Budding M&A and financing activity in the marijuana industry

In September 2016, this blog noted that analysts were predicting higher levels of M&A activity in the marijuana industry. Early last month, we commented that the launch of several Canadian marijuana “streaming” companies – which provide financing to start-ups in exchange for a portion of the start-up’s future product at a fixed price (or a percentage of the start-up’s future profits from that product) – promised to provide an alternative avenue of raising capital for start-ups.

According to data published by Viridian Capital Advisors, a strategic and financial advisory firm dedicated to the cannabis industry, investment and M&A activity in the global industry increased in 2016 and has continued to increase in 2017.

Viridian’s 2016 data indicates that (all dollar amounts in USD):

  • There were 315 capital raises in 2016 (247 by public companies, 68 by private companies) totaling $1,213.3 million ($940.5 million by public companies, $272.8 million by private companies).
  • Equity raises outperformed debt raises in both the number of transactions and dollars raised: there were 186 equity raises totalling $1,006.1 million, compared with 129 debt raises totalling $207.1 million.
  • The “Cultivation & Retail” sector raised the most capital in 2016 ($473 million), outpacing all other sectors, including the “Biotech/Pharma” sector (which raised $344.5 million).
  • A total of 99 M&A deals were closed in 2016 (79 by public companies, 20 by private companies). M&A activity increased in nearly every sector in 2016 (compared with 2015).
  • The “Cultivation & Retail” sector was the most active, with cultivators seeking economies of scale as the commoditization of cannabis exerted downward pressure on prices and margins.
  • Public companies were the most aggressive acquirers, with stabilizing stock prices used as currency for acquisitions.

Viridian’s 2017 data shows that from January 1 through June 30, 2017 (all dollar amounts in USD):

  • There have been 188 capital raises (119 by public companies, 69 by private companies) totalling $1,290.6 million ($978.6 million by public companies, $312.0 million by private companies).
  • Equity raises continue to outperform debt raises in both the number of transactions and dollars raised: there have been 147 equity raises totalling $1,090.5 million, compared with 41 debt raises totalling $200.1 million.
  • Part of the increase in capital raises is due to the new structure of capital being brought to the Canadian cultivation market through “streaming” arrangements from several new financing groups.
  • The “Cultivation & Retail” sector has raised the most capital (with approximately $600 million raised), followed by the “Biotech/Pharma” sector (approximately $310 million raised).
  • A total of 81 M&A deals (72 public, 9 private) have closed. From January 1 to June 30, 2016, only 38 deals had been completed.
  • With 21 deals completed, the “Cultivation and Retail” sector has been the most active; and it has been much more active than it was from January 1 through June 30, 2016 (during which time only 6 deals had been completed). The second most active category has been the “Infused Products & Extracts” category (16 deals completed), followed by the “Investments/M&A” category (11 deals completed).

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP is uniquely experienced in the industry, having recently advised MedReleaf Corp. (TSX:LEAF) on its initial public offering and secondary offering of 10.6 million common shares at CDN$9.50 per common share for gross proceeds of CDN$100.7 million. The team was led by Marvin Singer, Paul Fitzgerald, Jacob Cawker and Sean Williamson.

The author would like to thank Scott Thorner, Summer Student, for his assistance in preparing this legal update.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

 

Canadian M&A activity at 10-year high due to oil-sands sell-off

The value of Canadian M&A activity in the first half of 2017 was the highest in a decade, according to a recent report from Bloomberg. The approximately $132 billion in total transaction value is the highest since the first half of 2007, when approximately $156.6 billion in transactions were completed.

According to the report, one of the most significant drivers of deal value was a sell-off of Canadian oil sands investments by foreign energy companies in the wake of declining prices for crude on global markets. Recent examples of such transactions include Royal Dutch Shell’s divestment of its interests in the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, the Peace River Complex and other undeveloped projects in Alberta. These assets were sold to Canadian Natural Resources for approximately $11.1 billion in March, 2017. Also in March, ConocoPhillips’ sold its interest in the Forster Creek Christina Lake project and the majority of its Deep Basin assets in Alberta and British Columbia to Cenovus Energy Inc. for approximately $13.3 billion. In January 2017, Norway’s Statoil ASA sold all of its Alberta oil sands operations to Athabasca Oil Corporation for total consideration of approximately $530 million, and up to a further $250 million in contingent payments.

The Bloomberg report notes that the cost of maintaining oil sands projects and the difficulty in operating them has led to the current increase in sales to parties who are closer to, and more familiar with the unique nature of such assets, specifically companies based in Calgary.

Despite the trend of oil sands assets being sold off by foreign companies, Environment Minister Jim Carr recently said during a trip to China that the current economic environment presents an opportunity for foreign investment in the Canadian energy space, which the Canadian government would welcome. However, the current market price for oil and the recent change of government in British Columbia impacting the future of the Trans Mountain pipeline would appear to be factors leading foreign companies to shed their investments in the oil sands in the near term, leading to buying opportunities for others with a longer term view of the industry.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

Investment Canada Act update: new thresholds and national security in the news

Threshold now $1 billion

As a result of recent amendments, most direct acquisitions of control of a Canadian company now only require prior approval of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development under the Investment Canada Act if the enterprise value of the Canadian business exceeds $1 billion.  That is expected to reduce the number of transactions that will require a foreign investor to persuade the Minister that the deal is likely to be net benefit to Canada before it can be completed.

As outlined in an earlier post, under amendments to the Investment Canada Act first introduced in 2009 and finally put into effect in 2015, the net benefit review threshold for 2017 was to be $800 million, with a subsequent increase to $1 billion in 2019. However, in a move intended to increase the amount of foreign investment in Canada, the Trudeau government recently passed amendments, effective June 22, 2017, that accelerated the increase in the threshold by two years.

The new $1 billion threshold applies to the enterprise value of the Canadian business being directly acquired by:

  • a WTO investor that is not a state-owned enterprise; and
  • a non-WTO investor that is not a state-owned enterprise if the Canadian business was controlled by a WTO investor immediately prior to the acquisition.

The review thresholds have not been increased for WTO investors that are state-owned enterprises. Such an acquisition would be reviewable where the book value of the assets of the Canadian exceed $379 million. This figure adjusts annually based on inflation. As well, the direct acquisition of control of a Canadian business by investors from non-WTO members (except as above) and the acquisition by any non-Canadian (regardless of origin or state-owned status) of a Canadian business that is considered a “cultural business” as defined in the Act are subject to review where the book value of the target’s assets exceed $5 million.

Under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Canada committed to significantly increase the threshold for review to $1.5 billion for investors from members of the European Union in most industry sectors. Given most favoured nation clauses in other bilateral free trade agreements Canada has signed, several of Canada’s other trading partners, including the United States, Mexico and South Korea, are poised to benefit from this provision as well. It is now expected that CETA will take effect in late September, 2017, at which time the threshold will increase for certain investors to $1.5 billion.

National security review in the spotlight

In addition to “net benefit” reviews, it is important to remember that all investments by non-Canadians in a Canadian business are reviewed to determine whether they could be injurious to Canada’s national security, regardless of the enterprise value or book value of the target and the size of the interest being acquired (i.e., a minority interest could be reviewed).

The nature and extent of the national security review has been in the news lately given the Trudeau government’s clearance of Hytera Communications Corp’s proposed acquisition of Norsat International Inc. When critics suggested that the transaction would raise national security concerns, the government defended its position by saying that the transaction was reviewed under the Investment Canada Act. While true, this statement doesn’t reflect the fact that there are two levels of review under the Act. First, there is an initial screen undertaken to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a transaction could be injurious to Canada’s national security. The government has 45 days to make that determination.

After that initial review, the Minister has three options:

  • If the Minister has no concerns, the parties are free to conclude their transaction if it has not yet been completed.
  • If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the transaction could be injurious to national security, the Investor will be notified that a review may be ordered pursuant to section 25.2(1) of the Act. If the transaction has not yet been completed, it cannot be completed until a final resolution has been reached.
  • If the Minister considers that the investment could be injurious to national security, a review will be undertaken pursuant to section 25.3(1) of the Act. Again, if the transaction has not yet been completed, it cannot be completed until a final resolution has been reached.

The second option provides the Minister with an additional 45 days to decide whether to order a full review under section 25.3(1). It would appear, based on the public disclosures made by Norsat, that following some 90 days of review, the Minister advised that no section 25.3(1) review would be ordered. Leaving aside the question of whether a full review was necessary, it is important for potential merger parties to understand the nature of the national security review process and the powers of the government to block, unwind, or impose conditions on transactions that raise national security concerns, further details of which can be found here.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

The importance of cybersecurity in the M&A due diligence process

Deal Law Wire - Norton Rose FulbrightGiven the increasing frequency of cybercrime and online security breaches, cybersecurity has moved to the forefront of importance when evaluating M&A prospects. Acquirors want to ensure that they are receiving the full value of what they are purchasing and protect themselves against any possible data breaches that can result in reputational, legal, or financial harm.

A report by the New York Stock Exchange Governance Services surveyed 276 directors and officers of public companies to determine how the growing presence of cybersecurity threats has had an impact on their M&A due diligence process. The report indicates that:

  • 66% of respondents include a security audit of the target’s software applications;
  • three-quarters of respondents place the quality of intellectual property as a top consideration in their due-diligence process and say that a high-profile data breach would have serious implications on a pending transaction; and
  • 84% of respondents said that the discovery of a major vulnerability relating to a target’s software assets would “likely” or “very likely” affect their final decision.

These data breaches can have serious implications for a business. Every major industry utilizes technology in a way that can result in serious damage to the company if a breach were to happen. We have seen recent high-profile data breaches across the board, from insurance companies and retail giants to universities across the United States.

Finding out the vulnerabilities of a company is one of the main reason for performing due diligence. During the due-diligence process, acquirors must not only examine possible data breaches that may have happened, but also look forward at the potential costs to bring a company “up to code” with their cybersecurity.

While companies are beginning to realize the importance of cybersecurity in the M&A due diligence process, they often don’t have the technical skills to adequate assess a company’s vulnerabilities. As a result, it may be necessary to develop their internal resources to overcome this weakness, or look to third-party specialists and consultants to assist with the due diligence process.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

 

What a Bank of Canada interest rate hike means for dealmakers

On July 12, 2017, the Bank of Canada raised its overnight lending rate to 0.75 per cent from 0.5 per cent. This was the first such increase in almost 7 years, after a prolonged policy of fiscal stimulus in the wake of the economic recession.

While the need for an interest rate hike in the current economic climate is certainly contentious, the fundamental effects of rising interest rates are well known. At a macro level, borrowing and spending cash becomes more expensive, and saving becomes relatively attractive. The effect of an interest rate hike on M&A activity has been discussed on this blog previously. However, in 2017 we now have a present-day testing ground in the United States, whose Federal Reserve raised the current federal funds rate to 1.25% in June. The June announcement was the latest in a series of rate hikes that began in September 2015, when the Federal Reserve increased rates from 0.25% to 0.5%.

The U.S. experience

The effect of these rate hikes on U.S. M&A activity has been… negligible. According to MergerMarket’s Deal Drivers Americas 2016 report, the overall drop in M&A activity in 2016 has primarily been attributed to global political and economic uncertainty, as well as the high standard set by a record-breaking 2015. The same publication cited the cost of money – still low by historic standards – as a factor that had actually promoted dealmaking. One top U.S. banker explained the market’s apparent ambivalence towards the interest rate hikes as follows:

Interest rate hikes signal that an economy is alive and well, and recovering, which gives confidence to dealmakers to engage in transactions. Even though interest rates are going up, they’re going up at such a gradual rate that they are not impacting the fundamental cost of funding.

One commentator on Forbes offered a parallel explanation:

Many companies in the market to buy are armed with strong balance sheets that are loaded with cash, not merely from continuing operations, but also from having taken advantage of low market interest rates to issue debt. The more cash potential acquirers have on hand, the less need there is to borrow to complete a deal.

Implications for Canada

The U.S. experience above suggests that the Bank of Canada’s interest rate hike won’t cause any dramatic changes in Canadian M&A activity. The cost of capital will remain low for the near future. That being said, the rate hike is an historic signal that the economy may be shifting gears. With the long-term prospect of more expensive loans, buy-side dealmakers should be cognizant of alternatives to debt-financed transactions. Furthermore, future buyers should consider building their “war chests” now, in anticipation of opportunities that may arise in a market where funding is more expensive. Sell-side players should be aware that they may encounter downward price pressure, especially in larger transactions where debt finance is difficult to avoid.

The author would like to thank Eric Vice, Summer Student, for his assistance in preparing this legal update.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

Venture capital and private equity exhibit disparate Canadian market trends in Q1 2017

According to a report recently published by the Canadian Venture Capital & Private Equity Association (CVCA) entitled “CVCA Q1 2017 VC & PE Canadian Market Overview: VC experiences robust quarter; PE flat in Q1”, Canadian venture capital (VC) recorded its second-best quarter since 2013, while Canadian private equity (PE) failed to outpace its current stagnant rate.

Interestingly, the VC deal volume in Q1 2017 (at 98 deals) ranked 13th among the 17 completed quarters since the start of 2013; meanwhile, the Q1 2017 aggregate value of money invested (at CAD$905) ranked second-highest over the same time frame, only behind the CAD$956 million invested in Q1 2016. Boosted by four deals that were over CAD$50 million, the average VC deal size climbed to CAD$9.2 million, signifying an 84 per cent increase compared to the quarterly average deal size (at CAD$5 million) for the period of 2013-2016.

VC highlights from the report

  • The March 2017 VC financing of Aurinia Pharmaceutical (Aurinia) was valued at CAD$231 million, representing an 80% increase from the 2016 Dalcor Pharmaceuticals then record-setting deal in the life sciences (at CAD$128 million).
  • British Columbia-based companies dominated Q1 2017 VC financing: on the back of the Aurinia deal, BC ranked first among all Canadian provinces and territories in total dollars invested (at $429 million), ranking higher than Ontario (at $254 million) for the first time since 2013.
  • Q1 2017 saw a remarkable increase in the quantity of VC exits: 11 exits with an aggregate value of CAD$255 million corresponds to approximately one third of the number of deals and one half the total value of all 2016 VC exits.

Canadian PE, with CAD$2.8 billion invested over 105 deals in Q1 2017, saw its lowest deal total since Q2 2015 (at 104 deals) and the least money invested since Q4 2015 (at CAD$2.6 billion). In fact, two deals accounted for just under half of all PE money invested (at CAD$1.3 billion) in Q1 2017: the CAD$723 million Arctic Glacier acquisition and the CAD$575 million sale of British Columbia-based Performance Sports Group’s assets to Antares Capital and Fairfax Financial.

PE findings from the report

  • Despite witnessing significantly more PE deals in Q1 2017 (at 61 to 3), Quebec (at CAD$660 million) ranked second to Manitoba (at CAD$723 million) in provincial share of PE dollars. They were followed by British Columbia (at CAD$588 million) and Ontario (at CAD$494 million).
  • The consumer & retail sector accounted for more PE money invested (at CAD$1.3 billion) than the combined value of those sectors who ranked second to seventh: CleanTech; oil&gas, power; agri-forestry; information and communication technology; mining & resources; and industrial & manufacturing, respectively.
  • The PE exit environment is displaying promising signs: with a combined value of CAD$1.5 billion, the 31 PE exits in Q1 2017 amounts to half of the total from all of 2016. This includes the CAD$445 million Canada Goose IPO from March, which marked the first PE-backed IPO since 2015.

Juxtaposing the current strength of Canadian VC against the continuing sluggishness of Canadian PE reveals a striking shift in Canadian private investment strategies: private investors are exhibiting a greater predilection towards enterprises that are innovative, R&D intensive and export oriented.

The author would like to thank Neil Rosen, Summer Student, for his assistance in preparing this legal update.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

Culture: its impact on successful M&A

Deal Law Wire - Norton Rose FulbrightA clash of cultures is one factor that contributes to unsuccessful mergers and acquisitions after closing. Often, management tends to be so focused on other aspects of a successful transaction that the integration of culture is overlooked.

What is culture?

Culture refers to a set of values and beliefs that inform the behaviour and attitudes of a workplace. In Professor James Heskett’s book, The Culture Cycle: How to Shape the Unseen Force that Transforms Performance, he explains that culture can account for 20-30% of the differential in corporate performance between competitors. Culture can increase the rate of employees that remain in an organization, which decreases the costs of recruitment and training. It can increase employee productivity and morale. In turn, these factors all lead directly to greater customer loyalty, better customer relationships and improved sales.

