The profile is currenly unclaimed by the seller. All information is provided by CB Insights.

legacyhealthcare.ch

Founded Year

2007

Stage

Grant | Alive

Total Raised

$4.83M

Last Raised

$2.79M | 6 mos ago

About Legacy Healthcare

Legacy Healthcare is a biopharma company developing botanical drugs in oncology supportive care and dermatology. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Switzerland.

Legacy Healthcare Headquarter Location

Rte de la Corniche 3B

Lausanne, 1066,

Switzerland

+41 21 552 21 70

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Expert Collections containing Legacy Healthcare

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

Legacy Healthcare is included in 2 Expert Collections, including Biopharma Tech.

B

Biopharma Tech

15,535 items

Companies involved in the research, development, and commercialization of chemically- or biologically-derived therapeutic & theranostic drugs. Excludes vitamins/supplements, CROs/clinical trial services.

C

Cancer

3,605 items

Companies researching, developing, or offering products & services that aid in the screening, prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of cancer.

Legacy Healthcare Patents

Legacy Healthcare has filed 6 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Allium
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Autosomal recessive disorders
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

10/15/2014

1/11/2022

Allium, Onions, Disturbances of human pigmentation, Human hair, Monoclonal antibodies

Grant

Application Date

10/15/2014

Grant Date

1/11/2022

Title

Related Topics

Allium, Onions, Disturbances of human pigmentation, Human hair, Monoclonal antibodies

Status

Grant

Latest Legacy Healthcare News

Court of Appeal Case Explains Why Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies May Prevent Substitution of PAGA Plaintiffs

Jun 15, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=124f59ac-44e2-4f43-b319-6937735c19af" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> On June 9, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, issued its decision in Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., No. E076240, 2022 WL 2071982 (Cal. Ct. App. June 9, 2022), which affirmed a trial court decision dismissing a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit for lack of a proper plaintiff and denying leave to substitute a different plaintiff. The decision highlights the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies as a prerequisite to bringing a PAGA claim, and explains an important limitation of a ruling by the court earlier this year. PAGA requires an allegedly aggrieved employee to provide written notice of his or her claims to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) before filing a civil lawsuit so that the state agency may decide in the first instance whether to investigate the alleged violations. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3. Only after the LWDA takes no action for 65 days (or, less commonly, informs the employee it intends to take no action), can the employee file a PAGA action. In Hargrove, the original plaintiff provided notice to the LWDA in August 2016 and filed her lawsuit in October 2016. She died in February 2020, during discovery. After the plaintiff’s death, her attorneys sought leave to amend the complaint to substitute a different former employee, Makiya Cornell, to prosecute the PAGA claims in Hargrove’s stead. Cornell served her LWDA notice in May 2020. By substituting Cornell as a plaintiff, the attorneys hoped to take advantage of the original limitations period established by Hargrove, which stretched back four years earlier than the limitations period that would otherwise apply to Cornell’s claims. The trial court dismissed the action and denied leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. In doing so, the Court of Appeal applied the framework adopted by the California Court of Appeal, 1st District, earlier this year in Hutcheson v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 5th 932, 935 (2022). Under Hutcheson, a representative plaintiff may substitute for another in a PAGA action if (1) the substituting plaintiff satisfies PAGA’s prerequisites of standing, notice and statute of limitations; and (2) if the claims in the amended PAGA complaint relate back to the original complaint. Id. at 945. Cornell’s failure to timely exhaust the claims alleged by Hargrove in her own right was fatal to both prongs of this test. First, the Court of Appeal held that Cornell did not meet the PAGA prerequisites with respect to the time period at issue (2015-19) because she did not provide notice until years after the period in question began. Second, the Court held that she could not take advantage of the relation back doctrine, citing precedent that the doctrine should not be applied when it would frustrate the purpose of administrative prerequisites to bringing a claim. 1 Fortunately, a plaintiff dying during pending litigation is an exceedingly rare event. However, PAGA plaintiffs can become unable or unwilling to prosecute claims for many other reasons, such as loss of interest, dismissal as a discovery sanction, or (depending on what happens in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana) because of a binding arbitration agreement. (To read about the pending Viking River Cruises case, click here . To read about what the decision could mean for current and future cases, click here and here .) Hargrove illustrates that in such cases, PAGA’s exhaustion requirement could make it difficult for another plaintiff to pick up the torch. 1 Other facts also supported both prongs, especially that Cornell was hired in 2019. Thus, she was not an “aggrieved employee” during the large majority of the period and her claims were not based on the same facts and did not involve the same injury as Hargrove’s. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a) (only an “aggrieved employee” may bring a PAGA action).

Legacy Healthcare Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Legacy Healthcare Rank

  • When was Legacy Healthcare founded?

    Legacy Healthcare was founded in 2007.

  • Where is Legacy Healthcare's headquarters?

    Legacy Healthcare's headquarters is located at Rte de la Corniche 3B, Lausanne.

  • What is Legacy Healthcare's latest funding round?

    Legacy Healthcare's latest funding round is Grant.

  • How much did Legacy Healthcare raise?

    Legacy Healthcare raised a total of $4.83M.

  • Who are the investors of Legacy Healthcare?

    Investors of Legacy Healthcare include State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, Euronext and Stassi Anastassov.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.