Balancing Power Between Biotech and Big Pharma Benefits Both

same: small companies for small jobs; big companies for big jobs. Contract research organizations have demonstrated the scale of potential savings that can be realized by specializing in various stages of drug development. Relative efficiencies from externalization of early stage development could dwarf the savings realized in services.

In a partnering model, a private equity firm would raise a fund designed specifically to partner drug development projects in partnership with a pharma or a group of pharmas. The fund would operate like a venture fund, but with the express purpose of pursuing projects consistent with the partners’ strategic interests in the entrepreneurial community. NewCo portfolio companies would be organized with an option allowing the pharma sponsor to acquire the product at a pre-negotiated milestone and price. Ultimate responsibility for managing development would reside with the NewCo team. Pharma would pay only for success and only when it fits their strategic priorities at the time of purchase. By operating in more of a build-to-suit mode, biotech/bio-venture improves the odds of getting a timely buyer, and most importantly a buyer who has years of experience with the molecule and a sense of shared ownership.

Yet, pipeline priorities and pharma managers can change, even when molecules succeed. Un-optioned molecules could still be carried forward by the NewCo team if the original sponsor goes in another direction. This would reduce the opportunity cost to the industry of good molecules stalled or lost for reasons of strategic fit rather than performance. As the number of projects increases, the growing pool of un-optioned molecules in the venture/entrepreneurial community would enable pharma to draw and discard assets to optimize pipelines throughout the development process.

A partnership requires both sides to agree in advance on a program. Interests and economics must be aligned at the outset, rather than across a bargaining table, where the balance of power is tilted in favor of the deep pockets. Both sides would have to agree on a “fair deal” before proceeding; so risks and rewards would be consistent with contributions.

Partnering at the fund level, rather than in individual NewCos, would enable managers on both sides to develop a consistent and efficient interface across multiple deals, enabling pharma to

Author: Standish Fleming

Standish Fleming is a 29-year veteran of early stage life sciences investing. He has helped raise and manage six venture capital funds totaling more than $500 million, and has served on the boards of 19 venture-backed companies, including Nereus Pharmaceuticals, Ambit Biosciences, Triangle Pharmaceuticals (acquired by Gilead Sciences) and Actigen/Corixa (now part of GSK). He has extensive experience in all aspects of venture management and finance, including fund-raising, investor relations, operations and portfolio development. He has made investments, managed portfolio companies, raised funds, pursued business development, taken companies public and successfully exited investments through public-market sales and buyouts. In 1993, Mr. Fleming co-founded San Diego's Forward Ventures. He has made investments in almost every segment of the health-care industry, including pharmaceuticals, biologics, diagnostics, devices, services, and software. He has managed both platform and product companies, portfolio investments, and led or participated in financings at all levels, from pre-startup to PIPES in public companies, in both debt and equity. He has helped start more than 15 companies and served as founding CEO of eight. Fleming serves as a director of CONNECT, San Diego's support organization for the early-stage community, and is a past president of the Biotechnology Venture Investors Group. Before establishing Forward Ventures, He served as the chairman, president and CEO of GeneSys Therapeutics, (merged with Somatix and acquired by Cell GeneSys [NASDAQ:CEGE]). Fleming began his venture career with Ventana Growth Funds in San Diego in 1986. He earned his B.A. from Amherst College and his M.B.A. from the UCLA Graduate School of Management.