tradermen
Forumer storico
guarda che se oggi offrorno, si fa x dire 9/10€ e la società accetta penso che si vada ad una adesione del 99%......
ps
cmq l' importante è che avvenga...poi si vedrà..
Pharma e Biotech - Europa NicOx : per quelli che hanno riso abbastanza ... (1 Viewer)
- Creatore Discussione Netzach
- Data di Inizio
- Stato
guarda che se oggi offrorno, si fa x dire 9/10€ e la società accetta penso che si vada ad una adesione del 99%......
ps
cmq l' importante è che avvenga...poi si vedrà..
guly
Forumer storico
penso che 10 euro sia il limite massimo per una offerta.certo tutti acceterebbero ma sarebbe una sconfitta viste il tempo perso sul titolo e le grandi aspettative che si erano create (parlo delle nostre intorno ai 30 euro e tralascio il resto che era pura follia)
Netzach
Forumer storico
Sono d'accordo con te ... stando dietro a Nicox abbiamo perso delle occasioni d'oro ... son salite tutte le biotech eccetto poche eccezioni tra cui NicOx ...
L'errore è stato di non vendere a 20 € ... lo abbiamo fatto quasi tutti ... ma le condizioni di mercato a quel periodo non lasciavano presagire il tonfo dei mercati accompagnato da un ulteriore crollo di NicOx che si è visto sfuggire pesantemente di mano tutti i fondi che ci avevano creduto.
Purtroppo abbiamo creduto in un titolo che da potenziale gioiello si è trasformato in una ciofeca.
La verità è venuta a galla e quindi le incapacità e gli errori la Società li ha fatti pagare a tutti gli azionisti che hanno creduto in loro.
Netzach
Forumer storico
Les Zombie Biotechs
Un article du New York Times nous dépeint un monde surnaturel, mais qui existe bel et bien, même après l'éclatement de la bulle des Technos et la récession actuelle. Il s'agit des Zombie Biotechs, des société qui ont été créées il y a 30 ans, qui n'ont toujours pas réalisé de bénéfices... mais qui sont toujours en vie et cotées en bourse. Autant dire que la sélectivité s'impose.
Xoma, une des premières Biotechs créée en 1981 par le Dr Scannon, est un cas d'école. Cette société n'a jamais connu de bénéfice d'exploitation et n'a jamais commercialisé de médicament. En près de trente ans, Xoma a réussi à dépenser plus de 700 millions de dollars levés auprès d'investisseurs et d'autres sociétés pharmaceutiques. Dans la plupart des autres industries, les entreprises ne pourraient pas survivre si longtemps sans faire des profits. Mais Xoma, même s'il s'agit d' un cas extrême, illustre un truisme des sociétés de biotechnologie et de ce qu'elles promettent: un succès comme Amgen.
Certaines sociétés non rentables, comme ImmunoGen, Repligen, Immunomedics, Biopure et Cytogen sont comparables à Xoma. Pour autant, on remarque que OSI Pharmaceuticals, qui a perdu 1,3 milliards de dollars depuis sa création en 1983, s'est fait racheter pour 4 Milliards de dollars en cash en Mars 2010 par le N°2 des pharmas japonaises, Astellas. Ce qui intéressait le nippon était sans nul doute le premier médicament vendu par OSI, le TARCEVA, vendu depuis fin 2004 pour traiter le cancer du poumon et qui a connu des ventes de 1,2 milliard de dollars en 2009.
ARGOMENTO CHE CADE A FAGIOLO PARLANDO DI POSSIBILI RICICLI DA FUSIONE-INTEGRAZIONE ...
Un article du New York Times nous dépeint un monde surnaturel, mais qui existe bel et bien, même après l'éclatement de la bulle des Technos et la récession actuelle. Il s'agit des Zombie Biotechs, des société qui ont été créées il y a 30 ans, qui n'ont toujours pas réalisé de bénéfices... mais qui sont toujours en vie et cotées en bourse. Autant dire que la sélectivité s'impose.
Xoma, une des premières Biotechs créée en 1981 par le Dr Scannon, est un cas d'école. Cette société n'a jamais connu de bénéfice d'exploitation et n'a jamais commercialisé de médicament. En près de trente ans, Xoma a réussi à dépenser plus de 700 millions de dollars levés auprès d'investisseurs et d'autres sociétés pharmaceutiques. Dans la plupart des autres industries, les entreprises ne pourraient pas survivre si longtemps sans faire des profits. Mais Xoma, même s'il s'agit d' un cas extrême, illustre un truisme des sociétés de biotechnologie et de ce qu'elles promettent: un succès comme Amgen.
Certaines sociétés non rentables, comme ImmunoGen, Repligen, Immunomedics, Biopure et Cytogen sont comparables à Xoma. Pour autant, on remarque que OSI Pharmaceuticals, qui a perdu 1,3 milliards de dollars depuis sa création en 1983, s'est fait racheter pour 4 Milliards de dollars en cash en Mars 2010 par le N°2 des pharmas japonaises, Astellas. Ce qui intéressait le nippon était sans nul doute le premier médicament vendu par OSI, le TARCEVA, vendu depuis fin 2004 pour traiter le cancer du poumon et qui a connu des ventes de 1,2 milliard de dollars en 2009.
ARGOMENTO CHE CADE A FAGIOLO PARLANDO DI POSSIBILI RICICLI DA FUSIONE-INTEGRAZIONE ...
tradermen
Forumer storico
Miki53
Nessun pasto è gratis
Non c'è niente da fare ....
Ho constatato che quando gira troppo la parola pepita .... ,
e sei addirittura in gain, è molto consigliabile uscire .
E ,alla luce di quanto sopra , adesso che gira troppo la parola ciofeca
si potrebbe addirittura entrare .
Per ora ... mi sono fatto una buona ripassata di francese ...
Sul sito boursarama c'è qualcuno che cita una ipotesi
di SANOFI OPA SUR bausch AND LOMB .
********************
Ed anche :
2 etudes SUR NCX 6550
Auj. à 10:22 The cardio-protective properties of Ncx-6550, a ni... [Microcirculation. 2010] - PubMed result
Microcirculation. 2010 Aug;17(6):417-26.
The cardio-protective properties of Ncx-6550, a nitric oxide donating pravastatin, in the mouse.
Di Filippo C, Monopoli A, Ongini E, Perretti M, D'Amico M.
Department of Experimental Medicine, Section of Pharmacology, 2nd University of Naples, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the cardio-protective properties of a nitric oxide-releasing pravastatin (Ncx-6550), in comparison to pravastatin.
METHODS: A mouse model of myocardial infarct was used assessing tissue damage both at 2 and 24 hour post-reperfusion, administering compounds both prophylactically and therapeutically.
RESULTS: Ncx-6550 induced a significant dose-dependent (2.24-22.4 micromol/kg i.p.) cardioprotection in the two hour reperfusion protocol. In vehicle-treated mice, infarct size (expressed as fraction of area at risk; IS/AR) was 41.2 +/- 1%, and it was reduced to 22.2 +/- 0.9% and 32.6 +/- 0.9% following 22.4 and 6.72 micromol/kg Ncx-6550 (p < 0.05). 22.4 micromol/kg Ncx-6550 also increased cardiac levels of the enzyme heme oxygenase-1. Treatment of mice with pravastatin induced significant reduction of myocardial injury only at 22.4 micromol/kg (IS/AR value: 33.7 +/- 0.9%). In a 24 hour reperfusion protocol, Ncx-6550 and pravastatin were tested only at 22.4 micromol/kg i.p. being given either one hour prior to ischemia (prophylactic protocol) or one hour into reperfusion (therapeutic protocol). With either treatment scheme, Ncx-6550 produced higher cardioprotection compared to pravastatin, as reflected also by a reduction in the incidence of lethality as well as in circulating troponin I and interleukin-1beta levels.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate Ncx-6550 as a novel therapeutic agent with a potential for the treatment of myocardial infarct.
PMID: 20690980 [PubMed - in
process]
-----------------------------------------
Pha rmacol Res. 2010 Jul 27. [Epub ahead of print]
The nitric oxide-donating pravastatin, NCX 6550, inhibits cytokine release and NF-kappaB activation while enhancing PPARgamma expression in human monocyte/macrophages.
Amoruso A, Bardelli C, Fresu LG, Poletti E, Palma A, Canova DF, Zeng HW, Ongini E, Brunelleschi S.
Department of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University "A. Avogadro", Via Solaroli 17, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that NCX 6550 (NCX), a nitric oxide (NO)-donating pravastatin, induces anti-inflammatory effects in murine macrophage cell lines. Here, we have studied its activity in human monocyte/macrophages, by investigating cytokine release, NF-kappaB translocation and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) expression and function. For comparison, pravastatin, isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), sodium nitroprusside (SNP) and the PPARgamma ligand 15-deoxy-Delta(12,14)-prostaglandin J(2) (PGJ) were also tested. Monocytes and macrophages (MDM: monocyte-derived macrophages) were isolated from healthy donors; cytokine release was measured by ELISA, NF-kappaB by electrophoretic mobility shift assay and PPARgamma by Western blot and Real-Time PCR. NCX (1nM-50muM) dose-dependently inhibited phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA)-induced TNF-alpha release from monocytes (IC(50)=240nM) and MDM (IC(50)=52nM). At 50muM, it was more effective than pravastatin, ISMN and SNP (P<0.05), but less efficient than PGJ. Similar results were obtained for IL-6. Likewise, NCX was more effective than pravastatin and the other NO donors in inhibiting PMA-induced NF-kappaB translocation in both cell types, and, at the highest concentration, significantly (P<0.05) enhanced PPARgamma protein expression in monocytes. We conclude that NCX 6550 exerts a significant anti-inflammatory activity in human monocyte/macrophages, that is also contributed by its NO donating properties, as the effects exerted by NCX are significantly higher than those evoked by pravastatin in many experimental assays. These data further indicate that the incorporation of a NO-donating moiety into a statin structure confers pharmacological properties which may translate into useful therapeutic benefits.
PMID: 20670683 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Considerato che tutto sommato teniamo bene il prezzo ...
vedi mai che qualcosa bolla in pentola.
Buona domenica .
miki.
Ho constatato che quando gira troppo la parola pepita .... ,
e sei addirittura in gain, è molto consigliabile uscire .
E ,alla luce di quanto sopra , adesso che gira troppo la parola ciofeca
si potrebbe addirittura entrare .
Per ora ... mi sono fatto una buona ripassata di francese ...
Sul sito boursarama c'è qualcuno che cita una ipotesi
di SANOFI OPA SUR bausch AND LOMB .
********************
Ed anche :
2 etudes SUR NCX 6550
Auj. à 10:22 The cardio-protective properties of Ncx-6550, a ni... [Microcirculation. 2010] - PubMed result
Microcirculation. 2010 Aug;17(6):417-26.
The cardio-protective properties of Ncx-6550, a nitric oxide donating pravastatin, in the mouse.
Di Filippo C, Monopoli A, Ongini E, Perretti M, D'Amico M.
Department of Experimental Medicine, Section of Pharmacology, 2nd University of Naples, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the cardio-protective properties of a nitric oxide-releasing pravastatin (Ncx-6550), in comparison to pravastatin.
METHODS: A mouse model of myocardial infarct was used assessing tissue damage both at 2 and 24 hour post-reperfusion, administering compounds both prophylactically and therapeutically.
RESULTS: Ncx-6550 induced a significant dose-dependent (2.24-22.4 micromol/kg i.p.) cardioprotection in the two hour reperfusion protocol. In vehicle-treated mice, infarct size (expressed as fraction of area at risk; IS/AR) was 41.2 +/- 1%, and it was reduced to 22.2 +/- 0.9% and 32.6 +/- 0.9% following 22.4 and 6.72 micromol/kg Ncx-6550 (p < 0.05). 22.4 micromol/kg Ncx-6550 also increased cardiac levels of the enzyme heme oxygenase-1. Treatment of mice with pravastatin induced significant reduction of myocardial injury only at 22.4 micromol/kg (IS/AR value: 33.7 +/- 0.9%). In a 24 hour reperfusion protocol, Ncx-6550 and pravastatin were tested only at 22.4 micromol/kg i.p. being given either one hour prior to ischemia (prophylactic protocol) or one hour into reperfusion (therapeutic protocol). With either treatment scheme, Ncx-6550 produced higher cardioprotection compared to pravastatin, as reflected also by a reduction in the incidence of lethality as well as in circulating troponin I and interleukin-1beta levels.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate Ncx-6550 as a novel therapeutic agent with a potential for the treatment of myocardial infarct.
PMID: 20690980 [PubMed - in
process]
-----------------------------------------
Pha rmacol Res. 2010 Jul 27. [Epub ahead of print]
The nitric oxide-donating pravastatin, NCX 6550, inhibits cytokine release and NF-kappaB activation while enhancing PPARgamma expression in human monocyte/macrophages.
Amoruso A, Bardelli C, Fresu LG, Poletti E, Palma A, Canova DF, Zeng HW, Ongini E, Brunelleschi S.
Department of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University "A. Avogadro", Via Solaroli 17, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that NCX 6550 (NCX), a nitric oxide (NO)-donating pravastatin, induces anti-inflammatory effects in murine macrophage cell lines. Here, we have studied its activity in human monocyte/macrophages, by investigating cytokine release, NF-kappaB translocation and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) expression and function. For comparison, pravastatin, isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), sodium nitroprusside (SNP) and the PPARgamma ligand 15-deoxy-Delta(12,14)-prostaglandin J(2) (PGJ) were also tested. Monocytes and macrophages (MDM: monocyte-derived macrophages) were isolated from healthy donors; cytokine release was measured by ELISA, NF-kappaB by electrophoretic mobility shift assay and PPARgamma by Western blot and Real-Time PCR. NCX (1nM-50muM) dose-dependently inhibited phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA)-induced TNF-alpha release from monocytes (IC(50)=240nM) and MDM (IC(50)=52nM). At 50muM, it was more effective than pravastatin, ISMN and SNP (P<0.05), but less efficient than PGJ. Similar results were obtained for IL-6. Likewise, NCX was more effective than pravastatin and the other NO donors in inhibiting PMA-induced NF-kappaB translocation in both cell types, and, at the highest concentration, significantly (P<0.05) enhanced PPARgamma protein expression in monocytes. We conclude that NCX 6550 exerts a significant anti-inflammatory activity in human monocyte/macrophages, that is also contributed by its NO donating properties, as the effects exerted by NCX are significantly higher than those evoked by pravastatin in many experimental assays. These data further indicate that the incorporation of a NO-donating moiety into a statin structure confers pharmacological properties which may translate into useful therapeutic benefits.
PMID: 20670683 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Considerato che tutto sommato teniamo bene il prezzo ...
vedi mai che qualcosa bolla in pentola.
Buona domenica .
miki.
Netzach
Forumer storico
Competition:The Heat is On
PHARMACEUTICAL EXECUTIVE
Popular views of the biopharma business model suggest an industry uniquely dominant in its own space. Patents confer a 20-year monopoly that limits affordable access, companies are the sole beneficiaries of confiscatory prices, and innovative drug discoveries are captured from academic and government research, negating any investment in development and commercialization. In short, pharma's "license to operate" is little more than a lucrative contract to print money.
But perceptions are not fact. Despite the stumbling industry record in explaining its mission, informed observers know that the biopharma business has always been competitive. What is missing is an awareness of just how competitive it is (and will become) as the-future-that-has-already-happened kicks in. On June 21, with market research firm Ipsos Health serving as host, Pharm Exec convened a group of seven industry experts for its first Roundtable to help industry define what's next in the struggle to master these competitive forces and secure a predictable future, in the face of unprecedented pressures on the bottom line.
The group was highly diverse, including two of the largest players, Pfizer and Merck; along with a leading Japanese multinational, Takeda; and two mid-cap biotechs, Onyx and NicOx. Competition consultant and Pharm Exec Editorial Advisory Board member Stan Bernard rounded out the group with support from Ipsos Healthcare Research Officer Paul Snyderman, who also presented a survey conducted by Ipsos on the current state of industry competition [see sidebar].
What follows are highlights of the group's discussion. The approach was deliberately "out of the box," best framed by this overarching thesis: As the scope of external threats and opportunities morph in a host of new directions, how do you chart a course that is feasible internally but revolutionary enough to keep your rivals up at night?
WILLIAM LOONEY: Competition is the lifeblood of a market system. In biopharmaceuticals, that market has changed radically in the past decade. How has this shaped the level and intensity of competition and the way companies respond?
Marjorie NORMAN, Pfizer: The biggest change is that our competitive environment is global. Threats and opportunities can come from any geography. The capacity to identify, internalize, and act on information across countries and regions is a critical skill set—it's a precondition for commercial leadership.
Daniel PASCHELES, Merck: Another factor is more competition within therapeutic classes. Consider that the average period of exclusivity a newly patented product can expect once it is launched is now less than one year, compared to upwards of five years in the 1990s. This trend is compounded by greater transparency in the science and in the availability of information. That impact can be expressed instantly, in real time, and across markets. It determines how companies compete because in this environment the only real advantage is being able to differentiate your product from others in the same class.
Stan BERNARD, Bernard Associates: Looking back 20 years at how you play the game, we have moved from a gentleman's round of golf to full-contact football. Signs of the increasing intensity of competition are rampant. For example, we have over 100 medicines approved to treat hypertension. Multiple products in a class give increasingly sophisticated payers more power to control market access and product pricing. Crowded therapeutic classes also open the door to generic commoditization; nearly three-quarters of all scrips in the US are now written for generics. What is behind all this is that the pharma industry in the US and Europe has transitioned into the "competitive" stage of the industry life cycle.
Rich DALY, Takeda: Timing of the introduction of a new product has enormous consequences. If you fail to get in and quickly differentiate your offering from current standard of care, then the payer will do it for you—and your product may never recover. One aspect of payer clout is that rebates effectively limit access for new products. In many cases, rebates are now so large that managed care providers simply can't walk away from them, even when a new entry exhibits a clinically superior profile and is more cost-effective. This explains why the uptake of breakthrough innovations is falling short of the expectations of the investor community—it's taking much longer to build to that billion-dollar blockbuster status, adding to the cost of drug development and a sharply attenuated product life cycle.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What about the impact of all the merger activity? In traditional theory of economics, increased concentration tends to decrease competition.
Sanjiv SHARMA, NicOx: My comments today are reflective of my own view. That said, I contend that consolidation in the industry reveals that some companies are not prepared strategically to cope with the competitive environment. It's a short-term defensive tactic and it rarely succeeds in repositioning the firm for success. Big mergers are an investment in buying time, which means that companies who take this path often find they have to do it again.
Tony COLES, Onyx Pharma: Consolidation is also driven by the competitive implications of a growing burden of compliance that makes the industry's "license to operate" very costly. It helps to have scale and size where there are now so many barriers to entry: extensive P&R requirements, safety regulations, expensive investments in information and evidence, and curbs on promotion, are just a few. We are a high-risk industry and we can only look to the high failure rate in pharma development to document the financial consequences. An extensive resource base is a shield against insolvency.
PASCHELES: Our industry is actually still very fragmented; no one firm controls more than 10 percent of the drug market. Consolidation makes sense if the objective is to assert more control over dynamic forces in the marketplace, aiming for increased operating efficiency around essential functions like drug development, selling, and manufacturing.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What evidence do we have about the most successful approaches to managing through this harsher competitive climate?
Paul SNYDERMAN, Ipsos Research: We all agree that the ground rules for competitive engagement are shifting. The problem is that our metrics for evaluating the competition are less relevant. Everyone is learning in real time. What good is the 10-year generic erosion model today, when what we have is not erosion but a meltdown?
DALY: Globalization provides an opportunity to leverage the innovation latent in other markets. New tools to drive access and manage costs are coming increasingly from Europe to the US. Contracting is a good example—and "managed care," in a sense, existed in Europe long before it became the standard of practice here [in the US]. And we now have the exposure in emerging markets. These are at another stage of the competition cycle entirely. The reality is, our industry, when you examine it from a global perspective, is not mature. The era of the billion-dollar blockbuster is not over. And there are many models of delivering and financing medicines to explore.
Look at the radically different situation just across our own border. Lipitor may be the top product in the US, but in Mexico six of the top 10 medicines are symptomatic and Lipitor ranks 10th in sales. Why? Because the majority of that market is self-pay; people don't buy for conditions they don't see or feel. There may be tremendous value for future opportunities in the US and other markets from this insight.
WILLIAM LOONEY: As Stan Bernard notes in his columns for Pharm Exec, the competitive cycle has been driven by "game-changing" strategic leaps that characterize a decade: Merck in the 1980s with its productive R&D model; Pfizer in the 1990s, in fueling growth through market-powered acquisitions; and more recently, Roche/Genentech's leveraging of targeted biotechnologies to help dominate the oncology market, the largest therapeutic area.
COLES: We only have to look at other industries to see this point. Consider how IBM made its mark on mainframes, then ceded ground to Microsoft and its portability platform around the desktop, which in turn led to Google and its wireless search tool that ushered in the hand-held PDA revolution. IBM came to recognize the impact of these "disruptive technologies," and after shedding thousands of jobs and absorbing heavy losses, created a new niche for itself as an integrated service provider. That is one of the challenges facing us right now: do we change the model, moving from just supplying the pill to being essentially a healthcare service provider, and in the process, doing more things for all people?
NORMAN: The only way to compete today is to find a way to provide a solution to a healthcare challenge. Success has less to do with the science of developing that great new medicine than with figuring out how payers and patients are going to react to the product—then giving them a way to access it in line with their own business model.
PASCHELES: Successful competitors are going to be first in defining a whole new vision of what the healthcare sector is. The boundaries are clearly expanding, which is why this new vision is, to date, heavily weighted toward diversification—generics, vaccines, biologics, small molecules, animal health, OTC, nutritionals, etc. The notion is that a pure pharmaceutical player will not be able to address the needs of the marketplace.
SNYDERMAN: I'm not sure this idea goes far enough. Plugging these market segments sounds to me like checking boxes. And, oh yes, we are going to expand our stake in the emerging markets! I think disruptive technologies will require the industry—especially big pharma—to take this much further. And not everyone will be flexible enough to make the transition.
COLES: We know what many of these disruptive technologies are; the potential and risk behind large-molecule biologics is one [example]. You have to start first in managing the price tag for entry, with a sophisticated awareness of the different marketing realities, government safety and risk regulations, and how reimbursement drives patient share. That's the precondition; success means you must innovate beyond that, even if it means turning the business model inside out. What is stopping us from doing it? Do we understand that the future is here—today?
SHARMA: This industry is risk-averse. Our products save lives but they also can take lives. We find safety in regulation, but that inhibits flexibility and a fresh approach. Industry sees itself as an innovator in developing a new product, but when the product is finally launched we become narrow and very tactical. Industry forgets the significant opportunity for innovation in the way new medicines are commercialized.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What else might qualify as a "game changer?"
NORMAN: Companies today are more willing to extend the scope of product partnerships; many of these deals are innovations in themselves. That more of these are being forged among big pharma companies—normally the fiercest of competitors—shows how far attitudes are changing. The rule book around traditional constraints like competitive exposure and intellectual property has been tossed out.
BERNARD: Another game changer is how we approach the traditional product launch. In the past, competitors in the same product class used to ignore new products. Now we have moved from "free launches" to "counter launches," where competitors will work to preempt and derail new rivals during the prelaunch phase, when new products are most vulnerable. Generic competitors are also changing the game, in some cases by launching copycat products prior to patent expiration. The concept of brands competing routinely with generics is a new trend, and most innovator companies need to develop different strategies and skills to prepare for this intense street fight.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Does the ability to manage costs qualify as a game changer?
DALY: To a degree, but what you are really talking about here is just good management. The larger issue is retaining talent. One rarely acknowledged competition challenge is a disappearance of people who know how to launch products; people who understand the commercial model. To the extent these people are exiting this industry and not being replaced, we are in trouble.
BERNARD: A company that can change its cost structure in a fundamental way will derive a significant competitive advantage. Teva developed its patented drug Copaxone for multiple sclerosis at roughly a fifth of what it would have cost a big pharma firm.
PASCHELES: Cost management is also emerging as a compensating factor to help companies realize their revenue targets for new medicines. We have to learn to do more with less. In addition, we know that the second or third molecule on the market is having a tougher time on uptake; payers insist on proof of differentiation from the leader. If you don't provide it, the product can end up dead in the water.
WILLIAM LOONEY: How do you define and attract the customer when competitive forces are so diverse and changeable? Is a strong external stakeholder orientation the best way to keep pace?
SNYDERMAN: Industry has not thought broadly enough as to who the real stakeholders are in pharmaceuticals. There is the physician and the pharmacist and, to some degree, the patient. The payer is becoming more prominent, and it is very important to consider the many sources of influence on them too. Those sources are increasing exponentially, due to improvements in the speed, scope, and accessibility of information. Whoever can capture all these strands and form a coherent picture of what drives value will blow out the competition.
SHARMA: Industry spends much time and money in trying to promote to physicians but still we know next to nothing on the interaction that a physician has with his patients. If we understood more about that contact, it would help frame the message around how our products generate value. And the truth is that many partnerships are one-sided, with most of the advantage to our partner. Success will come for those who can figure how to improve that balance as these deals are implemented. Execution is still the rocket science of this industry.
COLES: Patients are also at the center of the trend toward consumerism in healthcare, which is being driven by healthcare technology and information, the arrival of specialty biologics, and personalized medicine. Each of these factors makes it possible to initiate a dialogue that is individually relevant around a person's specific disease.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Which companies or segments of the market do you consider to be among the best competitors? What makes them stand out?
COLES: The orphan drug companies are strong competitors because they carry intimate knowledge of both the customer and patient base. The barriers that regulations place on access to the customer are addressable; they know who their patients are, and how to reach them.
Ipsos Health Survey
PASCHELES: Leading competitors are those who focus on solutions in which the pill may be only one of many elements. Again, one can look for precedents in other industries. Apple came up with the iPod technology and then built a market for the technology with iTunes. This has led to a much closer ongoing relationship to the customer, and in a very different way than simply selling a desktop system. Our industry can learn from that precedent.
BERNARD: Teva is a tough competitor. They have the strategic discipline, market aggressiveness, and innovative approaches to challenge any brand or company. It now fills one of every six prescriptions written in the US.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Is trust and reputation a way to be a stronger competitor?
DALY: This is a delicate balancing act and we must do all that we can to maintain and build the trust we have established. It is important but it carries some risk. Bringing stakeholders into discussions on commercial development is a key way to foster more societal trust, but this can have a negative impact on the science by shutting off promising leads, because right now "society" isn't convinced they have value. We are an industry built around a commitment to evidence and research, yet in reaching out to new stakeholders we risk becoming unfocused and providing elegant answers to irrelevant questions.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What tools are most useful in analyzing the competitive landscape? How is the competitive intelligence function at your companies evolving to meet the challenges to the business model?
PASCHELES: There are many tools we apply. A particularly effective one is the "war game," [though] we prefer to call it "competitive simulation." This is being deployed more extensively, even continuing beyond product launch to periodically throughout the product life cycle. Successful companies are doing it at least once a year for each of their major brands.
NORMAN: At Pfizer we are making these reviews more strategic and using them to trace the evolution of healthcare. As for the competitive intelligence function, it is being integrated more fully into our market analytics work stream. We also share this perspective across the business units and among the executive leadership team, so that the big picture relating to our competitors is not obscured.
SNYDERMAN: A competitive simulation should not be a one-time exercise timed only to a product launch. When everyone on the team is doing this for the first time it becomes just another form of information exchange. Simulations have to be built into the marketing process and conducted repeatedly, every three to six months. Practice makes perfect. A good feedback loop for the findings also counts:you must have buy-in from the people at the top to execute the results.
DALY: Competitive intelligence and simulations have to become part of the competitor's DNA. This in turn entails taking the wraps off people being able to pose tough questions and not taking a hit for it. This may require a change in the culture of Big Pharma.
NORMAN: A fair point, in that we have yet to talk at all about the internal competitive environment. When you are divided into business units someone has to raise tough questions around how strategies separate and align and finding the necessary balance between them.
DALY: The reality is your fiercest competitor may be down the hall, rather than in another company. In some ways it can be the worst kind of competition, something that is destructive rather than healthy.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Let's conclude with some comments on the "end state." Where do each of you see the competition climate evolving over the next three to five years?
BERNARD: Companies will experience greater competitive intensity, similar to that seen in other mature industries such as electronics and airlines. We will see fewer differentiated products, more pricing pressure from generics, and additional industry consolidation. Successful pharma companies will be those that embed a competitive mentality and conduct competitive training for their professionals, across all functions. Companies spend millions on educating the sales rep while virtually nothing is devoted to other functional activities that must respond to these competitive pressures.
SHARMA: It's pointless to predict the future; what is necessary instead is managing the future that is already here. Information technology is an example. Any company that anticipates this transition and comes up with a solution geared to the needs of a customer will be a strong competitor.
NORMAN: The company that can stretch beyond providing the pill to offer real solutions—in real time, to real people—will carry the advantage.
PASCHELES: A global mindset is synonymous with competitive awareness. Those companies that expand medicine's access in growth markets of the developing world will find themselves a step ahead of the competition.
DALY: A strong corporate culture will trump strategy every time. You must attract, sustain, and retain your management talent base. Because competition is so opaque and the future is so uncertain, the only reliable mainstay is your people.
COLES: The important thing is to make sure it is your own company that is doing some of the "disrupting" we talked about today. Competition over the next few years will be driven by who can best focus on individual need in healthcare—where it's "all about me"—and the application of new technologies to get closer to the customer.
SNYDERMAN: Awareness of the value of peripheral vision will help in coping with intensified competition. While everyone else is fixated on their standard metrics, data, and indicators, it's the people who start looking for those odd little things that come in from the outside that will change the industry dynamic.
PHARMACEUTICAL EXECUTIVE
Popular views of the biopharma business model suggest an industry uniquely dominant in its own space. Patents confer a 20-year monopoly that limits affordable access, companies are the sole beneficiaries of confiscatory prices, and innovative drug discoveries are captured from academic and government research, negating any investment in development and commercialization. In short, pharma's "license to operate" is little more than a lucrative contract to print money.
But perceptions are not fact. Despite the stumbling industry record in explaining its mission, informed observers know that the biopharma business has always been competitive. What is missing is an awareness of just how competitive it is (and will become) as the-future-that-has-already-happened kicks in. On June 21, with market research firm Ipsos Health serving as host, Pharm Exec convened a group of seven industry experts for its first Roundtable to help industry define what's next in the struggle to master these competitive forces and secure a predictable future, in the face of unprecedented pressures on the bottom line.
The group was highly diverse, including two of the largest players, Pfizer and Merck; along with a leading Japanese multinational, Takeda; and two mid-cap biotechs, Onyx and NicOx. Competition consultant and Pharm Exec Editorial Advisory Board member Stan Bernard rounded out the group with support from Ipsos Healthcare Research Officer Paul Snyderman, who also presented a survey conducted by Ipsos on the current state of industry competition [see sidebar].
What follows are highlights of the group's discussion. The approach was deliberately "out of the box," best framed by this overarching thesis: As the scope of external threats and opportunities morph in a host of new directions, how do you chart a course that is feasible internally but revolutionary enough to keep your rivals up at night?
WILLIAM LOONEY: Competition is the lifeblood of a market system. In biopharmaceuticals, that market has changed radically in the past decade. How has this shaped the level and intensity of competition and the way companies respond?
Marjorie NORMAN, Pfizer: The biggest change is that our competitive environment is global. Threats and opportunities can come from any geography. The capacity to identify, internalize, and act on information across countries and regions is a critical skill set—it's a precondition for commercial leadership.
Daniel PASCHELES, Merck: Another factor is more competition within therapeutic classes. Consider that the average period of exclusivity a newly patented product can expect once it is launched is now less than one year, compared to upwards of five years in the 1990s. This trend is compounded by greater transparency in the science and in the availability of information. That impact can be expressed instantly, in real time, and across markets. It determines how companies compete because in this environment the only real advantage is being able to differentiate your product from others in the same class.
Stan BERNARD, Bernard Associates: Looking back 20 years at how you play the game, we have moved from a gentleman's round of golf to full-contact football. Signs of the increasing intensity of competition are rampant. For example, we have over 100 medicines approved to treat hypertension. Multiple products in a class give increasingly sophisticated payers more power to control market access and product pricing. Crowded therapeutic classes also open the door to generic commoditization; nearly three-quarters of all scrips in the US are now written for generics. What is behind all this is that the pharma industry in the US and Europe has transitioned into the "competitive" stage of the industry life cycle.
Rich DALY, Takeda: Timing of the introduction of a new product has enormous consequences. If you fail to get in and quickly differentiate your offering from current standard of care, then the payer will do it for you—and your product may never recover. One aspect of payer clout is that rebates effectively limit access for new products. In many cases, rebates are now so large that managed care providers simply can't walk away from them, even when a new entry exhibits a clinically superior profile and is more cost-effective. This explains why the uptake of breakthrough innovations is falling short of the expectations of the investor community—it's taking much longer to build to that billion-dollar blockbuster status, adding to the cost of drug development and a sharply attenuated product life cycle.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What about the impact of all the merger activity? In traditional theory of economics, increased concentration tends to decrease competition.
Sanjiv SHARMA, NicOx: My comments today are reflective of my own view. That said, I contend that consolidation in the industry reveals that some companies are not prepared strategically to cope with the competitive environment. It's a short-term defensive tactic and it rarely succeeds in repositioning the firm for success. Big mergers are an investment in buying time, which means that companies who take this path often find they have to do it again.
Tony COLES, Onyx Pharma: Consolidation is also driven by the competitive implications of a growing burden of compliance that makes the industry's "license to operate" very costly. It helps to have scale and size where there are now so many barriers to entry: extensive P&R requirements, safety regulations, expensive investments in information and evidence, and curbs on promotion, are just a few. We are a high-risk industry and we can only look to the high failure rate in pharma development to document the financial consequences. An extensive resource base is a shield against insolvency.
PASCHELES: Our industry is actually still very fragmented; no one firm controls more than 10 percent of the drug market. Consolidation makes sense if the objective is to assert more control over dynamic forces in the marketplace, aiming for increased operating efficiency around essential functions like drug development, selling, and manufacturing.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What evidence do we have about the most successful approaches to managing through this harsher competitive climate?
Paul SNYDERMAN, Ipsos Research: We all agree that the ground rules for competitive engagement are shifting. The problem is that our metrics for evaluating the competition are less relevant. Everyone is learning in real time. What good is the 10-year generic erosion model today, when what we have is not erosion but a meltdown?
DALY: Globalization provides an opportunity to leverage the innovation latent in other markets. New tools to drive access and manage costs are coming increasingly from Europe to the US. Contracting is a good example—and "managed care," in a sense, existed in Europe long before it became the standard of practice here [in the US]. And we now have the exposure in emerging markets. These are at another stage of the competition cycle entirely. The reality is, our industry, when you examine it from a global perspective, is not mature. The era of the billion-dollar blockbuster is not over. And there are many models of delivering and financing medicines to explore.
Look at the radically different situation just across our own border. Lipitor may be the top product in the US, but in Mexico six of the top 10 medicines are symptomatic and Lipitor ranks 10th in sales. Why? Because the majority of that market is self-pay; people don't buy for conditions they don't see or feel. There may be tremendous value for future opportunities in the US and other markets from this insight.
WILLIAM LOONEY: As Stan Bernard notes in his columns for Pharm Exec, the competitive cycle has been driven by "game-changing" strategic leaps that characterize a decade: Merck in the 1980s with its productive R&D model; Pfizer in the 1990s, in fueling growth through market-powered acquisitions; and more recently, Roche/Genentech's leveraging of targeted biotechnologies to help dominate the oncology market, the largest therapeutic area.
COLES: We only have to look at other industries to see this point. Consider how IBM made its mark on mainframes, then ceded ground to Microsoft and its portability platform around the desktop, which in turn led to Google and its wireless search tool that ushered in the hand-held PDA revolution. IBM came to recognize the impact of these "disruptive technologies," and after shedding thousands of jobs and absorbing heavy losses, created a new niche for itself as an integrated service provider. That is one of the challenges facing us right now: do we change the model, moving from just supplying the pill to being essentially a healthcare service provider, and in the process, doing more things for all people?
NORMAN: The only way to compete today is to find a way to provide a solution to a healthcare challenge. Success has less to do with the science of developing that great new medicine than with figuring out how payers and patients are going to react to the product—then giving them a way to access it in line with their own business model.
PASCHELES: Successful competitors are going to be first in defining a whole new vision of what the healthcare sector is. The boundaries are clearly expanding, which is why this new vision is, to date, heavily weighted toward diversification—generics, vaccines, biologics, small molecules, animal health, OTC, nutritionals, etc. The notion is that a pure pharmaceutical player will not be able to address the needs of the marketplace.
SNYDERMAN: I'm not sure this idea goes far enough. Plugging these market segments sounds to me like checking boxes. And, oh yes, we are going to expand our stake in the emerging markets! I think disruptive technologies will require the industry—especially big pharma—to take this much further. And not everyone will be flexible enough to make the transition.
COLES: We know what many of these disruptive technologies are; the potential and risk behind large-molecule biologics is one [example]. You have to start first in managing the price tag for entry, with a sophisticated awareness of the different marketing realities, government safety and risk regulations, and how reimbursement drives patient share. That's the precondition; success means you must innovate beyond that, even if it means turning the business model inside out. What is stopping us from doing it? Do we understand that the future is here—today?
SHARMA: This industry is risk-averse. Our products save lives but they also can take lives. We find safety in regulation, but that inhibits flexibility and a fresh approach. Industry sees itself as an innovator in developing a new product, but when the product is finally launched we become narrow and very tactical. Industry forgets the significant opportunity for innovation in the way new medicines are commercialized.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What else might qualify as a "game changer?"
NORMAN: Companies today are more willing to extend the scope of product partnerships; many of these deals are innovations in themselves. That more of these are being forged among big pharma companies—normally the fiercest of competitors—shows how far attitudes are changing. The rule book around traditional constraints like competitive exposure and intellectual property has been tossed out.
