Fenwick publishes a quarterly study of VC deal activity in various areas. The most recent life sciences report can be found here: http://www.fenwick.com/vctrends/LS_VC_Survey_2006.htm?WT.mc_id=LSVCS_032707_e-mail-corp
While the venture market still seems flush with cash, a number of recent litigations involving venture firms (such as the Hummer Winblad case now in seemingly constant discussion) are driving the market to seek additional protections from their portfolio companies upon investment and afterwards.
In particular, some investors are now asking for indemnification from the company akin to the measures in an acquisition agreement. Companies looking to oppose these provisions should know that they are generally rare. While an indemnity is market where the deal presents some liquidity to the founders or other investors. this is not common in the venture context. The VC investors typically have board seats, observation and information rights and strong covenants, so they are in a position to see how the money is spent. If they don't have then, this presents a bargaining chip for the company in exchange for the indemnity being sought. They also have the right to sue the company for breach of the reps or fraud while there is still money to pay the claim. Unlike an M&A deal, venture round docs usually don't have exclusive remedy clauses.
A later stage financing certainly is more likely to give concern to the investor about the unknown that cannot adequately be tested through due diligence, but it would be unfair to shift that risk to the founders. If I am a VC asking for this provision and getting it regularly, I have to ask kind of company (and founder team) am I investing in if they will accept those terms. The
better the terms for the VC, the more apparently becomes the adverse selection problem.
One way to deal with the issue is to ask the investors their specific concerns. If there is a known problem, such as a litigation, a 409A problem, etc., that can be dealt with through traunches, escrow etc, without personally impinging on the Founders . The NVCA model docs address this issue parenthetically by having certain reps be made by the Founders, where the "Founder's liability for breaches of any provisions of this Section 3 shall be limited to the then current fair market value [as determined in good faith by the board of directors of the Company and such Founder [may, in his sole discretion, discharge such liability by the surrender of such shares or the payment of cash] (note FN1 and FN2 below from the docs). The NVCA docs are intended as a fair starting point for a Series A round, and they do not contemplate an indemnity. Finally, another approach may be to allow the indemnity, but to limit all recourse to the Founder's shares. The risk here, of course, is the precedent for the next round.
[1] Founders' representations are controversial and may elicit significant resistance. They are more common in the Northeast and counsel should be warned that they may not be well received elsewhere.
They are more likely to appear if Founders are receiving liquidity from the transaction or if there is heightened concern over intellectual property (e.g., the Company is a spin-out from an academic institution
or the Founder was formerly with another Company whose business could be deemed competitive with the Company). Founders' representations are not common in subsequent rounds, even in the Northeast, where risk is viewed as significantly diminished and fairly shared by the investors rather than being disproportionately borne by the Founders.
[2] Investors should consider whether cash is an acceptable remedy; the cash value of the shares is likely to be low, particularly if there has been a breach of a rep or warranty. In addition, if the Investors require the surrender of shares rather than cash, they should also consider whether to include Preferred Stock, as well, if the Founder owns shares of Preferred.
What do VCs really want from their CEOs? A recent study by VentureOne shows that #1 is sales and marketing, followed by operations leadership, financial management and product development.
The study summary can be found here
This study of VCs and CEOs reflects some interesting, but not surprising statistics about board members in startups and tech companies.
A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) found that in a close corporation context, the estate of one of the company’s founders that was a minority shareholder was not entitled to a buyout. See here for the opinion: http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=16741&sid=120
The court stated that in a freeze-out situation, the buyout is not the only reasonable remedy. Instead, since the freeze-out denies the minority’s “reasonable expectations of benefit” of being a stockholder, the remedy should, to the extent possible, restore to the minority shareholder those benefits reasonably expected, but not received because of the breach.
The court explained that “in ordering the defendants to purchase the plaintiff’s stock at the price of her pro rata share of the company, the judge created an artificial market for the plaintiff’s minority share of a close corporation — an asset that, by definition, has little or no market value.” This is a very interesting position, considering all of the ado over 409A and stock option valuations for startup companies in the last few years.
Today’s VC deals (at least on the east coast) are likely to contain a redemption clause in the charter of the company, giving the investors a “put” right to make the company buy back their investment after some period of time has passed (usually 5 yrs or more). VC funds have their own investors and want to see an exit within the same period, so the redemption right gives some additional (perhaps illusory) protection to the investors that they can cause the company to liquidate their position. Of course, if the company does not have the money, little can be done. The concept really works only when the company is financially stable, but the other stockholders do not want to liqudate their investment or sell (i.e. perhaps it is lifestyle company or there is disagreement on timing), which allows those with the put rights to seek a buyout.
Several recent decisions help interpret the scope of redemption rights in context. In Harbinger Capital Partners v. Granite Broadcasting, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that preferred stock that was mandatorily redeemable by the company was still equity, not debt. The case can be read here. The preferred stockholders sought to enjoin a sale of assets by the company by claiming that they were a creditor, and the sale a fraudulent conveyance. Their argument was based largely on a recent change in accounting rules under GAAP and FASB that provided for a debt treatment of certain types of preferred stock with redemption features. The court rejected that theory. Relying on a long line of cases, it held that the rights of shareholders to recover dividends or to redeem their stock is dependent on the financial solvency of the corporation,’ and is therefore not a fixed liability.” Marking its territory, the court also noted that FASB was neither lawmaker nor judge,” and should not have “the power to fundamentally alter the law’s understanding of the role of preferred shares.”
Another 2006 case by a Maryland state court had a different take on the issue. In Costa Brava Partnership III v. Telos, (2006 WL 1313985) investors argued that their preferred shares were debt because they “lack voting rights in most circumstances, yield fixed dividend payments, maintain a fixed maturity date, have redemption and liquidation rights which do not exceed the security’s issue price, retain priority over common stockholders, and are classified as “indebtedness” in the corporate charter. “ They also argued that the company itself classified its accruing dividend obligations as debt on its financial statements. The court stated that such conduct by the company would indicate the preferred stock is to be treated as debt. Therefore, without expressly ruling on the issue of whether the investor can be considered a creditor, the court refused to dismiss a claim for fraudulent conveyance (which can only stand if ultimately Costa Brava is found to be a creditor).
Another 2006 Delaware Chancery Court decision, Thoughtworks v. SV Investment Partners (aka Schroeders), provides an interesting introspective on how courts interpret the mechanics of a redemption provision, and perhaps a useful roadmap on how they are negotiated. The case can be read here: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(w0fpgu55x0mqkc45box4kbml)/download.aspx?ID=79250. In typical Delaware court fashion, the court interpreted the redemption language in the charter very strictly and refused the company to delay its redemption payments to fund working capital. The court looked at the history of negotiations, where the Company originally wanted to carve it entire budget out of available funds for redemption but the parties finally agreed on a carveout for a particular year (2005). In light of the Harbinger case I am not sure what of the ultimate impact in this case, when it seems that the company may have trouble making the payment in any event.
Notwithstanding the strict constructionist approach on redemption, the court in Thoughworks took a different tack on interpreting a negative covenant in the charter. The negative covenants did not expressly reference a material indebtedness provision, requiring consent only for any contractual arrangement providing for the payment of $500,000 or more.” The Court found that “such contractual arrangements can be easily read to include debt transactions.” (I am not sure I agree). This finding by the Court is a bit of a surprise, as I think most corporate and vc lawyers would find the language to be lacking.
