2014 2015 2012 2010 - equitybender · pdf fileslowing private investment cycle. ... a smaller...

1Q 2016

1Q 2016: More of a pause than a pop?PAGE 5 ››

Q&A: Rod Werner, City National BankPAGE 8 ››

Highly active quarter for fundraisersPAGE 13 ››

20152014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2016

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

S P O N S O R E D B Y

Overall U.S. VC activity slowed even

further in the first quarter of 2016,

even as capital invested remained

at a historically robust level. These

numbers are in line with what we

predicted in the previous edition of

this report series: a gradual deflation

in activity, in the initial stage of a

slowing private investment cycle.

Ample supplies of capital raised

in 2014 and 2015, however, still

incentivize VC firms to hunt for quality

opportunities. Consequently, capital

invested remained even stronger than

expected, but that can be chalked

up to timing as well as the sustained

activity of nontraditional VC investors

in a handful of massive late-stage

rounds—$9.4 billion of the $17.7

billion invested in 1Q was in late-stage

financings.

Sustained activity at the late stage has helped keep capital invested totals elevated

U.S. VC activity

Despite a decline in activity, VC invested has remained robust

U.S. VC activity

Source: PitchBook

A pause, not a bubble poppingOverview

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

$28

$35

$36

$26

$30

$42

$40

$44

$67

$78

$18

3,1774,167

4,571 4,351

5,260

6,534

7,690

8,7229,608

9,091

1,810

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Deal value ($B)

# of deals closed

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Deal value ($B) # of deals closed Angel/Seed Early VC Late VC

5 PITCHBOOK 1Q 2016 U.S . VENTURE INDUSTRY REPORT

But there was somewhat of a reversion toward the

$1M-$5M range, as opposed to $5M+

U.S. angel & seed activity ($M) by round sizeInvestors are still finding reasons to pay up

U.S. angel & seed activity (#) by round size

U.S. angel & seed activity

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M $5M+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M $5M+

The impact of angel syndicates

cannot be emphasized enough when

looking at the below datasets. Groups

of angels and Angel List syndicates

have proliferated in the past few

years, ramping up primarily localized

activity by a significant degree. The

surge has, of course, also helped lead

to increased natural competition and

rising investment sizes and valuations.

Even with the recent slide, it should be

noted that the decline left 1Q tallies

around pre-2013 levels. Angels are

likely to have been spooked as much

as anyone else over the past several

months, but syndication and healthy

economic signals in the U.S. could

encourage them to resume investing,

albeit at lower levels. By all accounts,

institutional seed investors are set to

remain quite active, looking to deploy

the hoard of capital accumulated over

the past few years as the pre-seed and

seed financing markets broadened in

tandem with their institutional investor

base. All in all, activity at the angel and

seed stages should remain subdued,

as befits an increase in risk aversion

going forward. Yet investment does

not appear likely to further drop

dramatically.

Softening to pre-2013U.S. angel & seed VC

activity

$420

$394

$342 $6

46

$606

$537

$522

$657

$741

$809

$931

$802

$921

$961

$1,1

54

$1,5

08

$1,2

03

$1,3

80

$2,5

05

$1,8

74

$1,9

91

$2,1

99

$2,0

88

$1,9

72

$1,6

97

411

357 396 409

666

562 588614

884805 798

768

1,0619591,031

1,0431,193

1,029

1,217

1,182

1,2081,289

1,1481,079

918


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Deal value ($M) # of deals closed


Even as round counts fell once more

at the early stage in the U.S., the

amount of capital invested remained

more than robust—in fact, the $6.6

billion invested during 1Q was the

third-highest quarterly total since 2013

began. At the late stage, total value

remained healthy, with the number of

financings actually up from 4Q. Many

have overinterpreted these results as

countering the narrative of a slump

in VC, but the reality is not so much

countering as counterintuitive: A flight

to quality combined with still-abundant

amounts of capital could result in

sustained strong totals invested across

fewer financings of proven companies.

Particularly at the late stage, founders

are raising now because things could

get worse, potentially. 1Q numbers are

more testament to risk aversion on the

part of both management teams and

investors than anything else.

