If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This Fox Business article provides a good summary on handling OSHA inspections and the factors to consider before hand.

http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/legal-hr/2011/10/27/preparing-for-osha-inspection/

This is a good summary article for any new business owner, or those thinking of starting a business. It lays out the top 10 legal pitfalls you should strive to avoid when starting a new venture.  It was written by Mark Britton and posted on Fox’ Small Business Center web page this morning:

The etymology of the word “entrepreneur” is well established. Since the earliest of French times, it has meant “someone who breaks into hives when coming within 20 feet of a lawyer.”

While I’m joking regarding the word’s origins, I’m quite serious (albeit figurative) regarding the entrepreneurial response to lawyers. Most young entrepreneurs see themselves as an unrivaled visionary and the last thing they need is some old dude in a three-piece pulling on the handbrake.

Until something else does.

Nothing will grind the entrepreneurial party train to a halt faster than a big lawsuit, nasty contract dispute or some other legal circus animal that no one bothered to stop from coming on board. The lawyer-averse entrepreneur suddenly finds himself begging for a hug from the old dude.

So, before you need to beg for that hug, here are 10 pitfalls that often cause startups legal trouble. A penny of legal proactivity in each of these areas will offer a pound of protection as your business matures.

1.   Not Hiring a Startup Lawyer: There are a lot of lawyers that represent small businesses, but there are only a few that regularly represent startups–particularly when it comes to fundraising from sophisticated angels and venture capitalists. There is a “market” around angel and VC funding and if your lawyer is not immersed in that market you can get fleeced.

2.   Not Having Founders’ Agreements: How do you split the equity pie? Who contributes what? Who acts as CEO? What if a founder stops performing? There are so many questions that founders never think through because everything is going to be “awesome.” However, when cash and humans are involved, things are seldom uniformly awesome.

3.   Choosing the Wrong Corporate Entity: While this sounds mundane, it is actually quite important. Whether you want to run your business as a C Corp, S Corp, LLC, LP etc. is wholly dependent on your long-term objectives. Different structures offer different opportunities and restrictions, and changing your structure years later is administratively painful and expensive.

4.   Using Someone Else’s Trade Name: Many entrepreneurs will lock on a company name without researching whether someone else owns that name. They will put up a web site, print a bunch of advertising collateral, and then they get a letter from some Malaysian conglomerate that says, “Quit using our name and pay us $1 million in damages.”

5.   Comingling Accounts: When money first starts coming in – either from investors or sales–it is easy to mix personal and business accounts. Don’t do it. The more you do, the more that someone can pursue your personal assets for any unpaid corporate liabilities.

6.   Failing to Protect Intellectual Property: Most great ideas are supported by a product or process that should be patented. If you are telling people all about your idea without a NDA or a patent application on file, you run the risk that your great idea will soon be your competitor’s great idea. Identify your core pieces of intellectual property and patent them.

7.   Failing to Have Adequate Employee Agreements: While these are less extensive than the founders’ agreements, you need at least a standard agreement in place for all of your employees and consultants that covers confidentiality, ownership of things they develop, etc. The agreement will not feel that important early on, but it will come in handy when your first employee is hijacked by a competitor.

8.   Failing to Check for Employee Agreements: If you are hiring someone from a company that has followed step No. 7, failing to investigate their former employee agreements can cause problems – especially if you are hiring them for their technical knowhow. If their “knowhow” is owned by their former employer or is blocked by a non-competition agreement, you may be getting less value than you bargained for.

9.   Failing to Comply with Federal or State Securities Laws: If you are asking even a couple of people for money – whether it is an investment or a loan – you must make sure you are observing the various securities laws. While you may not need to “register” your securities, you may need to file for an “exemption.” An improper offering can lead to regulatory fines and, maybe even worse, unwinding of a transaction.

10. Understand Key Contracts: If a third-party is important to a core part of your business, you need a contract with that party and you need to understand the core terms of that contract. In a breach-of-contract lawsuit, ignorance is not a defense.

Recently, a California Court of Appeal held that compliance with Labor Code Section 512 Meal Period provisions requires employers to merely “provide” a meal period, and not “ensure” that a meal period was actually taken.  The court cited the statutory language of Labor Code Section 512 and IWC Wage Order 5-2001 at issue in this case, both of which require employers to “provide” a meal period. The court noted that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s current enforcement position is that employers need only “provide” meal periods to employees. The Court also noted that requiring large employers to “ensure” meal periods are taken would create an impractical standard and place an undue burden on employers.

This case follows on a string of other similar cases discussing the same issue. The California Supreme Court is presently considering this exact issue in two pending cases (Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court and Brinkley v. Public Storage). As such, it is expected that the California Supreme Court will grant review of this case and hold any decision pending the outcome of Brinker.

The appellate court has also held that the trial court properly denied class certification in this wage and hour class action involving 3,000 employees in more than 130 restaurants. The court held that individual issuers would predominate, because absent a universal practice regarding breaks, plaintiffs would have to explain violations on a restaurant-by-restaurant and supervisor-by-supervisor basis. The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s ruling that the employee’s proffered statistical evidence would not support class certification, because employees would still need to explain how and why breaks were missed. Lastly, the court held that substantial conflicts of interest existed among class members, because the hourly employees often temporarily assumed supervisory duties, including managing meal and rest breaks-meaning that class members would be accusing one another of violating Labor Code provisions.

If you have questions about meal and rest periods for your employers you can give us a call at our office to set up an appointment or compliance review.

Here is a guest post by Joseph Gustav, a blogger for Pounding the Pavement and a writer on High School Diploma at Home for Guide to Career Education. Joseph provides some good points to ponder when convening a meeting at your workplace:

Meetings are an evil necessity. Workers must take time from their busy days for sessions that are all too often unproductive and unengaging. Meetings are supposed to be extremely valuable opportunities to work as a team at a designated time and place but all too often are unorganized nuisances. Here are some tips to run effective business meetings that will boost productivity rather than take away from time that could have been spent more productively.

Plan, plan, and plan ahead of time. This goes for everybody. Supervisors or team leaders should have a set agenda working toward a predetermined goal. Meetings should be rigidly structured and time should be allotted for specific points of discussion. The more advance notice, the better — have an agenda prepared the day before so team members can prepare as well, and the expectation should be made clear that they should attend well prepared for the topics at hand.

Stick to a schedule. Start meetings on time and end on time, if not early. Certainly try hard not to run over on time because that is the easiest way to have team members start watching the clock and stop paying attention and contributing to discussion. This is tied to the planning aspect: make sure your expectations for what will be covered in the time allotted are realistic. Also, do not schedule meetings for incovenient times such as the end of the day. Mid-morning right before lunch is a good time, but try to ask team members for what works best for the majority.

Do not stray off topic. Your agenda should be followed, so do not allow anything not on that agenda to enter into discussion unless absolutely relevant and necessary. Staying on topic will make for meetings that are more efficient, productive, and useful, and that are well worth your team members’ time and yours. Get down to business and dig in to the topics at hand, and nothing more.

Do not hold unnecessary meetings. If there really is nothing new to talk about, you do not have to hold a meeting for the sake of having one. It’s a waste of time and only reinforces that meetings are pointless and unproductive. If an e-mail works just as well, send one out; face time is not always essential.

Write it down. Have a white board or something large to write on to put down new goals and ideas. Having something in writing motivates people to recognize that what was discussed in the meeting will happen, and that it needs to happen. Also, have someone keep minutes and send it out to all team members post-meeting. Recapping is always welcomed by team members to remember what was discussed and decided and serves to underscore the ideas presented and goals made while together.

Decide on what’s next. Be sure to have new goals and steps to take to reach these objectives decided at the meeting’s conclusion. Assign tasks to be undertaken and deadlines for them to be completed. If possible, detail a vague idea of what the next meeting will entail so everyone knows what to work toward — again, there can never be too much planning. This ensures that meetings stay productive and are viewed as such because actual actions will be expected to be taken after everyone has gone back to work.

Recently, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that Trinity Products, Inc (“Trinity”), a billboards and signposts manufacturer, agreed to pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation suit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that a “high level manager harassed his assistant with offensive language and gestures and requests for sexual favors and sought to replace her after she complained to other supervisors about his conduct, resulting in her discharge.” (EEOC, et al. v. Trinity Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-01617 CAS). As part of the settlement, Trinity must distribute a notice informing employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws and provide sexual harassment training for all managers.

The above case is a reminder that the “language” used by one employee can easily be considered “offensive” and sexual harassing by another employee. An employee’s stray comment, sexual inference or joke is often considered sexual harassment by a co-worker. Interestingly, the improper comments are often made by those employees in a supervisory, management or senior executive position.

To reduce company liability and prevent harassment allegations, claims and lawsuits, many companies conduct sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Employees should be provided with the legal definition of sexual harassment, given examples of sexual harassment based on common work-day interactions, provided the company’s reporting procedures and encouraged to report all incidents without fear of retaliation.

Creating a culture where employees are empowered to report sexual harassment often starts with a well drafted employee handbook that clearly defines the company’s reporting procedures. To prevent sexual harassment, we recommend that all employers review their handbook policies for clarity and consider sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Indeed, this training is a requirement for employers with more than 50 employees, which includes contractors and part-time employees.  Additionally, the training should be considered by smaller employers to bolster their defenses in the event of similar litigation.

Liberty Law provides economical harassment prevention training that complies with the law, adding to the employer’s defense in the event of litigation. Additionally, Liberty Law will provide this training and seminar free of charge to its level 2 and 3 monthly subscribers (more details here) after 6 months of engagement.

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal has basically banned unions from picketing on business property within California. In its opinion the court invalidated two California laws designed to protect union demonstrations on business property.  The reviewing court ordered the trial court to grant an injunction restraining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“the Union”) from picketing in front of a Sacramento warehouse store owned by Ralphs Grocery Co. (“Ralphs”). Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8, No. C060413 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2010).

Facts: The dispute arose when several members of the Union picketed in front of Food Co., a subsidiary of Ralphs, for being a nonunion store. Ralphs sued for trespass and sought to enjoin the unauthorized picketing after an unsuccessful attempt to require the Union to follow Food Co.’s rules for speech on the property. The rules prohibited, in part, the distribution of literature, physical contact with any person, display of signs larger than two feet by three feet, and speech within 20 feet of the store entrance. Ralphs alleged that the Union didn’t follow the rules ; specifically, that the Union  was handing out flyers and enlisting supporters within five feet of the entrance.

In bringing suit, Ralphs challenged the constitutionality of California’s Moscone Act, which deprived state courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against “peaceful picketing or patrolling” involving any labor dispute. Ralph’s lawsuit also challenged California’s Labor Code section 1131.8, which imposed severe restrictions on a property owner’s right to obtain injunctive relief against union activities. The trial court ruled that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional because it constituted content based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The trial court, however, upheld the constitutionality of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 in light of a prior appellate decision which held that Labor Code section 1138.1 did not violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Applying Labor Code section 1138.1, the trial court denied Ralphs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ralphs appealed.

Decision: Three questions of law were at issue on appeal:

1) Is the entrance area of Food Co., where the picketing was taking place, a public or private forum? If public, the California Constitution required that any time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech be reasonable. The court found that Food Co.’s entrance area was not a public forum, so the company was free to restrict the type of speech allowed at its entrance.

2) Is California’s Moscone Act, which limited the ability of courts to issue injunctions in labor relations cases, constitutional? The constitutionality of the Moscone Act was at issue because the Act’s selective restriction was based on the content of the speech. The court held that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it afforded preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues.

3) Is the requirement of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 that factual showings be made before a court is able to grant an injunction in a labor dispute constitutional (i.e., that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and that substantial and irreparable injury to the property would result)? The court found that this Labor Code section was unconstitutional for the same reasons as that of the Moscone Act.

Stay Tuned: Although the decision may be subject to further appeal, this case provides important guidance for employers dealing with the issue of regulating union activity on business property. The court’s ruling is seen as a major victory for California retailers who have endured loss of business and damage to their image resulting from union picketing on their properties. A wide spectrum of businesses ranging from hospitals to retail chain stores are expected to be impacted by this decision. Employers need to have a firm grasp of what constitutes public and private forums under California law and be able to determine the types of content neutral restrictions that are enforceable on their premises.

The Wall Street Journal writes that the U.S. economy slowed in the second quarter of this year and the government said the recession was deeper than earlier believed, adding to concerns over the recovery’s strength.  The Commerce Department Friday said U.S. gross domestic product, or the value of all goods and services produced, rose at an annualized seasonally adjusted rate of 2.4% in April to June. In its first estimate of the economy’s benchmark indicator, the government report showed growth was lifted by business investments and exports. Consumer spending, a key growth engine for the U.S. economy, made a smaller contribution to growth.

Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires were expecting GDP to rise by 2.5% in the second quarter. In the first quarter, the economy grew by 3.7%, revised up from an originally reported 2.7% increase. But growth estimates all the way back to the start of 2007 were revised lower.

After suffering its worst downturn since the 1930s, the U.S. economy began taking small steps forward about a year ago, helped by the Federal Reserve’s slashing of lending rates and the government tax cuts. But recent data have raised questions about the recovery’s durability. The job market remains weak, with almost one in 10 Americans unemployed, and growth in consumer spending and manufacturing appears to be slowing down.  The government revision of data over the past three years showed that the economy’s exit from its deep slump was weaker than previously estimated. In the final quarter of 2009, for example, GDP rose at an annualized rate of 5.0% as consumer spending didn’t grow as much as previously thought. The earlier estimate was that GDP increased by 5.6%.

In the most recent quarter available, consumer spending rose by a moderate annualized rate of 1.6% in April to June. Spending by Americans, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy, rose by 1.9% in the first three months of the year.  Meantime, business spending on equipment and software continued to surge, increasing by 21.9% in the second quarter, compared with a 20.4% rise in the first three months. The figures highlight the contrast in the economy between high company profits and a persistently feeble jobs market keeping consumers at bay.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who last week said the economy’s outlook was “unusually uncertain”, has stressed the strength of the recovery will depend on whether consumers spend and companies invest enough to make up for fading support from the government. With unemployment still at 9.5% and Americans worried that taxes will need to rise to cut a huge budget deficit, that remains in doubt. When they meet Aug. 10, Fed officials are widely expected to repeat they see interest rates staying close to zero for a while and are likely to at least discuss ways in which they could support the economy further. A Fed official Thursday warned that deflation is a growing risk for the economy.

Economic growth in the U.S. during the second quarter slowed to 2.4%, indicating that the recovery has been weaker than previously expected. David Wessel, Dennis Berman and Evan Newmark discuss. Also, Dennis Berman tells the story about one of the leaders at Tiananmen Square who is now one of the top candidates to manage Berkshire Hathaway’s investment portfolio.

In a sign of the economy’s weakness, Friday’s report showed price increases continued to move down in the second quarter from already low levels.

The underlying inflation rate — which excludes volatile moves in food and energy prices and is closely watched by the Fed — increased by 1.1% in the April-to-June period from the previous quarter. That was the lowest reading of the core personal consumption expenditure index since the first three months of 2009 and came after a 1.2% rise in the first quarter of this year.

Other inflation gauges within the government’s report were also muted. The overall price index for personal consumption expenditures rose by only 0.1% in the second quarter, slowing sharply from a 2.1% gain in the first quarter. Gross domestic purchase prices rose just 0.1%, after a 2.1% increase in the first quarter. The chain-weighted GDP price index increased by 1.8%, compared to 1.0% in the first three months.

For all of 2009, the government said the U.S. economy contracted by 2.6%, compared to the previously estimated 2.4% decline. In the whole of 2008, GDP was flat, instead of rising 0.4% as previously estimated. In 2007, the world’s largest economy expanded by 2.1%, down from an originally reported 1.9% increase.

In Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., a federal district court in Northern California recently approved a $4 million class action settlement for unpaid wages. Plaintiffs alleged that, as part of the retailer’s loss prevention program, they were required to submit to inspections of their personal bags and belongings before exiting the store. However, the inspections occurred after the employees had already clocked out. The settlement will compensate as many as 6,700 class members for the off-the-clock time waiting for and submitting to these bag inspections.    Employers are cautioned against retaining control over employees after the employee has clocked out.  Retaining sufficient control over what the employee does after clocking out, may amount to nothing short of forcing the employee to work off the clock, thereby entitling the employees to back pay, penalties and attorneys fees.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has published an Administrator’s Interpretation to address the question of whether an employee is entitled to leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to care for a child they are not biologically related to.  The FMLA provides that an eligible employee can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other things, the birth and care of the employee’s own newborn child, for placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, and to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.  Under the FMLA, employees who have no biological or legal relationship with a child may still be considered to stand in “loco parentis” to the child and be entitled to leave to care for the child.  Such a relationship can be demonstrated either by providing day-to-day care for the child, or financial support to the child. The DOL memo also makes it clear that same sex partners can establish the requisite in loco parentis relationship, providing in part that “where an employee provides day-to-day care for his or her unmarried partner’s child (with whom there is no legal or biological relationship) but does not financially support the child, the employee could be considered to stand in loco parentis to the child and therefore be entitled to FMLA leave to care for the child if the child had a serious health condition.”  The Interpretation further states that the same applies for “an employee who will share equally in the raising of a child with the child’s biological parent” and “an employee who will share equally in the raising of an adopted child with a same sex partner, [but] does not have a legal relationship with the child.”  The DOL also notes that “the fact that a child has a biological parent in the home, or has both a mother and a father, does not prevent a finding that the child is the ’son or daughter’ of an employee who lacks a biological or legal relationship with the child for purposes of taking FMLA leave.”

Employers need to be aware that the FMLA and California child care leave laws are not  necessarily limited to traditional definitions of family and parentage.  When faced with a request for child care leave, employers need to make an individualized fact-based determination regarding the relationship between the employee and the child.

In this post by Sarah Needleman of the Wall Street Journal, she points out a new tax credit that may be available to small business owners who pay for health insurance for their employees:

Uncle Sam wants small-business owners to take notice of a new health-care tax credit — one of the first provisions of the recently enacted health-reform law to go into effect.

Last week, the Internal Revenue Service announced that it’s sending postcards to more than four million small businesses urging them to check if they qualify for the tax break. It’s being offered in two phases, with the first worth up to 35% of qualifying businesses’ premium health-care costs for tax years 2010 through 2013. The rate increases to 50% in 2014. The maximum length of potential coverage for qualifying employers is six taxable years: four years under the first phase and two years under the second.

In general, to be eligible for the tax credit, businesses must cover at least 50% of the cost of health-care coverage for some of their workers, employ fewer than the equivalent of 25 full-time workers and pay average annual wages below $50,000. The IRS says the tax break is designed to encourage smaller businesses – which are not mandated by 2014 to provide health care, unlike companies with more than 50 employees – to offer health coverage to their low- and moderate-income workers.

Tammy Rostov, owner of Rostov’s Coffee & Tea in Richmond, Va., says she received the IRS’s postcard and expects her small retail business to be eligible for the credit. She offers health coverage to her five full-time employees and pays 100% of the premium, an amount that she says has increased by more than 200% over the past six years. She describes the tax credit as a welcome relief. “It’s a step in the right direction,” she says.

But other qualifying business owners are less enthusiastic, arguing that the tax break won’t make a significant impact on their bottom lines.

Pascal Helou, owner of Globotron LLC, a technology-consulting company in New York, says affording health insurance for his three employees is a non-issue given that he’s struggling these days just to stay in business. Since 2007, he says sales have declined 30% every year and his firm now has four clients, down from 15.

“For my business, this type of tax credit will not make a difference,” says Mr. Helou, adding that he has yet to receive the IRS’s postcard about it. “The real issue is the amount of business we’re getting. Nobody’s willing to spend money” on technology-consulting services.

Meanwhile, there are also some entrepreneurs who don’t believe the government should provide financial incentives for small businesses to offer health coverage to workers in the first place.

Jim Fab, owner of Fab Electric Inc., an electrical contractor business in Gaithersburg, Md., falls into this camp. Providing health insurance and other benefits to his 18 employees, he says, is “hopefully what separates me from the electrical contractor that doesn’t.”

Some small businesses appear to be left without any government aide under the new piece of health-reform legislation. These include organizations with between 25 and 50 employees and ones with less than 25 employees but payrolls that average $50,000 or more.

Tracy Betts, says her Springfield, Va., Web-design business, Balance Technology Group Inc., doesn’t qualify for the credit. While she employs the equivalent of eight full-time workers, their salaries’ average $71,000. “For me, it’s all about the programmers, and I can’t hire anyone for less than $90,000 (in annual pay),” she says.

Ms. Betts says a year and half ago she told her staff she could only afford to offer them either health-care coverage or a retirement-savings plan with a matching contribution from the company. All but one chose the latter benefit, she says.

This Smart Money article by Diana Ransom posted at the Wall Street Journal web page discusses several future growth industries.

Much has been said about the Obama administration pushing through new regulations on everything from health-care companies to banks — not to mention the impact these changes will have on the overall economy. But less attention has been paid to the way the new regulations will play out for entrepreneurs: Will stepped-up regulation stifle or stimulate growth? SmartMoney spoke with business owners, venture capitalists and analysts for a snapshot of six industries poised for growth.

Telecommunications

Even though shares of telecom giant Verizon Communications and its Finnish counterpart Nokia fell last week after reporting lackluster first-quarter results, there may be wind in their sails yet, says Drew Clark, director of strategy for IBM’s Venture Capital Group in San Mateo, Calif. One boost may come from the president’s National Broadband Plan, a program that aims to increase access to mobile broadband and support a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network. These firms, along with others, will likely benefit, says Clark. Per the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package, the government plans to spend $7.2 billion on the nation’s broadband projects.

Hosted Services

Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the president’s broadband agenda are the small companies that will have better access to faster web channels. FlexiSphere, a Hawthorne, N.Y., firm, offers financial services firms so-called cloud computing — technology that allows firms to share the server of a larger company via the Internet. As the nation’s infrastructure improves, so will access to the company’s products and services, says Tom Saleh, the company’s founder and CEO. “Cloud computing is all about better, faster, cheaper,” he says, adding that this is just a first step. “Cloud computing is doing for computing what the Internet did for communications,” Saleh says.

Information Technology

So far, the government hasn’t suggested the need to further regulate the information technology field, giving these firms a distinct advantage. That’s because the uncertainty surrounding regulatory reforms can both stymie a small company’s ability to make decisions and trigger a pullback in investment. In the first quarter of 2010, the IT industry raised $1.5 billion for 192 deals — the most of any other industry tracked by Dow Jones VentureSource, a research firm owned by News Corp., which also publishes SmartMoney.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Further, there’s a lot of pent-up demand for technology, says Karl Mills, the president and chief investment officer for Jurika Mills & Keifer, an independent investment advisory firm in Oakland, Calif. “Old inventory of technology gets written off quick when it becomes obsolete. However, during the downturn, many consumers and businesses put off buying new equipment,” he says. Plus, many of the larger companies in this arena, which often scoop up their smaller brethren, are well capitalized. “Microsoft could write a check and bail out Greece,” Mills says.

Media, Content Production

With that enhanced infrastructure, other beneficiaries include media companies and other content providers, which have struggled in recent years thanks to a precipitous drop in advertising revenues, says Sal Tirabassi, a partner at M/C Venture Partners in Boston. Between downloading movies and watching TV online at home or on a web-enabled mobile device, consumers’ appetites for content will likely expand, as will advertising opportunities. “Advertisers are increasing their budgets slightly again,” he says. “There will be a bit of a rebound there.”

Health Care

Thanks to federal and state stimulus dollars, the health-care infrastructure in the U.S. is about to get a triple bypass. Not only does the government plan to plow $20 billion into computerizing health records, the angel investment community has taken an interest in the sector. In 2009, health-care services, medical devices and equipment attracted 17% of total angel investment dollars, or nearly $3 billion, according to the Center for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire. “We’re seeing a lot of companies come through here with technology solutions for innovating medical records,” says Michelle Murcia, the chief financial officer of TechColumbus, a business incubator and venture firm in Columbus, Ohio. “Health care IT is a huge growth area.”

Clean Energy

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that global energy consumption will jump 33% between 2010 and 2030. This added demand, combined with a mix of venture-capital investment and $43 billion in federal stimulus spending bodes well for businesses that make everything from solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids and batteries, says Clark from IBM.

In addition, the government recently sweetened the tax incentives and subsidies for homeowners and businesses to install solar and other forms of energy-saving equipment. “Despite the fact that we’ve been in one of the worst recessions in decades, business in the industry has grown,” says David Kaltsas, president of SunWize Technologies’ systems group, a solar-panel installation and sales firm in Kingston, N.Y., which recently launched an installation franchise program. “Last year was tough, but we’ve since grown double-digits in our direct-installation business.”