On October 1, 2013, Davol Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of C. R. Bard, Inc., completed the previously-announced acquisition of Medafor, Inc.
Medafor is history. It is time for an Arista/Perclot discussion. First, I can't believe that BCR paid this kind of money without first having carefully reviewing the Arista patent. I'm guessing BCR determined that the Arista patent is likely to be one that will prevail in the U.S., and perhaps in other countries too. Plus BCR has a staff of attorneys to work on this kind of thing. Second, SA has made all sorts of superiority claims about Perclot. Some of them may be true, I have no way of knowing. However, he has never released anything supporting these claims. So it is hard to know if there is anything of substance here. So first CRY has to overcome the patent matter. Next is that it is very unlikely that Medafor was sitting on its butt and not doing product development work. As I understand it Medafor had a second generation product that was closing in on FDA submission. I'm guessing that this second generation product blows away the Perclot product. If I'm right on any of this, I would put it together like this. IF CRY every starts selling in the US, they will have a second rate product in a market where BCR already has established themselves in the marketplace. BCR is likely IMO to beat up little old CRY on the patent front, beat up CRY on the product superiority front, and beat up little old CRY in the marketplace. Bottomline: I think SA better start thinking of Perclot in terms of "salvage value". Perhaps it will still be worth a little bit as a commodity product in some international markets. IMO, pretty much Perclot = "SALVAGE VALUE".
On the plus side, after CRY receives their first cash payment from BCR, CRY will be left with about $15.1 million pre-tax/$11 million post-tax. This may be why the share price has moved up by about $0.50/share recently. Just my opinions. SA should thank GS.
Estimated 2013 sales of $3,800,000 (~ 2% of total revenue). Because of low sales PerClot likely generates a net operating loss. In order to become highly profitable, PerClot needs to be sold in the USA. This requires FDA approval.
I can't believe that BCR paid in excess of $200M for Medafor without first having carefully reviewed the Arista patent. I'm guessing BCR determined that the Arista patent would likely prevail against CRY’s PerClot. SA has made all sorts of superiority claims about Perclot. SA has never released anything supporting these claims, so it is hard to know if there is substance to them. First CRY has to overcome the patent issue. Next it is more likely than not that Medafor was doing product development. As I understand it, Medafor may have been developing a second generation product that may be closing in on the FDA submission process. I’m guessing BCR liked the second generation product, and thought it was better than either Arista or Perclot. If I'm right, I would put it things together this way. If CRY ever starts selling PerClot in the US, CRY will have a second rate product in a market where BCR has already established itself in the marketplace. BCR is likely IMO to beat little old CRY on the patent front, beat little old CRY on the product superiority front, and beat little old CRY in the marketplace…OUCH. Starting to look like CRY’s home run product is looking more like an infield pop-up.
Per CRY disclosure statement: There is no guarantee that we will receive the requisite approvals to distribute PerClot in the U.S. or Japan in accordance with our expected timeframe, if at all. We may be unable, in the FDA's judgment, to satisfy the conditions imposed by the FDA… Our regulatory approval efforts for PerClot are subject to delays and cost overages. Even if we receive approval, we may be unsuccessful in our attempts to sell PerClot in the U.S. or Japan as other competing products may have penetrated the respective markets by that time. In addition, if we are ultimately able to obtain approval from the FDA to sell PerClot, we will likely end up in a patent infringement lawsuit, which will be expensive. If we lose, we may be prohibited from selling PerClot or may have to pay substantial royalties or damages when we sell PerClot in the U.S. Our ability to fully realize our investment in distribution and license agreements is dependent on our ability to sell PerClot in the U.S.
Bottomline: If CRY can't sell PerClot in volume into the US market place, this product won't be worth much.
Note: This represents nothing more than my opinion. You’re responsible for your own due diligence.