November 24, 2018

Baby boomer generation ranks high in entrepreneurial spirit

Entrepreneurial drive and willingness to take risks are often regarded by Texas residents as characteristic of younger workers. A recent study, however, refutes this myth and shows that the baby boomer generation defines itself by its entrepreneurial spirit and tolerance for taking risks. This entrepreneurial spirit is evidenced by the increasing number of baby boomers who are ending one career and starting another by launching a new business formation.

Monster.com and Millennial Branding conducted a survey of more than 2,800 users of the Monster website and asked them whether they considered themselves entrepreneurs. This study showed that 45 percent of the baby boomer generation, which is made up of individuals between the ages of 50 and 69 years old, classify themselves as entrepreneurs. This compares to 41 percent of employees between the ages of 30 and 49 years old and 32 percent of workers between the ages of 18 and 29 years old, known as “Generation Y” or “Millennials.”

Baby boomers may be more comfortable taking career risks because they have financial stability, years of experience and a list of business contacts. Older individuals armed with these tools are taking more calculated and informed risks than younger employees whose careers have not lasted long enough to yield financial stability, business experience and business contacts.

While financial stability and business experience provide a cushion of sorts to baby boomers starting a new business or engaging in other entrepreneurial activities, it is the establishment of a network of business contacts that may be the most valuable. Learning from and relying on another’s expertise may be able to ease the growing pains of a start-up venture. In particular, a relationship with an experienced business law attorney may be able to increase the odds of entrepreneurial success and reduce some of the risk associated with start-up ventures.

Read More
November 18, 2018

RTI Holdings acquisition expands Avnet, Inc.

In a press release, Avnet, Inc. declared its intention to expand by acquiring shares in RTI Holdings Ltd. The deal will also give Avnet shares in a trio of other affiliated firms, namely DSP Solutions Limited. The RTI affiliates provide services such as circuit design and product manufacturing, and their acquisition is internally forecasted to increase Avnet’s overall earnings and boost the capabilities of Avnet Electronics Marketing.

Although the share-buying transaction is supposed to close within 30 days following the initial announcement, it first had to earn numerous regulatory approvals. Avnet officials claim that the business formation deal ought to support the firm’s 12.5 percent return on capital goal and allow it to expand into new markets.

Because this acquisition is to be accomplished by purchasing shares, however, it may not affect the transfer of related intellectual properties. Patents and trademarks that are not currently owned solely by RTI or one of its affiliates may have to be dealt with on an individual basis for Avnet to take advantage of them. This business formation will also have a direct effect on the firm’s ability to garner investments by selling securities. Even though the Securities Act of 1933 doesn’t require the firm to update the forward-looking statements contained in the press release, investors may view the wide range of factors inherent in the deal as reason not to buy in.

It’s critical to plan business formation and acquisitions in order to present the resulting organizations as viable entities and gain financial support. As a result, many firms seek the assistance of attorneys who could help them structure their deals for the maximum profitability.

Read More
November 5, 2018

Pay for delay deals discussed in Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices listened to arguments about the advisability of reverse settlement deals between generic drug makers and the pharmaceutical companies their products often emulate. The U.S. Justice Department claimed that these agreements add to drug company profits at the expense of consumers.

The settlements occur when firms that make generic drugs file official patent challenges with the Food and Drug Administration. By proving that patents on brand-name pharmaceutical products are invalid, they gain the right to market their own generic versions before the 20-year patents expire. Pharmaceutical companies often launch their own lawsuits in return. Because such commercial litigation often leads to expensive proceedings that can take years to complete, many firms simply settle and let the generic competitors market their products after a shorter delay than the patent would originally provide. These settlements also generally incorporate large payments to the generic firms.

Consumer advocates and the American Medical Association all claim that these reverse settlement deals are nothing more than monopoly profits being split. They also argue that such deals increase the prices of life-saving drugs for ailing patients. While the Supreme Court justices who heard the arguments wouldn’t go as far as to stop the deals completely, they did express concerns about their anticompetitive nature and proposed legislative solutions.

Firms with intellectual property to protect may not be able to rely on their patents alone. Issues like prior art and overlapping practice open the doors to legislative competition, and as this case demonstrates, the effects on consumer markets may lead to increased regulatory interest or restrictions. As a result, many firms consult with business attorneys before structuring their own deals or agreements in order to keep up with legal changes while maintaining their profits.

Read More