Jason Scott's superpower had always been his ability to connect people and ideas across industries, sectors, and geographies. After graduating from Stanford GSB, he pursued his professional North Star of finding the best entrepreneurs in the world and providing value to them as an investor at Highland Capital. After two years at Highland, Scott moved into a startup ecosystem developer role at Google. Using the resources and scale of one of the world's largest companies, Scott was eager to continue providing support to entrepreneurs across the globe. What shape would that take?

The case explores Google's accelerator programs and its efforts to support underrepresented start-ups that are ready to scale. Students will understand Google's approach to (1) building accelerator programs, (2) selecting which startups to participate, and (3) leveraging the resources of Google and its parent, Alphabet. The case also provides an overview of the specific accelerator programs, curriculum, and benefits, which are helpful for students and future entrepreneurs who may be considering accelerators as a path to scale.

This case introduces students to the large Brazilian mobile conglomerate, Movile, and its mobile food delivery subsidiary, iFood. It focuses on the experiences of these companies learning business lessons from Silicon Valley and China. In particular, the case discusses how the executive teams developed relationships with important companies and leaders in these markets to set up an open exchange of information.

The main purpose of the Venus Medtech case is to give students a greater appreciation for the scale, sophistication, and competitiveness of the innovation landscape outside of Silicon Valley, with particular focus on China. Through a dramatized account of the June 2013 Series A fundraising experience of Venus Medtech, a Chinese medical device start-up, the case forms the basis of a rich, in-class discussion about the similarities and differences between the entrepreneurship and venture capital ecosystems in China and the U.S. Considerable attention is given in the case to the factors that influence a Chinese entrepreneur's decision to build a business and raise capital at home or abroad. The case also compares and contrasts the business practices of VC investors in China and the U.S., as well as the types of deal terms that they typically seek from start-ups.

Mike Maples Jr. founded the micro-VC firm Floodgate in 2006, after a successful career as an entrepreneur with two startup IPOs under his belt. At the time, he had identified a group of overlooked founders in Silicon Valley: those who wanted to raise only $1 million or less, a growing group since costs involved in launching a company had been declining significantly as a result of technological advancements and innovative management approach, such as "lean startup". In the following decade, he invested in a stream of successful companies, including Twitter, Digg, Chegg, Twitch.tv, Demandforce and Weebly. In the mid-2010s, however, the Micro-VC category, which Maples had helped create, was quickly becoming crowded. Additionally, the sources for early-stage funding multiplied: angel investors, "super-angels", crowdfunding platforms and traditional later stage VCs expanding into seed investing turned into competitors. The combination of intense competition and high availability of investable funds had one natural consequence: founders could command higher valuations and choose from many potential investors - it was an entrepreneurs' market. Determined to preserve his position as a thought-leader and successful investor in Silicon Valley, Maples set off to understand how he could, once more, positively influence the VC industry through an entrepreneurial approach. Based on deep analysis of past investments, he developed a suite of frameworks to help entrepreneurs navigate their companies' trajectories at a time when getting to the next funding round and commanding ever-richer valuations became an obsession in the entrepreneurial community.

The corporate venture capital (CVC) primer follows the journey of Claudia Fan Munce, the head of CVC for a major software and hardware conglomerate, as she and her team source and diligence partnership opportunities with startups in the healthcare industry. Along the way, students learn about the history of CVC, the relationship between CVCs and traditional venture capital, and underlying motivations behind many CVC deals.

This case study delves into the complexities of equity allocation among startup cofounders, exploring three distinct scenarios: DogBone/Whiplash, Kitten Mittens, and Bad Blood. Each vignette presents unique challenges and decisions faced by cofounders during the critical stages of a startup's lifecycle. The DogBone/Whiplash story starts with an equal equity split among four founders and evolves through pivotal moments, including a cofounder's exit, role adjustments, and a significant pivot in business direction. It highlights the dilemmas in reassessing equity distribution in light of changing roles and contributions. Kitten Mittens focuses on the dynamics between founders and investors, and the intricacies of negotiating equity splits when new members join the team. It underscores the importance of clear communication and understanding of roles in the investor-founder relationship. Bad Blood examines the relationship between two cofounders with differing visions and skills, emphasizing the challenges in balancing equity split with operational roles and contribution levels. This case ultimately encourages a nuanced understanding of equity distribution, considering factors such as founder experience, role differentiation, and the evolving nature of startups. It serves as a practical guide for new entrepreneurs, providing insights into navigating the often complex and emotionally charged process of equity allocation in startups.

The (A) case described the early days of Movile, a Brazilian mobile phone company, and debated the decision to open an office in Silicon Valley. The case went into the history of the firm and the mobile phone industry in Brazil. It discussed how the firm grew throughout Latin America through acquisitions and failed in earlier attempts to expand organically. The (A) case also outlined the unique culture of the firm, which blended a highly innovative culture with Movile's focus on achieving targets and results. The question of whether to expand into Silicon Valley raised the issue of the importance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in the growth trajectory of a firm. This issue was particularly significant at this point in Movile's life cycle when it needed to evolve from being a feature phone business to diversifying to include new smartphone technologies in their product offerings.

The (B) case explained how Movile expanded their business, moving into the smartphone market from their core business of feature phones in Latin America. The case described the two parts of Movile's strategy. The first was Movile's development and launch of a smartphone app, PlayKids, which, as of the end of 2014, was the number-one children's app in the world (by sales in the Apple app store). The second aspect of this strategy involved investing in mobile-enabled offline start-ups in Brazil. The (A) case may be taught as a stand-alone case. The (B) case requires the (A) case to be read beforehand.

A swelling current account deficit, ballooning interest rates, and a plunging currency: These were just some of the worrisome trends in India that Krishna 'Kittu' Kolluri contemplated on his 20-hour return flight from Mumbai to Silicon Valley in September 2013. The U.S-based general partner co-leading India investments at New Enterprise Associates (NEA) reflected on how the American venture capital firm just 18 months earlier had set aside US$200 million of its US$2.6 billion world fund for investments in the sub-continent. Now Kolluri was mulling over whether to recommend changes to NEA's India strategy at the VC firm's quarterly general partner meeting in Washington, DC in October and the potential for missing out on lucrative investment opportunities in India if NEA played it too safe. This case closely examines how a venture capital firm creates and implements a strategy to invest outside the United States. It presents U.S. venture capital firm NEA's response to globalization and a contracting U.S. venture capital industry via an innovative global fund strategy that emphasizes agility in investment decision-making across and within geographies and sectors. The case focuses specifically on NEA's activities in India to illustrate the various elements of this strategy. It asks students to analyze the advantages and challenges of investing in an emerging market located half a world away both logistically and culturally, through a large, U.S.-based, multi-country venture fund. Students evaluate NEA's global fund strategy and determine the best investment strategy to follow in India given the country's deteriorating macro-economic situation at the time. They examine NEA's decision-making processes, communication channels, and incentive systems for its India practice. They gain a deeper understanding of what a U.S. venture capital firm like NEA expects from portfolio companies in emerging markets and what those portfolio companies receive in return.

John Dean and Danny Lui began raising their first fund as Startup Capital Ventures (SCV), a small venture capital firm in 2005. They made a soft commitment to invest 15-20% of their first $25MM fund in China. They made their first Chinese investment in 2005 in Zero2IPO, a Beijing-based market research firm that tracked Mainland china private equity and venture capital markets. The investment has gone well so far, but the venture capital market is changing rapidly. Dean and Lui need to decide whether to continue investing in China, and if so, they must develop a new strategy. This case examines the challenges of venture capital investment in China, given increased competition for deals, significant regulation changes and a rising preference for local teams versus foreign VCs.

John Dean and Danny Lui began raising their first fund as StartUp Capital Ventures (SCV), a small venture capital firm, in 2005. Along with the four other "Managing Members" of the firm, they intended to focus investments on early stage software companies with capital-efficient business models. SCV looked for organizations with initial pre-money valuations of less than $5 million. The firm's philosophy was to target companies that already had a product or service generating revenue and that could show a reasonable likelihood of reaching near-term profitability with SCV's investment. During the fundraising process, Charlie Eubanks, an "anchor investor" for the fledgling firm, pressured the founders to devote 30% of SCV's capital to investments in China. The country was a compelling place to invest in many ways. China's GDP was growing at 10% per year, primarily driven by annual private sector growth of 20%. Tax burdens were light--there was no capital gains tax. In addition, seven times more engineering students graduated from colleges in China every year than in the United States. Yet, Dean and Lui (who was originally from Hong Kong) were also cognizant of significant drawbacks to investing in the region. Examines some of those challenges as they related to two questions the colleagues tried to answer: whether to enter that market at all; and whether to invest in Zero2IPO, a Beijing-based market research firm that tracked Mainland China private equity and venture capital markets.