Monday, September 30, 2013

What Can Startups Disclose, Before Filing a Patent Application

The current wisdom on attracting investment for a startup states that the way to get the attention of frazzled investors is to present them with a short video that draws them in. From the perspective of getting emotional buy-in from investors and willingness to spend 5-10 minutes reading a startup’s executive summary or browsing its investor deck, a promo video is the way to go.

But if a startup has not yet filed at least a provisional patent application, what can be the ramifications of such a video? I have asked Mark Beloborodov, an experienced U.S. patent attorney, to explain the risks of early disclosure.

America Invests Act. According to the expanded definition of “prior art” pursuant to the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) that went into effect on March 16, 2013, public use, sales, publications, and other disclosures available to the public anywhere in the world as of the filing date bar patentability. Public disclosure of the invention by the inventor (or someone else who “obtained” the disclosed subject matter from the inventor) within one year prior to filing (inventor's "publication-conditioned grace period") constitutes an exception. This exception is a concession to opponents of the AIA’s “first-to-file” regime that already exists in the European Union and the rest of the world, and a carryover from pre-AIA patent law, which has traditionally given startups comfort to discuss their invention publicly before filing a U.S. patent application, in connection, for instance, with fundraising efforts.

Product for Sale. One potential problem that a promo video featuring the product may pose is that it may not fall within the “publication by inventor” exception, but may instead be considered an offer of sale of the product featured. Any novel and non-obvious features, functionalities and attributes implemented in the product that, prior to the video’s release, constituted patentable inventions, may suddenly fall into the public domain and thereby substantially reduce the value of the business. Publication. But suppose that the promo video (or an article) does not reach the level of the offer for sale and qualifies for the publication-conditioned grace period. Does that mean that it is safe in those circumstances to disclose inventions, for which a patent application has not been filed?

It’s not so simple, says Mark. While the disclosed inventions themselves may still be protected, what if a public discussion is spurred by the disclosure that builds on the information made public by the inventors? Anything that is generated in that public discussion above and beyond what the inventors disclosed falls into the public domain. If the initial publication disclosed only part of the invention, and then other elements of the invention surfaced in subsequent public disclosures, even such other elements previously known to the inventors, patent protection for those elements may not be sought later. So any disclosure prior to at least a provisional patent application is fraught with risk even in the US, not to mention loss of patent protection for the invention as a whole in other countries.

The Band-Aid Solution. So what’s one to do? In the perfect world, a startup’s patent application would be prepared by a patent attorney in advance of starting to pitch investors and certainly well in advance of publicly distributing promotional materials. Such application, even if a provisional one, would be drafted after careful consideration of the invention and would contain a detailed and enabling disclosure of how it is made and operates, which fully supports patent claims to be included later in the full-blown application.

But we don’t live in the perfect world. To preserve intellectual property rights in the product or solution that will be the subject of an upcoming promotional video, Mark recommends making at least a minimalist provisional patent application filing before the video becomes public. Even if the filing consists of little more than the video script, overview of key components of the invention, and annotated screen shots illustrating them, risky as it is, it’s better than nothing. After the founder strings together the materials that will go into the promo video, it is advisable to have a patent attorney do a quick review. This might translate in total into a $1,000-$1,500 cost, including the filing fee, but, if it may preserve intellectual property rights that might otherwise be lost forever, seems like a good compromise.

Happy company making!

Inna


White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




Monday, September 9, 2013

Preparing for a Silicon Valley Fundraising Trip

[This post is an excerpt from my presentation entitled Silicon Valley Fundraising Trip: Tips for the Non-U.S. Based Startup Founder.]

If you are traveling to the Silicon Valley to raise capital for your startup from abroad, you can save yourself a lot of time and make the trip more efficient by preparing thoroughly and doing your homework before the trip. Here are some things that should not be overlooked:

Research. Before your trip, sign up for startup networks, groups and mailing lists, to receive announcements about upcoming events. (This is covered in more detail in the full version of my presentation.) You should know which venture capital firms and super-angels are investing in your space. You should research and consider which strategic investors you should target, if any. Based on your research, prepare a list of 10 to 20 people that you’d like to meet while you are here. This list is aspirational, so if you do not get the opportunity to meet all of them, you have not failed.

LinkedIn. Create a LinkedIn profile, if you don’t already have one. If you have one, check to see if it's time to review and update it. This is your business resume. Most professionals rely on it!

Don’t be lazy – take the time to write-up prior projects and experience, your education, and anything else relevant to what you are doing and to who you are now. This is your chance to tell people what you want them to know about you!

Note that LinkedIn is also a great place to do your own “diligence” about the people you’ll meet while networking, through introductions, or otherwise.

Video Presentation. If you have the resources, create a short video teaser and post it on YouTube or Vimeo for easy sharing with new contacts. A few excellent examples are below. Notice how effective it is if the teaser can demo your product or service. A picture is worth a thousand words. And a video is worth at least a thousand pictures, charts and graphs.

  • MapsWithMe Teaser
  • Posse Teaser
  • Readymag Teaser
  • Robin Teaser

    Videos work well to get you a foot in the door (not seal the deal for you). Before an investor takes the time to read your executive summary, in fact, before he even makes the decision about whether it's worth his time to do so, it is helpful if you can get him excited (or at least curious) about your product or service. The way to do it is by offering information in an easy and fun format - video - that appeals to the viewer's emotions, not just his intellect.

    Executive Summary / Presentation. VCs don't read business plans. They just don't have enough hours in the day to screen companies based on their business plans, and, frankly, with business at an early stage, a business plan reads more like astrological predictions than fact.

    Still, if you are talking to an investor at a networking event, or have been introduced to an investor by email, he will want to see something in writing about your company. You will be expected to send an executive summary (a one-pager that introduces the investor to your company and piques his interest) or, more frequently these days, an investor slide deck (8-10 PowerPoint slides that serve the same purpose but are easier on the eyes).

    Instead of trying to work with your team back home when you are already here, faced with a time difference and time pressure, prepare this before you come. You may have to adjust it based on the feedback you receive from investors, but if you have a solid draft, it will make your life easier.

    A really well-made executive summary or deck can set apart your startup from the rest and give you a fighting chance at a more involved look from the investor.

    You can work with designers and advisors to help solidify your message in your materials. But do not hire someone to write them for you. You have to own your materials, and by that I don't mean the legal sense of ownership, but in the sense that you stand behind each word in that document and, if prompted, can expand in verbal or written format on any of the points made in it!

    U.S. Phone Number. With your Google account, you can get a free Google Voice number and set up call-forwarding from that number to your temporary U.S. number.

    Google Voice also offers voicemail functionality. Make it easy on your callers - record a greeting with your name and the name of your company, so that they know they reached the right number.

    Business Cards. Your business card should be in English and should contain (1) your company name (and if you have not registered the company, the name that you think you will use), (2) your name and title, (3) your corporate domain email address, (4) the address of your physical office (if any), and (5) your U.S. phone number.

    Note that you don’t have to spell your name on the card the way it is spelled in your passport. Feel free to spell it in a way that will make it easy for English speakers to read. This will save you time and annoyance, unless, of course, you like correcting people and having off-topic conversations about foreign names, the English language, pronunciation, etc.

    Credit Cards. The most common and convenient payment method for most things that you’ll need to buy on your trip will be a credit card. Every online purchase will require it and some merchants (like car rental places) will take your credit card number as a security deposit, even if you pay cash.

    When getting ready for your trip, make sure there is money in the account tied to the card that you are taking with you. To really play it safe, take several credit cards tied to accounts at different banks. It is best to call ahead, and let your bank know that you will be in the United States. Sometimes banks will suspect identity theft and block your card, if there is unexpected activity on your card in a foreign jurisdiction. Nothing quite makes travel so uncomfortable, as having your credit cards lock up, when you are relying on them as a primary payment method!

    Driver's License. While you are visiting California, you are permitted to drive with your valid foreign license. Make sure to take it with you, as you are packing for your trip, and that it does not expire during your trip (rendering it no longer valid).

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




  • Wednesday, September 4, 2013

    10 Basic Principles of Effective Networking

    [This post is an excerpt from my presentation entitled Silicon Valley Fundraising Trip: Tips for the Non-U.S. Based Startup Founder.]

    Networking events are a lot of work. But if you are building up your network, networking at startup events can be a great way to get exposure to a lot of people fast.

    Because networking is hard work, if you are going to do it, you might as well make the most of it. My suggestions are based solely on my own personal experience and reflect either what has worked for me or my observations of the behavior of others. There may be other effective networking tactics, so if you are feeling anxious about this, read a few more articles (or books) for a deeper dive.

    1. Set the Right Goals. Make sure you set the right goals and expectations for yourself when you go out to network. Chances are that you will not meet and win over an investor at a networking event (unless the event is a pitch competition than you win, and frequently not even then).

    What you should really be hoping to do is to ingratiate yourself with three to five well-connected individuals, who will make introductions for you to people in their network. Note that the people that you get introduced to may not be your investors either.

    The goal of networking is to grow your network because you never know where your investors, customers, or even future employees may come from. Approach networking with an open mind, and good things will come!

    2. Dress to Impress. When you go to events, you want to be memorable, stand out in the crowd. That way, when someone you spoke to for a few minutes wants to introduce you to someone else at the event, he can find you again in the crowd. As with anything, you have to be careful not to overdo this, because if you are too outlandish in your wardrobe, you might be memorable, but it won’t score you any points. The trick is to stand out in a positive way.

    At the very least, if you have a T-shirt with your company’s logo, wear that. It may not be very original, but it will be a good conversation starter, and people with a visual memory are more likely to remember the name of your company if it’s written across your chest.

    3. Don’t Forget Your Business Cards. Business cards are cheap, so stock up and bring enough. Sure, if you run out, you can add the person you are speaking with on LinkedIn during the conversation or take his card and write your name on the back of it. But coming unprepared does not characterize you well, and if there is at least a small chance someone will keep your pretty business card around and will remember about you some time in the future when it could be advantageous to you, you can be sure they'll toss your info scribbled on the back of their card. LinkedIn is pretty good, but unless you have a stellar memory for names, it can be hard to find the contact that you need among your 500+ contact list. So, personally, I prefer cards.

    But don't mistake the exercise of handing out cards for networking. If you hand out your cards like they are on fire, but don't cement it with at least 3-5 minutes of solid conversation with the folks you gave the card to, you may as well have thrown them in the trash.

    4. Forget Your Comfort Zone. Networking is not comfortable. It would be easy if relevant contacts would line up to meet with us in an orderly fashion when we show up at an event. In fact, that’s not what happens at all. You are lucky if you are approached by another networker looking to strike up conversation. More frequently, you find yourself in a room surrounded by small groups deeply immersed in their own private conversations. Those small groups look intimidating.

    But if you stay within your comfort zone and hover in the corner, waiting to be approached, which might be your natural inclination, you will be wasting precious time. So try to make eye-contact with someone in a group, to see if they’ll welcome you to join them, or just shamelessly insert yourself into a group and when there is a pause in conversation, extend your hand and introduce yourself. At a networking event, no one will think worse of you for doing so. Sometimes, the topic of discussion will be so narrow that after a few uncomfortable minutes you will decide to leave to look for another place to park, but the more polite networkers will attempt to integrate the newcomer into their conversation.

    5. Stay Positive. If you want to leave a positive impression, you have to radiate positive energy. If you complain about your suppliers and customers, or put down your partners, employees or investors, it leaves a bad taste with the person you are speaking to. So focus on the positives. Be that person that everyone will enjoy talking to!

    6. Keep Conversation Light. If you want to make more than a single connection at an event, you will need to move fairly quickly from one conversation to the next. Keep in mind that no matter how passionately you feel about public policy or politics, a tech networking event is not the place to get entangled in a heated debate, whether about the conflict in the Middle East, the shortcomings of the Obama administration, a woman's right to abortion, the right to bear arms, or U.S. world domination. In general stay away from religion and politics, unless it is to say that you are hoping that the Startup Visa initiative passes, which is a pretty safe bet. Finally, remember to smile! There is nothing as disarming as a genuine smile, so it is going to be your best networking weapon!

    7. Listen First. When you engage in a one-on-one conversation with someone at a networking event, even if you are burning to proselytize anyone who will listen to the cause of your amazing company, recognize that everyone there has a story.

    If you practice active listening – paying close attention to what the other person is saying, reading their body language, asking follow up questions, sharing information that they may consider valuable, and looking for ways you could help – you will find people more interested in your story, and willing to help, whether with advice, introductions, or empathy.

    8. Don’t Be a Salesman. Think about how you feel when you are approached by a salesman. What’s your first reaction? I know mine is, “No, thank you!” The last thing you want to do at a networking event is to be perceived as a salesman. Instead, you want to be seen initially as someone who is easy and interesting to talk to and eventually, as a good long-term contact.

    9. Follow Up. You have to follow up, if you don’t want all that networking to have been in vain.

    If you promised to send your executive summary, do so within a few hours of the meeting, if you can, and within 24 hours at most. If the person you talked to promised to send you something, follow up with them after the meeting and remind them. They have busy lives, so take the initiative!

    When you are networking, you are building up your social capital, so don’t just be dependable when it can stand to benefit you. If you promised a networking contact to send the name of an app that slipped your mind during the conversation or to make an intro to a good web designer, do it.

    The greatest value of networking is in the long-term connections that you form. For this reason, strong follow up is essential. Invite contacts that you make at a networking event that you would like to make a more permanent part of your network to meet with you for coffee sometime that week. Almost no one will turn down a coffee offer, unless (a) it’s a VC, or (b) you are perceived as a salesman.

    10. Have Patience! Have patience with the process and try to enjoy it! Networking does not produce immediate rewards, but it does pay off in the long-run!

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




    Monday, September 2, 2013

    The Right Time to Fundraise in the Silicon Valley

    [This post is an excerpt from my presentation entitled Silicon Valley Fundraising Trip: Tips for the Non-U.S. Based Startup Founder.]

    The Silicon Valley is a fantastic place to visit almost any time of year. We have great weather here year-round, many tourist attractions within a stone’s throw of one another, and fantastic sights for the nature enthusiast.

    But if your goal is to travel to the Silicon Valley with the goal of raising venture capital for your foreign-based startup, to avoid disappointment, set the right expectations, and make the most out of your trip, consider whether your startup is primed and ready for this step.

    Ripe for US Fundraising. The best time for a foreign startup to come to the Silicon Valley to raise venture capital is when it can make the following statements truthfully:

    • We raised a small seed round of capital with a local venture capital firm and angels
    • We have publicly launched our product in our country
    • Our product has gained significant traction in our domestic market
    • We are ready to launch our product on the US market
    • We are opening an office in the US that will be handling US operations and marketing
    • Our management team has already relocated to the US (or is relocating to the US within 3-6 months)
    • Our CEO reads, writes and speaks fluent English and is able to present our company to US investors, strategic partners, and clients in a clear, competent and confident manner.

    Almost There. If a startup meets some (maybe 4-5) but not all of the criteria above, it does not mean that the founders should not come to the Silicon Valley to fundraise. But it does increase the likelihood that this is going to be the first of several trips. A startup at that stage may still be able to successfully raise capital from Silicon Valley VCs, but it may easily take 6 to 12 months or longer and multiple trips to get to a term sheet.

    Raising money in the Silicon Valley is difficult, even for companies that fit all of the criteria above. So a company that does not, has a greater hurdle to overcome. Still, I believe the preliminary trip, if approached correctly, with due preparation, forethought, and the right expectations, can be instrumental in laying the groundwork for a future financing by giving the founder an opportunity to establish contacts, by growing the founder’s professional network in the Silicon Valley, and by clarifying areas of improvement in the startup’s fundraising position.

    More Work to Do at Home. A startup that either has not launched a product, or has launched a product but it has not seen significant adoption domestically, and that has not received support from its local investors, has more work to do at home before venturing out to fundraise internationally. That is not to say that such startups should not attend international conferences or take business development trips, whether to the Silicon Valley or elsewhere. I just think it will be more productive to realize that it may be too early to be fundraising abroad in earnest, so the trip, if taken, should have other purposes and expectations attached to it in the founders’ minds.

    The Chief Executive Officer. To state the obvious, the right CEO makes the difference between a startup that gets venture capital funding and one that does not. As we said above, to be successful at raising capital in the United States, the foreign CEO has to have fluent written and conversational English, though he or she may speak with an accent and many do. The CEO must also have the personal and business skills that make him or her a good person to represent the startup in investor meetings.

    But what if the CEO does not have good English? Unfortunately, neither engaging translators to assist in pitch meetings, nor hiring U.S. promoters or U.S. investor relations specialists to help with fundraising, actually works.

    Ultimately, the investors have to believe that the core team has what it takes to succeed, and if the investors have a language barrier with the CEO, they will simply not have sufficient basis to form that belief. The solution is one that is true for all companies, local or foreign – if the CEO is not the man (or woman) for the job, find a CEO who is!

    In startups, one of the founders is the CEO by necessity. Sometimes it is the right fit. And at other times it is not. Sometimes it is the right fit for the country, where the startup is based, but not for the U.S. Any company that hopes to be successful must recognize wherein lie its team’s weaknesses and fill them with new hires. If the current CEO will not be able to fundraise successfully in the U.S., the startup should entertain the idea of recruiting a U.S.-based CEO or another CEO in their country with solid “western” experience. In that situation, the current CEO can take another title, whether it is President, Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or whatever else best fits his or her strengths. Unfortunately, relinquishing the helm can be a major pain point for founders. I am sure some of my readers are wincing as they read this advice.

    The Bottom Line. If the founders of a startup believe they absolutely must raise capital in the United States, and if, after honestly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current team, they realize that they do not have the right candidate among them for the job, then they have to reconcile themselves to the difficult reality that such candidate must be found elsewhere. The same, incidentally, goes for filling any other holes that stand in the way of a startup’s success in raising capital in the United States – these holes must be (a) identified, (b) evaluated, and (c) resolved, preferably prior to the founders investing very heavily into their U.S. fundraising efforts.

    However, it may also be the case that, despite some initial flirtation with the idea of coming to the United States to raise capital, the founders will ultimately decide that their chances of raising funds domestically, or in Europe, or in Asia will be better than in the United States and will come at a lower cost (emotional, financial, temporal).

    There may be a lot of investment capital aggregated in the Silicon Valley, but there are oh so many contenders from all over the world all vying for it!

    Disclaimer. Regardless of how well-positioned your startup may be to raise capital, be prepared for the process, almost invariably, to be more frustrating, more disruptive to your business processes, and to take longer, than you expect. There is no guarantee that the process, even when it is well-executed, will result in raising VC capital in the Silicon Valley.

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




    Saturday, August 24, 2013

    Should Founders’ Shares be Subject to Vesting

    In the startup world, contributors are frequently incentivized with shares of stock in the venture to align their interests with those of the startup. These shares sometimes represent a significant percent of the company’s total capitalization, especially in the early days, when there are few contributors and the contribution of each contributor is therefore that much more significant.

    Who Should Have Vesting. Every contributor’s shares in a venture should be subject to vesting. I use the term “contributor” here because these concepts apply not just to the founders, or the early employees, or the consultants, but to anyone in a startup who is incentivized by a grant of shares, or the right to purchase shares (known as a stock option).

    Vesting Definition. Vesting is the process, whereby shares or stock options granted to a contributor are, in effect, earned over a period of time, such that they may be repurchased or cancelled, as applicable, in whole or in part, from the contributor if his involvement with the venture does not continue for the entirety of the vesting term.

    Vesting Term. Vesting should be imposed over a term, typically calculated in months, that is the shorter of (a) the period over which the contributor is expected to meaningfully contribute to the venture, or (b) 48 months.

    No Cliff on Founder Shares. There is usually no cliff on founders’ shares—their shares vest monthly from the beginning and frequently they get “credited” in their vesting for the number of months that they worked on the project prior to getting their shares. For example, if a founder worked on his startup for a year before he was issued shares, it is not uncommon for his shares to be 1/4th vested up front, and the remaining shares to vest monthly over 36 months.

    Cliff on Shares by Other Contributors. By contrast, non-founder contributors typically have what is known as a “cliff” on their vesting—a block of time up-front, during which they are tested to make sure they are a good fit. At the end of the cliff, which is usually a year for full-time hires and may be shorter for other contributors, a portion of the contributor’s total share grant, usually proportionate to the ratio of the cliff period to the entire vesting period, vests at once. However, if the contributor’s services to the company are terminated before the cliff runs out, none of the shares vest.

    Vesting Acceleration. Sometimes the vesting of founders’ shares or the shares of other top contributors, accelerates in full or in part upon the happening of certain events. Most typically, vesting accelerates, if at all, either on a single trigger (which can be termination of the contributor or acquisition of the company), or on a double-trigger (termination of the contributor in connection with an acquisition of the company). Vesting acceleration is a heavily negotiated term whether with investors, new hires, or an acquirer of the company.

    Why Do We Need Vesting. There are several good reasons why it is a very good idea to impose vesting on the founders’ shares.

    First of all, investors insist that the founders’ and other contributors’ shares be subject to vesting. So if the founders do not subject their own shares to vesting in the beginning, when they engage with investors, imposing vesting on founder shares will almost invariably be one of the conditions to the investment. Founders who impose vesting on their own shares may get better terms than those that investors will require of them. But as long as those terms are reasonable, investors will typically not require founders to amend their vesting terms.

    But even if investors are not in the picture, as long as there is more than one founder, imposing vesting on all founders protects the company and its viability. Let’s consider an example to see why vesting can make or break a company. All names, characters and specifics are completely made up, but situations like this in an assortment of variations come up all the time.

      GameFriends is a startup developing a new social gaming application. Jim does the coding and Rhonda does the graphics. Jim and Rhonda have known one another since college and came up with the idea over coffee one day. They started working on GameFriends a few months ago and agreed that everything would be split fifty-fifty between them. They have not incorporated the business yet, waiting to complete a game first.

      At a gaming conference, Jim and Rhonda meet Pete. Pete has an MBA from Stanford and did a summer internship at a venture fund. Pete is a gamer and after spending several long weekends talking to Pete about their vision, they decide that they would benefit from Pete’s business expertise in getting GameFriends off the ground. Pete agrees to join the company for a 20% stake, but insists that they need to incorporate the venture and formally issue shares. Everyone agrees. The founders incorporate the venture with 10,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, of which Jim and Rhonda hold 4,000,000 each and Pete holds another 2,000,000.

