Calm returns to Wall Street as tech stocks lead U.S. indexes higher
NEW YORK — Calm returned to Wall Street on Tuesday, and tech stocks led U.S. indexes higher after a strong profit report from Palantir Technologies, a darling benefiting from the artificial intelligence boom.
The Standard & Poor's 500 rose 0.7% a day after swinging sharply on worries that President Trump's tariffs could spark a trade war that would hurt economies around the world, including the United States.
The Dow Jones industrial average added 0.3% and the Nasdaq composite climbed 1.4%.
Trump on Monday agreed to delay his taxes on U.S. imports of Canadian and Mexican products for a month, with the announcement on Canada coming after trading closed for the day. That bolstered Wall Street's long-standing hopes that Trump's tough talk on tariffs may be just that, talk. The hope is that Trump sees tariffs as a stick he can use in negotiations with trading partners rather than as a long-term policy.
That hope is built in part on traders' belief that Trump probably would be turned off by the damage Wall Street would take if a worst-case, long-term trade war were to occur. Trump has pointed in the past to the stock market as a real-time measure of his performance.
But a trade war is still possible, and some analysts say more swings may be coming because Trump's threats should be taken both seriously and literally.
'Investors have suggested the equity market is the US administration's scorecard and any policy changes that hurt risk assets will be quickly dialed back,' Bank of America strategists led by Mark Cabana wrote in a BofA Global Research report. 'We advise caution.'
They say a big takeaway from all the tariff tumult is that the Trump administration is transactional, and 'nothing is settled until it is final.'
Trump is pressing ahead with a 10% tax on U.S. companies importing things from China. And China retaliated on Tuesday by announcing its own tariffs on some U.S. products and an antitrust investigation into Google.
But the 15% tariff on U.S. coal and liquefied natural gas products, as well as a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars imported from the United States won't take effect until Monday. That leaves time for negotiations between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Some on Wall Street also see tariffs on China as separate from Trump's moves against other trading partners. Trump may be more likely to keep tariffs on China for the longer term, as he did in his first term, because of a desire to separate the United States more from its geopolitical rival.
Outside of China, the result of all this tumult for Canada, Mexico, the European Union and other U.S. allies is more likely to be concessions and not tariffs, according to Thierry Wizman, a strategist at Macquarie.
The stock price of Google's parent company, Alphabet, rose 2.5% even with China's antitrust investigation. The company released its latest earnings report after trading ended for the day.
Elsewhere on Wall Street, stocks that had swung sharply a day before when worries were high about tariffs on Mexico and Canada were calmer.
Automakers had dropped because so much of their production occurs in Mexico, for example. But General Motors rose 1.4%, and Ford Motor climbed 2.7%.
More attention was on earnings reports for U.S. companies, which probably would have been in the market's spotlight if not for worries about a potential trade war.
Palantir Technologies jumped 24% and was one of the strongest forces lifting the S&P 500 after reporting a better profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected. The Denver company also issued forecasts for upcoming revenue that were ahead of analysts' projections, as Chief Executive Alexander Karp said his company is at the 'center of the AI revolution.'
Pharmaceutical giant Merck tumbled 9.1% despite beating sales and profit forecasts for the latest quarter. It gave a forecast for upcoming revenue that fell short of analysts' expectations, due partly to a pause in shipments of one of its top-selling products to China.
All told, the S&P 500 rose 43.31 points to 6,037.88. The Dow Jones industrial average added 134.13 points to close at 44,556.04, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 262.06 points to 19,654.02.
In the bond market, Treasury yields eased after a report indicated the U.S. job market may be adding less upward pressure on inflation. U.S. employers advertised fewer job openings at the end of December than economists expected, suggesting a slowing but still healthy job market.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.51% from 4.56% late Monday. The two-year yield, which moves more closely with expectations for what the Federal Reserve will do with short-term interest rates, eased to 4.21% from 4.25%.
In stock markets abroad, London's FTSE 100 slipped 0.1%, but other big European indexes rose modestly.
In Asia, Hong Kong's Hang Seng jumped 2.8%, and South Korea's Kospi rose 1.1%.
Choe writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matt Ott and Zen Soo contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
23 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Military Ethics Professor Resigns in Protest
Seven years ago, Pauline Shanks Kaurin left a good job as a tenured professor at a university, uprooted her family, and moved across the country to teach military ethics at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. She did so, she told me, not only to help educate American military officers, but with a promise from the institution that she would have 'the academic freedom to do my job.' But now she's leaving her position and the institution because orders from President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, she said, have made staying both morally and practically untenable. Remaining on the faculty, she believes, would mean implicitly lending her approval to policies she cannot support. And she said that the kind of teaching and research the Navy once hired her to do will now be impossible. The Naval War College is one of many institutions—along with the Army War College, the Air War College, and others—that provide graduate-level instruction in national-security issues and award master's degrees to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. The Naval War College is also home to a widely respected civilian academic post, the James B. Stockdale Chair in Professional Military Ethics, named for the famous admiral and American prisoner of war in Vietnam. Pauline has held the Stockdale Chair since 2018. (I taught for many years at the Naval War College, where I knew Pauline as a colleague.) Her last day will be at the end of this month. In January, Trump issued an executive order, Restoring America's Fighting Force, that prohibits the Department of Defense and the entire armed forces from 'promoting, advancing, or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories,' such as 'gender ideology,' 'race or sex stereotyping,' and, of course, anything to do with DEI. Given the potential breadth of the order, the military quickly engaged in a panicky slash-and-burn approach rather than risk running afoul of the new ideological line. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in New York, for example, disbanded several clubs, including the local chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers. Other military installations, apparently anticipating a wider crackdown on anything to do with race or gender, removed important pages of American history about women and minorities from their websites. All of this was done by bureaucrats and administrators as they tried to comply with Trump's vague order, banning and erasing anything that the president and Hegseth might construe as even remotely related to DEI or other banned concepts. Some Defense Department workers 'deemed to be affiliated with DEI programs or activities' were warned that Trump's orders 'required' their jobs to be eliminated. Many professors at military institutions began to see signs that they might soon be prohibited from researching and publishing in their fields of study. Phillip Atiba Solomon: Am I still allowed to tell the truth in my class? At first, Pauline was cautious. She knew that her work in the field of military ethics could be controversial—particularly on the issues of oaths and obedience. In the military, where discipline and the chain of command rule daily life, investigating the meaning of oath-taking and obedience is a necessary but touchy exercise. The military is sworn to obey all legal orders in the chain of command, but when that obedience becomes absolute, the results can be ghastly: Pauline wrote her doctoral dissertation at Temple University on oaths, obedience, and the 1969 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which a young U.S. officer and his men believed that their orders allowed them to slay hundreds of unarmed civilians. For more than 20 years, she taught these matters in the philosophy department at Pacific Lutheran University, and once at Newport, she wrote a book on the contrasting notions of obedience in military and civilian life. When the Trump order came down, Pauline told me that Naval War College administrators gave her 'vague assurances' that the college would not interfere with ongoing work by her or other faculty, or with academic freedom in general. But one day, shortly after the executive order in January, she was walking through the main lobby, which proudly features display cases with books by the faculty, and she noticed that a volume on LGBTQ issues in the military had vanished. The disappearance of that book led Pauline to seek more clarity from the college's administration about nonpartisanship, and especially about academic freedom. Academic freedom is an often-misunderstood term. Many people outside academia encounter the idea only when some professor abuses the concept as a license to be an offensive jerk. (A famous case many years ago involved a Colorado professor who compared the victims of 9/11 to Nazis who deserved what they got.) Like tenure, however, academic freedom serves crucial educational purposes, protecting controversial research and encouraging the free exchange of even the most unpopular ideas without fear of political pressure or interference. It is essential to any serious educational institution, and necessary to a healthy democracy. Conor Friedersdorf: In defense of academic freedom Professors who teach for the military, as I did for many years, do have to abide by some restrictions not found in civilian schools. They have a duty, as sworn federal employees, to protect classified information. They may not use academic freedom to disrupt government operations. (Leading a protest that would prevent other government workers from getting to their duty stations might be one example.) And, of course, they must refrain from violating the Hatch Act: They cannot use government time or resources to engage in partisan political activity. But they otherwise have—or are supposed to have—the same freedoms as their colleagues in civilian institutions. Soon, however, jumpy military bureaucrats started tossing books and backing out of conferences. Pauline became more concerned. Newport's senior administrators began to send informal signals that included, as she put it, the warning that 'academic freedom as many of us understood it was not a thing anymore.' Based on those messages, Pauline came to believe that her and other faculty members' freedom to comment publicly on national issues and choose research topics without institutional interference was soon to be restricted. During an all-hands meeting with senior college leaders in February, Pauline said that she and other Naval War College faculty were told that the college would comply with Hegseth's directives and that, in Pauline's words, 'if we were thinking we had academic freedom in our scholarship and in the classroom, we were mistaken.' (Other faculty present at the meeting confirmed to me that they interpreted the message from the college's leadership the same way; one of them later told me that the implication was that the Defense Department could now rule any subject out of bounds for classroom discussion or scholarly research at will.) Pauline said there were audible gasps in the room, and such visible anger that it seemed to her that even the administrators hosting the meeting were taken aback. 'I've been in academia for 31 years,' she told me, and that gathering 'was the most horrifying meeting I've ever been a part of.' I contacted the college's provost, Stephen Mariano, who told me in an email that these issues were 'nuanced' but that the college had not changed its policies on academic freedom. (He also denied any changes relating to tenure, a practice predicated on academic freedom.) At the same time, he added, the college is 'complying with all directives issued by the President and Department of Defense and following Department of the Navy policy.' This language leaves Pauline and other civilian faculty at America's military schools facing a paradox: They are told that academic freedom still exists, but that their institutions are following directives from Hegseth that, at least on their face, seem aimed at ending academic freedom. In March, Pauline again sought clarity from college leaders. They were clearly anxious to appear compliant with the new political line. ('We don't want to end up on Fox News,' she said one administrator told her.) She was told her work was valued, but she didn't believe it. 'Talk is cheap,' she said. 'Actions matter.' She said she asked the provost point-blank: What if a faculty member has a book or an article coming out on some controversial topic? His answer, according to her: Hypothetically, they might consider pulling the work from publication. (Mariano denies saying this and told me that there is no change in college policy on faculty publication.) Every government employee knows the bureaucratic importance of putting things on paper. Pauline's current project is about the concept of honor, which necessarily involves questions regarding masculinity and gender—issues that could turn the DOD's new McCarthyites toward her and her work. So she now proposed that she and the college administration work up a new contract, laying out more clearly—in writing—what the limits on her work and academic freedom would look like. She might as well have asked for a pony. Administrators, she said, told her that they hoped she wouldn't resign, but that no one was going to put anything in writing. 'The upshot,' according to her, was a message from the administration that boiled down to: We hope you can just suck it up and not need your integrity for your final year as the ethics chair. After that, she told me, her choices were clear. 'As they say in the military: Salute and execute—or resign.' Until then, she had 'hoped maybe people would still come to their senses.' The promises of seven years ago were gone; the institution now apparently expected her and other faculty to self-censor in the classroom and preemptively bowdlerize their own research. 'I don't do DEI work,' she said, 'but I do moral philosophy, and now I can't do it. I'd have to take out discussions of race and gender and not do philosophy as I think it should be done.' In April, she submitted a formal letter of resignation. Initially, she had no interest in saying anything publicly. Pauline is a native Montanan and single mom of two, and by nature not the type of person to engage in public food fights. (She used to joke with me when we were colleagues that I was the college's resident lightning rod, and she had no interest in taking over that job.) She's a philosopher who admires quiet stoicism, and she was resolved to employ it in her final months. But she also thought about what she owed her chair's namesake. 'Stockdale thought philosophy was important for officers. The Stockdale course was created so that officers would wrestle with moral obligations. He was a personal model of integrity.' Even so, she did not try to invoke him as a patron saint when she decided to resign. 'I'm not saying he would agree with the choice that I made,' she told me. 'But his model of moral integrity is part of the chair.' She kept her resignation private until early May, when a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Graham Parsons—another scholar who teaches ethics in a military school, and a friend of Pauline's—likewise decided to resign in protest and said that he would leave West Point after 13 years. Hegseth's changes 'prevent me from doing my job responsibly,' he wrote in The New York Times. 'I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.' Hegseth responded on X, sounding more like a smug internet troll than a concerned superior: 'You will not be missed Professor Parsons.' The episode changed Pauline's mind. She felt she owed her friends and colleagues whatever public support and solidarity she could offer them. Nor are she and Parsons alone. Tom McCarthy, a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, in Annapolis, Maryland, recently resigned as chair of the history department rather than remove a paper from an upcoming symposium. And last month, a senior scholar at the Army War College, in Pennsylvania, Carrie Lee, also handed in her resignation, a decision she announced to her friends and followers on Bluesky. Jason Dempsey: Hegseth has all the wrong enemies Lee told me in an email that she'd been thinking of leaving after Trump was elected, because it was apparent to her that the Trump administration was 'going to try and politicize the military and use military assets/personnel to suppress democratic rights,' and that academic freedom in military schools was soon to 'become untenable.' Like Pauline, Lee felt like she was at a dead end: 'To speak from within the institution itself will also do more harm than good. So to dissent, I have little choice but to leave,' she said in a farewell letter to her colleagues in April. I asked Pauline what she thinks might have happened if she had decided to stay and just tough it out from the inside. She 'absolutely' thinks she'd have been fired at some point, and she didn't want such a firing 'to be part of the legacy of the Stockdale Chair.' But then I asked her if by resigning, she was giving people in the Trump administration, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought—who once said that his goal was to make federal workers feel 'trauma' to the point where they will quit their jobs—exactly what they want: Americans leaving federal service. She didn't care. 'When you make a moral decision, there are always costs.' She dismissed what people like Vought want or think. 'I'm not accountable to him. I'm accountable to the Lord, to my father, to my legacy, to my children, to my profession, to members of the military-ethics community. So I decided that I needed to resign. Not that it would change anyone's mind, but to say: This is not okay. That is my message.' At the end of our discussion, I asked an uncomfortable question I'd been avoiding. Pauline, I know, is only in her mid-50s, in mid-career, and too young simply to retire. She has raised two sons who will soon enter young adulthood. I asked her if she was worried about her future. 'Sure,' she said. 'But at the end of the day, as we say in Montana, sometimes you just have to saddle up and ride scared.'
Business Wire
24 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Hosts Inaugural R&D Day Showcasing Pipeline and Long-Term Value Drivers
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: ACAD) will host its inaugural 2025 R&D Day today to highlight its key pipeline programs and their potential to drive long-term growth. Across nine disclosed programs, the Company anticipates initiating seven Phase 2 or Phase 3 studies during 2025-2026. Acadia further anticipates reporting five Phase 2 or Phase 3 study readouts during 2025-2027—underscoring the breadth of its pipeline and the momentum behind its R&D strategy. Q3 2025 - Phase 2 study initiation for ACP-204 in Lewy Body Dementia Psychosis (LBDP) Q3 2025 - Phase 3 study initiation in Japan for trofinetide in Rett syndrome Early Q4 2025 - Topline results for the COMPASS PWS Phase 3 study of ACP-101 in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) following the recent completion of enrollment Q4 2025 - Phase 2 study initiation for ACP-211 in major depressive disorder (MDD) Q4 2025 - First in human study of ACP-271 in healthy volunteers Q1 2026 - Potential approval from European Medicines Agency for trofinetide Mid-2026 - Topline results from ACP-204 Phase 2 study in Alzheimer's disease psychosis (ADP) 2026 - Phase 2 study initiation for ACP-711 in Essential Tremor (ET) 'Acadia is building from a position of strength, with two commercial franchises on track to deliver over $1 billion in net sales this year,' said Catherine Owen Adams, Chief Executive Officer. 'As we advance our pipeline, the five molecules we showcase today represent a multibillion-dollar incremental revenue opportunity. They also underscore our unwavering commitment to bold science and our focus on delivering transformative therapies for patients with serious and underserved neurological and rare diseases. We believe the opportunity ahead is extraordinary—and we are confident in our ability to execute with discipline and purpose as we work to build a biotech powerhouse.' 'At Acadia, we're building a strong, sustainable pipeline focused on progressing the most promising science with the goal of meaningfully improving patient care,' said Elizabeth H.Z. Thompson, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Head of R&D. 'Our pipeline is moving forward with real momentum. Between now and the end of 2026, we plan to initiate seven Phase 2 or 3 studies, with five key readouts anticipated by the end of 2027. We remain deeply committed to advancing care in neurological and rare diseases, leveraging our development expertise and commercial strength to bring meaningful innovation to patients.' The Company will be discussing the following pipeline programs today: ACP-101 (intranasal carbetocin) A long-acting analogue of human oxytocin for the potential treatment of PWS ACP-204 A new, highly selective, potent inverse agonist of 5-HT2A that builds upon lessons learned from pimavanserin for the potential treatment of ADP and LBDP ACP-211 An orally administered, selectively deuterated form of R-Norketamine for the potential treatment of MDD ACP-711 A selective GABA A -α3 modulator targeting the potential treatment of ET ACP-271 A GPR88 agonist for the potential treatment of Tardive Dyskinesia and Huntington's Disease To register for the live webcast, please click here. A replay of Acadia's R&D Day will be available on the company's website, under the investors section for approximately 3 months following the event. About Acadia Pharmaceuticals Acadia is advancing breakthroughs in neurological and rare diseases to elevate life. Since our founding we have been working at the forefront of healthcare to bring vital solutions to people who need them most. We developed and commercialized the first and only FDA-approved drug to treat hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis and the first and only approved drug in the United States and Canada for the treatment of Rett syndrome. Our clinical-stage development efforts are focused on Prader-Willi syndrome, Alzheimer's disease psychosis and multiple other programs targeting neuroscience and neuro-rare diseases. For more information, visit us at and follow us on LinkedIn and X. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include all statements other than statements of historical fact and can be identified by terms such as 'may,' 'will,' 'should,' 'could,' 'would,' 'expects,' 'plans,' 'anticipates,' 'believes,' 'estimates,' 'projects,' 'predicts,' 'potential,' 'continue,' 'opportunity,' 'goal' and similar expressions (including the negative thereof) intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release, include, but are not limited to, statements about: (i) our business strategy, objectives and opportunities, including the timing for and clinical and market potential of our pipeline assets, and potential for enhanced shareholder value; (ii) plans for, including timing, development and progress of commercialization or regulatory timelines for our products, including NUPLAZID and DAYBUE, and our product candidates; (iii) benefits to be derived from and efficacy of our products, including the potential advantages of our products and product candidates; (iv) the timing and conduct of and topline results for our clinical trials, including the timing of topline results from our clinical trial in Prader-Willi syndrome, the continuing enrollment in our clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease psychosis, the initiation of our clinical trial in Lewy Body Dementia Psychosis, and the timing and content of our presentations or announcements regarding our clinical trials; (v) our estimates regarding our future financial performance, profitability, capital requirements or expenses, including estimates of potential commercial product and pipeline peak sales and potential net sales of our commercial franchises in 2025, and (vi) our ability to successfully complete additional business development transactions. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied by our forward-looking statements. Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to: our dependency on the continued successful commercialization of our products and our ability to maintain or increase sales of our products; our plans to commercialize DAYBUE globally and trofinetide in the EU; the costs of our commercialization plans and development programs, and the financial impact or revenues from any commercialization we undertake; our ability to obtain necessary regulatory approvals for our product candidates and, if and when approved, market acceptance of our products; the risks inherent with product candidate development, including risks of unsuccessful clinical trial enrollment and negative or inconsistent results; our dependence on third-party collaborators, clinical research organizations, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors; the impact of competitive products and therapies; our ability to generate or obtain the necessary capital to fund our operations; our ability to grow, equip and train our specialized sales forces; our ability to manage the growth and complexity of our organization; our ability to maintain, protect and enhance our intellectual property; and our ability to continue to stay in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Given the risks and uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. For a discussion of these and other risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ, please refer to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 as well as our subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, including our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. The forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date hereof, and we undertake no obligation to update them after this date, except as required by law.
Business Wire
24 minutes ago
- Business Wire
AXL and Dentons Announce Strategic Partnership to Advance Legal Innovation with AI
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, AXL, a Canadian venture studio transforming AI research into high-growth companies, and Dentons, Canada's Global Law Firm, have announced a strategic partnership to shape the legal industry's next evolution with AI. Together, Dentons and AXL will co-develop ventures that will accelerate the pace of innovation across the legal field and bring outdated workflows, pricing, access, and indeed, the very definition of legal services, into the future. Dentons also becomes the exclusive legal partner to AXL and the preferred provider to its growing portfolio of ventures, bringing legal insight into the early stages of AI innovation and commercialization. 'This partnership reflects our ongoing commitment to staying at the forefront of legal innovation and AI,' said Tim Haney, CEO of Dentons Canada. 'By collaborating closely with AXL, we will unlock new models for how technology can enable us to provide exponential value to our clients through innovation.' AXL is led by one of Canada's top innovators, Dr. Daniel Wigdor, who is fuelling Canada's AI research-to-commercialization pipeline with a mission to launch 50 AI-powered companies over the next five years. Its proprietary model merges cutting-edge AI research from the University of Toronto with real-world industry insight through its AI Catalyst program, a corporate partnership initiative designed to validate and accelerate breakthrough ideas. 'We're proud to partner with Dentons, a firm with global scale, legal sophistication, and a strategic AI roadmap that's moving legal innovation forward,' said Dr. Daniel Wigdor, Co-Founder and CEO of AXL. 'Together, we're launching companies that will define what practical and scalable AI applications will look like in practice.' Dentons joins a growing group of leading Canadian organizations collaborating with AXL in 'think tanks' to explore high-impact applications of AI that will drive efficiency in their industries. Beyond shaping the direction of new ventures, Dentons will be involved in bringing companies to market, ensuring each company is built on genuine market demand, atop deep customer insights, and is positioned for scale. 'With AXL, we are not just offering legal services to startups – we are contributing to the formation of AI ventures from day one,' said Mike Hollinger, Partner and Toronto Leader of Dentons' Venture Technology and Emerging Growth Companies Group. 'Together, we are reimagining how legal services are delivered. This partnership puts Dentons and AXL at the center of that transformation.' Through collaboration and visionary thinking, Dentons and AXL will co-create and deliver cutting-edge AI tools to drive innovation – from Canada, for the world. 'The last time legal services fundamentally changed, it was because of a research lab,' added Dr. Wigdor. 'Lawyers modelled the modern law firm after Thomas Edison's lab — teams of associates supporting partners to boost output and value. Dentons and AXL are now picking up where that transformation left off, building the next wave of practical, scalable AI applications for law.' To learn more about this strategic partnership, watch this video with Tim Haney and Daniel Wigdor at Dentons' North American AI Legal Summit. Daniel's keynote address can also be viewed here. To learn more about how AXL is fuelling Canada's AI research-to-commercialization pipeline, visit their website at About Dentons Dentons is Canada's Global Law Firm – capitalizing on expansive geographic reach and national strength to provide a tailored experience for clients, wherever they do business. We collaborate with our clients and incorporate our deep understanding of their priorities to achieve the best outcome, blending the creative with the practical. We are more than legal advisors, we are global problem-solvers. Globally ranked in the Top 10 for venture and M&A deals (Pitchbook), Dentons' Venture Technology and Emerging Growth Companies Group has acquired a reputation as one of Canada's top legal advisors to growth-oriented technology companies. Access our Startup Resource Hub for legal insights and templates. Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information, visit About AXL AXL is a Canadian venture studio transforming world-class research into high-growth companies that shape the future of applied AI. Led by seasoned tech entrepreneurs and applied AI experts, AXL's mission is to ensure Canada's top breakthroughs are built and scaled at home. By connecting academia with real market demand and full-stack venture creation, AXL helps Canada move from invention to impact, anchoring talent, intellectual property, and long-term economic value within the country.
