Barney

not knowing the numbers or intricate details its hard to give specific comments.

Re the board director - if you are really unhappy that they have not served your interests and the other directors agree then you should seek to remove them from the board.

VC's and any other financier can do what they want until the ink is dry and plenty still change the terms of a deal even then.

They are bus. people - if they see they can get better terms and you have no alternatives then they may well change their offer.

as in all walks of life you'll get people with different standards and moral codes

To raise money now you could still consider the small firms loan guarantee service which may be a route through.

If you can give more details on your needs and current status we can probably provide some more specific advice on what to do next.

Good luck
On 10:37:56 9 November 2000 Barney wrote:
>All points of view welcome......
>
>Is it understandable that a company looking for new
>funding makes an agreement with its VC's that they will
>provide a Bridge loan for a period of 4 months - at which
>point the company will be in a better to position to gain
>a higher valuation from a full second round of funding?
>
>Is this a reasonable approach?
>
>What if the VC's pull out at the last minute - leaving the
>business no choice but to succumb to new punishing terms,
>set by the VC's, for the bridge funding?
>
>Is this a classic case of being stabbed in the back by
>your investors? Are the VC's very unprofessional? - Or has
>the company been very näive in believing that the
>VC's ever had its best interests at heart?
>
>If investors also sit on the board... can they be sued for
>not serving the best interests of the company?
>
>Any views?