Transcript 16 That Has Been Compared to the Reporting Or Recording 17 Accomplished at the Hearing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Initial Public Offerings and the Failed Promise of Disintermediation
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS AND THE FAILED PROMISE OF DISINTERMEDIATION CHRISTINE HURT* This Article argues that although the Internet works well to eliminate intermediariesformerly necessary for distribution, the Internet cannot reliably eliminate intermediaries used by the public for creating demand networks and establishing third-party certijfication. As those who have tried to sidestep powerful intermediaries in both the securities industry and other industries have discovered, these intermediariesplay a substantial role in cultivating consumer preferences and gaining consumer trust. In this age of overwhelming numbers of consumer choices, consumers rely on demand intermediariesto make decisionsfor them. I. INTRODUCTION At the beginning of this millennium, the future of initial public offerings ("iPOs") conducted using an Internet-based auction method in the United States seemed very bright.1 Although the number of auction IPOs had remained small since being allowed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1999,2 this method was experiencing a resurgence brought about in small part by the improving economy and market for IPOs and in large part by the marketing buzz surrounding the launching of the auction IPO in 2004 for Google, Inc.3 Auctions, which allocate IPO shares to anonymous buyers on the basis of sealed bids, promised to create an era in which retail investors were able to purchase IPO shares at their market- . Associate Professor of Law and Richard W. and Marie L. Corman Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law. 1See Mark Lewis, Online 1PO Revolution Postponed,FORBES.COM, Mar. 14, 2001, http://www.forbes.com/markets/2001/03/14/03]4banks.html (reporting that Walt Cruttenden, CEO of E*Offering, had predicted that by 2002, "80 % of IPOs would be [completed] online"). -
Learn More About
PARTNERS for GROWTH CELEBRATING OVER 30 YEARS of FINANCE and INNOVATION The PFG STORY Celebrating 30 Years of Financing Growth Companies n April 2004, two experienced financiers formed Partners for For 30 years, the PFG principals have provided debt and equipment Growth (PFG), a San Francisco specialty-lending firm serving lease financing to companies, sectors, and assets that are emerging growth technology and life underserved and underfinanced by traditional sciences companies. Don Campbell and financing sources. Recipients of their creative IAndrew Kahn, along with their former CFO, funding include legendary companies Sybase, already had two decades of experience funding CELEBRATING Xilinx, and Quantum Computer Services, which technology companies as owners and managers O VER later became America Online. PFG today of Hambrecht & Quist Guaranty Finance, the continues to provide innovative debt financing lending group of the technology investment to emerging growth technology and life sciences bank Hambrecht & Quist. Throughout the 1980s companies. and 1990s, through disciplined and innovative custom financing, they helped entrepreneurs As technologies have evolved, and markets have who might not otherwise have been able to 30 waxed and waned in multiple business cycles obtain funding to bring the power of computer YEARS OF over three decades, PFG principals have never technology and biotechnology to the world. FINANCE AND wavered from a set of guiding principles that To this day, with five other partners, a cadre of INNOVATION have enabled it to prosper. dedicated individual and institutional investors, and an unprecedented relationship that began This story celebrates 30 years of custom more than 25 years earlier with Silicon Valley lending and leasing solutions in underserved Bank—the country’s largest lender to emerging growth companies— areas bolstered by strategic partnerships—first with San Francisco PFG continues to help many of the world’s most innovative companies based investment bank Hambrecht & Quist, and today with Silicon achieve success. -
THE GOOGLE IPO by Eugene Choo
BUSINESS LAW GOING DUTCH: THE GOOGLE IPO By Eugene Choo The initial public offering (IPO) by Internet search giant Google was arguably the most talked about IPO of 2004. In April 2004, Google foun- ders Larry Page and Sergey Brin announced their intention to take the company public. They surprised investors when they revealed that Google would use a Dutch auction1 process for its IPO, rather than a traditional, investment bank-led offering. Bidding for shares closed on August 18, 2004, and trading commenced on August 19, 2004. GOOG's debut at $85 per share was accompanied by plenty of public- ity and press coverage. The IPO price had dropped from an initial esti- mated range of $108-$135, yet Google still managed to raise $1.67 billion. Of this amount, $1.2 billion went to the company and $473 million went to Google executives and investors selling their shares. 2 Page, Brin, CEO Eric Schmidt, senior Google managers and directors, and long-term Google employees gained potential millions through the value of their stock and stock options. Driven by market hype and strong investor inter- est, the stock price surged in the following weeks, and traded as high as 3 $210.86 on February 3, 2005. © 2005 Eugene Choo 1. Dutch auction IPOs are fairly uncommon. At the time of the Google IPO, only ten U.S. companies had gone public using a Dutch auction process. Dutch auction IPOs differ from traditional IPOs in that the initial share price is determined largely through a pre-IPO bidding process, instead of being pre-set by underwriting investment banks. -
2010 United Football League Media Guide
TABLE OF CONTENTS UNITED FOOTBALL LEAGUE™ League Directory ..................................................................... 5 Front O ce ............................................................................... 9 League History ....................................................................... 25 2010 Schedule ....................................................................... 33 TV Information....................................................................... 35 Florida Tuskers ....................................................................... 43 Hartford Colonials ................................................................. 85 Las Vegas Locomotives .......................................................125 Omaha Nighthawks .............................................................169 Sacramento Mountain Lions ...............................................213 Expansion 2011 ...................................................................255 2009 Season .........................................................................259 2009 Statistics ......................................................................275 ™ All Time Roster .....................................................................290 Media Guidelines .................................................................297 Compiled and edited by UFL PR sta JACKSONVILLE OFFICE NEW YORK OFFICE 135 West Bay Street 420 Lexington Ave. Suite 500 Suite 1825 Jacksonville, FL 32202 New York, NY 10170 Layout and design by: (ph) 904.598.1031 -
GOING DUTCH: the GOOGLE IPO by Eugene Choo
BUSINESS LAW GOING DUTCH: THE GOOGLE IPO By Eugene Choo The initial public offering (IPO) by Internet search giant Google was arguably the most talked about IPO of 2004. In April 2004, Google foun- ders Larry Page and Sergey Brin announced their intention to take the company public. They surprised investors when they revealed that Google would use a Dutch auction1 process for its IPO, rather than a traditional, investment bank-led offering. Bidding for shares closed on August 18, 2004, and trading commenced on August 19, 2004. GOOG's debut at $85 per share was accompanied by plenty of public- ity and press coverage. The IPO price had dropped from an initial esti- mated range of $108-$135, yet Google still managed to raise $1.67 billion. Of this amount, $1.2 billion went to the company and $473 million went to Google executives and investors selling their shares. 2 Page, Brin, CEO Eric Schmidt, senior Google managers and directors, and long-term Google employees gained potential millions through the value of their stock and stock options. Driven by market hype and strong investor inter- est, the stock price surged in the following weeks, and traded as high as 3 $210.86 on February 3, 2005. © 2005 Eugene Choo 1. Dutch auction IPOs are fairly uncommon. At the time of the Google IPO, only ten U.S. companies had gone public using a Dutch auction process. Dutch auction IPOs differ from traditional IPOs in that the initial share price is determined largely through a pre-IPO bidding process, instead of being pre-set by underwriting investment banks. -
Center of Google You’Ve Heard the Story
GQ | http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_422 Feb 2005 Journey to the (Revolutionary, Evil-Hating, Cash-Crazy, and Possibly Self-Destructive) Center of Google You’ve heard the story. Larry and Sergey drop out of school, start a company in a garage, then become billionaires. But will Larry and Sergey ever grow up? by John Heilemann n August , Going Public Day for Google, and Larry Page and his comrades are Oeyeing the lavish breakfast laid out before them at the building: poached eggs perched on tiny pedestals, piles of canapés, pots of crème fra”che. In a few minutes, Larry will preside over the ceremonial opening of the market, then he’ll troop up the street to Morgan Stanley to watch Google’s stock start trading. At , Larry is about to cross the threshold into bona fide billionairehood. So you’d think he’d be as high as Courtney Love right now—but he doesn’t really look it. Buttoned up in a suit from Macy’s, strangled by a stiff white collar, he isn’t eating, isn’t schmoozing, and is only rarely smiling. Maybe it’s the absence of Sergey Brin, his fellow Google founder, who has chosen this morning, unaccountably, to stay back in Silicon Valley. Or maybe he’s just exhausted. But even when his elders approach and kiss his ass, Larry’s at a loss for words. “Congratulations, congratulations,” says president Robert Greifeld. “This offering is great for all of us. Great for Google, great for the . It’s going to be a great success!” Larry mumbles, “It will be interesting to see what happens.” A few feet away, Google’s , Eric Schmidt, is chatting with John Doerr, one of the company’s venture-capital investors and a member of its board. -
Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 2011 Contents ARTICLES from Whether
Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 2011 Contents ARTICLES From Whether to How: The Challenge of Implementing a Full Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings Mary LaFrance Adjusting the Stream? Analyzing Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption After American Needle Michael J. Mozes & Ben Glicksman The French Revolution 2.0: Copyright and the Three Strikes Policy Eldar Haber Corking the Cam Newton Loophole, a Sweeping Suggestion Darren A. Heitner & Jeffrey F. Levine NOTE Head Hunters: The Rise of Neurological Concussions in American Football and Its Legal Implications Andrew B. Carrabis Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 2011 Contents ARTICLES From Whether to How: The Challenge of Implementing a Full Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings 221 Mary LaFrance Adjusting the Stream? Analyzing Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption After American Needle 265 Michael J. Mozes & Ben Glicksman The French Revolution 2.0: Copyright and the Three Strikes Policy 297 Eldar Haber Corking the Cam Newton Loophole, a Sweeping Suggestion 341 Darren A. Heitner & Jeffrey F. Levine NOTE Head Hunters: The Rise of Neurological Concussions in American Football and Its Legal Implications 371 Andrew B. Carrabis EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in Chief Josh Podoll Executive Editor Executive Editor Executive Editor Ben Glicksman Abigail E. Hackler Michael J. Mozes Submissions Chairs Production Chair Technical Chairs David J. Kiefer Zachary Rosenthal Robin Achen Annie Smith Trisha Ananiades Dave Zucker Michael Saltzman Faculty Liaison Online Editor Symposium Chair Jeffrey M. Monhait Brent Bernell Annie Villanueva Article Editors Emilie K. Aguirre Trisha Ananiades Eduardo Jose Casal David J. Kiefer Kevin Lewis Jeffrey M. Monhait Michael Saltzman Anne E. -
Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California William R. Hambrecht EARLY BAY AREA VENTURE CAPITALISTS: SHAPING THE ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS LANDSCAPE Interviews conducted by Sally Smith Hughes in 2010 Copyright © 2011 by The Regents of the University of California ii Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and William R. Hambrecht dated January 10, 2011. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. -
Tech Transfer and Research
© Service des relations industrielles© (SRI) EPFL Equity in start-ups Historical data Hervé Lebret September 2012 List of company equity tables © Service des relations industrielles© (SRI) EPFL Company Slide Slide Slide Company Slide Company Slide Company Slide 3Com 8 Centillium 28 Groupon * 48 Microsoft 68 Skype ** 88 A123 9 Checkpoint 29 Homeaway 49 MIPS 69 Snaketech ** 89 AcelRX 10 Chiron 30 Ilog 50 mysql ** 70 Soitec 90 Actelion 11 Cisco 31 Infovista 51 Netsuite 71 Solazyme 91 Active Network 12 Compaq 32 Intel 52 Numerical Tech 72 Sun Microsystems 92 Adobe 13 CSR 33 Intuitive 53 ONI 73 Swissquote 93 Alibaba 14 Cypress Semicon. 34 Invensense * 54 OpenTable 74 Synopsys 94 Amazon 15 DoubleClick 35 Ironwood 55 Oracle 75 Tandem 95 AMD 16 eBay 36 Isilon 56 Pandora 76 Tesla 96 Amgen 17 Electronic Arts 37 iVillage 57 Paypal 77 Tessera 97 Apache Design * 18 Envivio 38 Juniper Networks 58 Rambus 78 Tivo 98 Apple Computer 19 Equinix 39 Kayak 58 Red Hat 79 Transmode 99 Arm Holding 20 Excite 40 Linkedin 60 Rediff 80 Twitter * 100 Atheros 21 Facebook * 41 Logitech 61 Responsys 81 Virata 101 Baidu 22 Foundry Networks 42 Lotus 62 Riverbed 82 VistaPrint 102 Blue Arc 23 Fusion-io 43 Lycos 63 RPX 83 Wavecom 103 Broadcom 24 Gemplus 44 Magma 64 Salesforce.com 84 Yahoo 104 Broadvision 25 Genentech 45 Marimba 65 Selectica 85 Zillow 105 Business Objects 26 Genzyme 46 Maxlinear 66 Sequans 86 Zipcar 106 Carbonite * 27 Google 47 Mentor Graphics 67 Siebel Software 87 Zynga * 107 List of new company equity tables Company Slide Slide Slide Company Slide Company Slide© Service Company des relations industriellesSlide© (SRI) EPFL MobiTV 109 Enphase Energy 129 Renren 149 Mascoma 169 Fluidigm 110 Instagram 130 Parrot 150 Jive Software 111 Palo Alto Networks 131 Accuray 151 Infoblox 112 Splunk 132 Genomatica 152 Millennial Media 113 Rib-X Pharma 133 Peregrine 153 AVG technologies 114 Merrimack 134 Hansen Medical 154 Audience 115 Cempra 135 Adnexus 155 Guidewire 116 Versatem 136 Infinera 156 ChemoCentryx 117 Horizon Pharma 137 Starent Networks 157 Intelepeer 118 Hyperion 138 Regulus Therap.