      Jim and Rhonda trust each other, so they decide they don’t need vesting on their own shares. Since Pete is new, they decide to have his shares vest monthly over one year.

      In the meantime, Rhonda’s sister, who is working on a children’s book, asks Rhonda to help with illustrations. Rhonda can’t say ‘no’ to her sister, she’s always really liked doing children’s books illustrations, and her sister promised to pay her! She decides she can help her sister, while continuing her role with GameFriends.

      Unfortunately, she isn’t able to do both well. She takes longer to respond to Jim’s emails and lets his calls go to voicemail because she feels bad about not having her deliverables ready when she promised.

      After a couple of months, Jim and Rhonda have a heated discussion, where Jim accuses Rhonda of not being dedicated to the project and Rhonda defends herself and finds fault with Jim’s own coding efficiency, which she thinks is to blame for their first game not being ready yet. Rhonda is upset and decides to leave the project. She has 40% of the company at this time. In order to finish the project, Jim needs to bring on another graphical artist. At a high school reunion, Jim runs into a good friend of his, Kevin, who would be perfect to replace Rhonda. Jim wants to bring him on and offers him 4,000,000 shares in the company, the same number of shares that Rhonda received. Kevin is interested, until he realizes that a large percent of the company belongs to a former co-founder, who is no longer involved.

      Here is what the capitalization looks like: Jim and Rhonda each have 4,000,000 shares, Pete has 2,000,000 shares and Jim would like to offer Kevin 4,000,000. If Kevin accepts, he will have approximately 28.5% of the company, but so will Rhonda, who invested only a few months of her life into the project.

      Kevin turns down the offer. When Pete realizes that there is not anyone to replace Rhonda, he leaves as well. At this point, 6 months have passed since he joined the company. Because his shares are subject to vesting over 12 months, half of his shares have vested. The company repurchases the remaining shares.

      Jim is now the only one left, trying to salvage the business. Rhonda and Pete together hold 5,000,000 shares and Jim holds the remaining 4,000,000, or roughly 44.5%. It is very difficult for Jim to bring on either a new graphic artist or a new business person because such a large percent of the company is owned by people, who are not contributing to the business. Jim closes the company and accepts a job at Zynga.

    GameFriends could have avoided this untimely demise, if Jim and Rhonda had not made critical mistakes at the formation stage. Had Jim and Rhonda’s shares had vesting on them, then, when Rhonda left, GameFriends could have repurchased most of her shares, which could have gone to Kevin instead. Pete’s shares were subject to vesting, but the vesting period was too short, which is why he ended up with over 10% of the company when he left 6 months later.

    When shares are granted to contributors, the expectation is that they will continue to contribute for some significant period of time. If they don’t, their shares have to be made available to other contributors, who will be brought in to take their place. Otherwise, those who stay with the company suffer dilution, when additional shares have to be issued to attract replacement contributors, and the recruiting process itself becomes very difficult.

    For this reason, to improve a venture’s chances for success, it is the industry practice for the founders’ shares to be subject to vesting.

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




    Monday, August 5, 2013

    Who Prepares a Financing Term Sheet - the Startup or the Investor?

    Frequently, a startup that is starting the fundraising process feels that it should prepare a term sheet to take to prospective investors. Whether this is necessary and serves it well depends on two key factors (a) the type of investor that it is targeting, and (b) the stage/type of financing.

    Type of Investor: Angels vs. VCs

    Generally speaking, if a company is targeting angel investors, and especially if the idea is to get a group of angel investors to participate on substantially the same terms, it is fairly typical to approach these investors with a company-prepared term sheet.

    Note, however, that in a bridge (convertible note) financing, and if the amount requested from each angel investor is small, it may be prudent to skip the term sheet step altogether, and to present investors with a draft convertible promissory note instead of a term sheet. This can save time and costs. In an equity financing, the simplest of which are still more complex than an average bridge financing, a term sheet may be unavoidable.

    Approaching venture capital firms with a term sheet, unless it's for a follow-on financing on terms from the previous round, is unlikely to be beneficial. In fact, if anything, it might hurt the startup: the venture capital firm that will lead the round will prepare its own term sheet, but if the startups presented its own term sheet with concessions (investor-favorable terms), those investor favorable terms are very likely to be incorporated into the term sheet ultimately presented by the venture capital firm, even though it may not be a standard term for that stage of financing for the fund.

    Stage of Financing: First Financing vs. Successive Financing

    In the context of a rolling bridge financing, once the first investor has invested, the terms of that investment can be used as a benchmark with other investors that the startup targets. If there is a shift in leverage, making it easier to the startup to raise money (as it gains traction, for instance), the terms might stay substantially, but not exactly the same, with the valuation cap increasing or falling away entirely, as an example.

    The first time that a company raises funding through the sale of equity (stock financing), negotiating the right terms is of utmost importance. The bulk of the terms will stay the same, or get worse, through successive rounds. The only term that will, hopefully, improve is valuation. But the control terms will, at best, stay the same, and very commonly will get more complicated and cumbersome as more investors are involved.

    When a startup is doing well, and has supportive existing venture capital investors, who are going to invest in the new round, it is quite typical for the startup to mark-up the term sheet from the last round of financing and to use that as the starting point for negotiations with the new investor. The support of the existing investor cannot be understated in this situation. When Accel, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia or Andreessen Horowitz (it certainly helps to have a first tier VC as an investor) tell the new investor that they like the terms from the prior round and expect them to stay substantially the same in this round, that's what happens.

    Where Does a Startup Get a Term Sheet?

    Of course, your attorney will be happy to provide you with a term sheet, drafted for your specific needs. No amount of reading insightful blog posts, such as this one, will fully replace consulting with a knowledgeable startup attorney. But if you are not going to be using your attorney for this, or if you would just like to educate yourself about term sheets before talking to an attorney or to investors, here are some resources:

  • The Series Seed term sheet is a good template for a very simple first equity financing. If your investors agree to it, you can save yourself time and money by using the other Series Seed forms as well, which are much simpler than, for instance, the NVCA form documents and better tailored to a financing involving angel investors and a small amount of capital.

  • Wilson Sonsini has done a good deed and created online term sheet generators for convertible note financings and equity financings. In order to generate a term sheet using one of these generators, you have to answer a number of questions, some of which may be difficult if you are not at ease with the vocabulary and the nuances of financings. However, at the very least, it's a good way to see what questions you should be asking yourself and your investors about the terms of your transaction.

  • Not to be outdone by Wilson Sonsini, Orrick also has put out its term sheet creators for convertible note financings and preferred stock financings. If you try both Orrick's and Wilson Sonsini's, let me know in comments which one you like better and why.

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




  • Tuesday, July 23, 2013

    Effect on Startups of SEC Changes Eliminating the Prohibition on General Solicitation in Certain Offerings

    [A Russian-language version of this article may be found on Firrma.ru]

    In April 2012, Congress passed the much-awaited Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), which directed the SEC to draft regulations removing the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising for securities offerings relying on Rule 506, provided that sales are limited to accredited investors and an issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors.

    On July 10, 2013, more than a year later, the SEC has finally issued the final rules that will implement the JOBS Act legislation.

    Securities Laws Overview. Under the current U.S. federal securities laws, companies seeking to raise capital through the sale of securities must either register the securities offering with the SEC or rely on an exemption from registration. Rule 506 of Regulation D is the most widely-used exemption from registration. In an offering that qualifies for the Rule 506 exemption, an issuer may raise an unlimited amount of capital from an unlimited number of "accredited investors" and up to 35 non-accredited investors.

    "Accredited investors," as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D, are individuals who meet certain minimum income or net worth levels, or certain institutions such as trusts, corporations, or charitable organizations that meet certain minimum asset levels. A person qualifies as an "accredited investor" if he or she has either (a) an individual net worth or joint net worth with a spouse that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value (and any related indebtedness) of a primary residence; or (b) an individual annual income that exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or a joint annual income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years, and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year.

    Changes to Rule 506 Generally. The final rules approved by the SEC make changes to Rule 506 to permit issuers to use general solicitation and general advertising to offer their securities provided that (a) the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the investors are "accredited investors"; and (b) all purchasers of the securities qualify as "accredited investors" or the issuer reasonably believes that the investors so qualify at the time of the sale of the securities. In other words, there is no restriction on who an issuer can solicit, but an issuer faces restrictions on who is permitted to purchase its securities, if general solicitation or general advertising is used as a means of capital raising. Nevertheless, issuers conducting Rule 506 offerings without the use of general solicitation or general advertising may continue to conduct securities offerings in the same manner as they did previously and aren't subject to the new verification rule.

    Changes to Form D Filing. Prior to new regulations going into effect, an issuer selling securities using Rule 506 was required to file a Form D no later than 15 calendar days after the first sale of securities in an offering. Under the new rules, issuers that intend to engage in general solicitation as part of a Rule 506 offering would be required to file the Form D (a) at least 15 calendar days before engaging in general solicitation for the offering and (b) within 30 days after completing an offering to update the information contained in the Form D and indicate that the offering has ended.

    The scope of Form D is also being expanded to include such additional information as:

    • identification of the issuer's website;
    • expanded information on the issuer;
    • the offered securities;
    • the types of investors in the offering;
    • the use of proceeds from the offering;
    • information on the types of general solicitation used; and
    • the methods used to verify the accredited investor status of investors.

    Solicitation Materials. Under the new rules, as part of SEC's monitoring process, issuers will be required to submit written general solicitation materials used in the offering on the SEC website. Materials submitted in this manner would not be available to the general public.

    Verification of Accredited Investor Status. The final rules provide a non-exclusive list of methods that issuers may use to satisfy the verification requirement for individual investors. For instance, an issuer may review copies of any IRS form that reports the income of the purchaser and obtain a written representation that the purchaser will likely continue to earn the necessary income in the current year. Alternatively, an issuer may receive a written confirmation from a registered broker-dealer, SEC-registered investment adviser, licensed attorney, or certified public accountant that such entity or person has taken reasonable steps to verify the purchaser's accredited status.

    Disqualification for Bad Acts. A restriction in the new rules states that an issuer cannot rely on the Rule 506 exemption if the issuer or any other person covered by the rule had a "disqualifying event." Persons covered by the rule include directors and certain officers, 20% beneficial owners, promoters, and persons compensated for soliciting investors. A "disqualifying event" may be a criminal conviction in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, making of a false filing with the SEC or arising out of the conduct of certain types of financial intermediaries within 10 years of the proposed sale of securities, or other types of misconduct relating to the securities and trading markets. However, an exception from disqualification exists when the issuer can show it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known, that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.

    Disqualification for Failure to Make Timely Filings. An issuer is disqualified from using the Rule 506 exemption in any new offering if the issuer or its affiliates did not comply with the Form D filing requirements in a Rule 506 offering. The disqualification would continue for one year beginning after the required Form D filings are made.

    Impact of Changes on Startups. The JOBS Act sought to make it easier for a company to find investors and thereby raise capital. Have the regulations that have been adopted by the SEC faithfully followed legislative intent, improving the capital raising experience for companies? Only time will provide us with a definitive answer, but in the meantime, here are some factors that will weigh on the success of the legislation as a game-changer in the industry:

    • Demand by Investors: whether there in fact exists a large pool of "accredited investors" who would invest (more frequently and in greater amounts than they are currently) given better access to a pipeline of private offerings;
    • Longevity: whether, even if there is an initial spike in investments by new accredited investors, the novelty and excitement will not wear off, especially as initial investor optimism faces the harsh realities of investing in early-stage emerging technology companies;
    • Non-Accredited Investors: whether the "either/or" nature of the new rules, preventing companies from engaging in general solicitation along-side other fundraising activities, potentially to non-accredited investors, will cause companies not to take full advantage of the new rules;
    • Compliance Hardships: whether the requirements for additional filings (e.g., expanded Form D, solicitation materials), state securities laws, as well as the burden placed on the companies to reasonably ascertain the status of their investors as "accredited investors," coupled with disqualification from use of the exemption for failure to timely file, will hamper widespread use of general solicitation as a means of raising capital;
    • Publicity: whether the public disclosures which would be made in the solicitation materials and the associated loss of stealth-mode advantage will have a chilling effect on early-stage companies;
    • Involvement by Sophisticated Investors: whether sophisticated investors, such as VCs and super-angels, will engage in, or be deterred from, participating as investors in offerings through open solicitation;
    • Later Stage Follow On Rounds: whether successful later-stage startups will consider this an appealing alternative to additional rounds of venture capital or institutional investment;
    • New Investments Instruments and Goals: whether access to different types of investors than typical market players will allow previously "unfundable" companies to raise capital - e.g. LLCs, companies with solid revenues, but no exit opportunity, etc.;
    • Higher Valuations: whether increased competition for companies that stand-out in the open fundraising process will drive valuations, such that this will be the preferred means of raising capital even for companies that have access to venture capital money; and
    • Crowdfunding: whether the successes of crowd-funding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo will be repeated on a larger scale with equity investment in the mix.

    The rule amendments become effective on September 23, 2013 (60 days after publication in the Federal Register).

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




    Monday, July 1, 2013

    Expertorama Interview - Commonly Asked Startup Questions Answered

    In April, when I was in Kiev for iForum, I gave an interview (in Russian) to Expertorama. Many of the questions that we covered in the interview, are questions that I answer all the time for new clients. For those who don’t read Russian and might find this material interesting, I am posting a translation of the interview, slightly reworked and reorganized.

    ABOUT WHITE SUMMERS AND WORKING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

    Please tell me a little bit about yourself, your background, and what you do now?
    I am a corporate and securities attorney based in Silicon Valley, California, specializing in representing startups and startup investors.

    I obtained my JD from Berkeley Law in 2005 (it was then still called Boalt Hall). After law school I joined the Venture Law Group at Heller Ehrman, where I focused on documenting venture capital investments and working with startups. Heller Ehrman imploded in 2008, and my group joined the emerging companies group at Cooley. After Cooley, I worked briefly for Electronics for Imaging. However, I realized that in-house counsel work – only supporting one client, is not for me. I enjoy working with a number of clients at the same time. I hung out my own shingle, but quickly realized that solo practice did not provide the kind of scale that was needed to support my practice. To get better clients, I needed a bigger platform. Two years ago, I took my practice to White Summers, a boutique corporate and transactional law firm, with 10 attorneys. White Summers has offices in the Silicon Valley (Redwood City, California) and in the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Oregon) and specializes on structuring and formation of legal entities, financings, mergers and acquisitions, and commercial contracts.

    Do you represent only U.S.-based startups?
    The majority, though not all of our clients, are incorporated in the United States. Where they are physically located, however, is another matter. About half of my clients are headquartered in the CIS countries. One of my partners, Mark White, represents clients from Spain, and throughout Europe. An attorney is joining us, who will be developing the firm’s China practice. Even though many of our clients are located outside of the United States, they all inevitably have some to the U.S. jurisdiction – either they are incorporated in the United States, or they are raising money here, or their products and services target the U.S. market. A common characteristic among our clients is that they must face questions which require answers from a U.S. attorney.

    When is the right time for a startup to engage legal counsel?
    The best time to seek legal counsel is when the startup begins interacting with the outside world. There are four primary entry points:

    Incorporation. When a startup consists of a single founder programming away in his proverbial garage without involving others, it can wait to talk to an attorney. But at a certain point, as the sole founder attracts team members and starts to actually do business, it becomes beneficial to form an entity with limited liability (usually a corporation). Of course, It is possible, even easy, to incorporate without working with a startup attorney, but will it be done right, in a manner most beneficial to the startup given its long- and short-term goals? At the point when a company is ready to form an entity for doing business, it is best to speak to an attorney to get advice on the best jurisdiction and time to incorporate as well as to get the other formation in place, such as stock issuance and transfer of intellectual property.

    Commercial Agreements. Another time to seek legal counsel is when the startup is negotiating and about to enter into a commercial relationship. Whether this is a license of technology to or from the startup, a bank loan, or even an agreement with a consultant, it is best to consult a professional, who can review the contract terms, explain the risks associated with the particular agreement, and help to negotiate the best terms for the startup.

    Term Sheet. Very frequently I am engaged by a startup that has been presented with a term sheet from an interested investor and needs advice on how to proceed. I provide an analysis of the term sheet and offer a negotiation strategy. My role is to identify the terms that do not conform to best practices in a way detrimental to the startup or the founder, and to review those with the startup. In most of these cases, the founders did not work with legal counsel previously, and are missing important documents. In those situations, I will do corporate cleanup, in other words, generate proper documentation that the investors’ legal counsel will require when they conduct diligence review.

    Financing. Finally, sometimes I am engaged at a stage when the term sheet with investors has been signed and the company needs representation for documenting the financing itself.

    INCORPORATION

    What is the best jurisdiction for a startup to incorporate?
    The answer to this question will vary significantly depending on the startup and on its particular plans. If a startup is planning on looking for funding in the United States, it will need, at the very least, to register a holding company in the United States because by and large American investors will not risk investing in a company registered in Russia or another foreign jurisdiction. They might, nonetheless, invest in a foreign business, but that business must be owned by a company incorporated in United States (and not in the Caymans or in BVI).

    That said, not every startup intends to raise funding in the United States. A startup based outside the United States may look to investors locally or in other jurisdictions, such as Europe or Asia, where investors’ jurisdictional requirements are very different from those of U.S. investors.

    If there is a desire to enter the American market or to work with American investors, then at least one of the companies in the family of companies that constitutes the business must be incorporated in the United States, preferably in Delaware. In fact, the vast majority of startups that are incorporated in the United States, are incorporated in Delaware.

    Why Delaware specifically?
    The United States legal system is based on precedent. So the more that cases of a certain type are adjudicated in a jurisdiction, the more established and clear the law is relating to those kinds of cases in that jurisdiction. Historically, Delaware was the state of choice for large corporations and remains the state of choice for publicly-trading companies in the United States. Perhaps this was because of the business-oriented administrative system in place, or because Delaware has a separate court, the Chancery Court, that specializes in corporate and securities matters. Regardless of the original causes, the fact remains that over many years Delaware has acquired a very established body of corporate law and a judicial system that is competent in these matters and reasonably predictable.

    But that’s history. Bottom line is that investors are familiar with Delaware. They understand how the Delaware laws affect their rights are shareholders. For investors who have large portfolios, investments in 30 to 50 companies or more, it would be an impossible task, having to track their rights across 15 or 20 jurisdictions. Delaware is the industry-standard, and while you don’t have to always adhere to the industry-standard, if you don’t, you should have a very good reason for swimming against the current. Are there any benefits to incorporating in a local jurisdiction (outside the U.S.)?

    When we are talking about global business, we have to talk about families of companies. Thus, having a legal entity in the jurisdiction where a company is actually located can be very convenient for its operations. For example, it is easier for a company incorporated locally to enter into contracts with employees or to obtain a lease for office space.

    For foreign startups that are targeting the U.S. for investment, the local company will typically be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. For startups that are looking to U.S. as a market for its products or services, the U.S. company may be a subsidiary or a sister-company. In either case, the relationships between the family of companies that constitute a business can (and should) be documented by commercial agreements.

    Is it true that one should put off incorporating a venture until it begins generating revenue?
    I would say that waiting to incorporate until a business generates revenue is waiting too long and exposing the founders to too many risks and potential liability. Many startups don’t begin generating revenue for one to two years, or even longer. During that time, they have developers working on valuable intellectual property, officers are meeting with prospective customers, and presumably there is investment being made into the company that is supporting its operations.

    If a startup has not incorporated and does not have a corporate bank account, how is it going to take money from investors? It is, of course, always possible to shake hands and accept a suitcase full of cash under the table. However, this is not a good business practice. If something goes very wrong, the founders will be subject to personal liability because they will be found to have been operating as a common law partnership. To minimize liability and make it easier to conduct business, ventures should be incorporated when they business outgrow the embryonic state and begin to have relationships with the outside world, whether it’s taking investment, uploading a mobile application to the AppStore, or hiring engineers.

    As I mentioned in the discussion about engaging counsel, if a startup consists of a single founder, that founder can exist for quite a while on his own, without incorporating. However, if there are multiple founders involved and the company is not incorporated, the company structure becomes volatile.

    By way of example, let’s say that five founders are working together on a startup without documenting their relationship. By the time an investor enters the scene, only three founders are still working on the project and the remaining founders incorporate the business.

    But what about the two founders who left? Because of the lack of proper documentation, we are faced with many questions the answers to which depend on who you ask. Do the founders who left own a share of the company? If so, is it clear what their share is? Is it proportionate to their contribution? Is intellectual property that they created being used by the company? If so, does the company actually have the right to use it? Do the founders have the right to use it as well in a competing venture?

    More often than not, an investor will not want to get involved in this type of situation because the risks are too high. Investors require that the cap table and IP ownership be clear and unambiguous. And this kind of a situation is exactly the type of issue that investors worry about uncovering when they conduct legal due diligence of a company.

    This is why, the more people that are involved in a project, the more important it is to structure and document everything correctly and in a timely manner. Then, if something does not go according to plan, which is often the case, it’s a minor hiccup that does not derail the entire venture.

    GETTING READY TO TAKE INVESTMENT

    What types of documents should an entrepreneur have in place before talking to investors?
    Technically, you don’t need anything to talk. It is always possible that the investor will be so excited about the investment opportunity that he will offer you a term sheet even when the startup is not incorporated or does not have all the right documents in place.

    That can happen even when we are talking about savvy investors. For example, about six months ago we closed a deal in which our client received funding from Khosla Ventures, a top-tier venture fund. Vinod Khosla met the founder at a conference and he believed in the team and the technology. At that time, the company was formed as an LLC. There was nothing else done; it was an empty shell company. The client received a term sheet and we prepared the proper formation and financing documents.

    In other words, there is no minimum set of documents that a startup is required to have to engage with investors, if there is a sufficiently high level of interest from the investors. But some investors might see a complete lack of corporate documentation as evidence of a lack of commitment by the founders. After all, if the founders have not been willing to invest even the small amount of their own funds necessary to properly set up the company, they must not have a lot of faith in the success of the project. But, ultimately, the importance that is placed on proper corporate documentation pre- first investment is going to be individual to the investor and to his interest in the company.

