Seeking Alpha: Looking At AVEO With Fresh Eyes

It's been a horrible year for AVEO Pharmaceuticals (AVEO), and arguably a lot of the damage has been self-inflicted. Others have written at length about the FDA's decision to reject the company's application for tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma(RCC), as well as the deficiencies in the design of the pivotal trial, the company's apparent tone-deafness towards the FDA, and the lack of disclosure to shareholders regarding interactions with the agency.

I'm not here to rehash all of that. For better or worse, tivozanib is effectively dead in RCC for the time being. What I am interested in doing, though, is trying to approach the company with as close to a clean slate and fresh eyes as I can. After all, tivozanib is still in two other Phase II studies and AVEO could certainly follow in the tracks of other biotechs who faced crushing rejections only to come back later with approvable drugs or indications.

Please read the full article here:
Looking At AVEO With Fresh Eyes

Seeking Alpha: Astellas Needs To Pick A Model To Prosper

There are multiple avenues to success in the pharmaceutical industry. Companies can go the Big Pharma route of significant internal R&D development and sales efforts, the Forest Labs (FRX) approach of minimal R&D and extensive in-licensing, or the tried-and-true biotech approach of major R&D development with sales handled by larger pharmaceutical partners.

What is more difficult, though, is to do both. While many companies go through an awkward phase where they rely on licensing or co-promotion agreements while building their own sales force (Lundbeck (HLUYY.PK) being a good example), Japan's Astellas Pharma (ALPMY.PK) needs to come up with a clearer strategy and stick to it. As it is, the company's odd mix of internal efforts, partnerships, and licensing doesn't seem to be producing exceptional results or value.

Please click below to continue:
Astellas Needs To Pick A Model To Prosper

Seeking Alpha: ArQule Dips, But Not Necessarily A Bargain

There are really only two reliable catalysts for biotech stocks - reporting clinical data and announcing equity offerings - and the latter one is seldom a positive for the stock. With ArQule (ARQL) looking to increase its sharecount by more than 11% (including the shoe), Tuesday's 12% decline on another red day in the market doesn't seem so out of line. Even with the pullback though, it's not blatantly clear to me that this is a must-own biotech.

Queuing Up For Tivantinib Data
Far and away the most valuable asset for ArQule is its Phase III drug tivantinib - a c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. C-Met is a popular target these days, with companies including Roche (RHHBY.PK), AVEO (AVEO), Amgen (AMGN), Bristol-Myers (BMY), and Exelixis (EXEL) all developing drugs with this target in mind.

Click here for the complete piece:
ArQule Dips, But Not Necessarily A Bargain

Seeking Alpha: Should Seattle Genetics Start Thinking More Like A Pharma Company?

Approval and launch hasn't quite meant Easy Street for Seattle Genetics (SGEN). Granted, the company now carries a $2 billion market cap and has doubled over the past two years, but there still seems to be a great deal of controversy about the true potential of its drug Adcetris and the subsequent fair value. Oddly enough, perhaps part of the answer is for Seattle Genetics to think a little more like a pharmaceutical company and a little less like a biotech.

Where Will Adcetris Go?
Arguing about market potential and peak sales is nothing new in biotech -- just review the debates at AEterna Zentaris (AEZS) or Vivus (VVUS) sometime -- but the spread in sell-side estimates for Adcetris still surprises me. I've seen expectations as low as $250 million to as much as $900 million. On the low end, it would assume that Seattle Genetics finds largely unmitigated failure in extending the label and usage; on the high end, it presupposes that almost everything goes right.

Read more here:
Should Seattle Genetics Start Thinking More Like A Pharma Company?