Novartis did a huge asset swap deal with Glaxo worth many billions. Novartis received Glaxo's cancer portfolio. One of the many compounds in that portfolio was the competing MEK inhibitor. It was not the primary target. So, the partnership with ARRY on its MEK inhibitor was purely collateral damage of a much larger deal that trumped this one relatively small partnership with ARRY. The fees and consideration to fund the completion of the trials is required by the contract. Novartis didnt do this voluntarily.
There were no partnerships with GS. GS gave them bad advice and leaked upcoming share sales. Drug partnerships are completely different.
Another great reason why small develeopmental stage biotechs like EXEL should partner with all their drugs. ARRY partnered with Novartis for the development of their MEK inhibitor. In three phase 3 trials currently. Novartis struck a big asset swap with Glaxo which included transfering all of Glaxos cancer drugs to Novartis including a competing MEK inhibitor. As per Novartis's agreement with ARRY, Novartis had to transfer back full rights to ARRY's MEK, continue funding the clinical programs and make an upfront payment of $85 million to ARRY. Unbelievable. Great low risk deal to begin with which would even if the trials failed would not threaten the company's existence, the company has no debt, and they got cash in 2010 with the original partnership signing, got all the development and clinical funding and milestone payments, and now got more cash and 100% of the rights back. Watch and learn Morrissey.
Pretty straight forward write up. No underhanded attacks or anything. We are stuck in a pretty scary situation unless Roche steps in for $2 or $3.
I love the sentiment. I own 50k shares and have lost a small fortune so far. But if another company wanted AMRN, they could buy it now for $2 or $3 per share or around $500 MM. Nothing is stopping them and the BODs would have to consider it. There is no controlling shareholder that can hold out for $15. The best we can hope for is some FDA relief and growing scripts at a faster pace to move the stock up to maybe $2 or so until we run out of money.
they had their "two top biotech analysts" chime in on EXEL. One was negative and said that the company was appropriately valued based on its future opportunities, and the other said the same with upside for Meteor and celestial to multiple times the share price, but expected the share count to double due to likely dilution in an equity raise (I guess I am not alone about the dilution concern), and gave a somewhat low probability for Roche stepping in unless the price gets much cheaper as they weren't as bullish on the melanoma market for the combo since it is very competitive.
Fidelity has been an owner of shares for years. They are so big, they have to own everything accross their many funds. Same applies to most of the top 25 buyside firms.
They can especially since there are only about 30 employees, but more likely they will just issue a ton of new ones at the much lower strike price.
The article in SA state that if reduce it fails that the PV is greater than the current market price. I think that assumes that the FDA would not revoke their intial approval for 500 TG. I wonder what makes the author think they won't?
You expect what you want. Hope it works out for you, because I am holding the same bag. But the difference is, I have analyzed it and drew my own conclusions and suggestions. You can disagree, but I thought that the best contributions to the board are multiple opinions that are grounded in facts and experience. How do YOU get past the high dilution risk?
I would be happier if the Bakers bought a big position of the equity (not the debt). They are more focused on opportunities in the small cap biotech space and have made some great calls. When they buy big, the stock typically moves up.
I am happy about this (better than them selling!), but this is peanuts for Fidelity, a couple of million bucks. Somebody at FMR might be as emotional as us about this stock and averaging down. So don't wet your pants.
You are forgetting Meteor and the other trials. Which ones are you saying should be ended? That is what the cash is for. Pay attention!
You are forgetting that they need to spend the cash to complete Meteor at least and the trials in process that follow it. In other words, the cash is spoken for through the Meteor read out. The best solution is to partner with a big pharma or well capitalized BT. Avoid funding the trial costs but share in the successes. Use cash from partnering agreement and miles stones to reinvest in new discovery and to reduce debt. Equitize at reasinable prices some of the debt, preferably the maturing debt. These moves would avoid massive dilution and sustain the company for the long term IMO. That is my view of what the strategy should be.
I believe at last count there is around $350 million of total debt. MTC is nnot going to cover much beyond the interest on the debt and some corporate overhead if they are lucky.
I think that a partnership is much different than an outright sale of assets. I would not advocate an outright asset sale (as compared to a full company sale) as it would reduce pipeline diversity and might not leave much beyond paying down debt, but of course, that depends on what price they get (presumably cobi) verses the future potential. But proceeds from striking a new partnership on cabo indications may have to be shared with Debt holders, which isn't a bad thing (debt reduction). there are still milestone payments to receive and hopefully trials are funded by the partner.