Author Archives: Heidi

Preccelerator Webinar: Strategic Partnerships with Jonathan Tavvs

In every business environment, To Partner Or Not To Partner is ALWAYS the question. When the right partnership can immediately grow your user base, drive funding and/or bring your product to market, it’s clear all partnerships are not created equal. Discover practices and choices that lead to positive outcomes and keep the regrettable ones at bay. Explore how your venture should regard partnerships – what to look for in a partnership and what they are looking for in return.

Put simply, everything is a partnership; Investors, partners, employees, vendors, promoters, conferences… Gain the steps to driving better expectations, agreements, and outcomes.

Tuesday, July 14th, 2020
12:00PM – 1:30PM

*You will receive event link after registration*

 

To view our other webinar events, please visit our events page. 


Co-Founder and Director of Kaleidoko,
Jonathan Tavss is an award-winning futurist, entrepreneur, marketer and strategist with a knack for breaking down the highly complex – or even the mundane – into simple terms that trigger new ideas and fresh, easy to activate theories and practices. Jonathan is a global leader in marrying business strategy, consumer insight and technology, and is sought by companies ranging from Fortune 100 to start-ups for product development, content creation, distribution, change management and global positioning guidance.

Over the decades, Jonathan has been an executive for, or served client ventures including 21st Century Fox, Warner Bros., Disney, MGM, ABC, OwnZones Media Network, Cogsdill, ABS-CBN International, Real Medicine Foundation, Altar Furniture and the Empact Change Foundation. In addition to being a frequent speaker at media, entertainment, museum and retail conferences, Jonathan is also a Fellow of The RSA, Co-Director of the Augmented Society Network and a mentor for the Stubbs Alderton Preccelerator Program.

Preccelerator Webinar: Business Resilience in a Crisis w Christine Perakis

Navigating this “Category 5” Global Pandemic to Come through Thriving

  • The 6 Steps of Disaster Preparedness for Small Businesses
  • The 3 Things Senior Leaders Must Do During a Crisis to create Business Resilience
  • Creating a “Float Plan” to Make Your Business Invincible in Any Weather
  • Motivating Your Team During (and After) a Disaster
  • Creating a Communication Plan (both corporate and individual)

 

Tuesday, July 28th, 2020
12:00PM – 1:30PM

*You will receive event link after registration*

 

To view our other webinar events, please visit our events page. 

Christine is a business growth architect who guides small business owners to get from 0 to 8-Figures in Record Time, drawing from her experiences as an attorney, strategic adviser, serial entrepreneur and C-Suite executive in 10 businesses, a professionally-licensed 100-Ton boat captain, while also helping 100s of clients on 5 continents to do the same.

Most recently, having survived two category 5 hurricanes in two weeks, trapped alone in a wind coffin for almost 24 hours, and surviving in the aftermath for months without electricity, running water and telecoms, Christine shares the resilience and leadership strategies that helped her weather the storms in life and business. Her book, The Resilient Leader: Life-Changing Strategies to Overcome Today’s Turmoil and Tomorrow’s Uncertainty, available here, introduces the “7 Barometers of Resilience” that can help anyone weather the Category 5 “storms” we all encounter, like this current global pandemic that has forced half the world’s population into lockdown and shuttered countless businesses, perhaps indefinitely, to become invincible. Christine shares what it takes to achieve that in her radio show, “Career Invincibility.” Her bestselling The Entrepreneur’s Essential Roadmap: Take Your Business from 0 to 7-Figures in Record Time is a small business survival guide, released in 2016.

http://christineperakis.com

The Resilient Leader

Everything About… 409A Valuations

As an entrepreneur, the valuation of your company is something that you’re always thinking about. However, you may have heard something about a 409A valuation and are wondering…

  • What is a 409A valuation?
  • Why do startups need a fair market value analysis?
  • When do you need a 409A analysis?
  • How is a 409A valuation calculated?
  • Who can help provide 409A valuation services?

We’ll help you sort through all those questions and more.  In addition to the basics of a 409A valuation, we’ll also address questions about if and how the current COVID-19 pandemic might affect whether you need to update your existing valuation (spoiler: you might not need to, but it could be beneficial to update it now).

To view the full article visit here.

About Early Growth Financial Services 
Experienced at every stage from startup to exit, EGFS outsourced CFOs understand your needs when building a company. For over 10 years Early Growth has helped thousands of startups. From your first round of funding to your exit, they’re there every step of the way. Early Growth is the largest national firm in the venture capital space providing finance & accounting, taxes, equity management, and fund accounting.

To view more articles from Preccelerator mentors, visit here. 

Proposed Legislation For Business Interruption Insurance Coverage: Life Raft For Small Businesses, Anchor For Insurance Carriers

New proposed legislation regarding business interruption coverage may be an economic life raft for small businesses but a significant financial risk to insurance carriers.  The insurance industry has been hit with a substantial number of business interruption claims, a large part of which carriers have denied claiming a lack of physical property damage or citing a virus exclusion.  The proposed legislation combats the growing economic challenges for small businesses and denial of insurance coverage.  The insurance industry has pushed back hard against the legislation arguing that such laws would overwrite private contracts.  Proponents of these bills reason that the laws would provide for the creation of funds to reimburse insurers for losses paid by the industry and are another form of government stimulus funding, which utilizes the insurance industry to administer the distribution of those funds.

Although it is unknown whether the proposed legislation will be enacted, it is important to recognize that not all policies need this legislative assistance.  Some business interruption policies likely provide business interruption and other types of coverage for COVID-19 related losses under their terms, as written, and the enactment of legislation would not change such coverage.

 

Which Claims Are Covered under the Proposed Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Legislation?

Legislators in several states, including New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and South Carolina, as well as the House of Representatives, have introduced legislation to retroactively compel insurers to cover business interruption claims arising from damages sustained during a period of a declared state of emergency due to COVID-19, and a few bills going so  far as including any mutated forms of COVID-19.  The proposed bills provide coverage to claims asserted by small businesses, defined in the bills to be businesses with either 250, 150, or 100 and fewer employees.  Further, some of the proposed bills expressly address virus exclusions and require insurers to provide coverage despite any virus exclusion provided in a policy.

None of the proposed legislation have yet passed, and most have been referred to the state’s respective insurance or finance committee for review.

 

Has California Introduced Proposed Legislation?

There is no comparable bill pending in California.    However, California’s Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California’s Congressional Delegation alerting them about the extent of the business interruption crisis and asking them to take immediate action to protect California’s businesses.  To provide state policymakers with more information, Commissioner Lara directed carriers to submit data by April 9, 2020 to the Department of Insurance regarding coverage of commercial business interruption claims related to COVID-19.  Commissioner Lara has not provided an update on the data produced by carriers.

Further, and in response to complaints regarding recent and swift denials of business interruption claims, Commissioner Lara issued a notice on April 14, 2020 requiring carriers and other insurance licensees to comply with their contractual, statutory, regulatory, and legal obligations and, importantly, to fairly investigate all business interruption claims related to COVID-19.  And, if a carrier denies a claim in its entirety or in part, then the carrier must provide the insured a written explanation of the legal and factual bases for the denial.

 

Potential Pitfalls of the Proposed Legislation.

The proposed legislation has unsurprisingly come under scrutiny.  While many of the proposed bills provide that carriers can apply for reimbursement from state funds made available specifically for this purpose, many critics believe that retroactively forcing coverage will bankrupt the insurance industry.  For example, on May 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a letter to members of Congress stating that such proposals “fundamentally conflict with the contractual nature of insurance obligations and could introduce stability risks to the [insurance] industry.”

In addition to economic considerations, the legislation (if enacted) will have to withstand constitutionality challenges that will certainly be raised by the insurance industry.  Carriers can point to the “Contract Clause” (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1) and Due Process Clauses (U.S. Const., Amends. 5, 14) of the Constitution in support of these challenges.  The United States Supreme Court has held that the “Contract Clause” prohibits “substantial impairment” of contractual rights, including for example insurance policies, unless the state has a “significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation” and the impairment is reasonable and appropriate as it relates to the public purpose.  Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clauses prohibits such interference with contracts unless “the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means.”  Whether these legislative measures pass constitutional scrutiny will be very likely be the subject of lengthy litigation.

And while the purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide economic relief to small business, this relief may not arrive in time given the required legislative procedures to enact the proposed bills and lengthy litigation that will inevitably arise from constitutionality challenges.  Without the enactment of the proposed legislation, business interruption coverage will depend on the unique circumstances of a business’s loss and the specific terms of the policy.

 

Things to Consider. . .

Insurance policies have notice provisions requiring insureds to provide timely notice of a claim for coverage.  Thus, despite the pending legislation, small businesses can and should file a claim under existing business interruption coverage as soon as possible.  Insurance companies may use untimely notice as a basis to deny coverage.

The insured must show that there is a covered loss under the policy.  It is important to read the policy and understand what is required to entitle you to coverage   Business interruption claims likely require the insured to establish that it has incurred losses stemming from property damage.  Policies typically include one of following phrases in describing the type of property damage, the first being most favorable to the insured and the last being the most stringent showing: (1) “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property; (2) “direct physical loss or damage to” the covered property; and (3) “direct physical damage to” the covered property.

A common argument by insureds has been that the property damage is a result of the virus proliferating onto every surface and object in, on, and around the covered premises.  Another common argument is that the disjunctive use of the provision “direct physical loss of or damage to property” includes coverage for loss of use of the covered property, i.e., physical damage is not required and loss of use of the property is sufficient.

A stronger argument on which to base a claim is if the policy has a provision for damages resulting from governmental action or under a “civil authority” provision.  Some “civil authority” provisions provide coverage when a covered loss causes damage to property other than the covered property and the insured sustains a loss of income caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the covered premises.  Insureds are claiming that the state and local orders shutting down their business and neighboring businesses constitutes property damage because there is a “loss of use” of the business.

In a case pending before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Social Life Magazine, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co. Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-3311, the insured sought a preliminary injunction asking the court to order the carrier to provide coverage during the pendency of the underlying action to determine coverage for its business interruption claims related to COVID-19.  The carrier opposed the injunction in part by arguing that the insured will not likely succeed in the underlying action because there was no “direct physical loss of or damage to” the premises, which is required under the terms of the policy to be entitled to coverage.

The court denied the insured’s request for an injunction.  The court focused on the requirement of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the insured property and held that the language of the policy provided business interruption coverage only where the insured’s property suffered “direct” physical damage.  This court’s holding, while telling, is not determinative of the outcome of other claims.  Each policy must be reviewed and analyzed to determine whether or not the insured has coverage under its policy.

Once the insured establishes that it has coverage, it is up to the carrier to show that the loss is not covered as a result of, for example, an exclusion in the policy.  And, indeed, claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic have been met with significant pushback from carriers relying on “virus and contamination exclusions” that are included in many policies.  These virus exclusions became predominant in 2006, after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic.  Here is an example of a virus exclusion:

“We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium, or micro-organism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness, or disease.”

While the exclusion appears to be all-encompassing, insureds who have policies with the virus exclusion are not out of luck.  Many businesses are attempting to overcome the virus exclusion by arguing that the predominant cause of the loss is the civil action—the state and local orders requiring non-essential businesses to shut down or allowing non-essential businesses to operate on a limited basis.  Specifically, COVID-19 was first confirmed in the United States on January 20, 2020 and in California on January 26, 2020.  Between these dates and through the day before the state and local orders were in effect, businesses were not impacted by the virus and did not experience any losses.  However, as of the date of the state and local orders, and as a result of the restrictions, businesses were forced to shut down (or operate on a limited basis) causing the businesses to sustain losses.  Thus, businesses are claiming that the government orders are in fact the cause of their loss and, therefore, the virus exclusion should not apply. Carriers will oppose the above argument by contending that the root cause of the loss is a result of the COVID-19 virus and, therefore, the claim is excluded.  Stay tuned.

Another safety net for insureds is the inclusion of an applicable endorsement in the policy.  Endorsements are typically attached at the end of the policy, which, as a result, has been interpreted by courts to mean that any coverage extended in the endorsement is not excluded by exclusions that are included in the preceding policy pages.  For example, if a restaurant (1) has a policy with a virus exclusion, (2) the policy includes a “food contamination” endorsement at the end of the policy, and (3) the restaurant experiences food contamination relating to COVID-19, then the insured can seek coverage under the “food contamination” endorsement despite the virus exclusion.

The final determination of these issues will be subject to lengthy litigation and, again, will depend on the facts of the case and the specific policy language.

For more information visit our COVID-19 Preccelerator Resource Center
https://preccelerator.com/category/covid-19-resources/

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles‘ authors:

Karine Akopchikyan

Jeffrey Gersh

Black Lives Matter – SA&M’s Commitment to Community and Change

Words inadequately express the profound outrage we at Stubbs Alderton & Markiles feel regarding the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.  In the context of the now tragically familiar list of Black men and women, and other people of color, who have recently lost their lives at the hands of certain members of groups sworn to protect and serve, his death requires us all to consider our role as catalysts for change.