U.S. late-stage VC activity (#) by round size

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

U.S. VC early-stage activity

$3.6

$3.7

$3.9

$4.6

$4.6

$5.5

$5.1

$6.8

$5.3

$6.9

$6.1

$6.0

$6.6

697735 699

755800 822

760 726 747 739645

612504

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2013 2014 2015 2016

Deal value ($B) # of deals closed

U.S. early-stage VC activity (#) by round size

A smaller sample of companies still produce robust resultsU.S. early-stage and late-

stage VC activity

U.S. VC late-stage activity

$5.8

$5.8

$6.1

$5.9

$7.5

$12.

4

$8.3

$10.

3

$12.

0

$11.

2

$12.

5

$9.5

$9.4

447 431 435 429470

539

430440 462

393 410

359

388

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2013 2014 2015 2016

Deal value ($B)

# of deals closed

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M$5M-$10M $10M-$25M $25M+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Under $500K $500K-$1M $1M-$5M$5M-$10M $10M-$25M $25M+


Rod WernerSenior Vice President,

Managing Director,

Technology Banking

City National Bank

Rod Werner is managing director of City National Bank’s Technology and Venture Capital Banking team, based in Palo Alto with additional offices in San Francisco, Santa Monica, New York and Boston. He manages and leads a team that provides venture debt and various other financial services to companies ranging from pre-revenue, venture-backed startups, to later stage and profitable technology companies. For more than a decade, he has worked closely with the top venture capital firms, actively assisting companies with raising equity and debt. Rod has more than 20 years of experience in banking and commercial lending, with significant expertise in serving technology companies. He is committed to adding value and leveraging his network to help entrepreneurs be successful.

Los Angeles-based City National Bank provides comprehensive banking, investment and trust services through 75 offices in Southern California, Northern California, Nevada, New York City, Nashville and Atlanta. City National is a subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), one of North America’s leading diversified financial services companies. RBC serves more than 16 million personal, business, public sector and institutional clients through offices in Canada, the United States and 38 other countries. For more information about City National,

visit the company’s website at cnb.com.

What have you been seeing in your

area of the venture capital financing

market as of late?

It felt like we kicked off 2016 with

a bad hangover and some dour

sentiment in the marketplace. At that

time, we noticed that many VC-backed

companies quickly reduced expenses

and began to manage spending more

closely in their 2016 budgets. There

continues to be market uncertainty

over oil prices and the economies of

China and Europe, and much concern

about what is in store for this year in

the venture and tech communities in

Silicon Valley with the election and

interest rates.

However, it appears that market

sentiment has changed for the positive

recently. We find that clients and

investors are more optimistic than

they were a month ago. However, we

stress that companies should continue

to appropriately manage expenses

to extend their runway and focus on

growth drivers for the remainder of

2016.

Have you seen any material shifts

in City National Bank’s technology

lending activity from the end of 2015

through the first quarter of 2016?

No. We continue to lend to fast-

growing, market-leading technology

companies that are backed by the

top venture firms in the U.S. Today,

we are one of the strongest financial

institutions in the U.S. For our clients,

it matters knowing we will be there for

them.

The downturn in venture investment

and valuations has been the talk of

the town for some time now. Have you

seen an increase in founders turning

to venture lenders?

The market has been on a long, great

run since the Great Recession, but it

does go through cycles. I personally

have been here in the Valley through

the dotcom bubble and the financial

meltdown, and each time great tech

companies emerged during those

periods.

That said, we have observed valuation

pressure recently and equity capital

is taking longer to raise today than in

years past for most venture-backed

companies. The bar is higher and

entrepreneurs are concerned that the

equity funding will dry up—if not now,

then later this year. This results in more

companies proactively looking to raise

both equity and venture debt.

Yet at the same time, several of our

high-profile, fast-growing, disruptive

technology clients have successfully

raised large equity rounds this quarter.

What are the typical types of

financings you are conducting with

your team?

We provide venture debt, equipment

financing, recurring revenue and

general working capital lines of

credit and leveraged finance for fast-

growing, venture-backed and public

technology companies. We have

a wide range of clients, from pre-

revenue startups and early revenue

companies all the way up to late-stage,

Continue on to the next page for the rest of the Q&A.


https://www.cnb.com/technology/

post-IPO technology companies

with operations globally. They have

different needs at each stage of

growth, but we are able to scale with

them for their entire lifecycle. Most of

our early-stage clients have already

raised initial venture capital funding

rounds to develop products, test

market acceptance, gain revenue and

achieve market adoption. They come

to us at that point when they start to

see working capital shortfalls or need

flexibility between equity rounds.

What are the key company metrics

your team currently assesses as they

work through a deal?

We’re always looking for disruptive

ideas backed by the best VCs. We

look for market potential, competition,

revenue growth and profit margins.

A strong, collaborative management

team with a healthy history and

success record is also essential.

Additionally, we track how clients

perform relative to key milestones and

expectations of their boards, to assure

they will have access to future capital

and the ability to build a company to a

successful exit or IPO.

Have your processes shifted at all in

light of current market conditions?

No matter what kind of cycle the

market is in, we remain focused on

working with top management teams

with disruptive technologies that can

become viable, ongoing businesses

that operate for the long term. We’re

always looking for clients who have

been able to attract investment from

the best venture firms in the world.

We find that much of our deal flow

comes directly from the venture

community and from repeat

entrepreneurs we’ve funded in the

past. With a long history here in the

Valley, we’ve seen many of our clients’

companies get sold. Then, they come

back to us when they have that next

great idea.

How do you feel the rest of 2016 is

going to play out?

There tends to be a lot of uncertainty

in election years, and 2016 could

top them all! We’ve seen extreme

market turbulence in the early part

of the year and there is likely to be

continued volatility for the rest of

the year. There is also likely to be

continued skepticism in the market,

causing delays in financing. We urge

young companies to do a better job

identifying growth drivers within their

respective businesses and spending

wisely.

But even though there are real

concerns ahead, with talk of slower

growth in China and Europe, the U.S.

continues to offer investors from

all over the world a place to invest

in strong, fast-growing technology

businesses. We continue to see a lot

of liquidity in the marketplace coming

not only from the U.S. and corporate

investors, but also internationally.

About City National

With $36.4 billion in assets, City National Bank provides banking, investment and trust services through 75 offices,

including 16 full-service regional centers, in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, Nevada, New York City,

Nashville and Atlanta. In addition, the company and its investment affiliates manage or administer $53.9 billion in client

investment assets.

City National is a subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), one of North America’s leading diversified financial services

companies. RBC serves more than 16 million personal, business, public sector and institutional clients through offices in

Canada, the United States and 38 other countries.

For more information about City National, visit the company’s website at cnb.com.


https://www.cnb.com/technology/

Growing diversity?U.S. VC activity by metro, region & sector

Although healthcare is on pace to match 2015 in terms

of dollars invested

U.S VC activity ($B) by sector

The Mid-Atlantic has seen a spurt of investing in 1Q

U.S. VC activity (#) by region

Every sector is down by a considerable margin

U.S. VC activity (#) by sector

Geographic diversity continues to inch up

U.S. VC activity (#) by metro

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Commercial Services Consumer Goods & Recreation

Energy Healthcare Svcs/Suppl./Syst.

IT Hardware Media

Other Pharma & Biotech

Software

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Commercial Services Consumer Goods & Recreation

Energy Healthcare Svcs/Suppl./Syst.

IT Hardware

MediaOther

Pharma & Biotech

Software

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Other

Philadelphia Metro

Chicago Metro

Austin Metro

D.C. Metro

San Diego Metro

Seattle Metro

Los Angeles Metro

Boston Metro

New York City

Bay Area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2013 2014 2015 2016

West Coast

Southeast

South

NewEngland

Mountain

Midwest

Mid-Atlantic

Great Lakes

Even amid a pullback, local investment is sustained proportionally.


Although the slow start was presaged by a steady slide over the past few quarters

U.S. venture-backed exit activity

Source: PitchBook

After a strong year, a slow start in 2016

U.S. venture-backed exit activity

$24

$42

$24

$14

$30

$37

$53

$37

$89

$49

$7

501

607

458 475

687726

865 883

1,007

923

155

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Exit value ($B)

# of exits closed

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

$8.5

$4.9

$7.1

$9.6

$9.1

$11.

3

$8.0

$9.0

$6.7

$23.

6

$10.

9

$12.

1

$4.2 $8

.3

$10.

3

$14.

1

$15.

0

$12.

9

$23.

5

$37.

3

$8.3

$10.

7

$14.

9

$15.

5

$7.3

170

148

163

206 206

160

186

174

221

202 205

237

202 203

238 240 249267

244 247 255237

227204

155


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Exit value ($B) # of exits closed

At 155 completed U.S. venture-

backed exits in 1Q, selling hasn’t been

this slow since early 2011. The total

value of exits was definitely lower than

all but two other quarters since 2010,

so that and the slowing pace should

definitely be of some concern. It’s not

just the drought of tech IPOs, it’s more

the potential for formerly M&A-hungry

strategics to dial back for a sustained

period on startup acquisitions, which

would be a heavy blow. Given how

active corporate buyers have been as

of late, a period of digestion may be in

order. With exit levels already sliding in

the back half of 2015, the sudden drop

from 4Q 2015 to 1Q 2016 is a clear

inflection point. But the level of selling

should be depressed well below what

was seen in 2014 and 2015, staying

more in line with what 2010 recorded.

Inauspicious exit levelsExits overview


Unsurprisingly, software remained popular

U.S. venture-backed exits (#) by sector

Only M&A has sustained into 2016 in terms of value

U.S. venture-backed exits ($B) by type

But of the exits that occurred, many were lucrative

Median venture-backed exit size ($M) in U.S.

Even corporate buyers are quite shy

U.S. venture-backed exits (#) by type

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016. Note, due to the scarcity

of IPOs, this number is skewed considerably.

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Acquisition IPO Buyout

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Acquisition

IPO

Buyout

$51

$90

$77$71*

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Acquisition/Buyout IPO

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

CommercialServices

Consumer Goods& Recreation

Energy

HealthcareSvcs/Supp./Sys.

IT Hardware

Media

Other

Pharma & Biotech

Software

There are a few key factors for why

that is so. With overall M&A levels

declining by a significant amount from

4Q 2015 thus far, corporate buyers

are pulling back. The deals being

closed simply have to be much more

justifiable than what has been the case

previously, with strategics hunkering

down somewhat in anticipation of

growth headwinds. But in a positive

sign, the incentives to essentially

sidestep up-and-coming innovators,

add talent, grow patent portfolios

and more can be resilient, if not

so imperative as to do more than

maintain a subdued level of startup

acquisitions. Judging by the median

U.S. acquisition/buyout size of $90

million in 1Q, it’s clear corporate and

financial buyers are still able to justify

some hefty price tags. If a shakeout

in valuations produces a crop of

troubled startups, that could render

their acquisitions more attractive to

strategics, which could boost exits.

Even in an uncertain climate, corporate

buyers will pay up for key enhancing

technologies, while bargains will

always be welcome. And as for the

IPO pipeline—as mentioned in our

recent VC Liquidity Report—until the

waters calm enough to be braved by

an intrepid few, the drought should

continue.


U.S. fundraising numbers for the first

quarter of 2016 were considerably

robust, a sign of strength that took

some aback. Others, heartened by

the figures, posited those strong

numbers were additional evidence

that the venture environment was

merely cooling down to more

reasonable levels, with both LPs and

firms remaining confident for the

long term. The total of capital raised

would actually have been much lower,

but was boosted significantly by

multiple fund closes north of $300

million in size, such as Accel XIII

Strategic Partners at $500 million,

Battery Ventures XI at $650 million

and Founders Fund VI at $1.3 billion.

This bevy of large vehicles leads to

another useful point regarding the

timing of fundraising cycles. Looking

at the number of closed funds in 1Q,

it’s undeniable that many firms are still

able to rake in LP commitments, which

A cluster of large funds is primarily responsible for the strong start in terms of dollars raised

U.S. VC fundraising

An unexpectedly robust debut to 2016

U.S. VC fundraising

Source: PitchBook

A positive signFundraising overview

$36

$34

$33

$12

$19

$25

$24

$20

$34

$37

$11

191 180 187

115

150

134

187 191

250236

63

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Capital raised ($B)

# of funds closed

$8.2

$3.0

$4.2

$3.8

$6.1

$6.1

$2.4

$10.

0

$8.6

$4.6

$7.9

$2.7

$6.0

$4.4

$4.3

$5.7

$9.0

$9.3

$7.5

$8.5

$9.4

$11.

5

$4.0

$11.

7

$10.

651

26

3934

3228

30

44

5650

48

33

4045

49

57 55

67 6662 64 66

53 53

63


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Capital raised ($B) # of funds closed

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


Average fund size is weighted toward the higher end

U.S. VC fund size

Funds of $500M or more account for $5.7B of the total raised in 1Q 2016

U.S. VC funds ($B) by size

Fundraisers are targeting more opportunistically, LPs willing to oblige

U.S. VC funds (#) to hit target

bodes well for continued investment

in the future. But many of these firms

would enjoy LP confidence in even

worse environments, and the typical

fund that happened to close in 1Q had

been in the works for some time, so

their closes could well have been more

a matter of either chance or signaling

to portfolio companies of their

backers’ health. As some might have

guessed, a widely predicted cooling in

round sizes and valuations encouraged

fundraisers to close, in anticipation

of a less expensive dealmaking

environment. Venture investors are

also closing now driven by the same

opportunistic, deadline-driven motives

many founders possess; they fear the

flow of money could begin to stutter,

for any number of reasons.

Regardless of the primary causes,

as stated in the prior installment of

this report series, it’s clear LPs are

still willing to commit in droves to the

upper tiers of venture firms, whether

they target the early or late stages,

drawn by the allure of high returns that

top-quartile VC funds of fairly youthful

vintages have posted. The factors

that have driven LPs to continue

seeking considerable exposure to the

venture asset class remain in place for

now, so continued success in hitting

targets isn’t particularly surprising,

although still rather remarkable.

Accordingly, especially given how

strong fundraising numbers have

been for several quarters now on the

whole, fund managers have more than

enough capital to be invested in the

rest of 2016, which should serve to

only further soften any continuation

of a reset in the venture landscape.

But VC firms are still adapting to the

changing investment landscape, and

consequently won’t seek to deploy

capital at the inflated levels seen

in recent years unless given strong

incentives to do so.

$50 $52

$157$172

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Median ($M)

Average ($M)

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

Hit Target Missed Target Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

*

$1B+

$500M-$1B

$250M-$500M$100M-$250M$50M-$100MUnder$50M

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


Y Combinator 9

Innovation Works 7

500 Startups 6

First Round Capital 6

Founder Collective 6

Structure Capital 6

Techstars 5

BoxGroup 5

Hyde Park Venture Partners 5

Lerer Hippeau Ventures 5

New Enterprise Associates 5

DreamIt Ventures 12

Khosla Ventures 10

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

9

Lightspeed Venture Partners 9

GV 9

Andreessen Horowitz 8


Marc Benioff 7

Madrona Venture Group 7

Alexandria Venture Investments

7

Founders Fund 7

First Round Capital 7

Y Combinator 7


Intel Capital 10

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

9

Sequoia Capital 9

Accel Partners 8

Andreessen Horowitz 7

Bain Capital Ventures 7

Lightspeed Venture Partners 7

GV 7

Ignition Venture Partners 6

Cooley 53

Gunderson Dettmer 45

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

27

DLA Piper 18

Goodwin Procter 17

Latham & Watkins 7

Most active investors

Angel/seed

Venture capitalVenture capital, for the purposes of this report, is defined as institutional

investors that have raised a fund structured as a limited partnership from a

group of accredited investors, or a corporate entity making venture capital

investments.

ValuationsPre-money valuation: the valuation of a company prior to the round of

investment. Post-money valuation: the valuation of a company following an

investment.

ExitsThis report includes both full and partial exits via mergers and acquisitions,

private equity buyouts and IPOs.

FundraisingThis report includes all U.S.-based venture capital funds that have held a final

close. Funds-of-funds and secondary funds are not included.

All league tables are compiled using the number of completed VC rounds for U.S.-based companies in 1Q 2016. Rounds in which a firm advised multiple parties will only be counted once for that firm. To ensure your firm is accurately represented in future PitchBook reports, please contact [email protected].


Early stage


Late stage

Most active law firms

Early stage

Cooley 40

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

38

Gunderson Dettmer 32

DLA Piper 14

Goodwin Procter 11

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 9

Most active law firms

Late stage

League tables 1Q 2016

Methodology


mailto:[email protected]

2014 2015 2012 2010 - equitybender · pdf fileslowing private investment cycle. ... a smaller...

Documents