BERNARD: Another game changer is how we approach the traditional product launch. In the past, competitors in the same product class used to ignore new products. Now we have moved from "free launches" to "counter launches," where competitors will work to preempt and derail new rivals during the prelaunch phase, when new products are most vulnerable. Generic competitors are also changing the game, in some cases by launching copycat products prior to patent expiration. The concept of brands competing routinely with generics is a new trend, and most innovator companies need to develop different strategies and skills to prepare for this intense street fight.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Does the ability to manage costs qualify as a game changer?
DALY: To a degree, but what you are really talking about here is just good management. The larger issue is retaining talent. One rarely acknowledged competition challenge is a disappearance of people who know how to launch products; people who understand the commercial model. To the extent these people are exiting this industry and not being replaced, we are in trouble.
BERNARD: A company that can change its cost structure in a fundamental way will derive a significant competitive advantage. Teva developed its patented drug Copaxone for multiple sclerosis at roughly a fifth of what it would have cost a big pharma firm.
PASCHELES: Cost management is also emerging as a compensating factor to help companies realize their revenue targets for new medicines. We have to learn to do more with less. In addition, we know that the second or third molecule on the market is having a tougher time on uptake; payers insist on proof of differentiation from the leader. If you don't provide it, the product can end up dead in the water.
WILLIAM LOONEY: How do you define and attract the customer when competitive forces are so diverse and changeable? Is a strong external stakeholder orientation the best way to keep pace?
SNYDERMAN: Industry has not thought broadly enough as to who the real stakeholders are in pharmaceuticals. There is the physician and the pharmacist and, to some degree, the patient. The payer is becoming more prominent, and it is very important to consider the many sources of influence on them too. Those sources are increasing exponentially, due to improvements in the speed, scope, and accessibility of information. Whoever can capture all these strands and form a coherent picture of what drives value will blow out the competition.
SHARMA: Industry spends much time and money in trying to promote to physicians but still we know next to nothing on the interaction that a physician has with his patients. If we understood more about that contact, it would help frame the message around how our products generate value. And the truth is that many partnerships are one-sided, with most of the advantage to our partner. Success will come for those who can figure how to improve that balance as these deals are implemented. Execution is still the rocket science of this industry.
COLES: Patients are also at the center of the trend toward consumerism in healthcare, which is being driven by healthcare technology and information, the arrival of specialty biologics, and personalized medicine. Each of these factors makes it possible to initiate a dialogue that is individually relevant around a person's specific disease.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Which companies or segments of the market do you consider to be among the best competitors? What makes them stand out?
COLES: The orphan drug companies are strong competitors because they carry intimate knowledge of both the customer and patient base. The barriers that regulations place on access to the customer are addressable; they know who their patients are, and how to reach them.
Ipsos Health Survey
PASCHELES: Leading competitors are those who focus on solutions in which the pill may be only one of many elements. Again, one can look for precedents in other industries. Apple came up with the iPod technology and then built a market for the technology with iTunes. This has led to a much closer ongoing relationship to the customer, and in a very different way than simply selling a desktop system. Our industry can learn from that precedent.
BERNARD: Teva is a tough competitor. They have the strategic discipline, market aggressiveness, and innovative approaches to challenge any brand or company. It now fills one of every six prescriptions written in the US.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Is trust and reputation a way to be a stronger competitor?
DALY: This is a delicate balancing act and we must do all that we can to maintain and build the trust we have established. It is important but it carries some risk. Bringing stakeholders into discussions on commercial development is a key way to foster more societal trust, but this can have a negative impact on the science by shutting off promising leads, because right now "society" isn't convinced they have value. We are an industry built around a commitment to evidence and research, yet in reaching out to new stakeholders we risk becoming unfocused and providing elegant answers to irrelevant questions.
WILLIAM LOONEY: What tools are most useful in analyzing the competitive landscape? How is the competitive intelligence function at your companies evolving to meet the challenges to the business model?
PASCHELES: There are many tools we apply. A particularly effective one is the "war game," [though] we prefer to call it "competitive simulation." This is being deployed more extensively, even continuing beyond product launch to periodically throughout the product life cycle. Successful companies are doing it at least once a year for each of their major brands.
NORMAN: At Pfizer we are making these reviews more strategic and using them to trace the evolution of healthcare. As for the competitive intelligence function, it is being integrated more fully into our market analytics work stream. We also share this perspective across the business units and among the executive leadership team, so that the big picture relating to our competitors is not obscured.
SNYDERMAN: A competitive simulation should not be a one-time exercise timed only to a product launch. When everyone on the team is doing this for the first time it becomes just another form of information exchange. Simulations have to be built into the marketing process and conducted repeatedly, every three to six months. Practice makes perfect. A good feedback loop for the findings also counts:you must have buy-in from the people at the top to execute the results.
DALY: Competitive intelligence and simulations have to become part of the competitor's DNA. This in turn entails taking the wraps off people being able to pose tough questions and not taking a hit for it. This may require a change in the culture of Big Pharma.
NORMAN: A fair point, in that we have yet to talk at all about the internal competitive environment. When you are divided into business units someone has to raise tough questions around how strategies separate and align and finding the necessary balance between them.
DALY: The reality is your fiercest competitor may be down the hall, rather than in another company. In some ways it can be the worst kind of competition, something that is destructive rather than healthy.
WILLIAM LOONEY: Let's conclude with some comments on the "end state." Where do each of you see the competition climate evolving over the next three to five years?
BERNARD: Companies will experience greater competitive intensity, similar to that seen in other mature industries such as electronics and airlines. We will see fewer differentiated products, more pricing pressure from generics, and additional industry consolidation. Successful pharma companies will be those that embed a competitive mentality and conduct competitive training for their professionals, across all functions. Companies spend millions on educating the sales rep while virtually nothing is devoted to other functional activities that must respond to these competitive pressures.
SHARMA: It's pointless to predict the future; what is necessary instead is managing the future that is already here. Information technology is an example. Any company that anticipates this transition and comes up with a solution geared to the needs of a customer will be a strong competitor.
NORMAN: The company that can stretch beyond providing the pill to offer real solutions—in real time, to real people—will carry the advantage.
PASCHELES: A global mindset is synonymous with competitive awareness. Those companies that expand medicine's access in growth markets of the developing world will find themselves a step ahead of the competition.
DALY: A strong corporate culture will trump strategy every time. You must attract, sustain, and retain your management talent base. Because competition is so opaque and the future is so uncertain, the only reliable mainstay is your people.
COLES: The important thing is to make sure it is your own company that is doing some of the "disrupting" we talked about today. Competition over the next few years will be driven by who can best focus on individual need in healthcare—where it's "all about me"—and the application of new technologies to get closer to the customer.
SNYDERMAN: Awareness of the value of peripheral vision will help in coping with intensified competition. While everyone else is fixated on their standard metrics, data, and indicators, it's the people who start looking for those odd little things that come in from the outside that will change the industry dynamic.
Netzach
Forumer storico
Sanofi-Aventis offre 18,5 milliards USD pour la biotech américaine Genzyme :
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le groupe pharmaceutique français Sanofi-Aventis a annoncé dimanche avoir proposé de racheter la biotech américaine Genzyme pour environ 18,5 milliards de dollars (14,5 milliards d'euros) après le refus "persistant" de la biotech de discuter d'un rapprochement amical.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Sanofi offre 69 dollars (54 euros) par action aux actionnaires de Genzyme, un laboratoire de biotechnologies spécialisé dans le traitement des maladies orphelines, et propose de payer exclusivement en numéraire.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]"Nous avons réitéré une offre faite il y a presque un mois", a expliqué le directeur général, Chris Viehbacher, lors d'une conférence téléphonique.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Il a expliqué avoir décidé de rendre l'offre publique après le "refus persistant de la direction de Genzyme de discuter avec nous, ce qui empêche les actionnaires de valoriser leurs actions".[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]"On l'a rendue publique afin qu'ils (les actionnaires, ndlr) puissent décider", a-t-il insisté.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Ce prix de 69 dollars par action représente une prime "très significative" de 38% par rapport au cours de clôture de 49,86 dollars de l'action Genzyme du 1er juillet, juste avant qu'il ne soit affecté par des rumeurs d'acquisition, souligne Sanofi dans un communiqué.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le directeur général a précisé que cette offre était "intégralement financée", assurant que Sanofi conserverait une "structure financière solide" après le mariage.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Interrogé pour savoir si Sanofi était prêt à relever son offre pour convaincre la direction de s'y rallier, M. Viehbacher a expliqué qu'il s'agissait d'une "offre solide". "Nous nous intéressons à cette société depuis assez longtemps. Je ne vois aucune raison pour faire une offre plus élevée à ce stade", a-t-il ajouté.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le groupe était resté muet depuis l'apparition des bruits sur son intérêt pour Genzyme en juillet.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Cela fait en réalité plusieurs mois que la société française avait tenté d'engager des discussions avec la biotech. Elle lui a adressé une proposition écrite détaillée le 29 juillet mais, selon elle, la direction de Genzyme a rejeté sa proposition le 11 août dernier, sans même "en discuter le contenu".[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le rapprochement des deux sociétés créerait pourtant "un leader mondial dans le développement et la mise à disposition de traitements nouveaux, apportant à chacune d?elles de nouvelles opportunités de croissance significatives", fait valoir le communiqué.
LE OPA OSTILI ESISTONO ...
[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le groupe pharmaceutique français Sanofi-Aventis a annoncé dimanche avoir proposé de racheter la biotech américaine Genzyme pour environ 18,5 milliards de dollars (14,5 milliards d'euros) après le refus "persistant" de la biotech de discuter d'un rapprochement amical.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Sanofi offre 69 dollars (54 euros) par action aux actionnaires de Genzyme, un laboratoire de biotechnologies spécialisé dans le traitement des maladies orphelines, et propose de payer exclusivement en numéraire.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]"Nous avons réitéré une offre faite il y a presque un mois", a expliqué le directeur général, Chris Viehbacher, lors d'une conférence téléphonique.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Il a expliqué avoir décidé de rendre l'offre publique après le "refus persistant de la direction de Genzyme de discuter avec nous, ce qui empêche les actionnaires de valoriser leurs actions".[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]"On l'a rendue publique afin qu'ils (les actionnaires, ndlr) puissent décider", a-t-il insisté.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Ce prix de 69 dollars par action représente une prime "très significative" de 38% par rapport au cours de clôture de 49,86 dollars de l'action Genzyme du 1er juillet, juste avant qu'il ne soit affecté par des rumeurs d'acquisition, souligne Sanofi dans un communiqué.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le directeur général a précisé que cette offre était "intégralement financée", assurant que Sanofi conserverait une "structure financière solide" après le mariage.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Interrogé pour savoir si Sanofi était prêt à relever son offre pour convaincre la direction de s'y rallier, M. Viehbacher a expliqué qu'il s'agissait d'une "offre solide". "Nous nous intéressons à cette société depuis assez longtemps. Je ne vois aucune raison pour faire une offre plus élevée à ce stade", a-t-il ajouté.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le groupe était resté muet depuis l'apparition des bruits sur son intérêt pour Genzyme en juillet.[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Cela fait en réalité plusieurs mois que la société française avait tenté d'engager des discussions avec la biotech. Elle lui a adressé une proposition écrite détaillée le 29 juillet mais, selon elle, la direction de Genzyme a rejeté sa proposition le 11 août dernier, sans même "en discuter le contenu".[/FONT]
[FONT=microsoft sans serif,verdana,helvetica]Le rapprochement des deux sociétés créerait pourtant "un leader mondial dans le développement et la mise à disposition de traitements nouveaux, apportant à chacune d?elles de nouvelles opportunités de croissance significatives", fait valoir le communiqué.
LE OPA OSTILI ESISTONO ...
[/FONT]
guly
Forumer storico
difatti.era una delle storielle che mandavano in giro,quandi c'e'interesse VERO le nfanno.evidentemente nicox non gli interessa neanche a SANOFI,ma d'altronde vedi come continuano a dormire in nicox,news?neanche oggi uno straccio.le altre si muovono.qui garufi ronfa tranquillo.si muove solo sui rumoes buttate ad arte dagli hedge.penso che la prossima news sara'nel 2011.forse.questi sono abituati ai tempi lunghi.
doctor NO
NO nel DNA
già in pista?????????
strano avevano detto che le pantegane a Roma escono dopo le 17h di sera
caro buffone se leggi bene tra le righe vedrai che prima l'approccio è stato amichevole dillo anche allo stratega ed ora torna nel tuo habita che non è ancora ora di ricreazione
strano avevano detto che le pantegane a Roma escono dopo le 17h di sera
caro buffone se leggi bene tra le righe vedrai che prima l'approccio è stato amichevole dillo anche allo stratega ed ora torna nel tuo habita che non è ancora ora di ricreazione- Stato