Regarding the Transcell sale, neither of the two hypotheses advanced thus far have any apparent validity.
1) The 'hiding of assets' theory: Currently IPIC owns 80% of Transcell, and when this is all finished, they will own about 60% (since they own a majority of InterCardia). Thus they will have given up 20% of Transcell, in exchange for InterCardia stock. Assets have been exchanged, but there is essentially no alteration in IPIC's total asset valuation by this.
2) None of this will be reflected in IPIC's numbers until the end of 1Q:98. Since they will have a charge to be taken against the first tranche of stock received, in fact this will probably look slightly negative on the bottom line that quarter.
From an InterCardia perspective, there is a better match between their needs and Transcell than between IPIC and Transcell. Transcell adds little or no current value to IPIC since they are early-stage, but strategically they may important to InterCardia: Since bucindolol is still in that long PhIII, Transcell widens their repertoire. If bucindolol ends up not being effective, or less effective than Coreg, InterCardia needed some other asset to look like a viable company. Otherwise, IPIC could have ended up with 60% of a shell. I am not predicting that bucindolol will fail, but as insurance, Transcell is of greater value to InterCardia than to Interneuron (and keeping InterCardia viable is essential to its majority owner as well). NeuroInvestment |