In a recent article, Bill Howatt, chief research and development officer of work force productivity, explains how companies can shape workplace culture. Senior management play a key role in shaping culture, managing culture and integrating cultures in the event of a merger or acquisition. The following three steps should be kept in mind for senior management to effectively facilitate the joining of cultures:

Assessment

When companies come together, the differences between them might be so fundamental that it leads to frustration, confusion, and ultimately low productivity and morale amongst employees. It may even lead to employees leaving the company altogether. It is important to note these differences upfront so that integration can be adequately facilitated.

Implementation

Once the differences between the organizations have been properly assessed, it is incumbent on senior management to communicate their vision for the merged company, which includes expressing their expectations with respect to standards of behaviour, short term goals and long term goals. The alignment of cultures at this stage is integral to future success because it shapes how the organization will operate moving forward. Positive attitudes and behaviours begin with senior management. Employees play the most important role in shaping culture because they represent the majority, therefore it is important that they perceive senior management’s efforts as genuine and well-intentioned.

Tracking progression

Using various tools to measure culture will provide for a mechanism of accountability by ensuring that progression is tracked. Some tools include the use of employee surveys to measure employees’ perceptions of culture, stress levels, health and productivity. Other objective measures include employee absenteeism, the number of reported conflicts and complaints within the company, the percentage of employees leaving the organization and the number of applications received for job postings. All of this will provide insight for the organization to measure their success, reflect on strategy and redefine their goals if necessary.

For more, please see our previous posts on this topic by visiting here and here.

The author would like to thank Sadaf Samim, Summer Student, for her assistance in preparing this legal update.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

Acquisitions in the life sciences start-up space: a principal-agent problem in the making

Earlier this year, Bloom Burton & Co. hosted the 2017 Bloom Burton Life Sciences Investor Conference. The conference brings together early stage life sciences companies with professional advisors in the industry for two days of talks given by the companies on what they are trying to accomplish and how they have been progressing. Over the course of the conference, there is a familiar refrain among companies in the drug, processes or technology development space. Frequently, we hear these companies talking about acquiring other intellectual property (be it drugs, processes or technology) for the purposes of “stabilizing their pipeline.” The logic behind this is that since any individual drug, process or technology has a snowball’s chance of succeeding, bringing together a number of these intellectual properties increases the company’s chance of survival.

The point and counterpoint

From an investor point of view, however, “stabilizing the pipeline” doesn’t always make a lot of sense. Diversification is important in the aggregate, but it can be accomplished by investing in multiple different companies at minimal transaction costs in comparison with the costs of an acquisition by a company of another company that may or may not result in synergies for the two. For an individual company to seek to successfully acquire and integrate other similar companies from the point of view of diversification, it now needs to be adept at investment analysis and technology integration, two skills that most small companies do not have in reserve and cannot easily acquire. In some cases, investors are better off making their own investment decisions on a piecemeal basis.

This does not mean that all acquisitions made by small life sciences companies are necessary fraught. In some cases, where there is a significant overlap of talent requirements, such acquisitions can help to leverage underutilized skills within the organization. Sometimes this is as simple as economies of scale on office space, supplies, etc. In other cases, this can involve regulatory know how, investor relations or management functions that were being duplicated between the firms. Our own deal list is full many examples of well-executed acquisitions that help companies to be more profitable than they would have been as their pre-acquisition constituent pieces.

Where theory meets reality

That said, diversification in small life sciences companies can also be a great example of the principal-agent problem at work. While investors would arguably prefer that small life sciences companies stick to their core competencies and work on developing their drug or technology, the reality is that a single-drug company is far more likely to fail than one with a diversified pipeline. Investors can mitigate that risk by investing widely but management, their agents, are not in the same position. Investors in a life sciences company with a failed drug have lost on one of their lottery tickets; management has lost their livelihood. Therefore, management can find its incentives out of alignment with the incentives of its shareholders and end up pushing acquisitions that will improve the likelihood of management remaining employed but not actually provide investors with the highest possible returns.

The argument, therefore, is not that investors should always balk at the notion of a company in which they are invested undertaking an acquisition. Rather, investment decisions like these should be taken with a sense of caution and never as fait accompli. Investors would be well-served to take a little extra time with the due diligence on the acquisition target, both on the legal and financial ends, before accepting acquisitions proposed by management of the company. This is especially true when the management of the company is not a major investor in the company or board oversight is minimal. This allows investors to be sure they are getting good value for their investment and to keep management and investor incentives aligned, which is, in the long run, in the best interest of the company as well.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

Bye bye bye: private equity exit strategies

Exits are central to the private equity investing process and a PE firm will consider a variety of different exit strategies to realize its return on investment. Four of the most common PE exit strategies are: trade sale, initial public offering, secondary buyout and leveraged recapitalization. A fifth exit option is also discussed below.

Trade sale

Trade sale is a commonly used exit route in which the PE sponsor sells all of its shares held in a company to a third party purchaser. The third party purchaser often operates in the same industry as the target company and has strategic advantages (i.e., accessing a new market) in acquiring the target company, for which it is willing to pay a premium. Typically, the third party purchaser is very knowledgeable about the business of the target company and this may facilitate a faster due diligence and closing process.

Initial public offering (IPO)

IPO is an exit strategy whereby the company offers its securities for sale to the general public. “Going public” may attract the highest return for PE sponsors depending on market conditions, but the transaction cost is high and the process is often long and unpredictable. PE sponsors also may not be able to make a clean exit; they will often be asked to enter into a lock-up agreement and commit not to sell shares for a period of 6 – 12 months following the IPO.

Secondary buyout

A secondary buyout is an exit route whereby the company is sold by one PE sponsor to another PE sponsor. There are a variety of different factors that may cause a PE sponsor to pick this exit strategy, such as the original PE sponsor may no longer be interested in backing the company but the company is not yet ready for trade sale or an IPO or the management of the company may wish to replace the PE sponsor. Secondary buyout allows PE sponsor to have a clean and fast exit.

Leveraged recapitalization

Leveraged recapitalization is a partial exit strategy that allows the PE sponsor to extract cash from the business without selling the company. It is usually achieved by the company borrowing more money from a bank or issue bonds, and the cash generated will be used to redeem shares held by the PE sponsor. However, it should be considered that a highly leveraged company may have a greater risk of bankruptcy and may not have enough liquidity to run the business.

Dual–track process

PE firms may also utilize a “dual-track process” to exit their investments, meaning filing a prospectus for IPO and pursuing a trade sale at the same time. Dual-track process allows the PE investors to test the water in the public market while looking for a suitable strategic third party purchaser. Although the dual-track process may provide better returns for PE sponsors, the transaction cost of running a dual-track process can be quit costly.

Aside from determining the mode of exit, PE investors may also consider the timing of exit, whether to fully or partially exit from the company, the performance of the company post-exit, exit valuation of the company and reporting valuations of unexited investments to investors.[1]

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

[1] Douglas Cumming & Sofia Johan, Venture Capital and Private Equity Contract – An International Perspective (Oxford: Academic Press, 2009).

New genetics technologies set to revolutionize life sciences

Pharma 680x220Curing diseases by editing a person’s genes or using medicine specifically designed to work with their genetic profile has long been the realm of science fiction. However, new technologies have made this area of “personalized medicine” a hotbed for potential M&A growth.

CRISPR, a new technology already in discussions for a Nobel Prize, is revolutionizing the way science companies operate. So cheap and efficient that almost anyone can use it to alter DNA, CRISPR’s potential to create new and better genetically modified crops has already spurred enormous mergers in the agribusiness space. Now, CRISPR and other genetic technologies are set to transform the market for personalized medicine, which in the United States is expected to grow at a 7.5% combined annual growth rate from 2017 to 2021.

2016 saw three CRISPR IPOs valued at over $500 million, and private companies are pursuing some of the most promising new genetics technologies, such as gene therapies for cancer and ways to remove viruses, such as hepatitis B, that have permanently inserted themselves into a person’s genome. Ontario is poised to play a significant role in this growth with its successful track record of building genomics companies and as the home of the University of Toronto, one of the world’s top 10 genetics research universities.

With recent developments such as Google-backed genome-testing company 23andMe recently being cleared to operate by the FDA, personal genetic testing is predicted to be part of mainstream medical practice 2020. With human trials for CRISPR scheduled to start this year and the advance of artificial intelligence and diagnostic technologies, genomics and personalized medicine look to be a big part of the predicted $200 billion of biopharma M&A in 2017 and beyond.

The author would like to thank Jamie Parker, Summer Student, for his assistance in preparing this legal update.

Stay informed on M&A developments and subscribe to our blog today.

LexBlog