Waiting for the Payday? The Market for Startups and the Timing of Entrepreneurial Exit

Most technology startups are set up for exit through acquisition by large corporations. In choosing when to sell, startups face a trade-off. Early acquisition reduces execution errors, but later acquisition both improves the likelihood of finding a better match and benefits from increased buyer competition. Startups’ exit strategies vary considerably: Some startups aim to sell early; others remain in stealth mode by developing the invention for a late sale. We develop an analytical model to study the timing of the exit strategy. We find that startups with more capable founding teams commit to a late exit, whereas those with less capable founding teams commit to an early exit. Finally, startups with founding teams of intermediate capabilities remain flexible: They seek early offers but eventually sell late. If trying the early market is so costly that startups have to make a mutually exclusive choice between an early and late sale, startups sell inefficiently late. Instead, if they can collect early offers at no cost before deciding on the timing of sale, there are too many early acquisitions. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, business strategy.

A molecular mechanism for choosing alcohol over an alternative reward

Alcohol addiction leads to increased choice of alcohol over healthy rewards. We established an exclusive choice procedure in which ~15% of outbred rats chose alcohol over a high-value reward. These animals displayed addiction-like traits, including high motivation to obtain alcohol and pursuit of this drug despite adverse consequences. Expression of the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transporter GAT-3 was selectively decreased within the amygdala of alcohol-choosing rats, whereas a knockdown of this transcript reversed choice preference of rats that originally chose a sweet solution over alcohol. GAT-3 expression was selectively decreased in the central amygdala of alcohol-dependent people compared to those who died of unrelated causes. Impaired GABA clearance within the amygdala contributes to alcohol addiction, appears to translate between species, and may offer targets for new pharmacotherapies for treating this disorder.

Part IV Procedural and Systemic Issues, 23 Choice-of-Court Agreements: Jurisdictional Conflicts

This chapter considers the problems that arise when an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, which is claimed to be valid, designates a court or the courts of one Member State (the ‘designated’ court), and proceedings are brought in another court (the ‘non-designated’ court). The basic aspects of choice-of-court agreements were discussed in Chapter 13. The chapter now deals with the interaction of these rules with the rules concerning <i>lis pendens</i>, the recognition of judgments, and other matters. It concludes that the only legitimate mechanism for ensuring respect for an exclusive choice-of-court agreement within the EU context is that provided by Brussels 2012, Article 31(2); both antisuit injunctions and actions for damages for ‘wrongful’ litigation are contrary to EU law.

Part II Jurisdiction, 9 Multiple Parties and Multiple Claims

This chapter is concerned with the jurisdictional problems caused by the existence of multiple parties or multiple claims in the same proceedings. Article 8 of Brussels 2012 and Article 6 of Lugano 2007 deal with these matters. These provisions focus on special jurisdiction in that they apply only where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in another Member State. The discussions cover rules on multiple claimants, multiple defendants, third-party proceedings, multiple claims, counterclaims, set-off, and claims relating to contract and immovable property. These rules are all subject to an exception where the courts of another Member State have exclusive jurisdiction under an exclusive choice-of-court agreement or under Brussels 2012, Article 24 (Lugano 2007, Article 22). There are also exceptions in the case of protective jurisdiction (Brussels 2012, Articles 10–22 and Lugano 2007, Articles 8–21.