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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (1973)	3/9/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Ed Ajootian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10280

Gruntal's Saks on FTC Probe of Lilly-Sepracor Pact: Comment Bloomberg News March 9, 1999, 8:26 a.m. PT New York, March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A comment on the Federal Trade Commission's review of Eli Lilly & Co.'s agreement with Sepracor Inc. to try to develop a better version of Lilly's blockbuster drug, Prozac. Prozac, the world's No. 1 depression drug, had 1998 sales of $2.81 billion. Under a pact announced in December, Lilly will pay as much as $90 million plus royalties for Sepracor's version of Prozac. Sepracor's compound has patent protection until 2015, while patents on Prozac begin expiring after 2001. The FTC is investigating whether brand-name drug companies are trying to head off competition with tactics that violate federal antitrust laws, people familiar with the probe said. The Wall Street Journal first reported the investigation today. ''It's an issue that will go nowhere,'' said David Saks, an analysts with Gruntal & Co., of the FTC review of Lilly-Sepracor agreement. '' A better Prozac is as valuable as gold. It will benefit people to improve the drug. Lilly has every right and rationale to try to develop it.'' Lilly, based in Indianapolis, fell 7/8 to 96 7/16. Sepracor, based in Marlborough, Massachusetts, fell 3 5/8 to 135 3/4. ''I would buy both aggressively at these prices,'' said Saks, who has ''strong buy'' ratings on both companies. --Kerry Dooley in the Princeton newsroom (609) 279-4016 / mf ***************************************************************************** I disagree with Saks and IMO this is a negative development for SEPR. I believe the FTC could very easily find that this behavior is anti-competitive and force SEPR to deal with companies other than the maker of the parent drug. They will make less money dealing with anyone other than the maker of the parent drug.