Category Archives: Publications

Major Legal Pitfalls for Startups – The Case for Hiring a Lawyer before you “Start Up” – Part 2

 

In this two part series, Kelly Laffey discusses the legal pitfalls that startups can avoid when forming their company. Kelly counsels clients on issues related to corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions matters, and securities regulation and compliance. She also assists with financing for large private corporations, and entity formation and succession planning for professional services firms. Kelly provides general business counseling on a variety of up-and-coming regulatory issues for small and emerging companies that offer commercial services, allowing them to explore new business opportunities in various states. Drawing on her diverse work experience in the entertainment arena, including time spent with talent agencies, and music and television production companies, Kelly also assists on matters related to licensing, marketing, and exploitation of intellectual property rights.

___________________________________________________

In Part 1 of this series, I described some typical legal problems that startup companies face when they try to go it alone in the early stages of their business related to choice of entity form and jurisdiction and common issues that arise with respect to division of equity.  In this part 2, I discuss issues related to securities laws and intellectual property and finally offer some words of advice regarding how to manage the costs of hiring an attorney early on.

Compliance with Securities Laws

Any issuance of securities, meaning stock, LLC interests, options, warrants, convertible notes, convertible securities (or SAFEs) and more, will be subject to federal and state securities laws.  Startup companies often need to find an exemption to the registration requirements of federal securities laws until they are ready to go public.  Securities law is a large and complex subject that really requires a good corporate attorney to help explain those obligations relevant to a particular company in a particular given circumstance.  Failure to comply with securities laws can result in a huge financial burden on the company, the founders and recipients of equity, including employees and investors, when fines are imposed or the recipients are forced to pay a much higher price for the equity than what was intended.  An experienced securities practitioner can help you find the right exemption and implement the right process to avoid fines and adverse consequences.

Protecting Your Intellectual Property and Employment Issues

It is critical to have proper employment documentation in place and such documentation should properly protect the company’s intellectual property.  Typical employment agreements include “at-will” offer letters, independent contractor agreements, consultant or advisor agreements and stock incentive award documents.  Employment laws vary from state to state so depending on what state you’re in, you may need to include specific provisions to comply with applicable state law. One of the most important employment documents which every employee (including co-founders) should sign is a proprietary or confidential information and inventions assignment agreement.  This document ensures the company’s confidential information will remain confidential and that any ideas, work product or deliverables created by the company’s employees while working for the company will be owned by the company.  These agreements generally prevent key employees who have developed significant intellectual property for the company from claiming rights in such intellectual property in the event that they leave.

Trying To Do It Yourself

For the reasons stated above and many more, one of the biggest mistakes a company can make is trying to do the legal formation work on their own or with an inexperienced legal service provider.  All of the mistakes described above are correctable but correcting them takes time and can incur greater cost than getting professional advice from the beginning.  Many firms have very reasonable startup packages for early stage companies that include both forming the company properly and providing a suite of documents covering most, if not all, of the above issues for the company’s use, for a very reasonable flat fee.  These packages are designed to get the company started and provide you with the basic forms of agreements you need to be protected.  Once these are put in place, the company is unlikely to incur significant legal costs until it raises capital or undergoes another significant event.  While a startup package fee may still seem like a significant amount of money to spend in a company’s early stages, the value is immeasurable over the life and success of the business.

_________________________

For more information about Startup Formation and other emerging growth issues, contact Kelly Laffey at klaffey@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Major Legal Pitfalls for Startups – The Case for Hiring a Lawyer before you “Start Up” – Part 1

 

In this two part series, Kelly Laffey discusses the legal pitfalls that startups can avoid when forming their company. Kelly counsels clients on issues related to corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions matters, and securities regulation and compliance. She also assists with financing for large private corporations, and entity formation and succession planning for professional services firms. Kelly provides general business counseling on a variety of up-and-coming regulatory issues for small and emerging companies that offer commercial services, allowing them to explore new business opportunities in various states. Drawing on her diverse work experience in the entertainment arena, including time spent with talent agencies, and music and television production companies, Kelly also assists on matters related to licensing, marketing, and exploitation of intellectual property rights.

___________________________________________________

In my practice as a corporate attorney, I work primarily with startup and emerging growth companies.  This article may read similar to an advertisement for legal services and there may be some truth to that.  My ultimate goal as an attorney, however, is to save startup companies time and money (and stress) in the long run by doing things right from the start which will allow the company to put more resources to work on growing the business rather than fixing mistakes that could have easily been avoided.

Attorneys are often brought it in to work with clients who have done a significant amount of the formation and organization work themselves or through an online legal service provider at a low cost.  While it is certainly understandable that a very early stage company does not want to incur more legal cost than it has to, what seem like very minor issues to founder can lead to a lot of unnecessary clean-up work and time spent determining the best way to fix those issues including if and how to disclose them to potential investors, strategic partners or others that are critical to the business.

The unfortunate fact is that errors in company formation usually come to light when a company is about to engage in its first major financing or strategic transaction and potential investors or strategic partners start doing their “due diligence” on the company, i.e., looking into its formation documents, the founder agreements, employment agreements, etc.  This is often a critical time for the company as the founders have begun conversations with potential investors or a strategic partner, built momentum and are usually geared to start scaling the business. When the problem areas are identified and those activities are put on hold, it can cause a panic at the company, requiring lawyers to address the errors on a tight timeline in order to minimize the damage and not lose momentum. The result is typically a very high legal bill for a financing or strategic transaction.

In this two-part series, I describe some common legal issues encountered by startups that are not properly considered without legal counsel and which, when thoughtfully discussed with legal counsel prior to forming the company, should spare the company from legal expenses for corrective measures.

Choosing the right entity AND the right jurisdiction for you.

One of the first decisions a new company has to make is what legal entity form to take.  There are without a doubt dozens of articles that say you should be a C-corp for these reasons or you should be an LLC for those reasons.  Maybe you’ve read or know something about S-corps and you think that sounds like a good idea.  The reality is that the right entity form for your company is very specific to the facts and circumstances of your company.  Factors we consider include, among others: How many founders are there? How many employees will the company have? Will the company raise money from VCs or angels (and if so, does it expect to do so right away or will that be much further in the future of the company)? What is the anticipated size of the business? In what industry does the business operate? What might make the most sense now might not serve as the best form later and the form of entity can generally be changed later if necessary.  These are all factors a good lawyer or tax advisor can talk through with a new business and provide guidance regarding which options to select based on the company’s business plans.

The less often thought about issue is where to form the company.  As a lawyer practicing in what’s been termed “Silicon Beach,” most of our clients are based in California and so many assume they should organize or incorporate in California.  For some companies, being formed in California is perfectly fine, however, California can also be problematic for a number of reasons.  Many outside investors do not like to invest in California entities because California does not have the established corporate jurisprudence that Delaware has and so there is an element of unpredictability in California.  Companies will often be advised to incorporate in Delaware because Delaware corporate law is seen as both business and investor friendly.  However, if a company incorporates in Delaware, it has to engage a registered agent located in Delaware and so for some companies, it does not always make sense to pay the registered agent fees. Other factors to consider when choosing a jurisdiction are filing fees, franchise taxes and required annual filings. These are all considerations a corporate lawyer can help startups navigate.

Division of Ownership; Dilution and Vesting.

This can be an awkward conversation amongst founders but it is an important conversation to have early on in the life of the business.  How much of the company should each founder own? What is each founder bringing to the company in terms of skills, resources and service and how do we value what each founder adds? How much dilution are the founders willing to endure and from which sources, i.e., outside investors, an employee option or stock pool, venture debt transactions, etc.? Should the equity be subject to vesting and continued service to the company?

I’ve often encountered very early stage clients who have 2 to 3 initial founders and they have already diluted themselves by giving away equity such that together, they own less than half of the company.  Founders are so passionate and focused on developing the idea and growing the business, they don’t necessarily have good insight when it comes to managing the cap table.  Further, I’ve seen companies provide equity grants to service providers or intended partners of the business without subjecting the grants to vesting or continued service to the company over time.  We typically recommend that all service-related equity vest over a certain number of years to ensure the company is getting the intended value in exchange for that equity.

_________________________

For more information about Startup Formation and other emerging growth issues, contact Kelly Laffey at klaffey@stubbsalderton.com.  Stay tuned for Part II of the Startup Pitfalls Series on Monday, October 16th.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Preccelerator Program COO Heidi Hubbeling Featured in CREATV Media Digital Media Update

SAM Preccelerator Program COO Heidi Hubbeling was featured this week on CREATV Media’s Digital Media Update blog in a “5 Question with…” series. The series focuses on exclusive interviews with key players in the overall media and tech ecosystem.

To read the full interview visit here.

Heidi Hubbeling

Heidi Hubbeling is the Chief Operating Officer of the Preccelerator Program and Director of Marketing for top Southern California business law firm Stubbs Alderton & Markiles. Heidi’s experience in professional services marketing, relationship building, business development strategy and entrepreneurship spans more than 15 years.

About the Preccelerator® Program
The Preccelerator is a novel platform offered to select start-up companies out of the Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Santa Monica office that provides interim office space, sophisticated legal services, education, networking, mentorship and $250,000 in usable perks from Google Cloud for Startups, Amazon Web Services, and HubSpot among others, with the objective of helping grow a founder’s idea from business concept to funded startup. The program also retains more than 50 active strategic mentors providing free office hours and discounted services, and provides over 50+ educational workshops and networking events each year. The Program expanded in 2017 to accept a greater number of companies in more formalized classes, depending upon where the companies are in their evolutionary growth, expand benefits to accepted companies, and will look to make strategic investments backed by strategic angel investors.

For more about the Preccelerator® Program or to apply,  contact Heidi Hubbeling, COO at (310) 746-9803 or hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Partner Michael Sherman Representing Danny Wimmer in Litigation Battle

Danny WimmerStubbs Alderton & Markiles Partner Michael Sherman is lead counsel to Danny Wimmer Presents in a legal battle against his former law firm disputing their 14.3 percent membership claim to his company DWP. Danny Wimmer Presents is a music festival production and promotion company that is headquartered in Los Angeles.

To read the full article on Pollstar click here.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles attorneys representing Danny Wimmer Presents are Michael A. Sherman and David Harris.

Michael ShermanMichael Sherman  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.

For more information on our Business Litigation Practice, contact Michael A. Sherman at msherman@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Is a Pension Plan the Right Potential Investor For Your Company?

Pension Plan There are more than $25 trillion dollars in U.S. pension plan assets as of December 31, 2016.[1]  To a company (for purposes of this article the entity seeking pension plan investment is referred to as the “Company”) seeking investment capital, pension plans may be important potential investors.  This blog article identifies two important considerations when seeking pension plan investment:  1.  Will the assets of the Company be considered “plan assets”? and 2. Will an investment in the Company result in an income tax liability for the investing plan?

PLAN ASSETS:    The first hurdle is whether the Company’s assets will be considered “plan assets” and what are the implications if the Company’s assets are regarded as plan asset?  The general rule is in general that a portion of the Company’s assets will be treated as plan assets in percentage that pension plan investment bears to all investment.[2]  As having the Company’s assets treated as plan assets turns the Company’s management into plan fiduciaries, plan asset treatment is to be avoided.  To avoid a portion of its assets being treated as plan assets of the investing plans, the Company must meet one of the exceptions listed in the plan asset regulation.[3]

  1.  Debt. The plan asset regulation applies to equity and equity-participating debt instruments.  Straight debt is not subject to the plan asset regulation.[4]  Convertible debt is only treated as equity on conversion unless the conversion feature is more than an incidental feature of the debt instrument[5].   Relying on the determination that the conversion right in a debt instrument is “incidental” would be risky.
  2. Publicly offered security. The plan asset regulation exempts a class of security that is sold to the public under a registration statement effective under the Securities Act of 1933[6] and that is registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the 1934 Act within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year in which the registration statement was declared effective.[7]  To avoid manipulation of this exception, a publicly offered security must have a minimum investment of $10,000 or less and be held by 100 or more investors independent of the Company.[8]
  3. Operating company. The plan asset regulation exempts equity securities issued by an “operating company”.  The plan asset regulation gives no helpful guidance on what would constitute an “operating company.”[9]  Instead, the plan asset regulation offers two safe harbors, for a venture capital operating company[10] and for a real estate operating company[11].   A venture capital operating company is a company 50% or more of whose assets are securities of companies in which the company obtains and actually exercises management rights.[12]  A real estate operating company is a company 50% or more of whose assets consist of real estate that the company manages and develops.[13]  Real estate that is net leased on a long term basis is not considered “managed” for purposes of qualifying for the real estate operating company safe harbor.[14]  On the other hand, where the Company has the obligation to maintain and operate the real estate and hires a manager on a short term basis, the Company may still be a real estate operating company.[15]
  4. No significant participation. Probably the most relied on exception from the plan asset rules is the no significant participation exception, meaning that at all times pension plans hold less than 25% of the value of any class of equity interest in the Company.[16]  Investment in the Company’s securities by the Company’s sponsor or managers is ignored.  The effect of that computational rule is to make it harder to meet the test for not significant participation.  If the Company raises $1,000,000 in capital, $200,000 from a pension plan and $200,000 from management, the pension plan’s investment will be 25% (200,000/800,000), with the investment by management being excluded from the calculation.  On the other hand, if a manager were to invest through his IRA or 401K, that investment would be included in the aggregate pension plan investment in the Company.[17
  5. Tax implications of plan asset treatment. If the assets of the Company are treated as pension plan assets—because none of the exemptions in the plan assets regulation has been met—the managers of the Company will be deemed fiduciaries[18] of the plan assets under management. Use of the plan assets to benefit the Company’s managers would be susceptible of being treated as a prohibited transaction, with the Company’s managers potentially liable for a 15% penalty excise tax imposed on the investment.[19]  That tax rate jumps to 100% of the amount involved if the transaction is not reversed by the time the IRS issues a notice of deficiency to the fiduciaries with respect to the prohibited transactions.[20]
  6. ERISA Fiduciary implications of plan assets treatment. Section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”)[21] creates a civil cause of action against plan fiduciaries and in appropriate cases against non-fiduciaries who are “parties in interest.”[22] If a plan suffers an economic loss in a transaction that involved a prohibited transaction, the fiduciaries can expect to be required to personally restore those losses.  With that understanding, no entrepreneur should want pension plan investors without assurance that the entrepreneur will not be a fiduciary to the pension plan investors, meaning management of the Company should be motivated to avoid plan asset treatment.

UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME.  Another issue for pension plan investors, completely apart from the prohibited transactions discussed above, is the determination of whether an investment in a Company will generate unrelated business income (“UBI”)[23] for the pension plan or exempt organization investor.  As noted above, an operating company is not subject to plan asset treatment, but an operating company may well generate unrelated business income.[24]  Income from a business that an exempt organization or pension plan operates or invests in is treated as UBI.  UBI less allowable deductions results in unrelated business taxable income, upon which the unrelated business income tax is imposed[25].

Income from dividends, interest, royalties, rents and capital gains are excluded from UBI[26].  Rents of personal property and rents based on the income or profits of any person are includible in UBI.[27]   A portion of dividends, interest, royalties, rents and capital gains derived from debt-financed property will be included in UBI.[28]

The allocation of net profits to an investing pension plan by a limited liability company (“LLC”) or other partnership that itself conducts an operating business will be treated as UBI to the investing Plan.[29]  A plan really has three choices when considering an investment, (a) avoid an investment in an active business through a pass-through entity like an LLC, (b) invest in an active business through a pass-through entity and pay the tax on the UBI, or (c) form a wholly-owned C corporation to hold the interest in the operating LLC (generally known as a blocker corporation).  Where a sponsor is promoting an investing in an operating business through a pass-through entity, the sponsor itself may form the blocker corporation through which plans, exempt organizations and foreign taxpayers may invest.

As a general rule, the purchase of an interest in an investment that would otherwise be exempt from UBI, for instance because it generates royalties, dividend, interest or rents, by incurring debt or buying subject to debt will cause a portion of the income to be taxed as UBI.[30]  The determination that an investment constitutes “debt financed property” that will cause a portion[31] of the income from the investment to be UBI can be made at the investing plan level and at the investment level.  For example, if a plan borrows to buy a corporate bond, a portion of the interest from that bond will debt-financed property.  In addition, if a plan invests in an LLC that borrowed to acquire an asset, the debt-financed character of a portion of the income will be passed through to investing plans.

Section 514 provides a limited exception from acquisition indebtedness treatment for mortgage debt secured by real property owned by a “qualified organization”.  The term “qualified organization” includes (a) a charitable educational organization, (b) a pension trust, (c) a corporation formed to hold real estate for a pension plan or charitable educational organization, and (d) a church retirement income account.[32]  If a partnership or LLC will acquire real estate subject to mortgage debt, as is typical, the sponsor may make the investment more attractive to potential pension plan investors by satisfying the requirements for partnerships to avoid debt financed income for investing plans in the LLC’s operating agreement or the limited partnership’s limited partnership agreement.[33]

Pension Plan Michael Shaff joined the firm in 2011 as Of Counsel. He is chairperson of the Tax Practice Group.Michael specializes in all aspects of federal income taxation. Mr. Shaff has served as a trial attorney with the office of the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service for three years. Mr. Shaff is certified by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California as a specialist in tax law. Mr. Shaff is a past chair of the Tax Section of the Orange County Bar Association.  He is co-author of the “Real Estate Investment Trusts Handbook” published annually by West Group. Michael received his A.B. at Columbia College in 1976, his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1979 and his LL.M. in taxation from New York University School of Law in 1986. He is admitted to practice law in the States of California, New York and Massachusetts and is a member of the Orange County Bar Association.

For more information about our Tax & Estate Planning practice, contact Michael Shaff at mshaff@stubbalderton.com 
______________________________________________________________________________

[1]   https://www.ici.org/research/stats/retirement/ret_16_q4
[2]   29 C.F.R. §2510-3.101(a)(2)(second sentence); the first sentence of subsection (a)(2) establishes the “general rule” that a pension plan’s assets consist of its investment but not the underlying assets of the entity.  The second sentence relegates that rule to being an exception.
[3]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101 will be referred to as the “plan asset regulation” in this article.
[4]  29 C.F. R. §2510-3.101(b)(1).
[5]  29 C.F.R. §2510-3.101(j)(example 1).
[6]  As Regulation D is an exemption from registration pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, securities offered pursuant to Rule 504 or 506 would not satisfy this part of the plan asset regulation.
[7]  29 C.F.R. §2510-3.101(b)(2).
[8]  29 C.F.R. §2510-3.101(b)(3) and (4).
[9]  29 C.F.R. §2510-3.101(c)(1): “An ‘operating company’ is an entity that is primarily engaged, directly or through a majority owned subsidiary or subsidiaries, in the production or sale of a product or service other than the investment of capital.”
[10]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(d).
[11]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(e).
[12]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(d)(3).|
[13]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(e).
[14]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(j)(example 7).
[15]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(j)(example 8).
[16]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(f).
[17]  29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101(f)(1).
[18]  26 U.S.C. §4975(e)(3).
[19]  26 U.S.C. §4975(a)).
[20]  26 U.S.C. §4975(f)(2).
[21]  29 U.S.C. §1106
[22]  Harris Trust Savings v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000).  Salomon Smith Barney acted as broker for a pension plan’s fiduciary, executing trades that constituted self-dealing prohibited transactions.  (Id.)  The Supreme Court found that although not a fiduciary, Salomon Smith Barney was a party in interest and therefore could be sued for the plan’s actual damages, effectively making the defendant the insurer of every transaction that the fiduciaries engaged in.
[23]  Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.), 26 U.S.C. §511-514.
[24]  I.R.C. §512(a).
[25]  Id.
[26]  I.R.C. §512(b).
[27]  I.R.C. §512(b)(3).
[28]  I.R.C. §511(a)(1).
[29]  I.R.C. §512(c)(1).
[30]  I.R.C. §514(a).
[31]  In short, the ratio that average acquisition indebtedness bears to the average basis of the debt financed property will determine the portion of the income from the debt financed property that will be UBI.  As the amount of debt and the adjusted basis of the debt-financed property change, the portion of the income treated as UBI will change. I.R.C. §514(a).
[32]  I.R.C. §514(c)(9)(C).  The exemption for these organizations may reflect Congress’s determination that pension plans and certain educational institutions often invest in leveraged real estate.
[33]  I.R.C. §514(c)(9)(E).

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

In Case You Missed It! Preccelerator Demo Day Class 5 Pitch Video

What an exciting evening it was!  4 talented entrepreneurs gave their 5 minute pitches to a crowd of over 100 people at the May 18, 2017 Preccelerator Demo Day.  The evening was topped off by the motivating presentation on “Fearless Media” by SAM CREATV Ventures Partner Peter Csathy.  In case you missed it, check out the video!

About the Preccelerator Program
The Preccelerator® Program is a platform offered to select start-up companies out of the Santa Monica office of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP that provides interim office space, sophisticated legal services, mentorship and access to a strategic perks portfolio with the objective of helping you grow your idea from business concept to funded startup. The Preccelerator® Program provides these benefits to as many as 10 promising young startups in separate growth tracks.

For more information about the Preccelerator, contact Heidi Hubbeling, COO at hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Client HouseCanary Featured in Forbes Magazine

HouseCanaryCongratulations to Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ client HouseCanary for being featured in Forbes magazine as the leaders of the real estate data revolution. Jeremy Sicklick, co-founder and CEO of San Francisco-based HouseCanary saw a great opportunity to use technology and data science to modernize the real estate industry. He partnered with economist and statistician Chris Stroud – then a 27-year-old doctorate student – and the two formed HouseCanary in 2014. Their goal was to aggregate and analyze vast amounts of real estate data to help investors, lenders and real estate professionals make decisions in real-time. To date HouseCanary has raised $33 million in Series A financing from investors like Hillspire, Eric Schmidt’s family office, Alpha Edison, Raven Ventures and ECA Ventures.

To read the full article on Forbes click here.

About HouseCanary
Founded in 2014, HouseCanary’s mission is to help people make better real estate decisions. Built on a foundation of great data, powerful models and predictive analytics, the HouseCanary platform aggregates millions of data elements, including more than four decades of property data and a rapidly expanding arsenal of proprietary data calculations and analytics, to accurately define and forecast values and market influences. The company is headquartered in San Francisco. www.housecanary.com

For more information about our Internet, Digital Media & Entertainment practice, contact Greg Akselrud at gakselrud@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Ranked in Los Angeles Business Journal 200 Largest Law Firms

Los Angeles Business Journal

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP has been ranked in the #111th place in the 2017 edition of the Los Angeles Business Journal for “Largest Law Firms.”  The LA Business Journal provides comprehensive data and statistics on top-ranked Los Angeles companies across all industries.

 

About Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP is a Southern California based 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 a broad range of industries with a concentration in the technology, entertainment, videogame, apparel and medical device sectors. The firm’s 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 the firm. For more information, visit https://stubbsalderton.com.

Contact:

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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

SAM Partner Michael Sherman Featured in Law360 representing Cocrystal Pharma

Law360Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Partner Michael A. Sherman was featured on Law360 representing Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. (COCP) against BioZone Laboratories Inc. and provided his insight into the difficult situation facing both companies.

The full article on Law360 can be viewed here.

Michael Sherman 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.

For more information on our Business Litigation Practice, contact Michael A. Sherman at msherman@stubbsalderton.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Preccelerator® Program Company Ballerz World Featured on U.S. Defense Department Blog

Ballerz World Preccelerator® Program company Ballerz World was featured this week on the U.S. Defense Department Science Blog in an interview discussing how the military helped prepare founders Kyle E. Cox and Nicholas Damuth, for careers in technology.

Ballerz World is the single largest marketplace that is dedicate to all things basketball. The app allows the worldwide basketball market of 500 million, and 30 million in the U.S., to connect and play basketball with one another using geo-location technology. Ballerz World features courts, players, leagues, training, multimedia, and e-commerce all through a digital platform. During its MVP phase, the Ballerz World app received more than 10 awards, including the People’s Choice Award at the CES Mobile Apps Showdown, and the Best GPS-Enabled App at the Mobile App Awards. www.ballerzworld.com.

To read the full article visit the U.S. Defense Department’s Blog here. 

For more about the Preccelerator® Program, contact Heidi Hubbeling, COO at
(310) 746-9803 or hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail