Thank you that’s so helpful! Will definitely give mind maps a go! 😊
-
Hey Guest, do you have a question for graduate recruitment? Gemma Baker from Willkie is live to answer your questions!
confused to commercially aware! trying to develop my commercial awareness
- Thread starter confusedlawstudent
- Start date
AstraZeneca's $1.8bn acquisition of CinCor
AstraZeneca (AZ) is looking to expand into the heart and kidney drug market, and so is acquiring CinCor, which has produced a drug called baxdostat, which could be used to treat kidney disease. The drug is still in FDA trials.
The deal is representative of the trend of emerging biotech companies being bought out by big pharmaceutical companies who can back phase 3 of the clinical trials and commercialise successful treatments.
For AZ, the acquisition provides speed to the heart and kidney drug market as it is much faster than AZ going through the cost and regulatory approval of building its own drugs.
What is the role of law firms?
💊 Corporate lawyers will have done the due diligence, seeing if the company is worth buying and on what terms it should be bought, and identifying what is being acquired.
💊 Commercial lawyers will have drafted the initial confidentiality agreement and the final share purchase agreement.
💊 Given that this involves pharmaceuticals, IP lawyers will be involved. In the due diligence process, they will ensure the ownership in the IP registers is correct, to ensure no issues later on. In the acquisition, the IP rights will be transferred, so the change of ownership needs to be recorded on the relevant registers to ensure the buyer can enforce/exploit the rights.
💊 Employment lawyers might also be involved, advising whether and how the employees of CinCor will transfer to the new owner.
💊 Pharmaceuticals is such a highly regulated area, so lawyers specialising in the relevant regulation will be involved especially in advising AstraZeneca through the phases of the clinical trials.
How will this affect law firm clients?
👩🔬 Pharmaceutical companies will be looking to rapidly expand in order to keep up with the growing competition in this market. They will probably wish to merge or acquire biotech companies in order to stay competitive.
---------
That's my take on a recent deal!
I have one concern though if anyone could offer some advice: I feel like my "role of law firms" section is always the same. How can I make my analysis less general and more tailored to each story I am looking at?
AstraZeneca (AZ) is looking to expand into the heart and kidney drug market, and so is acquiring CinCor, which has produced a drug called baxdostat, which could be used to treat kidney disease. The drug is still in FDA trials.
The deal is representative of the trend of emerging biotech companies being bought out by big pharmaceutical companies who can back phase 3 of the clinical trials and commercialise successful treatments.
For AZ, the acquisition provides speed to the heart and kidney drug market as it is much faster than AZ going through the cost and regulatory approval of building its own drugs.
What is the role of law firms?
💊 Corporate lawyers will have done the due diligence, seeing if the company is worth buying and on what terms it should be bought, and identifying what is being acquired.
💊 Commercial lawyers will have drafted the initial confidentiality agreement and the final share purchase agreement.
💊 Given that this involves pharmaceuticals, IP lawyers will be involved. In the due diligence process, they will ensure the ownership in the IP registers is correct, to ensure no issues later on. In the acquisition, the IP rights will be transferred, so the change of ownership needs to be recorded on the relevant registers to ensure the buyer can enforce/exploit the rights.
💊 Employment lawyers might also be involved, advising whether and how the employees of CinCor will transfer to the new owner.
💊 Pharmaceuticals is such a highly regulated area, so lawyers specialising in the relevant regulation will be involved especially in advising AstraZeneca through the phases of the clinical trials.
How will this affect law firm clients?
👩🔬 Pharmaceutical companies will be looking to rapidly expand in order to keep up with the growing competition in this market. They will probably wish to merge or acquire biotech companies in order to stay competitive.
---------
That's my take on a recent deal!
I have one concern though if anyone could offer some advice: I feel like my "role of law firms" section is always the same. How can I make my analysis less general and more tailored to each story I am looking at?
In my preparation for my CMS VI, I was looking at a recent deal they worked on, so I thought I would write a quick post on it!
Sale of InstaDeep to BioNTech
InstaDeep delivers AI-powered decision making stystems. BioNTech is a biotech company developing immunotherapies for cancer and other diseases. This is reflective of a very common trend in recent years of pharma companies investing in AI to improve efficiency and accelerate the costly process of drug discovery (for example, we saw back in 2021 Bristol-Myers Squibb entered a drug discovery collaboration with AI start-up Excientia).
Why did BioNTech do this deal? It is a shortcut to AI technology. It saves them from the cost of developing their own AI. The deal also gives them access to the talent needed to use this AI and also to improve it.
Role of CMS in the deal:
- Corporate lawyers will advise on the due diligence, and determining what exactly is being acquired.
- Commercial lawyers will draft the agreements - the initial NDA and the final share purchase agreement.
- IP lawyers will advise on the transfer of the patent rights to the AI technology, and making sure it is registered in the relevant registers to ensure BioNTech can enforce the rights.
- Employment lawyers will advise on the transfer of any employees as a result of the acquisition.
How this will affect other CMS clients:
AI improves efficiency in drug discovery, so the deal will increase competition in the market. More and more pharma companies are going to want to use AI to improve efficiency and innovation in order to stay on top. And generally, the use of AI will change the way pharma companies practise - they will have a more data driven approach to drug discovery, and even health care companies will have a data driven approach to patient categorisation.
Sale of InstaDeep to BioNTech
InstaDeep delivers AI-powered decision making stystems. BioNTech is a biotech company developing immunotherapies for cancer and other diseases. This is reflective of a very common trend in recent years of pharma companies investing in AI to improve efficiency and accelerate the costly process of drug discovery (for example, we saw back in 2021 Bristol-Myers Squibb entered a drug discovery collaboration with AI start-up Excientia).
Why did BioNTech do this deal? It is a shortcut to AI technology. It saves them from the cost of developing their own AI. The deal also gives them access to the talent needed to use this AI and also to improve it.
Role of CMS in the deal:
- Corporate lawyers will advise on the due diligence, and determining what exactly is being acquired.
- Commercial lawyers will draft the agreements - the initial NDA and the final share purchase agreement.
- IP lawyers will advise on the transfer of the patent rights to the AI technology, and making sure it is registered in the relevant registers to ensure BioNTech can enforce the rights.
- Employment lawyers will advise on the transfer of any employees as a result of the acquisition.
How this will affect other CMS clients:
AI improves efficiency in drug discovery, so the deal will increase competition in the market. More and more pharma companies are going to want to use AI to improve efficiency and innovation in order to stay on top. And generally, the use of AI will change the way pharma companies practise - they will have a more data driven approach to drug discovery, and even health care companies will have a data driven approach to patient categorisation.
Just adding some information to this as I saw some recent developments to it in the FT!
Minister sets out 'science superpower' ambitions for UK
The science minister has said that the government is "continuing to push actively for association with Horizon Europe", the 95bn euro EU research programme.
"The government is still pushing ahead with preparations for "Plan B", an alternative to rejoining the EU research programmes from which the UK has been excluded for two years because of political disagreement over post-Brexit trading arrangements."
Great analysis! Another point to add here is the effect of sovereign wealth investing in UK assets. There are already national security concerns with Chinese investment in key sectors in the UK (military/tech/critical infrastructure etc). Check out the EU Foreign Subsidy regime that will be rolled out in 2024 as well. You can also contrast this with the UK gov's withdrawal of tech R&D credits and the pain it's causing the UK's tech/start-up culture
It has been a while since I posted on this thread! Wanted to do a quick post today though as I read an article in the FT which I just found really interesting and wanted to explore a bit more.
The article was about AI in recruitment - how people are using ChatGPT to write their CVs, grad rec is using AI to watch video interviews, and there are new AI interview coaches.
In terms of using AI in applications - does this mean that employers are going to need to start scanning applications to make sure they are not AI generated? This would likely be an added expense for employers to get the right technology to do this - is it really worth it? I think it might not seem like it is worth it now, but I think there will come a time where AI is even more accessible, and then everyone will have perfectly written CVs and cover letters. When it comes to this, I genuinely think the applications that will stand out the most will be those that were not AI generated. But then again, AI keeps advancing so maybe the AIs will be able to produce extremely unique and tailored applications.
In terms of using AI in the recruitment process, there is of course the high potential for discrimination where there is algorithmic decision making. If not carefully trained, the AI could easily discriminate. For example, if an AI is told to look for people that match the current employees at the company, and if it is fed data on the age, race and gender of the current employees, and most of the employees are white men, then it might choose applicants who match those characteristics over others. This potential for discrimination could lead a business to be breaking the law in their recruitment process.
At the same time though, using AI in the recruitment process could save a lot of money for businesses as employees will not have to spend so much time reading initial applications. So I suppose businesses need to decide on a balance between the risk of discrimination and the potential to save time and money in the recruitment process.
In general, I think the same issues that apply to AI overall will apply here - how can AI be used in recruitment in an ethical way that is not overstepping the boundaries (whatever those boundaries are)?
All of this highlights even more the need for AI legislation as soon as possible.
It will be very interesting to see how this develops!
(sorry this was a bit of a ramble - I was just typing my thoughts as they came out)
The article was about AI in recruitment - how people are using ChatGPT to write their CVs, grad rec is using AI to watch video interviews, and there are new AI interview coaches.
In terms of using AI in applications - does this mean that employers are going to need to start scanning applications to make sure they are not AI generated? This would likely be an added expense for employers to get the right technology to do this - is it really worth it? I think it might not seem like it is worth it now, but I think there will come a time where AI is even more accessible, and then everyone will have perfectly written CVs and cover letters. When it comes to this, I genuinely think the applications that will stand out the most will be those that were not AI generated. But then again, AI keeps advancing so maybe the AIs will be able to produce extremely unique and tailored applications.
In terms of using AI in the recruitment process, there is of course the high potential for discrimination where there is algorithmic decision making. If not carefully trained, the AI could easily discriminate. For example, if an AI is told to look for people that match the current employees at the company, and if it is fed data on the age, race and gender of the current employees, and most of the employees are white men, then it might choose applicants who match those characteristics over others. This potential for discrimination could lead a business to be breaking the law in their recruitment process.
At the same time though, using AI in the recruitment process could save a lot of money for businesses as employees will not have to spend so much time reading initial applications. So I suppose businesses need to decide on a balance between the risk of discrimination and the potential to save time and money in the recruitment process.
In general, I think the same issues that apply to AI overall will apply here - how can AI be used in recruitment in an ethical way that is not overstepping the boundaries (whatever those boundaries are)?
All of this highlights even more the need for AI legislation as soon as possible.
It will be very interesting to see how this develops!
(sorry this was a bit of a ramble - I was just typing my thoughts as they came out)
First off, I just want to say thanks for generating some discussion around commercial awareness in the forum.
I agree with the points you raise, and I think they are well reasoned.
Concerns about inadvertent discrimination have also been a subject of discussion for at least a few years. Law firms have gotten ahead of the conversation pretty early and developed various strategies and alliances with third party organisations like Rare and Aspiring Solicitors. I have not come across a law firm that does not take a firm stance on the importance of facilitating diversity in the recruitment process.
At the same time, the fact is that the graduate recruitment process is basically a black box from the applicant's perspective. This is not a new phenomenon. Applicants have no real insight into what goes on behind the scenes. I suspect algorithmic sifting at the first stage of applications has been a tool used by larger institutions for several years now precisely because it makes the lives of those working in grad rec easier. As you suggest, from the perspective of the business, algorithmic sifting saves costs and better allocates resources because grad rec can focus more on later stage applications and aspects of recruitment that require more a finer touch.
But absent some sort of publicly-released third-party audit of recruitment processes, it is unlikely applicants will have any insight into the methods grade rec uses to ensure that inadvertent discrimination does not happen. The modest strides made in diverse hirings suggest to me that their approaches are working, but at the individual level where an application gets reviewed by the firm, it's impossible to say. (Though maybe this is not the case — I have some professional experience with recruitment in general, but not in-house graduate recruitment at law firms, so I am by no means an expert!).
But to your last point, I agree that AI needs to be regulated ASAP. It is already presenting us with so many ethical issues like the ones you raised.
All that said, I sometimes think the hype around generative AI is preoccupied on the nebulous future potential of the technology, while not focusing on the ways its current capabilities can be rather inadequate.
As an experiment, I typed this prompt into ChatGPT:
I want you to adopt the following persona: I am a career changer who previously worked as a consultant advising investment funds in the City of London. I want to become a commercial solicitor. I am applying to one of the Magic Circle firms. Generate a response to the application prompt, "Why do you want to be a commercial solicitor?" Condense your answer into 200 words.
This was its response:
Dear [Hiring Manager],
I am writing to express my strong interest in the commercial solicitor position at [Magic Circle Firm]. With a background as a consultant advising investment funds in the City of London, I am seeking a transition into commercial law.
Having witnessed the intricate dynamics and complex transactions that shape the business world, I am captivated by the role of commercial solicitors in facilitating and safeguarding these transactions. My experience as a consultant has honed my analytical, problem-solving, and communication skills, making me well-suited for this role. I am accustomed to working in high-pressure environments, managing stakeholders, and providing practical advice.
