Buyer of Forest Labs?

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
Potential bidders that could emerge are cash-rich, big pharma -- such as Lilly, Pfizer (PFE), Merck (MRK) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) -- active in the same therapeutic disease spaces, and looking to complement their existing franchises with the drug maker’s portfolio of cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system and respiratory treatments – and unafraid to cut duplicate overhead costs (such as Forest’s bloated sales force, ineffective product marketing teams, redundant R&D programs).

SEE: http://ycharts.com/analysis/story/th..._labs_takeover
 








Anonymous said:
Potential bidders that could emerge are cash-rich, big pharma -- such as Lilly, Pfizer (PFE), Merck (MRK) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) -- active in the same therapeutic disease spaces, and looking to complement their existing franchises with the drug maker’s portfolio of cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system and respiratory treatments – and unafraid to cut duplicate overhead costs (such as Forest’s bloated sales force, ineffective product marketing teams, redundant R&D programs).

SEE: http://ycharts.com/analysis/story/th..._labs_takeover
Click to expand...

The big challenge for this acquisition is most if not all companies that hold a licensing agreement with Forest have a clause in the contract blocks the transfer of the contract to a new company. You could acquire Forest and essentially get no products. all the companies could search for the highest bidder.
 




Anonymous said:
The big challenge for this acquisition is most if not all companies that hold a licensing agreement with Forest have a clause in the contract blocks the transfer of the contract to a new company. You could acquire Forest and essentially get no products. all the companies could search for the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

Wow, we are sooo lucky you pointed that out. I'm sure we wouldn't look at the books and have our extensive legal team review existing Forest co-marketing agreements prior to a takeover.

We got f'd on the King deal, maybe we aren't as business savy as wall street thinks
 




Anonymous said:
Wow, we are sooo lucky you pointed that out. I'm sure we wouldn't look at the books and have our extensive legal team review existing Forest co-marketing agreements prior to a takeover.

We got f'd on the King deal, maybe we aren't as business savy as wall street thinks
Click to expand...

We did pretty well with the Vicuron deal, though! For our 1.9 Billion we got....uhm...we got the blockbusters Eraxis and Zeven. We dumped Zeven off to some teeny company (probably loaded with ex-Pfizer caste-offs) and Eraxis has sold a grand total of...wait, let me check.

Bottom line is that our R&D hasnt done squat for over a decade. Good thing we are aggressive in gobbling up other companies, or we'd all be pimping a schizophrenia drug for a contract sales company.
 




Anonymous said:
Wow, we are sooo lucky you pointed that out. I'm sure we wouldn't look at the books and have our extensive legal team review existing Forest co-marketing agreements prior to a takeover.

We got f'd on the King deal, maybe we aren't as business savy as wall street thinks
Click to expand...

We f'd ourselves in the King deal because our due diligence SUCKED!
 




Anonymous said:
We f'd ourselves in the King deal because our due diligence SUCKED!
Click to expand...

Well, someone met a Goal and moved up the food chain.!!!!!!
That's what they do in "Leadership".
Happens all the time....main "mission" is to excite Wall Street short term, generate some (lots) local "Win" power-points, and try to identify any nay-sayers in the audience.................and get out of the way of the flying bullshit.
 
















Forest does not bring any value to the table for any company. It is a cut throat company that does not research or develop anything! They just buy other people's drugs and use primarily inexperienced reps (cheap) to push their drugs. Unfortunately, I once worked for them - not something I am proud of. No one is going to buy Forest. It would be like buying a cheap suit.
 




Anonymous said:
Forest does not bring any value to the table for any company. It is a cut throat company that does not research or develop anything! They just buy other people's drugs and use primarily inexperienced reps (cheap) to push their drugs. Unfortunately, I once worked for them - not something I am proud of. No one is going to buy Forest. It would be like buying a cheap suit.
Click to expand...


Kind of like Pfiz--?
 




Anonymous said:
Forest does not bring any value to the table for any company. It is a cut throat company that does not research or develop anything! They just buy other people's drugs and use primarily inexperienced reps (cheap) to push their drugs. Unfortunately, I once worked for them - not something I am proud of. No one is going to buy Forest. It would be like buying a cheap suit.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a perfect fit for Pfizer!

