The Cross-Border Biotech Blog

Biotechnology, Health and Business in Canada, the United States and Worldwide

Tag Archives: Lonza

Monday Biotech Deal Review: September 28, 2009

B&W_BigNickelLots of deal news this week, including the Canadian action noted at the time: the iCo-CPDD deal and ethica’s in-license transaction.  Plus there was plenty of international excitement today (repentance notwithstanding) with Abbott’s $6.6 billion Solvay play and J&J’s new 18% stake in Crucell.  Keep reading for a securities-palooza and plenty more after the jump…

Update Released by Patheon’s Special Commmittee

Patheon’s Special Committee provided an update today:

“The Special Committee of Independent Directors of Patheon Inc. … today provided an update on its discussions with Lonza Group AG … regarding Lonza’s previously announced non-binding proposal to acquire all of the outstanding restricted voting shares of the Company at a price of US$3.55 per share. The Special Committee also updated shareholders on Patheon’s litigation connected with the unsuccessful offer by JLL Patheon Holdings…”

You can check out the rest after the jump…

Patheon Special Committee Responds to JLL Statements

Patheon’s special committee issued a press release today in which it:

“commented … on the recent expiry of the unsuccessful bid by JLL … and recent statements by JLL regarding the previously announced proposal by Lonza … to acquire all of the outstanding Shares at a price of US$3.55 per share.”

Bookmark and Share

Monday Deal Review: August 24, 2009

Lonza Offers $460 Million for Patheon, JLL Rejects

JLL Partners’ long-standing bid for Patheon took a turn this morning as Lonza Group AG announced their own bid.

Here’s Lonza’s press release.

Here’s JLL’s response, rejecting the offer.

Stay tuned…

Bookmark and Share

Bristol-Myers Squibb Strikes $2.1 billion Deal for Medarex

light at the end of the tunnel smallGreat news for Medarex shareholders from BMS’ $16/share offer yesterday, which clocks in at a 90% premium over Wednesday’s close.  Reports cite the value of ipilimumab, a late-stage cancer therapy being advanced as a new treatment for metastatic melanoma, as well as the value of Medarex’s transgenic mouse platform to make human antibodies.

However, the deal is better for BMS than the headline price per share indicates. 

First, discount $300 million of the $2.4 billion that pays for Medarex’s cash and liquid securities.

Second, look at BMS’ cost savings here, since they were already partnered with Medarex on ipilimumab.  According to reports at the time the partnership was struck:

“Medarex has an option to co-promote ipilimumab in the U.S., where the company would receive 45 percent of profits. Bristol-Myers Squibb would get the rest and pay an undisclosed royalty back to Medarex on overseas sales. The company received an initial $50 million payment and could earn up to $480 million in regulatory and sales milestones.”

Figure the NPV of the $480 million is a lot higher now than it was in 2005, add in 45% of the U.S. market, and the 90% premium shrinks considerably.  I also wonder if the value of Medarex’s deal with Lonza is (a) transferable (more change-of-control clause fun) and (b) higher to BMS than it is to Medarex.

Other good news: This continues the “biotech is a good investment” meme shaping up this week.  Forbes asks “who’s next” in what DailyFinance calls “[t]he heated-up biotech sector,” and Cell Therapeutics thinks this is a great time to be in the market and is looking to sell $40 million or so of equity.

Share Button

Teva Decides Not to Wait for U.S. Biosimilars Legislation

In Beni’s post earlier this week on Biosimilars, he identified two major challenges to introducing follow-on biologics into the North American market: technical proficiency, and the absence of a regulatory regime.

Based on the approval of Teva’s biosimilar version of Neupogen in the EU last September, Teva has evidently cleared the first hurdle (and their joint venture with Lonza means their technical capabilities will only increase).

Yesterday, Teva announced that they were not waiting for a Biosimilars regime to be enacted before entering the U.S. market, and instead will take on the extra cost of filing a full BLA for their version of the biologic.

Does this mean we don’t need a biosimilars regime to get biosimilars to market?  Teva itself takes a different position.

Bookmark and Share

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers