Showing posts with label world financial news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world financial news. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines:Obama sees China as a partner in Mars mission

http://hypoventurecapital-research.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlinesobama-sees-china-as-a-partner-in-mars-mission/


WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama views China as a potential partner for an eventual human mission to Mars that would be difficult for any single nation to undertake, a senior White House official told lawmakers.Testifying May 4 before the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science, White House science adviser John Holdren said near-term engagement with China in civil space will help lay the groundwork for any such future endeavor. He prefaced his remarks with the assertion that human exploration of Mars is a long-term proposition and that any discussion of cooperating with Beijing on such an effort is speculative.
“(What) the president has deemed worth discussing with the Chinese and others is that when the time comes for humans to visit Mars, it’s going to be an extremely expensive proposition and the question is whether it will really make sense — at the time that we’re ready to do that — to do it as one nation rather than to do it in concert,” Holdren said in response to a question from Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a staunch China critic who chairs the powerful subcommittee that oversees NASA spending.
Holdren, who said NASA could also benefit from cooperating with China on detection and tracking of orbital debris, stressed that any U.S. collaboration with Beijing in manned spaceflight would depend on future Sino-U.S. relations.
“But many of us, including the president, including myself, including (NASA Administrator Charles) Bolden, believe that it’s not too soon to have preliminary conversations about what involving China in that sort of cooperation might entail,” Holdren said. “If China is going to be, by 2030, the biggest economy in the world … it could certainly be to our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others.”
Wolf, who characterizes China’s government as “fundamentally evil,” said it is outrageous that the Obama administration would have close ties with Beijing’s space program, which is believed to be run primarily by the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA.
“When you say you want to work in concert, it’s almost like you’re talking about Norway or England or something like that,” an irate Wolf told Holdren, repeatedly pounding a hand against the table top in front of him. “As long as I have breath in me, we will talk about this, we will deal with this issue, whether it be a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, it is fundamentally immoral.”
Holdren said he admired Wolf’s leadership in calling attention to China’s human-rights record, but noted that even when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan referred to the former Soviet Union as “the evil empire” in the late 1980s, he continued to cooperate with the communist bloc in science and technology if doing so was deemed in the U.S. national interest.
“The efforts we are undertaking to do things together with China in science and technology are very carefully crafted to be efforts that are in our own national interest,” Holdren said. “That does not mean that we admire the Chinese government; that does not mean we are blind to the human rights abuses.”
Holdren said that as White House science adviser, his capacity to influence the president’s diplomatic approach to Beijing is limited.
“I am not the person who’s going to be whispering in the president’s ear on what our stance toward China should be, government to government, except in the domain where I have the responsibility for helping the president judge whether particular activities in science and technology are in our national interest or not,” Holdren said.
Recently enacted legislation prohibits U.S. government collaboration with the Chinese in areas funded by Wolf’s subcommittee, whose jurisdiction also includes the U.S. Commerce and Justice departments, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
When asked how he interpreted the new law, part of a continuing resolution approved in April that funds federal agencies through Sept. 30, Holdren said the administration will live within the terms of the prohibition.
“I am instructed, after consultation with counsel, who in turn consulted with appropriate people in the Department of Justice, that that language should not be read as prohibiting actions that are part of the president’s constitutional authority to conduct negotiations,” Holdren said. “At the same time there are obviously a variety of aspects of that prohibition that very much apply and we’ll be looking at that on a case by case basis in (the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to be sure we are compliant.”
Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who joined Wolf last fall in opposing an official visit to Beijing by Bolden, accused Holdren and the White House of plotting to circumvent the law.
“It’s not ambiguous, it’s not confusing, but you just stated to the chairman of this committee that you and the administration have already embarked on a policy to evade and avoid this very specific and unambiguous requirement of law if in your opinion it is in furtherance of negotiation of a treaty,” Culberson said. “That’s exactly what you just said. I don’t want to hear about you not being a lawyer.”
Holdren said a variety of opinions and legal documents indicate the president has exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope and objectives of international negotiations and discussions, as well as the authority to determine the preferred agents who will represent the United States in those exchanges.
Culberson reminded Holdren that the administration’s civil research and development funding flows through Wolf’s subcommittee, and that funding could be choked off if the White House fails to comply with the law.
“Your office cannot participate, nor can NASA, in any way, in any type of policy, program, order or contract of any kind with China or any Chinese-owned company,” Culberson said. “If you or anyone in your office, or anyone at NASA participates, collaborates or coordinates in any way with China or a Chinese-owned company … you’re in violation of this statute, and frankly you’re endangering your funding. You’ve got a huge problem on your hands. Huge.”

Monday, August 29, 2011

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: Apple, Nokia show continued interest in InterDigital patents

http://hypoventurecapital-research.com/



Following Google’s purchase of Motorola, a new report claims that Apple is still interested in acquiring InterDigital, as are Nokia, Qualcomm and others in the wireless industry.
Citing sources familiar with the situation, Reuters reported Wednesday that “several companies” are “pondering bids” for wireless telecom specialist InterDigital Inc. The forthcoming auction of the company will be postponed from next week until sometime after Labor Day.
More time is necessary because potential bidders have reportedly asked for more times to analyze the company’s patents. Companies in the wireless industry are interested in securing those inventions as patent infringement lawsuits involving all of the major industry players continue to mount.
Sources also reportedly said it’s unknown whether Google will remain in pursuit of the InterDigital patents. The search giant was previously named as a potential bidder, but the announcement that it will buy Motorola for $12.5 billion may have changed those plans.
Apple was first named as a likely bidder on InterDigital in July. The company has 1,300 patents related to wireless device technologies that would be of prime interest to any smartphone maker.
The industry-wide desire for patents was predicted to drive up the price of InterDigital by as much as 50 percent. But shares of the company dropped on Monday following the news that Google will buy Motorola, as investors are now less certain that Google will make a play for the InterDigital portfolio.

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: Raising Capital? 3 Tips for Entrepreneurs

http://hypoventurecapital-research.com/2011/07/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlines-hacker-pleads-guilty-to-att-ipad-breach/



I’ve been helping entrepreneurs raise capital as a securities lawyer for more than 17 years, and there are certain fundamental mistakes that I’ve seen entrepreneurs make over and over again. Accordingly, I thought it would be helpful to share three basic tips for entrepreneurs in connection with raising capital.
Tip #1: Only Offer and/or Sell Securities to “Accredited Investors”. As a general rule, a company may not offer or sell its securities unless (i) the securities have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and registered/qualified with applicable state commissions; or (ii) there is an applicable exemption from registration. The most common exemption for startups is the so-called “private placement” exemption under section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Regulation D, the safe harbor promulgated thereunder.
The rule of thumb in connection with private placements is only to offer and sell securities to “accredited investors” under SEC Rule 506. There are two significant reasons for this: First, Rule 506 preempts state-law registration requirements — which means, in general, that the company merely must file a Form D notice with the applicable state commissioners (together with the SEC) and pay a filing fee; and second, there is no prescribed written disclosure requirement under Rule 506.
There are eight categories of investors under the current definition of “accredited investor” — the most significant of which is an individual who has (i) a net worth (or joint net worth with his/her spouse) that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase (not including the value of their primary residence) or (ii) income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years (or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years) and a reasonable expectation of such income level in the current year. (Note that this definition is currently under review by the SEC and must be reviewed by the SEC every four years pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.)
If a company offers or sells securities to non-accredited investors, it opens a Pandora’s box of compliance and disclosure issues, under both federal and state securities law. Yes, there are ways for entrepreneurs to sell securities to non-accredited investors under SEC Rules 504 and 505 (and perhaps other exemptions), but it often requires that specific disclosure requirements be met and registration/qualification under applicable state law, both of which are very time consuming and costly.
Tip #2: Do Not Use an Unregistered Finder to Sell Securities. Entrepreneurs often make the mistake of retaining unregistered finders (commonly referred to as consultants, financial advisors or investment bankers) to raise capital for their companies. The problem is that finders must be registered with the SEC if they are operating as a “broker-dealer,” which is broadly defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to mean “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.”
If the finder is receiving some form of commission or transaction-based compensation (which is usually the case) the finder will generally be deemed a broker-dealer and thus will be required to be registered with the SEC and applicable state commissions. If the finder is not registered as required and sells securities on behalf of a company, the private placement will be invalid (i.e., it will not be exempt from registration) and the company will have violated applicable securities laws — and thus could be subject to serious adverse consequences, as discussed below.
(Note that the Form D filed with the SEC and applicable state commissions requires disclosure of the identities of all finders engaged in the offering of securities of the company.)
Tip #3: Diligence the Investors. The most common mistake I have seen entrepreneurs make in any dealmaking context, including fundraising, is the failure to investigate the guys (or gals) on the other side of the table. Indeed, this is more a business tip than a legal one; but it is critical.
Remember: if you’re going out and raising funds, you will, in effect, be married to your investors for a number of years. Accordingly, at a minimum, the entrepreneur should get references and speak with other entrepreneurs and CEOs who have raised funds from the investors in order to make an informed judgment as to whether the particular investor is an appropriate individual with whom the entrepreneur should be partnering.
Issues to consider include: Has the investor done investments like this before? If so, how many and what role did he play? Can the investor be counted on and trusted? Will the investor add significant value (e.g., through his contacts, technical expertise, etc.)? What is the investor’s motivation to invest? Is the investor a good guy or a jerk? Sadly, there are a lot of bad apples out there, and entrepreneurs need to be very careful whom they allow to invest in their companies.
Conclusion. Non-compliance with applicable securities laws could result in serious adverse consequences, including a right of rescission for the security holders (i.e., the right to get their money back) injunctive relief, fines and penalties and possible criminal prosecution. That being said, no matter how many times I advise otherwise, there are always a handful of entrepreneurs who decide they don’t want to pay legal fees to comply with securities laws and they handle the issuance themselves. In a word: imprudent.