IBJNews

Bioanalytical Systems reports quarterly loss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bioanalytical Systems Inc. said on Wednesday that it lost $1.4 million in its fiscal first quarter as the company continued to struggle with falling demand for its products and services.

The loss for the West Lafayette-based life sciences contract research firm translated to 30 cents per share, compared with a loss of $1.5 million in the same period the prior year, or 32 cents per share.
 
Revenue in the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31 fell 21 percent, to $6.4 million.

The company attributed the loss in revenue to a decrease in new bookings, as well as delays by sponsors on projects previously booked.

“The first fiscal quarter of 2010 was one of continued challenges for us,” Bioanalytical Systems CFO Michael Cox said in a prepared statement. “We experienced lower demand for our products and services, project cancellations and delays primarily due to the current general economic conditions, increased competition and consolidation of several large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.”

The company currently is without a CEO, after Richard M. Shepperd, 69, announced his retirement last month.

Shepperd, who joined the firm in October 2006, immediately relinquished his job as company president. He also announced his intention to retire from his post as CEO and his seat on the Bioanalytical Systems board on Feb. 12.

Bioanalytical Systems replaced Shepperd on an interim basis with Anthony Chilton, 53, the firm’s chief operating officer. The company intends to conduct a national search for a permanent CEO.

Shares of Bioanalytical Systems were trading at 70 cents each Wednesday morning.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT