On July 31, 2025, Figma completed its blockbuster initial public offering (IPO), pricing at $33 per share and raising roughly $1.2 billion. Existing shareholders, not the company itself, sold most shares. Much attention has focused on the Marin Community Foundation (MCF)—a nonprofit that sold approximately 13.4 million Figma shares, earning around $440 million at IPO pricing. Those shares had been gifted just a month earlier by co-founder Evan Wallace in June.
The donation has now triggered an unexpected legal dispute among claimants linked to a decades-old oil family trust. Multiple individuals—described as potential family heirs under the trust—are contesting the transfer of Figma shares to MCF. They argue that distribution to charity may violate trust provisions that prioritize family beneficiaries. If successful, the case could establish new legal precedent about how philanthropic gifts are treated when tied to modern tech equity and historic wealth structures.
Trust disputes often arise when heirs feel excluded from asset distributions—particularly where large value transfers occur outside typical inheritance channels. In many jurisdictions, heirs may have legal rights, such as under forced heirship rules that guarantee minimum shares to spouse or children—though such rules typically apply to estates rather than business asset donations and vary significantly by region.
Observers note that this dispute straddles traditional estate law and modern charitable-giving strategies. While trusts often allow the grantor flexibility, heirs may assert standing if they believe trust terms or local succession laws were ignored. Legal counsel suggests beneficiaries who believe they were displaced by the MCF transfer might file suit challenging either the charitable bequest itself or the trust’s administration.
Separate from the legal contest, the Figma IPO has become emblematic of new structures used by wealthy tech founders. Not only did early investors reap massive gains—Index Ventures, Greylock, Kleiner Perkins, and cofounders Dylan Field and Evan Wallace saw stake values soar into the billions—but one of the largest single blocks sold was owned by a nonprofit, raising questions about transparency and conflict between philanthropic intent and beneficiary expectations.
If heirs succeed in their challenge, charitable recipients like MCF can face obligations to refund or return assets, and donor-advised funds might be sequestrated or redirected. Charities must typically engage in litigation and may confront complex issues around anonymity clauses and donor rights.
As this dispute receives increasing attention, it could shape broader legal interpretations in cases involving substantial tech-derived gifts tied to family trusts and long-established wealth. The outcome may influence how future tech founders structure charitable giving, and how heirs assert their rights in the digital age.
