• Tier 1: market capitalization in excess of $10 billion
• Tier 2: market capitalization greater than $2 billion but less than $10 billion
• Tier 3: market capitalization of at least $1 billion but less than $2 billion

At that time, the 30 companies in these three groups had a collective market capitalization of approximately $240 billion. Assuming that investors reinvested the entire $47 billion in cash they received from the Roche/Genentech transaction into these groups, it would have represented nearly 20% of the total value.  While some of the money may have been reinvested in Roche, such an imbalance between supply and demand could have resulted in relative outperformance from members of the three groups.

Following today’s news that Sanofi-aventis (SNY) is acquiring Genzyme Corporation (GENZ) for approximately $20 billion in cash [plus a contingent value right], we reviewed the performance of our three tiers to determine which companies, if any, benefited the most from the reinvestment of $47 billion following the Roche/Genentech transaction.

From the date that the Roche/Genentech transition was announced [March 12, 2009] through February 15, 20111, the NASDAQ Composite (COMP) was up approximately +97%.  In contrast, the NBI only increased +50% during the period.  Recall that the NBI is calculated under a modified capitalization-weighted methodology, taking into account the total market value of the companies it tracks and not just their share prices.  Accordingly, companies with the largest market capitalization have the highest weighting in the index – making the NBI a good proxy for the performance of larger capitalization biotechnology companies.

Contrary to expectations, the largest biotechnology companies did not appear to benefit from a reallocation of funds from the Roche/Genentech transaction and posted the worst overall performance during the period.  In fact, all six members of the Tier 1 group underperformed the NBI, which includes Genzyme [see Table 1].  The companies in Tier 1 should have been the closest to Genentech with regard to their risk/return profile.

Table 1: Tier 1 Group

With market capitalizations greater than $2 billion but less than $10 billion around the time that the Roche/Genentech transaction was announced, Tier 2 represented the best performing group.  While Tier 2 contained both winners and losers, more than half of the Tier 2 companies outperformed the NBI, including four with triple-digit gains during the period [see Table 2].

Table 2: Tier 2 Group

* Acquired by Astellas Pharma in May 2010, price as of 3/31/2009 and the acquisition price, respectively

Tier 3 was the second best performing group.  Half of the Tier 3 companies outperformed the NBI, including four with triple-digit gains during the period [see Table 3].

Table 3: Tier 3 Group

* Acquired by Gilead in March 2009, price as of 3/31/2009 and the acquisition price, respectively

** Acquired by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma in September 2009, price as of 3/31/2009 and the acquisition price, respectively

In conclusion, the reallocation of funds following a significant merger & acquisition [M&A] transaction for cash doesn’t appear to benefit larger biotechnology companies with similar risk/reward profiles in terms of relative stock performance [Tier 1].  While a comprehensive analysis of the data is beyond the scope of this article, this could result from the reallocation of capital into the acquiring company, sufficient liquidity from larger biotechnology companies to withstand the increased demand, and/or other factors.   However, using history as a guide, those companies with a market capitalization between $2 and $10 billion appear most likely to benefit from reinvestment following the recent Sanofi/Genzyme transaction.

NEW – Click here to view this article in PDF format.

With 2009 officially on the books, it appears an appropriate time to review the sector’s performance along with some of the themes highlighted in our previous articles.

Big Versus Small

The twenty-member NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index (BTK) was up 46% in 2009, while the broader NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) was only up 16%, underperforming the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU), S&P 500 (SPX), and NASDAQ Composite (COMP), which were up 19%, 24%, and 44%, respectively.  Why the huge discrepancy in returns between these two major biotechnology indices?  Unlike the equal-weighted NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, the NASDAQ Biotech Index is market value-weighted, taking into account the total market capitalization of the companies it tracks and not just their share prices.  Accordingly, companies with the largest market capitalizations, or the greatest values, will have the highest weighting in the index.

During 2009, large capitalization biotechnology companies [greater than $10 billion] dramatically underperformed their smaller peers.  For example, Celgene Corporation (CELG) was essentially flat, Amgen, Inc. (AMGN) was down 2%, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) declined by 15%, and Genzyme Corporation (GENZ) dropped 26% [earning Henri Termeer the coveted Nance Trophy for worst biotech CEO of 2009 by TheStreet.com’s Adam Feuerstein].  Some of the reasons for this poor performance include concerns over generic competition and pipeline progress – ironically some of the same issues that have plagued big pharma.

Accordingly, the relative underperformance of large capitalization biotechnology companies in 2009 masked the fact that many smaller, innovative companies performed well, with 20 of the 125 companies comprising the NASDAQ Biotech Index producing triple-digit returns during the period.  In fact, two biotechnology companies were among the largest percentage gainers in the NASDAQ Composite with their staggering quadruple-digit returns: Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VNDA) +2,150% and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI) +1,342%.  See Table 1 for a list of the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Table 1. Top ten gainers from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

Oncology: Prostate Cancer Spotlight

Driven by positive Phase 3 results from Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) regarding its prostate cancer vaccine study, investors gravitated towards biotechnology companies working in the field of prostate cancer treatment as noted in our May 2009 article.  This enthusiasm only increased when Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) announced in May 2009 that it would acquire Cougar Biotechnology, Inc., a development stage company with an oral prostate cancer treatment being studied in two Phase 3 clinical trials, for approximately $1 billion. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Oncogenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OGXI) started the year around $3.00 and ended above $22 for a 643% return.  Oncogenex is developing OGX-011, which is designed to inhibit the production of clusterin, a protein that is associated with cancer treatment resistance, and has completed Phase 2 clinical trials in prostate, lung and breast cancer.  OGX-011 received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of progressive metastatic prostate cancer in combination with docetaxel.  Shares of Oncogenex had traded higher than $42 in August 2009, but the stock price declined following a license agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) for OGX-011 that apparently did not meet investor’s expectations.

Not all biotechnology companies working in the area of prostate cancer were as fortunate as Dendreon, Cougar, and Oncogenex.  Shares of GTx, Inc. (GTXI) were the second largest industry decliner for 2009 due to a complete response letter from the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] that cited clinical deficiencies regarding the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for toremifene 80 mg to reduce fractures in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.  See Table 2 for a list of the top ten decliners from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Shareholder Activist Wins

In view of past major coups with MedImmune and ImClone, in August 2009 we reviewed Carl Icahn’s biotechnology holdings as reported in SEC filings and identified three companies that significantly underperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index over the past five years, but with recent successful shareholder activist outcomes that could positively impact future performance.  In particular, we noted that Alexander Denner, who has served as Managing Director of entities affiliated with Carl Icahn and as a director of ImClone, had recently been elected as a director at each company.

During 2009, those three companies, Biogen Idec, Inc. (BIIB), Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMLN), and Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ENZN) produced positive returns of 12%, 31% and 81%, respectively.  While Biogen Idec underperformed the sector, it notched the highest return among large capitalization biotechnology companies.

In other shareholder activist news, holders of Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) are likely pleased that the company’s Board of Directors spurned a request by Tang Capital Partners, LP to liquidate the company in February 2009.  Shares of Vanda were up 2,150% for the year [see Table 1] following FDA approval in May 2009 to market the company’s Fanapt™ [iloperidone], a novel antipsychotic for the acute treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia, and a subsequent marketing agreement for the product with Novartis AG (NVS).

CNS: Developments for Parkinson’s Disease

Vanda Pharmaceuticals wasn’t the only company working in the area of central nervous system [CNS] disorders to make news.  Shares of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (IPXL), which were trading around $7.50 at the time we published our August 2009 article titled “Treating Parkinson’s Disease: Investment Opportunities and Challenges,” continued to reach new 52-week highs and ended up 172% for the year [see Table 1].  Impax recently initiated the second of two Phase 3 studies designed to support marketing approval of its IPX066 product candidate for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.  IPX066 is an investigational extended release carbidopa-levodopa product intended to rapidly achieve and then sustain effective blood concentrations of levodopa, potentially improving clinical symptom management.

Gastrointestinal Disease: 3 Hits, 3 Misses

First, the good:

Both Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (SLXP) and Santarus, Inc. (SNTS) appear in the list of top ten biotechnology gainers for 2009 with triple-digit returns due to favorable regulatory progress reported during the year [see Table 1].  In September, Salix announced the successful outcome of two Phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xifaxan® [rifaximin] for the treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome.  Salix is planning an NDA submission for the first half of 2010.  In December, Santarus announced that the FDA approved the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for its prescription tablet product for all of the indications being sought, including for the treatment of heartburn and other symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Soligenix, Inc. (SNGX.OB) increased 317% during 2009.  In January, the company reached agreement with the FDA on the design of a confirmatory, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating its lead product orBec® for the treatment of acute gastrointestinal Graft-versus-Host Disease [GVHD].  The following month, Soligenix announced a potential $30 million North American partnership agreement with Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals for orBec and in October 2009 initiated patient enrollment in the confirmatory Phase 3 trial that is expected to complete with clinical data available in the first half of 2011.

Next, the bad:

As discussed in our December 2009 article “Graft Versus Host Disease: Failures and Future Opportunities,” Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (OSIR) recently reported preliminary results from two Phase 3 trials evaluating its Prochymal product candidate for the treatment of acute GVHD.  Unfortunately, neither trial reached its primary endpoint, sending shares from $14 to a 52-week low of $5.35 by November 2009, earning the company a spot in the top ten decliners for the year [see Table 2]. 

The other two casualties working in the area of gastrointestinal disease and appearing in the top ten decliners for 2009 are:

• Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PGNX), which announced in October 2009 that the company regained worldwide rights to Relistor® [methylnaltrexone bromide] for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.  Global net sales of Relistor for the third quarter of 2009 were a mere $3.3 million, as compared to $3.2 million in sales for the previous quarter.
• In the absence of any negative clinical or regulatory news, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) stated it remains on track to reach full patient enrollment before the end of the first quarter of 2010 for a confirmatory Phase 3 trial with Gattex™ (teduglutide), the company’s proprietary analog of naturally occurring human glucagon-like peptide 2 [GLP-2], for the treatment of short bowel syndrome [SBS].  NPS believes that positive results from the trial, expected to complete in October 2010 according to ClinicalTrials.gov, will enable the company to seek U.S. marketing approval for Gattex.

Table 2. Top ten decliners from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

2010 Outlook

The capital markets remain turbulent and there may be casualties along the way among undercapitalized companies, but many of the biotechnology industry’s fundamentals, such as the number of products in clinical trials, new product approvals, profitable biotech companies and industry mergers & acquisitions remain favorable for 2010. Similar to 2009, small capitalization companies with clinical or regulatory catalysts should continue to outperform their larger industry peers in the year ahead.

What is your outlook for the biotechnology industry in 2010?  Take a moment to complete our survey, which is only ten questions long and will take just minutes to complete.  The results of this important survey along with our industry outlook will be communicated in early 2010 through a future article.  Take the survey now by clicking here.

Although the compound, known as omecamtiv mecarbil (previously CK-1827452), had just completed Phase 1 clinical trials at that time, Amgen paid Cytokinetics approximately $75 million upfront, comprised of a license and technology access fee of $42 million along with a $33 million equity investment whereby Amgen purchased 3.5 million Cytokinetics common shares at $9.47.  During the initial two year research term, Cytokinetics would continue to pay for development of omecamtiv mecarbil.

If the product met pre-defined criteria in Phase 2a clinical trials, Amgen would be able to exercise its option to commercialize omecamtiv mecarbil, prompting an additional $50 million exercise fee payment to Cytokinetics.  Amgen would then be responsible for the costs of the developing the compound and any related products.  In addition, Cytokinetics may be eligible to receive pre-commercialization and commercialization milestone payments of up to $600 million as well as royalties that escalate based on increasing levels of annual net sales of products commercialized under the collaboration.

On May 26, 2009, the companies announced that Amgen exercised its option to obtain an exclusive worldwide license [excluding Japan].  Shortly thereafter, data from Phase 2a clinical trials were presented at the 2009 Heart Failure Congress of the European Society of Cardiology.  Based on clinical results to date, Cytokinetics and Amgen have agreed to proceed with a modified-release oral formulation of omecamtiv mecarbil in the planned Phase 2b clinical trials.  Shares of Cytokinetics, which were trading around $2 prior to these positive events, recently rallied to around $3 per share – still less than one-third the price Amgen paid back in 2007.

Amgen isn’t the first company looking beyond its internal R&D efforts for new products or expanding into a new therapeutic class or disease setting.  Beyond such licensing transactions, there have been some high profile acquisitions in the area of cardiovascular disease.  Consider the following:

• Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) acquired Scios, Inc. for approximately $2.4 billion in 2003
• Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) acquired Myogen, Inc. for approximately $2.5 billion in 2006 and more recently CV Therapeutics, Inc. for approximately $1.4 billion in 2009
• Merck & Co., Inc. (MRK) acquired privately-held NovaCardia, Inc. for $350 million in 2007

With this in mind, we offer a brief review of one specific segment of the cardiovascular space – ischemic heart disease – and some of the remaining biotechnology companies focusing on this area.

Ischemic Heart Disease

Ischemic heart disease or heart failure [HF] is the leading cause of death worldwide, causing about 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States [US].  HF, which affects over 5.7 million people in the US, is caused by a lack of oxygenated blood flow through the coronary arteries to heart muscle cells [cardiomyocytes] causing cell death.  This process is known as a myocardial infarction [MI] or heart attack.

Cardiomyocytes are responsible for the synchronized contraction and blood pumping action of the heart.  Importantly, the number of cardiomyocytes in the heart is a relatively fixed number, as these cells are unable to divide [see note at the end of this article].  If a patient suffers an MI in which blood flow is blocked to 30% of the heart resulting in death of 30% of the cardiomyocytes, the heart only has about 70% of the cardiomyocytes remaining that need to do the work the original 100% normally do.  That is why cardiac function is often severely depressed after MI; some patients become tired after walking a short distance because their heart function is unable to meet the demands of the body.   In addition, this puts a severe strain on the remaining cells – creating a vicious cycle of more cell death.

Current medications to treat patients with HF include b-adrenergic receptor blocker [beta blockers, or BB], angiotensin-II receptor blockers [ARBs], and diuretics.  Patients taking these pharmacological modifiers have increased survival yet they are far from ideal.   Many of these drugs were discovered and developed quite a few years ago and are their mechanism of action is limited to cell surface receptor modulation [table 1].   Importantly, the incidence of HF is increasing in the US and the 5-year prognosis of patients diagnosed with HF is not improving.

Table 1.

Over the past 10 years, significant progress has been made in understanding the molecular mechanisms of HF.  As a result, new molecular targets and therapeutic strategies are in clinical development to treat patients suffering from HF.  Several of these approaches, including gene therapy and stem cell therapy, are making significant progress in the preclinical and clinical space.

Small Molecule and Peptide Approaches

In addition to Cytokinetics’ aforementioned cardiac myosin activator, other companies are also developing small molecule and peptide approaches to treat HF.  Several of these companies are large biopharmaceutical companies developing drugs that are line extensions or reformulations of FDA approved drugs.  Herein, we have highlighted select companies with unique compounds or technology.

For example, shares of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (PTN) have doubled since the announcement of Amgen’s option for the Cytokinetics compound.  Although quite dissimilar from omecamtiv mecarbil, Palatin’s PL-3994 is a synthetic molecule acting as an atrial natriuretic peptide mimetic for the treatment of HF.  PL-3994 may have several advantages versus traditional peptides, such as Natrecor® [Nesiritide], the recombinant DNA produced intact natriuretic hormone from Scios/Johnson & Johnson.  These advantages include an extended half-life and reduced affinity for natriuretic peptide clearance receptors reducing enzymatic digestion.   In addition, PL-3394 can be administered subcutaneously compared to IV delivery for other peptides or biologics.  Preclinical data demonstrated the prevention of cardiac hypertrophy and other indicators of HF.  Importantly, the clinical trials demonstrated safety in combination with other anti-hypertensive therapies.  Together, PL-3994 may offer improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties for patients with significant cardiac decompensation.

Cardioxyl Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a privately-held company focused on the discovery and development of nitroxyl therapeutics for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases.  The company’s lead program, CXL-1020, is a novel, proprietary nitroxyl donor currently in Phase 1 development as a potential therapy for acute decompensated heart failure.

Cordex Pharmaceutical, Inc. (CDXP) is developing CDP-1050, which is expected to enter a Phase 2 clinical study in 2009.  CDP-1050 is designed to correct nitric oxide and redox imbalance in the failing heart and improve cardiovascular function.  The drug has a dual mechanism of action; it inhibits the production of tissue-damaging reactive oxygen radicals and restores nitric oxide to physiologic levels.  The principal therapeutic target of the drug is the ryanodine receptor, a key calcium-ion channel in the heart that supplies the calcium necessary for the heart to contract.

RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (RGN) is developing RGN-352, an injectable naturally occurring peptide in solution, for the treatment of cardiac tissue damage post MI.   RGN-352 has demonstrated both myocardial salvage and angiogenic properties in at-risk myocardial tissue. More specifically, preclinical studies have identified Tβ4′s ability to promote cell migration, anti-apoptosis, anti-inflammation and myocardial stem cell differentiation in the heart.

Stem Cell Therapies

In the scientific and investment community there is much excitement over cardiac regeneration therapies through stem cells or progenitor cells.  Stem cell therapy offers the promise of replacing many of the dead cardiomyocytes with functional cells.  There is, however, no consensus on the best approach to achieve optimal results.  As such, the field of cardiac regeneration is relatively new with many more questions than answers.   However, numerous biotechnology companies, both public and private, are developing cardiac stem cell therapy approaches:

• Bioheart, Inc. (BHRT) is developing MyoCell®, a clinical stage cardiac stem cell therapy for patients who have suffered an MI.  MyoCell uses a patient’s myoblasts that are directly injected into the cardiac ventricles.  Bioheart has demonstrated that the myoblasts are able to differentiate and begin to contract.  The company is set to begin a 330-patient, multicenter Phase II/III trial of MyoCell in North America and Europe.
• Aastrom Biosciences, Inc. (ASTM) is developing Cardiac Repair Cells [CRCs] that are based on their patented Tissue Repair Technology, with the goal of repairing and regenerating damaged heart tissue in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM].  The company is currently recruiting patients for their phase 2 trial.
• Geron Corporation (GERN) has a stem cell therapy in preclinical development using human cardiomyocytes derived from hESCs [GRNCM1] through a process that can be scaled for clinical production.  GRNCM1 cells have normal contractile function and respond appropriately to cardiac drugs.  The company plans to continue preclinical development of GRNCM1 in 2009.
• Aldagen, Inc., a privately-held company, has completed enrollment for the phase 1 study of its ALD-201 product candidate.   ALD-201 is a population of stem cells collected and isolated from a patient’s bone marrow receiving the therapy.  Aldagen isolates a population of cells expressing a conserved enzyme expressed by their target cells allowing for isolation of a heterogeneous population of cells needed for repair.
• Angioblast Systems, Inc., also a privately-held company, recently announced positive interim results from their Phase 2 study of Revascor™, an “off the shelf” adult stem cell product for HF.  The interim data showed improved cardiac function with the lowest dose of Revascor along with an excellent safety profile.
• Lastly, privately-held Amorcyte, Inc. is developing AMR–001, a bone marrow-derived, CD 34 positive selected stem cell.  Amorcyte plans to begin enrollment of their phase 2 trial in 2009.

Gene and Recombinant Therapy

Gene therapy is another new approach being taken by biotechnology companies for the treatment of HF.  Gene therapy is the introduction of DNA into the cell aimed at targeting a specific cellular pathway that may not be achievable through small molecules.

Celladon Corporation is a privately-held company developing MYDICAR®, an Adeno Associated Virus [AAV] delivered enzyme replacement therapy for patients at end stage HF that are eligible for heart transplantation.  MYDICAR therapy is designed to restore levels of SERCA2a, an enzyme known to play a key role in the progression of heart failure.  In early stage human clinical trials, MYDICAR has been shown to be safe and improved cardiac function as well as exercise performance.

Cardiome Pharma Corp (CRME) is developing GED-aPC, an engineered analog of recombinant human activated Protein C [aPC] with enhanced anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic and strong binding to endothelial protein C receptor properties. Cardiome intends to initially develop GED-aPC in cardiogenic shock, a life-threatening form of acute circulatory failure due to cardiac dysfunction, which is a leading cause of death for patients hospitalized following a heart attack.

Who Might be Next?

Despite the promise and significant upside associated with cardiac regeneration through gene therapy or stem cell therapy, Amgen chose Cytokinetics’ relatively lower-risk small molecule as their investment for the future of HF.  Other potential acquirers may do the same, as small molecules are advantageous for a variety of reasons, including:

• Dosing and Delivery: Drug delivery with small molecules is much less of a concern, so these technologies clearly have an advantage over gene and stem cell approaches.  Gene and stem cell technologies will most likely be administered only at specialized treatment centers while small molecules will have faster market penetration.
• Clear Regulatory Path: The regulatory path is a major hurdle to cross for any new drug entering the market. Small molecules have an advantage because the FDA is much more familiar with small molecule approval.  The FDA is less familiar with stem cell therapy and gene therapy products.  In fact, gene therapy products go through an additional review by the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee [RAC], adding to the complexity of FDA approval.
• Safety: There are less safety concerns associated with small molecules compared to the potential long-term effects of progenitor cells and cardiac regeneration.  Several groups are concerned with off target differentiation, but the only ways to truly know the risks are through clinical trials and new product monitoring.  Although gene therapy has made significant strides since the death of Jesse Gelsinger in 1999, the potential risks associated with gene therapy are immune response, low transduction, and off target gene production.
• Manufacturing: Small molecule and peptide manufacturing will also be an advantage, as these products can be produced efficiently and at a relatively low cost.  While the manufacturing of AAV for Celladon should not be a major hurdle, a specialized GMP manufacturing facility will be needed.  Like other biologics, the manufacturing process will be significantly more complex and costlier compared with small molecules.  Some of the stem cell therapies will not have to manufacture their product, but isolation of the precursor cells will require a physician specialist.

The fact that Amgen chose a small molecule over cardiac regeneration through stem cell or gene therapy may underscore the uncertainty of these emerging technologies.  Stem cell and gene therapies have more therapeutic potential by addressing the underlying pathophysiology of HF, but significant work may be required before investors or large biopharmaceutical partners enter the space.  However, in view of the high profile acquisitions in the area of cardiovascular disease, many biopharmaceutical companies may be keeping a close eye on the progress of these new therapeutic approaches and will be poised to pounce as a winner emerges.

Note: There is much debate about endogenous progenitor cells within the heart.  Some scientists say the number of cardiomyocytes is fixed while others say there is very slow regeneration.  Regardless, the regeneration would never come close to being able to replace the massive cell death associated with MI.  Some labs are looking to activate these endogenous progenitor cells, but this technology is still in academic research.  For an excellent review on cardiac regeneration, please see “Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2009 Aug;11(4):316-27”

# # #

About MD Becker Partners LLC

MD Becker Partners is a boutique management and strategy consulting firm focusing on both public and private companies in emerging growth industries, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech. The firm’s mission is to bring experience-based insights gleaned from the three independent disciplines of investor relations, strategic advisory and operational improvement together and apply them to carefully conceived and expertly enacted strategies that help companies increase visibility, unlock value and access resources to grow their business. For more information, visit the website: http://www.mdbpartners.com/

Disclaimer: This article contains the author’s own opinions, and none of the information contained therein constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. To the extent any of the information contained in the article may be deemed to be investment advice, such information is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any specific person.