“…Pioneering reports by Hartwig/Ishiyama and Maleczka/Smith III in the early 2000s propelled the area of iridium-catalyzed borylation to be a viable alternative route to aryl and heteroaryl boronates via C–H borylation for a variety of highly desirable intermediates and products . While the earlier works of Maleczka/Smith III using phosphine based systems − have not gained popularity due to lower conversions, both groups eventually identified [Ir(OMe)(COD)] 2 as the preferred precatalyst in conjunction with either 4,4′-di- tert -butyl-2,2′-bipyridyl (dtbbpy) or 3,4,7,8-tetramethyl-1,10-phenanthroline (Me 4 Phen) as a ligand for improved activity. ,, [Ir(OMe)(COD)] 2 being employed due to the formation of the innocuous MeOBpin byproduct versus the use of [Ir(Cl)(COD)] 2 which generates ClBpin and subsequently reacting with the nitrogen/phosphine based ligands, thereby preventing ligand complexation with Ir. − Metal-catalyzed borylation technology has allowed for the total synthesis of various natural products such as (±)-thysanone, (+)-complanadine, and drug targets which would be cumbersome to prepare by classical methods. , Extensive use of the catalyst systems [Ir(MeO)(COD)] 2 /Me 4 Phen or dtbbpy led to the notion that this combination creates the most efficient Ir-based catalyst systems for C–H borylations with the broadest substrate scope. ,, Although high quality [Ir(OMe)(COD)] 2 was originally commercialized by our group on multigram quantities, multikilogram implementation had presented challenges due to shelf-life concerns and batch-to-batch variations, as documented by both academia and industry. − While our attempts to synthesize a stable [Ir(OMe)(COD)(Phen)] were not successful, we focused our efforts toward identifying methodologies in accessing stable complexes from [Ir(Cl)(COD)] 2 . From scattered reports on the use of other electronically diverse diamine , and phosphine ligands for borylations, we saw this as a possible platform to create highly active and selective Ir precatalysts.…”