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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (24143)	7/18/2007 5:11:50 PM
From: smh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Court Gives Overstock.com the Okay to Proceed and Denies Prime Brokerages Attempts to Derail Exposure July 18, 2007: 10:53 AM EST biz.yahoo.com SALT LAKE CITY, July 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (http://www.overstock.com) announced today a favorable ruling in the lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against most of the largest prime brokerage firms in the country, including Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc. On July 17, 2007, Judge John Munter of the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco ruled that Overstock and it co-plaintiffs have stated viable claims for market manipulation under California securities law, for common law claims for conversion and trespass to chattels, as well as for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act against the defendant prime brokerage firms based on those defendants allegedly executing naked short sales of the stock of Overstock with the intent of manipulating the market price for the shares of those companies' stocks. In addition, the Court granted Overstock (and its co-plaintiffs) leave to amend other of their claims for restitution under the Unfair Business Practices Act and for the common law claim of interference with advantage, to more specifically plead the factual basis of these claims. In so ruling, Judge Munter rejected defendants' claims that Overstock's complaint is preempted by federal law and that 'phantom' shares are not created by naked short selling of a company's stock as a matter of law. "This is a huge win for us," said Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal. "We are eager to start discovery and move this case to trial. The day we expose in detail the defendants' misconduct to a jury will be a good day for Overstock, its shareholders and the capital markets." "As I listened to defendants' counsel argue that phantom shares don't exist because the SEC says they don't exist," said Patrick Byrne, Overstock Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, "I was reminded on Abraham Lincoln's favorite joke: 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?' 'Five?' 'No, four -- because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.' Defendants create phantom shares by facilitating naked short selling and other types of trades which result in failures-to-deliver. This is manipulative and illegal -- regardless of what the industry's all-too-cozy regulatory agency says. The battle to clean up Wall Street is only going to be won when it is brought to a jury of 12 Americans. Today was a giant step towards that goal." The suit alleges that the defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in a massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering such orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver." The suit also alleges that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions with regard to the nature and amount of trading in the company's stock which have caused the share price of the company's stock to dramatically drop. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates large downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the company's entire supply of outstanding shares. The company is seeking damages of $3.48 billion.

To: Biomaven who wrote (24143)	7/18/2007 10:20:10 PM
From: rkrw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

I'm far from perfect. But the 25% lipitor drop was an anomaly. Ian Read - Pfizer Inc. - President, Worldwide Pharmaceutical Operations Good afternoon. We are now at the half-year point, and I would like to make some remarks on Lipitor's performance. When we set our forecast, it was subject to several variables, such as double-digit market growth continuing, level of switches, our share of new patient starts and the effectiveness of our marketing platform differentiating the unique benefits of Lipitor from thecompetition. So where are we now? In the first half, Lipitor sales worldwide were $6.1 billion, down 2%. Internationally, sales grew 7% in the first half and 5% in the second quarter. This reflects the impact of our marketing and field-based strategies operating successfully, late in the cycle of generic simvastatin, which has been available in many international markets for at least three to four years. Obviously, we're much earlier in the cycle in the US. Looking at our six-month numbers, which are the best indicator of how we are doing, Lipitor sales in the US were down 8%, which consisted of a 10-point script decline, partially offset by (inaudible) pricing impact net of rebates. In the second quarter, Lipitor's US performance was negatively impacted by two factors, which we had highlighted in the first quarter as positively impacting the brand. These two factors -- changes in the US wholesale inventory levels and the differences in reconciliation of internal/external data that are normally seen each quarter, to varying degrees -- accounted for approximately 50% of the revenue declines in the US second-quarter results, and are not expected to have a negative impact on US performance over the second half of the year. Other contributing factors to the quarter's performance include a decreased level of prescriptions as well as increased rebates associated with our more flexible contracting activities. Putting all this together, at the six-month point, global Lipitor sales are down 2%. For the full year, we forecast global Lipitor revenues of flat to a 5% decline relative to the prior year. We have incorporated into this forecast a moderation in the level of decline of prescriptions in the US market relative to the second quarter, reflecting extensive promotional and contracting efforts. So let's look at the key metrics in the market. In terms of volume drivers, while the net switch volume loss to generics was greater than expected, peaking at around 24,000 per week after multi-source simvastatin generic availability, we are now seeing good recovery from that, headed back towards pre-multi-source generic levels of around 13,000. Switches to CRESTOR and VYTORIN are minimal, accounting for less than 15% of total net switches. While I am pleased with the slope of the switch curve, I'm less satisfied with our new patient starts, which represent about 15% of the NRx market. We need to improve our performance here. There is no doubt that we continue to face a difficult payer environment, with plan administrators under significant pressure to move to generic simvastatin, but I would not underestimate our determination and the progress we are making. We continue to have good Tier 2 access. In fact, about two-thirds of US commercial Medicare Part D, Medicaid and federally insured lives now have Tier 2 access to Lipitor. This is not an accident. It is a consequence of the changes we have made in our customer-focused business unit. We are far more dynamic and granular in understanding where our customers are going and their needs. Our recent agreement with ESI, where Lipitor has been added to its nationally preferred formulary with Tier 2 unrestricted access starting in June, is a good example of how our approach is working. We continue to use our knowledge to optimize our Tier 2 access, and we are meeting with each customer to maintain our strong formulary position and meet patients' needs. We also continue to execute on the strategies laid out in January to drive Lipitor's value and differentiation. We have new indications strengthening our full package of Lipitor's potency; its unique combination of efficacy, outcomes and safety; an extensive TV and radio campaign; strong execution of our field force; and adherence programs to support patients to stay on the full course of therapy. To close, we have market growth as expected. Switch is headed in the right direction. We're aggressively executing our marketing programs, and our field force is motivated, set to leverage our recent gains in formulary position to drive volume and new patient share. Thank you.

To: Biomaven who wrote (24143)	7/19/2007 2:15:38 AM
From: ewolf	Respond to of 52153

This issue about competing with generics caused me to wonder what Gsk's strategy will be with the pricing of Trexima. Would it be viable to price it competitively with generic imitrex with the idea of taking significant market share rather than trying to maintain the margins they had with imitrex? I sold my pozen stock today thinking that they could have trouble ramping sales with a drug that may have only a marginal advantage against the generic. However a drug that has a marginal advantage and is only slightly more expensive could be extremely successful with sales. I have no idea about profitability.