, regulatory enforcement for compliance failures, destroyed investor relationships, and impaired ability to raise capital or complete a sale.

Many private company founders and executives have a natural aversion to governance structures, which they associate with bureaucracy, external oversight, and the friction of board approval processes. This aversion is understandable but ultimately self-defeating. Well-designed governance structures do not impede business execution — they enable it, by creating clear decision-making frameworks, establishing accountability mechanisms that build investor confidence, and providing the legal protections (indemnification, proper corporate approvals, documented business judgment) that prevent disputes and insulate the company’s leaders from personal liability. The companies that most frequently regret inadequate governance are those that are sued by minority shareholders, rejected by acquirers due to governance deficiencies identified in due diligence, or denied financing because their compliance processes cannot withstand scrutiny.

Fiduciary Duties Apply to Private Company Directors

Delaware’s fiduciary duty framework applies to directors of private corporations incorporated under the DGCL, just as it applies to directors of public corporations. The duties of care and loyalty, the business judgment rule, the entire fairness standard for conflicted transactions, and the corporate opportunity doctrine are all features of Delaware corporate law that apply regardless of whether the company’s shares are publicly traded. Courts adjudicating disputes between private company shareholders apply the same legal standards they apply in public company litigation, and the outcomes can be equally severe: injunctions against transactions, personal liability for directors who approved conflicted deals without adequate process, and voiding of corporate decisions made without proper authority.

One dimension of fiduciary duty law that is particularly significant for private companies is the obligation of controlling shareholders to minority shareholders. In closely held corporations, Delaware courts have recognized that a controlling shareholder owes fiduciary duties to the minority, not just to the corporation. This means that a majority shareholder who causes the corporation to take actions that benefit the majority at the expense of the minority — for example, by directing the corporation to pay above-market salaries to majority-controlled entities, by using corporate funds to finance the majority’s personal ventures, or by structuring a sale of the company in a way that provides a disproportionate benefit to the majority — may face direct fiduciary duty claims from minority shareholders. Closely held private companies should treat every significant transaction that implicates the interests of different shareholder classes as a potential fiduciary duty issue and manage the governance process accordingly.

Board Composition and the Role of Independent Directors

Private company boards typically include a combination of founders or owner-managers, investor representatives (appointed by venture capital, private equity, or strategic investors pursuant to governance rights in investment documents), and, in some cases, independent directors. The composition of the board is often specified in the company’s certificate of incorporation, bylaws, or investors’ rights agreement, which may give specific investors the right to designate one or more board members as a condition of their investment. This governance architecture reflects the investors’ need for board representation to protect their investment and to participate in key strategic decisions, and the company’s need for capital that the investors provide.

Independent directors — those who are not employees or investors of the company — play a particularly valuable role on private company boards. They bring outside perspectives and industry expertise, provide an objective check on decisions that may be influenced by the competing interests of founders and investors, serve as a tiebreaker when investor-aligned and founder-aligned directors disagree, and lend credibility to the company’s governance in the eyes of prospective investors, lenders, and acquirers. Many institutional venture capital and private equity investors require, as a condition of investment, that the company identify one or more independent directors who satisfy specified independence criteria. Even in the absence of such requirements, companies that recruit strong independent directors signal to the market that they are serious about governance.

For startups, the transition from an informal founder-controlled structure to a board with investor representatives and independent directors is often the first significant governance inflection point. This transition should be approached as an opportunity, not an imposition. A well-constituted board brings resources, connections, and judgment that the founding team alone cannot provide. It also creates a governance framework that will be essential as the company grows, raises additional capital, contemplates an IPO, or navigates a strategic transaction. Founders who resist board-level governance structures often find themselves disadvantaged when sophisticated investors evaluate the company’s readiness for growth capital.

Key Governance Documents

The governance framework of a private company is established through a set of interlocking documents. The certificate (or articles) of incorporation establishes the company’s authorized capital structure, the rights and preferences of each class of equity, and any fundamental governance provisions such as protective voting rights, anti-dilution protections, and conversion rights. For companies with multiple equity classes, the certificate of incorporation is one of the most important legal documents in the company’s governance framework, and its terms are heavily negotiated between founders and investors at each financing round. Any material transaction — a merger, a sale of substantially all assets, an amendment to the certificate — that adversely affects the rights of a class of preferred stockholders typically requires the separate vote of that class, and failing to obtain that vote can render the transaction voidable.

The company’s bylaws govern the internal operations of the corporation — how meetings are called and conducted, how directors are elected and removed, how officers are appointed, what quorums are required, and how the board takes action by written consent. The bylaws should include strong indemnification and advancement provisions for directors and officers, and should address the mechanics of any board committees (audit, compensation, governance) that the company maintains. The investors’ rights agreement or shareholder agreement governs the rights of specific investors and classes of shareholders — board designation rights, information rights, registration rights (for a future IPO), and rights of first refusal and co-sale rights on share transfers. The voting agreement specifies how certain shareholders have agreed to vote on key matters, including director elections.

Related Party Transaction Governance for Private Companies

Related party transactions are even more common in private companies than in public ones, because private companies frequently have concentrated ownership and leadership with overlapping business interests. The founder who also owns another business, the investor who sits on the board of a potential acquirer, and the officer whose spouse runs a key vendor are all sources of related party transactions that require careful governance. Private company boards should adopt a written related party transaction policy that requires disclosure and independent review of transactions above a specified threshold, even in the absence of the formal SEC and exchange requirements that apply to public companies.

For private companies, the failure to properly manage related party transactions is one of the most common sources of shareholder litigation. Minority shareholders who believe that the majority shareholders are using the company as a personal piggy bank — whether through excessive compensation, sweetheart deals with affiliated entities, or diversion of business opportunities — have powerful legal tools available to them under Delaware and other states’ corporate law. The best defense against such claims is a governance process that ensures all related party transactions are reviewed by disinterested directors, documented with clear business justification, and priced at arms-length market rates.

Preparing for an IPO, Acquisition, or Other Liquidity Event

One of the most powerful arguments for strong private company governance is the role it plays in enabling a successful liquidity event. When a private company prepares for an IPO, the SEC’s registration process and the underwriters’ due diligence will scrutinize every aspect of the company’s governance: the composition and independence of the board, the adequacy of internal controls, the compliance of compensation arrangements with applicable law, the accuracy of financial statements, and the integrity of related party transactions. Companies that have maintained strong governance from early stages find this process far less burdensome and far less likely to produce delays, restatements, or embarrassing disclosures than companies that must retrofit governance structures at the last minute.

In an M&A transaction, the acquirer’s due diligence will examine the target company’s governance with similar thoroughness. Governance deficiencies discovered in due diligence — undocumented board approvals of significant transactions, conflicts of interest that were not properly managed, employment agreements and equity arrangements that lack proper corporate authorization, or inaccurate financial statements — can result in price reductions, escrow holdbacks, seller indemnification claims, or, in the worst cases, deal failure. Private companies that maintain rigorous governance records, including accurate and complete board minutes, properly authorized equity grants, current shareholder registers, and well-documented related party transaction reviews, are better positioned to complete transactions on favorable terms and on schedule.

The message for private company owners and executives is straightforward: governance is not a regulatory tax that applies only to public companies. It is a fundamental business discipline that protects the company and its leaders, builds investor confidence, enables capital formation, and maximizes value at the liquidity event. The investment in strong governance — a well-constituted board, robust foundational documents, proper indemnification, rigorous related party transaction management, and accurate financial records — pays returns that far exceed its cost at every stage of the company’s life.

See Also