IBJNews

Lilly eyes more animal-health acquisitions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. is interested in animal-health assets that may be offered for sale as a result of Sanofi-Aventis SA and Merck & Co.’s plan to combine their veterinary units.

Indianapolis-based Lilly wants to expand in the $19 billion market for pet and farm animal medicines, as well as make smaller acquisitions in human health as it seeks to replace top-selling drugs that face generic competition beginning next year, said CEO John Lechleiter in an interview in Frankfurt on Thursday.

“If there are future divestitures that we could acquire, we’re going to be looking at those carefully,” said Lechleiter. “We’re watching carefully. We know what our strategy is for our business.”

Lilly’s Elanco veterinary unit agreed this month to buy European rights to a portfolio of Pfizer Inc. products. Sanofi, based in Paris, is likely to have to sell some assets to satisfy regulators over its planned veterinary medicine combination with Merck, CEO Christopher Viehbacher told French daily Les Echos in a March 10 interview.
Elanco is the fastest-growing companion-animal business in the industry, said Lechleiter. Asked specifically about possible Sanofi assets that may come up for sale, he said: “If there’s anything that comes out of that, yes.”

Lechleiter has shunned large takeovers or expansion into markets other than branded pharmaceuticals. Larger competitors chose mergers or acquisitions in generics as a way to compensate for the loss of patent protection on their medicines.

“We believe the key in this industry is innovation,” he said. “We see no correlation between size and the degree of innovation that any one company manifests.”

Lilly spends more than $4 billion a year on research and development. The maker of the Zyprexa antipsychotic medicine is also prepared to use its cash for small acquisitions and to buy rights to new drug candidates, Lechleiter said.

“We think we can fund our pipeline and be productive, introduce new products and grow the business from the base that we have today,” he said. “We have a strong balance sheet. We’ll use the cash that we accumulate to do smaller deals.”

Elanco’s revenue has been growing about 10 percent each year, reaching $1.2 billion in 2009, or about 5.5 percent of Lilly’s nearly $22 billion in annual revenue.

But the drug maker is counting on its animal health division to grow even more to help fill the revenue gap that will begin to widen in October 2011. That’s when Lilly’s bestselling drug, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, will lose its patent protection and face competition from generic versions. Zyprexa is the company’s best-selling product with $4.9 billion of sales last year.

In the ensuing three years, the patents on four more Lilly drugs will expire, which could cause the company to lose half of its current revenue.

Meanwhile, Lilly has few drugs in its late-stage pipeline to try to offset the sales shortfall. So growth in animal health becomes increasingly important.

Lilly began making animal health acquisitions in 2007, when it bought Ivy Animal Health, a Kansas-based developer of pharmaceuticals for animals. And, in 2008, Lilly paid $300 million to acquire Posilac, a controversial hormone, also known as rBGH, given to cows to increase their milk production.

“We have the wherewithal to do those kinds of deals if they can help us generate revenue through this period we call years YZ, where we’re going to be losing patents, or if they can complement our existing therapeutic areas,” the Lilly chief said. “We’re well positioned to do those, but we’re not interested in the large combinations.”
 

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT