Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is no secret that the bulk of today's activity in the private equity sector is taken up with late rounds of financing. Typically, the VCs (ie, private equity funds, including but not limited to funds which are the incumbent in a particular company's series of preferred shares) negotiate the terms of, let's call it, the Series D round ' a so-called “follow on” round. The D Round succeeds, in point of time, the initial issuance to the following investors: common stock to the founders, friends and family and sometimes angels, followed by Series A, B and C convertible preferred shares, to the professional investors.
As VCs in the D round survey the balance sheet and capital structure, they note it is sufficiently cluttered that the company, unless it cleans up its capital structure, may be unfinanceable. And, while the majority of the holders of the A, B and C Series may be amenable to a new round of financing, the vote in favor of the term sheet suggested by the investors in the Series D round (often highly dilutive) may be less than one hundred percent. There is often an intractable, truculent holdout ' someone or some institution who or which, for one reason or another, has entirely lost confidence in the company and its management, or is otherwise disaffected. Some of the holdouts may be impervious to the argument that, absent new financing, the company will fail. “Let it fail,” may be their response. Or, alternatively, “pay me extra baksheesh to persuade me to give up my blocking position.”
I and others have written extensively on this subject (See www.vcexperts.com; Buzz of the Week, “The Overhang Problem, “1/7/2001, Book 11 on Down Rounds, plus Section 5.3 Fiduciary Duties of Controlling Shareholders in Down Rounds, of The Encyclopedia of Private Equity and Venture Capital, which deal with the subject of 'down rounds' generally.) The problem, in short, did not arise the day before yesterday; it has been around for years, with heightened interest since the dot-com meltdown a couple of years ago. And, the professionals in this business have naturally reacted to the issue in structuring private equity financings. Thus, the typical certificate of incorporation or designation establishing the terms of various series of preferred stock (and, for reasons described below, it almost always is a separate series versus a separate class), reads conventionally, until one gets to the automatic conversion provision ' that section of the certificate which compels the entire series (say the Series A, B and C) to convert into common stock upon the occurrence of certain events.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.