Category Archives: Attorneys

SAM Client HitFix Acquired by Woven Digital

HitFix

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ client HitFix, a fan-focused publisher of entertainment news, reviews and video, has been acquired by Woven Digital.  Terms are undisclosed.

With the acquisition HitFix’s 17 employees are joining Woven, including CEO Jennifer Sargent, editor-in-chief Richard Rushfield, CTO Anurag Jain and TV critic Alan Sepinwall. Woven plans to boost HitFix’s video output, with higher production quality and frequency, and they believe that HitFix’s focus on the 18-34 year old market will help them expand the company’s reach into the highly sought demographic.

Prior to the acquisition, HitFix had raised $6.8 million. The company’s investors included Gordon Crawford, Golden Seeds, Angel Capital Entrepreneurial Fund, Liquid Capital Group and Tech Coast Angels. In 2008, Sargent co-founded HitFix with Gregory Ellwood, who left the company last September.

SAM attorneys on the deal included Louis Wharton, Scott Galer and Mariam Karson.

To view further press on the transaction, visit:
Variety
Hollywood Reporter 

About HitFix
HitFix is the fastest growing entertainment news brand, driving discovery, conversation and choices for passionate entertainment fans via breaking news, expert analysis, engaging reviews, recaps and live, on-the-scene event coverage of the biggest entertainment events across film, TV, music and more. HitFix offers partners access to an unparalleled editorial and video distribution network spanning desktop, mobile, social, video and out-of-home digital displays to the tune of 90+ Million interview streams and 300+ Million viewers each month. HitFix is truly everywhere.

About Woven Digital
Woven Digital is an award-winning digital media and content company. Woven’s unique approach to storytelling through a mix of documentary-style video and authoritative journalism covers subject-matter and individuals often overlooked by traditional broadcast and media. Through our brands, we engage with millions of young male consumers on a daily basis. Woven’s flagship destination, UPROXX, is a top-25 mobile site that delivers original programming celebrating humans and human culture (HUMAN), exploring tech and innovation (LUMINARIES), breaking the undiscovered in music (UNCHARTED) and covering the unknown stories in sports (UNDERBELLY). For more information about Woven, visit www.woven.com.

About Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP is a business law firm with robust corporate, public securities, mergers and acquisitions, entertainment, intellectual property, brand protection and business litigation practice groups focusing on the representation of, among others, venture backed emerging growth companies, middle market public companies, large technology companies, entertainment and digital media companies, investors, venture capital funds, investment bankers and underwriters. The firm’s clients represent the full spectrum of Southern California business with a concentration in the technology, entertainment, videogame, apparel and medical device sectors. Our mission is to provide technically excellent legal services in a consistent, highly-responsive and service-oriented manner with an entrepreneurial and practical business perspective. These principles are the hallmarks of our Firm.

Press Contact:

Heidi Hubbeling
Director of Marketing
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com
(310) 746-9803

 

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

“How to Tighten Contracts & Minimize the Expense of Litigation” by Ryan C.C. Duckett

Simple Contract Drafting and Negotiation Tips

From the inception of creating a contract to the closing prior to execution, word accuracy and term clarity helps shield contracts from that not so slim chance that, my contract won’t be litigated.  Do not be so quick to “Frankenstein” a contract with a myriad of cut and pastes. A little precaution can save your client a great deal of fortune.

Introduction of Contracts: The introductory clause of a contract is as critical as the body because it identifies the parties of an agreement. What seems so simple is easy to overlook. For instance, in a 2015 celebrity case dismissed on 9/11, and affirmed in 2016 by the California Court of Appeal, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian filed suit against Chad Hurley and AVOS Systems, Inc. for broadcasting confidential video of Kanye’s marriage proposal to Kim in violation of a confidentiality provision precluding publishing any video of Kanye’s proposal before it was published by Kim’s reality TV show Keeping Up With The Kardashians. The case was decided on whether Hurley’s tweet with a link to video of the proposal was a breach of the agreement by AVOS. Although Hurley was CEO of AVOS, he never signed the agreement on behalf of AVOS – according to him – and, whether someone is acting on behalf of a company is a question of facts, which means, it’s for a jury to decide[1]. Hurley was found liable but his company AVOS got off scot-free. Seriously? How could it be more obvious what was intended by Kanye and Kim? Simple…A quick definition defining all parties at the onset of the contract removes any question of fact, making it clear who the agreement binds.

Terms of Contracts: The terms of a contract should be as black and white as the paper it’s on. Many common words such as “material”, “full disclosure” or “efforts,” originally thought of as pinpointing the intentions, recently are vastly becoming more diluted from overuse, leaving too much room for interpretation. For example, what is material to one may not be so material to another, especially in contracts when interests are adverse and what one cares about, the other does not. Unfortunately, parties wait until the heat of litigation until clarifying what was originally intended.

By way of another example: Q. How are best efforts different from reasonable efforts?When parties enter into an exclusive distribution agreement, they like to set the tone for the distributor about the “efforts” the distributor must apply. Although California courts have yet to divulge into intricacies behind levels of effort, New York courts have and find it “murky.” Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-306(2), the producer may want to remain silent on the degree of effort to be expended by the distributor because it requires “best efforts…unless otherwise agreed.” In an original case defining best efforts, Falstaff Brewing Co. bought Ballantine brewing labels, trademarks, and everything else but the beer, with a promise to use “best efforts” to distribute it. Well, along came Guinness beer with an unprecedented low price. Falstaff intuitively succumbed to distributing the lower priced beer. Falstaff, however, was held in breach for failing to continue selling Ballantine, even though Falstaff was forced to incur an economic loss by doing so.[2]

Where parties have contracted to use a lesser degree of efforts, such as ”reasonable efforts” or “commercially reasonable efforts,” the courts held that such efforts are “interchangeable” with “best efforts.”[3]  Bottom line being to expressly articulate criteria intended to qualify as meeting your client’s “justifiable expectations,”[4]instead of leaving it to a precarious chance by courts’ “case by case” rulings.

Dispute Resolution of Contracts:  At the negotiation stage, many parties try to rush through the dispute resolution terms in the face of a breach, hoping this will never be the case. Coincidentally, this is the best and only time to negotiate such difficult terms. In a February 18, 2016 case initiated by Allstate Insurance for an insured’s alleged breach, the Defendants successfully dismissed the action immediately when the trial court ruled that a pre-litigation demand letter adequately satisfied the terms to enter into “good-faith negotiations” before filing a lawsuit.[5] Literally, “good faith negotiations before filing a lawsuit” really means an agreement to try to agree, but requires no back and forth process. If you want more good faith interaction before someone races to file a lawsuit, the contract should explicitly state each step a party must take.

Although, only a few primary examples are discussed, there are frequent circumstances that ultimately lead to litigation resulting from contracts using common pitfalls. Taking the time to contact an attorney like those at Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP, may be the solution to tighten a contract enough to minimize the potential expense of litigation.

________________________________

151215-Stubbs-116-retouched_600x400For any further information on tips or avoiding litigation, contact Ryan C. C. Duckett at rduckett@stubbsalderton.comor 818-444-4546. Ryan Duckett is an attorney of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP. Ryan’s practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial, intellectual property and entertainment litigation. He has successfully litigated cases for both plaintiffs and defendants with trials and appellate experience that has secured over millions of dollars in jury verdicts for his clients, to arguing California jury instructions that were created by the case he second chaired.  He manages and handles all aspects of civil actions from pre-litigation matters to law & motion to trials, post-trials & appeals.

 

[1] Pacific Concrete Products Corp. v. Dimmick (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 834, 838.

[2] Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Co. (1979) 601 F.2d 609, 609-613.

[3] Samson Lift Tech., LLC v. Jerr-Dan Co. (Sup. Ct. 2014)

[4] E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 7.17 (3d Ed. 2004)

[5] Allstate Ins. Co. v. Berg (Cal.1st.Dist., Div. 4, Feb. 2016 – affirmed)

The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

“How to Tighten Contracts & Minimize the Expense of Litigation” by Ryan C.C. Duckett

Simple Contract Drafting and Negotiation Tips

From the inception of creating a contract to the closing prior to execution, word accuracy and term clarity helps shield contracts from that not so slim chance that, my contract won’t be litigated.  Do not be so quick to “Frankenstein” a contract with a myriad of cut and pastes. A little precaution can save your client a great deal of fortune.

Introduction of Contracts: The introductory clause of a contract is as critical as the body because it identifies the parties of an agreement. What seems so simple is easy to overlook. For instance, in a 2015 celebrity case dismissed on 9/11, and affirmed in 2016 by the California Court of Appeal, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian filed suit against Chad Hurley and AVOS Systems, Inc. for broadcasting confidential video of Kanye’s marriage proposal to Kim in violation of a confidentiality provision precluding publishing any video of Kanye’s proposal before it was published by Kim’s reality TV show Keeping Up With The Kardashians. The case was decided on whether Hurley’s tweet with a link to video of the proposal was a breach of the agreement by AVOS. Although Hurley was CEO of AVOS, he never signed the agreement on behalf of AVOS – according to him – and, whether someone is acting on behalf of a company is a question of facts, which means, it’s for a jury to decide[1]. Hurley was found liable but his company AVOS got off scot-free. Seriously? How could it be more obvious what was intended by Kanye and Kim? Simple…A quick definition defining all parties at the onset of the contract removes any question of fact, making it clear who the agreement binds.

Terms of Contracts: The terms of a contract should be as black and white as the paper it’s on. Many common words such as “material”, “full disclosure” or “efforts,” originally thought of as pinpointing the intentions, recently are vastly becoming more diluted from overuse, leaving too much room for interpretation. For example, what is material to one may not be so material to another, especially in contracts when interests are adverse and what one cares about, the other does not. Unfortunately, parties wait until the heat of litigation until clarifying what was originally intended.

By way of another example: Q. How are best efforts different from reasonable efforts? When parties enter into an exclusive distribution agreement, they like to set the tone for the distributor about the “efforts” the distributor must apply. Although California courts have yet to divulge into intricacies behind levels of effort, New York courts have and find it “murky.” Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-306(2), the producer may want to remain silent on the degree of effort to be expended by the distributor because it requires “best efforts…unless otherwise agreed.” In an original case defining best efforts, Falstaff Brewing Co. bought Ballantine brewing labels, trademarks, and everything else but the beer, with a promise to use “best efforts” to distribute it. Well, along came Guinness beer with an unprecedented low price. Falstaff intuitively succumbed to distributing the lower priced beer. Falstaff, however, was held in breach for failing to continue selling Ballantine, even though Falstaff was forced to incur an economic loss by doing so.[2]

Where parties have contracted to use a lesser degree of efforts, such as ”reasonable efforts” or “commercially reasonable efforts,” the courts held that such efforts are “interchangeable” with “best efforts.”[3]  Bottom line being to expressly articulate criteria intended to qualify as meeting your client’s “justifiable expectations,”[4] instead of leaving it to a precarious chance by courts’ “case by case” rulings.

Dispute Resolution of Contracts:  At the negotiation stage, many parties try to rush through the dispute resolution terms in the face of a breach, hoping this will never be the case. Coincidentally, this is the best and only time to negotiate such difficult terms. In a February 18, 2016 case initiated by Allstate Insurance for an insured’s alleged breach, the Defendants successfully dismissed the action immediately when the trial court ruled that a pre-litigation demand letter adequately satisfied the terms to enter into “good-faith negotiations” before filing a lawsuit.[5] Literally, “good faith negotiations before filing a lawsuit” really means an agreement to try to agree, but requires no back and forth process. If you want more good faith interaction before someone races to file a lawsuit, the contract should explicitly state each step a party must take.

Although, only a few primary examples are discussed, there are frequent circumstances that ultimately lead to litigation resulting from contracts using common pitfalls. Taking the time to contact an attorney like those at Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP, may be the solution to tighten a contract enough to minimize the potential expense of litigation.

________________________________

151215-Stubbs-116-retouched_600x400For any further information on tips or avoiding litigation, contact Ryan C. C. Duckett at rduckett@stubbsalderton.com or 818-444-4546. Ryan Duckett is an attorney of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP. Ryan’s practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial, intellectual property and entertainment litigation. He has successfully litigated cases for both plaintiffs and defendants with trials and appellate experience that has secured over millions of dollars in jury verdicts for his clients, to arguing California jury instructions that were created by the case he second chaired.  He manages and handles all aspects of civil actions from pre-litigation matters to law & motion to trials, post-trials & appeals.

 

[1] Pacific Concrete Products Corp. v. Dimmick (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 834, 838.

[2] Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Co. (1979) 601 F.2d 609, 609-613.

[3] Samson Lift Tech., LLC v. Jerr-Dan Co. (Sup. Ct. 2014)

[4] E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 7.17 (3d Ed. 2004)

[5] Allstate Ins. Co. v. Berg (Cal.1st.Dist., Div. 4, Feb. 2016 – affirmed)

The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Five Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Attorneys Listed as 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP is proud to announce that five of their attorneys have been listed in the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers edition.  Congratulations to Scott Alderton, Joe Stubbs, Kevin DeBré, Tony Keats, and Michael Sherman.

What is Super Lawyers? Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.  To view the digital publication, click here.

A little bit more about the attorneys:

Scott_AldertonScott Alderton – a founding partner of the Firm, Managing Partner, and a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.  Scott is co-chair of the Firm’s Venture Capital and Emerging Growth Practice Group and chair’s the Firm’s Interactive Entertainment and Video Games Group.  Scott advises both public and private clients across a number of industries, including technology, manufacturing and distribution of goods in commerce, finance, the Internet, interactive video games, and new media industries.

Joe_StubbsJoe Stubbs –  Joe Stubbs is a founding partner of the Firm, and a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.  He is co-chair of the Firm’s Venture Capital and Emerging Growth Practice Group, and of the Firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group.  Joe practices in the areas of corporate and securities law, emphasizing the corporate representation of both publicly-held and privately-held emerging growth and middle-market companies, venture capital and private equity firms, angel investment groups and investment banks.  He acts as outside general counsel to numerous emerging growth and technology companies, advising on a wide range of legal and strategic issues at all stages of their evolutionary path.  He particularly concentrates on advising companies in preparing for and successfully completing their angel, venture capital, private equity and debt financing transactions, their merger, acquisition and divestiture transactions and their initial and follow-on public offerings.  He also serves as outside general counsel to various publicly-held companies, providing advice on all aspects of their business activities, including securities law compliance and corporate governance matters.  His experience also includes corporate partnerships, restructurings and technology licensing.

Kevin_DeBreKevin DeBré – Kevin D. DeBré is the chair of the Firm’s Intellectual Property & Technology Transactions Practice Group.  Kevin advises entrepreneurs and companies that use intellectual property to build their businesses.  Kevin has particular expertise in structuring and negotiating technology commercialization and patent licenses, strategic alliances, research and development collaborations, trademark licensing and brand merchandising agreements and manufacturing, distribution and marketing arrangements.  He also counsels clients on compliance with data security and privacy laws and regulations.  Kevin is a business lawyer, a registered patent lawyer and a former engineer.  He focuses on representing software companies, semiconductor design firms, mobile commerce businesses, e-commerce enterprises, electronics and hardware manufacturers, media companies, content developers and publishers, biotechnology companies and medical device manufacturers both in the United States and abroad.

Tony-Keats-v2Tony Keats – Tony Keats is a partner of the Firm and Co-chair of the Trademark and Copyright Practice Group. He was a founding partner of Keats, McFarland & Wilson LLP, in Los Angeles, and intellectual property practice team leader for the national law firm Baker & Hostetler. Tony’s almost three decade legal career has focused on both the legal and business protection of brands and creative content from consumer products to entertainment, from designer goods to the Internet. Since he commenced practice, he has provided counsel and has litigated cases on behalf of many of the world’s largest consumer product and entertainment companies, as well as individual entrepreneurs, actors, and musicians. Tony’s litigation background also includes related commercial matters involving unfair competition, contract disputes, rights of publicity violations, business torts, domain name infringement, and idea submission claims. Tony developed intellectual property protection programs for some of the largest entertainment properties in Hollywood history.

Michael_ShermanMichael Sherman – Michael Sherman is a Partner of the Firm and Chair of the Business Litigation practice group.  Michael is an accomplished trial lawyer in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation, and has represented both large and early-stage companies as well as entrepreneurs in all facets of business and complex commercial litigation. He has evenly split his litigation practice on both the plaintiff and defense side of cases, has first-chaired numerous trials in complex matters in industries as varied as energy, securities, healthcare, environmental, consumer products, technology, project development/finance, advertising, real estate and apparel, and is highly skilled in class actions and unfair competition law. Michael’s trial skills and courtroom success resulted in his being named several years ago to the “Top 100 Lawyers” in California list, published by the Daily Journal newspaper chain. He has consistently been named to “Best Lawyers in America”.  Michael has been recognized as a leading trial lawyer by his peers and featured in the press for some of his significant victories on behalf of clients. He is a recent past president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is a frequent speaker and writer on business litigation and trial advocacy.

For more information about Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, contact Heidi Hubbeling at hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com or (310) 746-9803.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM ALERT: FEDS TAKE ACTION AGAINST TRADEMARK PROTECTION SCAMS

Trademark RegistrationClients have received unsolicited official-looking mail notifications offering to register their trademarks with various international registries or to have additional trademark protection work done by the soliciting company. The notices often require the trademark holder to pay thousands of dollars for the promised services. As set forth in a federal grand jury indictment unsealed on Wednesday, January 20th, two individuals in Los Angeles, Artashes Darbinyan and Orbel Hakobyan doing business as Trademark Compliance Center and Trademark Compliance Office, were indicted for mail fraud and aggravated identity theft in addition to other related crimes.

The sophistication of these frauds is outlined in detail in the indictment including use of call-answering and mail-forwarding services in multiple cities in California and the Washington,D.C. metro area; setting up these accounts under false names; setting up banking accounts under false names with at least one account transferring funds to a gold dealer, and use of VoIP phone lines which are harder to detect. The indictment is seeking forfeiture of at least $1,850,000 of illegal proceeds in addition to other penalties.

If you receive these types of unsolicited offers and before signing up for such trademark protection services or a listing in a trademark directory, please contact SAM’s trademark and copyright attorneys (818) 444-4500 or info@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Assists Colle Capital Partners I, L.P. with Fund Formation

Colle-Capital-logo

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP recently completed the formation of Colle Capital Partners I, L.P., a $20M global, opportunistic, early stage technology venture fund.  Managers have completed deals in various verticals and across all capital structures. They pay special attention to data. Virtually all of their deals have intrinsic relationship with data as they believe that data will drive future growth for all of their companies.

SAM Partner Jonathan Friedman served as lead counsel in connection with the formation of the fund.  For further information on SAM’s fund formation practice, please contact Jonathan Friedman at (818) 444-4514 or jfriedman@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Partner Anthony Keats listed in the World Trademark Review as one of “The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals”

Tony-Keats-v2Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Partner Tony Keats was mentioned in the World Trademark Review’s  2016 list of “The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.”

The article states: “Anthony Keats has carved a niche for himself in the enforcement sphere, particularly the battle against counterfeiting – he has even co-authored a book on the subject. Having cut his teeth at an IP boutique, he has developed strongly trademark-focused substantive and practical knowledge. His location – the Stubbs Alderton & Markiles office in Santa Monica, colloquially known as ‘Silicon Beach’ – is the perfect platform for his work with start-ups.”

For more information about our Trademark and Copyright Practice, contact Tony Keats at (310) 746-9802 or akeats@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Client Finny Raises $300k to Help Parents Balance Children’s Device Time

SAM client Finny announced the completion of an initial funding round of $300k that includes participation from Spartan Ventures, Inc. (www.spartanventures.com) and several angel investors.  “We are very excited to be able to support Finny — a socially responsible and quite frankly, necessary tool for the benefit of our most prized possessions — our children,” said Reg Lapham, Spartan’s President. Finny’s parental engagement platform is the first mobile solution that turns screen time into learning moments. An increasingly valuable need as research continues to prove that device addiction is causing serious academic, social, and medical issues that are affecting today’s youth.

Targeted to 7-14 year olds, Finny monitors unproductive device usage and interrupts by triggering a custom quiz. Whether reinforcing traditional academic subjects or introducing new topics, the content library contains over 15,000 questions across a range of categories (Math, Science, Current Events, etc.). Through a comprehensive dashboard, parents can customize settings, receive real-time report cards, and gain visibility into their child’s device usage.

“This is the perfect tool to engage with your child and improve mobile habits.”
– Professor Eric Curcio, MD UCLA Pediatrics

The company, based in Santa Monica, California, intends to use the funds for continued product enhancements while igniting marketing efforts. They are focused on building out a powerful influencer network to drive awareness and legitimize messaging. Currently available for download on Google Play and with iOS scheduled for early 2016, Finny is ready to begin driving change by making device usage productive.

Follow along and join the movement, as everyone’s participation is important to combat the magnitude of the problem.

SAM Partner Louis Wharton represented Finny in this transaction.  For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth practice, contact Louis at (818) 444-4509 or lwharton@stubbsalderton.com

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Partner Tony Keats Featured Speaker at Miami’s Art Basel Show

Tony Keats Art Basel

Tony Keats, Co-Chair of SAM’s Trademark & Copyright Group, addressed fine artists during the preeminent national modern art show, Art Basel, in Miami on December 1st.  Tony was invited to speak by Golden Art Colors, one of America’s leading supplier of paints and materials, to fine artists on the topic of artist’s copyrights and Rights of Publicity on the Internet.

For more information about SAM’s Trademark & Copyright Practice, contact Tony Keats at akeats@stubbsalderton.com or (310) 746-9802.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Featured as One of the 25 Top Boutique Law Firms in California by the Daily Journal

Supplement 10-14-15 LDJ TBFURN101415Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP is proud to announce that we have been selected as one of the top 25 boutique law firms in California by the Daily Journal in their October 2015 “Top Boutiques” supplement. Only two firms were selected whose practice is primarily business and technology law.  The term “boutique” is assigned to a law firm of any size where at least 90 percent of the firm’s attorneys devote 100 percent of their practice to one specialty.

Stubbs Alderton is a business law firm with a niche in emerging growth and technology. We handle public securities, mergers and acquisitions, entertainment, intellectual property and brand protection while representing Southern California businesses from venture-backed emerging growth companies to midsize and large companies involved in technology, entertainment, video games, apparel and medical devices.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP also sets itself apart with our innovative business model which includes SAM Venture Partners, SAM Development Company, Preccelerator Program, and its joint venture FlashFunders.

We take great pride in fostering growth in the Los Angeles startup eco-system.

To read the full article, click Stubbs Alderton DJ2015 Top Boutiques.

For more information, contact:

Heidi Hubbeling
Director of Marketing
Director of Operations, Preccelerator Program
(310) 746-9803
hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail