The development of the marine engineering sector in Waukegan is inextricably linked to the city’s location on Lake Michigan and the monumental legacy of the Outboard Marine Corporation. Founded on the pioneering work of Ole Evinrude, who built the first practical outboard boat engine in 1907, the enterprise eventually consolidated and purchased the assets of the bankrupt Johnson Brothers Motor Company, which had constructed a massive marine plant in Waukegan just prior to the Great Depression. By the 1950s, the Waukegan facility operated as the primary manufacturing and engineering headquarters for the Outboard Marine Corporation, producing globally recognized Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors. At its zenith, the corporation employed roughly 7,000 workers in the Chicago region, fundamentally shaping Waukegan’s economy and cultivating a highly specialized local workforce trained in fluid dynamics, marine mechanical engineering, and internal combustion technologies. Although the Outboard Marine Corporation ultimately succumbed to immense financial pressures—exacerbated by intense competition, shifting fuel economies, and a twenty million dollar Environmental Protection Agency fine related to historical polychlorinated biphenyl contamination in Waukegan Harbor—and filed for bankruptcy in December 2000, its engineering DNA remained. While mass production was relocated following the corporate liquidation, specialized marine research and development operations lingered on the Waukegan lakefront, laying the foundation for modern, niche marine engineering firms in the region.

In the contemporary era, a Waukegan-based marine engineering firm engaged in the design of next-generation, high-efficiency electric outboard motors or advanced hybrid marine propulsion systems routinely undertakes activities that qualify for the Research and Development tax credit. Under the federal guidelines, these activities must satisfy a rigorous statutory framework. The fundamental requirement is that the research must serve a permitted purpose; in this scenario, the engineering firm is attempting to improve the performance, reliability, and hydrodynamic efficiency of a commercial marine vessel’s propulsion unit. Following this, the engineers must encounter explicit technological uncertainty at the outset of the development cycle. For an electric marine propulsion system, this uncertainty typically revolves around the thermal management of high-density lithium-ion battery arrays housed within a watertight, corrosion-resistant casing operating in turbulent, sub-zero saltwater environments. To resolve these complex engineering hurdles, the firm engages in a systematic process of experimentation. This involves the deployment of advanced computational fluid dynamics software to iterate propeller and lower-unit housing designs, followed by the physical casting of prototypes. These prototypes are subsequently subjected to rigorous dynamometer stress testing and real-world hydrodynamic drag evaluations in the waters of Lake Michigan. Because this iterative process relies entirely on the principles of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and materials science, it satisfies the requirement that the research be strictly technological in nature.

However, claiming the tax credit for these engineering activities requires strict adherence to recent judicial precedents, most notably the 2024 United States Tax Court decision in Phoenix Design Group, Incorporated versus Commissioner. In this pivotal case, the Internal Revenue Service successfully disallowed Research and Development tax credits claimed by a professional engineering design firm. The court determined that the taxpayer failed to identify specific, quantifiable technological uncertainties prior to commencing their research activities, relying instead on the general design challenges inherent to the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering profession. The Phoenix Design Group utilized a standard six-stage design process, moving from a basis of design stage through schematic development and ultimately to construction administration. The court ruled that following standard, methodical engineering practices does not inherently constitute a qualifying process of experimentation unless it is driven by a fundamentally unresolved technical question that cannot be answered by the application of routine engineering knowledge.

For a Waukegan marine engineering firm, the implications of the Phoenix Design Group decision are profound. The firm cannot simply assert that designing a novel electric outboard motor is inherently difficult or commercially risky. To survive an audit by the Internal Revenue Service or the Illinois Department of Revenue, the taxpayer must produce contemporaneous documentation—such as pre-project engineering briefs, testing protocols, and laboratory logs—that explicitly define the exact thermal thresholds, torque tolerances, or hydrodynamic drag coefficients that the engineers were uncertain they could achieve before the physical prototyping phase commenced. If the firm merely applies known principles of electric motor design without documenting a genuine experimental attempt to discover new technical information, the wages of the mechanical engineers and the costs of the prototype supplies will be disqualified under both federal law and the Illinois Income Tax Act.

Case Study: Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences

While heavy manufacturing dominated Waukegan’s early history, the modern economic engine of Lake County, Illinois, is undeniably the life sciences and biopharmaceutical industry. Over the past several decades, Lake County has cultivated the third-largest life science industry cluster in the United States, representing approximately fifty-one percent of all life science employment within the state of Illinois. This transformation was largely anchored by the massive corporate headquarters and research campuses of legacy pharmaceutical giants such as Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie, located in the adjacent municipality of North Chicago. The presence of these global corporations generated a localized, highly skilled labor pool comprising analytical chemists, molecular biologists, and regulatory compliance experts. Waukegan has strategically positioned itself within this ecosystem, attracting aggressive, mid-sized pharmaceutical manufacturers and specialized formulation laboratories. A prominent example is Nexus Pharmaceuticals, a family-owned enterprise founded in 2003 that specializes in the development of difficult-to-formulate generic and specialty injectable drugs across critical therapeutic categories, including cardiovascular, oncology, and anti-epileptic treatments. The region’s robust infrastructure, combined with targeted state capital programs designed to expand wet laboratory space, provides an ideal environment for the intense research required to navigate the complex pharmaceutical development pipeline.

The research and development expenditures incurred by a Waukegan-based pharmaceutical manufacturer are structurally aligned with the legislative intent of the tax credit, yet they require meticulous categorization. Consider a firm attempting to develop a novel, ready-to-use liquid formulation of an existing cardiovascular drug that previously required complex lyophilization and bedside reconstitution. The permitted purpose of this research is clear: improving the functionality and safety profile of the pharmaceutical product. The technological uncertainty is immense, as the formulating chemists do not know if the active pharmaceutical ingredient will remain chemically stable in the new aqueous solvent over a twenty-four-month shelf life, or if the novel excipients will cause unexpected degradation or interact adversely with the silicone lining of the pre-filled glass syringe. To address these variables, the firm’s analytical chemists engage in an exhaustive process of experimentation. They develop and validate entirely new high-performance liquid chromatography methodologies to accurately detect microscopic impurities. They create dozens of batch formulations, subjecting them to forced degradation studies, accelerated thermal stress tests, and photostability profiling.

The Internal Revenue Service provides highly specific administrative guidance for this sector through its Audit Techniques Guide for the Pharmaceutical Industry. This authoritative directive delineates the drug development process into four distinct phases: Preclinical Discovery Research, Clinical Development, Regulatory Review, and Post-Marketing Operations. According to the guidance, activities conducted during the preclinical phases—such as compound synthesis, analytical chemistry, and in-vitro pharmacological testing—are generally accepted as qualified research. Similarly, the complex biostatistical analysis and pharmaceutical technology development required during Phase One through Phase Three clinical trials typically satisfy the four-part test. However, the guide explicitly warns examining agents to highly scrutinize expenses claimed during the Regulatory Review and Post-Marketing stages. Expenses incurred by regulatory affairs personnel simply to compile the Abbreviated New Drug Application dossier for submission to the Food and Drug Administration are routinely disqualified as non-technical administrative functions. Furthermore, post-approval market surveillance or Phase Four clinical studies conducted merely to expand market demographics rather than resolve technical uncertainties are statutorily excluded.

At the state level, pharmaceutical firms operating in Waukegan must also navigate rigorous geographic compliance standards enforced by the Illinois Department of Revenue. The Illinois Research and Development tax credit, codified under 35 ILCS 5/201(k), strictly requires that the qualifying research activities be conducted within the borders of Illinois. This requirement has been fiercely litigated in administrative hearings. In a pivotal ruling documented as IT 01-18, an Illinois taxpayer’s claim for the state credit was entirely denied because, although the company demonstrated substantial United States pharmaceutical research expenditures, it failed to produce contemporaneous documentation specifically tracking which portion of those expenditures occurred at their Illinois facilities. The administrative law judge ruled that to overcome the Department’s assessment, a taxpayer must present consistent, probable evidence identified with its books and records. Therefore, a Waukegan pharmaceutical company utilizing a global network of contract research organizations for clinical trials must meticulously segregate its ledger. Only the wages of the analytical chemists physically working in the Waukegan or Lincolnshire laboratories, and only the raw active pharmaceutical ingredients consumed on-site during testing, may be included in the Illinois Schedule 1299-D calculation base.

Case Study: Specialty Chemicals and Advanced Materials

The specialty chemical sector in Waukegan emerged organically as a critical support system for the region’s broader manufacturing base during the early twentieth century. As Waukegan industrialized, local leather tanneries, metal processing facilities, and automotive parts manufacturers required vast quantities of highly specific chemical inputs to maintain their operations. This demand fostered the growth of specialized chemical engineering firms along the lakefront and industrial corridors. Daubert Chemical Company, which traces its origins to 1935, exemplifies this historical trajectory. The company initially developed proprietary surface chemistries and rust preventatives designed specifically to protect raw steel coils during transit and storage. Over subsequent decades, as the metallurgical industries evolved, Daubert expanded its research capabilities to formulate high-performance industrial adhesives, sound-dampening polymeric coatings, and rigorous military-specification lubricants capable of withstanding extreme thermal and frictional environments. Parallel to this industrial chemical growth, the region also saw the rise of agricultural chemistry firms. Precision Laboratories, founded in Illinois in 1962, established itself as an industry leader in developing specialized tank-mix adjuvants, drift reduction agents, and irrigation water optimizers. These advanced chemical solutions address the increasingly complex demands of global resource efficiency, helping large-scale agricultural operations maximize crop yields while minimizing environmental contamination.

For a Waukegan-based specialty chemical manufacturer, the formulation of novel polymeric compounds or agricultural adjuvants involves a continuous, capital-intensive cycle of laboratory research. If a firm seeks to develop a new oil-based activator adjuvant designed to enhance the penetration of herbicides through waxy botanical cuticles while simultaneously mitigating aerial drift, the research process clearly meets the statutory definition of a permitted purpose. The technological uncertainty centers on discovering the precise molecular ratio of synthetic surfactants to petroleum distillates that will successfully reduce the dynamic surface tension of the spray droplet without inducing phytotoxicity—chemical damage—to the underlying agricultural crop. The process of experimentation relies heavily on organic chemistry and rheology. Chemists synthesize multiple variations of the polymer chain, measuring the kinetic viscosity and emulsion stability of each batch. These experimental formulations are then subjected to rigorous greenhouse efficacy trials and wind-tunnel drift analysis, leading to successive iterations until the optimal chemical balance is achieved.

However, the legal threshold for proving that these activities constitute a qualifying process of experimentation was significantly elevated by the 2021 United States Tax Court decision in Little Sandy Coal Company, Incorporated versus Commissioner. In this landmark ruling, the court denied substantial Research and Development tax credits because the taxpayer failed to definitively prove that at least eighty percent of its research activities followed a structured, scientific process of experimentation. The court clarified that generalized trial and error, without a formalized methodology for capturing data and evaluating hypotheses, does not meet the statutory requirement. The Internal Revenue Service has weaponized this precedent, taking a vastly stricter stance on what qualifies as systematic experimentation.

For a Waukegan chemical manufacturer, the Little Sandy Coal decision mandates a paradigm shift in laboratory documentation. If a formulation chemist merely mixes various surfactants on a lab bench, observing the emulsion visually and adjusting the ratios by intuition until the product appears stable, the Internal Revenue Service will disqualify the associated wages and supply costs. To secure the tax credit, the chemical firm must maintain exhaustive, contemporaneous laboratory notebooks or digital tracking systems. These records must explicitly state the initial chemical hypothesis, document the exact stoichiometric variables manipulated in each experimental batch, record the quantifiable analytical metrics obtained from the rheological testing equipment, and provide the engineering conclusions drawn from those specific data points. Only by demonstrating this unbroken chain of scientific inquiry can the taxpayer satisfy the eighty percent rule and successfully defend their qualified research expenses during a federal or state tax examination.

Case Study: Environmental Remediation Technologies

The history of environmental remediation technology in Waukegan is deeply and paradoxically rooted in the catastrophic environmental degradation caused by the city’s early industrial triumphs. For nearly a century, the heavy manufacturing facilities lining the Waukegan harbor operated with little regard for ecological consequences, utilizing the common waste disposal practices of their eras. The most infamous contributor to this localized ecological crisis was the Outboard Marine Corporation, which extensively utilized polychlorinated biphenyls—a highly toxic and persistent carcinogen—as hydraulic fluid in its die-casting operations. Over decades, these chemicals, alongside trichloroethylene degreasers, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from neighboring manufactured gas plants and sugar refineries, were discharged directly into the floor drains that emptied into Lake Michigan. This rampant contamination culminated in 1976 when the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Outboard Marine Corporation to halt its discharges and levied crippling financial penalties. Subsequently, the Waukegan Harbor was designated as a federal Superfund site and an Area of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, necessitating one of the most complex aquatic remediation efforts in North American history.

This monumental necessity gave rise to a highly specialized micro-economy of environmental engineering and remediation technology firms within the Waukegan area. Companies were forced to innovate novel methods for dredging, treating, and containing highly toxic sediments without re-suspending the contaminants into the broader waters of Lake Michigan. Firms such as UCC Environmental, headquartered in Waukegan, developed world-class research laboratories and massive conveyor test loops to simulate the handling of hazardous ash, industrial solids, and complex wastewater streams. Similarly, geotechnical engineering firms pioneered advanced in-situ soil solidification techniques directly on the contaminated Waukegan brownfield sites, mixing custom cementitious grouts into the earth to permanently encapsulate toxic coal tar and manufactured gas plant residues.

When a Waukegan environmental technology firm engages in the development of a novel pollution control system, the activities are highly technical and inherently experimental. For instance, designing a proprietary Zero Liquid Discharge wastewater treatment facility for a major power generation plant involves significant technological uncertainty. The engineers must determine if their customized membrane filtration arrays and thermal crystallizers can successfully precipitate heavy metals from the specific, highly corrosive chemical profile of the client’s industrial runoff without suffering catastrophic membrane scaling or thermal fouling. The experimentation involves constructing pilot-scale processing skids, running simulated chemical wastewater through the system under fluctuating pressure gradients, and meticulously analyzing the total dissolved solids in the resulting permeate.

Despite the clear technical nature of this work, environmental remediation firms face a unique legal peril during tax audits: the Funded Research Exception outlined in Internal Revenue Code Section 41(d)(4)(H). Because environmental remediation technologies are almost exclusively developed in conjunction with massive, site-specific client contracts, the Internal Revenue Service frequently attempts to disallow the associated research expenses by arguing that the client, rather than the taxpayer, bore the financial burden of the research. The nuances of this exception were recently litigated in the 2025 United States Tax Court case, Smith versus Commissioner. In this case, the Internal Revenue Service moved for summary judgment against an architectural design firm, asserting that the firm’s clients funded the research through their professional service contracts. The Tax Court, however, allowed the case to proceed, reaffirming that for research to be considered unfunded and therefore eligible for the tax credit, the taxpayer must satisfy two rigid criteria. First, the payment to the taxpayer must be strictly contingent upon the success of the research activities, thereby placing the taxpayer at financial risk. Second, the taxpayer must retain substantial legal rights to the intellectual property and technical knowledge developed during the project.

Therefore, if a Waukegan environmental engineering firm contracts to design a custom soil stabilization process under a standard Time and Materials agreement—where the client is legally obligated to pay for the engineering hours regardless of whether the stabilization matrix actually cures—the Internal Revenue Service will classify the research as funded and entirely deny the tax credit claim. To legally protect their federal and Illinois state Research and Development credits, these remediation firms must strategically structure their client engagements as Firm-Fixed-Price contracts, incorporating explicit contractual language demonstrating that the firm absorbs the financial risk of technical failure and unequivocally retains the rights to commercialize the underlying remediation methodologies.

Case Study: Agritech and Food Processing Technology

Before Waukegan became synonymous with heavy metallurgy, chemical formulation, and marine engines, its foundational wealth was generated by agricultural processing and commodities shipping. In the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the city’s port facilities were primarily utilized to transport grain and produce from the fertile farmlands of Lake and McHenry counties to the burgeoning markets of Chicago and the eastern seaboard. This abundant supply of raw agricultural materials attracted massive, early-industrial food processing operations to the Waukegan lakefront. By the 1890s, the industrial corridor housed the sprawling facilities of the United States Sugar Refinery and the United States Starch Works. The region had already demonstrated an appetite for advanced food manufacturing, as evidenced by the inauguration of the Chicago Sugar Refining Company in 1858, which utilized complex, multi-story refinement architectures. Although those specific historic refineries were eventually demolished and their sites repurposed by entities such as Fansteel for metallurgical reclamation, the technical DNA of large-scale milling, agricultural processing, and food science remained deeply embedded within the broader regional economy. Today, the greater Chicago metropolitan area, heavily encompassing Lake County, operates as a global epicenter for food science, nutritional ingredient manufacturing, and advanced agricultural technology.

Modern industrial food processing is a highly sophisticated scientific discipline governed by the laws of thermodynamics, biochemistry, and rheology. A contemporary food formulation or industrial milling company operating in the Waukegan area relies heavily on Research and Development tax credits to offset the substantial costs associated with scaling novel nutritional concepts into viable, mass-manufactured commodities. For example, a firm attempting to develop a high-protein, gluten-free industrial flour blend utilizing pulse crops—such as lentils and chickpeas—that precisely mimics the complex viscoelastic properties of traditional wheat flour is engaging in qualifying research. The technological uncertainty lies in determining the exact mechanical shear forces and thermal treatments required during the milling process to achieve the necessary microscopic particle size without inadvertently denaturing the fragile plant proteins. The food scientists must conduct iterative test runs on pilot-scale extrusion and milling equipment, manipulating the micrometer gap settings between the steel rollers. They utilize advanced analytical instruments, such as rapid visco analyzers, to measure the gelatinization profiles, water absorption capacities, and peak viscosity of each experimental flour blend.

However, claiming tax credits within the food and beverage manufacturing sector invites intense scrutiny from both federal examiners and state authorities, particularly regarding the statutory exclusion for routine quality control testing. The Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal has historically demonstrated a low tolerance for aggressive tax structuring within this industry, as seen in the complex litigation involving massive snack and beverage manufacturers like PepsiCo Incorporated and its affiliates (case numbers 16 TT 82 and 17 TT 16). In these proceedings, the Tribunal rigorously examined the economic substance of corporate structures and the precise definitions of manufacturing exemptions, indicating a highly skeptical judicial environment for multinational food conglomerates attempting to maximize state tax incentives.

More directly related to the definition of qualified research, the Internal Revenue Service routinely challenges food science claims by asserting that the activities are indistinguishable from standard production adjustments. This judicial stance was solidified in a prominent 2019 United States Tax Court case involving a major Illinois-based wheat flour milling company. The taxpayer attempted to claim the Research and Development credit for the activities of its millers, laboratory technicians, and maintenance personnel across seven distinct projects. The Tax Court decisively disallowed the credits, determining that the taxpayer failed to produce sufficient evidence differentiating their purported experimental research from the routine quality assurance and quality control testing that occurs daily in any commercial flour mill. The court emphasized that merely testing a product to ensure it meets standard commercial specifications or making minor mechanical adjustments to production machinery does not constitute a process of experimentation designed to eliminate a technological uncertainty. Consequently, for a Waukegan food processing company to successfully claim the Illinois Schedule 1299-D credit, it is imperative that they maintain absolute, documented segregation between their experimental pilot-plant operations and their routine commercial quality control laboratories.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Securing the Research and Development tax credit is an increasingly complex administrative endeavor, requiring Waukegan enterprises to navigate a volatile matrix of federal legislative overhauls, enhanced reporting mandates, and aggressive state-level audit protocols. The theoretical elegance of the four-part test is frequently complicated by the harsh realities of corporate accounting and tax compliance.

At the federal level, the foundational definition of the credit is codified within Internal Revenue Code Section 41. This statute dictates that the credit for increasing research activities is generally calculated as twenty percent of the Qualified Research Expenses that exceed a historically determined base amount. Alternatively, taxpayers may elect the Alternative Simplified Credit, which provides a fourteen percent credit on qualified expenses exceeding fifty percent of the average qualified research expenses for the three preceding taxable years. Regardless of the calculation methodology chosen, the expenses strictly defined under Section 41(b)(1)—comprising in-house wages, consumed supplies, and specific percentages of contract research—must endure the gauntlet of the four-part test.

However, the operational mechanics of claiming these expenses were fundamentally fractured by the recent implementation of provisions within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Historically, under Internal Revenue Code Section 174, innovative companies enjoyed the dual benefit of claiming the Section 41 tax credit while simultaneously taking an immediate, dollar-for-dollar deduction for their research and experimental expenditures in the year they were incurred. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, this immediate deductibility was abolished. Taxpayers are now statutorily mandated to capitalize all Section 174 specified research or experimental expenditures and amortize them over a period of five years for domestic research, or a punitive fifteen years for research conducted foreign jurisdictions. This legislative shift has inflicted a severe short-term cash flow burden on capital-intensive manufacturing and engineering firms in Waukegan. In response to the ensuing accounting chaos, the Internal Revenue Service has issued a barrage of procedural guidance, including Notice 2024-12 and Revenue Procedure 2025-08, dictating the complex accounting method changes required to comply with these mandatory amortization schedules. Because immediate deductibility is no longer an option, accurately identifying and maximizing the Section 41 tax credit has transformed from a supplementary tax planning strategy into a mathematical imperative for corporate survival.

Concurrently, the Internal Revenue Service has drastically escalated its scrutiny of all Research and Development credit claims. Following eighteen months of intense stakeholder feedback, the agency released a highly revised version of Form 6765—the Credit for Increasing Research Activities—applicable for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. The updated form demands unprecedented transparency, requiring taxpayers to explicitly identify the wages of highly compensated qualified officers, declare if entirely new categories of expenditures are being included for the first time, and provide exhaustive details regarding any corporate acquisitions or dispositions that might artificially inflate the base period calculations. Furthermore, the Internal Revenue Service has deployed a new, automated “Classifier” review system to pre-screen tax returns. As highlighted in the 2024 tax court memorandum involving Meyer, Borgman & Johnson, Incorporated, this Classifier system is actively utilized to summarily deny Research and Development refund claims before they are even assigned to a human examining agent if the initial submission lacks the mandated level of granular detail. For Waukegan companies, this signifies that any attempt to retroactively amend past tax returns to claim overlooked research credits must be supported by bulletproof, trial-ready documentation at the moment of filing.

At the state level, the administrative environment is equally rigorous. The Illinois Research and Development tax credit, codified under 35 ILCS 5/201(k) and claimed via Schedule 1299-D for corporations or Schedule 1299-A for pass-through entities, provides a nonrefundable 6.5 percent credit on qualifying expenditures that exceed the average of the prior three years’ expenses. While the state statute intentionally mirrors the federal definition of qualified research to simplify compliance, the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Audit Bureau enforces the geographic nexus requirement with absolute inflexibility.

In administrative hearings before the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal, the legal burden of proof rests entirely and heavily upon the taxpayer to present facts that conclusively overcome the factual premise of the Department’s tax assessment. If a multinational life sciences corporation operates a facility in Waukegan but utilizes a blended, corporate-wide “cost center” accounting approach to estimate its state-level research expenses, the Illinois Department of Revenue will systematically deny the credit. Judicial officers presiding over these tribunals consistently rule that retroactive allocations or managerial estimations of time spent in Illinois are legally insufficient. Taxpayers are mandated to produce contemporaneous, project-level tracking software data or localized laboratory entry logs that unequivocally prove the physical location of the research personnel and the geographic consumption of the experimental supplies.

Furthermore, the state evaluates the utilization of the Research and Development credit within the broader context of its overall economic incentive portfolio. The Illinois legislature frequently debates the efficacy of various tax credits, previously scrutinizing massive corporate payouts under the Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) program to pharmaceutical giants like Takeda, which received over sixty million dollars before controversially consolidating operations out of state. Consequently, the state maintains strict rules regarding the transferability and lifespan of the Research and Development credit. The Illinois credit is strictly nonrefundable, cannot be transferred to offset alternative tax liabilities, and any unused portion expires permanently after a five-year carryforward period. However, in a nod to the necessity of long-term corporate planning, the legislature has recently acted to extend the sunset provision of the credit through tax years ending on or before December 31, 2031, providing the vital stability required for Waukegan’s industrial innovators to commit to decade-long research and development pipelines.

The information in this study is current as of the date of publication, and is provided for information purposes only. Although we do our absolute best in our attempts to avoid errors, we cannot guarantee that errors are not present in this study. Please contact a Swanson Reed member of staff, or seek independent legal advice to further understand how this information applies to your circumstances.