Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Kirkland & Ellis LLP is on track to achieve annual revenue of around $5 billion following an upsurge of demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Times first reported.
Insiders at the Chicago-based firm said that its turnover was approaching $5 billion for the twelve months to the end of January, up from $4.45 billion in the previous year. One partner described the firm’s performance as “eye-watering”.
Kirkland & Ellis is the largest law firm in the world by revenue and the seventh-largest by number of attorneys. It is also the first law firm to have made $4 billion in annual revenue, a record it is now poised to beat.
However, the firm will not publicly disclose its financial results. Partners reported that its leadership is concerned by how reports of its exceptionally strong performance will be received during a global health crisis.
“This crisis is a humanitarian issue so it doesn’t feel right to be talking about how well you’ve done,” one said.
The firm’s success was attributed to growth in its three main areas of focus: private equity, restructuring and litigation. Costs were also cut drastically by the elimination of legal conferences and the need to travel overseas, as well as expensive catering for clients.
Kirkland & Ellis also advised on nine high-profile M&A deals in the automotive sector during 2020, worth a total of %3.7 billion.
[ymal]
In a Wells Fargo survey of 125 big law firms, overall net income grew 25.6% annually in the first half of 2020, greatly surpassing analysts’ expectations of a profit downturn sparked by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
8 March - 9 March 2021 | Online Summit
The IP Law Summit is an invitation-only, premium Summit bringing leading IP executives and innovative suppliers and solution providers together. The Summit’s content is aligned with key IP challenges and interests, relevant market developments, and practical and progressive ideas and strategies adopted by successful pioneers.
The privately held one-on-one meetings with leading solution providers will offer a wealth of expertise in cutting edge technology, strategy and implementation. All this seamlessly integrated with informal networking opportunities over two days will provide a unique interactive forum. Do not miss this opportunity to network, establish new connections, exchange ideas and gain knowledge.
Find out more and how to register here: https://events.marcusevans-events.com/iplaw-summit-march21/
Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi is suing the US government over its inclusion on an official list of companies with ties to the Chinese military.
In January, under the Trump administration, the Defense Department added Xiaomi and a further eight companies to a list of companies purported to have ties with the Chinese military. When a company is placed on the list, US investors are required to divest their holdings in the firm by a set deadline.
Xiaomi Corp filed its complaint against the US Defence and Treasury Departments in a Washington district court on Friday. The complaint was addressed to Biden appointees Lloyd Austin and Janet Yellen.
The company is seeking to be removed from the list, to which it characterises its inclusion as “unlawful and unconstitutional” and claims it is not controlled by the People’s Liberation Army. It states in its complaint that 75% of the company’s voting rights are held by co-founders Lin Bin and Lei Jun under a weighted structure.
Should the investment restrictions come into effect on 15 March as designated, they would cause “immediate and irreparable harm to Xiaomi”, the lawsuit adds, as a “substantial number” of its shareholders are US residents.
The firm also claims that its designation on the list “deprives Xiaomi of its liberty and property rights without due process of law.”
[ymal]
Xiaomi is the world’s third-largest smartphone manufacturer, having benefited greatly from sanctions placed on rival Huawei by the US and other western nations. It shipped 43.3 million units in Q4 2020, up more than a third, and controls 11.2% of the global smartphone market.
8 March - 9 March 2021 | Online Summit
The Chief Litigation Officer Online Summit will highlight the current challenges and opportunities for leading in-house litigation counsel across the nation through visionary keynote presentations and case studies delivered by your most esteemed peers and thought leaders in the industry.
The privately held online one-on-one meetings will offer a wealth of expertise in cutting edge technology, strategy and implementation. All this seamlessly integrated with informal networking opportunities over three days will provide a unique interactive forum. Do not miss this opportunity to network, establish new connections, exchange ideas and gain knowledge.
Find out more about the event and how to book your place here: https://events.marcusevans-events.com/chieflit-march-21/
A barrister who was widely condemned for tweeting about a “stroppy teenager of colour” has been expelled from his chambers, though he claims to have resigned four days earlier.
John Holbrook was expelled from Cornerstone Barristers, where he had been a member for fifteen years, according to a statement released by the chambers over the weekend.
Holbrook received widespread criticism after posting a tweet on 17 January in response to a video from the Equality and Human Rights Commission telling the story of a black girl who was sent home from school because her hairstyle contravened its dress code.
“The Equality Act undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager of colour,” Holbrook tweeted.
The tweet gained wide media attention, with shadow justice secretary David Lammy also speaking out against Holbrook’s remarks. An investigation was subsequently launched by Cornerstone Barristers, who asked Holbrook twice to take the tweet down, though he refused.
“Members were clear that statements made on social media by Mr Holbrook were irreconcilable with membership of Cornerstone Barristers,” a spokesperson for Cornerstone wrote.
“Cornerstone Barristers reiterates its repudiation of the contents of Mr Holbrook’s particularly offensive tweet on 17 January at 09:34hrs and all that it insinuated. Mr Holbrook’s views never reflected the views of these chambers. We unequivocally condemn discrimination in all its forms.”
[ymal]
Commenters have noted that the 17 January tweet was not the first example of Holbrook posting inflammatory comments on social media. A tweet posted in October 2014 read: “Identity politics have tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize as 1000s point out that 5 of the last 12 winners were Muslim”.
Holbrook, who characterised his critics as a “woke mob”, claimed that he had resigned four days prior to his expulsion, “having concluded that I no longer wanted to practise as a full-time barrister.”
We miss the sound of laughter mixed with a martini at the much-deserved après-ski and long for the comforting warmth a fresh, hot coffee brings on a snow-filled balcony. How does coffee taste so much better in the mountains?
I know many of you will be missing your annual ski trip to France for what may be the second year in a row. Some resorts remain open for lucky locals but for those far away from the peaks and pistes, this article will hopefully get you excited to return either later this year, or next. Things will slowly begin looking up and now is a good time to get planning on some of the trips we have long awaited for; after all, there is nothing more refreshing than a morning glide down some of the most scenic and jaw-dropping landscapes the world has to offer.
Here are our top three ski resorts that we urge you to admire with us, as we wait for normality to be restored…
Not everyone associates Japan with skiing and granted, it may not be everyone’s first choice, but that is what makes it so special: fewer crowds and more tranquillity. We may be eager to shake hands and hug everyone we meet once the pandemic quiets down but one of the greater pleasures in life is being able to sit back and silently enjoy the snowcapped views. From the popular Hokkaido to the less ventured Asahidake, there are plenty of ski resorts to choose from depending on whether you’re an advanced skier, a lonesome skier or a more sociable skier.
Our top pick:
With an average dump of 18 metres of Japow (Japanese powder) each ski season, the Lotte Arai, Japan is a luxurious ski resort which caters for beginners and the skilled slope master. Perfect for families, the hotel offers zip-lining, rock-climbing and trampolining whilst adults can enjoy a relaxing dip in the Hoshizora natural hot springs, or test their night vision by going night skiing. Known for its friendly hospitality, Japan is famous for her food, drink and singing, and Lotte Arai offers this: you won’t get another après-ski where you can sing your heart out whilst sipping on Sake after divulging in an exquisite dinner of charcoal-grilled Wagyu beef at Arcobaleno.
After a year of being cooped up maybe you want to go all out. Nothing better than an indulgent trip to the pistes. With its blue-blooded guest list including Princess Diana, Monaco’s Princess Caroline and the Dutch royal family, Lech boasts a more sophisticated atmosphere.
Our top pick:
Embodying history and familiarity, the Almhof Schneider is a family-run luxury hotel with a high standard of aesthetics, the utmost comfort and unbeatable hospitality. Almhof Schneider offers unspoiled nature, the greatest deep snow away from the slopes and practically endless possibilities which await demanding skiers. There are even opportunities to take off and experience paragliding without the usual restrictions or noisy engines, tobogganing - with the route, being only a few minutes' walk from the hotel, and for the more adventurous, ice climbing - where frozen waterfalls of the Arlberg offers ideal conditions for climbing enthusiasts and beginners. It is hard to get bored here, but if you want to simply wind down, the resort also has a state of the art spa and a highly recommended restaurant and bar, for those who just want to be spoilt after a day on the slopes.
Aspen has four unique peaks: Snowmass, Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highland and Buttermilk. With each showcasing their own personality, guests have the pleasure of choosing between staying at Snowmass – a resort welcoming families and the gregarious alike-, or Aspen, which hosts, perhaps, the secret city lovers and night owls and those in awe with contemporary art and jazzy music. Although some of the terrain is for experienced skiers, Aspen has some easy areas that are safe for newcomers. There is no denying Aspen’s unique personality; rising from the vibrant heart of downtown Aspen, her journey into skiing began in 1946 with the single-seat Lift 1, which immediately became the longest chairlift in the world, where it slowly began leading the way for backcountry skiing.
Our Top Pick:
At Aspen you can ride through glade-powder stashes and down the same runs that have hosted World Cup finals and an ideal place to stay is a ski-in and ski-out resort. The Little Nell hotel which sits on the piste not only offers that, but also offers an array of things, which will be arranged when concierge call you prior to your trip. From babysitting to a pet menu, groceries or dinner reservations, or a massage or a personal trainer, a bass riff or a boardroom, The Little Nell will make your winter dreams come true. This extends to any of your skiing needs: whether that’s a sneaky ski on the mountain before it opens, or learning to drive a snowcat, and sweeping the mountain at day’s end with Aspen Mountain Ski Patrol.
All photos have been taken from the respective website. Please check with your local government and the above locations and destinations about travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With a mob of enthusiastic Trump supporters storming the U.S Capitol on 6 January resulting in us waving goodbye to Trump, not only from his position as President, but also his seat as ringleader of the supremacists and the mighty devoted Republicans on social media. What could potentially be the only repercussion Trump will face for his reign fuelled by demagoguery, his banishment from Facebook was followed by Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Discord and YouTube, to name a few, silencing the ex-president. Whether the consequences of Trump’s actions will lead to his conviction is another story that we will find the ending out to in time, but for the time being, the current tranquillity and silent relief across social feeds surfaces another issue which may not be as loud as inciting violence across the constitution, yet remains to have the same potential to impede democracy.
A Partisan Battle
Naturally, the internet’s infrastructure should remain neutral. Twitter’s founder Jack Dorsey being an on-record donor to Democratic Party candidates, has previously stated that political ideology does not influence how Twitter determines what is and is not appropriate behaviour on the platform[1]. Yet legally, private companies can enforce decisions such as banning influential figures as they please, even if they do risk falling into a partisan battle when making such bold decisions. Dorsey himself stated banning Trump sets a precedent he feels is dangerous: “the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation".
In a series of tweets, the CEO said he feels “a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation", adding: "Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us." And he is right. When there is no clear test to when speech should be banned, we fall at risk of being fed limited information, thoughts and propaganda. This lack of transparency, however, can lead us to fall victim of being muted ourselves. With no accountable executives in place to enforce congruous, uniform censorship on speech which has the capacity of inciting violence and hate, the tables could easily turn. As Democrats rejoiced over a partial cure of Trump’s verbal diarrhoea, there is nothing preventing them from being silenced tomorrow.
The Threat on Freedom of Speech
Angela Merkel expressed her distaste towards the Trump ban, stating private firms should not be determining speech rules. But then, who should it be? The government? If social media platforms had to adhere to laws on a country by country basis, regulation will reflect that jurisdiction’s position on hate speech and political dogma, somewhat lessening the impact of censorship on a global scale. However, the issue of freedom of speech arises – and, we question how much control can be implicated at a state by state level in an ever expanding globalised world.
That is not the main issue at hand here, however. Republicans in the past have argued that Facebook and Google are monopolies that seek to restrict conservative speech. In contrast, the left have previously complained that large social media platforms fostered Trump’s election in 2016. But what both sides can agree on, is that the government should actively regulate the moderation of social media platforms to attain fairness, balance, or other values[2]. But regulating companies in such a way can pose the risk of indirectly restricting individual speech or limiting a right to curate an internet platform and American law and culture, especially, restricts the government’s power to regulate speech (on the internet or otherwise) as reflected in the First Amendment. However, speech on social media directly tied to violence may be regulated by the government – anything else may be labelled as unconstitutional.
It seems like catch-22. Governmental control over social media proves risky, yet leaving it up to the companies themselves to enforce control on a case-by-case basis, clearly has its flaws.
Leaving it up to the individual companies still surfaces the issue of freedom of speech for users. With bigtech having millions of users that have become accustomed to their platforms to the point it is a major part of their daily routine, social media has almost become a public space, which, therefore, one would believe, should be held to the same speech protective standards. “The First Amendment constrains government power, so when private, non-governmental actors take steps to censor speech, those actions are not subject to constitutional constraints,” Andrew Geronimo, Director of the First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve law school, told the Vox. So where bureaucratic control over these platforms unveils a more dictatorial government, it currently remains that private companies have the right to de-platform users, even if they have the obligation in terms of public accountability like any other business.
As Suzanne Nossell, CEO of Pen America stated when peaking to the Guardian: “While I believe the government should not be legislating what can and can’t be published on a platform like Twitter, we need far more robust protections for the public in terms of transparency: how these decisions are made, what the rules are, what the basis of adjudication is in an individual instance.”
It seems like catch-22. Governmental control over social media proves risky, yet leaving it up to the companies themselves to enforce control on a case-by-case basis, clearly has its flaws. Maybe we need a better balance of both to control the tech oligopolies with stronger governmental guidance. Perhaps users need to be more conscious and willing to accept that companies like Twitter and Facebook have a similar agenda: stopping the spread of fake news, hate speech and propaganda, because, as we have all witnessed, it leads to irreversible, catastrophic events.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/19/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-left-leaning-bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/
[2] https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-government-should-not-regulate-content-moderation-social-media
The dust has not yet settled on the Information Commissioner’s fine imposed on British Airways (BA) in October 2020, but the company now faces the largest group claim over a data breach in the UK’s history. A similar claim has been brought against TalkTalk following a 2014/15 cyber-attack on the telecoms giant, though in that case far fewer people were affected. With not only hefty regulatory fines and reputational damage but also the threat of expensive civil litigation for data breaches, the pressure is on for data controllers and processors to check they are doing enough to protect their customers' personal data.
Security Lapses
What originally led to the BA and TalkTalk claims? In 2014, telecommunications giant TalkTalk, suffered a serious data breach when contractors in India gained unauthorised access to the personal data of 21,000 of their customers. A further, even more serious, data breach took place in October 2015 when the company suffered a cyber-attack and the data of over 156,000 customers were stolen, including the bank account details of thousands of customers. In the 2018 BA incident, the flagship airline was targeted by hackers who accessed the personal data of over 500,000 of its customers. The ICO fined TalkTalk £500,000 which, at the time, was the maximum the data watchdog could impose, whilst BA received an eye-watering £20million penalty even after a significant discount.
From GDPR to UK GDPR
Introduced in 2018, Article 82 of the GDPR provided an EU-wide legislative mechanism for those suffering damage as a result of a data breach to seek compensation from relevant data controllers/processors. Whilst the UK officially left the EU on 31 December 2020, those who may have hoped our departure from the EU would lead to an immediate lessening of data protection obligations have been disappointed. The pre-Brexit data protection framework has survived largely intact, and Article 82 has been replicated in the UK’s version of the GDPR, now in force.
The risk of painful civil claims reinforces the need for data controllers and processors to be vigilant and proactive in protecting their client’s personal data.
Article 82 provides that a person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a data breach shall have the right to claim compensation. Financial loss is not necessary to found a claim and mere distress suffices, potentially opening the way to a variety of imaginative claims. What is more, any person who has suffered damage as a result of the data breach may bring a claim, extending opportunity beyond data subjects who are directly affected by a breach. Little-used provisions also exist allowing suitably designated representative bodies to bring claims on behalf of data subjects, an area on which the Government is currently consulting, and which looks set for future expansion.
To ensure claimants are effectively compensated, the GDPR provides that where both a controller and a processor involved in the same processing are jointly responsible for any damage, then each of them is jointly and severally liable. Claims may be brought against them irrespective of fault, though those found liable on this basis may issue third party proceedings to recover damages from those directly responsible.
Safety First
With legal precedent indicating damages awards for distress ranging from between £750 to £2500, individual victims of the TalkTalk and BA data breaches are reportedly in line for up to £1000 and £2000 respectively. But data controllers and processors should not take comfort in such relatively minor awards. Large numbers of small awards still make an unwelcome dent in the corporate balance sheet; group claims can be quite substantial - if every claimant in the BA suit were successful, the company would face an £800m compensation bill (as well as paying its own litigation fees). Even where an insurer, picks up the tab, premiums may be dramatically hiked for companies ‘coming second’ in group action litigation.
The risk of painful civil claims reinforces the need for data controllers and processors to be vigilant and proactive in protecting their client’s personal data. Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR (another Brexit survivor) requires that personal data is processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing accidental loss amongst others. Appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk is the benchmark. Pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data, assurance of confidential personal data processing, regular assessment of the effectiveness and security of data processing mechanisms, resilience in the event of a breach are key. Practical measures include limiting employee access to applications, data and tools to those who need them, undertaking rigorous testing of IT systems, implementing best practice staff training, and protecting employee and third-party accounts with multifactor authentication.
The good name of a business is one of its most valuable assets and serious data breaches can irretrievably damage corporate reputations. Responsible companies – those which protect both the personal data of individuals and their own futures – will view the BA and TalkTalk civil litigation as a salutary reminder of the need to take data security seriously and the consequences of failing to do so.
You’d be forgiven for assuming a global pandemic counts as a force majeure, but this isn’t necessarily the case: not a single reported case law or English law authority exists on the operation of force majeure clauses in the context of epidemics or pandemics. Not that a well-drafted force majeure clause can’t be relied upon, but the specific application in the UK of force majeure in the context of a pandemic is new and untested legal ground.
So, what exactly is a force majeure event? The starting point to determine this is the contract itself. If a force majeure clause is well drafted it will clearly spell what has been agreed between all parties that will constitute a ‘force majeure’. Typically, this will include ‘fire’, ‘flood’, ‘diseases’ and, notably, ‘pandemic’. Contracts also commonly use a form of catch all wording such as an ‘event beyond a party’s reasonable control’.
In the context of COVID-19, any references to ‘disease’ or ‘pandemic’ will be most likely to help if one party is seeking to rely on the force majeure clause. However, many clauses are far more limited in scope, for example, clauses that solely refer to an ‘Act of God’. Is COVID-19 an ‘Act of God’? Or is it an ‘event beyond a party’s reasonable control’?
Without a statutory or common-law definition of force majeure, it’s vital to interpret the contractual clause carefully to assess whether the current pandemic together with the rules and regulations surrounding it amount to a force majeure event. Scrutinised closely by the courts, force majeure clauses are generally understood to amount to events or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of a contracting party or both parties, rendering performance of the contract impossible.
For example, if a pandemic’s impact makes trading conditions more economically challenging as materials for supply and manufacture of goods are more expensive, this is unlikely to count as force majeure event. Commercial conditions are undoubtedly tougher, but this in itself doesn’t make performance impossible. The affected party may be paying more for materials, but their ability to perform the contract is not compromised. The ‘event’ in question must be the operative cause making it physically or legally impossible for one or more parties to fulfil their contractual obligations.
f an ‘event’ does make performance of the contract impossible, a contracting party can usually rely on the force majeure clause. If established, force majeure may allow for the suspension or cancellation of the affected party’s contractual obligations.
If an ‘event’ does make performance of the contract impossible, a contracting party can usually rely on the force majeure clause. If established, force majeure may allow for the suspension or cancellation of the affected party’s contractual obligations.
So, what do business owners do if their contract doesn't contain a force majeure clause or the clause doesn’t apply in the particular facts of their case? Here, businesses could look to the ‘doctrine of frustration’.
Cases on frustration have not traditionally come before the English courts with any great regularity, but recent circumstances – such as Brexit and COVID-19 – could see it being used more often. Be warned, though: if a contract contains a force majeure clause you may not be able to rely on the ‘doctrine of frustration’, because you can’t automatically substitute one concept for another.
Frustration is a common law concept meaning that in order to rely on it, a party need not point to a specific term of the contract; it exists wholly outside the four corners of an agreement and can be relied on provided that the party seeking to do so can make up the key elements of the doctrine. If established, frustration automatically brings the contract to an end without any requirement to give notice or take any particular steps. However, this doesn’t mean the contract was invalid from the outset. A contract is held to be ‘frustrated’ when an unforeseen event occurs after the date of the contract that is outside the party’s control and, essentially, makes it impossible for a party to perform their contractual obligations, or means that performing the contract would be so radically different to what was originally agreed that it becomes unfair to hold the parties to their original agreement.
It’s unclear at this stage whether COVID-19 will be seen as an event of ‘frustration’, and there are no English authorities on whether a pandemic will give rise to ‘frustration’. There’s bound to be judicial sympathy for parties severely impacted by the pandemic, but that doesn’t mean the pandemic will necessarily give rise to an event of ‘frustration’ in the majority of cases.
‘Unprecedented’ is a word we often use, but pandemics are not as unusual as many would think: COVID-19 isn’t the first pandemic we've seen since the Millennium – as recently as 2000 the World Health Organisation declared the H1N1 virus a pandemic. The courts, no doubt wary of opening the floodgates, will probably continue their fairly restrictive approach to finding that cases have been frustrated by external events, and we must all watch carefully how they deal with these vital issues as events unfold.
John Warchus, Partner & Head of Commercial & Technology Group at law firm Moore Barlow
Based in Melbourne, Australia, Fillr powers tens of millions of transactions monthly for the world’s top e-commerce, fintech and ‘buy now, pay later apps, including for Rakuten’s shopping rewards and Cash Back destination in the United States and Canada. Terms of the acquisition, led by Rakuten Americas on behalf of Rakuten Inc., were not disclosed.
The Fillr autofill platform grows shopper conversion rates by simplifying registration and checkout processes. When shoppers were offered autofill functionality with Fillr integrations instead of manual typing, they were up to 120 per cent more likely to convert and average revenue per user increased by nearly 20 per cent.
The acquisition solidifies the continuing relationship between Rakuten and Fillr. The companies are longstanding partners with strong product synergies and mutual goals of accelerating transactions, boosting conversions and growing customer lifetime value. Fillr autofill was integrated into the Rakuten iOS mobile app in 2018 and its Android mobile app earlier this year.
An Interview With Michael Kauffman, Tech DNA
What is tech due diligence?
Tech due diligence (TDD) ensures a target company’s technology is actually as good as claimed. The most common tech we evaluate is software, IoT hardware, and machine learning / artificial intelligence algorithms.
What risks does tech due diligence protect against?
Tech due diligence guards against a range of risks, including:
* Security risk: finding security issues before hackers do
* Tech-debt: quantifying tech debt and the extent it blocks new features, products, etc.
* Regulatory risk: flagging where source code, data storage and processing violates key privacy laws (GDPR, HIPAA, CCPA, etc.)
* Scale risk: identifying which parts of a product or service can’t grow as fast as a target company claims
* Machine learning / Artificial Intelligence Puffery: establishing how real and how much moat a target’s ML/AI actually offers
* Many others: downtime risk, outsource risk, open source risk, commoditization risk, lock-in risk, etc.
How often does TDD reveal issues that affect the deal?
Most of the time. For about 9%-13% of transactions, TDD reveals issues so large that the deal falls apart. The rest of the time, TDD affects the deal in some way: pre-close remediation requirements, post-close remediation priorities, headcount adjustments, new tech leadership, holdbacks, open source licence fixes, etc. Our work often significantly recalibrates post-close roadmaps to better align with the reality of the code-as-built, not the code-as-wished-for.
How does TDD intersect with legal due diligence?
Basically, TDD is the ‘ground truth’ for legal analysis that relies on accurate descriptions of what the code actually does, not what programmers think or report it does.
* Privacy: TDD reveals how personal data / personal information / PHI / etc. is actually processed and secured.
* Open source licensing: TDD uncovers how code is actually used, which is the first step in quantifying licence liability.
* Patent: TDD reveals which claims in a patent are implemented in code.
How long does Tech Due Diligence take?
About 2-3 weeks. It’s not uncommon for the phone to ring and
the project to start within the next day or two.
Who hires you?
Our clients range from the largest and most active acquirers in the world down to one-off buyers making their first tech acquisition. A majority of our work is for Fortune 500 and PE firms.
Do you work with any particular industries?
Not really. We assess – and have experience with – virtually every technology regardless of tech/business environment, be it power grids, video games, military intelligence, fintech, Hollywood movie rendering, human augmentation, education, blockchain, telco, silicon fabrication, aeronautics, retail, accounting packages, telematics, fraud detection, health care, AdTech … the list goes on.
What size companies do you assess?
We assess companies of all size. They might be small startups with only one or two engineers leveraging the latest and greatest tech (or so they claim). Or they might be entrenched industry players worth many multiple billions with hundreds of engineers all over the globe. And we assess everything else in between.
