Company news

August 26, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Oops. West Lafayette-based Bioanalytical Systems Inc. announced Aug. 21 that it will have to restate financial reports going all the way back to June 2011 because of an accounting error. Bioanalytical, which sells drug development equipment and services to pharmaceutical firms, has been unable to file its latest quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Because of that failure to file, the NASDAQ stock market has threatened to delist Bioanalytical. The $422,000 error helped make Bioanalytical’s losses applicable to common shareholders during the past 2½ years about 4 percent less than they should have been, according to an unaudited restatement of results issued by the company. The company previously reported losses for common shareholders of $10.1 million during that 2½-year period. The error occurred in May 2011 when Bioanalytical staged a public offering of new shares. Those sales included a purchase warrant, which Bioanalytical should have recorded as a liability, but instead recorded as equity. The warrants could, in some cases, require Bioanalytical to pay cash to investors, the company stated in a press release.

After shelling out $29.4 million last year to settle 15 years' worth of bribery charges, Indianapolis-based drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. is in the same pickle again. A Chinese newspaper reported last week that Lilly employees in China gave at least $4.9 million in bribes and kickbacks to Chinese doctors to entice them to prescribe Lilly’s medicines, particularly its insulins for diabetes. A Lilly spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the allegations to Bloomberg News, but said Lilly is investigating. Bribes and special payments are common practice for selling products in China, according to the 21st Century Business Herald in China, but it is a violation of U.S. law for a U.S.-based corporation to bribe foreign officials. The allegations make Lilly the third major multinational drugmaker accused of bribing doctors in return for prescribing drugs. GlaxoSmithKline Plc, based in London, and Paris-based Sanofi-Aventis SA face similar investigations. In 2012, Lilly agreed to pay the SEC to settle charges that it paid off government officials to obtain government contracts in Brazil, China, Russia and Poland from 1994 to 2009.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana is suing to block a new state law that tightens abortion pill regulations, arguing that the law wrongly targets the organization's clinic in Lafayette, according to the Associated Press. The federal lawsuit filed Aug. 22 claims the law violates equal protection rights because it requires the Planned Parenthood clinic in Lafayette to meet the same standards as surgical abortion clinics but doesn't apply those rules to the offices of doctors who distribute the abortion pill. The Lafayette clinic does not perform surgical abortions. Planned Parenthood officials maintain the only purpose of requiring it to have separate procedure and recovery rooms is to restrict women's access to the abortion pill. The law was approved in April by the Republican-dominated Legislature. Supporters say it's aimed at ensuring the abortion pill is given under proper medical care.


Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...