Monthly Archives: March 2011

Softening the Downside of Uncertain News: Part 4

Now that we have examined the difference between an approval letter and a Complete Response Letter (CRL), we will take a look at why Salix may have announced their suspicion regarding the receiving of a CRL. Although Salix is a publicly-traded company, and they are required by The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to disclose material information, they are only required to do so when they know the information to be factual and documented. Because they only believed they would be receiving a CRL, based on conversations they had with the FDA, but they did not have any documentation in hand, they were not obligated to disclose this information.

So why did they do it? One reason Salix may have announced their anticipation of a CRL could have been an attempt to decrease the impact of the news on their stock price. After Salix announced the anticipation of a CRL, their stock price dropped around 24 percent, a typical drop in price for this type of news. Another reason they may have announced the anticipated CRL ahead of an actual receipt of the letter was with the intention of being upfront with investors and the public. These reasons are speculative but represent the two most likely scenarios that drove Salix towards this strategy.  

Whether they disclose the news as anticipated or wait until they actually receive the document, the news content itself should have the same impact – in this case, a significant drop in stock price. In their discussions with the FDA, the agency may have made it clear that there were issues that would have to be resolved before a final decision could be rendered.

When it comes to regulatory news regarding the approval of a new drug, it is clear that when it’s not a clear cut approval, no matter when you deliver, the news the result is ultimately the same.

**We encourage you to post your thoughts and questions following each entry to help enrich the discussion and help round out the topic. **

Softening the Downside of Uncertain News: Part 3

In our last blog entry we discussed the difference between receiving an approval letter and a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA. Now we will examine what information a publicly traded company must disclose once they receive an approval letter or CRL.

The FDA does not regulate the information a company must disclose regarding approval letters or CRLs sent by the agency. Publically traded companies are however regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which states that these companies are obligated to disclose information considered to be material, with the potential to impact stock price.

 In the case of the FDA and the issuing of an approval letter or CRL, a company would naturally want to announce they had received an approval letter from the FDA since it is positive news which could positively affect their stock price. However, if a company receives a CRL, which could indicate that there may be an issue(s) that need(s) addressing before a final decision can be made, they have to decide what information contained within the CRL is material.

This can be a challenge because omitting material information opens companies up to possible litigation. Since there is not a clear definition of material information, it is left up to the company to decide which information contained within the CRL would be relevant to a reasonable investor.

In our next blog entry, we will examine the potential strategy behind Salix’s timing of their two press releases and examine some of the potential reasons behind their strategy.

**We encourage you to post your thoughts and questions following each entry to help enrich the discussion and help round out the topic. **

Softening the Downside of Uncertain News: Part 2

In our last entry, we focused our attention on Salix Pharmaceuticals and the timing of their two press releases, one to announce that they anticipated receiving a Complete Response Letter (CRL) and one to announce they received a CRL from the FDA.

The question is: why did Salix announce the CRL before they received it? In order to determine the strategy behind these announcements, it is important that we understand what a CRL is, versus an approval

When the FDA issues an approval letter, they are informing the applying company that the review cycle for their New Drug Application (NDA) is complete and the drug has been approved and can now be marketed. When the FDA issues a CRL, it is to inform a company that the review cycle for their NDA is complete, but that deficiencies, which the agency has identified in the application or abbreviated application, must be satisfactorily addressed before it can be approved.  

The major difference here is that when you receive a CRL from the FDA, your company will have to spend more money to get the drug to market. How much money? This will depend on what is contained in the CRL as it details the areas of the application that need work or clarification. This can refer to additional trials, which are very costly and time consuming, to a less expensive, simple reexamination of the data from the clinical trials in order to evaluate specific signals that the FDA feels are important.

In our next entry later this week we will begin to examine what news publically traded companies have to disclose and how they have to disclose it. We will follow up with some possible reasons behind Salix’s PR strategy and examine whether or not it was effective.

**We encourage you to post your thoughts and questions following each entry to help enrich the discussion and help round out the topic. **

Softening the Downside of Uncertain News

On March 7, 2011 Salix Pharmaceuticals received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA regarding their supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for XIFAXAN® (rifaximin). Approximately two weeks prior to announcing the receipt of their CRL, Salix Pharmaceuticals put out a press release announcing that they had spoken with the FDA and that, based on those conversations, they anticipate receiving a CRL instead of an approval letter.

Over the course of the next few blog entries we will examine their potential reasons behind this decision, what the potential outcomes could have been and how it affected their market position, if indeed it had an effect. In our next blog entry we will consider what Salix’s reasoning might have been for issuing an ”anticipated receipt of CLR” release.

**We encourage you to post your thoughts and questions following each entry to help enrich the discussion and help round out the topic. **