Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Venture Capital’ Category


Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

This article has the following structure:

  • ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
  • ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma
  • ABOUT  the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes
  • ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
  • ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
  • Key Opinion Leader’s View: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

  1. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point is “one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.”
  2. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point should have been a TEVA commercialization effort. It is a regrettable reality that the development and the manufacturing will not benefit the State of Israel, home of the Weitzman Institute where the Patentable invention took place by Prof. Zelig Eshhar.
  3. It is to be acknowledged that for CAR-T – the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry (Juno has related process) – is bringing to the Oncology arena a NOVEL treatment for hematological malignancies cancer patients
  4. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that the Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. It is exactly, therefore, all need to acknowledge that the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun is inseparable from the breakthrough invention of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to develop the drug from the Lab bench to the FDA accelerated process of Drug approval.
  5. The Biotech industry in Israel needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Arie Belldegrun and with his entrepreneur acumen, keenness and depth of perception, discernmentdiscrimination especially in practical aspects of Translation Medicine, Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Design and abilities to engage in innovating the FDA processes.
  6. The Biotech industry in US needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to carry the scientific gravitas and the creativity to become inventors of novel drugs.

 

ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)

Pioneers of Cancer Cell Therapy:  Turbocharging the Immune System to Battle Cancer Cells — Success in Hematological Cancers vs. Solid Tumors

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/08/19/pioneers-of-cancer-cell-therapy-turbocharging-the-immune-system-to-battle-cancer-cells-success-in-hematological-cancers-vs-solid-tumors/

 

ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma

FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/08/30/fda-has-approved-the-worlds-first-car-t-therapy-novartis-for-kymriah-tisagenlecleucel-and-gileads-12-billion-buy-of-kite-pharma-no-approved-drug-and-canakinumab-for-lung-cancer-may-be/

 

ABOUT  the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes

“Chemotherapy will become just a bad memory”

More energetic than ever, Arie Belldegrun talks to “Globes” about Kite Pharma’s remarkable journey and the future of cancer treatment.

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-chemotherapy-will-become-just-a-bad-memory-1001206978

 

ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes

Kite Pharma was a $12b missed opportunity for Israel – Interview with Professor Zelig Eshhar

Some Israeli media headlines depicted Kite as an Israeli exit. But it is a US company that does no business in Israel and has no employees here.

Professor Zelig Eshhar is the man who registered the patent on the cancer treatment drug developed by Kite Pharma, recently acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion.

“Globes”: Do you believe that any party in Israel could have financed the product and brought it where it is today?

Eshhar: “On the one hand, yes. The level of investment in the product before it reached Nasdaq was something that an Israeli concern could certainly have financed. On the other hand, Kite Pharma founder Professor Arie Belldegrun, with his energy and connections, brought it to a completely different place (Eshhar previously tried to interest various concerns in Israel in financing the drug, but all of them told him that it was too early, or that the product was not effective enough, E.T.).

Was the development already in its final form in the 1980s?

“Almost. I went to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where I met for the first time Professor Steven Rosenberg, who later became the first doctor to conduct clinical trials with the technology. Rosenberg heard about my technology, and offered me exceptional conditions. We set up a team there, and had the best of everything. I only wish I had it now.”

They say that Belldegrun didn’t want the product at first. Today, he’s devoting all his efforts to it.

“When Arie founded Cougar Biotechnology, which developed a drug for prostate cancer, and was eventually sold to Johnson & Johnson for $1 billion, I contacted him and offered him the technology, but he was busy with Cougar’s product, and maybe didn’t think that he had enough capital for such a production. Only after he sold Cougar did he get back to me with an offer to buy the rights to my patent. At that time (2009-2010), the technology was already arousing great interest, and there were negotiations with several large companies.” (from an April 2015 “Globes” interview with Eshhar, who was awarded the Israel Prize).

Israelis can be very provincial. In at least some of the media headlines, Kite Pharma was portrayed as a “huge Israeli exit,” and the impression was given that it was an Israeli company. The truth is very different. Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company; it is a 100% US company. It does no business in Israel; its nearly $12 billion exit has no significance whatsoever for the Israeli economy, and will contribute nothing to it: no jobs, and the tax contribution will be marginal, and certainly not on the scale of Mobileye, for example. Let me say it again: Kite Pharma does not have even one employee in Israel (and has no reason to employ anyone here), and certainly does not pay taxes in Israel. There are no Israelis on the company’s management team or board of directors. This is a US company for all intents and purposes. The word “Israel” appears exactly once in the company’s full documents – where registration of the company’s patents is concerned. The fact that every story about the company mentions the small holdings of several Israeli financial institutions in it is a bad joke. Everyone should remember that Israeli financial institutions are of course entitled to invest in any foreign share, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple Computers, and so forth. Kite Pharma is one of those foreign shares, and nothing more.

Of course, there is cause for pride in the fact that Eshhar, owner of the patent for Kite Pharma’s drug is “one of ours,” i.e. an Israeli researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Another source of pride is Kite Pharma founder and CEO Arie Belldegrun, a graduate of the Hebrew University Medical School who did his post-doctorate at the Weizmann Institute, where he met Eshhar, and Kite Pharma later bought his patent for the cancer drug. Belldegrun was also a director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) until recently, resigning at the peak of that company’s crisis. Beyond this Israeli connection, however, the Kite Pharma exit has no great significance for Israel. All it means is that one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.

It is necessary to realize that while Belldegrun is indeed a big biomedical brain with many achievements in the field, he is a brain that has left Israel, and we all have to ask ourselves why he left, why Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company, and why its (as yet non-existent) product was not developed in Israel and will not be manufactured there. The headline in Israel for the Kite Pharma exit should ask why Israel lost out on it, even though the patent came from Israeli laboratories, albeit with US cooperation.

Belldegrun is likely to keep his experiences on the Teva board of directors to himself. Of all the directors in the company, what he has to say is the most interesting, but he is unlikely to divulge what happened there with the inflated deal with Allergan, and exactly what he said at the board of directors meeting that approved the deal that led Teva into its current major crisis. The Kite Pharma exit and his other exits only highlight the lost opportunity. Kite Pharma, still without a product and without approval for a product, was sold for $11.9 billion in cash. Teva yesterday hit another low point, with a market cap of $16 billion. It is simply inconceivable: a company with an enormous potential, but no product, is worth three quarters of a huge veteran company with at least dozens of products, including products in the ethical drug sector. Kite Pharma is actually one of the indirect reasons for Teva’s decline – for the fact that Teva, which could have been a hothouse for developments like Copaxone, chose a huge inflated gamble on the generics market – a gamble that is now jeopardizing Teva’s future and very existence.

It is true that developing drugs is a very long process, requires huge amounts of capital, and involves many failures, but Teva decided to neglect it, and when a major company like Teva neglects Israeli developments, there are enough competitors in the pharma industry ready to turn Israeli research into gold. Kite Pharma is one example of this research.

The Weizmann Institute is a fruitful source of biomedical research. According to previous estimates published in “Globes,” the Weizmann Institute gets NIS 1 billion each year in royalties on medical and other developments, amounting to half of its budget. Directly and indirectly, the Weizmann Institute, together with other universities in Israel, is responsible for tens of billions of pharmaceutical sales. Only a few billions of this, however, results from drugs developed in Israel, like Copaxone, and far less than that is also made in Israel. The reports by Yeda R&D Company Ltd., the technology transfer arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, are top secret, and there is a good reason for that. Exposing them will only highlight the scale of the missed opportunities. Instead of these inventions providing a base for a major pharmaceutical industry here, the commercialization companies are benefiting only the inventors and the Weizmann Institute itself (that is certainly natural and legitimate, and they are entitled to it), even though the research infrastructure from which they sprung is Israeli know-how, as in the case of Eshhar.

Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. When it succeeds, however, the profit is enormous – for the industry, the employees, and the state (provided that some tax is paid). For example, Pfizer’s peak sales of Lipitor, a very popular drug for reducing cholesterol and fat in the bloodstream, reached $11 billion, and its profit on the drug was $9 billion, before competition from a generic version began. In addition to money, a great deal of experience and marketing power is required, and that is the reason why most developments wind up in the hands of major companies like Pfizer, Merck, and others at some stage. After all these qualifying statements, everyone who celebrated Kite Pharma’s exit should weep over it – it is another part of the sale of Israeli know-how overseas for a mess of pottage. Instead of consolidating a splendid pharma industry here, Israel is selling the brains with their know-how to foreigners. More than anything else, Teva’s decline and the Kite Pharma exit epitomize this sad and dangerous trend.

Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 30, 2017

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2017

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-kite-pharma-the-huge-exit-that-israel-missed-1001203173

 

ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel

Israeli investors profit from $11.9b Kite acquisition

Pontifax fund and Israeli institutional investors will profit from the US personalized cancer drug company’s huge sale.  Part of the technology was developed at the Weizmann Institute

Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc. has announced that it will acquire US company Kite Pharma Inc., developer of personalized cancer treatment drugs, at a company value of $11.9 billion. This is one of the biggest ever acquisitions of a company whose products have not yet been approved for marketing. The company value for the acquisition reflects a 29% premium on the market price.

Kite Pharma has developed a new method for genetically engineering immune system cells, so that they will make a focused attack on the malignant tumor. The company was founded in the US by Israeli-American Professor Arie Belldegrun, who already has two exits to his credit. He is also a former director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) (whose current value is not much more than the value at which Kite Pharma, a company with no products approved for marketing yet, is being acquired).

A significant part of the technology on which the product is based was developed by Professor Zelig Eshhar of the Weizmann Institute of Science.

The main Israeli beneficiary of the acquisition is the Pontifax fund, which invested $3.8 million in Kite Pharma at an early stage, but which distributed Kite Pharma shares worth $120 million to its investors. Among the investors in Pontifax that received shares in Kite Pharma are Menorah Mivtachim Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MORA) (which also bought shares on the market, and whose stake in the company is now worth over $100 million), The Phoenix Holdings Ltd. (TASE: PHOE1;PHOE5), Altshuler Shaham Ltd.Meitav Dash Investments Ltd. (TASE:MTDS), Harel Insurance Investments and Financial Services Ltd. (TASE: HARL), and Mori Arkin.

Kite Pharma is waiting for marketing approval of its first product, following a successful trial on 100 patients on a very abbreviated track for innovative cancer products. The product was initially designed for treatment of blood cancer, but it is now hoped that its use can later be expanded to treatment of other types of cancer. Gilead is making a big gamble, first of all that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will fulfill its commitment to approve the product, even though the development plan it devised, together with the company, was very short and limited. The second gamble involves the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry.

Speaking about the talks to sell Kite, Prof. Arie Belldegrun told “Globes.” “We handled like in the IDF 669 unit. Nobody knew anything. Nobody heard anything. We held meetings in places where nobody would see us. And before we announced it only five employees knew about it.”

Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 28, 2017

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2017

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-investors-profit-from-119b-kite-acquisition-1001202841

 

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following: 

Curators: Stephen J Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

  • Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, on Amazon since 8/11/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013RVYR2K

  • Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2) – on Amazon since 5/18/2017

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VQ6YYK

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


VC Investment in BioTech MegaHubs and Top R&D Spenders among Big Pharma

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 4/26/2017

The top 10 pharma R&D budgets in 2016

The Top 10 Pharma R&D Budgets in 2016

Read More:

SOURCE

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/top-10-pharma-r-d-budgets-2016?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=993697&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RSbE9ESTRNR1pqWTJFNCIsInQiOiJFcUx4MFhxSFVGbVZhUkRGdUdRMTJMUGxFSEkrR0VTMEdXbjRvZkxmdXM4em4wRkg5QXZIOWJJWTgwNHR1a1dVbTRIUFwvNWRIXC9ZTkF5dHlpUUZ4bG1lS2c2NkszQk9oeGtRczhLcnYyalRSZEFjOEl6U3dUY2VaakxUbDdkNGNwIn0%3D

Book traversal links for The top 10 pharma R&D budgets in 2016

 

 

 

Table SOURCE: Thomson Reuters abd ENDPOINTS

According to both sources:

  • $3.5 billion for Silicon Valley plus the Bay Area and
  • $2.8 billion for New England.

Broken down by city, $6.1 billion went to

  • Boston ($2.7 billion),
  • San Jose ($2.5 billion) and
  • San Francisco/Berkeley ($1 billion).
  • San Diego ($725 million),
  • New York ($454 million) and
  • the Great Lakes area ($412 million)

SOURCE

Where the money is: Biotech’s megahubs command VC’s billions by john carrollJune 30, 2016 10:41 AM EDT, Updated: November 17, 2016 07:32 PM

The top 15 spenders in the global drug R&D business: 2017

by john carroll

April 24, 2017 05:22 AM EDT, Updated: 05:27 AM

The top five in the business saw their collective spending jump by more than $5 billion, from 2015 to 2016, based on the annual numbers filed largely — though not entirely — with the SEC and gathered by Endpoints News. Two of those companies,

  • Roche and the new number 2, a hard charging
  • Merck, accounted for the lion’s share of the increase. (To be sure, some onetime non-R&D spending, such as Merck’s patent settlement with Bristol-Myers on Keytruda, figured in. But so did bread and butter spending.)
  • Gilead also saw a significant increase in research costs, with
  • Eli Lilly — now off course following two bad setbacks for solanezumab and baricitinib — and the ever aggressive
  • Celgene joining the action as they pressed the accelerator on new drug programs.

Curiously, the added spending coincided with a bad drop in new drug approvals in 2016. But they don’t correlate, and we’ve already seen that turnaround under way as regulators get busy with a brand new year — and soon a brand new FDA commissioner.

SOURCE

https://endpts.com/special/top-research-budgets-in-pharma-and-biotech/

Read Full Post »


Income Geographic Distribution in California: Average income per filer by the Top-20 California Counties

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The top-20 California counties with the most millionaires per square mile

 

#20: Yolo County: Average income per filer – $2.21M & Total Million $ Filers: 149

#20: Monterey County: Average income per filer – $2.43M & Total Million $ Filers: 429

#18:  Stanislaus County: Average income per filer – $2.35M & Total Million $ Filers: 287

#18:  San Joaquin County: Average income per filer – $2.21M & Total Million $ Filers: 300

#16:  Santa Barbara County: Average income per filer – $2.78M & Total Million $ Filers: 801

#16:  Pacer County: Average income per filer – $2.68M & Total Million $ Filers: 446

#14:  Sonoma County: Average income per filer – $2.64M & Total Million $ Filers: 577

#14:  Napa County: Average income per filer – $2.98M & Total Million $ Filers: 299

#12: Venture County: Average income per filer – $2.61M & Total Million $ Filers: 1,123

#12:  Sacramento County: Average income per filer – $2.34M & Total Million $ Filers: 559

#10:  Santa Cruz County: Average income per filer – $2.74M & Total Million $ Filers: 341

#9:  San Diego County: Average income per filer – $2.7M & Total Million $ Filers: 4,225

#8:  Contra Costa County: Average income per filer – $2.43M & Total Million $ Filers: 2,528

#7:  Alameda County: Average income per filer – $2.52M & Total Million $ Filers: 2,735

#6:  Los Angeles County: Average income per filer – $3.37M & Total Million $ Filers: 16, 507

#5:  Marin County: Average income per filer – $3.03M & Total Million $ Filers: 2,123

#4:  Santa Clara County: Average income per filer – $3.7M & Total Million $ Filers: 7,922

#3:  Orange County: Average income per filer – $3M & Total Million $ Filers: 5,971

#2:  San Mateo County: Average income per filer – $4.1M & Total Million $ Filers: 4,879

#1:  San Francisco County: Average income per filer – $3.5M & Total Million $ Filers: 4,954-Million $ filers per SQ Mile – 105.7

 

SOURCE

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/02/14/bay-area-san-francisco-millionaires-wealthy.html?ana=e_ae_set1&s=article_du&ed=2017-02-14&u=X%2FweEFUOw1ERKtmMRu2T1g0e37142c&t=1487200568&j=77389661#g1

Read Full Post »


Institutional Capital Raised by Female Founders in 2016 – A Global Perspective vs the US Economy: Globally 1,272 in the United States 600

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

2016 REVIEW OF FEMALE FOUNDERS RAISING INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL

– See more at:

http://femalefoundersfund.com/2016-review-of-female-founders-raising-institutional-capital/#sthash.Pcuj7rVB.dpuf

 

The Data Reflects Several Key Trends
Key Takeaways

Raising a Series A led by an institutional VC remains difficult, but female founders in NYC continued to be the most successful (compared to those in other cities) in 2016.
At 17%, the percentage of total A rounds led by female CEOs in 2016 represents the highest total percentage since Female Founders Fund started tracking the data in 2013.
In addition, New York saw a record number of Series B and C rounds led by female founders in 2016.
Female Founders Fund remains the most active institutional VC firm investing in early-stage female-led companies.
Funds that have traditionally been uninterested in e-commerce have renewed interest in the e-commerce sector following the Dollar Shave Club and Jet.com acquisitions by large strategic investors.

2016 Series A Rounds — NYC — Female CEO
Rockets of Awesome — $12.5 million — December — Rachel Blumenthal
Ellevest — $9.0 million — September — Sallie Krawcheck
CoheroHealth — $9.0 million — November — Melissa Manice
Away — $8.5 million — September — Steph Korey
Primary– $8.0 million — June — Galyn Bernard
goTenna — $7.5 million — March — Daniela Perdomo
LOLA — $7.0 million — December — Alex Friedman and Jordana Kier
Uncharted Play — $7.0 million — September — Jessica Matthews
Thrive Global — $7.0 million — August — Arianna Huffington
Everplans — $6.4 million — June — Abby Schneiderman
pymetrics — $6.1 million — February — Frida Polli
Sakara Life — $4.8 million — January — Whitney Tingle, Danielle DuBoise
Shoppable — $3.5 million — August — Heather Marie
MMLaFleur — Sarah LaFleur

2016 Series A Rounds — Bay Area — Female CEO

Cortexyme — $15.0 million — January — Casey Lynch
FOVE — $11.0 million — March — Yuka Kojima
Front — $10.0 million — May — Mathilde Collin
REBBL — $10.0 million — December — Sheryl O’Loughlin
Nima — $9.2 million — May — Shireen Yates
Rocksbox — $8.7 million — March — Meaghan Rose
LaunchDarkly — $8.7 million — December — Edith Harbaugh
Modsy — $8.0 million — February — Shanna Tellerman
ThirdLove — $8.0 million — February — Heidi Zak
Node — $7.5 million — June — Falon Fatemi
Shippo — $7.0 million — September — Laura Behrens Wu
Mobilize — $6.5 million — September — Sharon Savariego
Neurotrack — $6.5 million — January — Elli Kaplan
Sourcery — $5.0 million — September — Na’ama Moran
Luka — $4.4 million — April — Eugenia Kuyda
SupportPay — $4.1 million — December — Sheri Atwood
Zybooks — $4.0 million — February — Smita Bakshi
Schoola — $3.6 million — May — Stacey Boyd

– See more at:

http://femalefoundersfund.com/2016-review-of-female-founders-raising-institutional-capital/#sthash.Pcuj7rVB.dpuf

 

 

Series A Rounds in 2016

Our 2016 analysis began with an overall review of Series A rounds globally, nationally and regionally.

2017 Research Graph 1

Series A Rounds Raised Globally, Nationally and Regionally in 2016

Series A Rounds in 2016:

 

 

 

2016 Series A Rounds in 2016:

Globally: 1,272
United States: 600
Bay Area: 187
NYC: 84
Boston: 31
Los Angeles: 38
Seattle: 26
Austin: 7
Washington D.C.: 17

2015 Series A Rounds in 2015:

Globally: 1,164

United States: 664

Bay Area: 205

NYC: 96

Boston: 50

Los Angeles: 40

Seattle: 25

Austin: 22

Washington D.C.: 17

– See more at:

http://femalefoundersfund.com/2016-review-of-female-founders-raising-institutional-capital/#sthash.Pcuj7rVB.dpuf

The total number of Series A rounds in the U.S. decreased by 10% in 2016. Of the seven regions that we track in the U.S., Seattle is the only region that experienced an increase in the number of Series A raises in 2016, at 4%.

While overall Series A activity declined slightly in Los Angeles, there were two large Series A raises for female-led businesses — (i) HopSkipDrive, led by CEO Joanna McFarland, which raised $10.2 million in January 2016 from Upfront Ventures and FirstMark Capital; and (ii) Hutch, led by CEO Beatrice Fischel-Bock, which raised $5 million in July 2016 from Founders Fund. Los Angeles remains among the most female entrepreneur-friendly cities in the U.S.

 

VC’s investing in female-led companies in 2016.

Female Founders Fund remained the most active investor, participating in 3 of the 14 — or 21% — of all female-led A rounds in NYC. – See more at: http://femalefoundersfund.com/2016-review-of-female-founders-raising-institutional-capital/#sthash.Pcuj7rVB.dpuf

– See more at:

http://femalefoundersfund.com/2016-review-of-female-founders-raising-institutional-capital/#sthash.Pcuj7rVB.dpuf

Read Full Post »


On Investment Platforms for Private Funds and Investment Platforms for Private Placements – SEC Update

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

SEC Update

In the last few years, we have seen a number of important developments in the securities laws related to finders and broker-dealer registration requirements. Below we provide an overview of the broker-dealer registration requirement as it relates to finders who assist in matching issuers with investors or buyers and the latest developments in this area.

Overview

The distinction between being classified as a finder and a broker-dealer can have significant consequences. An unregistered broker-dealer may face sanctions from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and it may be unable to enforce payment for its services. In addition, transactions involving an unregistered broker-dealer may create a right of rescission in favor of the investors, allowing the investors the right to require the issuer to return the money invested. One example of the consequences of an unregistered broker-dealer occurred in the Ranieri Partners SEC enforcement action. In that action the SEC brought charges against a private-equity firm, its managing director, and a consultant because of the consultant’s failure to register as a broker-dealer. The SEC’s order found that the private equity firm paid transaction-based fees to a consultant, who was not registered as a broker-dealer, for soliciting investors for private fund investments.1

The federal securities laws do not specifically define the term “finder” or outline what finders can do. Instead, finders must avoid being deemed a broker or dealer under the federal securities laws unless they register as such with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). A broker is defined as “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the accounts of others.”2 A dealer is defined as a person that is “engaged in the business of buying and selling securities … for such person’s own account,” but excludes a person that buys and sells securities for its own account, but not as part of a regular business.3Because the broker definition is the one that finders have the most trouble with, this discussion is focused on what activities may cause a finder to fall within the definition of a broker required to register with the SEC and FINRA.

  • M&A Brokers
  • FINRA Guidance
  • Investment Platforms for Private Placements
  • Investment Platforms for Private Funds
  • Crowdfunding
  • Potential Regulatory Action
Conclusion

A determination of whether an intermediary is acting as a finder or an unregistered broker-dealer is a very fact-specific analysis and can often be very complex. Unfortunately for unwary entrepreneurs, company executives, and equity fund sponsors, frequently a third party assisting with capital-raising will be acting as a broker-dealer, not a finder, and therefore should not be engaged unless properly registered. It is likely that we will see further clarification or new rules from regulators in the future; regardless, it is important to always carefully consider the involvement of finders or broker-dealers in any capital-raising endeavor.

If you have any questions regarding the use of finders, or capital raising in general, please contact the Venable lawyer with whom you work, one of the authors of this article, or a member of our Corporate Finance and Securities Group.

SOURCE
https://www.venable.com/finders-and-unregistered-broker-dealers-12-04-2015/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

Read Full Post »


2017 Top 50 in Digital Health by Rock Health

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

We found the following to be very interesting:

 

Most Prolific Corporate VC

UPMC Enterprises

UPMC Enterprises, the commercialization arm of UPMC, is shaping the future of health care through innovation. Focused on generating impactful technology solutions, they invest in key focus areas: clinical tools, population health, consumer-centric health care, and business services and infrastructure. As the most active corporate venture investor of the year in digital health, UPMC contributed to several funding rounds including investments in Health Catalyst and Lantern.

Most Prolific VC

Khosla Ventures

Khosla Ventures helps entrepreneurs with large problems that are amenable to technology solutions. A longtime tech and healthcare investor, Khosla Ventures participated in five digital health deals this year, including Neurotrack and Color Genomics.

Best Performing IPO

Evolent Health

Evolent Health partners with health systems to accelerate their transformation to value-based care. By integrating the people, processes, and technology needed to drive clinical and financial growth, Evolent has found the secret to success—it is one of the digital health stocks with the biggest returns YTD, up 114% since the start of the year.

Crowdfunding Hero

BSX Technologies: LVL

LVL is the first wearable hydration monitor that gives users the complete picture of their health by also tracking activity, sleep, mood, and heart rate. Their wildly successful Kickstarter campaignresulted in over $1.1 million pledged of their $50,000 goal, and backers will soon be able to measure their hydration in real time. Fewer than 200 crowd funding campaigns have ever raised over $1 million.

SEE ALL CATEGORIES in

https://rockhealth.com/announcing-the-2017-top-50-in-digital-health/

Read Full Post »


We’re seeing an acceleration of M&A activity and a growing IPO pipeline through the end of 2016, but the bar remains high.

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Here’s what one top VC firm predicts will happen to tech startups in 2017

Accel is an early & growth-stage venture capital firm and is known for its investments in Facebook, Slack, and Dropbox. This is the firm’s annual presentation on what the tech environment is like for founders today and what will happen in 2017, republished with permission.

  1. It’s an incredible time to be a technology entrepreneur.
  2. A rising “new guard” are officially the most valuable companies in the world: Apple, Alphabet/Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook.
  3. But of course, it’s important to stay disciplined.
  4. We’re seeing an acceleration of M&A activity and a growing IPO pipeline through the end of 2016, but the bar remains high.

 

*In order as of 11/22/16:

  • Apple — $596B
  • Alphabet/Google — $551B
  • Microsoft — $478B
  • Amazon — $372B
  • Facebook — $348B

**Bloomberg dug into the numbers here too.

 

SOURCE

http://www.businessinsider.com/accel-2017-vc-predictions-2016-11

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »