why technology clusters, innovation and M&A hubs arise, and what the secret sauce is, to creating and sustaining such successful hubs.
As a wider group of tech-savvy cities and regions now aspire to become the coolest innovation hubs, to foster economic development, efficient access to capital markets, entrepreneurship, job creation, talent acquisition, R&D, cross-border M&A deals and other favorable exit strategies, the answers to these questions are still a matter of debate.
Equally controversial is the question as to what metrics or selection criteria should be deemed more reliable, to objectively rank these hubs or ecosystems.
As recently reported by DealmakersHub, the most attractive innovation hubs and tech cities are not necessarily the largest. Indeed, according to Savillsand WSJ.com, Tel Aviv, with a population of merely 400, 000 has been ranked as the 3rd Top Tech City in the World, and 3rd Best Place Globally to Work in Tech.
[caption id="attachment_5576" align="aligncenter" width="440"] The 12 Cities at the Forefront of Global Tech – Savills World Research, Feb 2015[/caption]
Savills selected 12 top tech cities on the basis of their consistent appearance at the top of global shopping lists for tech companies looking for space in which to locate. Each is notable for having startup and incubator communities in the creative tech sector, as well as a very broad range of other attractions to both large and small companies.
[caption id="attachment_5425" align="aligncenter" width="440"] Top Cities for Tech Business – Savills/WSJ. March 2015[/caption]
In contrast, in November 2014 CB Insights had analyzed cities globally to learn which had experienced the largest growth in tech deals and transaction values over the previous two years.
International cities dominated the top 3, with Beijing (165% deal growth), Stockholm (127%), and Tokyo (126%) topping the list. On the other end of the spectrum, some of the more established cities in tech saw little or negative growth, like New York (6%), Cambridge (-12%), and Los Angeles (6%), as illusrated below.
[caption id="attachment_5575" align="aligncenter" width="440"] The Next Silicon Valley – CB Insights, Nov. 7, 2014[/caption]
Meanwhile, according to MIT Tech Review, “there is a spot just off the MIT campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that is home to what may be the world’s densest concentration of startup companies.” According to MIT, an innovation cluster’s chance of flourishing is contingent upon factors such as strong IP protection, good weather, liberal immigration laws, venture capital financing, and entrepreneurial culture.
[caption id="attachment_5579" align="aligncenter" width="440"] World Innovation Clusters, July 30, 2013 (compiled by MIT Tech from multiple sources)[/caption]
MIT Tech also ranked the world’s top innovation hubs, based on a breakdown of venture capital investments by region in 2012:
[caption id="attachment_5580" align="aligncenter" width="440"] 2012 VC Investments in Top Hot Spots – MIT Tech Review[/caption]
Finally, according to the Startup Ecosystem Report 2012, published by the Startup Genome in partnership with Telefonica Digital and researchers at Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley, these 20 ecosystem hot spots were considered a few years ago, the most active startup hubs in the world. Rankings were calculated based on success in 8 key areas: startup output, funding, performance, entrepreneurial mindset, trendsetting, support, talent, and differentiation.
[caption id="attachment_5578" align="aligncenter" width="440"] Startup Ecosystem Report 2012. Infographic Sources: Startup Genome, Telefonica Digital, Intuit. Infographic by Column Five. http://www.intuit.com.au/r/product-updates/top-20-entrepreneurial-hot-spots-around-the-globe/[/caption]
Not surprisingly, the answer to the secret sauce appears to remain elusive.
[avatar user=”NorbertMehl” size=”thumbnail” align=”left”][/avatar] Norbert Mehl, CEO at Global i Ventures, is a New York-based serial entrepreneur and investor engaged in start-ups, M&A, venture finance and real estate. He was born in Zurich and raised in Buenos Aires.
AZRG) raised 615 million shekels ($158 million) in a bond offering to institutional investors, according to Reuters.
The 5.5 year bonds will pay interest of 0.65 percent, the company said, noting that demand from Israel’s largest institutions reached 3.1 billion shekels.
Azrieli plans to raise an additional 700 million shekels through a public bond offering on Monday.
Azrieli Group is an Israeli real estate and holding company named after its founder David Azrieli. The Azrieli family holds 55% of the Group, and the Azrieli Foundations (Canada and Israel) hold 20% of the Group.
Azrieli Group is comprised of Israel’s leading shopping malls and offices; Granite HaCarmel (100%) with subsidiaries in the energy, water and environment industries (Sonol, Supergas and GES); 20% of credit card company Leumi Card; and 4.8% holdings in Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd.
Ms. Danna Azrieli is the Group chairman. Mr. Menachem Einan has served the Group for over 20 years is active deputy to the group’s chairman. The Group’s CEO is Mr. Yuval Bronstein.
The Group held an IPO in June 2010, raising approx. NIS 2.5 billion making it the largest-ever IPO on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The Group is included in the Tel Aviv 25 index, which covers the twenty five largest companies on the Israel Stock Exchange, and is the only Israeli Company included in the EPRA indices.]]>
offering prospectus with the S.E.C. to raise $3 million through the OTC Bulletin Board.
Nano-Textile was established in 2013 to commercialize and engage in the international industrial development of innovative technology for the production of anti-bacterial fabrics, which aim to fight infections acquired in hospitals and in the private market. It was originally incorporated under the name T.A.B. Anti-Bacterial Textiles, and changed its name to Nano-Textile in September 2014.
The startup’s technology was developed by Bar-Ilan University Prof. (Emeritus) Aharon Gedanken and his team. Prof. Gedanken is a member of the Nano Materials Center at the Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials (BINA), and a recipient of the President of Israel Achievement Award for coordination of a European Funded Research.
On June 10, 2014, Nano-Textile entered into a license agreement with Bar Ilan University’s Research and Development arm, the owner of certain technology relating to sono-chemical coating of textiles with metal oxide nano-particles developed by Prof. Gedanken and for which several patent applications have been filed. The license grants Nano-Textile the exclusive right to exploit the patent rights in Europe, Asia, South America, and Australia for the production and marketing of bed linen, drapery, upholstery, home textile and/or clothing.
Prof. Aharon Gedanken says he dreams of a day when hospitals are infection-free. “We are getting closer to the dream,” he says of his EU-funded project, which demonstrated how textiles treated with nano-particles can kill deadly bacteria.
The vision behind the European Commission grant that Gedanken leads with 17 partners from academia and industry is the Hospital of the Future, in which all all textiles such as bed sheets, pajamas, pillow covers, curtains, doctors’ robes, are antibacterial. Due to deep embedding of antibacterial nano-particles in the textiles, their antibacterial properties are maintained even after 65 hospital washing machine cycles at 92°C.]]>
h/t David Beisel – NextView Ventures Blog | The View From Seed
Today, NextView Ventures is excited to release a pillar project in our Growth Guides series: pitch deck templates for raising seed capital. These help address a common question which we frequently receive from entrepreneurs about how to create startup pitch decks for this crucial financial milestone.
For context, last year, based on questions from our existing portfolio, we launched two board deck templates for seed-stage startups. These were well-received, so we next turned our attention to entrepreneurs outside the portfolio to ask what questions we could address in a similar fashion. The response was consistent and clear: “Thanks for those board decks — hope to use them someday — but I’m still raising a seed round right now. What makes a great pitchdeck?”
This answer was somewhat surprising — there seem to be several templates like this which already exist. But the feedback we received was that those decks (a) are somewhat generic and not built specifically for seed-stage startups, which often require more art than science during the pitch, and (b) lack storytelling components and design and layout sensibility.
So, we hope these two deck resources can address both issues. We also aimed to take these one step further by adding our own VC commentary throughout the slides and by providing two different, somewhat unique versions of great pitch decks.
Read on for more context, or download your templates right here:
(Clicking will take you to a Dropbox page where you can download the file.)
Two Unique Pitch Deck Styles
Jay Acunzo, our Director of Platform who largely created these slides, asked us a poignant question before we began this project: Aside from the accepted format of pitch decks today, what did we as VCs wish they could be? If we’re designing a great early-stage startup pitch from the ground up, what would that look like?
From our perspective at NextView, startup pitch meetings should come in two flavors:
The first is a conversation.
Usually, when raising a seed round, your pitch process with a VC firm starts with a small number of meetings with just one or two team members — or else you’re pitching angel investors individually. In those contexts, it’s a lot less likely that you’ll want to stand up and “pitch” a deck. Usually, a more human interaction works better. You introduce yourself, you talk about why you started your company, and you start digging into the details in a conversational way.
This is the way my partners and I tend to operate in our initial meetings, too, whether we’re being pitched or raising money ourselves. In the end, I think discussion-based meetings are simply the way people want to interact with others they’re speaking with for the first time. It just feels more human and natural, in addition to helping both sides learn a great deal about the other.
The second type of pitch is more of a show.
Maybe you are presenting in front of a crowd in a demo-day scenario, or perhaps it’s to a larger group like the full partnership of a big firm. In these cases, the interaction is very, very different. It tends to be more one-way — more of a presentation than a discussion.
In these pitches, you have to carefully choose the details into which you dive more deeply, since you don’t want anything to go over people’s heads, nor do you want to confuse an audience that lacks the ability to have a back-and-forth discussion to find clarity.
Instead, what you actually want to do is drive home the story and the excitement of the opportunity, as well as the inevitability of your success. Emotion is a bit more crucial here, since this may be the first or only major interaction you have with these people during your fundraise.
But here’s the problem we often encounter with the standard pitch deck:
Most fundraising decks are a poor compromise between the needs of both of these meetings — conversation and show — and so they leave much to be desired as an investor, generally speaking.
To address this and slightly rethink what pitches should be, we created two different suggested templates for fundraising decks: a short explainer with a “kitchen sink” FAQ section and another style we’ve dubbed “The Show.”
Some quick context on each:
The first template you’ll encounter is designed for a discussion-based pitch. It’s super short – just a handful of slides to convey the basic, critical details up front. However, it includes a “kitchen sink” of FAQs in the appendix.
The shortness of the up front pitch can be incredibly helpful one-on-one. When you’re speaking to an investor, you can say, “I have a few slides that might help introduce the company, but we can keep it pretty conversational and dive into specific questions once you get the gist.”
It fits the format, but it also allows you to demonstrate mastery over the details of your business by pulling up a slide from the appendix if/when the discussion requires it. Does the VC have a detailed question about the product roadmap? No problem, just turn to page 16 in the appendix. Did the discussion evolve into an exploration of your go-to-market strategy? Perfect — easily pull up page 6 in the appendix as a backdrop to the conversation.
Also, you don’t need to sweat the order of the details in the appendix to weave the pieces together like a high-school essay. The first few slides are neatly and logically ordered, while the appendix serves as backup.
As my partner Rob Go points out, this approach puts you on more equal footing with an investor: “It’s less of a ‘pitch to me’ kind of interaction and more of a discussion, which is really good in building early trust and rapport.”
The appendix becomes a flexible go-to resource to augment a genuine dialog with the investor. This Explainer+Kitchen Sink approach allows for a natural discussion to unfold, while still clearly demonstrating that you’ve come fully prepared and have a strong handle on your business. In a one-on-one setting, this format is going to have much more of an impact than the more rote “flipbook” of slide after slide.
Pitch Deck Template #2: The Show
This second deck is great for the second type of meeting where there’s a larger audience. This is when emotion-driven stories delivered start to finish make more sense. The Show is longer and very focused on telling a cohesive narrative that elicits a (hopefully) positive emotional response.
By including The Show in our templates, we’re also acknowledging that certain settings aren’t well suited to digging into all of the details of the business and that different members of the audience likely start from different places in their understanding of what’s going in on your company and your market.
That said, The Show isn’t just fluff. It should demonstrate good prioritization of the details that matter from the entrepreneur. You need to have just as much mastery over your business as in the case of the other pitch deck in the event that an investor wants to dig in a bit further.
Like all templates, these are just guides, and you probably don’t want to include absolutely everything in your own deck. As you flip through the slides which we’ve created, look for the call-outs from my partners and I to inform your own versions.
Pitching NextView? Some Context
Although we hope this helps entrepreneurs generally, we recognize that some of the audience reading might eventually meet with someone at NextView. To that end, I wanted to share at least a little context, which is simply this: Stay true to your own style and comfort level. Don’t feel the need to directly utilize either or both of these templates — they’re merely suggested guides for those at the beginning of the deck creation process, not prescriptions on how things have to be done. Every startup is unique, and so are the best ways to present them.
Without further ado, I encourage you to download these templates and share with anyone that might benefit. Best of luck telling your startup’s story and delivering a successful pitch.
By Eliza Sporn Fromberg and Norbert Mehl
It has been over a year since the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permitted securities issuers to market their capital raises using general solicitation and general advertising while still qualifying for an exemption from public registration. During this time, hundreds of online crowdfunding platforms have launched – seemingly overnight – offering investment opportunities in private companies. For a company seeking to raise capital, these “accredited crowdfunding”[i] platforms offer the tantalizing possibility of raising funds with the click of a button. As this new industry grows and develops, it’s conceivable certain accredited crowdfunding platforms may become as ubiquitous as traditional broker-dealers. But in this nascent industry, how should a company seeking to raise capital for a new or existing venture go about selecting the most suitable crowdfunding solution? The following are 10 things you should know before engaging in accredited crowdfunding.
1. Who is eligible to raise funds through accredited crowdfunding?
In the United States, securities offerings made pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 are not deemed “public” offerings under the securities laws and are therefore exempt from public registration with the SEC. With one exception, any company can make this type of “private” offering of its securities – and raise an unlimited amount of money from accredited investors – using general solicitation and general advertising, either on its own or using an intermediary such as an accredited crowdfunding platform. However, an issuer of securities is prohibited from making a private offering in reliance on Rule 506 if the issuer or certain “covered persons” including directors, executive officers, certain shareholders, and placement agents of the issuer have been convicted of securities fraud or other violations within 10 years of the proposed sale of securities (or five years in the case of the issuer). The “bad actor” disqualification rules apply to all Rule 506 offerings, regardless of whether general solicitation or general advertising is used.
2. Which accredited crowdfunding platform is right for you?
There are hundreds of accredited crowdfunding platforms, and new ones are being launched every day. In order to determine which platform aligns most closely with a particular issuer’s or investor’s interests, it is vital to understand the regulatory scheme under which the platform operates, the fee structure, the types of issuers and investors the platform attracts, its managerial and financial resources, the amount of qualified website traffic it generates, and its industry vertical expertise. Each of these factors may impact the success of the offering.
Certain accredited crowdfunding platforms pool the capital raised from accredited investors into private investment funds, which in turn make investments in selected companies listed on the platform. Under this “VC fund/private fund adviser” model, the platform typically acts as an investment adviser to the specially created private funds, and its performance-based compensation hinges on the profits (if any) generated by the funds it manages.[ii] The platform (or a lead angel investor) may provide strategic advice and connections to the funds’ portfolio companies. Although this model may appear to align the platform’s and the issuer’s interests, a platform (or a lead angel investor) focused on an accelerated return on investment and liquidity may induce a company to seek an earlier exit.
Other accredited crowdfunding platforms are registered broker-dealers, or are owned, operated by or partnered with registered broker-dealers. These platforms facilitate sales of the issuing company’s securities directly to accredited investors. The broker-dealer model platforms receive transaction-based compensation, typically consisting of a percentage of the funds raised, generally ranging from 1 to 10 percent, depending on the offering amount and type of deal. A company that completes a successful raise under this model may discover it suddenly has a large number of small individual shareholders.
Subscription-based platforms charge a flat monthly fee to companies for listing their securities offerings on the platform. The amount of the fee depends on the complexity of the offering and the optional services selected by the company, such as access to particular software or business plan assistance. Subscription model platforms are typically not registered as broker-dealers or investment advisers. Accredited investors and companies seeking funding connect through the platform but negotiate the terms of the investment without the platform’s assistance. Companies using a subscription model platform must be prepared to spend significant time and effort courting and negotiating with potential investors.
3. Why not DIY?
Some companies may find it appealing to raise money directly by making their own general solicitation offering via their company website. Putting aside the obvious challenge of raising a large amount of capital without the aid of an intermediary, placement agent or finder, a company conducting its own general solicitation will need to undertake certain steps to reasonably verify that all purchasers of the offering are accredited investors. Simply having the investors “check a box” indicating they meet the accreditation standard is not sufficient. The fact-intensive and time-consuming accredited investor verification process can be outsourced to a third-party provider, provided the issuer has a reasonable basis to rely on the third party’s verification.
For any capital raise made through a general solicitation, but particularly for one conducted without an intermediary, the best practice is to have a robust offering document, drafted with the assistance of counsel, that describes the terms of the investment. Written disclosure of the risks of the investment will help protect the issuer in the event of a fraud claim.
4. What’s the company’s ideal “cap table”?
In selecting a crowdfunding platform, it’s important to consider the number and types of shareholders that would be most beneficial to the company. Having a single shareholder on the “cap table,” as is typically the case under the “VC fund/private fund adviser” model, where the shareholder is the platform-advised fund, may relieve the issuer of logistical headaches, allowing it to focus primarily on its business operations. However, this approach may require the company to relinquish greater management control.
5. Who will handle the due diligence process?
Aside from pitching a business plan and its viability to potential investors, issuing companies must be prepared to be subjected to a thorough due diligence investigation of the company; its founders, management team and operations; and the proposed use of proceeds. Before choosing a platform, issuers should consider the extent of due diligence conducted and who is conducting the due diligence. Accredited crowdfunding platforms that are registered broker-dealers are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of the issuer and the securities when recommending securities sold in offerings made pursuant to Regulation D.[iii] In contrast, subscription-based crowdfunding platforms generally are not responsible for due diligence, which must be conducted by each investor independently. With regard to the VC fund/private fund adviser platforms, if an experienced and reputable lead angel commits to making a large investment at the outset of a fundraising campaign, it would be reasonable to assume the lead angel would have conducted some basic due diligence and vetting of the issuer and the proposed venture’s likelihood of success.
Some investors prefer to use accredited crowdfunding platforms that curate or vet the offerings listed. Other investors, mindful of the high risk of failure of most startups, may prefer to do their own vetting and due diligence.
6. Who will handle investor relations?
Before launching an accredited crowdfunding campaign, a prospective issuer would be wise to consider who will handle the company’s investor relations (IR) and how it plans to communicate with its shareholders after the closing of the offering. Investor relations consists of the management of ongoing relations and communications of vital corporate and financial information between a company and its shareholders. The primary purpose of IR is to maximize a company’s market value in the eyes and minds of the investment community. In a small or growing startup, IR is typically handled by the company’s chief financial officer or treasurer, with the assistance of an inside public relations (PR) team or an outside PR or IR agency.
7. What’s the purpose of a transfer agent?
Although raising capital can be exciting, the less glamorous intricacies of the form in which the company will issue shares should not be neglected. Before launching a fundraising campaign, the company should decide whether it will issue paper certificates or the securities will be held in electronic book-entry form. To keep track of its shareholders, the number of shares owned and how the stocks are held, securities issuers typically engage independent transfer agents that issue and cancel stock certificates to reflect changes in ownership. A company may maintain its own share register and act as its own transfer agent, but attempting to do so may be impractical or unreliable if the company is small and has numerous shareholders.
8. How will the closing of the crowdfunded offering be handled?
The closing is the most critical step of any securities offering. Therefore, it is essential to have in place a compliant but efficient and secure method to collect, centralize, store and seamlessly transfer third-party funds and exchange closing documents. Many accredited crowdfunding platforms outsource this process to vendors that provide independent escrow accounts for each crowdfunding project, collect e-signatures and funds from multiple accredited investors, and either safely return funds if the securities offering fails to reach its desired minimum threshold in time or disburse the funds at closing, when the offering reaches its funding goal.
9. Can a foreign company (successfully) raise investment capital in the United States or engage in a dual cross-border offering?
During the past year there have been several successful equity crowdfunding campaigns undertaken by foreign startups in the United States. Odyssey Airlines conducted a dual equity crowdfunding campaign in the United Kingdom and the United States via London-based Crowdcube, a leading European crowdfunding platform, and San Diego-based Crowdfunder. OurCrowd, which was founded in Israel in February 2013, is at the forefront of multijurisdictional accredited equity crowdfunding, having raised more than $60 million from approximately 5,000 accredited investors mostly in the United States, for 46 startups based primarily in Israel. Companies that raise funds from both U.S. and non-U.S. investors must consider the regulatory and compliance implications of making multijurisdictional offerings.
10. What is the outlook for accredited crowdfunding platforms internationally?
Equity crowdfunding has become a truly global phenomenon, with more than 1,000 platforms operating worldwide, and is emerging as a multibillion-dollar global industry. The global crowdfunding market grew from an estimated $1 billion in 2010 to more than $5 billion in 2013, with the North American market accounting for $3.7 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal. The World Bank estimates the global investment crowdfunding market is expected to reach $93 billion by 2025, while some venture capital professionals predict it could grow to $300 billion. As the market continues to grow and evolve, potential initial public offerings of leading global investment crowdfunding platforms are being contemplated by various industry participants. Consolidation and M&A activity in this sector are also expected to accelerate.
According to the World Bank’s 2013 infoDev report, there were approximately 87 investment crowdfunding platforms in the United Kingdom, 53 in France, 34 in Canada, 34 in the Netherlands, 27 in Spain, 26 in Germany, 17 in Brazil, 15 in Italy, 10 in India and 4 in Russia. Australia legalized crowdfunding seven years ago, and by 2013 it had approximately 12 investment crowdfunding platforms. Overall, in the developing countries, the investment crowdfunding market is still relatively small. The greatest growth potential may lie in China. CTQuan, a Beijing-based equity crowdfunding platform founded in 2011, recently raised $4 million. According to the World Bank, investment crowdfunding in China is expected to grow to approximately $50 billion by 2025.
This is an exciting time for accredited crowdfunding platforms and companies seeking new sources of capital. Both the legal framework and business practices governing private offerings are in rapid transition. It’s virtually impossible for a company in fundraising mode to ignore the opportunities presented by accredited crowdfunding, but in order to maximize its chances of having a successful capital raise, an issuer must carefully evaluate the merits of different platforms’ accredited crowdfunding models; think through the mechanics of the closing, securities transfers and shareholder communications; and understand how each accredited crowdfunding platform addresses its legal and compliance obligations.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Eliza Sporn Fromberg is counsel in the Corporate and Business Law group of Day Pitney LLP, where her practice focuses on advising broker-dealers and investment advisers in connection with regulatory and compliance matters. She previously served as managing director and general counsel of ThinkEquity LLC, a boutique investment bank.
Norbert Mehl is the CEO of Global i Ventures, an M&A adviser specializing in international mergers and acquisitions of startups and emerging growth companies. He is a New York-based multilingual serial entrepreneur and investor, born in Switzerland and raised in Argentina.
[i] The term “accredited crowdfunding” refers to securities offered pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, which became effective on September 23, 2013. Previously, to qualify for the Rule 506 safe harbor from SEC registration, an offering could not be made via general advertising or general solicitation. Title II of the JOBS Act required the SEC to adopt Rule 506(c), which permits “private” offerings of securities to be made to the general public where all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify the purchasers are accredited investors. This article does not address the crowdfunding rules proposed by the SEC to implement the requirements of Title III of the JOBS Act (“Regulation Crowdfunding”). Regulation Crowdfunding, once effective, would permit offerings to both accredited and nonaccredited investors.
[ii] Pursuant to SEC no-action letters, a platform following this model may receive carried interest as compensation without being required to register as a broker-dealer under Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See FundersClub Inc. and FundersClub Management LLC, SEC No-Action Letter, 2013 WL 1229456 (March 26, 2013); AngelList LLC and AngelList Advisors LLC, SEC No-Action Letter, 2013 WL 1279194 (March 28, 2013). According to these no-action letters, the platform is permitted to receive carried interest only upon the liquidation of the managed funds. If a platform does not comply with the no-action guidance, it may be operating in violation of the securities laws and face possible governmental enforcement action and monetary penalties. In addition, using an unregistered broker-dealer may create a rescission right in favor of the purchasers of the securities, potentially requiring the issuing company to return the funds it raised in the offering. This potential rescission right can have a significant negative impact on a company’s ability to raise funds in the future.
[iii] Upon its enactment by the SEC, Regulation Crowdfunding is expected to impose substantive due diligence obligations on the broker-dealer and funding portal intermediaries offering securities pursuant to Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the respective publishers. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.]]>