With 2018 coming to a close we’ve decided to look back at our most popular blog posts of 2018. Interestingly, all of these posts are on the subject of capital raising/financing, which should be of no surprise to anyone who works in the technology sector! Now, onto our most popular posts from 2018:
In our most popular post we discussed the benefits to priced financing rounds, rather than convertible instruments, for early-stage financing rounds. We also cautioned that some investors prefer convertible instruments and others will reject a priced round valuation but accept the same valuation (or higher) as the cap on a convertible instrument. At the end of 2019, I still prefer priced rounds for early-stage investments but only if a Common share is on offer. I am not fond of preferred share priced rounds prior to a company’s Series A financing (I’ve seen this more than normal in 2018) as this is too early a point in a company’s life for such a complex financing structure and the additional restrictions that often follow.
In the runner-up post, we laid out four things every startup should know before embarking on its first financing: (1) know your investment structure; (2) have your investment documents ready; (3) don’t treat investor interest as commitment; and (4) be realistic in the timeline for closing the investment round. I’ll add a fifth: know all your outstanding equity obligations and clean them up before starting the round. Put another way – all those equity offers you wrote yourself can’t be ignored and need to be cleaned up before the first financing begins.
Finally, in third place, was our post detailing three common structures for video game studio profit sharing: (1) draft a profit sharing agreement; (2) create a separate company for each game; or (3) issue shares to profit share participants. While clients came to us with numerous structures for profit sharing in 2018, all went the profit sharing agreement route due to its flexibility.
That’s it for 2018. Stop by again in 2019 for more posts on the law of startups and video game studios, from a Canadian and US perspective.
Startups often email me to assist with a financing expected to close a few days later. Eager to get the deal going, I ask about deal structure, such as type of investment, investor rights and size of round, only to learn that structure has yet to be determined and no firm commitments have been made by investors. While there is nothing wrong with these details being TBD, it benefits startups, their investors and legal counsel to fix as many deal terms before expectations of closing take root as until the above is set in stone, there is not deal.
Before beginning your first fundraising round, consider the following:
- Know your structure. Fixing the structure for your investment round is critical and shows investors that the company is sophisticated. Options include a priced round, convertible notes and SAFEs. There’s nothing worse than pitching to an interested investor and being unable to answer questions about the round’s structure.
- Have your Documents Ready. Be ready to close your lead investor quickly if they are ready to move forward with the investment. While investment documents may be negotiated further, having the documents ready shows professionalism and speeds the transaction toward close.
- Don’t treat Interest as Commitment. Until investors move beyond expressing interest and into reviewing and negotiating deal documents there is little merit to their interest. In my experience, converting investor interest into investor commitment is much more challenging than expected and you don’t want to plan the company’s direction over the next year based off expressed interest only to find out that you can close 1/2 the amount expected.
- Be Realistic in Closing Timeline. Attempting to close a round in a few days only happens if the above points have been addressed by the company. Legal counsel can prepare documents as quickly as the client requires but investors won’t move quickly until they know the investment structure and previously received draft documentation. With this in mind, set a realistic closing timeline.
Closing your first financing is daunting. By keeping in mind structure, documentation, investor commitments and setting realistic closing time-frames you will put your startup in a better position to successfully close the round.
Streamers are increasingly important to the success of indie video games and our clients often encourage streaming as a way to increase exposure without substantial expense. However, recent streamer controversies illustrate the need for developers to include an explicit streaming license and code of conduct within the game’s End User License Agreement (EULA) with broad grounds for termination.
What is a streaming license? A streaming license expressly grants users a license to stream the video game but makes it clear that this license can be revoked at any time, without notice or compensation. Without this language, substantial ambiguity remains concerning the scope of the license and impact of termination. Consider the following example:
DEVELOPER grants you a license to publicly display the Game on online video streaming websites, such as youtube.com and twitch.com, and social media, such as tweeting a GIF. DEVELOPER may terminate or modify the scope of this license at any time without notice or compensation and will not be liable to you or any third party for any loss incurred relating thereto.
You can also draft the license to fit your company’s particular needs. For example, the streaming license could prohibit monetization of the stream.
Do you have a Code of Conduct? In addition to a streaming license, we recommend that the EULA contain a user code of conduct that prohibits certain conduct, such as profanity, nudity etc. Breach of this code could provide a basis for terminating a user’s streaming license, although not the only basis.
Can’t I just use the DMCA? Yes, a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claim is the quickest way to secure removal of a stream and a clear streaming license (with termination language) provides a clear basis for making the DMCA claim. Without a streaming license, unnecessary ambiguity remains concerning the impact of termination (for example, could liability follow if you terminate a lucrative stream that was previously permitted?).
In sum: It benefits your streaming community to receive a clear streaming license and to understand the basis upon which the license can be used and revoked. While you can remove an offensive stream without such a clause (under the DMCA), ambiguity does little to benefit your company or streaming community.
Anti-dilution protections are frequently granted to investors and forgotten by founders until their friendly lawyer brings it up. In many cases, anti-dilution protections are reasonable but in other cases can impose a substantial burden on the company, even impacting the appeal of the company to future investors.
Generally, anti-dilution protections protect an investor from the dilution of the investor’s interest. When VC’s speak about anti-dilution they are usually referring to price-based anti-dilution protections, which protect from a decrease in share price in a future financing (known as a “down-round”) by, ultimately, increasing the number of shares issued to previous round investors. This down-round protection is seen in Series A financings and Brad Feld has a great post covering the details.
What is FAR less common, and almost universally viewed as inappropriate, is an absolute anti-dilution clause. This type of dilution protection guarantees the investor a certain percentage of the company, usually for a fixed time. For example:
Startup hereby agrees to issue additional shares of Common Stock (for no additional consideration) to maintain Investor’s ownership interest at 10% of the total capital stock (calculated on a fully-diluted basis, including all options, warrants, convertible securities and other rights to acquire capital stock).
In the above case, the investor maintains a 10% interest in the company without a need to make additional payments. What if the company sells shares to a new investor? New shares are issued to the previous investor. What if the company issues options to employees? New shares are issued to the previous investor. The absolute anti-dilution clause is viewed as inappropriate as it protects the investor against ALL dilutive events, including those every investor expects to occur, rather than a limited set of dilutive events, such as a down-round.
The absolute anti-dilution clause also runs the risk of rendering your company less appealing to investors. An investor may reconsider an investment knowing that they will be immediately diluted by the previous investor’s absolute anti-dilution clause. This is especially the case if the new investor is increasing the company share price and, in turn, the value of the previous investor’s shares.
I usually encounter these absolute anti-dilution clauses in connection with an accelerator program investment. In this scenario, clients tend to accept the terms as acceptance to the program is viewed as worth the cost (which is a reasonable position to take). Nonetheless, it’s important for companies to understand the impact of absolute anti-dilution clauses and to weigh the pros and cons of any investment in light of an absolute anti-dilution clause before proceeding further.