In response to the anger, frustration, fear and desire for meaningful transformation provoked by these tragedies, a diverse coalition of Americans have exercised their first amendment rights peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  We add our collective voice to the chorus lawfully and non-violently demanding accountability, justice and institutional change.

We empathize with the grief and suffering of the Black community and offer our condolences to the families of the victims of racial violence.  While we cannot, nor do we pretend to, fully grasp the magnitude of the challenges people of color face on a daily basis in our society, we cannot ignore the root cause of these challenges – institutional racism and personal discrimination.

Accordingly, with complete resolve, we:

  • commit to take action by donating funds, dedicating time and utilizing other resources at our disposal to support individuals and organizations working to remedy the legacy of racism in our country;
  • encourage the members of the SAM family and our broader community to proactively advocate, through active listening and dialogue, and through express action, for the rights of communities of color to promote observable institutional change; and
  • most importantly, unequivocally affirm that Black lives do matter.

We acknowledge that change will neither be swift nor easy, but we pledge to do our part and to hold ourselves accountable to our commitments.

PPP Flexibility Act Guidance

On May 28, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act to give more time and flexibility to employers who receive or have received forgivable loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  On June 3, 2020, the Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent.  The Act was signed and put into effect by President Trump on June 5, 2020.

Period eligible for loan forgiveness extended

Critically, the PPP Flexibility Act extends the time PPP recipients have to spend their funds and still be entitled to receive forgiveness of the loan from eight weeks to the earlier of 24 weeks or December 31, 2020.  However, borrowers that have received their loans prior to the PPP Flexibility Act’s enactment may still elect to use their funds over the original 8-week period and the related obligation to maintain payroll levels only through June 30, 2020.  Borrowers using the new covered period will be obligated to maintain payroll levels for an extra 16 weeks.

Exemption for reduced forgiveness amounts

Relatedly, the Act creates a new forgiveness exemption based on employee availability during the period from February 15, 2020 through December 31, 2020.  Under this provision, loan forgiveness will be determined without regard to a proportional reduction in the number of full-time equivalent employees if a borrower documents in good faith both the inability to rehire individuals who were employees on February 15, 2020 and the inability to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions on or before December 31, 2020.  This exemption also extends to borrowers whom in good faith are able to document the inability to return to the same level of business activity at which the borrower operated on or before February 15, 2020, due to compliance with regulatory standards for sanitation, social distancing, or any other worker or customer safety requirement related to COVID-19 and promulgated between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the Act specifically identifies guidance issued by Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

75/25 rule now 60/40

Another significant provision from the Act lowers the portion of PPP funds borrowers must spend on payroll costs to qualify for full loan forgiveness from 75% to 60%.  This means that 40% of the loan may now be spent on covered non-payroll costs (i.e., rent, mortgage interest and utilities), as opposed to the prior 25% requirement.

Deferral period extended

The Act also extends the existing 6-month loan payment deferral period until the date on which the amount of forgiveness determined is remitted to the lender.  Further, if a borrower fails to apply for forgiveness within 10 months of the last day of the covered period, payments of principal, interest, and fees will begin no earlier than 10 months after the last day of such covered period.

New minimum maturity date

The Act also extends the existing 6-month loan payment deferral period until the date on which the amount of forgiveness determined is remitted to the lender.  Further, if a borrower fails to apply for forgiveness within 10 months of the last day of the covered period, payments of principal, interest, and fees will begin no earlier than 10 months after the last day of such covered period.

Further, the Act also creates a new five-year minimum maturity date (applicable only to post-enactment loans) and provides that nothing shall be construed to limit lenders and pre-enactment borrowers from mutually agreeing to modify the maturity terms to conform with this change.

Adjustment to delay of employer payroll taxes

Lastly, the Act now permits borrowers whose loans were forgiven in whole or in part to delay the payment of employer payroll taxes until December 31, 2021 (with respect to up to 50% of the amounts due) and December 31, 2022 (with respect to the remaining amounts due up to 50%).  Borrowers who received forgiveness were previously prohibited from taking advantage of this benefit.

Stubbs Alderton Authors:

Garett Hill

Jeffrey Gersh

Caroline Cherkassky

For more information on worker’s rights and business liability, visit our COVID-19 Preccelerator Resource Center
https://preccelerator.com/category/covid-19-resources/

Preccelerator Webinar: Equity & Alternative Compensation w/ Louis Wharton

For a company founder, it is easy to understand the benefits of providing stock or stock options to employees. It’s a way of compensating employees that doesn’t drain cash from the business. Employees will feel invested in the future success of the company. Join us to get insights and wisdom about maximizing opportunities and minimizing mistakes in creating equity.

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2020
12:00PM – 1:30PM

*You will receive event link after registration*

 

To view our other webinar events, please visit our events page. 

 

 

Louis A. Wharton is a Partner of the firm. Louis’ practice focuses on advising venture capital funds and angel networks, along with middle-market, emerging growth, early-stage and public companies in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, securities compliance and general corporate matters.

He counsels clients in the technology, e-commerce, and digital media, among others.

Paycheck Protection Program: Guidance On Forgiveness

May 29, 2020 marks 8 weeks since Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were first made available and thus the beginning of borrowers’ eligibility to apply for loan forgiveness.  On May 22, 2020, the SBA released two rules to help clarify various aspects of loan forgiveness and inform on the SBA’s review process, discussed below.

Loan Forgiveness Process:  Lenders determine loan forgiveness on a borrower-by-borrower basis.  To receive loan forgiveness, borrowers must complete and submit the Loan Forgiveness Application (or a lender’s equivalent) to their lenders.  Lenders have 60 days from the date the Loan Forgiveness Application is submitted to issue its decision to the SBA, which in turn has 90 days to remit the appropriate forgiveness amount to the lender.  (For a more detailed discussion on what costs qualify as forgivable, see our prior post here.)

Alternative Payroll Covered Period:  Borrowers are not required to base forgiveness amounts on the 8-week period that begins with the date of disbursement.  Instead, borrowers may opt to use an 8-week period beginning on the first day of the first payroll cycle after loan funds are disbursed (the “alternative payroll covered period”).  For example, if a borrower receives its PPP disbursement on June 1, but the borrower’s first pay cycle after disbursement begins on June 7, the borrower may elect to calculate its loan forgiveness amount by using the period from June 7 to August 1 (8 weeks after June 7).

Costs Incurred but not Paid During Covered (or Alternative Covered) Payroll Period:  Payroll costs incurred during the borrower’s last pay period of the covered period (or alternative payroll covered period) are eligible for forgiveness if paid on or before the next regular payroll date; otherwise, payroll costs must be paid during the covered period (or alternative payroll covered period) to be eligible for forgiveness.  Additionally, non-payroll costs that are otherwise eligible for forgiveness and are incurred within the covered period or alternative covered period and paid on or before the next regular billing date are also eligible for forgiveness.  For example, a rent or utility payment paid after the designated 8-week covered period can still qualify for loan forgiveness to the extent the payments were for rent or utilities incurred during said period.  However, advance payments for interest on mortgage obligations do not qualify for forgiveness.

Payroll Caps:  Payroll costs are forgivable to the extent that they cover employees’ salary, wages, or commissions during the covered or alternative covered period and do not exceed a prorated annual salary of $100,000.  This also applies to bonuses, hazard pay, and the salary, wages, or commissions paid to furloughed employees.  Further, the amount of loan forgiveness requested for owner-employees and self-employed individuals’ payroll compensation can be no more than the lesser of 8/52 of 2019 compensation (i.e., approximately 15.38 percent of 2019 compensation) or $15,385 per individual in total across all businesses.

Reductions to Loan Forgiveness Amounts:  The CARES Act provides that a borrower’s loan forgiveness amount will be reduced if a borrower reduces its full-time equivalent (FTE) employees (meaning 40 hours or more of work each week) or reduces any employees’ (who made less than $100,000 in 2019) salary or wages by more than 25%.  The CARES Act also allows borrowers to avoid such reductions if employees are rehired and restored salary and wage levels by June 30, 2020.  The May 22nd interim rules clarify that borrowers may still be entitled to avoid such forgiveness reductions so long as they offer to rehire FTE employees or restore employees’ hours, even if they do not accept.  Such offers must be made in good faith and be for the same salary, wages, and number of hours that the employee earned prior to separation or reduction in hours.  Records of these offers and rejections must also be maintained, and the borrower must inform the applicable state unemployment insurance offer within 30 days of the employee’s rejection.  Moreover, to ensure that borrowers are not doubly penalized, salary/wage reductions apply only to the portion of the decline in employee salary and wages that are not attributable to an FTE employee reduction.  Further, if an employee is fired for cause, voluntarily resigns, or voluntarily requests a schedule reduction, then no corresponding loan forgiveness reduction will be imposed.

SBA’s Review Process:  As discussed in our prior post addressing borrowers’ potential liability under the False Claims Act, all PPP loans in excess of $2 million, and any other loans “as appropriate,” will be reviewed by the SBA.  Either way, if the SBA reviews a borrower’s loan, it will look at borrower eligibility, loan amounts and use of proceeds, and loan forgiveness.  Borrowers are required to maintain PPP documentation for six years after the date the loan is forgiven or repaid in full and must permit the SBA access to such files upon request.  If the SBA believes that a borrower may not have been eligible for the loan, the loan amount, or the loan forgiveness amount, the SBA will require the lender to contact the borrower in writing to request additional information and may also request information directly from the borrower.  If the SBA determines that a PPP loan recipient should have been ineligible, no forgiveness will be permitted.  The SBA may also seek repayment of the outstanding PPP loan balance or pursue other available remedies.  Another interim rule will be issued that addresses how recipients ruled ineligible can appeal such a determination.

Modifications Expected:   On May 28, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation (the “Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act,” H.R. 7010), that would extend the time PPP recipients have to spend their funds and receive forgiveness from eight weeks to 24 weeks.  The bill would also lower the portion of PPP funds borrowers must spend on payroll costs to qualify for full loan forgiveness from 75% to 60%.  The House bill passed under special rules established to expedite legislation while the House is not in full session, requiring a two-thirds vote for passage instead of a simple majority.  The House bill will now need to pass the Senate before making its way to President Trump’s desk to be signed into effect.  A separate bill advancing through the Senate would double the covered period of forgivable PPP spending to 16 weeks but would not change the 75% payroll cost requirement.  We will continue to track these bills and provide updates accordingly.

Stubbs Alderton Authors:
Caroline Cherkassky
Garett Hill

For more information on worker’s rights and business liability, visit our COVID-19 Preccelerator Resource Center :
https://preccelerator.com/category/covid-19-resources/

Preccelerator Webinar: Customer Discovery w/ Eric P. Rose

This talk will cover the preliminary market research work of Customer Discovery, that is to discover who would most value your proposed new product. It will also cover the tough decisions to then tailor your product in a way that the market values the most and yields the best return on its development investment.

 

Tuesday, June 9th, 2020
12:00PM – 1:30PM

*You will receive event link after registration*

 

To view our other webinar events, please visit our events page. 

 

Eric P. Rose, NPDP, MBA

Founder & President, Pinnacle Product Innovation, Inc.

Eric’s company helps entrepreneurs move new products from an opportunity into market reality. Services offered include Market Research, Product Development, Manufacturing Sourcing, R&D Project Management, IP Commercialization. Eric has worked in the Consumer, Medical, and Industrial product markets with companies including Baxter Healthcare and Mattel. Eric’s background includes,

BS Product Design (ASU), MBA Marketing / Entrepreneurship (Pepperdine)

35+ years’ professional experience in new product development and commercialization experience with companies ranging from startups through Fortune 500 firms.

Certified New Product Development Professional (NPDP) from Product Development and Management Association (www.pdma.org)

Part-time professor since 2009 including Pepperdine (MBA, Product Innovation), Loyola Marymount (BA, Entrepreneurship, Product & Business Design), MBA@Rice (MBA Marketing), and Guest Lecturer, USC Technology Commercialization course. Currently an Entrepreneur in Residence CSUN.

Preccelerator Managing Director Len Lanzi Featured on Startup 2.0

Len Lanzi Startup 2.0SA&M Preccelerator Managing Director Len Lanzi was featured on Startup xyz’s video series, Startup 2.0. In the interview, conducted by Lucas Pols, Len covered topics ranging from the SA&M Preccelerator’s investment thesis, mistakes that Len sees commonly in startups, setting realistic expectations, raising a friends & family round, and startup budgeting.

To watch the full interview with Len, visit here.

About Startup 2.0
Startup 2.0 is a video series that will feature a new venture capital firm or seasoned entrepreneur covering subjects from raising capital to growth, and everything in between! Join Spark xyz and follow their social channels to stay up-to-date on our newest installments.

About Len
Leonard M. Lanzi has over 30 years of organization management and fund development experience. He has been serving as the Executive Director of the Los Angeles Venture Association since 2007. In his capacity at LAVA, Len works with the LAVA board of directors to direct the strategic plan and organize educational and informational programs within the venture-funded startup ecosystem in the greater Los Angeles region.

Len brings a well-rounded knowledge from such diverse human service organizations as the Community Kitchen of Santa Barbara, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Junior Achievement of Southern California, and the Boy Scouts of America.