24 ms·
Walgreen Sues Theranos, Seeks $140 Million in Damages
- zair 10y agoYou guys remember Channing Robertson, the professor who first bought into this BS? I would looooove to understand what he was/is thinking.
- dxhdr 10y agoThis is following the suit filed by $96MM investor Partner Fund Management last month. http://www.businessinsider.com/partner-fund-management-sues-theranos-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/partner-fund-management-sues-... And Theranos' announcement of shutting down their labs and firing 40% of their staff. https://news.theranos.com/2016/10/05/an-open-letter-elizabeth-holmes/ https://news.theranos.com/2016/10/05/an-open-letter-elizabet...
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoYet David Boies, a lawyer and Theranos Director, continues to defend the company and its leadership [1]. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/theranos-director-defends-ceo-holmes-says-investors-have-faith http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/theranos-d...
- extesy 10y agoYour article is from April, while the parent comment's articles are much more recent (October).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- moogly 10y agoThat's the same Boies who was Oracle's lead attorney during Oracle v. Google, right?
- sseveran 10y agoand Microsoft vs US and Gore vs Bush
- Joeboy 10y agoand SCO vs IBM.
- danielweber 10y agoYes, this guy is a world-class lawyer. He's not always on the same side as me (or you), but he's a damn fine mind in the courtroom.
- bhickey 10y agoHe also joined with Theodore Olson, opposing counsel in Bush v Gore, to argue Hollingsworth v Perry.
- rayiner 10y agoHis firm represents Theranos. Although, see: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/dealbook/david-boiess-dual-roles-at-theranos-set-up-conflict.amp.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/dealbook/david.... EDIT: what the hell Google, stop hijacking links.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoHe is still a Director. That entails a fiduciary duty to Theranos' investors. "But management pays me to kiss their asses" isn't a valid excuse.
- rayiner 10y agoRight. You expect him to paint a rosy picture but he's walking a very fine line.
- tedmiston 10y agoJust curious, does anyone know if something like liquidation preferences are relevant when the money flowing out is due to lawsuits?
- mikeryan 10y agoIt's two different things. By definition liquidation preferences only happen in liquidation events and investors are generally "owners" not "creditors" so they only get what's left after creditors are paid. (I'm assuming this is ending in bankruptcy for Theranos - which may not be fair)
- walrus01 10y agolong form article on theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther...
- paulddraper 10y ago> surprised by Theranos’s secrecy—such behavior was to be expected at a tech company but not a medical operation Is that true? Are tech companies are more secretive than medical research labs?
- walrus01 10y agomedical research is much more heavily regulated (or at least it's supposed to be) with oversight from federal regulatory agencies poking around inside processes. And the needs of university funded "publish or perish" medical/biosciences. You can develop something like Magic Leap in near total secrecy, not so much advanced medical technology.
- EpicEng 10y agoTo be pedantic, research isn't heavily regulated. Hell, even getting a CLIA license is a bit of a joke. Once you start selling to the general public however...
- QuinnyPig 10y agoThey'd almost have to be. "The thing that tells you whether you have cancer or not" is inherently going to need to stand up to regulatory scrutiny in a way that "the thing that lets you send people pictures of your lunch" never will.
- paulddraper 10y agoI suppose so. Though they were still in research phase (or maybe bulls--t phase). They hadn't submitted to an FDA review or anything.
- BipolarElsa 10y agoTheranos? lol
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jeremynixon 10y agoNone of the top VC firms were invested in Theranos. Was this intentional on Theranos’ founders part? Were they evaluated by top VCs and found lacking?
- acchow 10y agoDo the top VCs really play in biotech?
- akiselev 10y agoBiotech/medical venture capital is a completely different and only slightly smaller industry than software VC but yes the top late stage firms, like Sequoia Capital, generally invest in both. It's hard to find companies to invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into (each) and biotech companies can easily require that much in an industry with proven exit strategies (and greater annualized returns than software according to some studies). Since pharma largely outsources R&D to the startup world, there are many exit paths including technology or talent acquisition (people, techniques, and equipment), patent acquisition (before and after approval), and even pre-revenue IPOs which are surprisingly common in the life sciences to this day.
- cloudjacker 10y agoGetting funded by VCs doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't validation or lack thereof, it is perceived portfolio fit plain and simple.
- bosdev 10y agoThis is just not true. When a VC invests, they are betting this company will aggressively grow in value. All do some amount of due diligence. Clearly in some cases, not enough.
- cloudjacker 10y agoYou are basically implying that if someone does due diligence and decides not to invest, that the company is invalid. Its okay, that is a common sentiment. Incorrect though
- M_Grey 10y agoAs always, I'm still waiting on criminal charges for this classic case of fraud.
- daodedickinson 10y agoAnyone else see the recent WikiLeak about Theranos?
- ben_jones 10y agoDo you have a link for those who haven't? Edit: “I don’t think it was wise to have Elizabeth Holmes host a Clinton event,” Clinton donor Herbert Sandler wrote in an email to campaign chairman John Podesta a week before the fundraiser. “There are significant questions concerning Holmes and her company. She may come out alright, but it is certainly possible that everyone associated with her venture will be embarrassed.”[1] [1]:http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f8609630ae206654824f897b6&id=bc1ee3dff7 http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f8609630ae206654824f897...
- daodedickinson 10y agohttp://www.recode.net/2016/3/14/11586966/theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-is-holding-a-hillary-fundraiser-with http://www.recode.net/2016/3/14/11586966/theranos-ceo-elizab... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/58315 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/58315
- Crito 10y agoTBQH the Russians probably faked that email. Sure makes you wonder how the Russians were wise to their scheme when the Americans were falling for it! (I honestly can't tell if I'm being sarcastic or not...)
- daodedickinson 10y agoDid they also fake the Record article reporting on the public fundraiser that Hillary held with the Theranos CEO? The email was just commenting on the actually controversial and interesting event, which was publicly available information.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dannylandau 10y agoTheranos is probably many things, but bringing criminal charges might be going to far. From 20,000 feet, it looks like an ambitious girl out of Stanford that got way ahead of herself and her abilities. This Company should be allowed to quietly recede into the sunset.
- st3v3r 10y agoAnd committed fraud rather than admit they were in over their heads.
- MorePowerToYou 10y ago+1 and were playing games with peoples' health in an arguably more egregious manner than even soylent.
- ProAm 10y agoThat's not how business works though, especially when you tell investors one story and are actually performing another.
- thecabinet 10y agoGirl? It's outrageous that you would deny her agency!
- Crito 10y agoToo far? Everyone in a position to know the true state of Theranos should be publicly hanged for attempting to defraud the American Government, and by extension, the American people themselves. The fact that the fraud was related to healthcare should earn them all short ropes.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y agoYou're a fucking tough guy.
- Mz 10y agoYou and my late father would have gotten along. His theory was that the death penalty should involve hanging people and re-using the same rope to keep it cheap. When it finally breaks, commute that individual's sentence and get a new rope to continue on with the next person.
- _RPM 10y agoI'm actually pleased to hear that a tech company is going to perish. Too many of them think they are invincible (airbnb)
- AndrewWarner 10y agoWhat makes you say that Airbnb feels invincible? They seem like humble guys who are constantly at battle to save their company.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- joering2 10y agoI think you should re read your statement. In particular: "They seem like humble guys..." http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-co-founders-freshman-roommate-says-hes-a-spammy-scumbag-2011-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-co-founders-freshman-r...
- _RPM 10y agoHe seems pretty ruthless; willing to do anything to make money. Running a spam operation is a questionable act. These same attitudes and acts of moral wrongdoing seem to perpetuate along the operations of his current company (Airbnb). What's to stop him except of course the risk of facing criminal legal charges?
- joering2 10y agoI don't think ruthless because I don't know if he physically hurt anyone, but its a secret how he got off FBI top list with no consequences whatsoever. Perhaps high connected friends - who knows? But there are people sending 1/1000th of spam volume he did and are doing 10 years in jail, so ultimately that's where I think Nathan belongs.
- Crito 10y agoI'm stunned it took this long.
- bedros 10y agoa similar statup ubeam by a female founder, with secrecy, and non proven prototype yet. however, a16z invested in them to my surprise. https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/
- nikanj 10y agoUBeam et al don't make a product, their product is the company. A16z is betting there's high demand for pie-in-the-sky, female-ceo, headline-making companies. So far, they've been right.
- bedros 10y agoI would expect a16z to have a better due diligence before investing.
- thebiglebrewski 10y agoI really don't like your tone about female CEOs. UBeam and Theranos are terrible examples. Far more companies have been run into the ground by male leadership. PS - I'm a dude
- dleslie 10y agoThere's a present fad to seek out and support female contenders, and this makes those with good intentions meaty targets for those inclined to exploit good intentions. It's not that women are less capable, it's that there's an angle where well meaning individuals may be exploited by predators. In a way, it's flattery to claim that there may exist women who are aware of this opportunity and are exploiting it.
- nikanj 10y agoGuessing the tone right is hard on a pure-text medium. I was not referring to leadership abilities of various genders, but to the recent market trend where the gender (and age!) of the founder/ceo forms a major part of the pitch and media image.
- 10y ago
- staticautomatic 10y agoAnyone see where this was filed? I can't find it on PACER or the Chancery court website. The article says "Delaware federal court"...
- thinkcomp 10y agoDelaware District Court http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/32vhjo5i9/delaware-district-court/walgreen-co-v-theranos-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/32vhjo5i9/delaware-district...
- staticautomatic 10y agoNow I'm really confused. That case number is not in PACER as of right now.
- thinkcomp 10y agoYou may be looking on the wrong site? In any event, this is why I created PlainSite: because PACER is too expensive and too difficult to use!
- staticautomatic 10y agoI've had a PACER account for years and am definitely not looking in the wrong place. Since you've familiar with PACER, feel free to double check yourself.
- thinkcomp 10y agoActual court docket: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/32vhjo5i9/delaware-district-court/walgreen-co-v-theranos-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/32vhjo5i9/delaware-district...
- perseusprime11 10y agoCan somebody please objectively fill me in on what caused the failure of Theranos? Is it a scam from the get go? I had high hopes after reading the profile of their CEO.
- Mz 10y agoOne opinion: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/05/theranos-cult-of-personality.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/05/theranos-cul...
- perseusprime11 10y agoThis feels to me like "let's blame this on diversity" kind of spin, men and women do know how to treat each other with dignity and respect at workplace. Not sure I buy this argument or opinion.
- slackstation 10y agoI think people are pointing out that the founder was someone that people wanted to see, a brilliant young woman; proof that the Steve Jobs of the world don't have to only be men. The real story turns out that the whole thing was smoke and mirrors and it was obscured by both her secrecy, her powerful connection and the point that some are making here in part the image of a woman wasn't one that they wanted to look at critically. It isn't the entire problem but, it contributed. Also, I don't think that the opposite would be true, that if she were a man, she would have gotten more scrutiny. I think it wouldn't have been a factor to be pointed out. People are ready and willing to see men as villains. There are plenty of companies founded by people with a deep powerful roster and that have pulled the wool over many peoples' eyes founded by men. This is just far worse because this is a medical device issue and obscuring and ignoring standards is playing with people's lives. Martin Shkreli was tarred and pilloried in the press for merely increasing the price of a drug treatment that we knew to work. Theranos misguided people into believing that their treatment worked when it didn't. All the money in the world can't buy back the time to detect issues and diseases that could be caught early or caught at all with other higher standard tests. Her gender isn't everything but, it did contribute and even now we treat her with kid gloves in public opinion despite the depth of what Theranos did and worse how it conspired to do it. edit - spelling
- ryandrake 10y agoTheranos has got to be my favorite tech story of the year, possibly of the decade. There's nothing quite as satisfying as the schadenfreude of watching an "elite" who got by for years on charm, connections, hot air and wealth finally get called on their BS and go down in flames so publicly! There are plenty of hard working, talented tech people out there with grit and integrity and even actual products, held back by their lack of deep-pocketed Ivy-league connections. Yet borderline fraud gets funded and gushed over by the press. If there's justice in the world, the Theranos drama is a sliver of it.
- deepnotderp 10y agoAgree with the ivy league bullshit
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoIn true disruptor fashion, she was a Stanford dropout. Actually graduating from Stanford is for losers, of course.
- nstj 10y agoBest comment I've read all month!
- matk2 10y agoDropping out doesn't add much charismatic value to your cause anymore. A few of my friends at decent schools left their respective schools and barely created something of value, even years later. Holmes was a 2000s kid, where it was cool. Now VCs typically give you the "you wanna be zuck?" look.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- paulcole 10y agoLuckily, there's still the plucky disruptive group over at Soylent to keep us entertained.
- tedmiston 10y agoWell that's gonna make it tough to raise another round.
- tn13 10y agoThe Eagle* 1 might be in trouble now! *Theranos CEO hired a top notch security firm to protect herself (for no good reason) and her code name was Eagle 1.
- nols 10y agoShe's a multi-billionaire heavily featured in the press. I think it's reasonable to want security.
- tn13 10y agoTaken from WSJ : Ms. Holmes maintains a heavy security detail. Men with earpieces escort her wherever she goes outside the Palo Alto headquarters. Their code name for her is “Eagle 1,” current and former employees say. Mr. Balwani, until he retired, was “Eagle 2,” they say. Despite the meetings with attorneys, Ms. Holmes still finds time to work on her external messaging. Several weeks ago, she traveled to New York and met with the television host Charlie Rose, the person who recently interacted with her said. Mr. Rose didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. She has also been talking with Jason Blum, who was executive producer of HBO’s “The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst,” about a potential documentary that would chronicle her life and career, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Blum’s production company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.
- CaptainZapp 10y agoShe was a multi-billionaire. Her fortune is in a > 50% share of Theranos. A company, which nowadays has a value of zero. The's in line with Forbes' reassessment of her personal value. Essentially : 0.
- tn13 10y agoThis has also hurt the cause of feminists. http://www.returnofkings.com/76246/is-theranos-a-girl-powered-scam http://www.returnofkings.com/76246/is-theranos-a-girl-powere...
- draw_down 10y agoNah.
- mobiletest 10y agotest
- SmokyBorbon 10y agoThere isn't any justice until Elizabeth Holmes is in prison.
- noir-york 10y agoGreat day to bury the bad new Theranos!
- throw2016 10y agoHow well connected is Holmes that there are still no criminal charges or even a criminal investigation? This is stark constrast to little people put in prison or harassed for any small transgression. Seriously this is in healthcare with tons of rules and regulations covering every minutae as any well developed country would have. How can it be remotely possible Theranos has not run foul of any of these rules by deception, fraud and endangering the public? What does this tell us about the american legal system and rule of law if the well connected are systematically spared or loopholes intentionally left like in the banking crisis and now. This is not about retribution or seeing bankers or Holmes suffer, its about a civilised and not feudal justice system. Currently it does seem there is a completely different set of rules in operation for the rich and privileged.