Introduction
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s 2019 Technology and Life Sciences IPO Report presents analysis related to the closing of 87 initial public offerings completed by U.S.-based technology and life sciences issuers between January 1 and December 31, 2019. (Source: CapitalIQ) The report includes IPO filing, pricing, and value statistics for both sectors; governance and board of director details; ownership and deal structure factors; and defensive measure data points.
2019 was another vibrant year for tech and life sciences IPOs, with just a slight decline from 2018 despite the U.S. government shutdown and market volatility that slowed IPO activity in early 2019. Comparing this year’s report with the firm’s 2018 year-end edition, the number of IPOs in 2019 fell only six short of the 93 tech and life sciences IPOs in 2018.
Technology
Twenty-seven technology companies priced IPOs during 2019. Application software led all technology sub-sectors, with seven IPOs. Other active sub-areas included internet and e-commerce, systems software, interactive media, and transportation technology. Combined, the above categories made up more than 70% of the technology IPOs in 2019. Although there were more than twice as many life sciences IPOs as tech deals, tech IPOs generated much larger deal values. Of the 27 tech IPOs, 12 had a total deal value exceeding $500 million.
Life Sciences
Sixty life sciences companies priced IPOs during 2019—more than double the total number of tech IPOs. Of the 60 life sciences IPOs, more than half were by biotech companies, followed by 16 IPOs involving medical device companies, and 10 IPOs by pharmaceutical companies. Despite having a larger number of IPOs, deal value sizes for life sciences companies were generally much lower than for tech issuers. Only four of the life sciences IPOs had a total deal value over $500 million.
READ MORE »
TIAA Comment Letter on Proposed Rules on Proxy Voting Advice and Shareholder Proposals
More from: Amy O’Brien, Yves Denizé, TIAA
Amy M. O’Brien is Senior Managing Director and Head of Responsible Investing and Yves P. Denizé is Senior Managing Director and Division General Counsel, both at Nuveen, the investment manager of TIAA. This post is based on a TIAA comment letter to the SEC.
Like many institutional investors, TIAA takes its responsibilities as a shareholder seriously, and we work hard to make informed proxy voting decisions and participate thoughtfully in annual shareholder meetings. We believe it is important to maintain a careful balance between the rights of shareholders and those of operating companies, and we appreciate the Commission’s continued efforts to do so. However, we are concerned that certain aspects of the Proposals may ultimately make the proxy voting process more costly and difficult without providing meaningful benefits to investors or the market. We respectfully offer our thoughts and perspectives on the Proposals below in hopes that we may assist the SEC in its worthy goal of effectively and efficiently improving the U.S. proxy voting process.
1. Proxy advisors should not be required to give registrants an opportunity to review and provide feedback on voting advice before it is disseminated to clients.
The Proxy Advice Proposal includes proposed amendments to Rule 14a–2(b) of the Exchange Act that would require proxy advisory firms to give registrants one standardized opportunity for timely review of and feedback on proxy voting advice before disseminating the advice to clients, regardless of whether the advice is adverse to the registrant’s own recommendation. The amount of time a given registrant would have to conduct its review and provide feedback would depend on how far in advance of the shareholder meeting the registrant files its definitive proxy statement. Registrants that file their proxy statement between 25 and 44 days before their next shareholder meeting would be given at least three business days for review and feedback, while registrants that file their definitive proxy statement 45 days or more before their next shareholder meeting would be given at least five business days. Registrants would also have the option under the proposed amendments to request that a proxy advisor’s final voting advice include a hyperlink provided by the registrant directing the recipient of the advice to a written statement that sets forth the registrant’s views on the advice.
READ MORE »