Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Elan Corporation, plc (ELN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harold Engstrom who wrote (6255)	1/16/2005 8:15:05 PM
From: tom pope	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

That struck me as well. There were statements a few months ago attributed to Kelly Martin that implied confidence in greatly expanded indications for antegren (as it was then). Now we have Ekman's confidence in AAB-001. I've been fooled by over optimism in biotech CEO's before (e.g. Okarma), but I hope these guys will prove to be an exception.

To: Harold Engstrom who wrote (6255)	1/16/2005 9:29:32 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 10345

It is probably why KM insisted on answering certain questions on T and AD, in lieu of Lars, last week and the week before: he is more cautious than Lars and better appreciates the risks of statements that might come back to haunt.

To: Harold Engstrom who wrote (6255)	1/17/2005 1:13:12 PM
From: rkrw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

Boston Globe Q&A with Mullen. '04 leaves Biogen Idec with no merger regrets By Jeffrey Krasner, Globe Staff \| January 17, 2005 Biogen Idec Inc., of Cambridge, had a remarkable 2004. Biogen had just finalized its $6.4 billion merger with Idec Corp., of San Diego, when it got word the Food and Drug Administration would consider its new multiple sclerosis drug on the basis of interim trial data, accelerating the approval timetable by a year. The company scrambled, applied on May 25, and received broad approval for the new drug, Tysabri, on Dec. 22. Along the way, the company was the best performer in the American Stock Exchange Biotechnology Index, with an annual return of 81 percent. James C. Mullen, Biogen Idec's chief executive and incoming chairman of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, spoke last week with Globe staff reporter Jeffrey Krasner. Q: Are prescriptions of Tysabri cannibalizing sales of Avonex, your existing multiple sclerosis drug? A: It's still early. We're only six weeks in. It appears there is more combination therapy use than we anticipated, and therefore there's less cannibalization. We've always assumed that Tysabri is going to move to the first-line position. The interferon treatments will still be important, so Avonex will go from being the number one product in the market to number two. Q: What kind of impact will Tysabri have on your results? A: This year, given the launch investment we have behind Tysabri, the earnings and the revenue growth would be roughly in line with each other. We're looking high single digits to low double digits, but the real wild card is how rapid is the uptake of Tysabri. Predicting that is a fool's errand, but it looks strong right now. That can move the revenue number by $100 million. Q: When you announced the merger with Idec, there was a lot of initial skepticism. Yet your shares were up 81 percent in 2004. How's it going? A: You just answered your own question. From a merger point of view, what [Biogen Idec chairman] Bill Rastetter and I saw as the rationale has proven to be fairly compelling. Simply putting the two things together unlocked about 25 or 30 percent of shareholder value because we put a bigger platform together with less risk, even with the same assets. We moved quickly. We had the whole management team announced the day we closed the deal. That allowed us to not worry about merger integration, but instead be able to react to an opportunity like Tysabri. Q: What did you learn during the merger process? A: The worst thing about these mergers for people is uncertainty. Everybody knew who their new manager was on day one. We eliminated a little over 100 positions, we made those decisions quickly, made sure people understood them, and treated people that were affected well. That was important for the people affected and the ones who stayed behind. Q: Going forward, do you foresee your facility remaining in San Diego? Does it make sense to have facilities on both sides of the country? A: First of all, we are a company with 20 locations. But this is the headquarters. This is where the senior management resides. That means the role of San Diego has indeed changed. We are strengthening the oncology commercial and development organizations there and adding more oncology discovery research on the West Coast. Secondly, we have a footprint of basic discovery research on the West Coast. I've always felt that was very important. By having discovery research on the West Coast, you have access to the talent pool, the academic collaborations and company collaborations. That's an important strategic piece when you look at your innovation over the next 10 to 20 years. We also have another big manufacturing facility in Oceanside, Calif. That became a critical asset with the approval of Tysabri. Q: What did Idec anticipate producing at the Oceanside plant? A: I've been in the pharmaceutical business for 24 years, and I've built a lot of facilities, and I have never, underline never, built a facility for what it was ultimately used for. You have to build these things in advance of knowing what you're going to produce. It turns out Idec built their plant for a drug that was a potential competitor for a product that we at Biogen killed. Both products failed in development.