How To Kill A Unicorn: The cautionary tale of Theranos

A unicorn in startup jargon is an early stage tech company with a $1 billion+ valuation. Theranos is (was?) a Silicon Valley startup and a unicorn, focused on disrupting the enormous market of diagnostic blood testing.

Valuations are funny things. They are critically important to startup CEOs and investors but ultimately, they are subjective shared opinions based on complex models of present and future events. Startup CEOs and venture capital investors try very hard to keep their company’s’ valuations ever-increasing. Negative news or events can start a cascading cycle resulting in the dreaded “down round” of investment and even ejection from the unicorn club.

Theranos was a unicon, but no longer
Killing the unicorn, British Library

Background

CEO Elizabeth Holmes founded Theranos in 2004. As a 19-year old college student, Holmes pitched an idea to her Stanford professor and was advised to start a company. Through family and personal connections, venture capital money poured in, Holmes dropped out of Stanford and Theranos began its mission to change health care.

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes
Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes – Inc. cover photo Oct. 2015

“…it doesn’t work…”

Alas, “mistakes were made” and the company and its executive team found itself in hot water with the FDA and the subject of a number of unflattering stories in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. The Theranos head of R&D committed suicide and left a note saying “it [the technology] doesn’t work.” Also, the company president recently resigned and CEO Holmes is banned from owning or operating a lab for two years. In addition, Theranos’s commercial partners, Safeway and Walgreen’s, terminated their agreements with the company.

That’s about as bleak a series of events as you can imagine, right? Well as the infomercial goes, wait, there’s more…

Negative reactions continued over the year since the WSJ story broke. In May 2016, Theranos announced that it had voided two years of results from its Edison device. Patients filed a class action lawsuit alleging they were adversely affected by Theranos’s business practices (specifically, faulty blood tests). Recently, the company announced layoffs of 40% of its labor force and closure of testing labs around the country. In October, 2016 Holmes announced that Theranos would shift its strategy toward development and manufacture of small, robotic diagnostic test equipment – a very crowded market.

In June, 2016, Forbes assessed the valuation of Theranos as $800 million and revised the estimated net worth of CEO Holmes from $4.5 billion at the company’s peak valuation (she has a 50% stake in Theranos but it’s all common stock) to zero.

Theranos valuation history
Theranos valuation history (based on public estimates)

What killed the unicorn? There are a number of bad decisions made by Theranos management and its Board of Directors. Here are 10 of the worst that I identified.

Bad Decisions

  1. Stack the Board of Directors with old, politically connected white guys (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Frist, Sam Nunn) with little or no startup, technology, or diagnostics savvy.
  2. Create a cult of personality around the CEO. Make sure she appears on popular magazine covers and is interviewed frequently on TV shows.
  3. Create a not-so-subtle emphasis on the similarities between your attractive, young CEO and Steve Jobs: both are college dropouts, both wear a uniform of black turtlenecks, both are “visionary” leaders, both are/were young billionaires (only on paper in the case of Elizabeth Holmes)..
  4. Keep the founder as CEO, no matter if she has zero prior business or medical industry experience. Do not bring in a strong executive team with relevant industry experience to complement the CEO’s energy, vision, and talent.
  5. Hype your technology but shroud its technical details in secrecy. Worse, secretly use competitor’s technology for the vast majority of the tests performed.
  6. Do not conduct randomized clinical studies to demonstrate efficacy vs. industry “gold standard” technologies. Definitely  do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.
  7. Sign agreements with major commercial partners (Walgreens, Safeway) and conduct major PR campaigns announcing the deals before the technology is mature and proven.
  8. Pay no attention to FDA, CLIA, and GLP requirements. Refuse to learn from what happened to other startups that defied or ignored the FDA (see 23andme).
  9. Aggressively promote your muddled, multi-pronged, “disruptive” business model.
  10. Deny and deflect all bad news. Accuse The Wall Street Journal of conducting a witch hunt.

Takeaways

  1. The medical device/diagnostics industry is not the technology industry. Patients’ health and lives are affected by poor management, decisions, and/or business practices. Consequently, medical technology companies are heavily regulated and conservative regarding innovation. 
  2. If you must have an inexperienced person at the helm of the startup, compensate with a seasoned, accomplished Board of Directors with relevant experience and networks.
  3. Aim to solve one problem at a time. Prioritize. Theranos touted its “Nanotainer” finger stick technology, Edison diagnostic technology, and plans to disrupt healthcare by bringing diagnostic testing directly to patients through grocery and drug stores. That’s a lot of moving parts.
  4. Expect swift and deadly reactions from entrenched competitors (including complaints to the FDA and leaks to the media). Your disruptive business model is their existential threat.
  5. As the saying goes, sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. The first step to success in the medical technology industry is a strong intellectual property portfolio and properly maintained trade secrets that create solutions to real healthcare problems. But that strategy must coexist with a culture of regulatory compliance, stringent adherence to quality standards, and sponsorship/disclosure of peer reviewed randomized clinical studies. It’s a business model that has worked for many successful companies in the industry.

Will Theranos pull out of its nose dive, emerge as a disruptive company in the ultra-competitive medical diagnostics market, and regain its unicorn status? Maybe, but given its track record and penchant for acting more like a Silicon Valley tech startup than a medical technology company, I would not bet on it.

Postscript 12.15.16 The shareholder lawsuits have begun.

References

  1. From $4.5 Billion To Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth Of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes [Forbes]
  2. The wildly hyped $9 billion blood test company that no one really understands [The Washington Post]
  3. An Open Letter From Elizabeth Holmes [Theranos company website]
  4. Theranos Attacks Wall Street Journal (Again) in a Rebuttal You’ll Need a Medical Degree to Understand [recode]
  5. Expecting Data From Theranos, Lab Experts Get New Product [Bloomberg]
  6. At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags [The Wall Street Journal]
  7. Why the Next Steve Jobs Will Be a Woman [Inc.]
  8. Theranos throws in the towel on clinical labs, officially pivots to devices [Ars Technica]
  9. How Playing the Long Game Made Elizabeth Holmes a Billionaire [Inc.]
  10. Theranos’ Scandal Exposes the Problem With Tech’s Hype Cycle [Wired]
  11. Will Shareholder Lawsuit Trigger Theranos To Return Capital To Shareholders? [Forbes]

  12. Theranos Just Got Slammed With Another Lawsuit [Fortune]

The artificial hip fiasco

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement
image via wikipedia.org

Designing medical devices is hard work. Designing artificial joints is even harder. The ongoing artificial hip fiasco in the medical device industry is proof.

Artificial joints such as hips and knees are incredible technologies. They can take people out of wheelchairs and turn them into active adults. The crippling pain and infirmity of arthritis and other degenerative diseases are banished, at least for a while.

The requirements for these high tech medical devices are challenging. They are implants, subjected to full immersion in bodily fluids and subject to all of the stresses and biochemical processes of the human body. Ideally, the implant should last the rest of the patient’s life although that seems to be one of the most challenging requirements.

Implants such as artificial joints that must move may be the most difficult of all to design and to last in the body. Materials selection is particularly challenging. Metal implants must be sufficiently hard and tough to take the loading and repetitive motion of a patient’s joint for years and years. Ceramic implants must be fracture-resistant to impact loads and shocks, say from a jump or a fall. Polymer implants must be low friction but must not break up under mechanical stress or chemical attack. And coatings must not migrate to other parts of the body. Of course, none of the materials in the implants can be toxic.

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an ideal combination of materials for hip implants. Interestingly as well (and I’m sure of substantial frustration to device engineers), there does not appear to be a reliable in vitro or in vivo model with which to perform wear and life testing. If there were a robust model, none of these implants would have made it to market without major revisions in materials and/or design.

Implant designs have failed mechanically through fracture and friction and more insidiously, have raised the potential for cancer and autoimmune disorders through migration of metals, coatings, and polymers to other areas of the body. In many cases, patients have undergone additional implant surgeries as a result of the failures. And these are not trivial operations.

A report today in Fierce Medical Devices indicated that Johnson & Johnson has settled 7,500 lawsuits for its metal-on-metal hip implants for a whopping $4 billion. That’s an average of $300,000 per implant and is in addition to other lawsuits settled in October. Other lawsuits against J&J are still pending as well as legal exposure outside the U.S. J&J announced recently that it will exit the metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal implant markets in 2014. I’m guessing that the legal settlements wiped out any profits made over the years and is probably going to cost untold numbers of jobs.

J&J’s competitors have problems too. According the the Fierce Medical article, Biomet, Stryker, and others are facing similar liability situations with respect to metal-on-metal implants.

The market for these devices is large and increasing. Hip implants are one of the most frequent orthopedic surgeries. As the population of seniors in the U.S. and other developed countries continues to grow while the baby boom generation ages, demand for procedures that maintain active lifestyles will continue to increase.

Takeaways: The onus is on medical device engineers to create valid in vitro and in vivo preclinical models and to test exhaustively before releasing to manufacturing. Engineers and researchers must also identify biomaterials and designs that are truly biocompatible and able to meet the demanding requirements that these implants must satisfy.

Give the track record of implants, engineers and medical device executives can expect increased scrutiny and skepticism from regulatory agencies, investors, physicians, and patients and their families.

Of course, it also means that there is an incredible opportunity awaiting the company or engineer that can solve this intractable issue.

Read more:

Report: J&J settles most metal hip lawsuits in $4B-plus accord – FierceMedicalDevices.

More Artificial Hip Concerns – NYTimes.com.

Jumper Cables for Your Brain

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/03/magazine/03brain1/mag-03brain-t_CA0-articleLarge.jpgA novel therapy that improves mental performance in healthy people is being called “jumper cables for your brain.” The scientific name for the therapy is transcranial direct-current stimulation, tDCS for short.

A similar yet very different treatment, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), formerly called electroshock therapy, doesn’t have a positive image in most peoples’ minds. Popular culture including movies and TV has convinced most of us that it’s used to treat crazy people, usually with extremely undesirable outcomes, and that the people giving the treatment are either mad scientists or evil government agents.

ECT does have a place in modern neuroscience, however. It is often the last resort therapy for patients with intractable depression and other conditions that do not respond to drug treatments.

tDCS uses very low voltage and very little current to achieve its effect, less than 1% of the enegy used in ECT. The tDCS devices being studied today use a 9 volt battery for power. tDCS researchers have been using currents in the range of 300 to 500 microamps. In contrast, ECT uses much more current, about 2000 times as much. According to an article in Wikipedia, “Typically, the electrical stimulus used in ECT is about 800 milliamps…”

 Researchers have identified a myriad of benefits for the novel therapy. From the article in The New York Times:

Scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals since 2005 have shown that tDCS can improve the speed or accuracy with which people perform [a computerized] attention-switching task. Other studies have found it can improve everything from working memory to long-term memory, math calculations, reading ability, solving difficult problems, piano playing, complex verbal thought, planning, visual memory, the ability to categorize, the capacity for insight, post-stroke paralysis and aphasia, chronic pain and even depression. Effects have been shown to last for weeks or months.

“tDCS will not make you superhuman, but it may allow you to work at your maximum capacity,” said Felipe Fregni, the Brazilian physician and neurophysiologist who runs Harvard’s Laboratory of Neuromodulation at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. “It helps you achieve your personal best level of functioning. Let’s say you didn’t sleep well the night before. Or perhaps you’re depressed, or you suffered a stroke. It helps your brain reach its peak performance.”

No one is really sure why the therapy works although there are theories. The brain is essentially a very complex electrochemical computer. Applying a weak electrical field to neurons while performing a task seems to make the neurons fire easier and to remember the task for some time. Unfortunately, researchers have not yet identified the specific mechanism that is responsible for the improvements. As a result, research funding has been sparse because peer reviewers for funding agencies in the U.S. government remain skeptical.

A number of companies are pursuing commercialization of tDCS technology and are engaged with the U.S. FDA on the regulatory approval process. ECT devices are categorized as Class III or pre-market approval (PMA). It remains to be seen if the new, lower power devices also fall into the PMA category. A less restrictive FDA classification would mean a greater market potential and benefits to ordinary healthy people who are looking for a little mental advantage. I would definitely consider trying one of these devices in exchange for a few of those mental benefits!

Takeaways: There are many processes and body functions that are not fully understood or characterized. When researchers continue to investigate these promising areas despite a lack of funding, it might mean that there is an opportunity for collaboration and eventual commercialization.

Of course, something like tDCS, “brain enhancement technology” comes with risks. What might be the long term effect of the therapy on the brain? What about effects on children and adolescents?

Finally, it will be imperative to separate the new technology from the stigma of electroconvulsive therapy in order to appeal to healthy consumers.

Read more:

Jumper Cables for the Mind | New York Times Magazine

GLNT gets another patent to treat Parkinson’s for transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep.

Hyping a digital health startup

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/03/technology/bits03-healthtap/bits03-healthtap-tmagArticle.jpg
image via NY Times digital blog

HealthTap is a digital health app and website. It’s a useful way to get health and fitness information that is tailored to your interests. You can even get your specific questions answered by medical experts. I use it myself. In an effort to attract attention and even more users, however, HealthTap appears to have hyped or at least exaggerated its success.

HealthTap works by recruiting physicians (more than 50,000 participate) to answer questions posed by subscribers for free. The subscribers do not pay for the service. I’m not quite sure what their business model is, actually. The rationale for doctors to participate is that the physicians will be recognized (“thanked” in HealthTap parlance), their online reputation will be enhanced, and real life patients will come to them as a result.

After an interaction where a user asks a question and receives a response from a doctor, HealthTap asks the user to thank the doctor or HealthTap and prompts the user for more information. The extra information apparently includes responding with a click to a question like, “This answer saved my life.”

HealthTap keeps a record of all of the positive responses to the “saved my life” prompt and issued a press release when the tally got to 10,000. Nothing wrong with any of that, except there is no way to prove if the app/website/reply really did save a particular life.

As one physician commenter in the New York times article said, “after my third “This saved my life,” I investigated. It was for recommending antifungals for jock itch. Nice pat on the back, but lifesaving? Not!”

Although some of the the lifesaving claims may be legitimate, the touting of “10,000 lives saved so far” on HealthTap’s website seems vaguely desperate and hyped – not what I expect from a serious medical app.

HealthTap also provides a disclaimer on its website and app: “HealthTap does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.” The disclaimer is obviously there to avoid being treated as an FDA-regulated medical application. Of course, the FDA (and malpractice attorneys) will have the final say on that status. I don’t know how asking a specific medical question and having an answer provided by a physician avoids becoming medical advice.

HealthTap is competing with big players in the health information field. WebMD is the 800 pound gorilla and granddaddy of health information sites. I suppose the executives at HealthTap feel they have to be aggressive in order to create awareness and get users and doctors to take notice. Unfortunately, their real utility and service has been tainted by excessive marketing, in my opinion.

HealthTap appears to be a well-funded Silicon Valley startup. Its investors include luminaries like Eric Schmidt, Chairman of Google, Vinod Khosla, Esther Dyson, and more.

Postscript:  I removed the HealthTap app from my mobile phone because I thought the notifications it provided were too frequent and intrusive. I still receive an email every few days on the subjects I told HealthTap were important to me.

Takeaways: Yes, you need to be aggressive in marketing your startup. There is a lot of competition for mind share among similar startups all over the world, no matter how unique you believe your company/product/service to be.

No, you should not make up or exaggerate claims about your product. Perhaps it can be excused as puffery or marketing hype but healthcare companies are held to a higher standard than consumer products like beer or body wash.

Read more:

An App That Saved 10,000 Lives – NYTimes.com.

HealthTap.com

High tech medical device maker focuses on…China?

http://axialexchange.com/images/articles/Hypertension-Nutrition-Counseling.jpg
image via axialexchange.com

High blood pressure is a significant societal health problem all over the world. Kona Medical is trying to address the huge hypertension population with a noninvasive ultrasound device that might eliminate the need to take daily blood pressure medication. In a somewhat unorthodox move, the company is focusing initially on China.

 

Last year, Medtronic acquired Ardian, another startup that is focused on the same clinical condition. Ardian, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, was purchased for $800 million.

From axialexchange.com:

The statistics for hypertension are stunning. 30% of US adults have hypertension (high blood pressure). Another 30% of Americans are pre-hypertensive. Less than half of those people with hypertension have their condition under control.  A fifth don’t know they have it. The annual price tag for direct medical expenses related to high blood pressure is $131 billion. This is driven in part by the 55 million doctor visits that are prompted by high blood pressure. High blood pressure is present in most first heart attacks (69%), first strokes (77%), and in people with congestive heart failure (74%). High blood pressure was listed as a primary or contributing cause of death for about 348,000 Americans in 2008.

Recent medical research has shown that ablation (destruction) of the nerves around the renal arteries can reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension. A number of medical device companies are racing to commercialize products based on their proprietary technologies in order to take a lead in this evolving market.

Ardian uses radio frequency ablation delivered via catheter to the area of the renal arteries. Kona is using focused external ultrasound to deliver the therapeutic energy – they are calling it “surround sound.” In a superficial assessment, it appears that Kona has the edge since their technology is completely noninvasive while the Ardian technology could at best be described as minimally invasive.

Of course, what should really matter is which technology works best with the fewest side effect, not how the therapy is delivered. The “best” technology doesn’t always prevail in the medical device industry, however. Sometimes first to market gets and keeps the largest share while in other situations the best marketing prevails.

Kona has previously raised $40 million in venture capital earlier this year and in 2012.

Kona’s latest announcement, to use a new investment of $10 million to launch their product in China, is somewhat confusing. Yes, there are vast numbers of people in China and untold numbers with hypertension. Most, however, probably do not have the type of health insurance that would pay for a high tech solution. In its press release, the company said that their therapy has the promise of being delivered in an outpatient setting. Outpatient hypertension therapy clinics – now that’s a disruptive concept!

China is not a traditional launch market for new medical devices. The company says that the latest investment, from a fund with deep ties to China, will be used exclusively to address the many clinical, regulatory, and intellectual property issues unique to China as a medical device market for Kona’s new therapy.

It will be interesting to see if Kona can successfully launch their product into the Chinese market while simultaneously commercializing for the traditional U.S. or E.U. markets without losing focus or depleting key resources.

Takeaways: Most companies commercializing novel medical devices pick a launch market and stick with it. There are any number of reasons to launch in the U.S. first. Other companies pick the European Union countries and some look to large, less regulated countries in South America.

While many development and commercialization tasks are the same no matter which initial market is selected, there are important differences. It’s usually best to choose the first, second, and perhaps third initial markets so that the launch components are not uniquely different and the company can use scarce resources for other commercialization tasks.

 Read more: Kona Medical raises $10M to reduce high blood pressure for people in China – GeekWire.

Kona Medical

Medical Device Startup Fundraising: 5 keys for your pitch

Woman presentingIf you are leading a medical device startup, fundraising is your top priority. Here are five key points that you must address in every pitch that you make, no matter if it’s for a grant, seed investment from friends and family, angel investment, venture capital funding, or strategic partnerships with multinational medical device companies.

From the article:

  • Be clear on what your product is, right up front
  • Articulate the important problem you are solving
  • Define your customers
  • Spell out how you will create value with the $$ you are raising
  • Instill confidence in you and your team

Another way to look at the pitch is to think of it in terms of risk reduction. Most experienced investors talk about three main areas of risk in startup investing:

  • Technical Risk
  • Market Risk
  • Execution Risk

Investors will not move forward with an opportunity unless they believe that these key risks have been addressed and are below their personal threshold. Of course, you will never know that threshold so you must work to convince the investor that you have mitigated the three risks to the maximum extent possible.

Technical risk is all about the product or solution. Does your product solve the customer’s problem? Have you built a working prototype? Do you have an animal model? Have you performed animal testing? Are there important technical issues yet to be resolved? Do you have any intellectual property protection? Have you conducted a freedom to operate analysis? Does your product or solution depend on products or IP owned by other companies? Have you conducted beta testing? What’s your regulatory classification and plan? Are there more products in the pipeline?

Market risk is about the customer(s). Have you identified the problem? Is the problem a large one? Is the market opportunity big enough to justify the investment? Who are the customers? Why will they buy from you? What’s the competition (and don’t make the rookie mistake of saying that there is no competition)? Do you have evidence of demand? Do you have testimonials or at least interest from Key Opinion Leader customers? How do you plan to distribute and sell your product? How does your product or solution fit in today’s environment of managed care, healthcare reform, and evidence-based medicine? What’s your reimbursement strategy and plan?

Execution risk is about you and your team’s ability to convince investors that you can use their money to execute your plan. Does your team have the talent and experience to successfully commercialize your product? Do you have experienced and knowledgeable advisors, both business and clinical? Do you have a credible business model? What are your key milestones? What’s your exit strategy? Do you have a detailed pro forma income statement, especially for the period up to launch and for the two years after launch? Will you execute it exactly as conceived? Of course not, but you should be confident in your plan and your ability to execute. You should also have detailed contingency plans for the inevitable crisis when things go awry. 

Takeaways: Like many things, being successful at medical device fundraising requires being a great salesperson. Whether it’s a surgeon or an investor you’re selling to, put yourself in the place of that person. Be sure to address the five key points with details, evidence, and background information: product, problem, customer, milestones, team. Also keep in mind the risk tolerance of the investor. Your ability to communicate mitigation of technical risk, market risk, and execution risk will determine your success in fundraising.

Read more: Medical Device Startups: 5 essentials for your pitch deck | MassDevice.

A Cautionary Tale: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | The Seattle Times

Atossa Genetics is an early stage biotechnology company in Seattle developing breast cancer diagnostic tests and medical devices using molecular diagnostic technology. The publicly traded company ran afoul of FDA regulations earlier this year and last week announced a voluntary recall of its products, causing its stock to tank.

The company bills itself as “the breast health company (TM).” Atossa is small, with only ten full-time employees (at least five of whom are senior management executives) according to Yahoo Finance.

Here’s a timeline of company events:

  • November 8, 2012 Atossa Genetics, Inc. Announces Initial Public Offering (NASDAQ exchange, IPO value $4 million). That’s not a typo. It really was $4 million, 800,000 shares at $5 per share.
  • February 21, 2013 Atossa Genetics, Inc. received a Warning Letter from the FDA regarding its Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) System and MASCT System Collection Test. From the company’s press release:

“The FDA alleges in the Letter that following 510(k) clearance the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 510(k) notification to the FDA.”

  • March – September 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. continues marketing its products, announcing numerous distribution and partnering agreements as well as supporting women’s health events.
  • September 18, 2013 The company’s stock closes up almost 21% in one day at $6.00 on volume of more than 8.4 million shares traded when it announces a distribution agreement with medical distributor McKesson.
  • October 4, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. initiated a voluntary recall to remove the ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and the Mammary Aspiration Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) device from the market. This voluntary recall includes the MASCT System Kit and Patient Sample Kit.
  • October 7, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. stock opens at $5.32 and quickly drops to $2.66 (down 50%) on the news of the voluntary recall. The stock closed today at $2.45, an all-time low.
  • October 7-8, 2013 At least six law firms have announced initiation of shareholder lawsuits in the aftermath of the recall.

Apparently, the company and the FDA disagreed on whether a new 510(k) was required after the company changed the Instructions for Use (IFU) on its product. The company seems to have decided to continue marketing without submitting a new 510(k). What happened next is unclear but the “voluntary” recall ensued.

The company told The Seattle Times that it currently has “sufficient cash for the next 8-12 months of operations without raising additional capital,” though it cautioned that the cost of the recall and other associated expenses is not yet known. Sales revenues were about half a million dollars for the first half of 2013. Atossa reported a $2.2 million loss for the same period.

According to The Seattle Times, Atossa is continuing to develop other diagnostic tests but “will be reassessing the regulatory status of these products … in light of our recent experience,” said CEO Quay. Seems like a prudent action given their recent history…

Takeaways: Do not disregard the FDA. They have the power to shut down your company. If you have a fundamental disagreement with FDA, hire a regulatory consultant and attorney and take their advice.

Make sure you have people with experience in commercializing medical devices, especially regulatory affairs, on your executive team and board of directors.

Think carefully before deciding that an IPO is your best financing option. There are very large fees to be paid and the reporting requirements (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) are much more revealing – and onerous – than anything required if you remain private and use VCs or angel investors as your sources of capital.

As the article points out, there are plenty of attorneys waiting to represent disgruntled shareholders. Perhaps you can prevail against all of this adversity but think of the opportunity costs in lost time and cash spent on lawyers and regulatory revisions instead of product development or marketing.

Read more: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times.