Category Archives: Attorneys

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Client New Form Announces $18M Funding

new-form-logoSAM Client and Digital-video studio New Form announced this week that it has raised $18 million in second-round funding from the U.K.’s ITV and Discovery Communications, with ITV taking a minority stake in the company. In addition, with its investment ITV entered into a strategic partnership with New Form, which includes a multiyear commercial agreement that will bring New Form content to the ITV Hub starting in 2017.  Congratulations to New Form on this success!

Stubbs Alderton attorneys representing New Form in this transaction were Greg Akselrud and Kelly Laffey.

To read the full feature in Variety Magazine, click here.

For more information about our Internet, Digital Media & Entertainment Practice, contact Greg Akselrud at gakselrud@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4503.

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Indemnification and Advancement of Directors and Officers for a Utah Corporation Doing Business in California

Corporate counsel is asked to make many decisions on behalf of a corporate client. A corporate client may seek advice on choice of law selection or where it should incorporate. At the initial founding stages, many clients do not consider that the place of incorporation and choice of law will affect the corporation’s obligations to indemnify and advance expenses to directors and officers.sealofutahstateseal

For this analysis, even if the client chooses to incorporate in Utah, if most of its business is being performed in California, it will be deemed a “quasi-California” corporation pursuant to California Corporations Code section 2115 and will be made subject to several California laws regulating corporations.[1] If the corporation wants to initiate a lawsuit against a director or officer that has failed to act in the best interest of the corporation, counsel must consider where the corporation should file the lawsuit. Crucial to this consideration is that California and Utah have different standards for granting indemnification and advancement of expenses. The choice of forum will dictate the requirements and obligations of the corporation to advance and indemnify its officers and directors.

Indemnification:

A Utah corporation that meets the requirements set forth in California Corporations Code section 2115 will be deemed a “quasi-California” corporation and will be subject to a host of expressly delineated laws regulating out-of-state corporations. Included in the list of applicable provisions is California Corporations Code section 317, California’s law on indemnification and advancement. Section 317(e) provides the law on indemnification:

“any indemnification under this section shall be made by the corporation only if authorized in the specific case, upon a determination that indemnification of the agent is proper in the circumstances because the agent has met the applicable standard of conduct …”

The indemnification provision of section 317 is limited by a standard of conduct determination, meaning that the corporation will have some ability to control who receives indemnification and who does not. The standard of conduct set forth in section 317(b) requires a determination that the person to be indemnified “acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the corporation…” By comparison, the indemnification statute in Utah operates the same way, requiring the corporation to make a determination that the person to be indemnified has met the applicable standard of conduct and has taken action in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed was in the best interest of the corporation.[2] With little variance between the indemnification provisions in California and Utah, it could be expected that the law on advancement would also be similar. But that would be an incorrect assumption.

Advancement:

The Utah statute on advancement is similar to the indemnification statute, requiring that, “a determination is made that the facts then known to those making the determination would not preclude indemnification…”[3] However, unlike the Utah statute, the advancement provision in California is not limited by a standard of conduct determination, or any determination at all. Instead, the California advancement statute states:

“Expenses incurred in defending any proceeding may be advanced by the corporation prior to the final disposition of the proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the agent to repay that amount if it shall be determined ultimately that the agent is not entitled to be indemnified as authorized in this section.”

See Cal. Corp. Code § 317(f).

The only requirement for advancement under California law is that the person seeking advancement deliver an undertaking to repay the amount advanced if it is ultimately determined that he or she is not entitled to be indemnified. It is unclear whether the delivery of an undertaking requires anything more than a written promise to pay back any amounts advanced.

This is an important and interesting distinction between California and Utah law, and one that counsel must consider in evaluating disputes between a Utah corporation and its officers and directors. The result of choosing to apply California law is that the corporation might be obligated to provide advancement to its directors and officers without any determination of whether that person meets the applicable standard of conduct, limiting its ability to deny advancement those who have acted outside the best interests of the corporation.

[1] For the full list of provisions quasi-California corporations are made subject to, see California Corporations Code § 2115(b).

[2] Utah Revised Business Corporation Act 16-10a-902(1).

[3] Utah Revised Business Corporation Act 16-10a-904(1).

gina-correia_092-2-300x200

For more information about this topic, contact Gina Correia at (818) 444-4500 or gcorreia@stubbsalderton.com.  Gina Correia is a litigation associate of the Firm. Gina’s practice focuses on all stages of business litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Gina worked in-house as a business affairs law clerk for HBO. Gina’s prior experience in the entertainment industry focused on talent engagement negotiations including drafting contract request, calculating actor, producer, and writer fees for top-tier talent, and evaluating comprehensive deal points. Gina also previously worked for The Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney in the Consumer Protection Division where she researched and analyzed wire-tapping violations under Penal Code and Federal Trade Commission guidelines.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Alert – “The Final Rule – United States DOL Regulations Regarding Overtime Pay”

shutterstock_472877095

The Obama Administration and the Department of Labor (DOL) enacted the “Overtime Final Rule” regulation 6 months ago, which was supposed to be effective as of December 1, 2016.  However, in the recently consolidated pending cases Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor and Plano Chamber of Commerce v. Perez, on November 22, 2016, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule.  The Court upheld the challenges against the Final Rule based on arguments in support of the 10th Amendment – limiting the power of the federal government over the states.  It appears the DOL’s regulation will note be enforced as of December 1, however the ultimate outcome and the timing as to whether the Final Rule will be enforced is unknown.  The uncertainty has several employers scrambling for immediate answers and for good reason.

By the Final Rule, 4.2 million workers nationwide currently not eligible for overtime pay will automatically qualify as “non-exempt” employees entitled to overtime pay.  If effective, California employers will be required to align their policies with the Final Rule.  This includes approximately 400,000 employees in California.

What Happens.

Previously, California employees who worked at a managerial or other executive level and were paid a base annual salary higher than $23,660 were exempt from overtime.  The Final Rule establishes a bright-line divide between exempt and non-exempt employees by placing all employees making less than $47,476 annually or $913 per week into the non-exempt category – which means they are entitled to overtime.  This is over a 200% jump from the standard salary set in 2004.  Literally, any employee making under $22.85 per hour would be entitled to overtime regardless of his or her position.

Essentially, the Final Rule forces employers to either increase the gross salaries of all exempt employees making less than the new threshold, or in the alternative to ensure all employees under the threshold are paid overtime.  However, it gets trickier.  In California, if an employee works 9 hours in one day and 7 the next day, that employee is still likely entitled to an hour of overtime even if the work week balances at 40 hours – this depends on the “regularly scheduled” work week, and whether it is a 3 or 4 day work week rather than a 5 day work week.

What To Expect.

Employers were given a chance to change their overtime policies well in advance of the effective date of this new regulation.  As the grace period ended, the District Court prolonged it – but for how long?  As of today, employees who were not properly compensated would have had the right to sue for failure to pay overtime.  Certainly, several attorneys are already searching for employers not currently in compliance with the Final Rule.  If the regulation remains in effect, employers should be prepared to face widespread litigation – potentially class actions depending on the size of your company or quasi-class actions, such as Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) complaints regardless of the company’s size.  Employers not already adjusted for the upcoming overtime policy should monitor the recent developments knowing a potential tidal wave of lawsuits may come.

What To Do.

Employers used the “exempt” classification as an excuse to work its employees late-nights and on weekends, without keeping track of their hours.  That luxury no longer exists.  If an employee makes less than the threshold, an employer needs to have records to challenge an employee’s potential overtime claim.   Employers should immediately implement a system to monitor the hours each employee works, whether it be enacting a policy prohibiting employees from working more than 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week, or requiring timesheets or clocking in-and-out.

Don’t subject your company to attorneys’ fees, statutory penalties, possible class actions and not to mention your own litigation costs.  It’s simply not worth it.  Keep track of your employees’ hours, and if your pay period begins before December 1, 2016, pro-rate the increase in salary or make sure you pay overtime.

Also, the recently enacted Labor Code Section 558.1 holds individuals liable for a company’s failure to pay overtime.  These individuals include managing agents, owners, directors or officers.  For more information on Section 558.1, stand-by for further analysis from Ryan C. C. Duckett and Jeffrey F. Gersh.

Now What.

The far-reaching implications of the recent November 22, 2016 ruling by the District Court raises many concerns that cannot yet be answered, such as: If the rule is enforced, will it be retroactive as of December 1st? or, How are employers and employees affected if this ruling is appealed? or, What do employers do who have already promised overtime pay or an increase in salaries to its employees? or, Should I start paying overtime, to play it safe?

For help on complying with the Final Rule and following the developments of District Court’s decision, contact Ryan C. C. Duckett (rduckett@stubbsalderton.com) or Jeffrey F. Gersh (jgersh@stubbsalderton.com) at (818) 444-4500.  Please note that nothing herein constitutes legal advice.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Doing Business in California: “Quasi-California” Corporations Made Subject to California’s Corporate Laws

smallerMany, but not all, provisions of the California Corporations Code expressly apply if a private, out-of-state corporation has a sufficient “presence” in California (called a “quasi-California” corporation.) An out-of-state corporation is treated as a “quasi-California” corporation, and thus subject to specified provisions of California Corporations Code, if (1) more than half its business (based upon a three-factor formula including property, payroll, and sales) is done in California (the “doing-business” test); and, (2) more than half of its voting securities are held of record by persons having addresses within the state of California (the “voting-shares” test).[1]

For analysis, hypothetical SmallCorp, Inc. is incorporated outside of California with substantially all of its business performed inside California.

Hypothetical Illustration: Does SmallCorp, Inc. Satisfy the Requirements of § 2115(a) to Qualify as a “Quasi-California” Corporation?

 A.    The “Doing-Business” Test

To satisfy the “doing-business” test, a corporation must do more than half of its business in California. The three “doing-business” factors are: (1) property, (2) payroll, and (3) sales. The first question is whether the proportion of a company’s property, payroll, and sales in California compared to the company’s total property, payroll, and sales is more than 50 percent during its latest full income year. (See Corp. Code §2115(a)(1).)

To determine whether the factors meet the one-half doing business requirement, sections 25129, 25132, and 25134 of the Revenue and Taxation Code define the factors as follows and provide the necessary equations:

· the property factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the average value of the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in this state during the taxable year and the denominator of which is the average value of all the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used during the taxable year;

· the payroll factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total amount paid in this state during the taxable year by the taxpayer for compensation, and the denominator of which is the total compensation paid everywhere during the taxable year; and

· the sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the taxable year, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable year.

Thus, if the average of the property factor, the payroll factor, and the sales factor is greater than 50 percent during its latest full income year, the “doing-business” test is satisfied.

Assume SmallCorp owns property such as products, machinery, office equipment, and also rents office space in California. SmallCorp does not own or rent any property in any other state. So, the equation is as follows:

(1) Property —-> property in CA / all property    =   1/1       = 100%

SmallCorp has several employees, 90% of whom live and work in California. Accordingly, SmallCorp pays 90% of total compensation paid to all SmallCorp employees to those who live and work within California, as demonstrated below:

(2) Payroll —>   amounts paid in compensation in CA / total amounts paid in compensation =  9/10  = 90%

For this hypothetical, because the first two factors result in 100% and 90% of business performed in California, even if 0% of sales, the next factor, occurred in California, SmallCorp would still do more than one-half of its business in California, satisfying the “quasi-California” requirements. Assuming SmallCorp has no sales in California, the equation is as follows:

(3) Sales —>  ​sales in CA / all sales   =  0/1   =    0%

This conclusion is reached by taking the average of 100%, 90%, and 0%, then dividing the total sum (190%), by the count (3) which equals 63.3% of SmallCorp’s business is done in California.

For a more representative hypothetical, assume that SmallCorp does 70% of its sales in California. If sales are 70% in California, the amount of total business performed in California is 86%, using the same formula: (total sum ÷ count). Accordingly, the proportion of a SmallCorp’s property, payroll, and sales in California compared to the company’s total property, payroll, and sales is more than 50 percent and the “doing-business” test is satisfied.

B.     The “Voting-Shares” Test

The second test is whether the corporation’s outstanding voting securities held of record by persons with California addresses is greater than 50 percent. (See Corp Code §2115(a)(2)).

Assume there are two voting shareholders in SmallCorp: Arnold and Ford. Arnold’s address is in Hermosa Beach, California. Ford’s address is in Orange County, California. Thus, both shareholders of voting securities have addresses in California. The “voting-shares” test is satisfied because 100% of SmallCorp’s shareholders have addresses in California.

​SmallCorp will qualify as a “quasi-California” corporation under section 2115(a) because more than 50 percent of its business is done in California and more than 50 percent of its voting shares are held by shareholders with addresses in California. As such, corporate counsel should consider the additional requirements that California will place on a corporation that is “doing business” in California pursuant to section 2115(b), including the imposition of specific sections of the California Corporations Code.[2] For that reason, this long-arm statute’s constitutionality has been called into question by courts of other jurisdictions.

gina-correia_092-2-300x200Gina Correia is a litigation associate of the Firm. Gina’s practice focuses on all stages of business litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Gina worked in-house as a business affairs law clerk for HBO. Gina’s prior experience in the entertainment industry focused on talent engagement negotiations including drafting contract request, calculating actor, producer, and writer fees for top-tier talent, and evaluating comprehensive deal points. Gina also previously worked for The Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney in the Consumer Protection Division where she researched and analyzed wire-tapping violations under Penal Code and Federal Trade Commission guidelines.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM & Traklight present: “IP Basics” with Tony Keats & Mary Juetten

 

 

Join Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP &

Traklight for this exclusive event!

 

“IP Basics”
with SAM Partner Tony Keats, and Traklight’s Marty Juetten

 

Learn about the differences between trademarks, copyrights and patents, and the steps that you need to take to protect the intellectual property of your business, including the introduction of a free business risk assessment.

 

 

Thursday, November 10th, 2016
5:30 PM – 8:00 PM

* Food, Drinks, and Networking Included *

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
1453 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401

 

Parking
4th Street/Broadway ramp or in the Santa Monica Place Mall

 

Register!

 

Featuring 

 

 

Mary Juetten, Founder & CEO, Traklight
Mary Juetten, founder and CEO of Traklight, has dedicated her more-than-30-year career to helping businesses achieve and protect their success. Specializing in leading companies in transition or start-up phases and helping them create sustainable, operational, and financial growth. Using her extensive education including Bachelor of Commerce degree from McGill and a Juris Doctorate from Arizona State, as well as her US and Canadian accounting and public accountant certifications, Mary created the only self-guided software platform that creates a custom intellectual property (IP) strategy plus assesses business risk. Traklight Pro is lead generation or triage for companies; business, startup & venture, and IP attorneys; CPAs; and other professionals. Mary is an international author, blogger, speaker, and mentor. She previously represented entrepreneurs on the Board of the Crowdfunding Investment Regulatory Advocates and is currently on the Emerging Enterprise Committee of the Licensing Executives Society. In 2015 Mary co-founded Evolve Law, a sales and marketing channel for Traklight and speaks internationally on change and technology adoption in the legal industry. Mary was named to the American Bar Association’s Legal Resource Technology Center 2016 Women in Legal Tech list and the FastCase Class of 2016. She now serves on the Group Legal Services Association (GLSA) Board.

                                                                                                                                                        

Tony Keats, Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
Tony Keats is a partner of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP 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.

 

 

Special Thanks to our Sponsors! 

 

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. www.stubbsalderton.com

Traklight is the only self-guided software platform to identify business risks and capture the value of ideas and intellectual property for small and medium sized businesses (SMBs). In addition to helping SMBs and investors accurately identify and minimize business and legal risks and maximize the value of intangible assets, Traklight licenses its platform to attorneys, other professionals, and software platforms to streamline the client intake process, prequalify and educate customers, and generate additional billable hours or revenue. The company’s leadership role in helping SMBs leverage their company value is supported by a Partnership Program that includes Federally sponsored organizations, trade associations, and industry. Traklight is privately held and headquartered in Arizona. Visit traklight.com to learn more.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Scott Alderton Featured Speaker at South Bay Economic Forecast Annual Event at CSU Dominguez Hills

 

Scott_Alderton_cropStubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Partner Scott Alderton was a featured panelist at South Bay Economic Forecast’s annual event at Cal State Unviversity Dominguez Hills Thursday, October 27th. Scott spoke about how new technology businesses often face road blocks in regards to policy and regulation.

For more information, click here.

To learn more about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth practice, contact Scott Alderton at (818) 444-4500 or salderton@stubbsalderton.com

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Scott Alderton Featured As Panelist at OC Tech Happy Hour at The Cove

Scott_Alderton_cropStubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Partner Scott Alderton was featured yesterday, October 26th, as a panelist on the topic of Funding & Growth at the OC Tech Happy Hour that was held at The Cove at UC Irvine’s Applied Innovation Center.

For more information on the event click here.

For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Practice, contact Scott Alderton at (818) 444-4501 or salderton@stubbsalderton.com

 

 

 

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Represents Client NEOGOV in Investment by Warburg Pincus

ngv-logo_2015-1Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ client NEOGOV, the leading talent management software platform focused on government, education and public sector clients announced that Warburg Pincus, a global private equity firm focused on growth investing has invested in them. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

Founded in 2000, NEOGOV provides market-leading software-as-a-service (SaaS) talent management solutions to automate and streamline the recruitment, onboarding and performance evaluation processes for government and other public sector institutions. NEOGOV’s software is designed specifically for the unique human capital management requirements of these complex and regulated end-markets and serves more than 1,500 organizations including over 40% of the largest U.S. cities and more than 20 state customers.

“The team at NEOGOV has built the leading provider of human capital management software to the public sector,” said Alex Berzofsky, Managing Director, Warburg Pincus. “We are excited to invest in the company and partner with the NEOGOV management team as they continue to broaden the product platform and identify additional opportunities to serve their large and growing customer base.”

“Warburg Pincus has deep experience in cloud-based software and the firm will be a valuable partner as we continue to focus on growing our whole talent management suite tailored for the local government sector,” said Damir Davidovic, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of NEOGOV. “With this investment, we plan to enhance our product offerings, serve more customers and accelerate growth of the business.”

“As more companies continue to use SaaS-based systems to deliver HR solutions, we see a significant growth opportunity for NEOGOV given it is configurable specifically for the needs of the public sector, where fewer organizations have adopted these technologies,” said Brian Chang, Principal, Warburg Pincus.

Stubbs Alderton attorneys representing NEOGOV in this deal were Sean Greaney and Scott Alderton.

About NEOGOV
NEOGOV HR software automates the entire hiring, onboarding and performance evaluation process, including position requisition approval, automatic minimum qualification screening, test statistics and analysis, and EEO reporting. NEOGOV works with more than 1,500 federal, state and local government, universities and K-12 organizations nationwide, ranging in size from 100 to over 100,000 employees, including agencies such as the State of South Carolina, the State of Tennessee, City of Dallas, TX; City of Houston, TX; Baltimore County, MD; City and County of Denver, CO; City and County of Honolulu, HI; City of Nashville, TN; and more than 25% of California’s Counties, including Santa Clara County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County. Because NEOGOV’s solutions are both easy-to-use and fast to implement, it is able to offer a public sector model that is low risk, but offers a high ROI at the same time.

About Warburg Pincus
Warburg Pincus LLC is a leading global private equity firm focused on growth investing. The firm has more than $40 billion in private equity assets under management. The firm’s active portfolio of more than 120 companies is highly diversified by stage, sector and geography. Warburg Pincus is an experienced partner to management teams seeking to build durable companies with sustainable value. Founded in 1966, Warburg Pincus has raised 15 private equity funds, which have invested more than $58 billion in over 760 companies in more than 40 countries. Warburg Pincus has been an active investor in SaaS companies, with current investments including The Gordian Group, DocuTAP, Liaison International, PayScale, and Avalara, among others.

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. www.stubbsalderton.com 

For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Practice, contact Sean Greaney at sgreaney@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4554

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Client THX Acquired by Leading Lifestyle Brand for Gamers, Razer

thx-logoStubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP client THX announced this week that Razer™, the leading global lifestyle brand for gamers, has acquired the majority of the assets of THX Ltd. and brought onboard the management and employees of the company. THX will continue to operate as an independent entity under its own management and apart from the ongoing business of its parent company. Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ attorneys representing THX in the transaction include Scott Galer, John McIlvery, Sean Greaney and Nick Feldman

 

To read the full press release, click here.

 

About Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP (SAM) is a California business law firm with robust intellectual property, litigation, corporate, public securities, mergers and acquisitions, and entertainment practice groups.  SAM focuses on the representation of emerging growth companies, middle market public companies, large technology companies, celebrities and entertainment companies. SAM’s mission is to provide technically excellent legal services and outstanding results in a highly-responsive, service-oriented, and cost-effective manner. These principles are the hallmarks of our firm.

 

To learn more about our Mergers & Acquisitions practice, contact SAM partner Scott Galer at sgaler@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4513.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Partner Greg Akselrud to Speak at Digital Hollywood – Fall 2016

Greg_Akselrud
SAM Partner Greg Akselrud, Chair of the Internet, Digital Media & Entertainment practice,  will speak at Digital Hollywood – Fall 2016 on a panel entitled “Investment, Financing & Packaging Projects: Unique Content – Unique Technology”  this Thursday, October 20th at 2:15pm in Skirball Center’s Herscher Hall, 3rd Floor, Room 305.

Other panelists include:

Diane McGrath, Managing Director Media and Technology, Streicher, J Streicher Capital

Monica Dodi, Managing Director, Women’s Venture Capital Fund

Josh Stein, Special Counsel, MG+

Michael Terpin, CEO, Transform Group

Joey Tamer, President, S.O.S. Inc., Moderator

To view the full announcement, click here.

To learn more about our Internet, Digital Media & Entertainment practice, contact Greg Akselrud at gakselrud@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4503.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail