So, you created some IP, now what?

So, you created some IP, now what?

Irrespective of whether you support the overzealous protection of intellectual property (“IP“) or believe in a more open-source world, one thing is certain in the world of technology and IP – the greatest economic value of IP stems from its use in licensing arrangements. Whether for commercial or development reasons, the concepts remain the same. The registration of IP is only your first step in a long and complex dance with any entrepreneur, service provider or developer who you wish to collaborate with.

The unique thing about IP is that it is subject to constant development. This means that new stand-alone IP can develop from base IP, thereby attracting unique and new avenues to attract its own separate IP.

This starts to blur the lines of ownership when more than one party is involved and the failure to properly regulate these relationships can mean the death of innovation; as the once exciting venture is distilled down to a playground battle with the participants’ crying over sand in their eyes.

This blog post serves to touch on the basic legal concepts which form part of standard commercial agreements involving IP. It also highlights what you need to start thinking about to ensure that the boundaries of ownership and use are clearly set out from the get-go.

In most licensing agreements there is a distinction between ‘Background IP’ and ‘Foreground IP’. Background IP is the term used to define that IP which the respective parties own prior to performing under an agreement, or IP that is developed or conceived independently of the agreement. ‘Foreground IP’, on the other hand, is usually used to define new IP developed in terms, and during the subsistence, of an agreement. An important element of these distinctions is that not only does Background IP lead to the creation of Foreground IP, but Background IP is often linked to Foreground IP and the ability to exercise it.

These concepts exist to protect and regulate one of our most basic human tendencies derived from those even our most primary of conquerors practiced, think “Veni, Vidi, vici”. Basically, what’s mine is mine and in some cases (especially where you fail to regulate your IP properly) what’s yours is mine too.

So to avoid being the subject of someone’s Odyssey, standard agreements usually start off with a definition of these two terms, thereby creating a split between each party’s IP prior to entering the agreement and the IP created from the agreement. This allows for the protection of each party’s previously developed IP and ensuring that any new IP is regulated by the terms of the agreement.

Regarding ownership of Foreground IP, different models will be appropriate in different sets of circumstances. For example, where an agreement opts for Foreground IP to be jointly owned, administration becomes a problem as every party must be consulted and agree on any further use, development or commercial exploitation of such IP. Further frustration can be present where an agreement doesn’t regulate a breakdown, as this could in effect mean that one party could potentially hold ransom the further exploitation and commercialisation of the IP.

Another ownership option could be that such IP is rather outrightly owned by one of the parties (by means of assigning the IP rights over to one party) and for that party to grant access to the other, which may include terms of use, extent of exploitation, as well as compensation. For the more seasoned entrepreneur, the possibility exists that this model could be used to strategically transfer IP into a new entity, by means of building and developing Foreground IP in a newly established entity, based on a Background IP licencing agreement with an older entity. This, however, is a topic for another day.

This second aspect in the above examples highlights the use component of IP licensing. Irrespective of whether you are licensing your Background IP to a partner or joint venture so as to create the Foreground IP, or whether you agree that one of the parties owns the Foreground IP so as to licence it to the other, the extent of a party’s use or participation in the particular IP is regulated by a use license.

The most renowned types of licenses which you should start to become familiar with include exclusive and non-exclusive licenses. From a high level, a non-exclusive licence will potentially grant a licensor the unfettered freedom to exploit the IP without giving the other party any say, as well as the ability to allow other licensees to exploit the same IP. Whereas an exclusive licence could potentially limit both licensor and licensee from exploiting the IP.

It is crucial to understand that your unique circumstances will guide which licence is the best option for you and the onus will be on you to ensure that you are aware of the effects of such a license. Inevitably, you will have to ensure that the licence reflects what was in fact agreed to and that you are not the recipient of a very attractively constructed Trojan Horse.

This blog post was only intended to open your mind to concepts tied to the complex nature of IP. It also provided some insight into how various commercial and licensing arrangements can impact on both ownership and use of your own Background IP, as well as any Foreground IP, which you may have had a hand in creating. A competent practitioner who can truly understand your offering and your vision for the future can make this process a breeze. With years of academic and practical experience in both IP and commercial law, our team here at Dommisse Attorneys is well placed to assist you with developing your IP strategy and to translate this into a clear and succinct agreement, thereby avoiding the exchange of any unruly phrases like “Et Tu, Brute?”.

Vehicle finance “Extra fee”: strip it or bill it?

Vehicle finance “Extra fee”: strip it or bill it?

The National Consumer Tribunal (“NCT“) recently came out guns blazing and caused a stir in the motor vehicle industry. The application by Volkswagen Financial Services SA (“VWFS“) for the review and setting aside of a compliance notice previously issued against them by the National Credit Regulator (“NCR“), was dismissed by the NCT during the month of April 2019.

First, some background: the NCR issued compliance notices against VWFS and BMW Financial Services in 2017. In terms of these compliance notices, the NCR held that the “on the road” fees (colloquially termed as “Service & Delivery Charge” or the like) by the respective vehicle financiers constitute prohibited charges in terms of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 (“NCA“) and ordered each of these financiers to refund consumers who paid such fees. VWFS subsequently applied to the NCT to review and set aside the compliance notice issued by the NCR against them. The NCT however rejected their application and confirmed the decision taken by the NCR in their compliance notice (in a somewhat amended form, but in principle the same). The NCT ruled that VWFS were to: (i) refund all affected consumers; and (ii) cease adding any such or similar fees on their (vehicle finance) credit agreements as from 10 April 2019.

VWFS have since indicated that they will appeal the decision of the NCT, the effect of which then suspends enforcement of the ruling until the appeal has been finalised by the relevant court. Simply put, VWFS need not to comply with the compliance notice until the matter has been settled by the relevant High Court.

Please follow the link below to access a copy of the relevant NCT ruling:

https://www.thenct.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Volkswagen-Financial-Services-South-Africa-pty-Ltd-v-National-Credit-Regulator-NCT-94937-2017-5612.pdf

Incentivising employees: Phantom scheme or esop?

Incentivising employees: Phantom scheme or esop?

As we receive more requests from entrepreneurs who want to incentivise valued employees in an optimistic effort to either attract top talent, retain top talent or even benefit their business’ BEE status profile, we realised that the motive behind such incentives are not always aligned to the type of incentive instrument that entrepreneurs request. In this blog, we aim to provide you with a basic distinction between two popular incentive instruments, namely the phantom share scheme (“Scheme“) and the employee share ownership plan (“ESOP“) to assist you in electing the best instrument for your valued employees.

PHANTOM SHARE SCHEME

Beneficiaries of a Scheme are awarded notional shares or units (not real shares but rather units giving participant employees the right to certain cash bonuses). The notional shares are linked to the issued shares in the share capital of the company. The Scheme is essentially a cash bonus plan under which the amount of the bonus is measured by reference to the increase in value of the shares in the issued share capital of the company. Such notional shares ordinarily grant the holder the same economic rights and privileges equal to all other actual issued shares in the company on a 1:1 ratio.

Therefore, instead of issuing authorised shares in the share capital of the company, notional shares are created and then awarded to participating employees (with or without vesting conditions). No shares are factually issued or transferred to the employees. Employees do not become actual shareholders of the company. This is illustrated in the fact that  they do not receive rights such as ownership rights in the company; rights to inspect records of the company; rights to attend shareholder meetings, nor voting rights – which would result in less control or decision-making influence from beneficiaries. Employees do however, have the opportunity to receive cash bonuses in the actualisation of certain events, such as when profits are declared by the company or any other “liquidity event”.

A Scheme is an excellent tool for attracting top talent and motivating employees who do not have a particularly long serving history with the company. In this respect, the Scheme allows shareholders to retain complete control and ownership of the company. The flexibility of the Scheme ensures that an employee receives a cash-in-hand benefit without enjoying other shareholders rights.

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN (ESOP)

An ESOP structure allows participating employees to acquire actual shares in the share capital of the company. By virtue of holding actual shares, such employees will become part owners of the company, they will have voting rights in the company (involving them in decision-making) and they will benefit financially when dividends are declared, as well as during an exit or other liquidity events. An ESOP, as opposed to a Scheme, is potentially an excellent instrument for incentivising long standing employees who have material interests in the growth of the company. Our recommendation is that ESOP shares should only be awarded to trusted individuals as holders acquire much more extensive rights, for example, the right to inspect sensitive company documentation and records.

CONCLUSION

While other complexities may influence your election of setting up and implementing either an ESOP or a Scheme, we recommend that the instrument selected should be guided by each entrepreneur’s true intentions.

National wills week – Dommisse Attorneys

National wills week – Dommisse Attorneys

This year we’ll be participating in National Wills Week from 17 – 21 September 2018.

For anyone who wishes to have a basic will drafted at no charge, all they’ll need to do is contact gerry-lee@dommisseattorneys.co.za to schedule an appointment.

The attending practitioner will send a short questionnaire that each person is required to complete and return prior to any consultation.

Please note that this is a free service and is offered on a first come first serve basis.

https://www.lssa.org.za/our-initiatives/advocacy/national-wills-week

The responsibility of a supplier to conduct a consumer product safety recall

The responsibility of a supplier to conduct a consumer product safety recall

Introduction

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (“CPA” or “the Act“) establishes certain rights applicable to all consumers when purchasing goods (and services) for their personal use. The Act sets out, amongst others, that consumers have the right to fair value, good quality and safety as well as an implied warranty of quality.

The implied warranty of quality warrants that the goods comply with the requirements of being of good quality, durable, and safe for the use as advertised or designed. Where goods are of inferior quality, unsafe or defective, the consumer may return the product and the supplier is obliged to repair, refund or replace the failed, defective or unsafe product.

Consumers have a further right to have goods monitored for safety and recalled when such goods or components of such goods are hazardous, unsafe or defective. The Consumer Product Safety Recall Guidelines (“Recall Guidelines“) have been drafted in terms of the CPA to provide further detail for such instances and set out the procedure to be followed where products are to be recalled.

Hazardous products

Whilst suppliers would take necessary steps to ensure that their product is manufactured or produced in line with the required design and/or material specification, the reality is that there may be some unforeseen occurrences where manufacturing/production lines may deviate from such design or material specifications. In such cases, a product may be identified as unsafe where it presents health or safety hazards to the public. However, in some instances, a consumer product may also be identified as unsafe to consumers irrespective of whether there was a manufacturing or production error. The deciding factor is whether the product poses health or safety hazards to the public.

The CPA doesn’t clearly unpack the term “hazard”, but generally, a supplier’s product may be identified as presenting health or safety hazard where such product has the potential to cause the following:

  • injury;
  • illness;
  • death;
  • loss of, or physical damage to, any property; or
  • any economic loss as a result of any of the above.

Product safety recalls

In terms of the CPA and the Recall Guidelines, a supplier is required to, among other things, conduct a consumer product safety recall where a product poses a health or safety hazard. In essence, a consumer product safety recall is a process whereby a supplier is required to remove all affected product(s) from production, supply chain and any point of sale.  In terms of section 5(5) of the CPA, these Recall Guidelines apply to all goods supplied in South Africa, regardless of whether the transaction for the supply of such goods is subject to the CPA or not.

In 2012, the National Consumer Commission (“NCC“) published the Recall Guidelines detailing, among other things, procedural steps required to be followed by suppliers when conducting a product recall. In terms of the Recall Guidelines, a supplier may voluntarily initiate a safety recall. Where a supplier fails to voluntarily conduct a safety recall, the NCC may issue a written notice to the relevant supplier ordering it to conduct such safety recall.

Irrespective of whether a supplier voluntarily conducts the safety recall or is ordered to do so, a supplier is required to ensure that the procedural steps, as briefly set out below, are followed:

  • assess the risk;
  • cease distribution of the product;
  • notify the NCC;
  • notify consumers;
  • facilitate returns; and
  • facilitate returns.

In order to comply with the above mentioned procedural steps and to avoid any penal sanctions, a supplier may be required to prepare and put in place some form of a policy document(s) in anticipation of a product recall becoming necessary in the future.

Conclusion

Like with non-compliance with the provisions of the CPA in general, non-compliance with sections 60 and 61 of the CPA and the Recall Guidelines may have dire consequences. Suppliers may be declared to have engaged in prohibited conduct and an administrative fine of up to R1 million or 10% of its annual turn-over for the preceding financial year may be imposed.

Closely linked to the topic of safety recall, our next article on the CPA will be dealing with a discussion around the concept of “product liability”. For any further details on this topic, please do not hesitate to contact us.

What is the deal with preference shares? Part 1: liquidation and dividend preference

What is the deal with preference shares? Part 1: liquidation and dividend preference

(This post is the first in a series, giving practical information to start-up founders to gain a better understanding of the mechanics of preference shares. This post will focus on liquidation and dividend preferences.)

Venture capital investors are almost always aiming to invest in start-ups through “preferred” equity, typically referred to as preference shares. Preference shares trump ordinary shares, as the holders of preference shares normally receive preferential treatment in the event of a liquidation of the business. (For these purposes, a liquidation event can be the insolvency, a dissolution or a sale of the company.)

When start-ups enter funding stages, the good and/or lucky ones may end up with a few term sheets from an array of interested investors. These term sheets often come with an abundance of terms regarding the structure of the preference shares. As an inexperienced founder, this can be an overwhelming experience and it can be a daunting task to understand which terms are “standard” and which are particularly important. Venture capital investors have the upper hand due to their experience in this area – this is where professional advisors, such as start-up lawyers, come in handy in assisting the start-up and its founders.

The purpose of this series of articles is not to cover all aspects of term sheets, but to give you, a start-up founder, a better understanding of what preference shares really are, what to look out for and how they are typically structured during a series seed or series A investment.

What are preference shares?

When early-stage start-ups issue shares, there are generally two classes of people receiving shares: founders and investors. Founders typically receive ordinary shares and investors generally receive preference shares in return for their investment and risk taken.

The main characteristic of preference shares is that they provide for the preferential treatment of their holders and rank above ordinary shares in the event of a liquidation event. This means that if a company is unable to pay its debts or its business is sold, the investor will have a first claim on the company’s assets or sale proceeds over ordinary shareholders i.e. the founders. This is a protection mechanism given to the investor in return for the risk incurred when investing in the company.

Preference shares may further entitle the holder to preferential dividends, based on the profits of the company. Preference dividends are normally fixed at a certain annual percentage. As a preference shareholder, the investor will receive dividends ahead of ordinary shareholders when dividends are declared by the board of the company.

Liquidation preference

The liquidation preference determines how the pie is shared on a liquidation event. Preference shares almost always come with a liquidation preference, but the amount of the liquidation preference can differ. For example, the investor’s preference shares may come with a multiple of 1x purchase price. This means that upon a liquidation event, the investor will be paid 1x the issue price of his shares before the ordinary shareholders get anything. (For example, if the investor invested R1 million into the company, the investor wants R1 million paid back to him before the founders receive anything.) Similarly, if the investor’s liquidation preference is 2x purchase price, the investor will receive a multiple of 2x the issue price of his shares before the ordinary shareholders get anything.

As a start-up founder, you need to know what you are promising the investor. You might realise a few months down the line, when it’s too late, that you have given the investor a preference of 10x return on liquidation, leaving you and your co-founders with nothing. How a liquidation preference is structured can make a significant difference when the proceeds from a sale are split between the shareholders. Start-up founders should pay particular attention to this term.

Participating and non-participating

Generally, as seen above, the preference shareholders receive preferential returns. This means that they are paid back their initial investment plus some preferential payment (the liquidation preference multiple) before any other proceeds are disbursed. The extent to which additional funds, beyond this preference, are disbursed to investors depends on whether the equity is participating or non-participating preference shares. Participating preference shares take a share of the additional proceeds, along with ordinary shareholders, after receiving their preferential returns. For example, the preference shareholder participates in the equity apportionment in addition to receiving his liquidation preference. Holders of non-participating preference shares, however, only receive the preference plus any accrued dividends.

For example, an investor invests R2 million into a company at a 2x liquidation preference and at a post money valuation of R10 million (giving the investor a 20% stake in the company). The company is sold for a net sale price of R20 million. Therefore, the investor receives his 2x R2 million liquidation preference (receiving R4 million) and a R16 million surplus remains. If the preference shares are participating preference shares, the investor will receive an additional 20% of the surplus amount (a further R3.2 million). Alternatively, if the shares are non-participating preference shares, the other shareholders, i.e. the founders, will distribute the surplus among themselves according to their shareholding percentages.

An important point to note is that “participation” in venture capital deals generally refers to capital, however, it may also refer to a participation in pro rata dividends beyond the fixed preference dividend. As a founder, you must have clarity on this from the start.

Dividend preference: cumulative and non-cumulative

Preference shares often provide for a preferential dividend as well – investors with preference shares are entitled to receive dividends before ordinary shareholders.

Dividends increase the total return for the investors and decrease the total return for ordinary shareholders. Dividends are often stated as a percentage of the share issue price for the preference shares (for example, 8% of the total share issue price). There are at least three general ways dividends are structured in venture capital deals: (i) cumulative dividends; (ii) non-cumulative dividends; and (iii) dividends on preference shares only when paid on the ordinary shares.

Dividend structures (i) and (ii): If a company does not declare a dividend in respect of a particular year, then preference shareholders with a right to non-cumulative dividends would lose the right to receive a dividend for that year. However, preference shareholders with a right to cumulative dividends would be able to carry over their right to receive a dividend for that year, entitling them to receive that dividend in the future, together with the dividend declared in that next year (before any dividends are payable to ordinary shareholders). Clearly, cumulative dividends are the most beneficial to the investor and the most burdensome on the founders (being ordinary shareholders).

Dividend structure (iii): Where dividends are paid on the preference shares only if paid on the ordinary shares, the preference shares are treated as if they had been converted into ordinary shares at the time the dividend is declared. This is the least beneficial to the investor and the most beneficial to the founders.

If not clearly understood, agreeing to a cumulative dividend can lead to significant and unexpected monetary burdens on the available and distributable profits for you and your co-founders. As a start-up founder, you must understand the different ways in which dividends can be structured. You need to consider the company’s projected cashflow from now until the expected exit and the impact the dividend preference has on shareholders.

Concluding remarks

We trust that the issues highlighted above will give you some insight and guidance as to why it is so important to have a good understanding of the preference share terms you are likely to find in a term sheet. If you would like to discuss any of these topics in more detail, please feel free to contact our Start-up Law team and we’ll gladly assist.

Conversations and agreements – when are they binding?

Conversations and agreements – when are they binding?

Introduction

A major cause of disputes occurs over the content of agreements. Sometimes these disputes are a result of poorly drafted contracts; content and deliverables not being adequately described; or as a result of variations to the original contract. Another source of dispute is verbal contracts and conversations where the parties dispute the content of what was agreed upon.

Both verbal and written contracts are, in general, legally binding. However, sometimes writing is unavoidable and is a formality for the contract to be valid, for example: the sale of immovable property, antenuptial contracts, wills and executory donations. Along with the preceding list, all documents that have to be submitted to and registered with the Deeds Office must also be set out in writing.

Written contracts have various advantages, among others, they:

  • ensure that both parties are fully aware of the contents of their agreement;
  • create transparency between the parties;
  • create and maintain trust between parties;
  • can stipulate formalities that must be met for validity; and
  • serve to avoid unnecessary disputes.

Electronic communication

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (“ECTA“) recognises electronic messages (or “data messages“) as the functional equivalent of writing, meaning that data messages have the same legal validity as content written on paper. This results in any formality requiring writing to be met when the information is in the form of a data message. ECTA, however, imposes a requirement of accessibility to accompany data messages by requiring data messages to be easily accessible to the parties thereto.

The validity of electronic messages was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA“) in November 2014 in the case of Spring Forest Trading v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd. The court held that variations to an agreement between the parties made via email were binding – the arguments put forth were that the variation to the agreement was required to be made in writing and signed by both parties in order for it to be valid and that this requirement had not been met because the variations were only discussed and agreed to via email. The court stated that the email signatures at the bottom of the emails amount to signatures and that the email messages constituted writing in terms of ECTA.

Conclusion

Written contracts are always recommended. The rationale being that oral agreements offer no objective or clear record of the details of the agreement and the specific terms are often difficult to establish when a dispute arises. Well drafted agreements should include useful information and guidance to the parties to ensure a fair and smooth resolution of disputes or disagreements. The guidance information should address when parties may cancel the agreement, what constitutes breach and how the breach should be remedied.

Written agreements should also set out that any changes to the agreement are not valid if they are not in writing (and signed by both parties) – which prevents disputes over any amended terms of the agreement. This also prevents quarrels of a “he said, she said” nature as everything has been recorded. As set out above, this can be done via email or other electronic messages, including Whatsapp, for example, however, the name of the sender must be signed at the end of the message for it to be valid.

It is important to understand that following the abovementioned judgment, parties to a contract should specifically refer to an “advanced electronic signature” – which is a special signature provided for in ECTA – being required to amend the agreement if the intention is for the usual email type correspondence not to effect an amendment to the agreement.

Remember, you could be bound to a contract where you have willingly signed it even if you have not yet read it.

Important take-aways

  • electronic communication is legally binding and is the equivalent of writing;
  • some agreements can only be altered if the variation is in writing and signed by both parties;
  • some agreements must be in writing and signed (and sometimes commissioned or notarised) in order to be valid and binding; and
  • oral agreements are binding (but not advised!).
The difficulties involved in setting up and managing Section 12J Venture Capital Companies

The difficulties involved in setting up and managing Section 12J Venture Capital Companies

“Section 12J Venture Capital Companies” (Section 12J VCC) seem to be a bit of a buzz phrase doing the rounds in the South African entrepreneurial world at the moment. We have had several requests from new and existing clients to set one up, mainly because of the attractiveness of these structures to investors.

A Section 12J VCC is a company formed in terms of section 12J of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (ITA) – it is essentially a pooling mechanism created by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) to encourage largely high net worth individuals to invest in start ups. The incentive to invest in a Section 12J VCC comes from the fact that investors get a full tax rebate on the funds invested into the Section 12J VCC. So, if a person in the highest tax bracket (presently 45%) invests R 1 million, they will get a tax rebate of R 450,000, meaning that the net investment is R 550,000.

The Section 12J VCC itself is relatively simple to set up, but the real complexity and difficulty comes with the management of it. The legislators have included several anti-avoidance provisions in section 12J of the ITA, which have made it particularly difficult, and in our experience prohibitive, for anyone to manage and run a Section 12J VCC. In fact, at the moment, there are only fifty six Section 12J VCCs approved by SARS and according to the information that we have gathered, and less than half of those are actually trading. It is interesting to note that the legislation allowing these funds was put in place in 2009 – that equates to, on average, seven of these companies formed (not necessarily even operating) every year since inception.

So why is it so difficult to get a Section 12J VCC off the ground? Below we have highlighted some of the major difficulties that some of our clients have had:

  1. No investor into the Section 12J VCC may be a “connected person” in respect of the Section 12J VCC, which essentially means that a natural person cannot own 20% or more of the shares in the Section 12J VCC (directly or indirectly) and a company can own up to 50%, in limited circumstances, of the Section 12J VCC (directly or indirectly), but no more.
  2. No more than 20% of the capital raised through the issue of shares may be invested into any one investee company.
  3. An investee company cannot be a “controlled group company”, meaning that a Section 12J VCC cannot own 70% or more of the equity shares in an investee company.
  4. To be recognised by SARS, the Section 12J VCC must be registered in accordance with section 7 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (FAIS), meaning that the company must have a “key individual” in its employment and the Financial Services Board must issue it with a certificate.

There are many more nuances to a Section 12J VCC that we have not highlighted here as they are too lengthy to get into, but they also make for significant barriers to entry.

Regarding point one above – the issue of being a “connected person” – this provision was clearly put in place to avoid situations where a single investor uses this platform to invest in a company where he ordinarily would have done so in any event, but he simply sets up a Section 12J VCC to reap the tax benefit on an investment that he was always going to make.

What we have seen is that there are legitimate arm’s length transactions where investee companies are told that the investor will only invest in them if they are able to use the section 12J of the ITA structure and because of the anti-avoidance restrictions, investee companies are losing out on a potential investment as it is often not possible for this to be done.

Regarding points two and three above, Section 12J VCCs are often restricted in the manner that they can invest when they see a good potential investee company, as they cannot invest more than 20% of their raised capital into the investee company. This means that investee companies can, and do, miss out on obtaining more funding or any funding altogether.

It can also prevent arm’s length investors from investing into one investee company, as they cannot use the Section 12J VCC vehicle to invest into a qualifying investee company because they cannot own more than 70% of the investee company and they cannot use more than 20% of the funds raised in the Section 12J VCC to invest in the investee company. The investor also cannot hold 20% or more of the equity shares in the Section 12J VCC.

The final point is possibly the most difficult, FAIS approval is difficult to obtain as you must have a person who fits the criteria to be a “key individual” in terms of FAIS, which requires experience in the industry and further study. With the fast pace of the business environment, it is often too much of a hurdle to cross to find a party with the correct industry experience to write the exam and become qualified as a key individual.

If you have a legal team that thinks laterally about it, there are ways to manoeuvre within the compliance framework, but even then, there are limitations to the extent that it can be done.

Section 12J VCCs look very attractive from the outside, but when you scratch below the surface, there is a structure that is complex and difficult to manage and balance, which is probably the reason that they have not taken off in South Africa yet. That is not to say that forming a Section 12J VCC cannot be done, as we have assisted in setting up several of them, but it is worth considering it a little bit deeper to see whether this is going to be the best structure for you.

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) – understanding some of the aspects of this technology model

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) – understanding some of the aspects of this technology model

As commercial law attorneys, much of our work is helping tech start-ups negotiate and draft software agreements. There is no doubt that the emergence of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) – often referred to as “cloud computing” – has been one of the most profound technological developments in the commercial software industry.  It is shaking up traditional software vendors and it is expected to continue disrupting traditional businesses. Think “Slack”, “Trello”, “Salesforce”, “Stripe” and “Dropbox” – these are all SaaS enterprise applications delivered over the internet.

This article will provide a basic overview of SaaS and some of the legal aspects tech start-up founders need to understand when negotiating and preparing their SaaS agreements.

What is “SaaS” and SaaS Agreements?

Software-as-Service is a software distribution model with which a business hosts software applications and makes them available to customers over the internet.  The agreement or contract that governs the access and use of the software service and describes the rights and obligations of the parties is referred to as a SaaS agreement. The SaaS agreement differs from your typical software license agreement because SaaS is not a license to use the software, but rather is a subscription to software services and allows remote software access.

Benefits of SaaS

Low set-up cost: SaaS removes the need for organizations to install and run expensive software applications on their computers and data servers. It eliminates the expenses associated with hardware acquisition and maintenance, as well as software licensing, installation and support costs.

Payment flexibility: rather than purchasing software to install, or additional hardware to support it, customers subscribe to a SaaS offering. Typically, customers pay for this service on a monthly subscription or utility basis i.e. the number of users who has access or the number of online transactions.

Highly scalable: cloud services like SaaS offer high scalability. Upgrades, additional storage or services can be accessed on demand without needing to install new software and hardware.

Automatic updates:  customers can rely on a SaaS provider to automatically perform updates and software improvements and modifications, which are generally free of charge.

Accessibility:  customers aren’t restricted to one location and can access the service from any internet-enabled device and location.

Software Licencing Model vs SaaS Model

Software license agreements are used when a proprietary software is being licensed by the licensor to a licensee.  The licensee purchases the software and receives a right to install, download and use the software. The licensor owns all the intellectual property rights in the software and related documentation.  A license is a limited grant of use those rights.

With SaaS agreements, the customer does not download or install copies of the software, but remotely accesses and uses the software by logging into the software provider’s system.  The software provider hosts the software either on its server or in the cloud and provides a service to the customer which consists of hosting its software, performing services to support the hosted software and granting access to the hosted software.

Important legal aspects to consider in your SaaS Agreement

SaaS agreements can touch upon nearly every area of the law, but broadly, a SaaS agreement should include clauses regarding: the services provided; the parties who will have access to the service; user obligations and prohibited use; payment terms; data collection and personal information; termination; service levels; maintenance and support services; disclaimers and liability; and intellectual property rights.

We discuss a few of these below:

Limitation of liability

The most important provision of any SaaS agreement is the liability clause as liability presents itself in many forms. What if the SaaS service is hacked or the subject of a cyber-attack and the customer’s sensitive confidential data (including banking details) is stolen? Are you going to indemnify and hold the customer harmless for all the damages suffered as a result of the data breach? Limitation of liability explains the extent of damages your customer can seek against you and how much they can sue you for. A well-drafted limitation of liability cannot be overstated!

Service levels

An important consideration is whether the SaaS service is going to be up and running and functioning for a guaranteed minimum amount of time. Service level agreement or commitments are very common in any SaaS agreement. Generally, the SaaS provider guarantees that the service will be up and running for 365 days a year 99% of the time, for example. Your company will need to consider what type of service guarantees and commitments it will be making in terms of its service “uptime” and “downtime”.

Maintenance and support

What types of maintenance and support services will your company be providing? Will you be guaranteeing bug fixes in a timely manner, providing customer support via email and telephone or periodic software upgrades and maintenance? These are issues that need to be considered and which will affect your agreements with your customers. To this end, the contact details, extent of support and troubleshooting methods offered by the provider should be recorded in your agreement.

Upselling and upgrading

You should consider including language in your agreement that allows for future orders or “up-sales” from the customer. By specifying that “up-sales” or upgraded orders from the customer will be governed by the agreement, you avoid having the customer sign or click through another agreement if they purchase additional services, upgrades or expand their usage.

Conclusion

A SaaS agreement is designed to be a comprehensive document and as such, companies should pay careful attention to the multiple aspects of the agreement that set out their liability, responsibilities and obligations. Failing to include or properly define a crucial clause can have serious legal implications on a business’ risk, reputation and commercial relationships.

If you require any assistance in preparing any SaaS, software development or any other software related agreements don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

Due diligence: an inevitable destination on any start-up’s yellow brick road to investment success

Due diligence: an inevitable destination on any start-up’s yellow brick road to investment success

In the age old classic, The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is advised to follow the yellow brick road through the surreal and unfamiliar world of Oz until she reaches the Emerald City. Red boots and all, she, together with her travel companions, set out on this journey, facing some unnerving scenarios along the way. Sound familiar?

Although not written with start-ups in mind, this story can easily serve as a metaphor to illustrate the fascinating world start-up entrepreneurs must navigate on the “yellow brick road” to their next “Emerald City” destination – be it funding rounds, impossible deadlines, incubator pitches or that big exit – this journey has it all. One of the most important, however, not-so-often-discussed, destinations on this “yellow brick road” are due diligence investigations. This article explains why start-ups (or investors) should always keep this often-forgotten destination, and its potential impact on future investment success in mind.

What is a due diligence investigation (commonly referred to as a “DD”)?

Startuplawyer.com defines a due diligence as “an investigatory process performed by potential investors or acquirers to assess the viability of an investment or acquisition and the accuracy of the information provided by the target corporation (or start-up)”.

As such, although a due diligence is usually done by the investors, any start-up would be well-advised to consider the due diligence implications of all their actions leading up to that point. Simply put, this starts by ensuring that internal processes are in place to accurately and continuously record, save and timeously update documentation from the get go. More specifically, documentation and official company records, items relating to internal governance procedures, stakeholders’ communications and company information (i.e. organisation information, market size, team structure), key and material agreements, financial management and annual statements, asset valuation, regulatory approvals, product development and proof of intellectual property (IP) protection are all important for the start-up to keep on record. Furthermore, saving these documents in an orderly and easily accessible folder system eases the process of any due diligence investigation, which in turn, speeds up negotiations and valuations, potentially staving off weeks on an investment timeframe.

Why is it important?

Any sensible investor likes to determine beforehand exactly what it is that they are investing into and in doing so, considers various factors, including: compliance with the potential investor’s investment model, the financial position and investment viability of the start-up, material risks related to its business model, management structure, founders’ commitment, company valuation, legal standing and regulatory compliance. In short, investors are eager to get an all-inclusive and well-rounded snapshot of the start-up to encourage them to provide the necessary funding and to see if the two parties fit. Therefore, if a start-up can provide this information accurately and timeously, it may well contribute to investment negotiations being concluded far more easily than anticipated. Both parties are advised to note that due diligences generally take longer than anticipated, but by being adequately prepared and organised many a pitfall can be avoided.

Does a due diligence benefit the start-up at all?

Yes, regardless of whether the investment proceeds, the preceding due diligence is a good trial by fire for any start-up. Usually, by way of the investor providing a due diligence report, concerns or queries are highlighted in detail, providing an objective and holistic view of all the facets contributing to the start-up’s business. This can greatly assist the start-up in determining further strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats. Start-ups are, however, advised to not be duped into a due diligence too easily. Especially during early stage negotiations, a commitment from investors (usually in the form of a term sheet) is important to ensure mutual benefits are derived from the due diligence investigation.

Concluding remarks

Although a due diligence is a high level and intense review of the start-up’s business, it need not be a daunting experience. It is important to remember that both the investor and the start-up should benefit from this process – the start-up showing off its true colours, and the investor justifying its investment. As such, communicating honestly to avoid any confusion, disappointment or time wastage is well advised before any due diligence and subsequent negotiations commence. Considering the above, if a start-up is aware and is pro-actively engaging this inevitable destination from the get-go, the due diligence need only be a brief stopover on your “yellow brick road” to the next Emerald City destination.