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. These liberals are out of control. They want to drive our economy into the ground and double and triple our electric bills. Sierra Club, stay out of Indy!

  2. These activist liberal judges have gotten out of control. Thankfully we have a sensible supreme court that overturns their absurd rulings!

  3. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing money at the IRL or whatever they call it now. Probably should save that money for actual operations.

  4. For you central Indiana folks that don't know what a good pizza is, Aurelio's will take care of that. There are some good pizza places in central Indiana but nothing like this!!!

  5. I am troubled with this whole string of comments as I am not sure anyone pointed out that many of the "high paying" positions have been eliminated identified by asterisks as of fiscal year 2012. That indicates to me that the hospitals are making responsible yet difficult decisions and eliminating heavy paying positions. To make this more problematic, we have created a society of "entitlement" where individuals believe they should receive free services at no cost to them. I have yet to get a house repair done at no cost nor have I taken my car that is out of warranty for repair for free repair expecting the government to pay for it even though it is the second largest investment one makes in their life besides purchasing a home. Yet, we continue to hear verbal and aggressive abuse from the consumer who expects free services and have to reward them as a result of HCAHPS surveys which we have no influence over as it is 3rd party required by CMS. Peel the onion and get to the root of the problem...you will find that society has created the problem and our current political landscape and not the people who were fortunate to lead healthcare in the right direction before becoming distorted. As a side note, I had a friend sit in an ED in Canada for nearly two days prior to being evaluated and then finally...3 months later got a CT of the head. You pay for what you get...

ADVERTISEMENT