Business Venture Blog
This is where we post about business, ventures, law, and business venture law.
Anything interesting, really.
Anything interesting, really.
Why did founders who sold their companies to Facebook leave?
Facebook was launched on February 4, 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates. Over the years, Facebook rapidly expanded and most recently had more than 2.2 billion monthly active users as of January 2018. With that massive success, Facebook went on to acquire a variety of companies, most notably, Instagram, Oculus and WhatsApp. Each of these companies achieved a lucrative exit - Instagram was sold for 1 billion, Oculus for 3 billion and WhatsApp for 19 billion. Yet, in the past year, founders from all 3 respective companies left the social media giant. Why?
Kevin Systrom and co-founder Mike Krieger worked to create a social photo-sharing app named Instagram. It launched in 2010 and, less than two years later, was sold to Facebook for 1 billion. Yet, in September of 2018, both co-founders had announced their departure and resignation from Facebook. The duo, with a heavy dose of diplomacy, explained their resignation by stating that they required some, “time off to explore our curiosity and creativity again…” Publicly it seems that they had a friendly and mutual separation, but there have been reports about a brewing tension leading up to the founders' decision. A report by Bloomberg states that they had a disagreement about the direction the app would take, particularly around the time of Instagram Stories. If this were true, it could explain the substantial tension that led to the departure of the two original founders. I am sure that Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger were aware that with the sale they’d lose control and direction of Instagram. It must’ve been difficult for them to make that decision but with a successful exit, Systrom and Krieger will no doubt be fine.
Brendan Iribe was a co-founder and former CEO of Oculus – a company that focuses on virtual reality (VR). Recently, Iribe announced that he was also leaving Facebook due to “fundamental different views on the future…” Much like the Instagram founders before the acquisition, Iribe had consistent controlon over the future of his company. However, after an acquisition by Facebook, he lost that control over the direction and future of Oculus. As a side note, both the founders from Instagram and Oculus have similar resignation statements like, “recharge, reflect and be creative.” Do they have the same publicist? This is just a side note, but it goes to show that many internal disagreements are not privy to the public eye. As with the founders of Instagram, Brendan Iribe will be fine and will no doubt come up with something new in the future.
The separation between Co-founder and CEO Jan Koum of WhatsApp and Facebook have been the most animated. Per the Washington Post, Koum left Facebook amid an argument over data privacy and the direction of the app’s business model. However, Koum suggested through his own press release that he took issue with Facebook’s approach to data as Koum is a devout privacy advocate. This point of contention seems to be one of the reasons why Koum decided to leave. Again, as per the other Founders, he had limited control over the direction of WhatsApp after selling to Facebook. Furthermore, the most notable point of their contention is when Koum tweeted, “it's time” along with the hashtag “#deletefacebook.” Koum out of all the previous Founders provided a little insight on the degree of conflict between the two parties.
The commonality between the founders of each respective company is that they had a substantial disagreement with the direction Facebook had with their original platform. Each left with a statement expressing their irrevocable differences with a diplomatic and filtered response. Though, with Koum, we could witness and extract the degree of conflict through his tweet. Furthermore, with the number of founders leaving in a relatively short period, it could indicate a possible issue with Facebook. Why aren’t they able to keep these founders? Is Mark Zuckerberg difficult to work with? Is Facebook struggling and in a desperation mode? All these questions are beyond the scope of this post, but they are valid questions for considerations by shareholders and the public. The purpose of this blog was to highlight the reasons why a founder may leave a conglomerate like Facebook after achieving a successful exit and acquisition.
Vikas Chadha is a member of the BLG Business Venture Clinic, and is a 2nd year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary.
Breakdown of the Legal Services that a Growth Start-Up Requires – A Case Study: Carbon Engineering Ltd.
In July of 2018, Carbon Engineering Ltd. (CE) announced that it had raised $11M to commercialize its technology that creates fuel from air. This was the 4th round of financing in the company’s history dating back to 2012 and comes just after they were able to demonstrate proof of concept at scale. The company published research showing conversion of atmospheric carbon into transportation fuel for less than USD$100 per ton with their pilot-plant in Squamish, British Columbia.
CE has found significant success, as start-ups go, so far and is clearly a technology driven business. According to their website, CE owns 10 patents and patent pending applications as well as fully licenses 3 more. However many hopeful entrepreneurs may be surprised to learn just how much of a start-ups legal resources – time and therefore money – relates to the area of intellectual property law. According to Professor Tingle, Bryce C. Tingle, LL.B, LL.M, Associate Professor and N. Murray Edwards Chair in Business Law at the University of Calgary, a growth start-up will generally end up with a legal budget allocated as follows:
For a growth start-up, it is a race against the clock to secure the next round of financing before the current one runs out. In this regard, CE is no exception since it has existed for approximately 6 years and is only now entering the phase where it will commercialize its technology. Therefore it safe to assume that the company has not been generating any significant sales or positive cash flows so far and has only been spending money. In this situation, the work to seek and secure the next round of financing begins immediately after the last round has closed. Even for CE, this $11M of financing structured as a convertible loan bridge was “raised in anticipation of an equity financing, which is expected to be completed as soon as possible.” As much as the development of the technology and the business around it is the primary focus of the start-up, none of that can happen without the resources necessary to do it. Therefore financing is antecedent and its importance is reflected in the legal budget of a growth start-up, taking up the major share.
General Solicitor Work
For CE, partnerships continue to be crucial to the development of their technology as they’ve designed it to incorporate existing industrial equipment and practices to deliver a product that is both cost effective and scalable. Examples of this include:
With the success CE has had, the company has also experienced increases in its headcount. Within the last six months, they have seen a 33 per cent rise in full-time staff with new positions in virtually every department and the company plans to continue building its employee base in 2018 as it accelerates towards commercial deployment. One can therefore understand how the general solicitor type work for a startup grows at a rate equal to the company overall and dictates a significant share of their legal budget.
For many growth start-ups, the technology lies at the heart of the business and is a critical component in need of protection. However intellectual property matters tend not to carry the fully repetitive nature of other legal matters. There may be an ongoing need to defend the company’s intellectual property from numerous challenges or repeated infringement. However, patent applications only need to be filed once and the company will not produce patent worthy ideas at the same rate it grows in terms of size measured in dollars spent or headcount. Therefore the weight that intellectual property law matters impose on the legal budget of a growth start-up generally pales in comparison to the other types. However, that is not to imply that they are less important.
CE may actually be exceptional in this regard. It would not be unreasonable to estimate that 20 per cent of its legal resources would be needed for intellectual property law matters, given the large number of patents related to the technology. The company also provides a topical Canadian example to examine the breakdown of the legal services that a growth start-up generally requires.
Colin Patterson is a third year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, and is a JD and CPA candidate.
Protecting the Name of Your Business
There are basically three ways to protect your business’ name:
Passing-off is the common law action that can be used in court to enforce the right to operate under a particular trade-name without unfair competition. By common-law one also possesses copyright and moral rights to the logo they created for the business. The government of Canada allows concurrent copyright and trade-mark protection. In order to be successful, the business that wishes to retain the right to operate under a trade-name and/or logo is the plaintiff in court and has the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, that:
Confusion arises if the consumer believes the businesses using the same trade-name are affiliated. The court will consider:
Another company can incorporate with the exact same name as your trade-name, the statutory laws of Alberta and Canada only protect an incorporated company’s name from being copied. Another sole proprietor may operate with the exact same name as your trade-name.
Incorporating the business provincially or federally and extra-provincially
Incorporating federally will protect the corporation’s name across Canada. This protection is not as broad as registering a trademark federally. If you choose to incorporate federally as a Canadian corporation then you must follow by registering extra-provincially as a provincial corporation in Alberta. There will be annual renewal fees for both the federal and the provincial registration. If you register exclusively as a corporation in Alberta and subsequently someone else registers the exact same name as a federal corporation you will still be allowed to preserve your corporation’s name in the province of Alberta. Incorporating a business does not protect your logo.
Once a business is incorporated it is a separate legal entity and as such must file a corporation income tax (T2) every year with the Canada Revenue Agency even if there is no tax payable. Depending on whether you seek an accountant’s services, this may be expensive.
Register a trade-mark
A trade-name can be registered if it is used to distinguish your goods or services from those of others.
Trade-marks are registered federally and they will protect the name and logo across Canada for 15 years. The cost in 2018 is $250 for a filing fee, then another $200 for the trademark registration. When registering a trademark you can hire a trademark agent or a lawyer, or your can read through the Nice List of Classes to decide which classes of goods and services you wish to trademark your business under. Canada follows the World Intellectual Property Organization’s system. The same trade-name can be trademarked by different people under different Nice classifications.
The website http://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/en/ has NCL (11-2019) available to download. This is a document that provides each of the Nice classifications and explanatory notes that will help you decide which Nice Classes best describe your work. A trademark agent may also be consulted.
Use the Canadian Trademarks Database to search if your name has already been trademarked in the classes that you wish to use. If the name is available, the next step is to file for the trademark, note this filing fee is non-refundable. The name that you file will be published in the Trade-marks Journal for two months so others could oppose your trademark. This journal is published every week in compliance with the Trade-marks Regulations (Canada). An opposition costs $750. The government of Canada’s webpage is very informative for registering a trademark. Call Canada’s Intellectual Property Office if you have any questions, 1-866-997-1936. If your name is protected by trademark, one of the corporate registries in Alberta may still allow a company to incorporate with that same name according to a specialist available at 310-000.
Additional information can be found at:
Government of Canada: Canadian Intellectual Property Office
Government of Alberta: Corporate Registry Service Alberta
Shannon Peddlesden was the 2018 summer law intern at the BLG Business Venture Clinic, and is a 2nd year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary.
Is Your Business Protected?
Despite your best efforts as a business operator, accidents happen. There may be statutory requirements for your business to have insurance, but insurance has limitations and exclusions. Depending on the nature of your business, it may be appropriate to have clients sign a waiver or release of liability. This is generally accepted as a suitable defence to harms that arise from foreseeable risks, and may prevent the client from successfully recovering against you in negligence as well.
But what happens when your clients are minors? There are additional considerations involved when minors are asked to waive their right to recover in tort.
A waiver is based in the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means “to a willing person, injury is not done”. At its heart, a waiver is a contract that asks participants to voluntarily assume specific legal risks and waive, or give up, certain legal rights.
In order for a waiver to be enforceable, it is generally accepted that three questions must be answered in the affirmative, they are: did the plaintiff (participant) know what they were signing? Is the scope of the waiver broad enough to cover the conduct of the defendant (business operator)? And third, should the waiver be enforced?
Waivers given by or on behalf of a minor
It is understood in the common law that a contract that is detrimental to the interest of a minor is voidable by the minor. A waiver of liability, or any document preventing an individual from recovery in tort, is certainly detrimental to that interests, and therefore if it is signed by a minor, it would be unenforceable. A waiver signed by a minor is contrary to that minor’s interests and therefore not binding. The perceived solution to this, would be to have the minor’s parent or legal guardian sign on their behalf. It is accepted that a guardian has the “plenitude of parental power”. Which gives the parent or guardian the power to contract and bind their child. Further, It was implicit in the judgment of Toews v Weisner that consent to a vaccination must be obtained from the legal guardian and specifically not the child (although in this particular case, the parent did not consent rendering the question moot). However, this interpretation has been challenged recently. In Wong v Lok’s Martial Arts Centre Inc the court was asked to determine the validity of a waiver signed by a minor’s parent. The teenage plaintiff was injured during a sparring match at the defendant’s studio. The defendant was relying on the waiver as an absolute bar to recovery. The court held that the waiver was unenforceable, but ultimately relied on British Columbia’s Infants Act.
The issue of whether or not a parent has the ability to waive a child’s right to sue in tort and recover has not been definitively adjudicated across Canada. However, it appears that the Courts are leaning towards not accepting these documents as binding.
 Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd. (1988), 1988 CarswellOnt 962 (SCC)
 Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. (1970),  1 All E.R. 686
 Principal investments Ltd. v Thiele Estate (1987), 12 BCLR (2d) 258
 Swanson v Henkel Enterprise 1973 CarswellMan 53 (Man. CA)
 Anson v Anson; Young v Young
 Toews (Guardian ad litem of) v. Weisner 2001 BCSC 15
 Wong (Litigation Guardian of) v. Lok's Martial Arts Centre Inc. 2009 BCSC 1385
 Infants Act RSCB 1996 c 223
Kevin Major-Hansford is a 3L at the University of Calgary's Faculty of Law and will be completing his articles at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
Employment Contracts Part II: What to Include
This is the second part of a two-part introduction to employment contracts for start-up companies. Part I (Employment Contract: Put it in Writing) detailed the general function of employment contracts and emphasized the importance of early adoption of written employment contracts in order to establish the essential terms of the employment agreement between the employer and employee in order to reduce the possibility and impact of future dispute. This Part II explores in greater detail some practical considerations of what should be included in these written employment contracts for early-stage growth or start-up companies.
Employment agreements used by start-up companies should be kept relatively simple. This is because of the anticipated change in nature and character of the work required from early-hire employees as well as the need for the company to maintain a flexible structure that will allow it to grow most effectively and efficiently. As a start-up company grows, new experienced executives will be hired to advance the company’s goals, which may result in diminished or changed responsibilities of initial employees. For this reason, the description of job duties in employment contracts should be kept as general as possible. The contract should also state that because of the company’s anticipated growth, the responsibilities, job title, and position of the employee may change from time to time. Clearly stating this will help a company avoid a constructive dismissal action because the contract provides the company the power to make these changes from time to time.
Furthermore, employment contracts should avoid specifying vacation policies or benefit plans as these are likely to change over time. The contract should also explicitly incorporate by reference the separate agreements that form part of the contract for employment, including the stock option agreement, share subscription agreement, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements and any assignment of technology (as applicable).
Unless terminated for cause, when an employee is terminated, the company must pay the employee a certain sum, called notice. In Canada, the length of the notice period and therefore the amount of severance owed to that employee is established by two legal regimes. First, the various provincial Employment Standards Code legislation provide for a minimum amount of notice, which is dependent on the duration of employment. Second, and usually more important, are notice amounts established by common law (i.e., judge made law), which are regularly much higher than the minimum notice periods established by legislation—the basis of which are the judge’s estimation of what is provided for under the employment contract. Since this basis is contractual, an explicit provision in the employment contract that sets out the proper notice period and severance amounts will remove this discretion from the courts and give the company greater certainty, thus reducing risk.
Non-competition provisions serve to prevent employees from working for competitors and passing on intellectual property and know-how to competitors. These provisions are theoretically enforceable in Canada but are subject to restrictions that make them of limit use. This is because courts place a high value on ensuring individuals are not denied the opportunity to work for a living. That said, non-competition provisions can be useful if their scope is limited geographically, temporally, and with respect to job descriptions and specific competitors. By narrowing the scope of the non-compete, courts are more likely to find that the covenant allows the former employee ample alternative employment in their specialization without offending the covenant.
Often, a more effective contractual method of preventing employees from using company intellectual property and know-how to compete with the company is through the use of non-solicitation provisions. These provisions have the effect of barring former employees from contacting and soliciting the company’s current employees, investors, customers, business partners, and suppliers in connection with a competing business. While non-solicitation provisions are more likely to be enforceable than non-competition provisions, they may also be struck down if a court finds them too broad—this usually happens when the provision has the effect of significantly restricting an employee’s ability to find employment in his or her specialized field. Again, limiting the scope of the covenant will increase the probability that it will be found acceptable. First, this can be done by limiting the duration to one year or less. Second, a company should consider who the restrictive covenant applies to. By limiting the application of the provision to only contacts that the employee had contact with during his or her employment at the company, the courts are more likely to find that this is an appropriate application of non-solicitation to protect the companies interests and not used instead to prevent the employee from obtaining future employment. Finally, the non-solicitation provision should be clearly differentiated from the non-competition agreement because in the event that the latter is struck down, the former may fall with it if it is not distinct and separable. Additionally, a severability clause should be included in the contract so that in the event one clause is found void, the remainder of the contract will survive and remain in force.
Intellectual Property Ownership
There is a general expectation that employees will create valuable products and ideas at all times when employed by a start-up. Of particular relevance in the context of employment contracts are patents, copyright, and trade secrets.
First, any invention, whether or not potentially subject to patent protection, is presumed by law to be the property of the inventor employee; however, this presumption can be rebutted if the company can show that: (1) a contract exists between the parties that stipulates otherwise; (2) the employee is a senior officer or fiduciary of the company and the invention directly relates to the business engaged in by the company; or (3) the employee was engaged specifically for the purpose of inventing or innovating. Companies be proactive and take measures to avoid these future disputes. This is best done by contractually characterizing invention ownership and including contractual obligations for employees’ assignment of rights and administrative duties related to patents and patent applications.
Second, unlike inventions subject to patent protection, products that are subject to copyright protection are presumed to be the property of the company employer, not the employee, provided the product was created during the course of employment. There is, however, risk that an employee will claim that work was performed outside of employment on personal time or that the product was developed, or partially developed, prior to the commencement of employment. To avoid this sort of dispute, a company should consider obtaining broad rights to all inventions and works developed by employees and related to the employer’s business. A company may also wish to include a requirement for the employee to disclose any innovations created to allow for timely determination of ownership and to chart the course for desired intellectual property protection.
Finally, though trade secrets are not technically recognized as a form of intellectual property in Canada, this information is often the most important type of information for stat-ups that requires protection. This is the information that an employee obtains only as a direct result of employment with the company, which can include both business and technical data. The common law will generally allow a company to prevent an employee from disclosing or using a trade secret if it can show that the information is a trade secret and the employee owes a duty of confidence to the employer. This duty of confidence arises automatically if the employee is a fiduciary (director or officer), but may also be found to exist if a lower level employee had information that would make the company vulnerable to disclosure. Rather than relying on the courts to make such determination, a company should include in its employment agreement or non-disclosure agreement (signed contemporaneously with the employment agreement) a duty of confidence on its employees. These restrictions should be limited in scope to only information that is special or peculiar to the company’s business because overly broad restrictions on disclosure may be struck down by a court and held unenforceable as restraint on trade.
For more information on particulars related to employment contracts and protecting your company’s interests and property, please contact the BLG Business Venture Clinic. One of the Clinic’s student will gladly detail the above and further considerations for drafting employment contracts and the ancillary agreements that form the contract for employment.
Ryan Logan is a 2018 JD Candidate at the University of Calgary and the University of Houston.
Registering trademarks in Canada
What is a trademark?
A trademark is a form of intellectual property. A trademark may be one or more words, sounds, or designs. It includes both logos and slogans. It is used to distinguish the goods and services of one person or organization from those of another. It is distinct from other forms of intellectual property, such as a patent, copyright, or industrial design.
There are three types of trademarks:
What is a trade name?
A trade name and a trademark are different concepts. A trade name is the name of the business and it can only be registered if it is also used as a trademark. This means that the name of the business must be used to identify goods or services. You should note that trade names are commonly used as trademarks even when they have not been registered as trademarks.
Difference between a registered and an unregistered trademark
The owner of a registered trademark acquires the sole right to use the trademark across Canada for a term of 15 years, and for additional 15-year terms, if the registration is renewed. This means that a registered trademark could be valid indefinitely, so long as the required renewal process is followed. A registered trademark is entered by the Registrar into the Register of Trademarks. The act of registration is direct evidence that the owner owns the trademark. This means that if a dispute arises, the burden to prove ownership falls on the individual challenging ownership. The registered owner does not have to prove they own the trademark.
Ownership over a trademark can also arise automatically at common law. This means that registration is not essential to protecting ownership over a trademark. At common law, the use of a trademark as a distinguishing mark for goods or services for a specific amount of time can provide a basis for ownership. However, if a dispute arises, both parties would be responsible for proving ownership (unless one of the parties was the registered owner). This may lead to a protracted and expensive legal battle. As a result, legal protection is strengthened with registration.
Enforcing a trademark
It is the responsibility of the trademark owner to enforce a trademark. Registration does not impact this responsibility. In order for a court to find that a trademark has been infringed, the trademark owner must demonstrate that confusion may be caused for the average consumer.
What cannot be registered as a trademark
The following cannot be registered as a trademark:
Clearly descriptive marks
Deceptively misdescriptive marks
Words representing a geographical location commonly known to be the place of origin of goods/services
Words in other languages
Words/designs that could be confused with a registered or pending trademark
Words/designs that look very similar to a prohibited mark
Duration and cost of registration
The duration of a registered trademark is 15 years from the date of registration. A registered trademark can be renewed every 15 years for an additional term of 15 years. There is no limit on the number of permitted renewals.
At a minimum, the cost of registering a trademark will include a filing fee of $250 and a registration fee of $200. There may be additional fees associated with registering a trademark depending on the circumstances, in addition to any fees associated with using a professional trademark agent, if applicable.
Steps to take before preparing a trademark application
You may wish to search the database of existing trademarks in Canada. This will help you determine if a similar trademark already exists. You may also wish to search trade names, but there is no central database of trade names in Canada. To do so, you may wish to engage a professional trademark agent. The trademark database does not include trade names (unless it is also a registered trademark).
Process for filing a trademark application
You will need to prepare a trademark application package, which includes the application for registration form, a formal drawing (if necessary), and the filing fee. A separate application is required for each trademark.
A formal drawing is required if the trademark encompasses anything other than a word or a combination of words. The formal drawing must be black and white and include a description of any colour or colours that are featured in the trademark. You should note that, in order to retain your registered trademark, you cannot change the colour or colours you have described as being featured in the trademark in your application. Finally, if the design is detailed, the drawing should be as large as possible, but within the limits of 22cm x 35cm or 8.5 inches x 14 inches.
Your application can be filed online or by mail. Once received, the application will be given a filing date, if it is complete. The filing date matters because it is the date used to assess entitlement to registration in the event that there are co-pending trademarks. The Registrar will then complete an examination, which entails: a search of the trademark records for any conflicts with pending or existing trademarks; an examination of the application to determine that it obeys the relevant laws and regulations; publishing of the application in the Trade-marks Journal to determine if there are any challenges to the application; and, if there are either no challenges or a challenge has been decided in the applicant’s favour, registration of the trademark. The processing time for an application ranges from several months to a few years.
For more information, please visit the following websites:
Natalie Holtby is a 3rd year student at the University of Calgary's Faculty of Law.
Early Round Financing Lessons Provided by Netflix
Most would declare that streaming countless hours of CBC’s Dragon’s Den or its American cousin Shark Tank is an utter waste of time. To the contrary, I would call it research. While show’s such as Dragon’s Den or Shark Tank will not make you an expert in early-round financing, they do provide many of the preliminary questions and concerns that any educated investor will expect you, the entrepreneur, to answer and establish.
Here are just some of the lessons gleamed from the constant stream of Sharks and Dragons that may help you before seeking any early-round financing...
1. Establish a Market
Ever notice that the first question after the entrepreneur gives a great pitch about their amazing new business is always...“so what do you have for sales?”...This is not a coincidence.
Educated investors want to know that there is a market for the product, that demand strong and that it will continue to grow. Nothing will scare away an educated investor faster than a big dreaming entrepreneur with no sales to show for all of their hard work.
Lesson: Have sales. Before looking for anyone else’s money prove that there is measureable demand for your product or service.
2. Know Your Numbers
Not sure what your profit margin is? Your gross and net income? What’s your financial projections next year? How about five years out?
The fact is, that you or someone from your team will need to have a strong grasp on the books to be taken seriously. At the end of the day an educated investor only cares about gaining a return on their investment. If the investor see’s that you don’t take great care in dealing with your money, there is no way that you’ll ever get any of theirs.
Lesson: People lie, numbers don’t. Educated investors will want you or someone on your management team to walk them through your company from a financial standpoint.
3. Know Your Industry
Before ever stepping foot inside an investors office you should have a deep understanding and grasp of the industry that you’re competing in. Who are the major players? What makes you unique? Or, as Mr. Wonderful would say, “what’s stopping those guys from crushing you like a bug?”
Lesson: Research. Research. Research. You should be reading blog posts, industry journals, magazines, books! Whatever you can get your hands on regarding your industry. Know the industry the back of your hand.
While we aren’t Sharks or Dragons, we at the Business Venture Clinic we can provide you with the information needed to ensure that you’re on the right path before making any early financings. Please contact us today, we look forward to hearing from you!
James Hamilton is a 3rd year exchange student at the University of Calgary's Faculty of Law.
Consumer Protection Changes in Alberta
Late in 2017, the Alberta government passed the Consumer Protection Act, which amended the former Fair Trading Act. These pieces of legislation provide the framework for consumer protection law in Canada, and contain restrictions and rights relevant to many small businesses and consumers that they may not be aware of.
The Bill, passed in December 2017, contains an updated preamble reading “all consumers have the right to be safe from unfair business practices, the right to be properly informed about products and transactions, and the right to reasonable access to redress when they have been harmed”, which is meant to reflect the additional protections to consumers throughout the document.
The Act establishes the right of a consumer to post negative reviews online. According to the new Act, “[a] business shall not include in a consumer transaction a provision that prohibits a consumer from publishing a review of the business or transaction.” The Section (183.1), also ensures that no action can be taken in respect of the publishing of a negative review unless it is “malicious, vexatious or harassing or otherwise made in bad faith.”
The bill is also relevant to those who’ve noticed mandatory arbitration clauses in the terms of any agreement they’ve entered into, such as with an internet service provider. According to the new Act, suppliers cannot enforce mandatory arbitration except in some circumstances. Those circumstances include where the consumer and supplier have agreed to arbitration after the dispute arose, or where the consumer can elect to use arbitration. So if you threaten court action on your next argument with your cell phone provider, your threat just got more credible.
Pet owners should also pay attention to the changes. Vets are required to disclose “all fees for the prescribed type of veterinary medicine services proposed” before the services are performed.
Another change to the Act, is the promise to establish a Consumer Bill of Rights, which will be the first of its kind in Canada. The new Part 8.1 of the Act creates a new series of rules targeting ticket resale bots. Under section 57.2, and secondary seller, or operator of a platform that sells tickets second hand will have to provide refunds where a ticket turns out to be counterfeit or does not work in granting admission to the event. Anyone operating a digital platform, such as Stubhub or Gametime, would therefore be subject to these rules if scammers attempt to use their platforms. This Part also outlaws any use of automated ticket purchasing software.
There is also a new set of rules for car dealers and repairs. This applies to consumers that are individuals or small businesses with a car fleet of five vehicles or less. Section 108.2 of the Act requires the business to provide provide a warranty in accordance with the regulations, provide an estimate of the cost of proposed work in accordance with the regulations, and prohibits vehicle repairs that are not authorized as required in the regulations. This Section is not yet inforce, but will have significant impacts on the sale and repair of vehicles once the regulations are introduced.
Alex Grigg is a 3rd year JD/MBA candidate at the University of Calgary.
Amendments to Regulatory Regime for Distributions of Securities Outside of Canada
The Canadian Securities Administrators has recently adopted amendments to National Instrument 45-102 Resale of Securities and changes to Companion Policy 45-102CP to National Instrument 45-102 Resale of Securities.
Provided all necessary regulatory and ministerial approvals are obtained, it is anticipated that the Amendments will come into force on June 12, 2018. As such, the following is subject to any further changes which may be implemented prior to such approval.
The amendments introduce a new prospectus exemption for the resale of securities (and underlying securities) of a foreign issuer if the issuer is not a reporting issuer in any jurisdiction of Canada, and the resale is on an exchange or a market outside of Canada or to a person or company outside of Canada.
A foreign issuer is an issuer that is not incorporated or organized under the laws in Canada unless certain circumstances suggest that the issuer has more than a minimal connection to Canada (i.e., the issuer has a head office in Canada or the majority of it directors or executive officers ordinarily reside in Canada).
In Alberta, the new exemption in section 2.15 and the existing exemption in section 2.14 will be located in the Alberta Securities Commission Blanket Order 45-519 Prospectus Exemptions for Resale Outside Canada (ASC Blanket Order 45-519). This is a step towards providing overall consistency in the approach to cross-border trading for both primary distributions outside Canada and the resale of securities outside Canada.
Reason for Change
This change represents a modernization of the regulatory regime for the distributions of securities outside of Canada so that it permits Canadian issuers and investors to participate competitively in the global capital markets.
The policy rationale for the changes to section 2.14 and 2.15 is to provide an exemption for resales outside of Canada for the securities of an issuer with a minimal exemption to Canada.
The guiding principle for section 2.14 is that it is not necessary to restrict the resale of securities over a foreign market or to a person or company outside Canada if the issuer has a minimal connection to Canada and there is little or no likelihood of a market for the securities to develop in Canada. The purpose of the ownership conditions is to measure whether the issuer has a minimal connection to Canada.
Since NI 45-102 has come into effect, securities regulation and information accessibility has changed worldwide. Canadian investors are increasingly acquiring securities of foreign issuers to participate in global market growth by investing in a more diversified global portfolio. Foreign securities are acquired either through private placements or on foreign exchanges. Many foreign issuers, without connection to Canada, are finding they have exceeded the ownership conditions, including through Canadians purchasing their securities on foreign markets. Due to this, Canadian security holders of these foreign issuers would hold the securities for an indefinite period. As such, the section 2.15 was adopted to provided an alternative to the ownership condition assessing whether an issuer has a minimal connection to Canada. Section 2.15 provides that a security holder is exempted from the prospectus requirement for the resale of securities acquired under a prospectus exemption if the resale is on an exchange, or a market, outside of Canada or to a person or company outside of Canada and if the issuer of the securities is a foreign issuer. A foreign issuer is an issuer that is not incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada.
Hussein Ghandour is a 3rd year student at the University of Calgary's Faculty of Law.
Do Unicorns Exist?
A “unicorn” is a private company with a valuation of over $1Billion. As the moniker suggests, the chance that a company will ever achieve this type of valuation is mythical (almost). Some unicorns that you may have heard of include, UBER, Airbnb and Pinterest. Only a handful of Canadian companies have achieved unicorn status. However, a recent study may have called the status of some of these companies into question.
A study from National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) suggests that many unicorn companies may, in fact, be greatly overvalued. It is difficult to accurately valuate growth companies and the problems are compounded as the complexity of their capital structure increases. Companies relying on venture capital often have many different types of shares because of the frequency in which they raise capital.
Post-money valuation is a metric that is often employed when referring to VC backed companies. Post-money is calculated after the injection of new capital by multiplying the per-share price of the most recent financing by the total number of common shares (including options and convertible shares). The problem with using post-money valuation in in VC backed companies is that not all share classes are created equal, and therefore should not be assigned the same value. The NBER study estimates that the average unicorn is overvalued by 50%.
Valuation issues aside, there are private companies that are undoubtedly worth more than $1Billion and should rightfully be called unicorns. My current favourite is Magic Leap, which had yet to release a product but has earned itself a $6Billion dollar valuation and has raised over $1.4billion in equity.