Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

US China Legal Exchange - 12-9-13


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

US China Legal Exchange - 12-9-13

  1. 1. 2013 U.S.-China Legal Exchange Legal Aspects of Entrepreneurship in China James C. Chapman Partner, Bingham McCutchen LLP December 9, 2013
  2. 2. Why China? “It’s dynamic, messy and very different. But Silicon Valley aside, there’s no better place on earth for tech right now.” - Kai Lukoff, TechCrunch. “Every year another wave of “sea turtles” — Chinese who have studied or worked abroad — returns home. Many have worked with the world’s best engineers at MIT and Stanford. Many have seen firsthand how Silicon Valley works.” - The Economist, March 2012. “Success is where preparation meets opportunity.” - Scott McNealy, former CEO of SUN Microsystems. • China faces big challenges in many areas including communications, logistics, healthcare, food and agriculture, water, pollution control and abatement. • China has a very talented and hardworking population. 2
  3. 3. The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Comparison — China and U.S. Venture Capital • 2011 U.S. — $28.4 billion in 3,673 deals (PWC Coopers/NVCA Money Tree Report) • 2012 U.S. — $26.5 billion in 3,698 deals approx. 10% decline • 2011 China — $6.44 billion • 2012 China — $4.94 billion significantly down from 2011 when $6.44 billion was invested. The greater Beijing area captured 28% of the investment dollars followed by Jiangsu province, Shenzhen and Shanghai. • 2013 — through the 3rd quarter, VC firms raised only $1.62 billion and invested $1.74 billion in start-ups • Consumer Services led the way followed by information technology and business and financial services. Source: Dow Jones Venture Source, PWC MoneyTree Report. 3
  4. 4. Ecosystem Differences United States • Culture — there is a tremendous amount of knowledge sharing, collaboration and mentoring; there is a culture of trust that encourages people with diverse skills to meet, come together and take risks together. • Universities — most universities have good technology transfer programs • Service Providers — attorneys, CPAs and consultants understand start- ups and are able to accommodate their needs • Incubators and Accelerators — these are plentiful and the numbers are growing rapidly, i.e. Plug N’ Play Y-Combinator • Ease of starting a business — can form a corporation in one day and open a bank account in one day • Government — little involvement 4
  5. 5. Ecosystem Differences China • Culture — knowledge is carefully guarded, high suspicion of copying, little or no toleration of failure. However, those who make it big are “rock stars.” • Universities — technology transfer programs are undeveloped or nonexistent • Service Providers — few attorneys, CPA’s, consultants understand start- ups • Incubators and Accelerators — are growing in number. China is building 150 start-up incubators for students returning from overseas. • Ease of starting a business — challenging and time consuming. Opening a bank account can take months. • Government — major involvement. Major source of funding, cheap office space, tax incentives. However, the process is tedious and time consuming, relationship driven, bureaucratic reporting requirements. In 2010, Chinese Government provided $4.16 billion in loans to new enterprises (a 65% increase over 2009). 5
  6. 6. Start-up Challenges in China • Pervasiveness of copycats — history of copying; copying Internet business models is easy and cheap; lack of strong IP enforcement • Lack of experienced talent especially at the CXO level. In recent study of top engineering students, the top career choice was government (52%); in U.S., government is 5%. In China the number interested in launching or joining a start-up is 3%. In the U.S., the number is 22%. • Cultural differences — lower appetite for risk, intolerance of failure, unwillingness to share, lack of serial entrepreneurs, inability to offer competitive salary, stock options ineffective at attracting and incentivizing employees • Different Exit Environment — in China 69% of exits are IPOs; in the U.S. 90% of exits are M&A 6
  7. 7. Exit Environment IPO Market in China • China’s stock markets declined from 2011 to 2012 and again from 2012 to 2013. • 2012 — 46 IPOs of venture-backed companies, a major drop from the 99 venture-backed IPOs in 2011. This accounted for approximately 77% of the exits. In October 2012, The Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission suspended new listings in China. 49 venture-backed companies went public in the U.S. • 2013 — during the first three quarters, there were only 3 IPOs of venture- backed companies in China. There were 57 in the U.S. 7
  8. 8. Mergers and Acquisitions 8 Comparison of M&A Psychology — U.S. and China United States China Speed If do not acquire, competitors will. Due to regulatory complexities and barriers to M&A, why acquire when one can copy? IP Can be acquired for strategic purposes, offensive or defensive. IP has low perceived value. Penalties for infringement are too low to deter. Talent In war for talent, M&A allows one to acquire valuable developers, managers and entrepreneurs. Low value, high turnover.
  9. 9. About Jim Chapman 9 James C. Chapman Partner Corporate Practice Group T 650.849.4850 James C. Chapman focuses his practice on securities law, venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and international business transactions. He has more than 25 years experience in corporate and securities law and has been involved in over 250 mergers, acquisitions and financing transactions. These transactions have included public offerings, private placements, debt financings, venture capital transactions, stock sales, asset sales, mergers, reorganizations and recapitalizations. James also has a significant background in international transactions, particularly dealing with China and Chinese-related companies. These transactions include both assisting Chinese companies invest and raise capital in the U.S. and helping U.S. firms make investments and operate in China. From the media industry to the pharmaceutical industry, he has been engaged in working with clients on numerous China-U.S. transactions and matters.
  10. 10. Beijing Boston Frankfurt Hartford Hong Kong London Los Angeles New York Orange County San Francisco Santa Monica Silicon Valley Tokyo Washington Bingham McCutchen® © 2012 Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726 ATTORNEY ADVERTISING To communicate with us regarding protection of your personal information or to subscribe or unsubscribe to some or all of Bingham McCutchen LLP’s electronic and mail communications, notify our privacy administrator at or (privacy policy available at We can be reached by mail (ATT: Privacy Administrator) in the US at One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726 or at 41 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HF, UK, or at 866.749.3064 (US) or +08 (08) 234.4626 (international). Bingham McCutchen (London) LLP, a Massachusetts limited liability partnership authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (registered number: 00328388), is the legal entity which operates in the UK as Bingham. A list of the names of its partners and their qualification is open for inspection at the address above. All partners of Bingham McCutchen (London) LLP are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers. This communication is being circulated to Bingham McCutchen LLP’s clients and friends. It is not intended to provide legal advice addressed to a particular situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Circular 230 Disclosure: Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, for the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers may rely only on opinions of counsel that meet specific requirements set forth in the regulations, including a requirement that such opinions contain extensive factual and legal discussion and analysis. Any tax advice that may be contained herein does not constitute an opinion that meets the requirements of the regulations. Any such tax advice therefore cannot be used, and was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties that the Internal Revenue Service may attempt to impose.