IBJNews

Charges drive down first-quarter profit at Lilly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

First-quarter profit fell at Eli Lilly and Co. as the company recorded restructuring charges due to its downsizing and higher research costs as it tries to develop new drugs to help it shrug off its looming patent expirations.

Excluding those charges, however, the Indianapolis-based drugmaker appeared to beat the expectations of Wall Street analysts.

Lilly earned $1.1 billion, or 95 cents per share, during the three months ended March 31. Those results were at least 15 percent lower than during the same quarter a year ago.

Lilly spent $76.3 million on severance as it continues its efforts to trim 5,500 workers by year’s end. It also spent another $26 million on its restructuring efforts. And two research partnerships—with Germany-based Boehringer Ingelheim and with Australia-based Acrux Ltd.—cost the company $438 million in the quarter.

Without those charges, Lilly would have earned $1.24 per share. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters, who typically exclude special charges from their forecasts, were expecting $1.16 per share.

Sales at Lilly rose 6 percent to $5.84 billion, mainly on the strength of international sales. Analysts were expecting revenue of $5.7 billion.

“This revenue growth allowed us to make necessary investments in research and development to address the challenges of upcoming patent expirations," Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a statement. "We are on track to deliver on our 2011 headcount and expense reduction targets, as well as our goal of having at least 10 potential new medicines in Phase 3 clinical development by the end of this year.”

At the end of October, Lilly will lose U.S. and European patent protection on its bestseller, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, which had $5 billion in sales last year. Then in 2013, Lilly will lose U.S. and European patent protection on its No. 2 drug, Cymbalta.

In both cases, cheap generic copies will quickly sap most of those drugs’ sales.

Lilly lowered its full-year profit forecast by about 6 cents per share—to reflect its restructuring charges. It now expects to earn $3.86 to $4.01 per share.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT