Cell Genesys Closes $320 Million Deal with Takeda
While investors may not aways support biotech alliances as discussed in our March 27th blog posting, entering into an alliance with a pharmaceutical company can still make good business sense, as in the case of the $320 million Cell Genesys-Takeda deal that closed this week.
The In Vivo Blog reported on the terms of the deal as follows:
Takeda agreed to fork over $50 million in up-front payments, plus additional regulatory and commercialization milestones worth up to $270 million for exclusive world-wide rights to the product. In addition, Takeda will pay Cell Genesys tiered, double-digit royalties based on net sales of the GVAX immunotherapy in the US; in all other regions, Cell Genesys will receive flat double-digit royalties. Not quite a profit split, but again, by no means stingy.
Just as important, going forward Takeda will pay for all external development costs associated with the the immunotherapy’s clinical development and will also pick up the tab for all additional development and commercialization costs. Cell Genesys even managed to wrangle a co-promote option–US only–out of the Japanse firm. Finally, the deal only includes the prostate cancer immunotherapy. Cell Genesys is free to develop its GVAX technology to treat other cancers.
Why did this deal make good business sense for Cell Genesys?
According to the In Vivo Blog, one reason is that Cell Genesys obtained a deal which will pay the company a significant amount of money in an agreement for technology that remains unproven–Cell Genesys Phase III GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer.
Moreover, the partnership will provide the cash to cover the costs that Cell Genesys anticipates burning this year, The In Vivo Blog explains as follows:
On its fourth quarter earnings call in late February, the company’s CFO, Sharon Tetlow, reported it had just $147 million in cash. Not bad for a biotech, but not good considering the $100 to $105 million burn the company forecasted for 2008, thanks largely to the significant costs associated with its prostate cancer immunotherapy trials, VITAL-1 and VITAL-2. With one partnership, the company has managed to off-load the lion’s share of these costs, giving it some much needed breathing room, while still enjoying upsides in terms of development and generous royalties.
All in all, the In Vivo Blog concludes that "[t]here’s no doubt the deal makes financial sense for Cell Genesys. However, did this deal really make sense for Takeda?
First of all, backing the GVAX Prostate is highly risky, according toThe Street.com’s Adam Fuerstein, who argues that the clinical data to date is unreliable.
Second of all, the controversy surrounding cancer immunotherapies may have been a red flag to other companies, who In Vivo Blog suggests would have "steered clear of Cell Genesys’s GVAX Prostate."
On the other hand, the In Vivo Blog suggests that the deal furthered Takeda’s recent growth strategy:
[Takeda] is desperate to extend its reach beyond Japan given that country’s sluggish growth and harsh price cuts. And, like other pharmas, Takeda certainly faces its own patent cliff. But the Japanese pharma is taking bold steps to play in the large molecule arena; according to Windhover’s Strategic Transactions Database, Takeda has signed 9 large molecule alliances since 2006. While most of the deals have focused on antibody technology–a la the Amgen partnership–the company is no stranger to risky ventures. Last summer, Takeda became one of the first pharmas to collaborate with aptamer pioneer, Archemix. . . .
So, perhaps this deal will really be a win-win for both parties. Feurstein expresses his doubts and even the In Vivo Blog is not so sure.
Regardless of how Takeda fares, it is clear that Cell Genesys will benefit from this alliance–thus demonstrating in a very clear way why entering into alliances can be a good business decision for biotech companies.