Apple Tree Partners Statement Regarding LP Litigation
Updated June 30, 2025
On May 30, 2025, Apple Tree Partners (ATP)’s fund ATP Life Science Ventures initiated litigation by filing a Complaint against its controlling limited partners (LPs) Rigmora Biotech Investor One LP and Rigmora Biotech Investor Two LP. As reflected by the Complaint, the litigation seeks to compel these LPs to fulfill their contractual obligations according to the terms of the applicable Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA). ATP’s Complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. The redacted public version, which details the specific ways in which Rigmora has failed to meet its capital commitments, may be viewed at atppdf.com.
ATP has delivered an industry-leading DPI of 1x on $2.5 billion. We take very seriously our mandate to deliver robust returns to our investors, and we take pride in our top-tier performance in life sciences venture capital, the integrity of our operations, and the substantial value of our current portfolio. We are fighting as hard as we can to ensure that our portfolio companies, and the innovations being propelled within them, can continue moving forward for the sake of stakeholders and patients.
Facts:
The Partnership, or ATP Life Science Ventures, has a total value to paid in ratio (distributed plus held divided by all capital invested and all expenses) of approximately 2.7x. It has a total distributions to total paid in capital ratio of approximately 1.0x. Total distributed plus held value as of last audit date (12/31/24) is $6.2 billion, comprised of distributions to date of $2.3 billion and held value of $3.9 billion. The Partnership has total capital commitments of $2.9 billion. To date, the limited partners have made capital contributions of $2.35 billion, of which $2.30 billion has been contributed by Dmitry Rybolovlev.
Lawsuits:
On May 30, 2025, ATP filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court asserting several claims against the Family Office of Dmitry Rybolovlev for breaching the parties’ Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) and asking the Court to authorize ATP to apply default remedies under the LPA and also grant specific performance. The LPA expressly permitted ATP to file its case in Delaware and the Family Office expressly waived any right to object to litigating in Delaware. Even though ATP’s case was the first filed on May 30, in June, the Family Office went to court in the Cayman Islands with multiple retaliatory filings in an effort to avoid litigating ATP’s claims in Delaware. During a hearing on June 27, the Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court denied the Family Office’s motion to stay the Delaware litigation, describing the Family Office’s Cayman actions as “properly viewed as…reactionary filing(s).” ATP has filed motions in Cayman to stay or oppose the Family Office’s retaliatory actions.
The Delaware case will proceed to trial in September. We have faith in the legal system and the LPA that governs the rights and obligations of ATP and the Family Office, and that the truth will prevail via due process—we hope quickly, so that our portfolio emerges from this unfortunate period to flourish, as it should.
Comment on the Delaware action brought by ATP:
The Family Office LP’s funding obligations stem from the LPA that they are taking desperate measures to evade. They are in default under the LPA, and the LPA has several different remedies for defaults that can be applied at the general partner’s discretion. The Family Office has operated under the LPA since 2012; over the years, there have been 22 separate amendments to the LPA, but the Family Office has never asked for or obtained changes to the default penalty.
The Family Office refused to contribute capital in response to capital calls they were required to make to fund ATP’s portfolio companies. This is capital that the companies and the Partnership depended upon. The default penalty exists as an incentive for the Family Office to meet its funding obligations and as a safeguard against the risk of the Partnership relying on a single limited partner for the majority of its capital. If the Family Office is found to be in default under the LPA, a default charge is one option that ATP would consider when assessing how to further fund the portfolio. Funding the portfolio and the Partnership is the only reason ATP would consider imposing a default charge. The Family Office’s allegation to the contrary is false.
Despite the Family Office’s recent behavior, ATP remains grateful for the amount of capital the Family Office has provided and is rightly proud of the returns that ATP has earned for the Family Office.
Comment on claims Family Office has made in their retaliatory Cayman actions:
The claims are baseless, counterfactual, and therefore damaging. The Family Office has not fully funded its commitments. All capital calls on which it has defaulted are valid. The remaining investments in ATP’s portfolio are viable but require capital to achieve their potential.
Among the seven companies called out as “hopeless investments” by the Family Office’s Cayman petition are Deep Apple Therapeutics, which recently entered into a collaboration with Novo Nordisk in cardiometabolic and obesity drug discovery worth up to $812 million, and Aethon Therapeutics, which last year entered into an oncology drug discovery and development collaboration with Revolution Medicines with a potential total payout also in the high nine-figure range. These collaborations represent only a fraction of the programs within these companies’ pipelines.
There has been no mismanagement or misuse of funds. ATP charges expenses to the portfolio companies it founded and manages; this is entirely normal and appropriate. The ATP team, comprised of experienced biopharmaceutical executives, serves in C-suite roles for the portfolio companies that the firm founds and manages on a fractional basis—far more cost-efficient for early-stage biotech companies than incurring the expense of recruiting and retaining full-time leadership teams. This model has generated outstanding returns.
General comment on the situation:
Since 2012, ATP’s employees, every founder and employee at all levels, transformed the $2.3 billion Dmitry Rybolovlev provided into total current value of more than $6 billion, $2.3 billion of which is distributed. Dr. Harrison and everyone at ATP and its portfolio companies delivered this value believing that its agreements with the Family Office, which the Family Office now rejects, were and are valid and binding. It is highly regrettable that the Family Office abandoned the principles that brought so many people together to create such value for investors, founders, employees, and ultimately caregivers and patients.