IBJNews

Lilly investing up to $150M in VC funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co., facing competition from cheaper copies of its top-selling drug next year, plans to invest as much as $150 million in three venture capital funds to aid development of new medicines.

The funds may be worth a total of $750 million, up to $250 million each, and Lilly will contribute as much as 20 percent of the money, Darren Carroll, vice president of the Lilly group that oversees venture investments, said Wednesday in an interview. CMEA Capital, a San Francisco venture-capital firm, started raising money in August for one of the funds with Lilly, according to two people with knowledge of CMEA’s plans.

Lilly is seeking new treatments as drugs accounting for more than 45 percent of its 2009 sales are set to lose patent protection in the next three years, led by its top-seller, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, in 2011. The Indianapolis-based drugmaker spoke with more than 80 venture-capital and private-equity firms over a year before choosing partners, Carroll said. He declined to name the two in addition to CMEA.

“A lot of pharma companies have their own venture funds,” said Les Funtleyder, an analyst with Miller Tabak & Co. in New York, citing London-based GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG. Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drugmaker, also has a fund. “To Lilly’s credit, they’re trying new things. Lilly has more to do than some others in terms of developing its pipeline.”

The company halted trials of a late-stage experimental Alzheimer’s disease medicine last month, one of eight products in the third and final stage of testing generally required for U.S. regulatory approval. Effient, a blood-thinner introduced in the U.S. in August 2009, “got off to a slower start than we anticipated,” CEO John Lechleiter said in July.

In 2013, Lilly will lose patent protection on the antidepressant Cymbalta and the insulin Humalog. Zyprexa and the two medicines brought in almost $10 billion of the company’s $21.8 billion in 2009 sales.

Lilly shares rose 27 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $34.81 each on Wednesday. The shares have lost 2.5 percent this year.

The company’s goal is for each of the three venture-capital funds to work on up to 20 potential medicines, Carroll said. Of the possible 60 new drugs, he said Lilly would hope as many as 15 to 20 would reach a “clinical proof of concept,” meaning the point in development when the medicine proves to be safe and hits the right target. Lilly would have the right to buy some of those at fair market value ahead of competitors, Carroll said.

“At that point, what’s really critical here, we will have discharged an enormous amount of risk,” he said. “We’ll have a good indication not only about safety, but also we’ll know something about the efficacy of the drug.”

The three venture-capital firms Lilly ended up choosing have, on average, been in the business for more than 20 years, have more than $1.5 billion under management and have worked with more than 40 companies, Carroll said.

“We really wanted to work with very highly experienced folks who had a track record that we could evaluate and who we trusted,” he said. “These are long-term relationships and require a great deal of trust.”

Biotechnology was the biggest industry for venture funding in the first half of this year, with investors pouring $2.1 billion into 243 companies, according to the National Venture Capital Association, which tracks 17 categories. Industrial and energy was second at $1.94 billion.

Lilly is bolstering its venture business after a quarter in which overall fundraising declined. U.S. venture funds brought in $1.9 billion in the second quarter, a 56-percent drop from a year earlier, the association said.

The strategy is “another way in which companies can spread research and development dollars to more emerging opportunities without necessarily having to buy a company or make a direct investment,” Tony Butler, an analyst with Barclays Capital in New York, said. Still, it won’t fill the revenue gap the company faces in the next few years, he said. Any new drugs arising from the partnerships would come “way beyond 2015.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BMP
    If Lilly simply used the BioMolecular Profile it would save 100's of millions of dollars by being able to verify the efficacy and efficiency of all drug candidates before they stick them in teh pipeline. They would not have to play roulette with VC funds which will most likely result in a less than 5% success rate. The big plus is it would work today, not 5+ yrs into the future.

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