Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Carl Ichan, the billionaire, activist investor notified Genzyme that he will seek shareholder approval to seat four handpicked directors including himself to be appointed to the company’s board of directors in an attempt to remove embattled Chairman and CEO Henri Termeer who has led the company for the past 25 years.

The move was widely anticipated by industry analysts because Icahn own one percent of outstanding shares of Genzyme’s stock.  Icahn and other large shareholders believe the company would be better off under new leadership. Termeer has publicly stated that he has no intention of resigning.

Until recently, Genzyme’s standing and reputation in the biopharmaceutical and orphan drug industry was second-to-none. However, the company’s inability to quickly correct ongoing manufacturing problems at its biomanufacturing facilities for the past year has been extremely embarrassing and costly. Sloppy manufacturing and quality control problems this past year led to major shortages of two main products, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Consequently, in 2009 sales revenues dropped and company earnings were almost flat. Further, Genzyme shares lost 26% of their value in 2009, sinking to a five-year low.

Icahn is no stranger to hostile corporate takeovers and company sales. In spring of 2008, he unsuccessfully tried to gain control of the Biogen/Idec board to force the sale of the company (Ichan owns 5.6% of Biogen/Idec’s outstanding shares). Later that year, Icahn engineered the sale of ImClone to Eli Lilly for $7.0 billion; after getting into a very public and often acrimonious fight with Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO Jim Cornelius who tendered a “low-ball offer” (according to Icahn) to purchase ImClone.

According to my calculations, Icahn is batting .500 for his recent corporate takeover attempts. Do you think he will be able to go 2-for-3? I bet Henri Termeer is hoping that he can’t!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Carl Icahn, former corporate raider, hedge fund owner and activist investor, is still trying to exert his influence at Biogen/IDEC a biotechnology company in which he owns 5.6 percent of its outstanding shares of stock.  As you may recall, last year, Mr. Icahn tried to wrest control of the Biogen/IDEC board to force the company to put itself up for sale. That attempt failed but yesterday Mr. Icahn was managed to get two of his allies appointed to the Biogen/IDEC board of directors at the company's annual shareholder meeting.

Mr Icahn has long contended that Biogen/IDEC's management team is inhibiting growth and squandering shareholder value. Wall Street analysts predict that Carl will push hard to split the company into two separate entities: one focused on neurobiology (Biogen/IDEC is a market leader for drugs designed to treat Multiple Sclerosis) and the other on cancer.  Another scenario suggests that he will leave the company intact and find a buyer for it--similar to the plan that he attempted to implement last year.

The Biogen/IDEC news follows quickly on the heels of a management coup that he orchestrated at Amylin Pharmaceuticals earlier in the week. On Tuesday, Mr Icahn, along with the hedge fund Eastbourne Capital management, were successful in ousting Amylin's Chairman Joseph C. Cook, Jr. and director James N. Wilson. Mr. Icahn exerted his influence at Amylin because he felt that sales of its key diabetes drug Byetta were too low.  Others believe that he is preparing the company for sale to Eli Lilly which co-markets Byetta with Amylin.

Mr Icahn is certainly no stranger when it comes to maximizing shareholder value at biotechnology companies where he holds substantial stock positions.  Last year, he orchestrated the sale of ImClone to Eli Lilly after getting into a protracted bidding war with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) over the cancer drug Erbitux.  At that time, BMS had an exclusive marketing agreement with Imclone for US sales of Erbitux.

Whether or not you like Carl, he is very good at what he does. And, in the end, he has a gift for maximixing shareholder value of companies that he and others have invested in!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As many of you know, the pharmaceutical industry has been trending downward for the past year or so. Weak pipelines, uncontrolled corporate expansion and soaring drug prices have been offered to explain the recent down turn. However, the real back story to the downturn is the loss of  future revenues that is expected to occur starting in 2010 when many current blockbuster pharmaceutical products, e.g., Lipitor (Pfizer), Plavix (Sanofi Aventis), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline), Zyprexa (Lilly), and others lose patent protection.

The loss of patent protection of branded blockbuster products is almost always accompanied by the development and subsequent, regulatory approval of lower cost, generic versions of the drugs. The Hatch Waxman Act permits generic manufacturers to begin to develop generic versions of branded products five years prior to patent expiry. This allows generic manufacturers to develop and gain regulatory approval of their products well in advance of a patent expiry date. Further, generic manufacturers usually launch their products (and flood the market) with generic versions of a branded product on the same day that its patent lapses. To induce and hasten generic development, Hatch Waxman grants market exclusivity for 180-days (6 month) to the first company that gains US regulatory approval for a generic version of a branded product that has lost patent protection.

Revenue generation and a company’s market share of branded drug products generally fall precipitously following introduction of less costly, generic versions of the drugs. From a financial standpoint, this is not surprising—why would anybody chose to pay more for a branded product when there is a cheaper and therapeutically efficacious generic alternative available?  In the past, most pharmaceutical companies chose to neglect (and ultimately abandon) blockbuster products after generic versions were introduced.  Many companies chose this strategy because, in the past, there was always another blockbuster in the pipeline that would replace the lost revenues caused by generic competition.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the days of the billon-dollar-a year blockbuster drug are long gone! This realization has caused many pharmaceutical companies to rethink their business strategies when a blockbuster drugs lose patent expiry. Many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with a relatively new kind of product called an authorized generic–a copycat version of a company’s branded drug that is sold through a licensing agreement between the innovator company and a generic-drug manufacturer. This type of arrangement allows the innovator company to hold on to a larger share of a revenue stream from the drug once it loses patent protection and it falls prey to generic manufacturers.

Authorized generics have always made sense to me–who knows how to manufacture, market and distribute a drug better than the company that originally created it? Further, why would a company choose to give up on a revenue stream simply because a product can no longer generate billions each year due to generic encroachment– wouldn’t hundreds or even tens of millions suffice? Much to my surprise, late last week, Merck & Co announced that it had inked a deal for an authorized generic form of its blockbuster osteoporosis drug  Fosamax after the US patent expires on February 6. Merck did not disclose the terms of the deal or the identity of it generic manufacturing partner.

Industry analysts have suggested that cheaper generics will not only batter sales of Merck’s Fosomax but could also hurt rival Actonel (Proctor & Gamble Co/Sanofi-Aventis) and Boniva (Roche/GalxoSmithKline). Generic manufacturers.  Barr Laboratories and TEVA are expected to launch their own generic versions on February 6 and share the 180-day market exclusivity for their respective products.

Merck, once a champion of the old pharma blockbuster model, is slowing emerging as an industry innovator. The company’s recent decision to authorize a generic version of one of its former blockbuster drugs may be a harbinger of things to come in the pharmaceutical industry. That said, I don’t understand why big biotechnology companies like Amgen, Biogen/IDEC and Genentech are unwilling to consider the authorized generic model to stave off generic competition for blockbuster biotechnology products like EPO, Avonex and Rituxan. Whether these companies like it or not, I believe that biogenerics aka follow-on biologics will be a reality in the US in the next five years. Maybe Amgen can bolster is rapidly falling stock price by inking an authorized generic deal for EPO—rather than spending hundreds of millions on patent litigation—“whadda ya think?”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You gotta give Biogen/IDEC and Elan credit for winning regulatory approval for a product that was previously pulled from the market because of serious and potentially life-threatening side effects. On Monday, the US Food and Drug Administration granted regulatory approval for Tysabri as a treatment for patients with severe Crohn’s disease who do not respond to more conventional biotechnology treatments like Humira (Abbott Laboratories) and Remicade (Johnson & Johnson). About 500,000 patients in the US suffer from Crohn’s disease (an autoimmune disease) and usually causes diarrhea, fever and severe intestinal inflammation and bleeding. Currently, there is no known cure for the disease.

As many of you may recall, Tysabri, a treatment for multiple sclerosis, was temporary pulled from the market in 2005 after three patients treated with the drug developed a rare and sometimes fatal nervous disorder called multifocal leukoencephalopathy (MFL). FDA allowed the drug back on to the market in 2006 but only under a restricted distribution program. Tysabri is used by more than 12,000 Americans with multiple sclerosis . Since its reintroduction, there have been no new reports of MFL or other serious side effects. Because of its past safety record, patients with Crohn’s disease who use the drug must also enroll in a distribution program similar to the one required for MS patients treated with Tysabri.

The approval of Tysabri for a new therapeutic indication may make Biogen/IDEC a more attractive  takeover candidate. As many of you may know, Biogen/IDEC put itself up for sale about 3 months ago and was unable to find a buyer.

Until next time….

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link