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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (293)	10/10/1998 12:10:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

This sort of discussion is invaluable. SI is THE source for expert analysis without vested interest. Thanks to both Jims.

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (293)	10/10/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4974

BJ: Few correction, if I read WSJ article and news right, regards your view of Bayer/MLNM deal. >>So, aside from the $96.6 million to be paid as an equity investment, it is the "up to's" that have me perplexed. There is no clear specification in the releases about this. Besides, I heard from a little bird that it was back end loaded. Lampert did not say it was such a deal. I did.<< MLNM got 33.4 MM as up front license fees and 96.6 MM in equity investment as Bayer commitment in future collaboration. Also, from residual amount of 335 MM, 220 MM are for research founding and further license fees (where further license fees means that as/if collaboration progress to more complex field additional MLNM technology will be involved/accessed) and 115 MM are due upon specific contract's goal (target identification-validation-acceptance) are reached. This contract's goal are not drug(s) on market, they are 25 pharmaceutical target validated also by candidate identification . So, From 465 MM total 350 MM (75%) are very sure thing in next 5 years, and at least half of the 115 MM (based on up to date MLNM performance) can be accounted as very possible money. Lampert can say whatever he want, but this deal is excellent financial deal for MLNM, IMO. Nonetheless, I have my concern in regards the Bayer/MLNM collaboration and generally to fast MLNM expansion (employees number for instance). On the other hand, this deal is only one third of total MLNM R&D value, so even if deal is not executed in full, it is not problem at all. >>You are 100% correct about the GLFD/AMGN deal. That has to be the epitome of a back-end loaded deal. << GLFD/AMGN deal is different and non-comparable with MLNM deal. It is for specific class compounds for very specified target and diseases which will be addressed. Because there are no evidence nor guaranty that neurite outgrow, observed in cell cultures and experimental animals model, can be replicated in human and have any meanful therapeutic effects, deal are formulated toward future, not present condition. Also, counting on potential patents problem. Still, AMGN financial commitment in preclinical studies and, if this are successful, full responsibility for clinical studies and marketing, do suggest that this are indeed promising R&D. I am (and it appears that also you) bts investor which put a loot of fait/weight on chemistry part in drug development. I will appreciate if you can clarify statement regards the NRGN chemistry capability. From: Message 5903097 >>Can Bayer bring the targets to the table from the perspective of drug candidates? We shall see.<< Bayer is (was) classic and conservative pharma, recently restructuring their life science business. Part of the chemistry needed can (will) be shopped from others (bts). >>I believe your vision of the combination of the variety of companies would only be valid if the NRGN chemistry effort times 5 could be part of the package. It would also be requisite that a continuing current annual income of $100 million would (from product sales) to keep the enterprise going and growing.<< What is your opinion on current NRGN chemistry capability? Why giving them advantage to SIBI, GLFD, or other neuro bts? They have very impressive patents portfolio (class compounds) far variety of the specific neuro target. But, the medicinal chemistry have final word when candidate is selected. How you view return of the drug candidate (AHP, NMDAr/V.-G.NaCr antagonist) from clinical level back to preclinica/toxicology studies? Thanks for any respond. Miljenko Disclaimer: I own MLNM and GLFD, and am following NRGN very closely as candidate for my portfolio.