Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 11:02 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 4 hrs 58 mins


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (QCOR) Message Board

  • pjmyers_tsi pjmyers_tsi Jun 15, 2013 4:27 AM Flag

    The (obvious) next short story: "the FTC will investigate and utlimately overturn the deal"

    Very grateful to mikey for the heads-up and commentary about the Pollack NY Times article. Purpose of this thread is to ask whether we have any experts who can address the likelihood of the FTC outright overturning the application of the deal within the US. To start us off, I provide some relevant quotes from the article:

    "One antitrust lawyer, not involved in the negotiations, predicted the deal would receive 'intense scrutiny' by federal antitrust regulators."... " 'The type of acquisition that raises the most concern under the antitrust law is when a dominant firm acquires a potential rival' said the lawyer..."

    "A spokesman [at FTC] said the trade commission did not comment on whether it was reviewing particular transactions but said it could [review] even when that was not required." ["that" refers to the Questcor COO's evidently valid statement that Q "did not have to report the transaction to antitrust regulators because Novartis, the licenser, would retain some manufacturing rights to Synacthen."]

    I apologize for this party-pooping topic, but the question HAS to be asked.

    I can readily picture the kind of shorts mikey pointed out lobbying the FTC to get involved, and the headlines after Questcor is notified of the investigation (if indeed there is such a notification a la US Attorney - and I assume there has to be some kind of advance notice - the gov cannot just walk in and nix the US aspect of the deal after Q has already spent millions setting up research and marketing - can they?) .

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Sorry, not getting to post getting ready for trip...BUT here's a short term answer. Have you ever heard of the FTC investigating, much less convicting, a company of Antitrust on the POSSIBILITY that SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE they MAY BE ENGAGING IN MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICE on a drug NOT YET APPROVED for sale in the US??? I have a more detailed post on this from this weekend, but the very thought idea that this was within the realm of reason, much less visibility, in the NYTimes article WAS TOTALLY PREPOSTEROUS...

      gotta go...good luck to all here and continue to keep your eyes on AFFY, deal should be totally done by end of July with Omontys fully reinstated in market.

    • Statement -- ""One antitrust lawyer, not involved in the negotiations, predicted the deal would receive 'intense scrutiny' by federal antitrust regulators."... " 'The type of acquisition that raises the most concern under the antitrust law is when a dominant firm acquires a potential rival' said the lawyer..."
      Answer -- Can't believe that this BS needs a reply. An unnamed lawyer, who is absent the facts, is making prediction that he pulled out of the breeze. Then he has the audacity to make a pronouncement, which is not relevant to this deal, as being the basis for action by some government agency. This is a bunch of gibberish!

      Statement--""A spokesman [at FTC] said the trade commission did not comment on whether it was reviewing particular transactions but said it could [review] even when that was not required."
      Observation -- The FTC can review whatever they wish. Their statement is nebulous hogwash. What kind of action can one take when the product can not even be sold in USA? It is competition with what? Zero sales is another way of not competing. So how can QCOR be competing with nothing? Do these people have a logical bone in their bodies? I really am considering reviewing my disbelief in zombies.

      Supposed intelligent people are writing this garbage and getting people excited over "nothing".

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • I wouldn't sweat it. First the transaction isn't required to be submitted to the FTC. Even it it were or if the FTC decided to investigate on its own, the only market Acthar has a significant share in is the infantile spasms market and as we all know, Synacthen is not a potential candidate for that market. Acthar and Synacthen has a small share potential in the remaining markets with significant and much larger competition from corticosteroids. I don't see a problem here. IMHO

      • 1 Reply to jrkl88
      • re FTC/ & Aq'n ----Shld not be problem ---QCOR is the only co in the field (I hesitate to call them "competition") which has shown itself by actual deeds and balance sheet and business/ operational acumen, both ABLE and WILLING to invest in and succeed in getting these products/ product disease segment solutions INTO the distribution and HANDS of patients. ----The only other claimaint, RPwhatever it is is clearly just a financial/ wall street operator with no such capability or historical mission

    • Here's a great link to FTC pharma activities. I read it closely--believe the FTC will find little of interest in the Synacthen acquisition. ftcDOTgov/bc/healthcare/antitrust/rxupdateDOTpdf.

      Anyway, not sure what the FTC would investigate right now--Synacthen is not approved in the US.

    • Just to clarify: I am NOT even a bit worried about the OUTCOME of an antitrust investigation, any more than I lose sleep over the OUTCOME of the US Attorney case. In neither case is QCOR likely to suffer long-term damage.

      [DIGRESSION: It's not as if Acthar and Synacthen are the only medicines on earth for ANY of the 19 Acthar indications, and it's not as if the US gov (FDA) has been falling over itself to bring Synacthen to US patients, so it's jolly hard to see how they can object to Q broadening their arsenal, AND offering to expand what is available to said US patients. In addition, there's no law against a company buying competitors unless doing so significantly narrows the market against US consumers - and the latter had no Synacthen at all before the deal.]

      No, what I'm a bit worried about is the effect on QCOR when headlines come out that the shorts have succeeded in sicking the FTC on the deal, just as when Left succeeded in sicking the US Attorney on their alleged over-zealous marketing.

      The rights and wrongs of the thing will have no impact, it is only the power and influence of the shorts that will determine whether there is an investigation. And if there IS, then Q's business development on Synacthen is in limbo until the thing is settled. And, I know, that's not a big deal for EPS either, it's all the PERCEPTION of it.

    • Do some research on Retrophin Stock Symbol RTRX. That is Martin's fake little pharma company that spends 16 million (half of annual dilutive stock offering) on 8 employees compensation and now is crying foul.

      If you read their 10K from a few days ago, you walk away with the impression they wanted to BE Questcor. Same game plan, same marketing plan, same everything except they are now crying foul because they didn't get Synacthen and can't file for an FSGS orphan status with it.

      It's a shell company, created by a short hedge fund manager trained by Cramer 10 years ago, that was accused of bribery, fraud, and interjected themselves in other company's FDA ruling meetings to convince officials not to approve (since their hedge fund was short that company).

      Complaints were filed with regulators, etc. The hedge fund closed down 6 months ago with money returned to investors.

      Regarding your question though, it's all huff and puff. If they would have won the bid, then they could have been accused of a monopoly too, based on 1 drug they are supposedly in trials with (no one can confirm except a clinicaltrialsDOT gov entry). Sound familiar? Like the Gregg Lapointe Synacthen filing. Takes a weekend to fill out paperwork and submit. Looks official. People twist it into final approval. LOL

      Andrew Pollack is known to be in shorts pocket for the last year. Fund managers say he used to be an actual reporter but something happened to him over the last year.

      • 3 Replies to mikeylikesit33_99
      • I wonder what Cramer would say to someone if they called in and asked his opinion about RTRX on Mad Money? I think it would put him in a tough spot. It's to bad it's a penny stock would have been a great short canadit. To risky now though I think.

      • Martin Shkreli sounds somewhat like Andrew Left...except maybe a bit brighter. The fact that he cut his investment career "eye teeth" with Jim Cramer back in 2000 gives me pause to question all of his motives.Retrophin sounds like so many other contrived Wall St wheeling and dealings. Truly sounds like the shorts are really desperate in particular some of the short playing hedge funds. I have confidence that our company's management has the smarts to deal with all of these pot shots.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • mikey: just fascinating info and perspective! I see the reverse merger was completed in mid-December, 2012 - suspiciously close to the Cerium goings-on, or maybe I'm just paranoid.

        I tried to explain my concerns in a 2nd post, and they are not much connected with the provenance of Retrophin, or any beef they might have about missing the bid.

97.66+0.73(+0.75%)11:02 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.