These are some of the VC and other sites we track to keep an eye on new investments and new technologies in order to identify formation of new medtech companies.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Startups Redux
In my previous post, I went generous and added the startups I planned to include in our March publication. I hav subsequently realized I was being too generous, as I keep finding out that many people in the medical product industry are clamoring for new technology/ideas, but (partly because of the interest) the small medical technology companies are increasingly inclined toward stealth. SOOO, it behooves me to try to recoup the costs I have incurrent in my hard-earned effort at ferretting out these little company gems. So, I've published a compilation of the startups I have identified who have been founded from January 2005 to March 2006.
As good readers of this blog (sigh), I will be more than happy to reward you with occasional free listings of those companies.
See the new Startup report/listing described here.
As good readers of this blog (sigh), I will be more than happy to reward you with occasional free listings of those companies.
See the new Startup report/listing described here.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Some new startups (wink)
Normally, I would not do this (add subscription content to this blog), but I thought I would drop a list of some new companies (from my Startups table in MedMarkets that I publish every month). Here are the ones from the upcoming March issue. For reference, my goal is to find companies that have been founded in the past month (not when they say they were founded, but when their corporate filings were done -- a harsher measure of how "new" they are). Sometimes I'll go a little farther back and publish on companies who have done an exceptional job at staying in stealth mode, but who have suddenly become apparent to me. If they are new to me (I am constantly looking), then maybe my customers haven't heard of them either.
| Company | Principal | Location | Product/Technology | Founded |
| Aragon Surgical, Inc. | Onset Ventures | Palo Alto, CA | Surgical device platform designed to reduce OR time | 2005 |
| EpiTeK, Inc. | Jean Paul Rasschaert | Pittsburgh, PA | Minimally invasive device to prevent strokes in atrial fibrillation | 2004 |
| i25tech, Inc. | John Dunning, President | Santa Fe, NM | Undisclosed device for treatment of a variety of diseases | 2005 |
| Keramed, Inc. | Yichieh Shiuey | Cupertino, CA | Device for facilitating corneal transplantation | 2005 |
| Oringen, LLC | John Krusinski, President & CEO | Tallmadge, OH | Liquid crystal sensor for bacteria and viruses | 2006 |
| Transtimulation Research, Inc. | Jiande Chen | Oklahoma City, OK | Intestinal pacing for obesity | 2005 |
Aragon Surgical, LLC — Palo Alto, CA; no URL
EpiTeK, Inc. —
i25Tech, Inc. —
Keramed, Inc. —
Oringen, LLC — Tallmadge, OH; no URL
Transtimulation Research Inc. —
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Cartilage paste, devices, commerce and optimism
In the healthcare arena, I keep finding it amazing how so many technologies that are different in so many ways are changing the definitions of what constitutes a medical device. I came across this article on cartilage paste in March issue of Arthroscopy: Journal of Arthroscopy–Related Surgery. Now, while this is not a new technology, it does represent the kind of marriage of technologies that happens frequently these days in the medical field. I then came across details of a Tallmadge, OH, company called Oringen, which has licensed a technology (from Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine and Kent State University) to be developed into a liquid crystal sensor for detection of
bacteria and viruses (Pathogen Detection Systems of Boulder, Colorado, has also licensed the technology).
I am not an obligatory cheerleader for technology, because I really do believe that in the U.S. we have spent far too much on healthcare without it producing the intended or necessary improvements in quality of life. Too frequently, "innovations" have just resulted in higher premiums for us all. However, when you consider the steady progression of materials technologies, nanotechnologies, cell/tissue engineering technologies, the development of drug/device hybrids and other technologies, it becomes difficult to imagine a clinical problem that isn't destined to be solved by medical technology. This may be wildly optimistic and ignore the lessons of history, but this sense of optimism is the driving force (that, and its associated commercial success!) behind the great diversity of medical technologies being pursued in different applications.
bacteria and viruses (Pathogen Detection Systems of Boulder, Colorado, has also licensed the technology).I am not an obligatory cheerleader for technology, because I really do believe that in the U.S. we have spent far too much on healthcare without it producing the intended or necessary improvements in quality of life. Too frequently, "innovations" have just resulted in higher premiums for us all. However, when you consider the steady progression of materials technologies, nanotechnologies, cell/tissue engineering technologies, the development of drug/device hybrids and other technologies, it becomes difficult to imagine a clinical problem that isn't destined to be solved by medical technology. This may be wildly optimistic and ignore the lessons of history, but this sense of optimism is the driving force (that, and its associated commercial success!) behind the great diversity of medical technologies being pursued in different applications.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
And the winner is...
In a final move that seemed (at least in the eyes of some industry analysts) as likely to be designed to increase J&J's price tag for the acquisition of Guidant as it was an actual competitive bid, Boston Scientific had this month upped its bid to $27 billion ($80 per share), and when the midnight (January 24) deadline passed without J&J responding with another offer, it now appears likely that the winner in this bidding war will be Boston Scientific. Guidant has accepted Boston Scientific's offer and terminated the agreement to be acquired by J&J. For its part, J&J issued a statement saying, "it had determed not to increase its last offer for Guidant Corp., because to do so would not have been in the best interest of its shareholders."
Confidence is high in the likelihood of BSX making a success of this, given the related deal with Abbott (to acquire Guidant's vascular business), the fit with Boston Scientific and, at least in general, the relative value of the acquisition price tag and the Guidant revenue streams and balance sheets. But one has to give pause to this and consider several points:
Confidence is high in the likelihood of BSX making a success of this, given the related deal with Abbott (to acquire Guidant's vascular business), the fit with Boston Scientific and, at least in general, the relative value of the acquisition price tag and the Guidant revenue streams and balance sheets. But one has to give pause to this and consider several points:
- J&J is as experienced in acquisitions as any monolith out there and it viewed the $27B price tag as too high. Do they know something that BSX doesn't?
- BSX and J&J have been bitter rivals in the DES market and one can't help but wonder if the rivalry hasn't clouded BSX's judgment, making this little more than a pyrrhic victory for BSX. A loss for J&J does not equate with a win for BSX.
- The combined BSX/GDT business now has $12 billion in debt, a hefty burden that can only be lightened by market performance (oh yes, see "Guidant Defibrillator Recalls").
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Guidant ping pong
In the latest turn in the burgeoning bidding war over Guidant between J&J and Boston Scientific, Guidant on Wednesday accepted J&J's $23.2 billion acquisition offer, but Boston Scientific has indicated it is not yet walking away from the deal. Moreover, Guidant has expressed to Boston Scientific that it is willing to consider additional talks and a better offer, and it is entirely likely that Boston Scientific will, given the $14 billion in funding available to them from banks who have agreed to help finance the deal.
Both sides appear prepared to really go to the mat on the deal, which further supports the likely significance of "winner's curse", in which the ultimate acquirer ends up paying more for the deal than they should. Already, J&J has offered to pay $1.9 billion more than it offered in November, when it had then dropped the price to $21.9 billion as a result of the recalls that, in J&J's views, had effectively reduced the value of Guidant. Of course, the $1.9 billion premium does not reflect any added Guidant value, but instead represents the price J&J is attempting to pay to take Boston Scientific out of the game.
One has to wonder, in this high stakes poker game, if one or both players recognizes that the goal is not to acquire Guidant but to make the other pay more than necessary while improving the likely terms to acquire the alternative ICD player, St. Jude.
Both sides appear prepared to really go to the mat on the deal, which further supports the likely significance of "winner's curse", in which the ultimate acquirer ends up paying more for the deal than they should. Already, J&J has offered to pay $1.9 billion more than it offered in November, when it had then dropped the price to $21.9 billion as a result of the recalls that, in J&J's views, had effectively reduced the value of Guidant. Of course, the $1.9 billion premium does not reflect any added Guidant value, but instead represents the price J&J is attempting to pay to take Boston Scientific out of the game.
One has to wonder, in this high stakes poker game, if one or both players recognizes that the goal is not to acquire Guidant but to make the other pay more than necessary while improving the likely terms to acquire the alternative ICD player, St. Jude.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Growth in Bone Graft Substitutes
The bone graft substitutes market, comprised of synthetic bone graft substitutes, demineralised bone matrices (DBMs), and bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs) is the subject of a report we have added from a well regarded U.K. based analyst, Dr. Nelesh Patel. The report details products, applications, companies and the associated markets in the U.S. and in major Western European countries. The report is described here.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Nanomedicine material science to structural engineering
In our December '05 issue of MedMarkets, we addressed applications, products and companies developing nanotech and MEMs (microelectromechanical machines) in medicine. There we address applications and companies focused on nanomedicine developments in biosensors, pacemakers, implantable pumps, personalized medicine, drug delivery, cancer therapeutics and diagnostic systems.
From a macro view, it is worthwhile to step back and look at the migration of nanotechnologies from the more purely materials science, in which nanoparticles or nanosurfaces are developed to provide properties intrinsic to such small scale, toward structurally engineered products at the nanoscale, including nano products that provide the more complex sensor-type performance or even beyond, with specialized structural and functional components.
By comparison to a prior analysis that we provided on nanotech and MEMs, this developmental trend has become more pronounced, illustrating the growing sophistication of the science. In our current analysis, a limited, but fairly representative sample of companies suggests the following current distribution of the essential functional characteristics provided by the nanotechnologies being developed, as measured by the simple frequency of companies:
By "analysis", we mean products designed to reveal structure or function at the nanoscale level, rather than products that are themselves nanoscale or that provide analytical (e.g., sensor-based) functions at the nanoscale.
By "functional structure", we mean those products that are themselves nanoscale in simple or complex structure (i.e., beyond surface coating) providing functional performance beyond nanoparticles as materials.
In this, we have seen, even in the past two years, an impressive increase in nanotechnologies in the functional structure category, the most advanced of nanotechnology development. Indeed, the predominant types of nanotech products, both in nanomedicine applications and in the broader applications, fall in the area of particle and/or surface-based nanotechnologies, in which there is little or no performance of nanotech beyond that provided materials science. In nanomedicine, this particle/surface category, even cursorily surveyed, stands at 64% of the nanotech companies.
This is not to say that nanotech development necessarily has as its endpoint (in ultimate market potential) the development of complex nanostructures. Tremendous market potential may well reside in nanotech as surface coatings (let's remember what coatings did to the stent market), whether for devices or for pharmaceuticals. Impirically, there are more challenges in the development and testing of complex nanostructures than in the development of nanosurfaces. But there may also be nanoscale applications of complex nanostructures that we have envisioned neither technologically nor from a market potential.
If there is a take home message (sorry to have taken so long to get here), it is that the survival-conscious device manufacturer has recognized that nanotech is an area that it cannot afford to ignore. Over the next 1-2 years, witness the number of developmental, investment or other deals involving device companies and nanotech companies.
From a macro view, it is worthwhile to step back and look at the migration of nanotechnologies from the more purely materials science, in which nanoparticles or nanosurfaces are developed to provide properties intrinsic to such small scale, toward structurally engineered products at the nanoscale, including nano products that provide the more complex sensor-type performance or even beyond, with specialized structural and functional components.
By comparison to a prior analysis that we provided on nanotech and MEMs, this developmental trend has become more pronounced, illustrating the growing sophistication of the science. In our current analysis, a limited, but fairly representative sample of companies suggests the following current distribution of the essential functional characteristics provided by the nanotechnologies being developed, as measured by the simple frequency of companies:
- particle/surface: 64%
- analysis: 8%
- functional structure: 28%
By "analysis", we mean products designed to reveal structure or function at the nanoscale level, rather than products that are themselves nanoscale or that provide analytical (e.g., sensor-based) functions at the nanoscale.
By "functional structure", we mean those products that are themselves nanoscale in simple or complex structure (i.e., beyond surface coating) providing functional performance beyond nanoparticles as materials.
In this, we have seen, even in the past two years, an impressive increase in nanotechnologies in the functional structure category, the most advanced of nanotechnology development. Indeed, the predominant types of nanotech products, both in nanomedicine applications and in the broader applications, fall in the area of particle and/or surface-based nanotechnologies, in which there is little or no performance of nanotech beyond that provided materials science. In nanomedicine, this particle/surface category, even cursorily surveyed, stands at 64% of the nanotech companies.
This is not to say that nanotech development necessarily has as its endpoint (in ultimate market potential) the development of complex nanostructures. Tremendous market potential may well reside in nanotech as surface coatings (let's remember what coatings did to the stent market), whether for devices or for pharmaceuticals. Impirically, there are more challenges in the development and testing of complex nanostructures than in the development of nanosurfaces. But there may also be nanoscale applications of complex nanostructures that we have envisioned neither technologically nor from a market potential.
If there is a take home message (sorry to have taken so long to get here), it is that the survival-conscious device manufacturer has recognized that nanotech is an area that it cannot afford to ignore. Over the next 1-2 years, witness the number of developmental, investment or other deals involving device companies and nanotech companies.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Stealth medical technologies
The need to keep innovation under wraps until it has been allowed to develop enough to maximize the value is driving more and more companies to eschew any kind of promotion until they are actively seeking investment to formally bring the technologies out into the open as part of market introduction.
At least by our anecdotal evidence -- in the number of companies who we identify (by corporate filing or otherwise) but who have successfully avoided disclosing the nature of their technology anywhere.
There is a change in the dynamics at work here. It is doubtful that it is a diminution of hubris among entrepreneurs that is undercutting self-promotion, since pride is the trait that sets them out on their own in the first place. It is instead the result of at least two forces: (1) tacit recognition that with funding comes insidious influence to be studiously avoided until absolutely unavoidable and (2) tacit recognition that the hunger is great enough for new technologies that the innovator can take greater risk in funding from the 3F's before seeking formal investment at market introduction.
Of course, we have ways of piercing the stealth veil, and we're getting better at doing so.
At least by our anecdotal evidence -- in the number of companies who we identify (by corporate filing or otherwise) but who have successfully avoided disclosing the nature of their technology anywhere.
There is a change in the dynamics at work here. It is doubtful that it is a diminution of hubris among entrepreneurs that is undercutting self-promotion, since pride is the trait that sets them out on their own in the first place. It is instead the result of at least two forces: (1) tacit recognition that with funding comes insidious influence to be studiously avoided until absolutely unavoidable and (2) tacit recognition that the hunger is great enough for new technologies that the innovator can take greater risk in funding from the 3F's before seeking formal investment at market introduction.
Of course, we have ways of piercing the stealth veil, and we're getting better at doing so.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
St. Jude must be next
St. Jude Medical is number 3 in the rhythm management market, behind Guidant (#2) and Medtronic (#1), so when either J&J or Boston Scientific lose out in the grab for Guidant as their new rhythm management acquisition, where are they going to look next? It’s not likely to be Medtronic, with a $70 billion market valuation.
What is St. Jude’s stock price likely to do?
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
The door is still open for BSCI on Guidant
Following the surprising (but not shocking) offer yesterday by Boston Scientific to buy Guidant for $25B, upping the deal by $3.4B over J&J’s renegotiated deal, Guidant is agreeing to cooperate with Boston Scientific’s review of Guidant as a precursor to finalizing the $25B offer. This could be viewed as Guidant simply going through the motions, but since J&J has indicated that it still sees $21.5B as “full and fair value” for the deal (see NYT today) and J&J Chairman William J. Weldon’s statement as such did not mention Guidant shareholders, it’s a fair bet that in short order there will be a sweetener added to the deal, lest Guidant shareholders demand more.
Even though the burden on Boston Scientific would be extreme, quadrupling its debt burden, the opportunity to jump into the $10 billion pacing/defib market would give it a boost it needs. Although Taxus has doubled the company’s earnings in each the last four quarters, the company’s stock price has slipped by 42% as investors have been itching for the company to come up with the next big thing after Taxus.
Even without Guidant in the picture, I have every reason to believe Boston Scientific and J&J are both developing and looking for just such a thing.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Boston Scientific Rebuffed? on Guidant
Boston Scientific’s offer of a $3.4B premium to buy Guidant over J&J’s offer was initially rebuffed today by Guidant, who signalled that it was opting to stick with the newly reworked $21B+ deal with J&J. Boston Scientific clearly recognized the market value of picking up Guidant (at J&J’s expense), even with the stent divestitures that would have been mandated. Guidant shareholders will vote on the deal in 1Q 2006.
Boston Scientific and J&J remain in a pitched battle over share in the drug eluting stents sector, which will be joined in the next 1-2 years by not only Guidant, but Medtronic, Abbott and a healthy list of others.
Monday, November 28, 2005
TCT data
We report in the November issue of MedMarkets on trials, products and competitor activity at this year's TCT meeting. A great deal of the drug-eluting stent data from the trials demonstrates no appreciable difference between J&J's Cypher and Boston Scientific's TAXUS stents. There are differences in efficacy, some very supportable in the trial data, but there are also differneces essentially in marketing. Boston Scientific has taken the aggressive share-protection step of coming up with its "Taxus Stent Assurance Program" (from our November issue):
In an unusual move—and after a recent decline in market share due to a perception that Cypher has a safer profile—Boston Scientific offered a guarantee in the form of its “TAXUS Stent Assurance Program.” If any patient receiving a TAXUS Express2 stent requires reintervention due to in-stent restenosis during calendar year 2006, the company will provide a replacement stent at no charge.We also cover embolic protection, a big market that has been developing for some time, and may soon be growing at a much faster clip.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Medical product industry investment making a turn
Healthcare product (medical device and biotech) investment, like all investment in the past four years, has been pinched, but not so much as one might believe. The total investment has been relatively stable, and in fact has increased recently in the both the aggregate and for medical devices specifically. What is more the case with investment in the post-9/11 and post dotcom era is the conservative shift in that investment, notably a shift in investment from earlier or expansion stage of company development to later stage investments. We’ve talked about this before. (Perhaps the most telling aspect over the past four years has been that MedMarket Diligence experienced a big increase in information purchased from the investment community, apparently no longer satisfied solely with their own research.)
The conservative shift is waning, however. We’ve read the tea leaves and see signs (numbers of deals, size of the deals, and numbers of startups forming) that opportunity-hungry investors are ready to take more chances.
Expect the following to happen in 2006 – barring any unforeseen global event (let’s be safe, but let’s also live our lives!). Aggregate investment in healthcare products will take a healthy jump, with a measurably bigger share going to medical devices, and investment will shift back upstream in the development cycle. Many more deals, at bigger average investments (i.e., $10 million each).
Friday, November 18, 2005
The ideal author
I’ve often been asked what makes a good author of the reports we publish. My answer comes as the result of the truth having been pounded into me repeatedly over the past 20 years (I have lots of scar tissue).
The ideal author has:
- 10-20 years in the industry about which they will write
- Experience in that industry in senior management or VP/Director level roles in marketing/sales or business development
- Diligence research capabilities to ensure that 99% of the market is considered, not 80% or 70%
- Demonstrable analytical skills to prioritize the relevance of data (i.e., wade skillfully through the BS), identify important trends (besides the “aging population”), reveal opportunities (I have to force even the best to do this), and otherwise give insightful conclusions.
- Good-to-excellent writing skills. It doesn’t matter if they can research among the best if they can’t put it in words. I can and will edit extensively to bring out the best, but the content has to be good enough to start with so that I’m not writing reports for authors.
- Acceptable computer skills. It’s maddening to have an author who has skills 1-5 above, but doesn’t know how to back up his/her files, doesn’t run anti-virus software or is running Windows 95.
- Je ne sais quoi: At some point during my initial interview with an author, I can identify whether the author has that certain “something” that I want or has that certain “something” that I know will prohibit them from doing a good report. My instincts have proven themselves in the long run.
This is a REAL challenge. If I am going to publish studies that will command the prices they do, it’s imperative that the authors fit the bill. If I have to compromise on any of these, I know I will pay for it (one way or another) in the long run. I have therefore learned to take it on the chin and decline prospective authors when the truth is plain to me.
- Anyone who says, “I’ve always wanted to write. I think it will be fun.” You’d be surprised how often this comes up.
- Almost anyone with the letters PhD behind their name. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had a couple great PhD authors, but among the worst prospects were those with this degree. The failing is simply the tendency toward ivory tower thinking and the lack of direct industry experience or relevant analytical skills in business.
- Anyone who says, “Now where do I get the market data to do this report?”
- Technical writers (convinced though they may be about how well qualified they are)
- Medical marketing brochure writers (certain they may be that brochure experience = report authoring skill)
- Anyone who has written for specific other report publishers ---- [censured by lawyer].
I could go on, but it’s too exasperating to think how often I have to say no.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Novel technologies in diabetes management
A glimpse of newer technologies in diabetes management (from http://www.mediligence.com/rpt-d500.htm).
- Pancreas transplants
- Islet cell transplants
- Stem cell developments
- Antibody treatment
- Vaccines
- Genetic approaches (genetic testing, SiRNA)
- Novel drugs (DDP-IV Inhibitors, NN-14, Rimonabant)
- Continuous glucose monitoring (electroenzymatic sensor, optical sensor, carbon nanotube sensor)
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Aggressive medtech development in lieu of perfect solutions
In reviewing a past report we produced on the management of obesity, which was addressed more recently in our October issue of MedMarkets, I was struck by the proliferation of companies pursuing surgical device solutions to obesity. These include variants of the gastric band approach, which simply reduces gastric capacity. The market for these devices has burgeoned in the past couple years, and is expected to grow aggressively. Why? For one, the stigma of obesity is fading as it is being viewed in the popular press more as the result of pathology than character flaw. This has opened the floodgates to people seeking a surgical solution. Reimbursement (not my forte) has at least not been an impediment. But why all the device development? This is a classic device-centric pathology; the stomach is a structure whose capacity can be readily reduced through gastric banding, it is a relatively simple surgical procedure and produces the immediate effect of reducing intake of food. This is, of course, also the rapid adoption phase of a market, and it is difficult (short of available long term data on approved devices – especially since most devices are not approved in the U.S.
It would be misguided of me to not acknowledge that devices are rarely (ever?) perfect solutions to pathology. But, I also recognize the tremendous potential for devices to achieve solutions that increasingly raise the barrier to the development of biotech/pharma/biopharm solutions to pathology, because devices, imperfect or limited in functional performance or fit with the premise of “rational therapeutics” though they may be, they are available now and are achieving solutions sine qua non.
Technologies among newly identified startups
Newly identified companies developing advanced technologies in medical/surgical applications:
» Medical device based treatment for obesity (Newport Beach, CA)
» Treatment of intervertebral disc via conduits to restore nutrient/waste exchange (San Jose, CA)
» Beating heart bypass technology (Fullerton, CA)
» Diagnostic device to detect arteriosclerosis (Misgav, Israel)
» Surgical and percutaneous treatment of cardiac valve and CHF (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
» Undisclosed minimally invasive surgical technology (Menlo Park, CA)
» Image guidance for open liver surgery (Nashville, TN)
» Surgical device (Menlo Park, CA)
» Dialysis on a microchip (Cambridge, MA)
» Surgical product development of implants, instrumentation and surgical devices (Mission Viejo, CA)
» Endoluminal platform technology for gastroenterology and uro/gyn (Ayer, MA)
» Fluorescence spectroscopy for diabetes screening (Albuquerque, NM)
Company details in the November MedMarkets.
» Medical device based treatment for obesity (Newport Beach, CA)
» Treatment of intervertebral disc via conduits to restore nutrient/waste exchange (San Jose, CA)
» Beating heart bypass technology (Fullerton, CA)
» Diagnostic device to detect arteriosclerosis (Misgav, Israel)
» Surgical and percutaneous treatment of cardiac valve and CHF (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
» Undisclosed minimally invasive surgical technology (Menlo Park, CA)
» Image guidance for open liver surgery (Nashville, TN)
» Surgical device (Menlo Park, CA)
» Dialysis on a microchip (Cambridge, MA)
» Surgical product development of implants, instrumentation and surgical devices (Mission Viejo, CA)
» Endoluminal platform technology for gastroenterology and uro/gyn (Ayer, MA)
» Fluorescence spectroscopy for diabetes screening (Albuquerque, NM)
Company details in the November MedMarkets.
J&J Can Absorb Guidant
Johnson & Johnson has already demonstrated an incredible propensity to acquire and aborb companies, managing them at arms length and making them succeed. That J&J and Guidant renegotiated their deal, at $4B less than originally negotiated last year, speaks volumes about J&J's ability to "absorb". I was frankly surprised to have to wait until Tuesday (Nov. 15) to learn that a new deal had been struck following the Friday announcement that the original deal was not going to fly. Guidant's recall woes can be dealt with (if you're J&J). The underlying asset base and technology portfolio is sound. J&J will certainly come out of this with a new foothold in pacemakers plus $4 billion extra cash. We give an update on the latest developments in our November MedMarkets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
