Every book has some mistakes. While we tried really hard to proofread things 3,145,192 times, we know we missed a few things in the first edition. And although we believe we have resolved all of these issues in the second edition, it is possible that something was overlooked.

Therefore if you happen to find a mistake, or something you think is a mistake, in either the first or the second edition that is not listed below, please email us. If it’s a mistake that hasn’t already been reported, we’ll send you a signed copy of the book. Typos and grammar don’t count for this offer, but we’ll take them also.

p.xiv: Preface: Minor grammatical error. “We hope you find this book useful in your quest to creating a great company” should be “We hope you find this book useful in your quest in creating a great company.” (thanks David Cohen)

p.1: Introduction: The Art of the Term Sheet: Nothing like an error on page 1. Oops. “When DEC went public in 1968, this investment was worth over $355 million, or a return of over 500 times the invested capital.” While factually correct, the actual return was 5,071 times the invested capital. So the sentence should be “When DEC went public in 1968, this investment was worth over $355 million, or a return of over 5,000 times the invested capital.”  (thanks Anurag Mehta)

p.42: Chapter 4: Liquidation Preference: In this section, we defined full participation and capped participation. However, we don’t define non-participation, or the absence of a participation feature. Rather, we just went into the examples starting on p.44 assuming that non-participation was clear where we refer to “1x preference, nonparticipating” in Case 1. We should have defined non-participating as the situation where the investor either gets the liquidation preference or converts into common shares and gets his “as converted” ownership of the company. Investors almost always have the conversion right at any time, as we explain on p.70 in Chapter 5: Conversion. (thanks Tom Godin)

p. 45: Chapter 4: Liquidation Preference:  This section has several examples.  In Case 3 of the third example (where investors own 60% and entrepreneurs 40% of a $50M company that is being sold for $100M), we say that the outcome is the same as in Case 1. This is incorrect – it should be the same as Case 2 since the cap hasn’t been reached. The correct text is:  “Case 3: 1x preference, participating with a 3x cap: Since the investors won’t make greater than 3x on this deal, this is the same as Case 2.” (thanks Philip Lee)

p. 121: Chapter 9: The WimpGeorge McFly was the wimp, Marty was the hip son.

p. 136: Chapter 10: Don’t Be a Solo Founder: There are two grammatical errors in this section. First, “… many an A idea was left in the dustbin ...” should be “… many A ideas were left in the dustbin …“. Next, “The one exception would a repeat entrepreneur” should be “The one exception would be a repeat entrepreneur.” (thx Tal Adler)

p. 162: Chapter 12: The No-Shop Clause: We are missing the word “not” in the first sentence in a very key position. The sentence should read “Since most no-shop agreements will be unilateral, the buyer will typically have the right but not the obligation to cancel the no-shop if it decides not to go forward with the deal.” (thx Jason Seats)

On p.162, in the second paragraph, discussing a still-interested buyer’s potential extension of a no-shop agreement, the second sentence provides that, “[t]here is often some additional leverage that accrues to the seller at this moment and time, including . . . potential short term financing from the seller.”  It should read “financing from the buyer