Ok, folks, there is a reason almorexant and clazo didn't get approved in 2010. Actelion is THE dedicated PAH company! Thus, other drugs in other disease states will never make it to market. There is hope for Actelion yet! Actelion still has macitentan and selexipag in its pipeline!
The PAH company due to failure of other products. Oh wasnt the first drug to market going to be tezosentan, under the trade name Veletri. What is Veletri?
Macicentan will get approved with a boxed warning for LFTs and SelexiPig didnt hit a 6mwd p-value in P2. NEXXXXXXTTTTTTTT Dont let the door hit you in the ass.
Yes we are the PAH company. We made such a great success with Ventavis (former CoTherix stockholders are pleased!) and have such a great pipeline in other areas (NOT). The Clozells don't seen to have any idea beyond endothelin.
Yeah, Veletri is KICKING ASSSSSSS too! LOL...after a decade of pipeline failures, this company will be certainly bought. There is no future here but a lot of cash being generated, especially ex-US. Thank god for Tracleer, but it is quickly running out of steam. This company is soon to be the biotech-cardiopulmonary division of a dying big pharma. Lets guess which POS Euro company will buy us. Any takers? Sanofi? Novartis? Roche? Astra? Bayer?
Actelion board nominees deny sale is main aim Mon Apr 4, 2011 4:58am EDT ZURICH (Reuters) - A group of prospective Actelion board members denied speculation they planned to prepare Europe's biggest biotech for sale and said they wanted instead to overhaul it. Six pharmaceutical executives and M&A experts nominated by activist hedge fund Elliott last month said Actelion ATLN.XV was pursuing a risky strategy by relying on macitentan, a successor to its $1.8 billion-a-year drug Tracleer which treats a rare but deadly lung disorder. "The company has stated that our primary objective is to seek a sale of the company," the six said in a letter to shareholders. "This is completely untrue." "We...are independent of Elliott...if elected we would represent all shareholders, and...our stated intention is to de-risk the company through a rigorous assessment of the options open to Actelion," they said. The group said that while a sale was one option they would consider, they would also pursue more disciplined capital allocation and changing the risk management and organizational structure of the firm. The board of Actelion urged shareholders last week to reject what it called an ill-conceived plan by Elliott Advisors to install the six new board members and prepare the way for a sale. The New York-based fund has pushed the Swiss group to consider putting itself up for sale after a spate of product setbacks. It is also calling for founder Jean-Paul Clozel to step down from the board but remain as chief executive. Pressure from Elliott, which owns nearly 6 percent of the $7 billion company, has been mounting ahead of the AGM on May 5 -- but the company recently won support from another significant shareholder, Rudolf Maag, who holds 4.2 percent. Actelion, which has hired Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse to advise it, is determined to stay independent, though some analysts say it could be the next pharma takeover target after Sanofi-Aventis's (SASY.PA) $20 billion-plus acquisition of Genzyme (GENZ.O). (Reporting by Emma Thomasson, editing by Sophie Walker)
Letter from Elliott Advisors' Proposed Board Directors to Actelion Shareholders 04/04/2011 | 03:05 am Dear Actelion shareholders, On March 28 2011, the Board of Actelion wrote a letter to you defending their current "wait and see" strategy and made a series of assertions about the intentions of Elliott Advisors, the company's largest shareholder. As candidate members of the alternative Board being proposed for Actelion, and being completely independent of Elliott Advisors, we wish to clarify our intentions for the benefit of the company, its shareholders and its employees and to reiterate our call that all the shareholders of Actelion should be given a say in the company's future. Should we be elected on May 5, we will have the support of more than 50% of all the voting shareholders in Actelion - a clear mandate for change from you, the shareholder. This mandate would allow us to address the failings of the current Board, who have overseen an R&D diversification strategy that has consistently failed to deliver; a runaway cost structure, and an acceptance of a single-path strategy, which has not adapted to the circumstances the company has found itself in. These key issues have created unnecessary risk for shareholders. We are determined to work with all shareholders of the company to achieve a sustainable business plan that best meets the needs of stakeholders and safeguards the interests of the company's employees. Shareholders need the Board to make an unbiased evaluation of strategic options It is very clear to us that the current strategy of the Board is high-risk for shareholders. In Actelion's annual report published in early 2009, management states its optimism for four late stage development programs. It wrote: "Actelion is on the verge of transforming itself into an organization with a much larger footprint. The success of any of the four ongoing major Phase III programs - bosentan for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), clazosentan for vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), almorexant for insomnia and macitentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension - could accelerate Actelion's growth over the next decade. While pursuing the key components of our strategy, we must carefully plan for success and anticipate the needs of a much larger organization. "Even if only two of these programs are ultimately successful, Actelion will undoubtedly become one of the world's leading and largest biopharmaceutical companies." Unfortunately, three of these four programs have since failed. However, there has been no acknowledgement of these failures by Actelion's Board - they continue to follow the existing strategy to the exclusion of all others, while asking shareholders to believe that there is minimal risk within their remaining late stage program. We believe that in the near term, the success of the Phase III trial of Macitentan as a sufficiently compelling alternative to replicate the success and cash flow of Tracleer is misguided. It is a strategy that asks shareholders to take a risk that is, in our opinion, not necessary. In the best case scenario, which assumes a successful outcome for the Macitentan trial, by following the stated company strategy, it is unlikely that Actelion will be able to maintain current shareholder value due to difficulties the company will face converting current Tracleer patients to Macitentan in the face of generic competition. In the worst case scenario, if Macitentan is not successful, this strategy will result in a massive destruction of shareholder value. The company has stated that our primary objective is to seek a sale of the company, with our election to the Board amounting to shareholders giving up control of the company to Elliott without them paying for it. This is completely untrue. We have been clear from the outset that we are independent of Elliott, that if elected we would represent all shareholders, and that our stated intention is to de-risk the company through a rigorous assessment of the options open to Actelion. In our view all options should be on the table and a sale of the company, although one option, will not necessarily be the best one going forward. Other steps that we believe also need to be considered include: the development of a more disciplined capital allocation framework; rationalising the capital structure of the business; strengthening the risk management and organisational set-up; and regaining momentum in the business, particularly from within the business development function. We believe that the time to do this assessment is now. Waiting for the data from the Macitentan trial potentially limits the firm's range of options and asks shareholders to assume an unnecessary risk no matter what the outcome of the trial is. It is clear that Actelion will have to take action at some stage, regardless of the Macitentan trials. We believe that the time is now, while the company is on a sure footing rather than in a year's time when it could be at crisis point. The risk from indecisiveness is too great. A poor track record of diversifying the pipeline Actelion is an unusual pharmaceutical company in that it is almost exclusively dependent on one product that generates nearly 90% of the company's revenue. A key part of any strategy for the future success of Actelion will be to diversify its revenue base, particularly given the fast approaching Tracleer patent cliff. Sadly for shareholders, the Board's record of delivery has been poor. Notable recent failures to diversify have included: •Failure to deliver a single product from its research pipeline to the market, despite spending almost CHF2.5 billion on R&D since going public •All attempts to diversify the development pipeline away from the core Pulmonary Artery Hypertension (PAH) area of expertise have failed but yet the company continues to invest in a highly diversified phase II pipeline in areas outside its core expertise •The attempts to acquire products to diversify its product base have resulted in three small opportunities, which only contribute approximately 10% of the overall revenues •The company's efforts to partner on projects with peers have stalled with the recent dissolution of the development partnerships with both Roche and GSK Moreover, the Board has failed to acknowledge these failures or offer an alternative coherent strategy to accomplish the diversification of their product portfolio. At the same time they have continued to support an overly inflated R&D budget1. Their investment in a diverse phase II pipeline is not likely to offer any meaningful revenue generation ahead of the Tracleer patent expiry and therefore offers little protection to shareholders over the medium term. Strong business management is needed While we applaud the creation of the highly successful PAH franchise, the company cannot continue to be run as a research boutique by spending almost CHF 500 million per year on R&D. Actelion needs to address with urgency the approach and organisation of its research and development capabilities, with greater transparency and a clearer direction. For example, at present projects are continued despite failing to show significant results in clinical trials. There appears to be little discrimination in the decision making process by management as to which projects it funds. A company the size of Actelion, with heavy focus on a core franchise (PAH), simply cannot have a critical mass of expertise in a further 10 different disease areas outside of its PAH focus. A further example of the company's mismanagement of funds can be seen in the Selling, General and Administration costs, which at approximately CHF 750 million per year, are extremely high for a speciality company such as Actelion2. More transparency is needed in this area and we believe that more effective cost discipline would generate greater shareholder returns. In the near term, Actelion is generating its shareholder returns through dividend payments and a share buyback program, however, we believe that there are far better uses for this cash. While the company quotes a quadrupling of share price in the years since going public, for those shareholders who have invested since 4Q 2006 the share price has flat-lined and they have seen little return on their investments. A far superior corporate governance proposal One message that we have heard consistently in our meetings with shareholders in recent weeks is that the current Board of Actelion, and its founder, are not willing to have an open and comprehensive discussion about the company's strategic alternatives. A critical part of ensuring that Actelion is following the best possible strategy is putting in place proper corporate governance and oversight. We believe that a Board needs to be independent of management, current in operational business practices and willing to evaluate all options without bias. The current Board in their letter to you have stated that "if and when an alternative strategy consistent with the fundamental value of Actelion comes forward, it will, of course be carefully evaluated". Who should bring forward such a strategy in the interest of shareholders, if not the Board? Actelion's management does not want to offer shareholders a choice in the future direction of the company, a fact made clear in its March 28 letter. We urge all shareholders to read the letter carefully, particularly when it outlines the rules for registering shares to vote in the May 5 AGM. In putting ourselves forward we are offering to Actelion shareholders an independently elected Board with extensive and recent experience across the biotech, pharmaceutical and corporate finance sectors - skills and experience that the current Board does not have. Equally important, is that we would bring fresh ideas and ways of thinking to the company and a willingness to urgently evaluate all options to create value for investors. We strongly believe that our diverse, yet complementary skill sets and experience will offer a significantly better alternative for the company, its employees and all of its shareholders. Full details of our experience can be found at www.ATLNshareholdersforchoice.com. We believe that shareholder value is being eroded and will continue to be destroyed unless firm and decisive action is taken by all shareholders now to encourage comprehensive change to the Board of Actelion. We, as independent directors, want to help maximise fully Actelion's potential and would urge you not to let the current Board squander the opportunities which lie ahead. Yours sincerely, Dr James Shannon Peter Allen Dr Anders Härfstrand Dr Robert Hock Elmar Schnee Hans-Christian Semmler Please see website for appendix: "Fundamental issues with Actelion under the status quo" 1 In 2010 the company's R&D spending amounted to 27% of product sales as compared to 21% spent on average by its largest international biotech peers (Amgen, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genzyme and Gilead). 2 In 2010 SG&A expenditure amounted to 41% of product sales, while the international biotech peer group on average only spends 27%. UK/US: Finsbury Group Rollo Head/Matthew Newton, +44 207 251 3801 elliott@finsbury.com or Switzerland: Roth Relations Iris Roth, +41 43 244 96 81 consulting@rothrelations.com
Analysts: Expect more hostile bids in pharma By Tracy Staton Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn To some analysts, Valeant Pharmaceuticals' offer for Cephalon makes it official: The pharma industry is living in a new era of hostile acquisitions. On the heels of Sanofi-Aventis' hostile bid for Genzyme--which ended in a friendly deal that closed today--Valeant's offer could inspire other, similar bids, they say. According to the Financial Times, a look at the numbers shows that dealmaking tactics have changed. There were only one to three hostile bids per year in pharma during 2000 to 2004. Since 2006, more than a third of all buyout offers were hostile or unsolicited. One reason, according to an FT source: "t's cheaper to go hostile than friendly." "The situation is reminiscent of the 1980s corporate raiding of the industrial sector," Bernstein Research's Ronny Gal wrote in an investor note (as quoted by the FT). Gal listed a dozen potential bid targets, including generics maker Impax, antibiotics specialist Cubist, and Big Pharma's Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb. "The laws of economics dictate that others will soon replicate this approach," he says.
By Jonathan Russell 9:40PM BST 04 Apr 2011 Actelion rebels say 50pc back board coup Rebel shareholders looking to replace the board of biotech giant Actelion claim they have got the backing of 50pc of investors. The rebel board is calling for Actelion, Europe's largest biotech company, to adopt a new approach by cutting spending on research, the share buyback programme and the dividend. With a month to go before the annual general meeting, the shareholders are urging other investors to vote off the current board and replace them with six executives nominated by activist investor Elliott Partners. In the latest spat in what is developing into an acrimonious row, the proposed board members also rejected Actelion's contention that they were only interested in sale of the company. After accusing the current board of "consistently failing to deliver" the mooted directors stated: "We are determined to work with all shareholders of the company to achieve a sustainable business plan that best meets the needs of stakeholders and safeguards the interests of the company's employees." The rebel directors also stated that they were independent of Elliott Partners. The battle between the current board backed by 4.2pc shareholder Rudolf Maag and the rebel board backed by Elliott Partners revolves around strategy. Actelion has been relying on the success of macitentan, a lung cancer drug. The rebels claim it is a high-risk strategy and too many other drug development programmes have failed. Actelion recently hit back at Elliott Partners with its own letter to shareholders. It stated: "Elliott's attempt to seize control of your company has been undertaken with one goal – to force a quick sale. Elliott offers no alternative to the strategy developed and being executed by Actelion's board and management team which, in 2010, delivered the highest levels of revenues, operating profit and net income in the history of Actelion." The Swiss drug company's annual meeting is due to take place on May 5. The rebel board is calling for Actelion, Europe's largest biotech company, to adopt a new approach by cutting spending on research, the share buyback programme and the dividend. Actelion has come under pressure recently after a number of its drug development programmes, such as sleeping pill almorexant, failed. The chairman, Rob Cawthorn, and chief executive, Jean-Paul Clozel, have been criticised for the failures. The proposed board members include former Novartis executive James Shannon. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/8427933/Actelion-rebels-say-50pc-back-board-coup.html
Take your pick. Any of them could buy Actelion with petty cash or by issuing more stock. No one knows who the buyer might be, but a Euro company like GSK or AZ would have few problems with the Brussels authorities as long as the research jobs stayed in the Euro zone.
IS ACTELION STILL TRYING TO BE THE PAH/INSOMNIA COMPANY? .................................... UPDATE 4-Actelion taps ex GSK boss as chairman-designate Wed, 6th Apr 2011 16:31 By Katie Reid ZURICH, April 6 (Reuters) - Actelion has nominated GlaxoSmithKline's formerboss and a second industry veteran to join the board at its May 5 annual meeting as it resists calls from hedge fund Elliott Advisors to consider selling up. Elliott said the move did not get to the root of Actelion's problems. The Swiss biotech group has come under fire from Elliott, its largest shareholder, for eroding shareholder value and the New York-based fund has urged Actelion to consider putting itself up for sale after a spate of product setbacks last year. Elliott, which holds nearly 6 percent of the $7.5 billion group, has proposed its own six new board members to the Actelion board and called for chief executive Jean-Paul Clozel and chairman Robert Cawthorn to step down from the board. Actelion struck back on Wednesday by proposing Jean-Pierre Garnier, GlaxoSmithKline's first CEO, and Robert Bertolini, the former chief financial officer of Schering-Plough, to join its board. If elected, Garnier would share the position of vice chairman with Joseph Scodari with a view to ultimately succeeding Cawthorn, when his term ends next year. 'The move is clearly designed to neutralise the campaign by Elliott by showing that the company is taking action. Attacks against the 'weak chairman' will now be somewhat off-target,' said Kepler Capital Markets analyst Tero Weckroth. 'However, we continue to believe that a vote in favour of the current board cannot be taken for granted. For investors, the risk-reward profile of Actelion shares remains attractive,' he added. Elliott's proposed board members said in a statement that Actelion's move failed to address the corporate governance issues they are criticising. 'Maintaining the current board with two new additions will not change the fundamental problems of lack of oversight. Furthermore, it endorses the existing high-risk strategy including the acceptance of runaway costs and R&D failures,' the Elliott nominees said. Clozel was quoted as saying in an interview on Tuesday that the group would not cling to independence if this did not generate shareholder value. Garnier led GlaxoSmithKline when it struck a deal with Actelion to develop insomnia drug almorexant, which the two companies later had to drop due to safety issues. '(Garnier) made the integration of GlaxoWellcome and SmithKline Beecham a true success, creating the world's second largest pharmaceutical group at the time,' Cawthorn said in a statement. Bertolini has also held various senior management and board director roles for more than 20 at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. 'We believe that both nominees are uniquely qualified to help Actelion realise the value inherent in its business as the company advances its well-balanced, late-stage pipeline and enters the next phase of its development,' Cawthorn said. Actelion shares were trading 1.9 percent lower at 1515 GMT, underperforming a near flat European healthcare index.
JCP is suddenly worried about shareholder value? What about the billions of dollars flushed down the toilet on questionable pipeline projects and stupidly constructed clinical studies? All of a sudden he has a conscience where shareholders are concerned after screwing the company for years on end. It is time for he and the Madame to be shoved out the door forcefully.