Pfizer solely has been purchasing has-been companies for their older medications.

R & D? What's that with Pfizer?!
 




The Board of Directors understand our strength is not R&D. That is why they continue to set aside dollars for stock buy backs. It is not a good sign of confidence when more money goes into buy backs for "shareholder value" when R&D needs funding.
 




Anonymous said:
Forest does not bring any value to the table for any company. It is a cut throat company that does not research or develop anything! They just buy other people's drugs and use primarily inexperienced reps (cheap) to push their drugs. Unfortunately, I once worked for them - not something I am proud of. No one is going to buy Forest. It would be like buying a cheap suit.
Click to expand...

Does not develop anything? You just described Pfizer after 1998. Outside of Viagra, Geodon and Vfend, we aint done much in the past 18 years. Read on:

Lipitor: not Pfizer
Zyvox: not Pfizer
Aricept: not Pfizer
Oncology portfolio: not Pfizer
COX 2 portfolio: not Pfizer
Zyrtec: not Pfizer
Lyrica: not Pfizer
Caduet (tee-hee): half, not Pfizer
Detrol LA: not Pfizer
Selzentry: not Pfizer
Spiriva: not Pfizer
 




Anonymous said:
Does not develop anything? You just described Pfizer after 1998. Outside of Viagra, Geodon and Vfend, we aint done much in the past 18 years. Read on:

Lipitor: not Pfizer
Zyvox: not Pfizer
Aricept: not Pfizer
Oncology portfolio: not Pfizer
COX 2 portfolio: not Pfizer
Zyrtec: not Pfizer
Lyrica: not Pfizer
Caduet (tee-hee): half, not Pfizer
Detrol LA: not Pfizer
Selzentry: not Pfizer
Spiriva: not Pfizer
Click to expand...

Making nearly ALL those #1 in class, Pfizer.
 




Anonymous said:
Potential bidders that could emerge are cash-rich, big pharma -- such as Lilly, Pfizer (PFE), Merck (MRK) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) -- active in the same therapeutic disease spaces, and looking to complement their existing franchises with the drug maker’s portfolio of cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system and respiratory treatments – and unafraid to cut duplicate overhead costs (such as Forest’s bloated sales force, ineffective product marketing teams, redundant R&D programs).

SEE: http://ycharts.com/analysis/story/th..._labs_takeover
Click to expand...

Forest doesn't own any of their drugs. Why buy a marketing company?
 




Anonymous said:
Making nearly ALL those #1 in class, Pfizer.
Click to expand...

Not sure we can take credit for their success, as many of those drugs are clearly superior to the competition? Before you go beating your avian-like chest, let's look at our RECENT track record, shall we?
In the past 6 years we've been exposed, just like the clothes-less Emperor. We had a good run when other companies handed us potential blockbusters, but when our backs were pinned to the wall with less than monsters to sell, we sucked. Period.
 




Anonymous said:
Not sure we can take credit for their success, as many of those drugs are clearly superior to the competition? Before you go beating your avian-like chest, let's look at our RECENT track record, shall we?
In the past 6 years we've been exposed, just like the clothes-less Emperor. We had a good run when other companies handed us potential blockbusters, but when our backs were pinned to the wall with less than monsters to sell, we sucked. Period.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Lipitor=Pfizer KNEW/SAW the potential, and hence bought the company/product(s).

Pfizer made the product #1, no, it was the product itself.

Pfizer's lack of internal creativity is evident. Pfizer solely has relied upon acquired company to grow Pfizer's cadre of products.
 




Anonymous said:
Exactly.

Lipitor=Pfizer KNEW/SAW the potential, and hence bought the company/product(s).

Pfizer made the product #1, no, it was the product itself.

Pfizer's lack of internal creativity is evident. Pfizer solely has relied upon acquired company to grow Pfizer's cadre of products.
Click to expand...

Same for Celebrex, and our Oncology portfolio. They were pinched from Pharmacia.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote