Tag Archives: Nicholas Feldman

SAM Client Milk and Eggs Closes $2.5M Financing Round

 

milk-and-eggs

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP announced that it represented client Milk and Eggs in its $2.5M financing round led by Morningside Venture Investments.

Milk and Eggs is a farm-fresh grocery delivery service. Their goal is to connect customers to great farmers. Customers sign up for subscriptions of milk, eggs, dairy, meats, vegetables, and fruit on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, with free membership and delivery and the ability to change orders at any time. All vegetables, fruits, dairy, eggs, and meats will be the freshest available as they are locally acquired. And, with an environmentally friendly aggregation and delivery system, it’s a win for their customers and the environment.

SAM Attorneys that represented Milk and Eggs were Joe Stubbs and Nick Feldman.

For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth practice, contact Joe Stubbs at jstubbs@stubbsalderton.com.

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Business Law Breakdown – FCC Issues Guidance for Companies Promoting Apps via Text Message

Nick-Feldman-smNick Feldman’s practice focuses on corporate transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, dispositions, private equity transactions and general corporate matters for both public and private clients, focusing on middle-market and emerging growth companies. In addition, Nick counsels companies in connection with entity formation, corporate governance, federal and state securities laws and compliance, joint ventures, employee incentive plans, executive employment agreements and other executive compensation matters. Nick also serves as an Adjunct Professor at Loyola Marymount University, where he lectures on media law topics.

_________________________________________________________________

Text message promotions have long been touted as a marketing jackpot for mobile applications due to their high open rates and short click-path to download—look no further than companies like Lyft for success stories. However, refer-a-friend invitations have also come under fire for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), a law originally implemented to crack down on invasive telemarketing. Class action lawsuits that successfully establish that individuals received unsolicited text messages could result in penalties of up to $1,500 per text message.

On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission released a Declaratory Ruling and Order clarifying portions of the TCPA. In response to petitions from app-based service providers TextMe and Glide, the FCC set out best practices for companies utilizing text message promotions. In doing so, it established that the app user, not the company, may be responsible for initiating the text message in certain scenarios, opening the door for wider use of refer-a-friend text message promotions.

In order to comply with the TCPA, the FCC determined that companies must satisfy a balancing test which requires some direct connection between a person or entity and the sending of the text message. Specifically, the test examines who took the steps necessary to physically send the text message and whether another person or entity was so involved in sending the text message as to be deemed to have initiated it.

Pursuant to the FCC’s 2013 DISH Declaratory Ruling, persons or entities that merely have some minor role in the causal chain that results in the sending of a text message generally do not take the steps necessary to physically send such a text message, and thus are not deemed to “initiate” the text message.

In the case of TextMe, the app’s users invited friends to use the service via text message by engaging in a multi-step process in which the users had to make a number of affirmative choices.  First, they were required to tap a button that read “invite your friends.” They were then able to choose whether to invite all their friends or individually select contacts, and finally they were prompted to send the invitational text message by tapping another button.

The FCC determined that, to the extent that TextMe controlled the content of the advertising message, the company might be liable under the TCPA. Despite that cause for concern, however, the TextMe app users’ choices and actions caused the user to be so involved in sending the text message as to be deemed its initiator. For that reason, TextMe’s invite flow was deemed not to violate the TCPA.

TextMe’s practices contrasted with those of Glide, which sent text message solicitations automatically to all of its app users’ contacts unless a user affirmatively opted out. In that scenario, the FCC determined that Glide initiated the text messages because the app user played no role in deciding whether to send the invitational text messages, to whom to send them, or what to say in them.

Ultimately, not all app providers are exempt from liability under the TCPA. In light of the FCC’s guidance, a company that desires for its users to send text message invitations to their contacts should require the user’s affirmative consent with respect to (1) whether to send a message, (2) who the message is sent to, and (3) when the message is sent. To further limit potential liability, the company should allow the user to determine or modify the language of the invitation message.

It is also worth noting that FCC’s declaratory rulings are not binding on trial courts, but are instead interpreted as persuasive authority. However, due to the limited amount of case law interpreting the TCPA, FCC opinions like this one are the primary source of guidance as to how companies should comply with the law.

______________________________________________________________

For more information about services for your legal needs, contact Nick Feldman at nfeldman@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4541.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail

Business Law Breakdown – Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law Prohibit Fee-Shifting and Endorse Forum Selection Clauses

DelawareOn June 24, 2015, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed several important amendments to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) into law. The amendments, which will become effective on August 1, 2015, prohibit “fee-shifting” provisions and endorse forum selection provisions, among other changes.

Prohibition on Fee-Shifting

In response to the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014), the DGCL amendments invalidate “fee-shifting” provisions in certificates of incorporation or bylaws of stock corporations. In ATP, the Court upheld a bylaw imposing liability for legal fees of a nonstock corporation on certain members of the corporation participating in the litigation.

The new legislation narrows the ruling in ATP by way of new DGCL Section 102(f). That statute provides that a certificate of incorporation may not impose liability on a stockholder for the attorneys’ fees or expenses of the corporation in connection with an “internal corporate claim” as defined in new Section 115 (discussed below). The legislation also adds a similar restriction on fee-shifting provisions in corporate bylaws to Section 109(b). An amendment to Section 114 provides that the restrictions on fee-shifting provisions do not apply to nonstock corporations.

While the legislation invalidates fee-shifting provisions in certificates of incorporation and bylaws of stock corporations, it does not bar such provisions in stock purchase agreements or stockholders’ agreements.

Authorization of Delaware Forum Selection Clauses

The 2015 legislation confirms the holding of Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corporation, 73 A.3d 934 (Del. Ch. 2013), adding a new Section 115 to the DGCL which confirms that a corporation’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws may require internal corporate claims to be brought exclusively in the courts of the State of Delaware. “Internal corporate claims” are defined to include claims of breach of fiduciary duty by current or former directors, officers, or controlling stockholders, or persons who aid and abet such a breach.

 Section 115 does not expressly authorize or prohibit provisions that select a forum other than Delaware courts as an additional, non-exclusive forum for internal corporate claims. However, it does invalidate any provision selecting courts outside of Delaware, or any arbitral forum, to the extent such a provision attempts to prohibit litigation of internal corporate claims in the Delaware courts. And, as with the fee-shifting amendments, it does not invalidate non-Delaware forum selection provisions in a stockholders’ agreement or other separate written agreements with stockholders.

Stock and Option Issuances

With respect to stock issuances, the new legislation amends Section 152 of the DGCL to clarify that the board of directors may authorize stock to be issued by the determination of a person or body other than the board, in one or more transactions and in such amounts and at such times as determined by the authorized party. In order to do so, the board must set certain parameters at the time it authorizes the issuance(s), including fixing the maximum number of shares that may be issued, the time frame during which such shares may be issued, and a minimum amount of consideration for which they may be issued.

Additionally, the legislation permits the board to delegate the ability to issue restricted stock to officers of the corporation on the same basis that the board may delegate the ability to issue options under Section 157 of the DGCL. Both Sections 152 and 157 are further amended to clarify that the board may determine the minimum consideration for such stock or options by way of a formula which references or is dependent upon extrinsic facts, including market prices.

Ratification of Defective Corporate Acts

The 2015 legislation makes several amendments to Section 204 of the DGCL, which sets forth the procedures for ratifying stock or corporate acts that would be void or voidable due to a “failure of authorization.” The amendments clarify and confirm certain provisions of the ratification process and provide additional guidance as to the specific requirements for the filing of certificates of validation, including: (1) confirming the requirements for a board of directors and stockholders to adopt and ratify one or more defective acts; (2) providing for ratification of the initial board of directors where it was not named in the original certificate of incorporation nor elected by the incorporator; (3) addressing the voting standards applicable to the ratification of the election of a director where the original vote obtained was defective; (4) clarifying the requirements for certificates of validation; (5) confirming the scope of acts by the board of directors or officers that may constitute a defective corporate act susceptible to cure by ratification; and (6) confirming that certain “voidable” acts may be cured by ratification under common law.

Implications: Action Items for Delaware Corporations

A Delaware stock corporation that has adopted a fee-shifting provision should consider amending its charter and/or bylaws, as applicable, to remove the provision because it will no longer be enforceable once the new legislation takes effect.

Further, Delaware corporations that have not previously adopted a Delaware forum selection clause should consider adopting one. And, as with fee-shifting provisions, a Delaware corporation that has adopted a forum selection clause prohibiting litigation of internal corporate claims in the Delaware courts should amend the clause to make clear that such claims may be brought in Delaware in addition to, or instead of, the forum currently specified.

___________________________________________________

Nick-Feldman-smNick Feldman’s practice focuses on corporate transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, dispositions, private equity transactions and general corporate matters for both public and private clients, focusing on middle-market and emerging growth companies. In addition, Nick counsels companies in connection with entity formation, corporate governance, federal and state securities laws and compliance, joint ventures, employee incentive plans, executive employment agreements and other executive compensation matters.  Nick also serves as an Adjunct Professor at Loyola Marymount University, where he lectures on media law topics.

For more information about services for your legal needs, contact Nick Feldman at nfeldman@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4541.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmail