Margarita Kelrikh, counsel at Pillsbury, joins the Houston Innovators Podcast to discuss her career, legal tips for startups, and why she's dedicated to the Houston startup community. Photo courtesy

Margarita Kelrikh has taken a circuitous route to her new role working with her Houston startup clients at Pillsbury.

She started out her legal career in New York as a debt attorney, transitioned to investment banking then worked in-house at WeWork at its peak, before moving to Houston in 2022 with a mission of representing startups as an emerging companies and venture capital lawyer.

The common thread of her career? Tackling the most challenging problems she can get her hands on.

"I have this instinct — when someone tells me a problem, I say, 'Let me solve that for you,'" Kelrikh, who serves as counsel at Pillsbury, explains on the Houston Innovators Podcast.

After working in house for most of her career, her decision to go back into working at a law firm stemmed from wanting new, fresh, and varied problems for the connections she made and continues to make in the startup ecosystems of New York and now Houston.

"I realized I wanted to work with the people who I worked with in the past, and the only way I could do that is if I went back to a law firm," she says, explaining that working in house means you can only have one client: your employer. "It's about having that variety and being able to work with a wide array of people"

Since moving to Houston, she's dove headfirst into the startup community by going at events and other programming to grow her connections locally. Kelrikh says she doesn't see many EC/VC lawyers showing up like she does.

"What I really want to do at Pillsbury is to really spend time on investing in the Houston startup community," she says, explaining that this includes hosting events and office hours. "Pillsbury is really committed to the Texas and Houston markets."

Kelrikh's client list is industry agnostic, and says she usually looks for founders who have started their businesses, maybe reached some product-market fit, and is gearing up to raise their first round of funding. But there are some instances when she'll take promising, high-growth potential companies at incorporation stage.

"Some companies don't need to hire a lawyer — they just need someone to point them in the right direction," she says, adding that even if a company isn't ready to hire Pillsbury yet, the firm has a lot of free and useful resources on its platform, Pillsbury Propel.

In the same vein, Kelrikh shares some of her go-to startup legal advice on the podcast, and she emphasizes how ready and willing she is to serve the Houston startup community.

"What I like about Houston as a startup ecosystem is it's a startup itself, and that's my absolute sweet spot," she says. "For anybody who wants to be involved, not only is there an opportunity to participate, but there's an opportunity to take a really active role to build it."

Should your startup opt for SAFEs or convertible notes on your next funding round? This Houston expert weighs in. Photo via Getty Images

Houston startup adviser on navigating SAFE, convertible notes in funding rounds

guest column

As both a founder and occasional early-stage investor in the Houston ecosystem, I've seen firsthand the opportunities and challenges surrounding seed funding for local startups. This critical first fundraising round sets the trajectory, but navigating the landscape can be tricky, especially for first time founders who may not be familiar with the lingo.

One key dynamic is choosing the right deal structure — SAFEs (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) vs. convertible notes are the most common vehicles early stage startups use to raise capital and are far more founder-friendly than a priced round.

Let's start first with what the have in common:

  • Both allow you to defer setting a valuation for your company until a later (likely priced) round, which is useful in early stages or pre-revenue companies
  • Both are cheaper and faster to execute than a priced round, which cash-strapped early stage founders like
  • Both can have terms like valuation cap, discount, conversion event, and pro rata rights.
  • Both are less attractive to investors seeking immediate equity (especially important if starting the QSBS clock is part of your investors strategy or if the investor is newer to startup investing)
  • Both can create messy cap tables and the potential for a lot of dilution for the founders (and investors) if they are used for multiple raises (especially with different terms)

While as you can see they have similarities, they have some important differences. Let's dig in on these next:

SAFEs:

  • Created by Y Combinator in 2013, the intent was to create a simplified, founder friendly agreement as an alternative to the convertible note
  • Is an agreement for future equity for the investor at a conversion event (priced round or liquidation event) which converts automatically.
  • It's not a debt instrument and does not accrue interest or have a maturity date.
  • Generally have much lower upfront legal costs and faster to execute

Convertible Notes:

  • A debt agreement that converts to equity at a later date (or conversion event like a priced round)
  • Accrues interest (usually 2 to 8 percent) and has a maturity date by which the note must either be repaid or convert to equity. If you reach your maturity date before raising a qualifying round, you can often renegotiate to extend the maturity date or convert the note, though be prepared to agree to higher interest rates, additional warrants, or more favorable conversion terms.
  • More complex and take longer to finalize due to non-standard terms resulting in higher legal and administrative costs

It's worth reiterating that in both cases, raising multiple rounds can lead to headaches in the form of complex cap tables, lots of dilution, and higher legal expenses to determine conversion terms. If your rounds have different terms on discounts and valuation caps (likely) it can cause confusion around equity and cap table structure, and leave you (the founder) not sure how much equity you will have until the conversion occurs.

In my last startup, our legal counsel — one of the big dogs in this space for what it's worth — strongly advised us to only do one SAFE round to prevent this.

Why do some investors tend to prefer convertible notes?

There are a few reasons why some investors, particularly angel investors from developing startup ecosystems (like Houston), prefer convertible notes to SAFEs.

  • Because they are structured as debt, note holders have a higher priority than equity investors in recovering their investment if the company fails or is liquidated. This means they would get paid after other creditors (like loans or credit cards) but before equity investors, increasing the likelihood of getting some of their money back.
  • The interest terms protect investors if the founder takes a long time to raise a priced funding round. As time passes, interest accumulates, increasing the investor's potential return. This usually results in the investor receiving a larger equity stake when the note converts. However, if the investor chooses to call in the note instead, the accrued interest would increase the amount of money owed, similar to a traditional loan
  • More defined conversion triggers (including a maturity date) gives investors more control and transparency on when and how their investment will convert.
  • Can negotiate more favorable terms than the standard SAFE agreement, including having both a valuation cap and a discount (uncommon on a SAFE, which usually only has one or the other), interest rates, and amendment clauses to protect them from term revisions on earlier investors by future investors (called a cram-down), etc.
We'll go over what the various terms in these agreements are and what to look out for in a future article

How to choose:

  • Consider your startup's stage and valuation certainty — really uncertain or super early? Either of these instruments are preferable to a priced round as you can defer the valuation discussion
  • Assess investor preferences in your network — often the deciding factor if you don't have a lot of leverage; most local angels prefer c-notes because they see them as less risky though SAFEs are becoming more common with investors in tech hubs like Silicon Valley
  • Evaluate your timeline and budget for legal costs — as I mentioned, SAFEs are way less expensive to execute (though still be prepared to spend some cash).
  • Align the vehicle with your specific goals and growth trajectory

There's no one-size-fits-all solution, so it's crucial to weigh these factors carefully.

The meanings of these round terms like "seed" are flexible, and the average seed funding amount has increased significantly over the past decade, reaching $3.5 million as of January 2024. This trend underscores the importance of choosing the right funding vehicle and approach.

Looking ahead, I'm bullish on Houston's growing startup ecosystem flourishing further. Expect more capital formation from recycled wins, especially once recently minted unicorns like High Radius, Cart.com, Solugen, and Axiom Space exit and infuse the ecosystem with fresh and hungry angels, new platforms beyond traditional venture models, and evolving founder demographics bringing fresh perspectives.

------

Adrianne Stone is the principal product manager at Big Cartel and the founder of Bayou City Startups, a monthly happy hour organizer. This article original ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston geothermal unicorn Fervo officially files for IPO

going public

Fervo Energy has officially filed for IPO.

The Houston-based geothermal unicorn filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17 to list its Class A common stock on the Nasdaq exchange. Fervo intends to be listed under the ticker symbol "FRVO."

The number and price of the shares have not yet been determined, according to a news release from Fervo. J.P. Morgan, BofA Securities, RBC Capital Markets and Barclays are leading the offering.

The highly anticipated filing comes as Fervo readies its flagship Cape Station geothermal project to deliver its first power later this year

"Today, miles-long lines for gasoline have been replaced by lines for electricity. Tech companies compete for megawatts to claim AI market share. Manufacturers jockey for power to strengthen American industry. Utilities demand clean, firm electricity to stabilize the grid," Fervo CEO Tim Latimer shared in the filing. "Fervo is prepared to serve all of these customers. Not with complex, idiosyncratic projects but with a simplified, standardized product capable of delivering around-the-clock, carbon-free power using proven oil and gas technology."

Fervo has been preparing to file for IPO for months. Axios Pro first reported that the company "quietly" filed for an IPO in January and estimated it would be valued between $2 billion and $3 billion.

Fervo also closed $421 million in non-recourse debt financing for the first phase of Cape Station last month and raised a $462 million Series E in December. The company also announced the addition of four heavyweights to its board of directors last week, including Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, Hewlett-Packard, and Spring-based HPE.

Fervo reported a net loss of $70.5 million for the 2025 fiscal year in the S-1 filing and a loss of $41.1 million in 2024.

Tracxn.com estimates that Fervo has raised $1.12 billion over 12 funding rounds. The company was founded in 2017 by Latimer and CTO Jack Norbeck.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

New UT Austin med center, anchored by MD Anderson, gets $1 billion gift

Future of Health

A donation announced Tuesday, April 21, breaks a major record at the University of Texas at Austin. Michael and Susan Dell are now UT Austin's first supporters to give $1 billion. In response, the university will create the UT Dell Campus for Advanced Research and the UT Dell Medical Center to "advance human health," per a press release.

The release also records "significant support" for undergraduate scholarships, student housing, and the Texas Advanced Computing Center for supercomputing research.

Both the new research campus and the UT Dell Medical Center will integrate advanced computing into their research and practices. At the medical center, the university hopes that will lead to "earlier detection, more precise and personalized care, and better health outcomes." The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center will also be integrated into the new medical center.

That comes with a numeric goal measured in 10s: raise $10 billion and rank among the top 10 medical centers in the U.S., both in the next decade.

In the shorter term, the university will break ground on the medical center with architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) "later this year."

“UT Austin, where Dell Technologies was founded from a dorm room, has always been a place where bold ideas become real-world impact,” said Michael and Susan Dell in a joint statement.

They continued, “What makes this moment so meaningful is the opportunity to build something that brings every part of the journey together — from how students learn, to how discoveries are made, to how care reaches families. By bringing together medicine, science and computing in one campus designed for the AI era, UT can create more opportunity, deliver better outcomes, and build a stronger future for communities across Texas and beyond.”

This is the second major gift this year for the planned multibillion-dollar medical center. In January, Tench Coxe, a former venture capitalist who’s a major shareholder in chipmaking giant Nvidia, and Simone Coxe, co-founder and former CEO of the Blanc & Otus PR firm, contributed $100 million$100 million.

Baylor scientist lands $2M grant to explore links between viruses and Alzheimer’s

Alzheimer’s research

A Baylor College of Medicine scientist will begin exploring the possible link between Alzheimer’s disease and viral infections thanks to a $2 million grant awarded in March.

Dr. Ryan S. Dhindsa is an assistant professor of pathology & immunology at Baylor and a principal investigator at Texas Children’s Duncan Neurological Research Institute (Duncan NRI). He hypothesizes that Alzheimer’s may have some link to previous viral infections contracted by the patient. To study this intriguing possibility, the American Brain Foundation has gifted him the Cure One, Cure Many award in neuroinflammation.

“It is an honor to receive this support from the Cure One, Cure Many Award. Viral infections are emerging as a major, underappreciated driver of Alzheimer's disease, and this award will allow our team to conduct the most comprehensive screen of viral exposures and host genetics in Alzheimer's to date, spanning over a million individuals,” Dhindsa said in a news release. “Our goal is to identify which viruses matter most, why some people are more vulnerable than others, and ultimately move the field closer to new therapeutic strategies for patients.”

Roughly 150 million people worldwide will suffer from Alzheimer’s by 2050, making it the most common cause of dementia in the world. Despite this, scientists are still at a loss as to what exactly causes it.

Dhindsa’s research is part of a new range of theories that certain viral infections may trigger Alzheimer’s. His team will take a two-fold approach. First, they will analyze the medical records of more than a million individuals looking for patterns. Second, they will analyze viral DNA in stem cell-derived brain cells to see how the infections could contribute to neurological decay. The scale of the genomic data gathering is unprecedented and may highlight a link that traditional studies have missed.

Also joining the project are Dr. Caleb Lareau of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Artem Babaian of the University of Toronto. Should a link be found, it would open the door to using anti-virals to prevent or treat Alzheimer’s.