Well, things WERE different in 2002 then they were in 2000 and as they are in 2007. Look at the upticks and down rounds of deals done in 2002 and compare it with the deal here – looks pretty normal.

Also the founder here seems to have sold a part of his holdings “for living expenses and to finance another venture”. Presumably the other ventures didn’t pan out and this one did. He spread his risks and guess what, when you “diversify” your returns get lower.

I don’t know any of these people, except to sympathize and empathize with them because I have been there.
I kid that I have been on all six sides of the table; as a founder, as an investor, as the lead negotiator, as the counsel to previous investors, as a representative of the employees and as the due diligence lawyer facilitating the process. I wouldn’t say that I have seen it all, but I have seen enough.

I did snicker at ComVentures, when Sequoia sued them for copying their website – that was so funny! Hopefully with extra $375M (minus .6M for the founder) they can hire a good web designer.

Entrepreneurs would do well to explore every other firms/investors as their financial partners in building their company before considering certain venture firms and partners named below. There is enough hard work in building a company and you don’t want crises, especially ones that are artificially inflated or even created, to be used against you to wipe out you and other shareholders, esp those that took the risk and put in the early hard work.

ComVentures/van der Meer, Crescendo/Spreng, Worldview/Orsak and Wei have similar operating approaches as reflected in the cases of Zantaz, Nishan, Force 10 and other Worldview deals.

For every Zantaz shareholder, I’d encourage you to join in the suit against the Zantaz directors as that’s the only way you’d get some money for the value you built. Go, Mr Niesar, and go Zantaz shareholders, rage against the ComVentures and their kind.