That's interesting; I've heard the opposite from every VC I've talked to about it. Its possible that different firms do things differently, and the ones I've talked to are in the minority.
> the "fund committed $100M, but the business went south and they declined to fund it fully" sort of stories.
My understanding is that its contractually obligated, and there would be legal ramifications for doing such a thing (or, there are clauses in the contract which allow it, or, you know, its pretty common for VC partners to sit on the board of the businesses they fund, so there are definitely options for the VC to assert sway over the company's finances and spend short of turning off the hose and breaking a contract).
> the "fund committed $100M, but the business went south and they declined to fund it fully" sort of stories.
My understanding is that its contractually obligated, and there would be legal ramifications for doing such a thing (or, there are clauses in the contract which allow it, or, you know, its pretty common for VC partners to sit on the board of the businesses they fund, so there are definitely options for the VC to assert sway over the company's finances and spend short of turning off the hose and breaking a contract).