Trueblood Case 09 2 Essay examples

The report analyzes three options to record the transfer of the in process research and development project Drug X from Bust-a-Knee to Pharmers. Based on the analysis, we recommend Options #3 as the approach to record the journal entries at the date of transfer.

In this case study, we deal with two separate agreements between SolvGen and Careway Pharma that are being audited for the possible sale of SolvGen to Direct Drugs, Inc. First, is the research and development agreement between SolvGen and Careway. And second, is the license and distribution agreement between the aforementioned. These agreements are both written and contractually binding and are within the scope of Multiple Deliverable Arrangements.

Direct Drugs Inc. (Direct) has created a plan for the acquisition of SolvGen Inc. (SolvGen), which is a publicly owned company. Direct has engaged an audit team to review agreement and procedures dealing with two separate material agreements. The first agreement is a research and development agreement and the second is a licensing and distribution agreement. The contract states that SolvGen entered into a five year research and development agreement with Careway Pharma Inc. on January 1, 2010. The agreement

Sparkle Company is a Nigerian diamond mining company. Sparkle is a joint venture, 50 percent owned by Shine and 50 percent owned by Brighten. Both Shine and Brighten are U.S.-based companies with their functional currency being the American dollar. Sparkle Companies functional currency is that of Nigeria, being the Naira. During 2009, Sparkle had several transactions with its joint venture owners and outside parties. The details of Sparkle’s transactions are three loans, three expenditures, and one revenue stream. The loans the company took out were $1 million from Brighten, $1 million from Shine, and 300 million Naira from a local Nigerian bank. The expenditures

Billy’s Beats Inc., an SEC registrant, is a new audit client with a fiscal year-end of December 31, 2010. Billy’s is a manufacturer of musical instruments. Billy’s acquired Little Drummer Boy Inc. in 2010 for $575 million in cash. Significant assets acquired included property, plant, and equipment totaling $865 million and other assets totaling $145 million. The useful lives assigned to the property, plant, and equipment acquired were 30 years for the plant and 15 years for the equipment. The useful lives for the plant and equipment already owned by Billy’s are 20 years and 10 years. Other included assets of acquired customer lists, were

In the short-term, the milestone payments represent a known and assured series of cash inflows to Raisio for its intellectual property. Raisio incurs no direct expenses related to these payments; they are simply returns on the intellectual property held by Raisio, and in which it has invested years of capital and intellectual resources to create. On a continuing basis, as Benecol gains wider and wider acceptance and distribution, Raisio would continue to provide all of the stanol estor Benecol’s key chemical ingredient manufactured by Raisio alone assuring a continuing sale at an acceptable transfer price. Note that this is more consistent with Raisio’s traditional core competencies, the manufacturing of industrial chemicals. (By the way, students may be surprised to find that margarine is generally regarded as a chemical product.) Over the life of the agreement Raisio would receive a royalty payment calculated as a percentage of the final retail product price of any product containing Benecol. This is a very attractive element of the agreement to a company like Raisio, as it in no way requires Raisio to be involved or concerned with the variety of different products or ways in which it may finally be distributed. As such, it simply reaps an income stream on the basis of sales, not profitability.

1. Is Coconut’s February 1, 2012, arrangement with Buffett within the scope of ASC 985-605?

The drug Lauwerpreshure was originally developed at Towson University, and was sponsored by BESPC. However, the University’s laboratory and equipment were used to create the drug but BESPC contributed money to buy the necessary compartments for the experiment. I would say that the rights of the drugs belongs to both the University and BESPC. However, we do not have significant information as to what documents were signed describing who owned the rights before the experiment was conducted. During the clinical trials, the drug company were the ones doing the clinical trials. I assume, if they were able to conduct the trials then they might have the rights to manufacture and mass-produce the drugs. Scientific American states, “The rationale underlying this perception regarding the influence of industry funding is fairly straightforward. Pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers need to increase the sales of newly developed drugs or devices in order to generate adequate profits” (Rehman, 2015). Here, as we witness in the case study, the pharmaceutical company did not really focus much of their time on the trial studies. The animal trials should have lasted longer before moving on to Phase I of the human trials. If this had been done then their might not have been any casualties in Phase II. BESPC just wanted to increase the trial period so they can start mass-producing the product and getting profit. The company should have used a non-maleficence approach where their goal ought to have been to do no harm with the

Session 7: • CASE: Merck & Company: Evaluating a Drug Licensing Opportunity Topics covered: decision trees, probability trees, sunk costs, real options

Also, the company will want to educate the market and buyers. Angiomax should be seen as the newest and best product on the market! What do you think of the Medicines Company’s business model of “rescuing’ abandoned drugs? Just as anything, the company does face the risk of failure. The fact that they are ‘abandoned’ drugs should be a red flag as well. There is a reason and probably multiple reasons why other companies abandoned these drugs. The list could include cost, profit, safety, effectiveness, and much more. You have to wonder why this company thinks they can make a difference in these abandoned drugs. Lets say Angiomax does become a success. Does this mean the other drugs that they promote will be successful as well? Definitely not. Since the Medicines Company doesn’t have much history, they are more at risk with no accountability. Not to mention, they don’t have other drugs on the market that are or attaining FDA approval. I don’t think that the Medicines Company is ready to pursue this business model. Their focus should remain on Angiomax. If Angiomax is a success, how much will this business model change? If Angiomax is a success, I would expect the business model to change slightly. Their plan with rescuing abandoned drugs could be pursues little by little. After the success of Angiomax they will have more exposure. The company could take baby steps towards the company’s ‘next big hit’ due to

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) appreciates this opportunity to testify before the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP Panel). BIO is the world's largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of health care, agricultural, industrial, and environmental biotechnology products. Our members are devoted to improving health care through the discovery of new therapies, and our testimony today addresses recommended changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) to protect access to those

Although R&D has been retained by the large pharmaceutical firms, there has been a continuous decline in the R&D productivity. Controlling R&D is imperative to the success of a Pharmaceutical firm. However, as the pharmaceutical industry is maturing, there are diminishing returns to the R&D investment. Fewer and fewer blockbuster drugs are being discovered and therefore R&D is not the most value adding component in the value

In order to decide on the R&D portfolio, an objective quantitative analysis might not be suitable considering the high levels of uncertainities and consequently the risks involved in pharmaceutical research projects. It is important to have a qualitative analysis of the situation as a whole that includes Vertex’s own financial position, strategic implications, a quantitative analysis of its Portfolios with realistic estimations and a risk analysis of the portfolios.

Drug prices are set by pharmaceutical companies to cover research and development costs. While R&D costs clearly need to be covered, markets in developed countries already pay for most R&D of new products. Because of this, it makes moral and economical sense to establish a two-tiered pricing system; for R&D costs to be paid for by developed countries, allowing significantly reduced prices to be charged in developing countries.

AZN deserves investor attention as the FDA recently rejected its potential blockbuster hyperkalemia drug, ZS-9, citing concerns over its pre-manufacturing process. More specifically, the FDA issued a complete response letter (CRL) and 483 form to AZN, which states a drug will not be approved in its current state, but does not require new clinical data for potential future approval. This came as a surprise to many who expected a smooth road to approval for ZS-9 after AZN purchased ZS Pharma for $2.7 billion last December. AZN shares were only down 1% as a result of the news, but competitor RLYP saw its shares jump ≈29%. Previously, some analysts believed AZN would swoop in with a superior drug and claim most of the market for hyperkalemia, but with the FDA’s denial of ZS-9 that future looks murkier.