5 ms·
Theranos might be on life support
- eitally 10y ago"Might" be? They've been on life support since 2015, they just didn't want to believe it (or anyone else to realize it). As the lawsuits have piled up, the sanctions have mounted and partners (Walgreens) have pulled out, there hasn't been a single bright spot in the past two years. Just browse the first few pages of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+lawsuit https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+lawsuit
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pbreit 10y agoI suspect $200 million could fund a great deal of life support.
- elastic_church 10y agoouch, kind of sad when you put it that way
- elsewhen 10y agounder normal circumstances, absolutely, but considering the number of lawsuits they are battling, that war-chest could dwindle rapidly.
- nikcub 10y agoLawsuits that go to trial are slow, tho - especially those in Delaware. They're likely looking at years++ What I'm curious about is since the value of civil claims against Theranos is now greater than their cash balance what chance do plantiffs have on an asset freeze or forcing administration I initially thought the lawsuits were about individual parties suing to gain seniority on debt structuring in bankruptcy but it makes more sense that enough parties got together and sued to force bankruptcy so that 20-30c in the dollar could be obtained as opposed to 0
- revelation 10y agoOnly two hundred thousand thousand dollars? Yes you can't possibly run a business on that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cft 10y ago"Just 200m"! These guys and the VC s are operating in a different realm from any bootstrapped company that don't aim to "exit". This makes me think that sadly bootstrapping high tech in the silicon valley is nearly impossible in this century.
- gwern 10y agoI wondered why Holmes had never been forced out by investors or banks as a precondition of getting more support, but this explains why she's still there - they can't, because she has majority share power and Theranos still has oceans of cash and no need to go begging to anyone. There's simply no way to stop her or force her out aside from long-shot minority shareholder lawsuits (although I think there's at least one of those ongoing), and it'll take years or decades for all the lawsuits to finish appeals and to spend the cash down with a skeleton crew. Indeed, given how her reputation is radioactive, why would she ever leave Theranos anytime soon? No one is going to hire her for anything anywhere else; she can continue drawing a CEO salary/benefits and keep playing CEO and a sense of self-worth; she gets Theranos to pay her legal bills (which may not be trivial by the end); and can mess around with an enormous fortune of $200m however she likes; and who knows, may even succeed in a pivot to something else - hope springs eternal. (I wonder how much cash Magic Leap has left.)
- spitfire 10y ago> No one is going to hire her for anything anywhere else; Yes they will. She'll pop back up in a few years. Maybe in a hedge fund, VC/PE firm or something, but she will. For an example of this see Kaavya Viswanathan. She's in the club now and she's towing the line, it's hard to get kicked out of the club when you're towing the line.
- juandazapata 10y agoI'm sorry for the employees that lost their jobs because of the shady practices from management. Other than that, I hope they close doors soon. Putting people at risk for the sake of making a few bucks has no justification.
- hkmurakami 10y agoI think one positive caveat from all the very public bad press about the company is that it's pretty reasonable to think that employees had nothing to do with the demise of the company and being let go / fired can easily be seen as the company's fault rather than the employee's. I hope that works in the favor of the people being let go.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoI'll be interested to see where Holmes ends up after all this. My bet is that she joins a hedge fund, VC firm, or PE firm after the dust settles. Only question to me is which ones wouldn't find the Theranos backstory to be a disqualification.
- erbo 10y agoWhere she ought to end up is in jail for fraud, but that's probably wishful thinking.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Kenji 10y agoOh, she'll be fine. For CEOs it's "fail big, gamble bigger". Only the little people have to carry the burden of responsibility for their work and track record.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoOh, I'm not worried about her well-being. I'm mostly curious to see which PE/VC/Hedge firms genuinely DGAF about public perception.
- mikeyouse 10y agoWell a large part of the reason she got her initial funding was that she grew up with Tim Draper's kids and he's still sticking up for her, so I bet he's got a nice soft landing for her in mind. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/business/theranos-founder-faces-a-test-of-technology-and-reputation.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/business/theranos-founder...
- ChuckMcM 10y agoIf they truly have only $200M cash on hand, no revenue, 220 employees, and nothing set aside for liabilities, then they aren't on life support they are already dead. Leases on their existing buildings, salary and benefits for 220, capital costs for their 'mini lab', and legal fees to defend their current lawsuit load? The Walgreen's suit alone is asking $140M. I can't imagine any bank, VC, or even hedge fund going near this. Theranos has to successfully defend all of their lawsuits, execute perfectly on their minilab, and develop enough credibility to actually bring their ideas to market. Any one of those things goes wrong and blam! all that money goes up in smoke. What I think doesn't matter of course, but I think they would be better off rolling it up, selling off what they can, payout out what they can to their creditors and leaving this chapter behind them. As someone who watched Webvan and Pets.com crash, this one is up there.
- openmosix 10y agoThe honest question is - how are they able to retain the 220 employees? I'd assume are very talented scientists, engineers, etc. Given this story has been going on for more than a year (or two), how do they keep people around?
- Swizec 10y agoBeing laid off is better than quitting. Comes with all sorts of perks from what I've heard.
- BlackFingolfin 10y agoNot necessarily so if the company goes bankrupt...
- smallgovt 10y agoIn practice, it is largely true due to the WARN act which requires 60 day notice. No employee wants to keep around employees who know they're being let go, so in most cases, this means 60 days severence.
- ultrahate 10y ago"""Might""" Give me a break, Theranos is the biggest disgraceful excuse of a company that I've ever even heard of, and I've been reading this dumb board for 5+ years now. That people aren't 100% dismissive of Theranos is absolutely mind-boggling. The level of corruption, incompetence, and just the poor organization of it all. Other commenters have also noted that if they aren't doing well on cash, they're pretty much dead anyways. I want Theranos to crash and burn as loud as humanly possible, so that people might pay attention for two seconds and look at what happens when you refuse to give a shit about the ethics and competence behind your business/startup. Now, I suspect a lot of Theranos employees at this point are probably just waiting on that last check, but there's probably some poor souls on that list who really wanted to achieve something, and now they're more or less fucked from having to be associated with Theranos. It will be harder for them to find a new job with that black mark, I'm sure poor severance will make it hard for them to bootstrap their own ideas. They are backed into a corner, because of Theranos. Life in an unethical business can be nasty, brutish and short.
- harigov 10y agoJust out of curiosity, did you reach to this conclusion based on what you read in the news about Theranos or do you have some other extra information? I have no relation whatsoever to Theranos and I am genuinely wondering how someone can have such a strong opinion on a company that they read about in news, which we all know never tells the full story.
- cyberferret 10y agoI am guessing that the strong feelings may be to do with the outcomes of the company's bungling. After all, we are talking about people lives being in the balance here. The constant sugar coating, avoiding, or plastering over of defective methodologies and processes can elicit these sorts of feelings - especially if the person suspects, or knows of issues that should be brought to light. Its different say, in the case of a soda manufacturer changing the recipe for their best selling beverage. The faux outrage there is probably an overreaction. But if it is a car/aircraft manufacturer that knowingly builds vehicles with a known defect that can cost human lives? Well, then, I think the outrage is justified. I think Theranos falls into the second category.
- coldtea 10y agoTheranos was still alive?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nullnilvoid 10y agoWhy is Elizabeth Holmes not in jail? She lied blatantly about their blood-testing medical equipments which can potentially kill people with wrong testing results, and delayed treatments. One of her employees committed suicide, partially because of the pressure she put on him. Why is she not in jail?
- smnscu 10y agoMy feelings exactly. Moreoever, how do they still manage to have 220 employees? What kind of person would continue working for them with even the tiniest clue about what they're doing?
- LaMarseillaise 10y agoSomeone who cannot afford to leave, I suspect.
- smallgovt 10y agoGenuinely curious. What law do you think she personally broke? Lying to the media/public, though largely unethical, doesn't strike me as being illegal. Piling back-breaking stress on an employee also doesn't strike me as illegal.
- SolarNet 10y ago> She lied blatantly about their blood-testing medical equipments which can potentially kill people with wrong testing results, I think is the only one which is actually crime and which she has already been punished for.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoExactly how was she punished? Are you talking about her ban from running a blood testing lab? I don't consider that a punishment, more like a rap in the knuckles. Consider that real people were hurt by her/Theranos's actions, people who were misdiagnosed and as a result given wrong medications.
- johansch 10y agoSo who are the main investors? Seems like a prime opportunity to name and shame.
- magictechnology 10y agoI've got a turtleneck, tits, and tantalizing techology -- my magic wand waved over adhesive wound care tape detaches said tape without skin tears. Time magazine, please email me cover photo ops; SV nerds will surely figure out the tech with enough VC money!
- dang 10y agoWe've banned this account for trolling. Abusing HN this way will eventually get your main account banned, too, so please don't.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]