New Tax Subsidy for Biotech Startups

Small biotech companies may now qualify for tax credits or or cash grants equal to 50% of certain expenses incurred in tax year 2009 and 2010 in connection with any "qualifying therapeutic discovery project."  The IRS Notice defines a "qualifying therapeutic discovery project" as any project that is designed to:

  • treat or prevent diseases or conditions by conducting pre-clinical activities, clinical trials, and clinical studies, or by carrying out research protocols, for the purpose of securing FDA approval of a product under section 505(b) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (new drug applications), or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (biologic license applications);
  • diagnose diseases or conditions, or to determine molecular factors related to diseases or conditions, by developing molecular diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions; or
  • develop a product, process or technology to further the delivery or administration of therapeutics.

To qualify, the biotech company must not more than 250 employees in all of its businesses (including the businesses of its affiliates).  Tax-exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Code and certain foreign entities are not eligible for either the tax credit or cash grant.

 

For more information on this exciting new opportunity for biotech startups, please review our  previously issued Tax Alert on the subject.

Higher Carry Tax One Step Closer to Reality

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would tax the first 75% of carried interest as ordinary income starting January 1, 2011, with the remaining portion to be taxed at the current long-term capital gain rate of 15%.  The bill, which passed by a very thin margin (215 to 204), now moves to the Senate, where most anticipate some changes when session reconvenes on June 7.  Speculation is all over the board as to what the Senate might do with the bill, though many seem to think that some form of gradual implementation over the course of at least a few years is likely, as well as possibly reducing the percentage of carried interest that is taxed at ordinary income.  It will be very interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming weeks, and, more importantly, how it impacts the venture capital industry as a whole as the economics of managing a fund dramatically changes.

Tags:

Silicon Valley Venture Capital Q1 -- Not Bat At All

There are several signs that point to continued health in Silicon Valley's emerging growth, venture capital market.  Most significantly, in my opinion, is the fact that exits remain strong.  111 venture-backed M&A deals in the first quarter of this year, according to the MoneyTree Report, which was the largest number of exits in a single quarter since MoneyTree began tracking deals more than 35 years ago.  The MoneyTree also reported that there were 43 venture-backed companies currently in registration with the SEC for an initial public offering.  43 companies in registration is a healthy pipeline by anyone's standards, particularly since nine companies actually made it out in the first quarter, raising an average of approximately $104 million.  The renewed exit activity has to give everyone a sense of optimism.

On the venture capital side, funds are definitely either having difficulty raising money or aren't in the market for new capital raises these days (something that I seriously doubt).  According to the MoneyTree, the $3.6 billion raised in the first quarter represented the lowest aggregate raise by VCs in 17 years.  This statistic doesn't bother me that much because trouble raising money from limited partners coming out the nuclear winter of 2009 is to be expected.  There is little doubt, though, that the increase in venture-backed company exits will loosen the purse strings of at least a few LPs in the second quarter and beyond.

As with any statistical survey, one must read the above with a grain of salt or two.  VentureSource has slightly different numbers, citing 77 venture-backed M&A deals, eight initial public offerings and a full billion more in raise by venture capital funds.   I'm not sure which set of numbers is actually correct.  One could certainly surf Edgar and figure out the IPO statistic easily enough, but that isn't the point.  The point is that the activity is much more robust than the previous quarter, and that is noteworthy in and of itself.

CyberSource to be Acquired by Visa for $2 billion

I know what you're probably thinking.  CyberSource Corporation is not a startup company.  True.  The global online payment processing giant was formed in 1994 and completed its initial public offering in 1999.  Since that time, CyberSource has grown into a real live player in the e-commerce space, helping accept nearly $120 billion in payments last year, which translates into approximately one out of every four dollars spent online, according to CyberSource CEO Mike Walsh.

No, CyberSource indeed is not a startup.  But it certainly was one when my partner Rich Scudellari first took the call from CyberSource founder Bill McKiernan about starting a new company more than 15 years ago.  It was a technology startup that was pushing the envelope of what pundits thought was possible.  Using a credit card online back in those days was a preposterous thought.  McKiernan and his team built that preposterous thought into a billion-dollar business.  Actually, a $2 billion business, since that was the price that Visa agreed to pay for the company when Visa executed a definitive merger agreement to acquire CyberSource back on April 20.

I know.  This isn't exactly timely news, since that deal was announced more than five weeks ago.  Hey, I've been a bit busy managing the Reed Smith team that represents CyberSource on this major Silicon Valley transaction.  Now that the preliminary proxy has been filed and the parties are proceeding toward a special meeting for CyberSource's shareholders to approve the deal, I have some time to refocus my attention on the blog.  So, expect more from me, probably in rapid-fire succession over a holiday weekend.

New Tax Subsidy for Small Biotech Companies

Small biotech companies will need to move quickly in order to take advantage of a new tax credit enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The new credit, which is contained in section 48D of the Internal Revenue Code, is equal to 50 percent of eligible costs incurred by small biotech companies in developing new therapies to prevent, diagnose and treat acute and chronic diseases. Some taxpayers may be eligible to elect to receive a cash grant in lieu of the new credit.  

One of our Southern California tax partners, Ruth Holzman, was interviewed in BioWorld Today about the research-based tax credit. 

"The biotech industry pleaded that a credit wasn't really going to be helpful because most of these companies don't have products yet, therefore, they don't have sales, they don't have revenues. So tax credits can't be used by them," Holzman said. Had the Senate stuck with only providing a credit, it would have been generating a tax benefit that "may never have been used," she said.

"So it really was a gift," Holzman said, noting that the cash grants are not subject to income tax.

Earn-Outs Back in the Delaware Spotlight

Divergent views of valuation is almost always the biggest hurdle to overcome when matching potential buyers and sellers in venture-backed M&A exits.  Buyers obviously want to take as little risk as possible, whereas sellers are highly motivated to seek the maximum sales price.  Earn-outs are often a way to bridge those gaps.  

In theory, earn-outs are great.  The parties come up with a "pay for performance" formula that eliminates a significant portion of the overpayment risk for buyers while still making sure that a seller receives maximum value, assuming that the acquired company performs as good or better than advertised.  In reality, earn-outs are fraught with risk due to the likelihood of post-closing disputes over the calculation of the earn-out payment, whether the buyer lived up to expectation in attempting to maximize the performance of the acquired business for purposes of triggering the full earn-out payment, and so on.

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision highlights some of the pitfalls that executives and attorneys should try to avoid when using earn-outs.  There are three principal takeaways from the case:

  • Buyers should insist on express non-reliance provisions in all acquisition agreements that contain earn-outs or other post-closing obligations to ensure that any claim of detrimental reliance is decided within the four corners of the agreement.
  • A Delaware court is unlikely to read into an agreement unwritten provisions or protections when a sophisticated party failed to failed to negotiate such provisions or protections into the agreement itself.
  • Earn-outs, while a great way to bridge the valuation gap between buyers and sellers, should be handled with great care during drafting.

 

Quick Headlines: M&A, Possible IPO and Venture Capital

A few quick headlines on a Thursday afternoon:

  • Just a few days after VMWare completed its acquisition of Zimbra, the Silicon Valley technology darling announced its intention to acquire certain assets from EMC.  The deal focuses on software products and expertise from EMC's Ionix IT management business in an all-cash transaction valued at up to $200 million.   Ben Verghese, Chief Management Architect, Virtualization and Cloud Platforms Business Unit, gave a bit of insight into the transaction on his executive blog.  VMWare is certainly keeping my former colleague and current Sr. VP and General Counsel Dawn Smith busy these days.
  • Deutsche Telekom didn't rule out spinning out T-Mobile USA and taking it public later this year, though the global telecom giant did rule out trying to gain market share buy acquiring one of its competitors in a "multi-billion-euro" deal anytime in the next two years, according to a BusinessWeek article today.  An IPO of that magnitude could certainly serve as a nice shot of adrenaline for the still-stalled US IPO market.

 

CollabNet Extends Market Leadership with Acquisition of Danube Technologies

CollabNet, the leader in Agile application lifecycle management, announced today that it has acquired Danube Technologies, the worldwide leader in Scrum project management solutions. Danube offers the industry-leading ScrumWorks Pro software for Agile project and program management and provides training, certification, coaching, and consulting services to organizations implementing Agile. The Danube acquisition uniquely positions CollabNet as a leader in the emerging Agile ALM market. CollabNet and Danube assist more software development teams with collaborative, distributed, and Agile ALM projects than any other company in the world. The terms of the deal are confidential.  Reed Smith's Silicon Valley office advised CollabNet in the acquisition.  I was the lead partner on the deal (yes, a shameless bit of self promotion; I know).

Are Secondary Private Offerings and Facilitators like Second Market Changing the IPO Game?

Over the last few months, three technology darlings, Facebook, Zynga and Yelp, have closed deals with venture capital funds that included both an investment in new shares and also the acquisition of existing shares from employees and other major stockholders.  The secondary piece of those deals is somewhat unique because it gives those employees or stockholders the opportunity to liquidate some or all of their equity positions without the company filing for its initial public offering.  Illiquid securities sales facilitators like SecondMarket are also providing the opportunity for early liquidity by matching equity holders in venture-backed companies with willing buyers outside of the public markets.

The question, of course, is whether this new trend in venture capital investing or the emergence of SecondMarket is going to radically change the IPO market.

If by radically change, we are talking about reducing the numbers of offerings by elite technology companies, I'm not sure that anything can really move the needle significantly compared to the last two years when technology IPOs were about as common as Bigfoot sightings.  The fact remains, though, that employees often choose to join hot venture-backed companies and take annual base salaries below the current market in exchange for the dream of a quick infusion of cash thanks to an IPO or acquisition.  The market meltdown in late 2008 has dramatically affected the personal finances of those individuals, who are now forced to hold on to what has traditionally been illiquid stock for far longer than they would like.  The lack of exits certainly has hurt venture-backed companies attracting rock-star employees.  But the emergence of secondary pieces to late stage venture capital investments and facilitators like SecondMarket helps solve that problem.  It also dramatically reduces the pressure on a company's board of directors to take a company public.

As a result, I think that hot technology companies will now wait until there is a compelling reason to begin the IPO process.  IPOs have always been expensive transactions to consummate, both from a dilution standpoint and also in terms of legal and accounting fees.  But the maintenance fees for public companies weren't that big of a deal, until Sarbanes Oxley came along and completely changed the game on operating as a public company from a cost perspective.  And that change certainly wasn't to the benefit of companies, though the protections add a good layer of protection for stockholders of listed companies.  Thus, companies haven't been rushing to the IPO gates like in the pre-SOX days, and the emergence of the new liquidation avenues discussed above will only slow that race even more.

Nevertheless, I don't think that either secondary pieces to venture investments or illiquid securities sales facilitators will completely derail the need for companies to go public.  Indeed, both VCs and facilitators need robust exits for their strategies to continue to work, which is why these liquidity strategies aren't implemented in very young companies, opting instead to work with startups that have been around for several years and look like excellent IPO or acquisition candidates.  If anything, I think that the market for exits will be more robust, maybe not in terms of numbers of deals but in terms of quality of deals, as a result of these new liquidity strategies.

Entrepreneur DNA

I came across a very interesting blog post on Both Sides of the Table while browsing the blogosphere last night -- yes, Silicon Valley corporate lawyers have time to browse the web and read the occasional blog; don't listen to claims to the contrary.  The blog is written by a two-time entrepreneur who now sits on the other side of the funding table as a venture capitalist.  The post describes what the author believes are the 12 attributes that makes an entrepreneur, and each enumerated attribute leads to a separate post on that focuses on that individual attribute.  It is a well-written, interesting blog post with great information for entrepreneurs.

The one thing that I think the author should add to the list is the ability to do the most with the least.  From my perspective dealing with entrepreneurs on a daily basis and spending more than two years as the founder and CEO of an Internet startup, that is a crucial attribute for just about any entrepreneur.

Raising money is tough in any environment.  In the current economic climate, it is next to impossible for first-time entrepreneurs with little more than a business plan.  That means entrepreneurs are forced to actually develop the some part of the technology and often have some sort of customer validation before they will get funded.  That is a far cry from the golden days of the late 90s when entrepreneurs had to do little other than add DOT.COM to their corporate name and start a website to have the funding spigot busted wide open.  We can sit around and sulk about the good old days all we want, but the reality is that the game has changed, whether permanently or temporarily.  Today's entrepreneurs really need to know how to stretch the dollar.  They need to know how to build a company on less than a shoestring budget.  In other words, they need to find a way to take modest sums of friends and family money and accomplish more than entrepreneurs of the previous two decades did with their first round of outside investment.

Entrepreneurs who can do the most with the least stand a far better chance of succeeding, in my opinion, than those who require large initial cash infusions--unless, of course, the entrepreneur is either flush with cash or has close friends who are flush with cash.