CVC Capital Partners announced today that CVC Fund VII has signed a definitive agreement to acquire a majority interest in MedRisk. The Carlyle Group, MedRisk’s current majority owner, will retain a significant stake and maintain joint control in partnership with CVC.
Founded in 1994 and headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, MedRisk consistently delivers clinically superior patient outcomes via the coordination and active management of physical medicine services for workers’ compensation patients. Today, the Company manages physical therapy, occupational therapy, and chiropractic treatments for more than 500,000 injured workers annually through a nationwide network across 49 states and Washington, D.C.
“MedRisk has an excellent reputation and a proven ability to improve access to high-quality care, which has enabled the Company to become the industry leader in managed physical therapy for injured workers,” said Fazle Husain, Partner at CVC Capital Partners. “We look forward to working closely with the talented team at MedRisk and our friends at Carlyle to continue the compelling growth trajectory of the Company while ensuring that patients continue to receive the highest quality service.”
Blackstone Strategic Partners, a $38 billion unit focused on investing in existing private equity portfolios, aims to raise $12 billion to $13 billion for a ninth flagship fund, which would be its biggest ever, and a smaller vehicle of at least $2 billion to focus on so-called general partner-led secondary deals, according to people familiar with the plans.
The firm’s secondaries business grew roughly eightfold over the past six years and should continue to expand at a “very rapid rate,” Blackstone President Jonathan Gray said on an earnings call last month, when he discussed plans for further secondaries funds without elaborating on fundraising targets.
The value of secondaries transactions more than tripled over six years to $88 billion in 2019 and totaled $60 billion last year, data from Greenhill & Co. show, driven by private equity investors seeking to offload their stakes early in otherwise illiquid funds. The structure has evolved in recent decades as a solution for institutional investors to rebalance their portfolios and draw on cash when needed.
A profound change has been proposed by the Biden administration for U.S. immigration law. Following up on candidate Joe Biden’s promise of immigration reform legislation, the U.S. Citizenship Act would eliminate the term “alien” from the U.S. immigration laws.
Some might think that terminology is not a big deal. But as a scholar of immigration and civil rights law, I believe that the one-word change could deeply influence Americans’ views about the rights of noncitizens and, by so doing, the future trajectory of immigration law and policy.
In forging immigration law and policy, it is far easier to deny the humanity of an “alien” than to do so for a “noncitizen.” The use of the word “alien” helps rationalize the severe treatment of noncitizens of color, from detention in cages, family separation and more.
Consider that, in restricting immigration and deportations, generations of U.S. government officials, but especially those of the fervently anti-immigrant Trump administration, frequently used the term “illegal aliens.”
Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi knows that a vaccine that offers 70% protection against COVID-19 could be a valuable tool against the coronavirus pandemic in Nigeria — especially if that vaccine is cheap and doesn’t have to be stored at extremely cold temperatures. But what if another vaccine — one that is more expensive to buy and to store — was 95% effective?
“Should we send the less-effective vaccine to Africa? Or should we look for a way to strengthen the cold storage?” asks Adebisi, director for research at African Young Leaders for Global Health, a non-profit organization based in Abuja.
These are the kinds of question facing researchers and government leaders worldwide, as they take stock of the emerging selection of coronavirus vaccines and try to decide which will be most useful in putting an end to a pandemic that has already taken nearly 2.5 million lives. It is a decision shaped by limited supplies and hampered by limited data, says Cristina Possas, a public-health researcher at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. “It is not possible to compare these vaccines at this point,” she says.