Author /

by

AlphaTakes – Determining the Size of the Stock Option Pool

In this AlphaTakes video, Meechie Pietruczak discusses calculating the number of shares in an emerging technology company’s option pool.

Here are the key takeaways from this video:

  1. Emerging technology companies usually create stock option pools to compensate and incentivize employees, directors, consultants and other independent contractors.

  2. The size of the option pool is typically calculated as a percentage of all capital stock, which is often in the range of 10 to 20%.

  3. The size of the option pool may have a significant impact on the price per share paid by an investor.

by

AlphaTakes – Series A Preferred Stock Term Sheet (part two)

In this second of a two part AlphaTakes video series, Matt Storms discusses the second half of the Series A Preferred Stock term sheet for an emerging technology company, using the Series A term sheet published by the National Venture Capital Association.

Here are the key takeaways from this video:

  1. The three most common alternatives to anti-dilution provisions:
    • Weighted average
    • Full ratchet
    • No anti-dilution provisions
  2. Several provisions are not typically heavily negotiated in Series A financings:
    • Pay to play requirements
    • Attorneys’ Fees
    • Registration rights
    • Participation rights
    • Drag-along rights
    • No shop requirements
  3. Keep an eye on the big picture
by

AlphaTakes – Series A Preferred Stock Term Sheet (part one)

In this first of a two part AlphaTakes video series, Matt Storms discusses the first half of the Series A Preferred Stock term sheet for an emerging technology company.  He provides a summary of some of the key terms of the Series A term sheet, using National Venture Capital Association (“NVCA”) model document.

Here are the key takeaways from this video:

  1. The NVCA documents are great resources for understanding the Series A financing, but are fairly investor friendly.

  2. Typical preferred stock dividend provisions alternatives include the following:
    • If and when paid to the common stock
    • Accruing and cumulative
    • If and when declared by the board
  3. Most common preferred stock liquidation preferences alternatives include the following:
    • Non-participating preferred
    • Participating preferred
    • Participating preferred with a cap
  4. Preferred stock typically includes special voting rights, such as designating one or more members to the company’s board of directors and veto rights over certain company actions.
by

AlphaTakes – Incorporation Process for an Emerging Technology Company

In this AlphaTakes video, you will learn about the incorporation process for C corporations, and why it is important to complete the incorporation formalities properly.

Understanding the incorporation process is important for emerging company founders. In this AlphaTakes video, Macy Stoneback describes the incorporation process for a typical emerging technology company. She explains some reasons why it is important to properly complete the incorporation formalities:

  • Help ensure limited liability protection
  • Avoid delays and expense at the time of financing or sale in fixing matters that were not properly addressed at the time of incorporation
  • Set founder expectations

 

 

by

AlphaTakes – Convertible Debt Financing Term Sheets

In this AlphaTakes video, you will learn about convertible debt financings for an emerging technology company and the key terms that are typically negotiated in a convertible debt term sheet. You will learn about the financial and procedural terms and how they will impact you and your emerging technology company.

Convertible debt financings are a common type of bridge financing for emerging technology companies.  In this AlphaTakes video, Matt Storms discusses term sheets for convertible debt financings for an emerging technology company.  He provides a summary of the common key financial and procedural terms that are typically negotiated.

Here are the key takeaways from this video:

    (1)  The convertible debt term sheet for an emerging technology company should be relatively simple and short

    (2)  The key financial term in a convertible debt transaction is typically the size of the discount off the next round’s price or the warrant coverage amount

    (3)  The key procedural terms in a convertible debt transaction typically include the definition of a “Qualified Financing” and the ability to change the transaction documents with less than unanimous approval of the noteholders

 

 

by

AlphaTakes – Liquidation Preferences

So, what is a liquidation preference? A liquidation preference is a right to all or a portion of the assets of a company upon its sale over the rights of others. The liquidation preference can be a basic preferential right like that of preferred stock over common stock, or the liquidation preferences can be very complex with multiple layers of preferences and priorities with several series of preferred stock.

In this AlphaTakes video, Matt Storms discusses the basics concerning liquidation preferences. He provides a summary of the different types of liquidation preferences that are typically negotiated in emerging technology company transactions. He also provides a spreadsheet illustration of the effects of the different types of liquidation preferences.

Here are the key takeaways from this video:

    (1) A liquidation preference is a right to all or a portion of the assets of a company upon its sale over the rights of others

    (2) The three most common types of liquidation preferences for an emerging technology company are

    (a) non-participating preferred (most common in early stage deals)

    (b) participating preferred

    (c) participating preferred with a cap

    (3) Liquidation preferences are important

 


by

Understanding the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) is an international treaty that governs most sales of goods between a buyer and seller that reside in different countries that have adopted the CISG. It has been adopted in the US and more than 70 other countries.

Background on the CISG

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) is an international treaty that governs most sales of goods between a buyer and seller that reside in different countries, if those countries have adopted the CISG. It has been adopted in the US and more than 70 other countries. In fact, signatory countries account for more than two-thirds of all goods moving in international trade and encompass a majority of the world’s population. Significant trading partners that have adopted the treaty include Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, most of Western Europe (excluding Great Britain) and Canada.

In the United States, the sale of goods between businesses is generally governed by state-adopted versions of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). When contracting parties in the U.S. agree to terms, the UCC serves as a backdrop, filling certain gaps that the parties may have failed to address, establishing certain standards on warranties and disclaimers, etc. The CISG performs a similar role in an international transaction, but differs from the UCC in important ways. Set forth below is a brief summary of some of the key aspects of the CISG, as well as differences between the UCC and the CISG.

When the CISG Applies

As noted above, the CISG applies to the sale of goods between parties residing in different jurisdictions that have adopted the CISG. The CISG, however, does not apply to sales (1) of consumer goods; (2) by auction; (3) of securities or negotiable instruments; (4) of ships, vessels, or aircraft; or (5) electricity. The CISG is also not applicable to so-called “assembly contracts” where the party that orders goods to be manufactured supplies a substantial part of the materials necessary for such manufacture or production of the goods.

It is important to note that when applicable, the CISG is likely to apply unless expressly disclaimed in the contract. Case law suggests, for example, that if you are selling equipment to a Canadian buyer and your contract says something to the effect of, “the parties agree that the laws of Wisconsin will govern this transaction, except the conflict of law provisions therein,” the CISG will still likely trump Wisconsin law unless the contract goes on to state expressly that the CISG does not apply.

Differences between the CISG and the UCC

Should you care if the CISG applies? It depends. But you should know what you are agreeing to so you can make a reasonable choice.

CISG Applies to Oral Contracts

One significant difference between the CISG and the UCC is that the UCC limits the enforceability of oral contracts. The CISG states that a contract of sale need not be evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement as to form. A contract may be proven by any means, including witnesses. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific clause to the contrary, the CISG generally permits oral amendments or modifications to contracts.

Battle of the Forms

The CISG and UCC also differ in their approaches to the “battle of the forms.” Under the UCC, a final form that is not intended specifically as a counteroffer will act as an acceptance, even though it contains different or additional terms to those contained in the prior form. The additional terms are considered as proposals for additions to the contract and, as between merchants, become part of the contract, unless (1) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (2) the terms materially alter the offer; or (3) notification of objection to the terms already has been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice has been received.

The CISG departs from the UCC approach and, instead, says a reply to an offer that purports to be an acceptance but contains material additions, limitations or other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counteroffer. Thus, at least prior to performance, either party may be able to claim successfully that no enforceable contract exists under the CISG. After delivery and acceptance, a contract will undoubtedly be deemed to have existed. Although the terms of the contract may be subject to dispute, the CISG generally favors the last party to submit materially different terms.

Disclaimer of Warranties Less Formal Under the CISG

The UCC and the CISG have similar provisions for warranties, but the requirements to disclaim warranties differ. The CISG contains no provisions comparable to the disclaimer procedures that sellers may use under the UCC. For example, under the UCC, an effective disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability generally must mention “merchantability” and must be in conspicuous writing. Similarly, an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty of fitness must be in writing and conspicuous. The CISG is less formalistic and appears to permit disclaimers of warranties as long as the “parties have agreed” in writing or orally.

UCC Follows the “Perfect Tender” Rule

Under the UCC, a buyer is generally entitled to reject goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract. This is known as the “perfect tender” rule. Under the rule, generally speaking, a buyer may in good faith reject goods and cancel the contract, even if a defect in tendered goods is not serious and the buyer would have received substantially the goods for which it bargained. The CISG departs from the perfect tender rule and makes rejection or cancellation more difficult. The buyer may void a contract only if the failure by the seller to deliver goods constitutes a fundamental breach. Under the UCC, the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods. However, under the CISG, the buyer must inspect the goods within as short a period as is practicable under the circumstances.

CISG Has a “Self-Help” Remedy

The CISG allows for many of the same damage remedies as those available under the UCC. Generally, a buyer may claim damages if the seller fails to perform. Under the CISG, damages typically equal the loss suffered as a consequence of the breach, including the loss of profit. These types of damages are similar to the direct, incidental, and consequential damages available under the UCC. However, the CISG includes a novel unilateral price reduction remedy: if the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may reduce the price. This self-help remedy is not available if the seller is able to cure non-conformity without causing unreasonable delay or inconvenience to the buyer.

Conclusion

Whether you will be helped or hurt by the CISG depends on the circumstance. In the ever-increasing world of global trade, however, buyers and sellers should be aware that it will likely apply unless expressly disclaimed and it will impact how their contract for the sale of goods is enforced. Detailed information about the CISG can be found at the website of the Institute of International Commercial Law at Pace University School of Law.