Batteroo taking money from the US Government is the single, dumbest thing they could ever do. It opens them and SK Telecom (the deep pocket) open to a fraud, waste, and abuse lawsuit.
SK probably not. Batteroo maybe. A lot of companies over promise going into phase 1, phase 1 is high risk funding often for high risk tech. Companies in phase 1 often find they have technical problems and cant reach what they are trying to do (if they do that too many time or too hard, individuals can be blacklisted from the awards). Totally depends on what they put into their application and how they execute, if they get the award at all. I can tell you there is a scary oversight guy with the sole purpose of finding fraud and abuse... and he enjoys it.
I think one could make a very strong argument that SK is a witting business partner, particularly in light of them sharing a corporate address.
So far, nothing suggests SK is involved in anything, other than a possibly bad investment choice... sharing an address is normal for an accelerator. SK decided to invest in Batteroo, probably doing so with a promissory note. Batteroo likely used those funds from that note to lease space/equipment from SK, but are considered separate entities. It may have been part of the deal (both because investors often want people close, and because SK might have thought the resources improves Batteroos chance of success), but not because they form some-sort of legal coop or whatever. If anything, if for some reason Batteroo was found to be fraudulent, SK would likely be able to go after Batteroo. I think SK would be viewed as victims unless something really screwed-up was going on between the two (and haven't seen anything to suggest that).
SK does have a seat on the board of directors, which implies some culpability.
There are several types of directors. One 'class' is a
dependent board member, those that have interests outside of the company. So the SK board member is likely a dependent board member. Things are usually put in place to limit liability with dependent board members.
One of those things is that decision making power is usually removed or limited, for dependent board members. They can provide guidance, and they can function as a reporting/communications member between the board and investors (board members are required to be present at board meetings and investors want to know what is really going on). Because the decision make power is limited, liabilities are limited. There are other things often put in place too.
They also almost certainly have an indemnification agreement in place, so if a liability does pop-up, it’s on Batteroos side.
And if that fails, the board member almost certainly has directors liability insurance.
And if something did happen and got past all of that, it’s more likely the director would be personally liable, rather than SK.
I think SK is probably pretty insulated, but not a lawyer.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
