While some might suspect a play to keep potentially competing biotech candidates off-market for decades in this manner, I simply think it is evidence of the benign neglect that often befalls the "other guy's" (i.e., non-surviving merger partner's) older in-licensing deals. In this case, there are now three layers of non-surviving merger partners, before one reaches the party that originally did the licensing deal with Palau Pharma. And that's unfortunate, for Palau.
John Carroll collected this, via an interview at the BIO-Europe Spring 2010 confab in Barcelona, now underway. Here's a snippet of his -- over at FierceBiotech -- do go read it all:
. . . .It all sounds great from a biotech perspective, but Ignacio Faus, CEO of Palau Pharma, added a note on the potential pitfalls when he mentioned his own out-licensing experience. Back in 2005, he told the crowd, he licensed an early-stage program to Organon, which later merged with Schering-Plough, which later merged with Merck. His program is still in Phase I.
The reality, he says, is that once you license a program to another company, "it's out of your hands. . . ."
Indeed. Now, if I may -- this sort of unfortunate turn of events for Palau, is exactly why J&J's Centocor unit specifically negotiated for the return of Remicade® and Simponi® rights, if Schering-Plough were to undergo a change of control. Centocor wanted more control over the destiny of the candidates/brands, should they fall into less friendly hands. They apparently now have.
And that, my friends, is what the arbitration (coming September 2010) is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment