Showing posts with label Venture Capital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Venture Capital. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

NVCA Recognizes Importance of Life Science and Bio-Tech

Life sciences and bio-tech companies continue to have a major impact the venture capital landscape.

The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) provides model legal forms for venture capital investors and entrepreneurs seeking venture capital. The NVCA model forms are the starting point for many venture capital transactions. In a nod to the growing important of the life sciences industry, the NVCA model forms have recently been updated to become more life-sciences friendly.

As the NVCA's press release from February noted: "For the first time, the documents now incorporate drafting options that are specific to the unique nature of life science transactions."

Examples of new life science focused terms and footnotes in the NVCA Model Legal Forms include the following additions to the NVCA's model Stock Purchase Agreement:
  • Noted that life sciences transactions often include "Milestone Closings" with tranched investments in which investors are expected to make additional contributions to the company (such as upon FDA approval).
  • Added potential penalty provisions applicable to investors who fail to fund Milestone Closings.  
  • Noted that the "Use of Proceeds" section may be more specific for life sciences companies and "may include 'discovery, research and pre-clinical development' of a particular therapeutic." 
  • Noted that for life science transactions, it is common to define "Company Intellectual Property" in greater detail with respect to patent rights, including “patent disclosures and all related continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, reissue, reexamination, utility model, renewals, extensions, certificate of invention and design patents, patent applications, registrations and applications for registrations.”
  • Proposed more detailed representations and warranties regarding:
    • Intellectual property held or funded by the government or academic or medical institutions;
    • Compliance with HIPPA;
    • Pre-clinical development;
    • Clinical trials; and 
    • FDA approvals.

Monday, August 21, 2017

SmartVest Presentation: "Ins and Outs of Term Sheets"

Last week I had the honor of making a presentation as part of SmartVest, a Startup Investor Series sponsored by TECH Fort Worth. I presented "Ins and Outs of Term Sheets," discussing some of the common terms found in Series A investment term sheets. The presentation was a lot of fun to give, primarily because the accredited investors in attendance asked a lot of really great questions.

Thanks to TECH Fort Worth for including me in this valuable educational program for the startup investment community.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Cracking the SAFE: Financing Option for Start-ups

What the heck is a SAFE start-up investment and is it right for you?

SAFE stands for Simple Agreement for Future Equity.  The investment approach and the acronym itself were developed and coined by Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley-based start-up accelerator and seed investor. SAFEs have been getting quite a bit of buzz in the start-up community.

A SAFE is a convertible equity instrument used by start-up companies. The investor invests cash today in exchange for the company’s promise to issue equity in the future. What type of equity and upon what terms?  Exactly.  SAFE’s are convertible into the next round of equity issued by the company (typically a Series A preferred stock financing round) - whatever that financing round ends up looking like. SAFEs typically convert at a price discount to the Series A round and/or with a valuation cap applicable to the Series A round so that the early stage SAFE investor gets some benefit from taking on more risk by investing in the company at an earlier stage.

Here’s how it works.  Say you have a start-up company that has a great idea but urgently needs funding (sound familiar?).  You have some friends and family or angel investors that have bought into the concept and your vision, but because the company is early-stage, pre-revenue, there are no obviously appropriate valuation metrics.  The company needs equity financing sooner rather than later, but how do you price the equity at such an early stage? Whatever valuation you pick is likely to be unfair to the founders or the investors. And what other equity terms will apply (common or preferred equity, liquidation preference, dividend rate, registration rights, tag-along rights, board membership rights, voting rights, etc.)? As you can see, when you start funding a start-up, a lot of questions arise quickly.  Does it really make sense to spend a start-up’s limited time and money negotiating valuation and other deal terms at such an early stage? The parties could spend thousands of dollars and countless hours putting deal terms in place for a concept that never gets off the ground.

The SAFE investment instrument allows you to kick these sorts of issues down the road to a more appropriate stage of the start-up’s life cycle. When the start-up engages in a true Series A financing round, perhaps the financing round led by more sophisticated professional investors, such as a venture capital firm. Often the Series A investor is better able to take on the task of valuing the company and structuring the terms of the Series A investment. And perhaps the company has a revenue stream to value or at least a clearer path to defining and measuring a potential revenue stream at that point. When things go as planned, the SAFE investors can piggy-back off the added time, information and expertise of the Series A investors to hopefully achieve more equitable deal terms. The SAFE converts into the same (or substantially similar) security purchased by the Series A investors at the same time the Series A round closes.

If SAFEs sound familiar, it’s because SAFEs are in many ways similar to convertible notes, which have long been a tool used by early-stage start-up investors. SAFEs, like convertible notes, involve a cash investment today with an expectation of conversion in an equity security in the future.
Advocates for SAFE, such as Y Combinator, argue that SAFEs are superior to convertible notes because, among other things (1) SAFEs accrue no interest, (2) SAFEs have no maturity dates, and thus, no potential solvency issues for the start-ups, (3) SAFEs have fewer terms to negotiate, and thus are less expensive to implement (a SAFE is typically only about 5 pages long), and (4) SAFEs are more reflective of economic reality – investors in convertible notes rarely really intended to be a lender to the company (the convertible note is just a placeholder until conversion, typically when the Series A terms are known).

There is much positive to be said for SAFEs as a quick-and-dirty mechanism to bridge a start-up to a more formal round of equity financing. From the company’s perspective, there is much to love about SAFEs.

From the investor’s perspective, on the other hand, SAFE is a misnomer. The instrument isn’t “safe,” or at least not as safe as a convertible note or a priced equity financing round. If the start-up never issues it’s “next” round of equity, the SAFE exists in investment purgatory as neither an equity investment nor a loan. SAFEs typically provide that SAFE investors get a liquidation preference or get converted into equity upon a sale or liquidation of the company – but that could be many years down the road – or never!  Of course, no start-up equity investment is truly safe. If the company fails spectacularly, a convertible note holder is likely to be every bit as “wiped-out” as a SAFE holder. Still, there are advantages to an investor having the status and rights of a lender or a true equity holder.

That said, a SAFE investor could reasonably conclude that the cost savings to the investor (and to the company) of investing in a SAFE might outweigh the added investor protections of negotiating to acquire convertible notes or a full-blown common or preferred equity investment.     

While the SAFE investment vehicle is not for everyone, it is certainly a worthy addition to a start-up’s financing tool-box.

SAFE form documents proposed by Y Combinator are available on their website here.

Monday, June 1, 2015

More Praise for the Middle Market and Private Equity

I have blogged in the past about America's marvelous Middle Market and how important it is to our national economy.  Here comes further proof of that fact from the Association for Corporate Growth (ACG), perhaps the most important voice in the middle market transaction space. According to ACG:

  • The middle market represents 1% of all business establishments, but provides 26.5% of all jobs in the United States; and
  • From 1995 through 2013, U.S. private equity-backed companies grew jobs by 83.7%, while all other U.S. companies grew jobs by 27%. Over 3/4 of this growth came from the middle market. 

So what is the middle market?  While everyone has there own definition, ACG defines the middle market as companies with annual sales between $10 million and $1 billion.

Here are a few Texas-specific private equity facts that I found on ACG's website:
  • Between 2003 and 2014, Texas enjoyed 5,825 private capital investments worth an aggregate of $435.4 billion.  
  • There are 4,025 Texas companies backed by private capital. 
  • The 497 private firms based in Texas.

Friday, May 15, 2015

TECH Fort Worth Still Making an IMPACT

Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the 2015 TECH Fort Worth IMPACT Awards.  As always, the event had a lot of energy and showcased some of TECH Fort Worth's most successful past and current clients.

This year's keynote speaker was Alvaro Guillem, Ph.D., the President and co-founder of ZS Pharma Inc. ZS Pharma became a client of TECH Fort Worth in 2009, and as of the posting of this blog post, it has a market capitalization of $1.2 billion.  Dr. Guillem walked the audience through the benefits of its drugs for those suffering from hyperkalemia (elevated potassium levels) and ZS Pharma's early stage financing efforts. I was especially interested to learn that ZS Pharma benefited from an investment from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, a $485 million fund created by the State of Texas to, among other things "help start-up companies get off the ground faster and attract high-tech jobs" (according to the website of the Office of the Texas Governor).

The event also spotlighted the successes of following TECH Fort Worth clients:

  • Beartek Gloves, who makes "smart" gloves that allow wearers to control electronic devices without removing the gloves. They are marketing especially to motorcyclists, skiers, and snowboarders, to make their activities safer and more convenient.
  • Ben Hogan Golf, who is re-launching the Ben Hogan brand of high quality, precision golf clubs.
  • Encore Vision, who is developing eye drops to treat presbyopia (farsightedness). [Wikipedia says that presbyopia comes from Greek words meaning literally "trying to see as old men do."]
  • Ampcare, who sells devices and techniques involving therapeutic neuromuscular stimulation technologies for the treatment of dysphagia (swallowing disorders). Ampcare was the "people's choice" award winner based upon a real-time vote by audience members at the event.
It is truly inspiring to see all of the great ideas, great people, and great companies that are attracted to and benefit from TECH Fort Worth, "a business incubator focused on helping entrepreneurs bring innovative technologies to market."  The Fort Worth business community is certainly lucky to have the TECH Fort Worth team in our corner.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

North Texas Private Investment in Q2

"It's all ball bearings nowadays." - Irwin M. "Fletch" Fletcher as airplane technician, Gordon Liddy.

"It's all energy nowadays." - Me.

I couldn't hep but think of Chevy Chase's classic movie line when I reviewed the Dallas Business Journal's Private Investment Survey for the second fiscal quarter of 2012.  The survey shows total private investment in North Texas of $1.24 billion for Q2, of which $1.13 billion was raised by Venari Resources LLC, an oil exploration firm.  Of the remaining $120 million of private investment, $53.7 million went to other energy-related companies.  

So by my calculations, 95% of the private equity raised in North Texas in Q2 went to into the energy sector.  So maybe it's not all energy nowadays, but it's pretty darn close.   

By the way, I learned last week that Burton "Bubba" Gilliam, the actor that played Bud opposite Chevy Chase in the scene quoted above, is a fellow resident of North Texas.  Since he's one of my favorite actors, I thought that was pretty cool.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Praise for NVCA Model VC Legal Documents

One of my favorite resources for venture capital transactions is the National Venture Capital Association's (NVCA) Model Legal Documents, which are available here.

I feel the same way about model legal documents that Irwin M. "Fletch" Fletcher feels about file cabinets, as he told us in the 1989 classic film, Fletch Lives:  "I love them when they're unlocked, neatly organized and tell me exactly what I wanna know."

Well, no model legal document is as terrific as Fletch's model file cabinet, but the NVCA model forms have an amazing amount of information and commentary on venture capital terms.  They are "unlocked" in that they are freely available to the public at NVCA's website (www.nvca.org).  They are certainly neatly organized.  Whether or not they tell you exactly what you "wanna know" of course depends upon the specifics terms of your particular deal.

The NVCA model legal documents attempt to reflect "best practices" from both the West Coast and the East Coast and include the following typical VC documents:
  • Term Sheet
  • Stock Purchase Agreement
  • Certificate Of Incorporation
  • Investor Rights Agreement
  • Voting Agreement
  • Right of First Refusal and Co-Sale Agreement
  • Management Rights Letter
  • Indemnification Agreement
  • Model Legal Opinion

Monday, June 25, 2012

DFW Private Investments Q1 2012

It seems the market for private capital in Dallas-Fort Worth is a little top-heavy this year. According to a survey conducted by the Dallas Business Journal, DFW area companies raised $574 million from private equity, venture capital and angel investments during the first quarter of 2012.  However, two deals (Ennis-Flint and Lucid Energy) accounted for $480 million, or 84% of the total private investment in DFW during that fiscal quarter.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Is Going Public a viable Exit Strategy?

When I began practicing securities law in the late 1990's, it was the golden era of public offerings.  It seemed anybody with a hot idea and a Silicon Valley address was taking their company public.  That's no longer the case.  The Great Recession has really put a damper on the number of public offerings generally, and initial public offerings in particular.  According to the September issue of Inc. magazine, only 67 companies have gone public so far this year in the United States, 109 went public in 2010, and only 48 went public in 2009.  Accordingly, shareholders of private companies seeking a near-term exit strategy should generally be thinking of a sale in a privately negotiated M&A transaction rather than tapping into the public equity markets. 

Monday, September 26, 2011

Texas Entrepreneurship Progams Rank Highly

The October issue of Entrepreneur magazine has some good news for the future of the Texas economy.  Texas based universities made an impressive showing in the Princeton Review's top 25 entrepreneurship programs in the country as reported by the magazine.  According to this blogger's count, 3 of the top 25 undergraduate programs (Houston (1), Baylor (3) and TCU (21)) and 3 of the top 25 graduate programs (Texas (8), Rice (9) and Acton (13)) are based in Texas.

Since entrepreneurship is the engine of economic growth, it is encouraging to know that some of the top young talent is graduating from programs right here in the Lone Star State.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

DFW Venture Capital Investments

I just stumbled upon a statistic that will be discouraging to those of us in the Dallas-Fort Worth venture capital community.  The Dallas Business Journal recently reported that DFW companies raised only $714 million in 38 venture capital tranactions in 2010. That's down from $2.8 billion in 137 transactions in 2000.  Hopefully, that means the venture arrow can only point up from here!

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Mythbuster: Dilution is not a 4-letter word

Dilution is not something to be feared.  It is something to be respected.  Let me explain.

Dilution is a much talked-about topic among company founders, angel investors, and venture capitalists.  Founders are understandably fearful of any dilution of their stake in the company.  A company's founder always starts off owning 100% of the company.  Then, the founder may sell off pieces of the company to key executives and employees, strategic partners, sources of equity capital, and others.  Each time a new party gets new shares of stock from the company, all of the existing shareholders get diluted and own less of the company.

At first glance this seems bad - the founder used to own 100% of the company and now he owns less, often much less.  But what did he get in return?  Hopefully, by issuing stock to key executives and employees the founder was able to recruit and retain a highly motivated management team.  By issuing stock to strategic partners the company got access to exciting new markets.  By issuing stock in exchange for equity capital, the company got the funds it needed to complete its prototype, or to build its new factory, or to compensate its sales team. 

Any time a company issues new stock the company's board of directors must evaluate whether or not the issuance will expand the size of the pie (the equity value of the company) enough to justify diluting the amount of the pie held by existing shareholders (their repsective percenatge ownership of the company).  Of course, no company has a crystal ball, and stock issuances do not always benefit the company.  If the board does its job correctly, however, dilution (along with the issuance that caused the dilution) will actually benefit the existing shareholders.

Bill Gates no longer owns 100% of Microsoft, but I imagine that he is quite pleased with the value of the 7% of Microsoft that he owns as of the company's most recent proxy statement!