Product details

Product details
By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Case
-
Reference no. A177
Published by: Stanford Business School
Originally published in: 2001
Version: 6 May 1999
Length: 16 pages
Data source: Published sources

Abstract

In May 1999, Antonio Regalado, an investment analyst, was charged with determining whether to invest in Dura Pharmaceuticals or Spiros II (formed to develop Spiros inhaler technology for use by diabetic patients). Dura had successfully changed its organization from one that specialized in marketing established niche products to one with extensive research and development (R&D) capabilities needed to generate new products. Like several other pharmacology companies changing their business models, Dura relied on R&D spin-offs to develop its proprietary technologies. The spin-offs contracted exclusively with Dura to do the research, had few employees, and were always repurchased by Dura at the end of the development cycle. However, Dura still believed spin-offs allowed it to segregate the risk of R&D from that of its core business because Dura had an option, not an obligation, to repurchase the spin-offs'' shares. Therefore, R&D spin-offs allowed Dura to fund its long-term objectives without hurting its current investor base. Some members of the financial community questioned the validity of these spin-offs. It was unclear that there was adequate justification for Dura''s spin-offs to be accounted for as separate entities given their close relation with Dura. In addition, many Wall Street pundits cautioned investors that Dura might be using Spiros II to hide poor underlying business economics. Finally, it was unclear the spin-offs made economic sense for Dura in the first place. As an investor in Spiros II, Dura had lost a lot of money. Independent of his analysis of Dura''s capabilities, Regalado believed it would be necessary first to understand the underlying economics of the spin-off transaction. Then he would make a determination of which investment offered the greatest rewards, the spin-off or the sponsoring firm.
Location:
Size:
834 employees, USD199.2 million revenues
Other setting(s):
1999

About

Abstract

In May 1999, Antonio Regalado, an investment analyst, was charged with determining whether to invest in Dura Pharmaceuticals or Spiros II (formed to develop Spiros inhaler technology for use by diabetic patients). Dura had successfully changed its organization from one that specialized in marketing established niche products to one with extensive research and development (R&D) capabilities needed to generate new products. Like several other pharmacology companies changing their business models, Dura relied on R&D spin-offs to develop its proprietary technologies. The spin-offs contracted exclusively with Dura to do the research, had few employees, and were always repurchased by Dura at the end of the development cycle. However, Dura still believed spin-offs allowed it to segregate the risk of R&D from that of its core business because Dura had an option, not an obligation, to repurchase the spin-offs'' shares. Therefore, R&D spin-offs allowed Dura to fund its long-term objectives without hurting its current investor base. Some members of the financial community questioned the validity of these spin-offs. It was unclear that there was adequate justification for Dura''s spin-offs to be accounted for as separate entities given their close relation with Dura. In addition, many Wall Street pundits cautioned investors that Dura might be using Spiros II to hide poor underlying business economics. Finally, it was unclear the spin-offs made economic sense for Dura in the first place. As an investor in Spiros II, Dura had lost a lot of money. Independent of his analysis of Dura''s capabilities, Regalado believed it would be necessary first to understand the underlying economics of the spin-off transaction. Then he would make a determination of which investment offered the greatest rewards, the spin-off or the sponsoring firm.

Settings

Location:
Size:
834 employees, USD199.2 million revenues
Other setting(s):
1999

Related