Co-founder who worked for $1 a year loses bid for equity after court finds he’d been paid in shares elsewhere
A long-running dispute over ownership in a drone technology startup has ended with the Supreme Court of British Columbia rejecting a former executive’s claim to a stake in the company, ruling that any entitlement he had was already satisfied through shares in a related firm.
In Skycope Technologies Inc. v. Jia, Justice Hoffman dismissed Junfeng “Jack” Jia’s bid for equity in Skycope, a Vancouver-based anti-drone startup, despite acknowledging that he played a foundational role in building the business.
The case stems from the collapse of the working relationship between Skycope founder Zhenhua “Eric” Liu and Jia, the company’s former chief technology officer. At trial, Jia argued he was promised a significant ownership stake in exchange for taking a steep pay cut and helping develop the company’s core technology.
The court agreed that Jia’s contributions were substantial, noting he was “a matter of ‘life and death to the company,’” and that he accepted dramatically reduced compensation in reliance on an expected equity stake.
However, the key issue was whether that entitlement remained outstanding.
Shares in related company fulfilled claim
Justice Hoffman found that while Jia did have an equitable claim—based on unjust enrichment principles—that claim had already been fulfilled when he received shares in a related Chinese parent company, Shenzhen Shengkong Technology Co. Ltd.
“Mr. Jia was entitled to receive an equity position in the enterprise he contributed to as a co-founder,” the judge wrote, but concluded that “this entitlement was satisfied by his receipt of shares in Shengkong.”
As a result, “Mr. Jia’s claim for equitable relief cannot succeed.”
Breach of fiduciary duties
The decision follows earlier rulings, including a 2023 trial judgment that found Jia had breached his fiduciary duties by misusing Skycope’s source code and competing against the company, and a 2025 appeal that sent key questions back to the trial court.
Although the court ultimately sided with Skycope on the equity issue, it acknowledged Jia’s sacrifices in joining the startup. He had left a $120,000 job to work for “one dollar per year” initially, with the expectation of future upside.
Still, the judge emphasized that equity in the broader enterprise—not necessarily in Skycope itself—was always the core of the arrangement. Reviewing the evidence “holistically,” the court found that Jia’s shares in Shengkong were intended to “satisfy his equitable claim to shares in the joint enterprise.”
Competing company
The ruling also noted that, even if Jia’s claim had not already been satisfied, his misconduct could have barred recovery. His breach of fiduciary duties—using confidential information to launch a competing company—was described as “inextricably linked” to his claim for equity.
In the end, the court dismissed Jia’s claim and awarded costs to Skycope, bringing a close to years of litigation over the failed startup partnership.
