The just completed IPO of Snap Inc. has received enormous buzz and plenty of press coverage, mostly about its eye-popping valuation and offering proceeds, the big winners among the founders and early investors and the millennials who bought shares. But not nearly as much attention has been given to Snap’s tri-class capital structure
2016 turned out to be a terrible year for IPOs, both in terms of number of deals and aggregate proceeds.
According to Renaissance Capital’s U.S. IPO Market 2016 Annual Review, only 105 companies went public on U.S. exchanges in 2016, raising only $19 billion in aggregate proceeds. The deal count of 105 IPOs was
The market for venture backed IPOs in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2015 was the weakest in two years, both in terms of number of deals and aggregate proceeds, according to pre-IPO institutional research firm Renaissance Capital, as well as a separate exit poll report by Thomson Reuters and the National Venture
Part I of this two-part series on technology licensing dealt with the non-financial terms of a typical 
technology license agreement: subject matter, scope, territory, exclusivity, sublicensing and improvements. This Part II of the series will deal with the most contentious aspect of any license agreement, the financial terms, which are usually negotiated last. The reason
If you’re developing a product that requires certain technology that can’t be developed in-house (because of cost, time, human resources or complimentary assets), it might make good business sense to use technology that has already been developed by others and is available on the market.
A technology license is essentially an agreement between the licensor