IBJNews

Marcadia may fetch up to $537 million in sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The December sale of Carmel-based Marcadia Biotech to Roche garnered at least $287 million for the company’s owners and could lead the Marcadia team to launch a firm using one of Marcadia’s experimental diabetes medicines.

New details about the deal were released Wednesday by Switzerland-based Roche, a massive pharmaceutical and diagnostic firm, which operates its North American diagnostic business out of Indianapolis. Marcadia’s investors could get an extra $250 million—on top of the $287 million in upfront cash—from Roche as its experimental drugs move closer and closer to market.

The sale was a “home run” for Marcadia’s investors, said Fritz French, who until Monday was Marcadia’s CEO. Before leading the company, French had been vice president for global marketing for a division of Guidant Corp.

Since its founding in 2006, Marcadia had attracted $16 million in venture capital, most of it in a 2007 infusion from California-based 5AM Ventures and Seattle-based Frazier Healthcare. But more recently, Marcadia had funded its drug development through deals with New Jersey-based Merck & Co. Inc. and Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co.

Those streams of revenue meant Marcadia didn’t have to sell, French said. But still, he and his management team started meeting with executives at other pharmaceutical firms about a year ago at the JP Morgan Health Care conference in San Francisco.

“Things just kind of developed with a number of companies,” French said. “Roche was the best bet from a lot factors, including financially.”

Marcadia was trying to develop numerous experimental diabetes medicines, based on research conducted at Indiana University in the labs of Richard DiMarchi, a former vice president of Lilly Research Laboratories in Indianapolis.

Under the sale to Roche, French said, IU will retain ownership of the drugs Marcadia was developing, but the licensing rights will shift to Roche.

French and most of the 11 employees at Marcadia now want to license from Roche a glucagon compound that Marcadia was developing with Lilly for patients with hypoglycemia. If his negotiations with Roche are successful, the former Marcadia team would form a new company to try to bring that compound to market.

Lilly already sells a glucagon drug, but its sales are less than $80 million a year. There are also other glucagons sold by Denmark-based Novo Nordisk A/S and other competitors, but they do not have huge sales levels.

French thinks that’s because they’re inconvenient. Lilly’s current glucagon product comes in a powder that must be mixed up with water and placed in a syringe before injection. But Marcadia was trying to develop a short-acting glucagon that could be stored as a solution in an injection “pen,” ready for immediate use during an episode of extremely low blood sugar.

The compound, known as MAR 531, is soon to start clinical trials.

The Marcadia management team, in addition to French and DiMarchi, included Jaswant Gidda, a former senior research adviser at Lilly; Kent Hawryluk, a former partner at Indianapolis-based Twilight Venture Partners; Ralph Riggin, a former research adviser at Lilly; Kristin Sherman, a former treasurer of Guidant; and Dr. Skip Vignati, a former medical director of endocrine research at Lilly.

“There’s a pretty rich pool of people that are here that want to stay in Indiana,” French said. “I hope this is just one of many more successes.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Congratulations
    Hi Ruth & Skip,
    Very nice success. Way to go Skip.
    John Bradburn

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