Tag Archives: issue

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 2: Venture Philanthropy Targets Neuromuscular Diseases

26 Jul

The venture philanthropy arm of a larger organization is currently looking for new companies in the life science space to invest in, and anticipates on investing in at least two new firms this year. The firm has an evergreen structure, meaning that funds come directly from its parent organization, and can be deployed as needed. The fund has over $100 million in total assets currently, and was allotted $4 million in 2013 for new investments, and typically makes equity investments ranging from $500,000 to $3 million.

The venture arm is currently looking for firms in the biotech therapeutics space. They are especially interested in companies that are developing therapeutics that treat diseases that fall within the realm of neuromuscular diseases. There about 40 different diseases within this category, but some of the specific areas of interest for the firm include multiple sclerosis and ALS, but they will consider therapeutics treating any indication within this subsector. They invest internationally, and will consider firms based in the US, as well as those based anywhere else around the world.

Primarily investing in pre-revenue companies, the firm has no criteria in terms of revenue or EBITDA. The firm will invest in firms that have products ranging from proof of concept in phase I to phase III.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 3: PE Group with Dry Powder Seeks Wide Range of Life Science Opportunities

26 Jul

A private equity group with offices worldwide is currently deploying assets from its seventh fund, which closed at nearly $400 million, bringing the firm’s total assets under management to over $1 billion. With that being said, the firm has been very actively seeking and investing in new companies in the life sciences space, and still has a great deal of dry powder on hand from its seventh fund. The firm made 3-4 new investments within the last two months, and anticipates that the group will be investing at around the same pace in 2013 if they continue to source compelling opportunities in the space and also expects that their current fund’s portfolio will consist of around 18-20 companies in total. The firm typically allocates around $5-15 million, but has written tickets ranging from $2-40 million in the past.

The firm is interested in biotech firms creating therapeutics, medical technology companies that develop medical devices, as well as specialty pharmaceutical companies. The firm is especially interested in medical device companies that are creating ophthalmology or instrumental neurology products. In the biotech therapeutics and diagnostics space, the firm is opportunistic in terms the indication the product that a firm is targeting, however is especially interested in firms that are developing drugs for the treatment of orphan diseases.

The firm plans to allocate two-thirds of the group’s seventh fund to US based firms and one-third to firms located in China. In China, they provide firms with growth capital while in the US the firm has more of a venture capital approach to investments. Accordingly, the firm invests in earlier stage pre-revenue companies in the US and later stage companies in China that are generating revenue. With that being said, the firm is looking for US biotech companies whose products are in early stage phase II of clinical trials or later, and in the medtech space the firm’s product must be undergoing clinical trials to be considered.

IPO Surge Increasing Private Investor Competition

25 Jul

By Michael Quigley, Research Analyst, LSN

mike-2With the number of Biotech IPOs in 2013 having already doubled the number in 2012, this year is shaping up to be the biggest for biotech in the last decade. These kinds of numbers are leaving many investors and companies alike wondering what exactly is fueling this wildfire. General investor confidence across the market paired with low interest rates could be one answer. However, other industries are not experiencing the same growth that biotech has been seeing as of late. Over the past three years, the NASDAQ biotech index is up 128%, which is leagues above the S&P 500’s return of 52%. (1) These returns are one result of the FDA’s recent increased willingness to approve drugs, paired with an improved understanding of the molecular substructure of diseases, which contributed to drug approvals in reaching their highest levels in over a decade in 2012.

These numbers – however promising – do not tell the whole story on this IPO eruption that we are seeing as of late. The JOBS act of 2012, for instance, plays a part in this development. Included in the act was a clause that allows for companies looking to IPO to speak with investors months before making a public declaration of an IPO, a strategy known as “testing the waters”. This lets investment firms effectively premarket an offering before any SEC filing, which allows them to address the interest of the fund’s own investors in a biotech company’s equity. This streamlining of deal structuring in the space is what has delivered the vast number of successful Biotech IPOs this year –  companies have seen as many as two-thirds of investors participating in their IPOs coming straight from their one-on-one meetings. (2)

A continuation of this IPO trend will push big pharma to invest in earlier stage companies to keep pipelines robust, unless they wish to compete with the prices offered by public markets for mergers and acquisitions. This additional exit option will also put increased pressure on investment firms, as they will no longer be able to offer deals with less-than-favorable terms to companies they look to invest in (for fear of losing them to the public markets). Just as with pharma, this could push these investment firms to look to develop relationships with earlier stage companies in the space long before thoughts of IPO are on the table. The bottom line is, this surge of IPOs is adding a new supply of investment in the biotech space that will increase competitiveness among current investors, causing them to offer better terms – and look to earlier stage companies – for their newest investments.

1. “Strong Biotech Market Fuels IPO Surge.” NVCA Today. William Blair & Company, n.d. Web. 25 July 2013.

2. Herper, Matthew. “Why The JOBS Act Is A Lifesaver For Life Sciences Companies.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 19 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 1: Seed Stage VC Seeks Medtechs for Partnerships

25 Jul

A seed stage venture capital firm located in the Eastern United States, which makes equity investments of up to $100,000 into seed stage organizations, is focusing on emerging spinouts from Universities. The firm’s fund has an evergreen structure, and is currently looking to make one additional investment in 2013.

The VC is currently most interested in investing in a therapeutics company, as they have the most experience in that sector. However, the firm would also consider allocating to a company developing a medical technology or diagnostic. Within these sectors, the firm is opportunistic in terms of subsector and indication, and will evaluate these companies on a case-by-case basis.

The firm is always looking to make a strong partnership with their partner’s science teams, so having capable leadership in place that is willing and able to work alongside them is paramount. As they are looking for companies fresh out of the university setting, they exclusively invest in pre-revenue companies.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 2: Family Office Seeks Opportunities in Medtech Space

25 Jul
A family office located in the Western US with around $100 million in assets is looking for a compelling opportunity for allocation within the next 6-9 months. The office invested in more than five deals in 2012, typically between $1-5 million per firm.

The foundation is most interested in medical devices, and will look at firms within the full gamut of medtech subsectors. Typically, the office allocates to firms that have at least one product on the market. They have no strict criteria in terms of a firm’s EBITDA or revenue, but require that any firm in which they invest has goals to lower the cost of healthcare.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 3: Experienced PE Looking for Medical Device Companies

25 Jul

A private equity company based in the Central United States has invested over $700 million throughout its lifetime, and is currently making investments out of its 12th fund, which raised $100 million. The firm is looking to make a growth equity allocation of around $3-$5 million initially, and up to $10 million over the lifetime of the investment. The firm will consider companies in any location, and is looking to make 4-5 investments over the next 12 months.

The PE invests in approved medical devices, healthcare IT, biotech R&D services and diagnostics. They have experience in delivery devices, implantable devices, and reusable instruments, so companies within these subsectors would be ideal. However, other medical devices may also be considered. The firm also has interest in the biotech R&D services sector, and in subsectors of CRO’s & diagnostic instrumentation.

The firm is looking to invest in a company with approximately $5 million in yearly revenue with a strong management team. They will consider small public or private companies for investment, and seek to acquire an active position on the company’s board.

What the JOBS Act Means for Fundraising in the Life Science Arena

25 Jul

By Danielle Silva, Director of Research, LSN

As you may have already heard, the SEC voted 4 to 1 on Wednesday July 10, 2013 in favor of implementing section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. The act lifts the ban on solicitation, as well as on certain restrictions regarding the advertising of private offerings that have been in place for around eight decades.

In the past, in order to openly raise money, a company would have to go public, a difficult milestone for many early stage life science firms to attain – especially if the company does not have a product on the market.

In my research, I’ve encountered a large number of firms in the biotech and medtech space that have chosen to pursue this route (with no products on the market), which ultimately leaves them with a penny stock on an obscure or over-the-counter exchange, providing little legitimacy to investors, and forcing the company to raise all subsequent rounds through PIPES (private investments in public equity). Therefore, the approval of this section of the JOBS Act is great news for firms in the life sciences space – especially early stage firms that are struggling to bridge the valley of death – who will now be able to adopt a more aggressive outbound marketing campaign.

Outside the realm of marketers for alternative investments, many individuals and firms are not familiar with the legality that in the past was associated with private placement offerings. Before the approval of 201(a) of the JOBS Act, companies had to establish a “relationship” with an investor before they could attempt to obtain funds. To illustrate, imagine this scenario: a life science firm seeking capital e-mails a family office that they believe would be interested in their technology. In order to be in compliance with the regulations surrounding private placements in the past, the firm could not reach out to the investor again (even if they seemed interested in investing) for 30 days. The section of the JOBS Act that was recently approved, however, completely eliminates this so called “cooling off period,” which was originally implemented because companies soliciting investments were required to have established a prior relationship with an investor.

What doesn’t change, at least, with the passage of the most recently approved section of the JOBS Act, is whom firms can market their private offerings to. This means that firms will still only be able to raise capital from accredited investors, or those investors that have at least $1 million in liquid assets (for example, $1 million, not including their house, cars, etc.) or investors that have attained at least $200,000 in household income consistently over the past two years. Companies raising capital must take reasonable steps in order to ensure that the investors that they target are in fact accredited.

As one of the most controversial components of the JOBS Act still waiting to be ruled on by the SEC, this section covers the issue of crowd funding, which we covered in a previous article. If this section of the JOBS Act were passed, it would mean that startups could receive funding from the general public, i.e., unaccredited investors. As it stands, currently soliciting investments from unaccredited investors in exchange for an equity stake in a startup is still illegal.

Even if the crowdfunding piece of the JOBS Act is passed, it is questionable whether or not these platforms will be a valuable fundraising tool for life science startups. By fundraising through crowdsourcing, an entrepreneur may be forced to give up a great deal of equity, which in the end would obviously hurt the entrepreneur if the company gets bought out. Equity dilution is also of course a huge red flag to institutional investors, so after a firm raises capital through crowdsourcing it may be very difficult to get additional funding from larger more sophisticated investors. Furthermore, crowdfunding may lead to additional headaches for startups, like having to answer to hundreds of LPs instead of just a handful.

What further complicates the JOBS Act issue is the fact that the definition of an accredited investor may be subject to revision in 2014 as a part of the Dodd-Frank Act. What this means is that if the crowdfunding portion of the JOBS Act is not approved, companies may have to start raising funds from a new tier of investors next year.

So what are the overall implications for companies in the life sciences space? Basically, life science firms that are looking to raise capital will be able to implement an aggressive outbound marketing campaign, and be able to follow up & meet with interested investors as soon as possible instead of waiting the required 30 days to follow up with a potential investor. Although the definition of an accredited investor may change next year, the approval of section 201(a) of the JOBS act will certainly make the fundraising environment in life science arena a little bit easier.