The reputation, global reach, and caliber of professionals at [Magic Circle Firm] are inspiring. I am drawn to the challenging and intellectually stimulating work environment that would allow me to work on high-profile cases, collaborate with accomplished colleagues, and continue developing my legal acumen.
Ultimately, my passion lies in contributing to the success of businesses, and becoming a commercial solicitor aligns with this goal. The opportunity to delve into diverse legal issues, negotiate complex agreements, and provide strategic advice in a commercial context excites me.
Thank you for considering my application. I am eager to bring my diverse background, skills, and enthusiasm to contribute to the esteemed legal team at [Magic Circle Firm]. I look forward to the possibility of discussing my candidacy further.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
My impression is that at first glance, it seems like a decent response. But in fact, it is a rather hollow answer. It does not distinguish the applicant in any way or touch on any of the ways in which the applicant's experiences demonstrate competency. It relies on generic phrases and banalities. It also does not touch on anything specific to the firm in question (though that is partly due to the way the prompt is crafted).
Someone could probably tinker with the prompts again and again and arrive at something more substantial, but I think you'd have to end up doing a lot of research and self-reflection anyway.
Going to start adding more to this thread as I prepare for my Vac Scheme and a direct TC interview I have coming up 😓
Today I looked into Monumental's acquisition of Kongregate.
What happened: Monumental is a game developer, and Kongregate is an American web gaming portal and video game publisher. The acquisition will combine both Monumental and Kongregate's gaming portfolios of over 40 games.
Why has this happened: Monumental has a strong track record of managing and growing games, so this will be good for Kongregate given the difficulties in the mobile and web gaming industry. While the mobile and web gaming industry used to be huge, it was hit hard after the pandemic when people stopped playing games online as much. Additionally, its downfall is a result of Apple's App Tracking Transparency, which restricts targeted advertising making getting revenue from advertising more difficult for video game companies. The increasing competition and saturation of the market are also causes for concern. For Kongregate in particular, there was the added issue of Adobe removing Flash support in 2020 causing Kongregate to quickly figure out how to preserve its Flash games. Therefore, being acquired by Monumental is a good step for Kongregate as it tries to keep afloat. For Monumental, this is its second acquisition within a year, as it recently also acquired Game Circus. Monumental wants to take on talented game developers and grow its portfolio so it can also stay afloat.
Why does this interest me: I realised I hadn't played a mobile game in a veryyy long time, so when I saw this it made me want to dig a bit deeper and see what the market is like! It is interesting to see what the players in the industry are doing to try and stay successful, because it feels like nobody is playing mobile and web games anymore.
How does this impact law firms: M&A lawyers will advise on the acquisition, negotiating the terms. The due diligence process will have involved investigating Kongregate to determine whether it was worth buying. IP lawyers will be heavily involved given the amount of IP involved in video games.
Today I looked into Monumental's acquisition of Kongregate.
What happened: Monumental is a game developer, and Kongregate is an American web gaming portal and video game publisher. The acquisition will combine both Monumental and Kongregate's gaming portfolios of over 40 games.
Why has this happened: Monumental has a strong track record of managing and growing games, so this will be good for Kongregate given the difficulties in the mobile and web gaming industry. While the mobile and web gaming industry used to be huge, it was hit hard after the pandemic when people stopped playing games online as much. Additionally, its downfall is a result of Apple's App Tracking Transparency, which restricts targeted advertising making getting revenue from advertising more difficult for video game companies. The increasing competition and saturation of the market are also causes for concern. For Kongregate in particular, there was the added issue of Adobe removing Flash support in 2020 causing Kongregate to quickly figure out how to preserve its Flash games. Therefore, being acquired by Monumental is a good step for Kongregate as it tries to keep afloat. For Monumental, this is its second acquisition within a year, as it recently also acquired Game Circus. Monumental wants to take on talented game developers and grow its portfolio so it can also stay afloat.
Why does this interest me: I realised I hadn't played a mobile game in a veryyy long time, so when I saw this it made me want to dig a bit deeper and see what the market is like! It is interesting to see what the players in the industry are doing to try and stay successful, because it feels like nobody is playing mobile and web games anymore.
How does this impact law firms: M&A lawyers will advise on the acquisition, negotiating the terms. The due diligence process will have involved investigating Kongregate to determine whether it was worth buying. IP lawyers will be heavily involved given the amount of IP involved in video games.
Similar threads
