²
Biotech Venture Funding Drops 43% in First
Quarter
²
Biotech fundraising sours in a bleak first
half
²
Biotech venture rounds dwindle in Europe, tracking
U.S.
²
Top Venture Capital Firms by Maureen
Martino and Calisha Myers
²
Billions in new venture cash targeted at
early-stage biotech efforts
²
Venture Capital Continues Its Migration in
Q1 2012 as Investors Seek Safer Bets
²
How optimistic are you that the climate for
biopharma funding will improve during the rest of 2012?
²
VCs See Sharp Drop in Biotech Investment Pressures
push companies away from IPO market.
²
Biotechnology Funding Hits 4-Year High
While Startups Seek New Investments
Biotech Venture Funding Drops 43% in First Quarter May 03, 2012 By Donald Zuhn -- Last month, the National Venture Capital
Association (NVCA), a trade association representing the U.S.
.jpg)
Biotech fundraising sours in a bleak first half July 11, 2012 | By John Carroll The flow of
venture capital dollars into the biotech industry is rapidly slowing down. In
its snapshot of second quarter trends, Bloomberg Industries is reporting that
there were only 59 deals in the last quarter, with a woeful average of $9.3
million a deal. That amounts to the smallest financing amounts since '07, reports
the Boston Business Journal. Overall, global VC flow into biotech plunged 43%, down
to $550 million, with the lion's share going to U.S.
FierceBiotech Survey: Corporate Development Trends FierceBiotech wants to hear from you. Please
take a few minutes to answer a short survey about corporate development trends
in the life sciences industry and we'll send you a $5 Starbucks Gift Card if
you're among the first 50 qualified respondents. Click here to take the survey.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox! To
cap it off, we reported yesterday that biotechs are seeing shrinking amounts of
total deal sizes for their licensing pacts so far this year. The financial
squeeze is coming from every side, with M&A offering one of the few bright
spots for industry investors as IPOs remain few and far between.
.jpg)
Biotech venture rounds dwindle in Europe, tracking U.S. trend April 30, 2012 | By John Carroll Fresh on the heels of the news of a
disappointing quarter for biotech investing in the U.S. ,
Dow Jones VentureSource has done the math for Europe
and come up with an equally dispiriting set of stats. Biopharma
was the dominant category in the continent's healthcare industry, accounting
for 26 deals that raised 108 million euros--out of 137 million euros for all of
healthcare--compared to the same period a year ago. That represents a 16% drop
in deals and a whopping 66% plunge in cash. On the bright side, though, Europe
saw a number of new funds come together in recent months. The Wellcome Trust
has created a substantial new fund while Sir Chris Evans has been working at
gaining government cash to back new ventures in Wales Europe . And the British
government has assembled its own biopharma fund. That trend played out across
all sectors for the European venture community.
FierceBiotech Survey: Corporate Development Trends FierceBiotech wants to hear from you. Please
take a few minutes to answer a short survey about corporate development trends
in the life sciences industry and we'll send you a $5 Starbucks Gift Card if
you're among the first 50 qualified respondents. Click here to take the survey.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox! "The
difficult fund-raising environment and shrinking number of exits means less
money is flowing into venture firms and, therefore, less is flowing out," said
Jessica Canning, global research director, Dow Jones VentureSource. "But
there are some positive signs. European venture fund-raising rose 8% in the
first quarter and financing deals didn't drop as significantly as investment
which means VCs are still finding companies they want to support." Last week Thomson Reuters reported that
venture investing in U.S.
.jpg)
Top Venture Capital Firms by Maureen Martino and Calisha Myers We here at FierceBiotech regularly chronicle
the largest venture capital deals in biotech. It's a great way to keep an eye
on up-and-coming companies with groundbreaking programs in their pipelines. But
every time we release a venture capital report, at least a few readers ask us
for something else: an in-depth look at the venture capital firms behind the
funding that supports these small companies. So with the help of data from the
National Venture Capital Association, we've compiled a list of the most active
life science investors. The 17 firms on this list have done 14 or more deals
since the beginning of 2008. The largest biotech investor--Domain Associates--has
participated in 41 deals in the last year and a half. The VC firms on this list include both life
science-only firms as well as groups that invest in a variety of industries. In
the process of our research, we spoke to a number of venture capitalists about
what they look for when they choose to back a company. Despite the diversity of
the firms, some clear trends emerged: All
the VCs agreed that having a strong management team that investors trust is one
of the most critical factors when choosing whether or not to financially support
a new company. Many VCs even had a list of entrepreneurs or academics they'd
worked with numerous times. Times are changing, and our healthcare system
is likely to undergo a dramatic shift in the coming years. Less emphasis will
be placed on incremental improvements to existing drugs. Rather, in order to
have a successful drug program, biotech and pharma companies must develop game-changing
therapeutics. VCs are taking this into account as they select their investments
now; they're most interested in funding companies with advancements that
address unmet medical needs. While VCs
are being selective with their money, the economic crisis hasn't has a
substantial negative impact on their activities. For one thing, biotech
investors are in it for the long haul--they're not very susceptible to short-term
problems. In fact, biotech's desperation for cash has led to better deal terms
for VCs. And companies that do secure funding are using it wisely, since they
can't afford to waste money anymore. In many cases, the cream of the crop are
able to raise funding while less promising ideas fall by the wayside. So
without further ado, take a look at this list of the most active biotech and
pharma life science investors. 1. Domain
Associates 2. HealthCare Ventures 3. Polaris Venture Partners* 4. MPM Capital* 5.
Alta Partners 6. ARCH Venture Partners 7. Flagship Ventures 8. SV Life Sciences Advisers* 9. Sanderling
Ventures* 10. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers 11. InterWest Partners* 12. Sofinnova
Ventures* 13. Burrill & Company 14. New
Enterprise
.jpg)
Billions in new venture cash targeted at early-stage biotech efforts April 4, 2012 | By John Carroll Early this
year, the analysts at the National Venture Capital Association were hammering
away at a perceived crisis in early-stage funding, lamenting signs that
startups were having a terrible time rounding up the cash needed to hire teams
and get programs in the clinic. But the VC activity in the first quarter of 2012
has dulled the edge of their argument. The analysts at Burrill & Co. took
out their calculators and concluded that $2.6 billion in new venture funds for
translation and early-stage work materialized in the
FierceBiotech Survey: Corporate Development Trends FierceBiotech wants to hear from you. Please
take a few minutes to answer a short survey about corporate development trends
in the life sciences industry and we'll send you a $5 Starbucks Gift Card if
you're among the first 50 qualified respondents. Click here to take the survey.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox! "These
efforts reflect broad attempts to forge creative new models for funding
translational research and spur development of important new therapies," says
Burrill. "It also demonstrates that governments across the globe, despite
facing fiscal pressure, see the importance of investing in the life sciences to
build innovation-based economies that can provide high quality jobs." There's
a back story to the sudden explosion of early-stage cash. The NVCA has been
using the lack of funding to argue that Congress needs to pass new legislation
that would expand the FDA's accelerated approval initiative, making it easier
for biotechs to get an approval faster. Faster approvals, they add, would
inspire investors to put more money into biotech companies.
Venture Capital
Continues Its Migration in Q1 2012 as Investors Seek Safer Bets Apr 25, 2012 In terms of IPOs, seven companies went
public raising $480 million compared with $521 million raised by eight IPOs in
the year-ago quarter. Alex Philippidis Though
some investors are still taking risks, many are playing it safe by selecting
companies that have good funding track records. [© ArchMen - Fotolia.com] Comments
Email ThisShare This Text This Related Content Print This Email The Editor (Page
1 of 1) The migration of venture capital from biopharma companies stepped up
during the first three months of 2012, seemingly unaffected by recent signs of
life in the IPO market. The dollar value of VC deals fell 18% during the first
quarter from year-ago numbers, while the number of deals was relatively flat. Just $780 million was invested in a total 99
biopharma companies during Q1 ’ 12,
compared with $949 million in 97 deals during the first quarter of 2011, according
to the quarterly MoneyTree Report, issued April 20 by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
and the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), based on Thomson Reuters
data. The report also showed a sharp
year-over-year drop in first-sequence, or Series A, investment activity to
almost $93.2 million in just 10 deals from $134.3 million in 30 deals. The
results confirmed a continuing trend by biopharma startups toward larger first-sequence
deals coming later in a company’s life cycle. The average size of Series A
financing rounds more than doubled to $9.3 million in Q1 ’ 12 compared with almost $4.5 million a
year earlier. Companies won the few
available first-sequence deals by persuading investors that they’ll get their
money back sooner because the startups are more solidly run than Series A
winners from before the Great Recession. “The silver lining is that the deals
that are getting funded today are really high quality,” Tracy T. Lefteroff, global
managing partner, venture capital and life sciences industries services with
PwC, told GEN. “The venture investors are being very selective with what they fund. With
the timeframes that it takes to get liquid in the life sciences space, they
can’t afford to make many mistakes. The deals that are getting funded are deals
that have a clear regulatory pathway to the FDA and clearly have great
management teams and intellectual property that’s protectable.” That means, Lefteroff explained, today’s first-sequence
companies are further along in development than their counterparts from as
recently as five years ago: “A lot of times, there is already human data.” Series A investors are basically playing it
safe. “It’s a fear versus greed thing on the investment side of things, and
when things are uncertain, that elevates the fear,” Robert More, general
partner with Frazier Healthcare, told GEN. Not that there’s anything wrong with
that, he added: “I think there should always be a valley of death. If
everything’s getting funded, that’s not a good environment either and that
leads to bubbles."
Venture Cap Playing it safer often means
choosing companies for first-sequence funding that have good funding track
records. For example, ImaginAb, which won $12.5 million in its Series A round, maintains
a dozen partnerships with global biopharma companies to develop companion diagnostic
imaging agents for use alongside therapeutic antibodies. Novartis Venture Funds
led the round, which included Merieux Developpement, Nextech Invest, Cycad
Group, and Momentum Biosciences. Also, 4s3
Bioscience, a gene therapy developer focused on orphan neuromuscular disorders,
won $20 million in Series A funding from KLP Enterprises. The company uses
technology licensed from UCLA and enjoys a track record of winning funding from
private and public funders. In 2008, a year after its founding, 4s3 won seed
funding from Genzyme Ventures. Two years later, it borrowed $600,000 from the
quasi-public Massachusetts
Life Sciences
Center 244,479.24 in 2009 and 2010
from the Qualified Therapeutic Discovery Program, and a $195,590 grant from
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The two largest
financings during Q1 saw institutional investors and big pharma pour capital
into private companies. ADC Therapeutics was launched with $50 million led by
Celtic Therapeutics Management along with co-founders of Spirogen, whose
platform technology is the basis for the 10 antibody-drug conjugate oncology
projects the new company will work to commercialize. Also, Celladon received $43 million to advance
its lead candidate, the enzyme-replacement therapy for advanced heart failure, Mydicar.
The company last year published positive results from a Phase II trial with
Mydicar, helping it win FDA’s Fast Track designation. The financing was led by
new investor Pfizer Venture Investments, with four other new investors that
include Novartis Venture Funds and Lundbeckfond Ventures. Two companies raised $42 million each. Aragon
Pharmaceuticals won Series C venture funding for advancing lead compound ARN-509
for castration-resistant prostate cancer, led by new investor Topspin Fund. A
Phase II trial began in November and is fully enrolled “well ahead of schedule,”
according to the company. Supernus
Pharmaceuticals combined the $27 million it raised by selling its TCD Royalty
Subsidiary with $15 million in venture debt. Supernus said it will use the
money to commercially launch its two lead candidates in epilepsy, SPN-538 (extended-release
topiramate) and SPN-804 (extended-release oxcarbazepine)—if the submitted NDAs
win approval—as well as to continue development of pipeline drugs to treat
central nervous system diseases.
How optimistic are you that the climate for biopharma funding will improve
during the rest of 2012? Helping elevate uncertainty in
biopharma financing is the performance of the long-dormant IPO market. According
to Burrill & Co., seven companies worldwide went public during Q1, raising
a combined $480 million, compared with the $521 million raised by eight IPOs in
the year-ago quarter. All but one company was compelled to lower its initial
share price before hitting the market. On
the brighter side, this year’s public companies saw their share prices rise an
average 20% after their IPO during Q1, after excluding Merrimack
Pharmaceuticals, which saw its share price fall 13.7% from the initial $7 on
March 28, its first day of trading. As of April 24 it was valued at $7.10 per
share. But that activity is a far cry
from the robust pre-recessionary IPO market. “I think 10 years ago we did a
survey on entrepreneurs and CEOs in the biotech industry, and 80% of them
thought they were going to be public companies someday,” More pointed out. “The inverse is true or perhaps even more beyond that today.” People are
now building companies to push projects forward to the point where they are
more appropriate for sale or license to a big biopharma company, More added, saying
that it is very much the exception that companies are looking to go public now;
it is no longer the rule. Some senior
biopharma executives and industry groups like the Biotechnology Industry
Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have
blamed the shrinking VC market in part on FDA’s post-Vioxx shift toward more
risk-benefit analysis of drug candidates. Leaders have termed the process too
slow and too uncertain for companies, while FDA has trumpeted figures showing
it has picked up its pace of drug approvals. Several bills promising speedier drug reviews
are pending in Congress. They include the fifth authorization of the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Transforming the Regulatory Environment to
Accelerate Access to Treatments Act, the Faster Access to Specialized
Treatments Act, and the Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act of 2012.
When and if these policies get enacted, FDA will have its work cut out for them,
as will companies and other stakeholders who have blamed the regulatory agency
for impacting the financing markets.
VCs See Sharp Drop in Biotech Investment Pressures push companies away
from IPO market. MARIE DAGHLIAN The Burrill Report Life sciences venture investment is expected
to drop 30 percent year-on-year until it falls to about $2.5 billion, according
to a panel of venture capitalists speaking at a recent dealmaking conference in
San Francisco
Biotechnology Funding Hits 4-Year High While Startups Seek New Investments By Ryan Flinn - Jan 21, 2012 Venture
capital investment in biotechnology increased 22 percent last year, while the
number of those receiving their first funding declined. Funding for medical-device
and equipment companies also rose 20 percent, with first-time funding falling
to a 16-year low, the National Venture Capital Association and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC said today in a report. “Life sciences VCs are increasingly focusing on later- stage opportunities
that carry less risk, from a clinical and regulatory perspective,” said
Jonathan Leff, a managing director at the New York-based venture-capital firm
Warburg Pincus LLC, on a conference call yesterday. “This reflects a serious breakdown
in the model that has fueled the U.S.
Current View The approvals “cannot be seen as a reflection of the health of life-sciences
venture-capital investing today,” Leff said, because most of the drug therapies
had been in development for a decade or more. The current decline in early
stage funding will be seen a decade from now, he said. “It will inevitably show up in future years as fewer new innovative drugs
and medical devices come to market,” Leff said. Last year’s biggest deal across
all sectors was a $300 million investment in Irving, Texas-based Reata
Pharmaceuticals Inc., a developer of experimental anti-inflammatory drugs, by
an undisclosed firm, according to the report. About 42 percent of venture
capitalists surveyed last month expect fewer life sciences companies to sell
shares to the public for the first time this year, compared with 18 percent who
expect more initial public offerings in the industry, according to the venture
capital group. In terms of funding, 58 percent expect U.S.
Posts