    If you were to do things “by the book” so to speak, you would form a Delaware corporation, distribute Common Stock to the founding team, impose vesting on the shares, transfer all technology and other intellectual property created by the founders pre-incorporation to the corporation, and enter into agreements with everyone generating intellectual property for the company that make this intellectual property the property of the corporation from the time of creation. That’s the basics. Of course, if the company has any operations, you would properly document those as well.

    Are investors to be trusted? Or will they include terms in a term sheet that take away the founders’ rights in some sneaky way that founders will likely miss without the help of an attorney?
    It depends on how familiar the founder is with the terminology. I would say that on the whole, investors aren’t trying to purposefully mislead the founders or hide something unpalatable in the term sheet. Investors will include those terms and conditions in the term sheet that are important to them. Founders are expected to understand each term (whether on their own or with the help of an attorney). It is not enough to look at the company valuation, though that is certainly an important term. If a founder is experienced, understands common industry practices and terminology, and has already sold three companies, he can probably handle negotiations with the investor himself. But these types of founders are the exception.

    Legal services can come with a hefty price tag. If the investors are performing due diligence, who pays the bill?
    Often in an investment transaction, the startup pays not only for its own attorney, but also for counsel for the investors. This is a very standard practice in the U.S. Sometimes if the investment amount is fairly small ($25,000-$100,000) both parties will agree to pay for their own counsel, or more likely, the investor will not engage counsel in the first place.

    Of course, if we are talking about a very small investment amount, we work with the company to create minimalistic (yet sufficient) documentation, where the legal fees will make sense in the context of the transaction. Usually, a small investment can be documented as a bridge financing using a convertible promissory note that we’ll prepare for the company, based on the investment terms that it would like to offer to its investors. (For more information about convertible promissory notes, see my blog post on the topic.)

    On the other hand, if we are talking about a financing in excess of $500,000, U.S. investors will expect the startup to pay their legal fees. Depending on the transaction, the cost of services of an attorney from the investor side is usually limited to $10,000 -$35,000. Since the attorney for the startup performs the majority of the work in an investment transaction, the cost for company counsel’s fees averages 1.5 to 2 times the cost of legal services for the investor (assuming comparable law firms with comparable rates on both sides of the transaction).

    LEGAL PITFALLS

    What are some legal difficulties that a startup might face at different stages of its life?

    Legal difficulties often arise when something that needs to be documented is put off for later. Then suddenly it becomes too late, and it’s no longer an item at the bottom of a long to-do list, but a mistake which carries a cost and needs to be fixed. Some mistakes can be fixed afterwards, but it is typically more expensive than doing it right the first time.

    Misunderstandings between counterparties also potentially create legal difficulties. If an agreement was rushed, it is possible that it was not thought through fully. After the fact, it may turn out that one party had meant one thing, and the other something else. Sometimes, when documentation wasn’t sufficiently well thought through, the plain text of the contract may not be enough to provide guidance on a point of contention.

    Bottom line, good communication between the parties about their expectations with respect to their relationship will help to minimize many potential conflicts and legal difficulties.

    Are there issues with startups being sued, for patent infringement among other things?
    We do not run into this problem very frequently. In my practice, I have yet to see a single contract that I’ve drafted litigated. Generally speaking, the documents that we generate are meant to set expectations between counterparties. Even if things don’t go according to plan and one of the parties is dissatisfied with the performance of the other, it does not make a lot of sense to go to court for resolution. Litigation is both a very expensive endeavor and a disruptive one for business. The majority of my clients are not yet at a stage where it makes sense for someone to sue them or where they have the resources to sue someone. Fortunately, patent infringement claims have not been brought against my clients either. Possibly for the same reasons listed above, but also because, even if their technology potentially infringes a patent, the patent holder simply wouldn’t know about it. Since my clients’ products and services aren’t household names quite yet, someone has to look pretty hard to find them. And then again, there are no deep pockets, so what will a lawsuit, even a successful one, get them? The company will shut down and everyone loses.

    What we do see sometimes are trademark disputes. Here’s how that usually goes:

    These days, it can be difficult to invent a relevant and interesting company name for which a domain name is still available. But entrepreneurs are creative people, and eventually find a name and a domain. During the name selection process, they will usually run a Google search for their desired name to see if it’s already being used. If the search does not produce relevant hits, or if the only relevant hit is a chicken farm in New Zealand, they proceed with the name.

    The problem is that trademark infringement is broader than using the exact name that another company is using in the same space. The test is “likelihood of confusion” so a company with a similar, not identical name, may have a legitimate claim against a newcomer. Without conducting a thorough trademark search, it is hard to catch those similar but not identical names.

    Proceeding with our example, sometimes it turns out that there is, in fact, another company, with a similar but not identical name, that has the resources to do trademark policing. This company will start a cease and desist letter campaign against what they perceive as a violator of their trademark.

    The first letter is generally from the company that owns the trademark, and reads something like, “We’ve invested a lot of money in our trademark and you are violating our rights! Stop it, immediately.” Then the “offending” company has to go to their attorney and the attorney will write a response explaining how there is actually no trademark violation and that the marks are sufficiently dissimilar that there could be no likelihood of confusion.

    The next letter will typically come from a heavy-hitter law firm hired by the trademark holder. It will say something like “You are violating the rights of our client. Stop immediately or we will sue you.”

    Whether there truly is infringement, is largely a matter of opinion and interpretation, and any question of opinion or interpretation can be resolved in court – that’s what courts do. But that’s a very expensive way to get an answer. If the dispute is between a small startup and an established company with a budget allocated specifically towards IP rights enforcement, the startup will have a difficult decision to make. One option is for the startup to change its name. But that means they would have to come up with another, non-infringing name that’s just as good, find a domain name that’s available, and wave goodbye to the time and money spent on developing this brand. Another option is to continue the letter exchange and hope that the other company is bluffing when they say they’ll sue. That’s a big risk, calling their bluff!

    To reduce the risk of facing this situation, prior to definitively committing to a name, (1) have your attorneys conduct a thorough trademark search for it, and, if it comes back clear (2) register a trademark for it.

    GENERAL ADVICE

    What advice can you give to new/novice entrepreneurs?
    The most important piece of advice that I can give is to do what you love! The right motivation to become an entrepreneur is that you cannot do anything else, not because you don’t have the skills, but because you have identified an important problem, and have a solution to that problem that is far superior to what’s out there now. Being an entrepreneur, running a startup, you’ll work harder than you ever have in your life. It's certainly not for everyone, and if you’re going to take the plunge and go for it, be sure you are ready and that this is right for you.

    Second, you need to be running a continuous assessment of what you bring to the venture. You have to keep track of the components you need for success and be honest about what’s missing. Sometimes, entrepreneurs will start a project on their own and develop a strong personal attachment to it. It is theirs and theirs alone. They don’t want to bring on additional founding team members because they don’t want to share the equity or have to listen to other opinions. That kind of an approach can work for some founders, but it can backfire as well. Two heads are better than one and it is good to be challenged, even if it’s not as comfortable as being king in your own little kingdom. Working alone results in a skewed, one-sided vision.

    Founders should seek out other talented like-minded people who will also become obsessed with the project. The more people that are excited about your idea, the more chances you have of persuading clients, customers, investors and business partners to be excited about it as well.

    Don’t be paranoid that someone will steal your idea. Don’t be reluctant to seek advice from experts or to issue an equity stake to your partners. Running a startup is a collaborative process. All successful companies are developed by a team. No matter how brilliant an entrepreneur is, he cannot run a successful startup without a team. There will inevitably be gaps, and a strong team can fill those gaps. Every successful entrepreneur I have talked to has said “hire people smarter than yourself to be on your team”! Lastly, I would say, constantly check and recheck whether the project you are working on is relevant! Does it provide a solution to a real problem? Solving a fictional problem is truly a thankless task.

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.




    Friday, June 28, 2013

    Getting to a Reasonable Cap Table: How Many Shares to Authorize Initially? What Classes of Shares to Authorize? How Many Shares to Issue to Founders?

    A new corporation is formed when a Certificate of Incorporation in Delaware (or Articles of Incorporation in California and most other states) are filed with the Secretary of State. The Certificate of Incorporation must specify the total number of shares of each class that the corporation is authorized to issue. The Certificate of Incorporation does not specify how many shares the corporation has issued or who the stockholders are.

    What does it mean for shares to be authorized?
    Vocabulary is important here. The authorized number of shares that goes in the Certificate of Incorporation is the number of shares that the Board of Directors may issue without amending the Certificate of Incorporation. By contrast to authorized shares, issued shares are shares that have actually been sold and are outstanding.

    Amending the Certificate of Incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares requires a vote of the stockholders of the corporation. It also requires a state filing and associated fees. This is somewhat tedious. When thinking about the number of shares that you need to authorize, plan so that number of shares initially authorized is sufficient for your purposes for the foreseeable future, until a significant event in the life of the corporation, such as a financing, for example, when you will go through the trouble of amending the Certificate of Incorporation.

    What classes of shares should be authorized initially?
    Generally speaking, unless the company is being incorporated concurrently with taking an investment, only Common Stock needs to be authorized.

    While online searches for sample Certificates of Incorporation may return some Certificates of Incorporation with "blank check" Preferred Stock, the best practice for a startup is not to include it. Investors keep a close eye on the company's authorized and unissued shares of each class and series, allowing only a very small cushion.

    This is because a stockholder's share in a company is calculated as such stockholder's shares divided by the sum of all issued and outstanding shares of the company and the shares reserved under the company's stock plan. Note that a stockholder's share is not based on the company's authorized shares. Therefore, if a significant cushion exists, an investor's share can be easily diluted by the company issuing shares from the pool of authorized shares, without seeking the investor's consent.

    While most investors expect to be diluted at some future time, for example, in connection with the next investment into the company, they try to structure their investment in a way to delay the dilution to a time when the value of the company has increased as well. To better understand dilution, read my blog post on dilution.

    How many shares should be authorized initially?
    For my startup clients, I typically recommend that 10,000,000 shares of Common Stock be initially authorized. There is no magic to this number, but it tends to result in a Series A price per share that is of a familiar/standard magnitude.

    Typically, at a Series A stage, a startup is going to be valued between $2M and $12MM, broadly speaking. At the time of investment, the Series A price will be calculated as pre-money valuation divided by the total number of then issued and outstanding shares, plus the shares reserved under the company's stock plan (including an increase to the stock plan reserve for the Series A round). Simplistically, a $10MM pre-money valuation, divided by $10MM shares (which include shares already issued to the founding team and the unissued shares reserved under the stock plan), equals a Series A price of $1.00. Individual numbers will vary of course, but it makes it easy and convenient to stick to conventions, so that the Series A price per share isn't 1/100 of a dollar nor hundreds of dollars.

    There is an additional consideration. When a startup is recruiting, optically, it is better to be offering 15K, 30K, or 75K shares to employees than 15, 30, or 75 shares. It requires an additional conversation with the recruits about the company's capital structure, about the number of shares that are authorized, and about why that is the case. Most likely, a company that starts out with a very small number of shares will end up doing a stock split at a future point. It's not particularly difficult, but it complicates matters. If you can authorize the "correct" number of shares from the start, the number that will make your life easier, why wouldn't you?

    I recently heard from a company that was incorporated by their CPA, that they were advised to authorize no more than 5,000 shares. The logic behind this suggestion was to save the company money on Delaware franchise taxes. It is true that using the "authorized shares method" a company's franchise tax liability can be as low as $75.00 per year for so long as the company does not authorize more than 5,000 shares. And for a regular small business (not a startup), that's a perfectly acceptable logic to follow. But startups need room to grow. No VC will understand the logic behind keeping the authorized share number extremely low to save a couple hundred bucks. It will seem very short-sighted to them, not smart and frugal. A typical startup uses the "assumed par value capital" method to calculate its Delaware franchise tax liability. The minimum tax that may be owed under the assumed par value capital method of calculation is $350.00. The actual formula to calculate franchise tax liability using this method can be simplified to the following:

      Total Gross Assets (as reported on the U.S. Form 1120, Schedule L) X (Authorized Shares / Issued Shares) X $0.00035.

    How many shares then should the founders issue to themselves initially?
    Founders have a very natural inclination to want to issue amongst themselves all the shares that they authorize in the initial Certificate of Incorporation. However, if the company plans to use equity in the near-term to incentivize its consultants and employees, then a reserve of authorized but unissued shares should be left for this purpose. A typical reserve, even without a formal stock plan, is 10-30% depending on the company's hiring plans. So, in our typical scenario, the founder or the founders would be issued, in the aggregate between 7M and 9M shares of Common Stock, with 1M to 3M authorized and unissued shares remaining available for future issuance.

    Note that the share reserve needs to be sufficient for the company's hiring needs until the next time that the Certificate of Incorporation is amended, and as we've said before, a natural time for the Certificate of Incorporation to be amended is in connection with an equity financing.

    Finally, just a reminder that for founder shares to be properly issued, the following formalities should be observed:

    • there needs to be board authorization (either at a meeting or by written consent) for the issuance,
    • there should be a stock purchase agreement (preferably with vesting) documenting the sale and issuance of the shares,
    • there must be consideration in some form paid for the shares (by assignment of technology is very common),
    • stock certificates should be prepared and signed to evidence ownership of the shares (but kept in escrow by company secretary, and not distributed to the stockholder, if the shares are subject to vesting),
    • the sale should be made in compliance with both a federal and a state securities exemption (which sometimes require a filing, like the Section 25102(f) filing in California), and
    • there may need to be a 83(b) filing made as well, if shares are being issued subject to vesting.

    Happy company making!

    Inna


    White Summers  Inna Efimchik, a Partner at White Summers Caffee & James LLP, specializes in assisting emerging technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, providing incorporation, financing, and licensing services as well as general corporate counseling.
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER

    Copyright Notice. The copyright for all original content in this post and any linked files is owned by Inna Efimchik. All rights are reserved.

    No Attorney-Client Relationship. This post has been prepared by Inna Efimchik of White Summers for general informational purposes only. The information provided herein does not constitute advertising, a solicitation or legal advice. Neither the availability, transmission, receipt nor use of any information included herein is intended to create, or constitutes formation of, an attorney-client relationship or any other special relationship or privilege. You should not rely upon this post for any purpose without seeking legal advice from licensed attorneys in the relevant state(s).

    Compliance with Laws. You agree to use the information provided herein in compliance with all applicable laws, including applicable securities laws, and you agree to indemnify and hold Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses or obligations arising from your failure to comply.

    Disclaimer of Liability. ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. YOU ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK FOR USE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST.

    Inna Efimchik expressly disclaims all liability, loss or risk incurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the use of any information provided herein. By using any information in this post, you waive any rights or claims you may have against Inna Efimchik and White Summers Caffee & James LLP in connection therewith.