Buyer of Forest Labs?

[Anonymous]

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]

Pfizer can buy it and call it" Pfizer Pforest". Then they can continue to not produce any novel drugs- but they will be able to fool the shareholders once again.

 

[Anonymous]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

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.

 

[Anonymous]

They have an anti infective with molecules in the pipeline that would fit nicely into our portfolio.

 

[Anonymous]

They have an anti infective with molecules in the pipeline that would fit nicely into our portfolio.

"They have"........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So much for the billions $$$ in-house "R&D".......
always "they have"...."our portfolio".!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hilarious (I guess).

 

[Anonymous]

Licensing is a reasonable business strategy. Why not?

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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.

Kind of like Pfiz--?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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?!

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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.

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]

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

Making nearly ALL those #1 in class, Pfizer.

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

Making nearly ALL those #1 in class, Pfizer.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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