Potential for Benefit Corporations: Past, Present, and Future

By: Samantha Gross

March 2017

Patagonia, Etsy, TOMS Shoes, and Warby Parker are just a few companies out of a growing number to join the benefit corporation movement.  Entrepreneurs and corporate management of this relatively new legal status can pursue for-profit ventures, while also committing their business to a specific public benefit.  Perhaps, the popularity of the benefit corporation resulted from frustration with the historic premise of corporate law, which established that a corporation’s sole purpose is to maximize shareholder profits.  This movement away from shareholder primacy begs the question, is the benefit corporation the entity of the future?

Why are Benefit Corporations so Revolutionary?

            Although benefit corporations have gained popularity, it has been slow over the last seven years.  American corporate law is centered around the theory of shareholder primacy, which mandates that a corporation honor its fiduciary duty or face legal liability.  In other words, corporate directors and officers have less discretion in determining the goals of the company, especially when at odds with generating shareholder profits.  In the landmark case of Dodge v. Ford, the court ruled that Henry Ford must operate in the interest of the corporation’s shareholders, not in a charitable manner for the benefit of employees and customers.  Entrepreneurs and members of corporate governance, who believe in corporate social responsibility, have long disagreed with such shareholder primacy mandates.  But the tables are turning.  Currently, thirty-one states have passed legislation permitting the formation of benefit corporations and seven more states are in the process.

What is the Difference Between a B Corporation and a Benefit Corporation?

            Before delving into the nuances of a benefit corporation, it is important from a legal perspective to distinguish the benefit corporation from the B corporation.  A benefit corporation is a legal status, a formal business structure like a LLC or a C corporation.  Requirements for forming a benefit corporation vary from state to state.  In general the business must file articles of incorporation with the state defining a specific social benefit, and is subsequently subject to auditing in order to ensure that the company is working towards the intended social benefit.  Traditional corporations, which decide to become benefit corporations, can amend their by laws.  Conversely, a B corporation is a status conferred by B Lab, a nonprofit created to award for-profit businesses that meet certification standards for overall social and environmental performance. 

Benefit corporations and B corporations require the same accountability and transparency, which include public reports of the company’s overall social and environmental performance assessed against a third party standard.  However, performance for benefit corporations is self-reported, whereas B corporations must achieve a minimum verified score every two years by the B Impact Assessment.  Additionally, B corporations are available to every business regardless of corporate structure or state of incorporation.  The formal legal structure of benefit corporations is not yet available statewide. 

Lastly, B Lab certification can come at a hefty price, ranging from $500 to $50,000 a year based on the company’s revenues.  State filing fees for benefit corporations are a little more modest ranging from $70 to $200.

            For companies who already have a formal business structure, the B corporation certification is a more likely option, offering access to the B Lab and B corporation logo.  However, for those companies whose primary goal is to benefit social or environmental concerns, the legal status of a benefit corporation seems more practical especially as states continue to pass benefit corporation legislation.  

What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Becoming a Benefit Corporation?

            As James Surowiecki notes in The New Yorker, “[i]t’s what behavioral economists call a ‘commitment device’—a way of insuring that you’ll live up to your promises.”  By giving directors legal protection to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just the shareholders, benefit corporations gain entrepreneurial and investor flexibility.  Current trends suggest that consumer demand for corporate accountability is rising.  Thus, businesses with benefit corporation status may obtain a competitive advantage by banking on consumers, who would rather purchase from a company that shares similar social values.  Moreover, employee confidence in a company that is legally committed to benefiting more than just its shareholders may produce more efficient and successful results.

            Nevertheless, several disadvantages come with this futuristic entity structure.  One is expanded reporting requirements, including an annual report to the shareholders and public.  These reporting requirements place particular pressures to ensure that the business is actually providing the specific public benefit it set out in its mission.  Another potential downside is that benefit corporations are fairly new legal entities, and the law is still uncertain on how these entities will be regulated.  Moreover, legislation for benefit corporations varies from state to state.

            Another key aspect for entrepreneurs and investors to consider is that benefit corporations, unlike nonprofit organizations, are not tax deductible.  Thus, many expenses that exist for a traditional corporation also carry to benefit corporations.

How Great is the Potential for Benefit Corporations?

            We all remember the failures of BP, Enron, and Lehman Brothers.  Perhaps, if these companies had established a mission to benefit social or environmental issues from the moment of incorporation, the resulting public harms would have been less likely.  With current social movements, there is certainly a push for corporate social responsibility, rather than waste and greed.  With traditional American corporate law finding that corporate social responsibility is secondary to maximizing shareholder profits, it will be interesting to see how legal precedent develops for benefit corporations.  Supporters of existing corporate law claim that not much will change.  However, economic theorists have found that analyzing performance through profits have deprived businesses of judging other performance indicators.  Benefit corporations have the ability to enhance their competitive strategy by incorporating social values.  So far, some of consumers’ favorite companies like Patagonia, Warby Parker, and Etsy are producing popular products, reaping profits, and simultaneously giving back to society in charitable fashion.    

 

 

 

What Exactly is a L3C?

By Joseph P. Glackin

March 2017

In a world where choosing the right legal structure can result in various repercussions in how your business is formally run, it is important to understand the differences between the multitude of entities that one can choose from. One legal structure in particular that is often overlooked and thus not often considered is the L3C.

L3C stands for a low-profit, limited liability company, and is often described as a hybrid like structure comprised of both non-profit and for-profit attributes.[1] This hybrid entity is designed to attract private investments and philanthropic capital in ventures designed to provide a socially beneficial objective.[2] Even though the L3C has an explicit primary charitable mission and a secondary profit concern, it is free to distribute the profits to its members just like the standard limited liability company.[3]

Also like the standard limited liability company, the L3C has the same limited liability protection for its members, the same management structure, and the same pass-through tax status and flexibility in ownership, while also having some of the advantages associated with being a non-profit organization. One of these major advantages of the L3C is the myriad of funding options coming from foundations and their program related investments.

Program Related Investments

The IRS mandates by law that foundations have to direct 5% of their assets every year to charitable purposes to keep their tax-exempt status.[4]  Foundations have two viable routes for spending this 5%: they can make program related investments, or they can make grants.[5] Grants offer no return on investment, while program related investments offer a potential return. Taking this into consideration, it is easy to understand why program related investments would be the preferred options for foundations. Program related investments means a foundation can make investments in entities with a charitable or educational purpose where making a profit is not a significant goal, which essentially describes the functionality of the L3C structure.[6] This means that funding an L3C can be treated as a legitimate program related investment by foundations.

Therefore, choosing the L3C as a legal structure can provide an influx of funding sources from a myriad of foundations looking to keep their tax-exempt status.[7] These sources of funding are not available to for-profit entities, as a foundation would lose its tax-exempt status if it were to invest in a for-profit business venture. To give you an idea of how large these PRIs can potentially be, the Gates Foundation in 2011 set up a $400 million program related investment fund.[8]

Disadvantages

Even with their seemingly obvious advantages there are also many disadvantages to choosing a L3C. One of the most prominent disadvantages is that only 8 states recognize the L3C as a business organization under their applicable state law; these states being Vermont, Michigan, Wyoming, Utah, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, and Rhode Island.[9] North Carolina was previously a part of this list, but repealed its recognition of the business organization in 2013. However, as is an option for many other entity structures, one can choose to form their L3C within one of these states, and register as a foreign LLC doing business in that state, but this can definitely be a deterrent for many social entrepreneurs outside of the previously listed states.

Another rather large disadvantage of the L3C is the associated uncertainty of whether the entity would qualify as a program related investment according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This potentially hinders the large pool of investments from foundations, as they do not want to risk losing their tax-exempt status. This often calls for a private IRS letter ruling on whether the L3C would qualify for program related investment status.[10] These private letter rulings can take time and are potentially costly to obtain, so foundations may be hindered from going through with this process entirely. However, L3Cs are required by law to outline their program related investment qualified purpose within their operating agreements. This make the IRS rulings somewhat straightforward, and the process a little easier for foundations to make program related investments in social ventures while ensuring their tax-exempt status remains in place.        

Is it Right For You?

The L3C has become a small tool for achieving socially beneficial objectives within society. With this being said, the L3C structure could be a good route for entrepreneurs with socially beneficial objectives, and a limited concern on making a return or profit.[11] If this sounds like you or your business, maybe the L3C structure is the right option for you. However, make sure to take into consideration both the advantages and disadvantages of choosing this entity structure.

Some examples of successful L3C companies are the following:

SEEDR is an Atlanta based L3C dedicated to global health, infrastructure and financial innovation. In 2009 the Gates Foundation gave SEEDR a $539,566 investment to fund the development of “a new line of insulated containers for transporting and storing vaccines and other medicines in developing countries.”[12]

Disruptive Innovations for Social Change is a Michigan based L3C formed with the intent to “help workers, employers, and communities succeed.” In 2010 Disruptive Innovations received a $420,000 investment to document and replicate a model of employer resource networks.[13]

Univicity is a California based L3C organized under Wyoming State law that utilizes information technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian aid NGOs.[14] In 2011 Univicity received both a $1.32 million investment and an additional $250,000 invesment from the Kay Family Foundation to support the development of their software.[15]

Other L3C entities that have been created throughout the years have been based around “alternative energy, food bank processing, a multitude of social services, social benefit consulting and media, arts funding, job creation programs, economic development, housing for low income and aging populations, medical facilities and practices in developing countries, environmental remediation, and medical research.”[16]

[1] http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/l3c/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2012/05/04/irs-rules-could-help-the-fledgling-l3c/#3127621c2970

[5] http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/the-l3c-a-more-creative-capitalism/

[6] See https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2012/05/04/irs-rules-could-help-the-fledgling-l3c/#3127621c2970

[7] See http://www.intersectorl3c.com/blog/104163/7726/.

[8] https://www.philanthropy.com/article/The-Gates-Foundation-Reveals/191365

[9] http://cullinanelaw.com/what-is-a-l3c/

[10] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/should-you-form-l3c

[11] http://www.intersectorl3c.com/blog/104163/7726/

[12] https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2014/05/27/social-responsibility-or-marketing-ploy-the-branding-of-l3cs/

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/the-l3c-a-more-creative-capitalism/

The Rise of the Public Benefit Corporation: Considerations for Start-ups

By Maria Stracqualursi

March 2017

What do Method Products, Kickstarter and Patagonia all have in common? They are all public benefit corporations (“PBCs”)! PBCs, also known as benefit corporations, are for-profit companies that balance maximizing value to shareholders with a legally binding commitment to a social or environmental mission. In contrast with other for-profit entities, which by law must focus exclusively on increasing investor returns, a PBC is required to consider other factors. A PBC’s charter identifies a public benefit, namely a positive effect or reduction of negative effects flowing to stakeholders, that is “artistic, charitable, cultural, economic, educational, environmental, literary, medical, religious, scientific, or technological” in character. When making business decisions, in addition to considering the value to shareholders, PBCs also must consider other stakeholder interests, which may include employees, customers, certain communities, or the environment.

More than three thousand companies are now registered as public benefit corporations, comprising approximately .01% of American businesses. In 2010, Maryland became the first state to pass legislation creating public benefit corporations. Thirty states, including Delaware and Massachusetts, as well as the District of Columbia, now have laws allowing business to register as public benefit corporations, and seven more states have pending legislation. Public benefit corporations span the full range of industries and company sizes, from retail to education, and one-person businesses to multinational corporations.

Public benefit corporations are frequently confused with B-Corporations. Although the two are similar in name (the B also stands for benefit), they are very different in their legal significance. B-Corp status is a certification created and administered by B-Lab, a non-profit organization that assesses and verifies companies’ social and environmental performance and publishes a public B-Impact Report measuring the company’s social and environmental impact. There are currently over two thousand B-Corps. The cost of obtaining B-Lab certification can range from $500 to $50,000 depending on the company’s revenues, and recertification is required every two years. In contrast, it costs only $70 to $500 to register as a public benefit corporation. In order to qualify for B-Corp certification, a company must have a stated social or environmental mission with a legally binding fiduciary duty to consider the interests not only of shareholders but also of workers, the environment and the community. Whereas PBCs may elect to self-report on their performance, B-Corps are audited by B-Lab and need to earn a minimum score on the B-Impact Assessment to maintain certification. Furthermore, rather than establishing a legally binding responsibility to pursue a public benefit, B-Lab certification is simply a marketing tool that lends credibility to the advertising of the social focus of the company to its customers. According to B-Lab rules, businesses that are incorporated in states that have public benefit corporation laws are required, within four years from the date such legislation was passed or two years after B-Corp certification, to elect PBC status in their state of incorporation in order to retain B-Corp certification. Two American B-Corps, Etsy and Rally Software (which was later acquired) have gone public. Etsy, a Delaware corporation, must register as a public benefit corporation by August 2017 in order to keep its B-Corp certification.

So why should an entrepreneur consider registering their startup as a public benefit corporation? There are several benefits associated with registering as a PBC, especially for those companies whose social or environmental mission is essential to the way they operate their business. C-corporations and S-corporations are legally required to base their decisions solely on maximizing financial returns for shareholders. This can be constraining for companies who are driven by a social mission or who wish to be more environmentally conscious in their decision-making. By forming as a PBC, the company’s board of directors is actually obligated to go beyond their fiduciary duties and consider social and environmental factors when making business decisions. Directors and officers will be legally protected when they balance both financial and non-financial interests and pursue the company’s public benefit.

This protection creates added flexibility when directors are evaluating the sale of the company. C-corporations and S-corporations in Delaware must follow the Revlon standard, which establishes the duty of the board of directors to make business decisions based on increasing the short-term financial gains of the company. PBCs, on the other hand, can consider other factors besides whether the offered price and terms maximizes value for shareholders when making a determination of whether to sell the company and to whom, such as how the other company treats its employees or its environmental practices. This also means that there is less risk of a hostile takeover. Furthermore, companies can keep or terminate their status as a PBC either before or after a sale should the new owner wish to do so and can garner two-thirds of stockholder votes.

Registering as a PBC can also help emerging companies attract and retain consumers and talented employees. A 2014 study conduct by Horizon Media’s Finger on the Pulse showed that 81% of millennials surveyed “expect companies to make a public commitment to good corporate citizenship.” Thus, today’s companies must seriously consider commitment to social or environmental missions. Companies that organize as a PBC can distinguish themselves from their competition and align their corporate values with those of their consumers. The greater corporate transparency required by PBCs may also draw consumers who want to confirm the company’s commitment to a mission. Such guarantees to engage in promoting social or environmental benefits also may help the company attract employees who want to work for socially mindful businesses and who may sacrifice compensation for a sense of purpose.

There are certainly concerns surrounding PBCs that may cause entrepreneurs pause. Public benefit corporations are subject to more onerous reporting requirements than other corporations. This ensures greater transparency and that efforts are being made by the company to pursue its named public benefit purpose. Most states require PBCs to file annual benefit reports, which must be available to the public on the company’s website, that asses the social and environmental performance of the business. If the company fails to show a commitment to working towards these public goals, it can lose its public benefit status. Furthermore, stockholders of PBCs have the right to bring a derivative action against the company to enforce the business’ stated public benefit purpose. Thus companies must be serious about committing to a mission before registering as a public benefit corporation. Notably, third parties that stand to materially benefit from the company’s mission do not having standing to sue the PBC, unless this right is granted by the company’s stockholders. For example, Plum Organics, a Delaware public benefit corporation, seeks to deliver “nutrient rich, organic food into the hands of little ones in need across America.” Should Plum Organics, however, decide that it wishes to expand its market to sell food targeted to the elderly, “little ones” and their kin would not have standing to file a derivative action.

Given that these corporate entities are fairly new, there is also not a substantial amount of case law clarifying how courts will interpret the requirement that PBCs balance profits with purpose. This uncertainty, as opposed to the significant amount of court opinions especially in Delaware, may be a detractor for investors who fear potential litigation that could not only cost the corporation a significant amount of money, but also hold up funding rounds or exits. That said, both for impact investors and stockholders for whom the mission of the company is very important, this increased transparency and ability to hold the company accountable may actually make the business more attractive. Venture capitalists may also be concerned with the lack of PBCs that have gone public. However, as Laureate Education’s recent IPO shows, it is possible for PBCs to attract major investors and have a successful IPO.

Laureate Education is not only the largest, for-profit higher education institution in the world, it is also the largest public benefit corporation, with over four billion dollars in revenue. Laureate is also a B-Corp and uses B-Lab as a third party standard against which to track its performance as a public benefit corporation. The company, which runs 88 campuses across 28 countries, was a publicly traded C-corporation from 1993 to 2007 when it became private. In October 2015, Laureate Education converted to a Delaware public benefit corporation and filed an S-1 with the SEC. Laureate’s prospectus explained that its public benefit is “to produce a positive effect for society and students by offering diverse education programs both online and at campuses around the globe.” The company aims to provide access to affordable and high quality education in emerging countries, and names its stakeholders as students, regulators, employers, local communities and stockholders. The prospectus also acknowledged that the company has a long-term vision, and that short-term decisions in pursuit of the public benefit may negatively impact the business’ financial performance.

Although the IPO was delayed due to unstable financial markets and regulatory flux, student lawsuits, and controversy following claims that the Laureate had paid $17 million to former president Bill Clinton to serve as honorary chancellor during Hillary Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State, the firm decided to move forward with the public offering after the post-election market swell. The company is backed by major investors including Henry Kravis and Steve Cohen. On February 1, the company began trading between $12.12 and $13.22, less than their offer price of $14. Analysts have pointed to Laureate’s $4.2 billion debt, low revenue and risky for-profit education business to explain the weak demand from investors. Despite these concerns, analysts are excited to see the first IPO of a public benefit corporation, which may lead the way for other companies that make social and environmental improvement a priority.

Where does this leave startup founders? While a public offering will take years of business building for most companies, it is certainly exciting to see a PBC going public. It adds validity to the entity, and hopefully will continue a trend of greater acceptance of mission-driven businesses. Public benefit corporations are certainly viable and smart options for start-ups that wish to distinguish themselves from their competitors and ensure a commitment to a social mission while operating as a for-profit business.

http://benefitcorp.net/faq

https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation

http://methodhome.com/beyond-the-bottle/our-business/

http://www.patagonia.com/b-lab.html

https://www.bcorporation.net/become-a-b-corp/how-to-become-a-b-corp/multinationals-and-public-companies

http://benefitcorp.net/businesses/benefit-corporations-and-certified-b-corps

https://www.bcorporation.net/community/plum-organics

https://thepienews.com/news/laureate-education-ipo-to-raise-490m/

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-laureate-ipo-20170201-story.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/companies-benefits

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912766/000104746915007679/a2209311zs-1.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/dealbook/etsy-ipo-tests-pledge-to-emphasize-social-mission-over-profit.html?_r=0

8 Del.C. § 362

https://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps/certified-b-corps-and-benefit-corporations

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revlon_rule.asp

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986)

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the Runway to One Click Away: How Fast Fashion Startups are Making Trends Accessible to the Average Consumer

By: Sammy Zand

March 2017

“Fast Fashion” is a contemporary term used by fashion retailers to describe designs that move from the catwalk right to the stores and in the hand of consumers. Fast fashion clothing captures current fashion trends, as the collections are based on the most recent ones presented at Fashion Week in the spring and fall of every year from New York to Paris. Its emphasis is on optimizing certain aspects of the supply chain for these trends to be designed and manufactured quickly and inexpensively. This allows the mainstream consumer to buy “current” or “trendy” clothing styles but at a significantly lower price.

This has developed a product-driven concept based on a manufacturing model referred to as “quick response” developed in the U.S. in the 1980s. Fast Fashion has become a force in the retailing industry and it is seen in increasing ubiquity with Fast Fashion powerhouses like Zara, H&M, Topshop, and Forever21 leading the market revolution and becoming household names.  

Marketing is key to the success of the Fast Fashion model. It creates the desire for consumption of new designs as close as possible to the point of creation. The continuous release of new products has become a highly cost effective marketing tool that drives consumers and increases brand awareness. Americans are now purchasing five times the amount of clothing that they were in the 1980s.

Most of the fast fashion brands have now gotten so big that their selection becomes overwhelming to the customer. The store is too big, there are too many options, colors, and styles, and its difficult for the average shopper to come up with an outfit. While many companies like Topshop and H&M dominate High Streets all across the globe, their first focus is in the brick-and-mortar realm. The web is an afterthought. While many of these large fast fashion companies have online stores, it still reflects the in-store experience, overwhelming the shopper. E-commerce is now filling in the gap with personalization.

A LA-based startup called DailyLook sets its sights on being a go-to fast fashion brand completely on the web. Shoppers can create a profile where they receive personalized suggestions that tailor to their size, preference, and needs. This startup has brought the styling experience and head-to-toe designed outfits, straight to the shopper’s door. While many of the fast fashion stores have online shopping available, this startup brings back a key aspect: personalized shopping.

To do that, the CEO and Founder Brian Ree, raised $2.5 million in a seed round from a number of investors, including GRP Partners, RRE, SV Angel, Novel TMT Ventures, Matt Coffin, Thomas Mclnerney, and Rachel Zoe. It carries items from other brands but it also produces its own label. DailyLook has been around since it launched back in 2011 and it has quietly been building a large audience since then.

Another online fast fashion startup that has grown in recent years is Stitch Fix. Stitch Fix launched seven years ago, and became a highly valuable and rapidly growing business proposition. FORBES estimates that Stitch Fix brought in $250 million of revenue in 2015 and was expected to jump by 50% in the next year or two. To accommodate this scale, the company has substantially increased its head count and now has 2,800 mostly part-time stylists and more than 1,000 warehouse workers across five locations. As a private company, its finances are held close to the vest. But VC Experts valued the company at around $300 million while another investor marked that up to $730 million. The company has even survived several scandals. Stitch Fix was actually found nearly tripling the prices from what is found in-stores. Nevertheless, shoppers continue to love the personalized attention they can have from the comfort of their own home.

This hits on a major key component to the success of most startups: consumer demand. More and more, consumers want products or services that are trendy, affordable, and readily accessible. DailyLook and Stitch Fix target young professional women that can get the experience of having their own wardrobe stylist but without the hassle of in-store appointments.  

Prominent startups in a number of industries have capitalized on the potential of this on-demand, user-tailored model. This is further reflected in other successful startups over a number of industries. Birchbox is another personalized online subscription but for beauty and body products. Birchbox launched in September 2010 and was founded by two young entrepreneurs and Harvard Business School graduates, Hayley Barna and Katia Beauchamp. New York-based Birchbox boasts more than one million subscribers who spend $10 per month for a box of personalized beauty samples, tending to the subscriber’s online created profile. The subscriber adds information about their daily routine, hairstyle, and skin type or problems. Birchbox then sends samples that reflect each subscriber’s individual need and hair or skin type. The company is now banking $60M. Other industries include delivery services like BlueApron or Sun Basket where customers can pick meals every week and the ingredients are delivered right to their door.

There are many reasons to see a successful startup, but what DailyLook and Stitch Fix have proven is that convenient and affordable services are becoming higher in demand. Those that have thrived have done so with a unique value proposition that can’t be matched by brick-and-mortar retailers. These startups have essentially succeeded because their competition is “non-consumption.” They are taking on the consumers that aren’t even considering going into the stores as part of their leisurely day and making them into people who browse and shop online. E-commerce is still growing and most entrepreneurs would be wise to use remember the platform.

 

The Global Struggle: Can I Uber to My Airbnb in Seoul?

By Ji-Su Park

February 2017

We say that today we live in the era of “McDonaldization” or the worldwide homogenization of cultures. In today’s globalized society, everything is supposedly efficient, calculable, predictable and controllable everywhere. To some extent, everything seems to be in the process of global gentrification, with McDonalds and Starbucks in every city around the world.

But we still often run into situations that force us to question such sociological assumption. Think about some of today’s most successful startups from the United States. In today’s gig economy, or a society in which people take short-term jobs or single projects for which they are hired to work on demand, many startups like Uber, an online transportation network company that develops and operates a mobile application that allows consumers to request car transportation, and the so-called “Uber for X” companies provide services that are available at the touch of a smartphone button.

Suppose you leave the U.S. to travel overseas, your plane arrives at a foreign airport, you pick up your suitcase and you are finally ready to exit the airport. Now, do you call an Uber cab? Is Uber available there? Or can you use Google Maps to check how to get to your Airbnb apartment from the airport? Oops, no routes found; the app is not working anymore.

Many startups that successfully became the “big things” in the U.S. naturally strive to expand their business globally. However, numerous governments seek to ban or limit the companies from doing business in their jurisdictions. For example, you will definitely encounter the situation described above at Incheon International Airport in South Korea. Korea, a country still at war today and still divided into South and North, presents a unique legal challenge to on-demand companies like Uber. In order to understand Korea’s Uber ban, we must first look at Google. The South Korean government is not so friendly to Google: The South Korean government has decided to restrict Google Maps services because of national security issues. The law at issue is the Korean law that blocks companies from exporting the government-supplied map data for national security issues, which Google argues that it must do in order to offer features such as driving directions, public transit and transportation information, and satellite maps.

Google has been requesting a license from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport since 2008 but had no luck. “The main point is national security,” said Kim Tong-il, an official at South Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which oversees mapping policy. The Seoul government, also citing national security, blocked Google’s efforts to export map data to data centers outside of South Korea. As a result, a Google Maps search for a driving route between Seoul, South Korea’s capital, and Busan, South Korea’s second biggest city, returns an error message: “No routes found.” In January 2017, Google added a new feature to Google Maps that allows users to call an Uber without ever leaving Google Maps. The Google Maps app will prompt users for their Uber account information, which will provide Google Maps with any linked information including payment methods. Unfortunately, this new convenient feature is extremely unlikely to be available in Korea.

In addition to the Google Maps problem, since its entry to Korea in 2014, Uber faced harsh protests from Korea’s strong taxi union and the locals who refused to accept the American startup’s “my-way-or-the-highway” approach in ignoring local law and regulations. Although Uber has faced similar criticisms in various states in the U.S. for its aggressive bypassing of the local licensing laws, safety laws and/or employment laws amounting to unfair competition, Uber seems to face even harsher criticisms overseas when a deeper cultural misunderstanding comes into play. Jungwook Lim, head of Startup Alliance in Seoul, noted that there were suspected cultural clashes between the local taxi industry and Uber Korea, which was initially run by Korean Americans who were not familiar with the local business culture. Moreover, criticizing Uber for violating the Passenger Transport Business Act yet denying responsibility in the event of an accident, Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon joined North American and European peers in enforcing standardized regulations over sharing economy platforms.

But not all sharing-economy startups from America have failed in South Korea. Consider Airbnb, an online marketplace and hospitality service that enables people to list or rent short-term lodging around the world. Uber and Airbnb are remarkably similar in many ways: Both companies were born in San Francisco, CA, and they are Silicon Valley’s biggest success stories in the on-demand economy. But while Uber has been showing an aggressive catch-me-if-you-can attitude that has put it at odds with regulators in many of the foreign cities that are crucial to Uber’s global ambitions and goals, Airbnb took a much friendlier approach. Airbnb has tilted towards working with local politicians in Korea and also has been hiring and working with ex-mayors of Seoul.

Even though Airbnb has still faced some expensive fines in several cities due to local policies, by and large, Airbnb’s approach has been to work with regulators, not against them. In Seoul, Airbnb is complying with the Korean law and also is beginning to clamp down on illegal listings in the country. In fact, in October 2016, Airbnb vowed to wipe out the illegal listings and delete hosts who have not reported to the central and local governments in Korea. This could have a huge impact on Airbnb’s supply since almost 70% of listings are not registered with the government. In other words, if Airbnb does go through with this plan to work with the government to wipe out illegal listings, it could wipe out much of the transaction it has made in what the country manager Patrick Lee said is among Airbnb’s fastest-growing markets in Asia.

Lee, however, gladly accepts the fact that it would take time for the government to understand that Airbnb is not a threat to Korean society or the Korean tourism industry. Lee says that Airbnb recognizes the difficulties of making business strategies in the gray area of the sharing economy: “Our team has a belief that if our decision is not contributing value to the society or industry, then that was the wrong decision if that business is in the gray area. So we are making decisions based on that belief.” Luckily for Airbnb, the Korean government ran a pilot program in three tourist-heavy areas in Korea that lets people rent out rooms through a special law.

As seen in the struggles of American startups like Uber and Airbnb in Korea, going global is not easy. Uber’s struggle shows that even though a startup’s initial success may lie in innovative ideas such as elimination of transaction costs (e.g. cab search costs), its long-term goals (e.g. global expansion) may ultimately depend on its attitude. What approach a company takes during its global expansion process can potentially make a difference in its brand image and public trust, which ultimately can contribute to its success. To become a global giant, should the company seek to go its way and then ask for forgiveness later? Or should the company ask for a permission, a collaboration and a partnership beforehand?

“Any government can shut you down, so you have to be willing to play the regulatory game,” said Gerald R. Faulhaber, professor emeritus of business economics and public policy at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, to the New York Times. “You need to work with regulators. There’s no way around that.”

What does Trademarking give me as an Entrepreneur?

By Kathryn Pajak

February 2017

My client, an Entrepreneur, had an idea, a plan, a product, and wanted to protect it.  He asked:  what kind of protection does the law provide and how do I get it? Are all others enjoined from using my idea? What happens if someone is using something similar to my mark but not quite it – where is the line? 

What is an Entrepreneur?

“Entrepreneur” may be the motto of the millennial generation but it is not-so-new.  It has been used in English since at least the middle of the 18th century.  Merriam Webster defines entrepreneur as “one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.”  Entrepreneurs are not merely small business owners, for not only do entrepreneurs own their business, but also they share a spirit:  the belief that their idea is worth the risk, a knowledge of a niche market, the challenge of making big things happen with few resources, and an understanding of what consumers want.  In our current age of technology, innovation, and startups – no matter how disparate the idea, service, or product – common obstacles and goals tie entrepreneurs together. 

Whether they have a product or a service, all entrepreneurs have in common the desire to protect what is theirs.  In the law, this protection arises out of the protection of intellectual property.

So, what is intellectual property?

Intellectual property (“IP”) is a broad category that describes patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademarks.  The idea of IP derives from the sense that certain products of human capital should be protected similarly to physical property.

What does a Trademark get me?

Trademarks protect finished goods that are related to the brand.  The overarching theory is to protect consumers because trademarks help consumers identify the source of goods or services.  Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination used by someone who intends to use it in commerce to identify and distinguish his or her goods as an indication of the source of the goods. Lanham Act §45 (15 U.S.C. §1125).  That was legalese… in English trademarks are whatever distinguishes a product and its source. 

Cooley LLP described it well: 

            “As a practical matter, trademark rights function both as a sword and a shield:

Sword: Trademark rights enable you, the brand owner, to stop others who are using the same or similar names to cause consumer confusion, usurp or free ride on your goodwill and reputation, or harm you by potentially associating your brand with an inferior product.

Shield: Trademark rights protect you from others who might try to challenge your right to use or register your brands.”

Is my name trademarkable?

Some terms are not trademarkable such as generic words and symbols.  Descriptive marks, describing some character or quality of the mark, are only protectable if the mark has achieved secondary meaning, i.e. when consumers associate the mark with a single source.  The best type of trademark is a suggestive or arbitrary mark because they receive automatic protections.  “Suggestive” suggests but does not describe some characteristics whereas arbitrary terms are fanciful they bear no relation to the product.

How do I obtain a trademark?

When you trademark, you receive the rights to protect against consumer confusion.  What does that mean?  You can prevent others from using your trademark.  You also get the right against dilution.

In order to receive a trademark, your mark must be distinctive and used in commerce.  Registration is not required but confers significant benefits.  When you register your mark federally you receive the presumption of exclusive rights to use your mark.  Registration of a mark also establishes nationwide priority over other marks, can stop free-riders or other third parties from using your mark, and gives you automatic access to federal courts which might enhance your remedies if someone infringes on your mark.

In order register your mark and gain these extra securities, the mark must pass clearance, which involves checking to see if someone else has already registered it.  Next, your attorney would prepare and file an application.  Trademarks cost between $200 and $400 but the protection it affords are worth the fee.

What if I do not register my mark federally?  Am I still protected?

You do not need to register your mark federally to get common law protection.  In fact, you can get automatic protection in your state.  Without registering, you can still use TM or SM superscript in your advertising material or your website.  However, I would recommend to any of my clients interested in trademarking that they register because the extent of the protection is superior..  For instance, a state trademark only protects you in that geographic area, whereas federal trademarks give you protection across the United States. 

How long am I protected?

When you successfully trademark, you receive protection for as long as you use your trademark.  In fact, there is potentially limitless duration!

Are there other ways to protect my idea?

This article focused on what trademark protection provides but entrepreneurs can also protect their intellectual property through patents, trade secrets, or copyrights.

IP protection derives from a variety of sources depending on the type of IP.  Copyright protection derives from the Constitution directly.  The Copyright Clause of the US Constitution provides protection “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”  U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.  You can copyright original works of authorship like books, movies, music, and even software.  Trade secret protection, on the other hand, is largely derived from state law.  Trade secrets are any valuable information you actively keep secret like formulas, techniques, etc.  Patents derive protection from federal law and are registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office PTO.  Patents provide the greatest amount of protection and the greatest amount of work to secure.  You can patent innovations, processes, and methods.

The main driver in the United States for protecting intellectual property is to promote innovation, thus when protection would limit innovation, you are not likely to get protection. 

You should speak to a lawyer about the best way to protect your intellectual property.

Resources:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur

http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2013/10/04/what-a-millennial-entrepreneur-can-teach-you-about-business/#57c28d1377e8

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intellectualproperty.asp

https://www.uspto.gov/

https://www.orrick.com/Total%20Access/Blog/2016/09/09-06-2016-Trademark

https://www.cooleygo.com/neglecting-trademark-protection/

https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/view-fee-schedule-trademark-fee-information

https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

http://www.stantonlawfirmllc.com/2014/10/whats-in-a-name-avoiding-trademark-issues-in-naming/

Mark Lemley, et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2016, Vol. I: Perspectives, Trade Secrets and Patents (Clause 8 Publishing 2016)

Mark Lemley, et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2016, Vol. II: Copyrights, Trademarks and State IP Protections (Clause 8 Publishing 2016)

Lanham Act §45 (15 U.S.C. §1125)

U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 

At What Point will a Unicorn’s Horn Pop the Tech Bubble?

By Joseph P. Glackin

February 2017

Young startups with little to no assets are raising multi-million rounds of financing with goals of becoming the next “unicorn.” A “unicorn,” in the business realm, is a startup company that has been able to achieve a stock market valuation or estimated valuation of over $1 Billion, despite having little or no established performance records.[i] Globally, there are currently over 200 companies that have been able to claim this mystical tag.

Many start-ups who have surpassed the $1 Billion “unicorn” benchmark have been able to obtain the rank of “mega-unicorn” by achieving valuations of over $10 Billion. Some of these “mega-unicorns” include the well-known Airbnb (with a valuation of over $30 Billion), Uber (being valued at over $60 Billion),[ii] and Snapchat (with a valuation of $25 Billion despite its cost of revenue for both 2015 and 2016 being more than its actual revenue coming in).[iii]

With the NASDAQ and S&P at all-time highs, the market continues to have a bullish outlook. This sentiment fuels a positive investment environment, continually pushing the valuations of private tech companies and corresponding investments to new levels.[iv] This means that when the market is high, valuations will often be high as well. However, more often than not, these valuations are artificial at best.

Venture capital funds with billions to invest are pumping what seems to be unlimited funds into this unprecedented investment climate, creating a breeding ground for the aforementioned “unicorns.” In the past, venture capital funds were considered big if they held over $500 million, but times have changed significantly. Exemplifying this fact, venture capital funds raised over $12 Billion in the first quarter of 2016, reaching a 10-year high in the process.[v]

However, as the popular phrase goes, “if you mess with the bull you’ll get the horns.” The market has been messing with the bull for too long, so it is only appropriate to prepare for the horns. The same can be said for the unicorn, known for its mythical horn. This can only mean bad things for the ever-expanding tech bubble. Ben Gurley, a partner with Benchmark Capital who spearheaded the firm’s successful investment in Uber, has compared the current “tech-funding climate to the mortgage industry’s precise embrace of collateralized debt obligations,” and those who lived through 2008 all know how that ended up.[vi] Because of these negative outlooks, many people are beginning to question what implications Snapchat’s soon to be IPO will have on the market and other infamous “unicorns.”[vii]

The Snapchat IPO

            Snapchat, a popular image messaging and multimedia application, is poised to go public in March of 2017. This impending public offering has been in the limelight since the company’s founder turned down a $3 Billion buyout offer from Facebook in 2013. Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, made its confidential IPO filing with the SEC back in November of 2016.  The IPO is expected to raise around $4 Billion for the company, resulting in an overall valuation of $25 Billion.[viii] This would make the Snapchat IPO the largest U.S tech company offering since Facebook back in 2012.[ix]

Companies, such as Snapchat, go public for a variety of reasons. These reasons, among others, include a means for raising capital and a way for investors (including venture capital funds), executives and employees to cash out and realize some or all of their gains in their investment.[x] It also allows companies to gain credibility among the public, and within their industry, by showing they were able to meet the rigorous disclosure requirements set forth by the SEC.

A company going public also has a variety of other benefits. Because the true value of private stock is often difficult to determine (especially for tech companies), going public allows shares to be priced in the market, thus providing another method of valuation for the company. These market valuations could cause a lot of trouble for tech companies that might not meet inflated future expectations.

If Snapchat’s IPO goes well and shares meet or outperform price expectations many “unicorns” may follow suit. If successful, many other tech companies may follow in order to achieve the same results. Other “unicorns” expected to join the IPO stampede in 2017 are Spotify (a popular music service provider), AppDynamics (a software maker), Palantir (a software analytics company), and Pinterest (another popular social network). It will be important to see how other “unicorns” perform in the public market in the wake of Snapchat’s upcoming offering.

However, if Snapchat’s IPO happens to go poorly because of the company’s apparent (in my personal opinion) overvaluation, it may lead to the market losing faith in the IPO as a viable exit route for future “unicorns.” For this reason, it will be very important to see how Snapchat’s shares perform out of the gate. If expectations are not met, and shares plunge in value, many similar IPOs may be put on hold, much like “mega-unicorns” Uber and Airbnb have already decided to do.

Artificial valuations for young companies and start-ups, most of which may be operating at a loss or making no money, are continually pumping hot air into the current tech bubble. With their sharp horns, a unicorn such as Snapchat may not meet their valuations and pop this bubble. This would likely result in calamitous consequences for the global market.

The infamous burst of the dotcom bubble of 2000 was triggered by the sudden collapse of companies in the market, and had a multitude of far reaching repercussions. Many argue, including myself, that the unforeseen valuations of new age tech companies through private offerings are the current trigger, and “unicorns” like Snapchat looking to go public are holding the gun.

            If this tech bubble were to burst we would likely be lead into a period where investment firms begin to scale back on their investments. This would cause difficulties for many start ups looking to gain traction and obtain initial funding rounds.

To leave this at a cliffhanger, we are currently at a crossroads; will Snapchat’s IPO lead to a stampede of unicorns, or a bursting tech bubble where inflated valuations crash back down to reality?

[i] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unicorn.asp

[ii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/22/snapchat-is-pumping-the-next-tech-bubble-with-more-hot-air/

[iii] http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/everything-to-know-about-snaps-ipo/

[iv] https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/01/the-top-unicorns-are-overvalued/

[v] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/the-tech-bubble-didn-t-burst-this-year-just-wait

[vi] Id.

[viii] http://www.investors.com/news/technology/will-snapchat-ipo-set-stage-for-stampede-of-unicorns/

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.