On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Venture Capital 2017

Released on: Dec. 11, 2017
Running Time: 06:29:24

This program provides an in-depth analysis of current market conditions and the changing legal environment, and is geared toward the experienced venture capital practitioner. Our expert faculty of lawyers, venture capitalists and business executives will analyze the legal and business issues relevant to navigating today’s evolving venture capital world.

The program will also address the latest financing trends, current deal terms, exit strategies, and legal and practical implications of the new securities laws on the venture capital market.


Lecture Topics [Total time 00:07:00]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:02:48]
    Christie Branson Ma, Curtis L. Mo
  • VC Industry Topics [00:38:44]
    Sulu Mamdani, Daren Matsuoka
  • Early Stage Investment Trends [01:01:55]
    Yoichiro Taku, Brian C. Patterson
  • Late Stage Investment Trends [01:06:10]
    Curtis L. Mo, John V. Bautista
  • Corporate Venturing [00:51:50]
    Judith A. Hasko, Kelly Warrick, Matthew McElhattan
  • VC-Backed Company IPOs [00:45:20]
    Richard A. Kline, Stephen Salmon
  • VC-Backed Company M&A [01:06:30]
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt, Eric H. Wang, Rick Fink
  • Corporate Governance in VC-Backed Companies [00:56:05]
    Jeffrey R. Wolters, Mark A. Leahy

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • State of the Markets: Third Quarter 2017
    Sean Lawson, Steven Pipp, Steve Allan, Christie Branson Ma
  • U.S. Startup Outlook 2017
    Christie Branson Ma
  • Silicon Valley Venture Capital Survey Second Quarter 2017
    Khang Tran, Mark A. Leahy, Cynthia Clarfield Hess
  • Silicon Valley Venture Capital Survey First Quarter 2017
    Khang Tran, Cynthia Clarfield Hess, Mark A. Leahy
  • Explanation of Certain Terms Used in Venture Financing Terms Survey (February 23, 2012)
    Barry J. Kramer, Mark A. Leahy, Michael J. Patrick
  • The Entrepreneurs Report: Private Company Financing Trends—1H 2017
    Yoichiro Taku
  • Cooley Venture Financing in Review
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt
  • Q2 2017—Deal Volumes and Valuations Accelerate
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt
  • Dual-Class Stock: A Founder Favorite Faces Growing Investor Disapproval
    Lianna Whittleton
  • Unicorns and Other High-Valuation Deals
    Ben Hance, Calise Cheng
  • Life Sciences Collaboration Agreements (PowerPoint slides)
    Judith A. Hasko
  • Venture Monitor 2Q 2017
    Nizar Tarhuni, Kyle Stanford, Bryan Hanson, Reilly Hammond, Curtis L. Mo, Alex Lykken, Jennifer Sam
  • IPO Readiness (August 2017)
    Richard A. Kline
  • Corporate Governance Practices in U.S. Initial Public Offerings (June 2016)
    Sarah K. Solum
  • Fortis Insight: Accounts Receivable in M&A (October 10, 2017)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Working Capital Adjustments to the Purchase Price (December 28, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Survival Periods for Representations and Warranties (June 22, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Understanding the Materiality Scrape (June 16, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Establishing Shareholder Representative Expense Funds (May 30, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Interest Accrual on Appraisal Rights (May 3, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Controlling Defense of Third Party Claims (April 21, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Purchase Price Adjustments vs. Indemnification Claims (March 28, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Monitoring the Earn-Out (March 7, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Eliminating Reliance on Pre-Closing Statements (February 23, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Retention of the Attorney-Client Privilege (February 1, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Fortis Insight: Aligning Buyer & Seller Interests (January 12, 2016)
    Rick Fink
  • Cooley M&A: Recent Developments in Private Sales
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt
  • Corporate Governance Practices and Trends: A Comparison of Large Public Companies and Silicon Valley Companies (2016)
    Mark A. Leahy, David A. Bell
  • Analysis of the 2017 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (September 15, 2017)
    Jeffrey R. Wolters, James D. Honaker
  • PwC/CB Insights, MoneyTree Report Q3 2017
    Curtis L. Mo

Presentation Material


  • State of the Markets
    Sulu Mamdani, Daren Matsuoka
  • Early Stage Investment Trends
    Brian C. Patterson, Yoichiro Taku
  • Late Stage Investment Trends
    John V. Bautista, Curtis L. Mo
  • Corporate Venture Capital Investments
    Judith A. Hasko, Matthew McElhattan, Kelly Warrick
  • VC Backed Company IPOs
    Richard A. Kline, Sarah K. Solum
  • Cooley Venture Financing in Review Handout
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt
  • Q2 2017 - Deal Volumes and Valuations Accelerate Handout
    Steven J. Tonsfeldt
  • VC-Backed Company M&A
    Rick Fink, Steven J. Tonsfeldt, Eric H. Wang
  • Corporate Governance and Venture-Backed Companies
    Mark A. Leahy, Jeffrey R. Wolters
Co-Chair(s)
Christie Branson Ma ~ Associate General Counsel, Silicon Valley Bank / SVB Capital
Curtis L. Mo ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Speaker(s)
John V. Bautista ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Rick Fink ~ CEO and Managing Director , Fortis Advisors
Judith A. Hasko ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Richard A. Kline ~ Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP
Mark A. Leahy ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Sulu Mamdani ~ Managing Partner, SVB Capital
Daren Matsuoka ~ Data Analyst, SVB Capital
Matthew McElhattan ~ Investment Director, Munich Re / HSB Ventures
Brian C. Patterson ~ Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP
Stephen Salmon ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Yoichiro Taku ~ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Steven J. Tonsfeldt ~ Cooley LLP
Eric H. Wang ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Kelly Warrick ~ Chief Investment Counsel, GE Ventures
Jeffrey R. Wolters ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Venture Capital 2019 (San Francisco, CA) Oct. 29, 2019

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

Advanced Venture Capital 2018 Oct. 24, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Venture Capital 2019  
Advanced Venture Capital 2018  
Advanced Venture Capital 2017 Christie Branson Ma, SVB Capital
Curtis L. Mo, DLA Piper LLP (US)
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.