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

As reported yesterday by the Pharmalot Blog and verified by the New York Times today, the undisclosed “white knight” drug maker that may help ImClone ward off a hostile takeover bid by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) will make a decision by Wednesday about whether or not it wants to make an offer for the biotech company. 

As you may recall, Carl Icahn, ImClone’s Chairman, announced about a month ago that an unnamed drug company may be willing to offer $70 per share for ImClone stock. BMS responded to the announcement by raising its initial offer from $60 to $62.50 per share for outstanding shares of ImClone’s stock. This feeble counteroffer did nothing but increase the hostilities between ImClone and BMS. BMS currently markets Erbitux ImClone’s blockbuster colon cancer treatment. Based on the tenor of this deal, it is becoming increasingly apparent that ImClone and BMS are not “close” even though they are business partners.

Mr. Icahn, in a brilliant display of his business acumen, has been able to prevent industry insiders from divining the identity of the mysterious suitor (if there is one at all). Conventional wisdom suggests that it is likely to be one of the larger drug companies that would like increase its market share in the biotechnology sector.  The good news is that we may only have to wait another 24 hours before this “cliffhanger” of a deal is resolved (ho-hum). Don’t be surprised that, in the end, BMS may wind up paying more than $70 per share to purchase ImClone.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Previously, on the Bristol-Myers Squibb/ImClone Let’s Make a Deal Show. BMS offered $60 per share for the outstanding shares of ImClone that it doesn’t already own. As expected, Carl Icahn, ImClones’s Chairman and former corporate raider, summarily rejected BMS’ offer as insulting and an attempt by BMS to undervalue ImClone’s stock. Then, after a month of silence between the two parties, Mr Icahn announced that an undisclosed pharmaceutical suitor had made a better offer to buy ImClone. Today, about three weeks after Mr Icahn disclosed the information about his mysterious stranger, BMS (as expected) grudgingly raised its offer from $60 to $62 per share. The mysterious stranger seems to be out of the mix now.

Conventional wisdom (and word on the street) suggests that ImClone’s stock is worth about $70-$75 per share and that Carl (and the ImClone board of directors) will not sell the company for anything less. Today’s exchange between BMS and ImClone prompted a Wall Street analyst who has been closely following the twists and turns of the deal to write “we view Bristol’s increased bid and attempt to remove the company’s board as futile. The premium over the prior $60 offer is insufficient, in our view, to woo the larger ImClone stock holders to join it in revolt against Mr. Icahn and his allies on the board. The net result of Bristol’s efforts will amount to little more than yet another exchange of testy letters between the two parties.” And, in fact, Jim Cornelius, BMS’s CEO took the opportunity to do just 

It seems to me that whether or not a deal is reached depends more on who wins the pissing match between Mr Cornelius and Mr. Icahn rather than what is in the best interest of the shareholders of both companies. C’mon guys, we are currently in the midst of the worst economic meltdown in the history of the US —do the right thing and consummate the deal already!

Tune in next time for latest installment of the BMS/ImClone Let’s Make a Deal Show.

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors on cancer cells, have been found to slow the growth of a variety of cancers including colorectal, breast and lung.  While a number of blockbuster biotechnology products( based on these MAbs (Avastin by Genentech/Roche and Eribitux by Bristol-Myers Squibb/ImClone/Merck KGA) have been approved to treat a variety of different cancers their effectiveness as cancer treatments has been the subject of intense debate since their approvals.

Although numerous human clinical trials have shown that VEGF inhibitors slow the growth and development of tumors, they, as a class, don’t seem to significantly increase the survival time for most cancer patients. Further, Avastin and Erbitux are generally not used as stand alone treatments but are used in combination with more tradition anti-cancer chemotherapies. The high costs of these drugs, (Avastin’s worldwide sales hit $ 3.5 billion last year) and their variable effectiveness have caused many to question the usefulness of this class of drugs to treat cancer patients.

The well-publicized use of these drugs as cancer treatments coupled with anecdotal evidence about their effectiveness has put practicing oncologists between a rock and a hard place when it comes to treating patietns with cancer. In an article in Sunday’s New York Times one prominent oncologist said that depsite the controversy,  “I still use Avastin routinely. It’s not a slam dunk and, in fact, the incremental benefit may be more modest than we want to admit.” Others are more sanguine about VEGF inhibitors as cancer treatments “Even when these drugs ‘work,’ what kind of impact are you talking about?” said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. But we market them and give them to everybody.”  

Nevertheless, most oncologists find it difficult to withhold Avastin or Erbitux from cancer patients seeking hope. As one oncologist put it “ When I am not sitting in front of a patient, I think about whether drugs like Avastin are worth it to society. But when facing a seriously ill patient, who, based on clinical trial results, might benefit — even if only a little — from Avastin, I think about the patient’s needs.” 

Regardless of their therapeutic value, the main issue with this class of anti-cancer drugs is cost. Avastin treatment costs patients about $4000-$9000 per month— Eribitux treatment is even more costly! While Medicare and most private insurers cover 80% of the cost, patients can be responsible for 20% or more of treatmetn costs.  As posited in the Times article “If Avastin were inexpensive or if it cured cancer or even held it at bay, as the drug Gleevec does for blood cancer, few might care.”

Are anti-VEGF drugs real cancer treatments or expensive red herrings? Clearly, the jury is still out on that one. That said, I think that only cancer patients can truly provide an accurate response to that question!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks