Skip to main content

Valeant Pharm: A Heavily Indebted Company

Image result for valeant logo


Valeant Pharmaceuticals has taken some hits of late. At the end of March 14, a share of VRX at the NYSE would bring you $69.04. At the end of the following day, it was worth less than half of that, just $33.51. It has lost further ground since. What happened? Management had announced disappointing earnings figures, and  cautioned that its debt holders could categorize it as in default if it missed an April 30th filing deadline.

A week later, the bond rater Moody's downgraded Valeant, on the grounds that its cash stockpile was inadequate to its overall indebtedness.

Meanwhile, as the departure of J. Michael Pearson, the long-time CEO, approached, shareholders naturally got nervous. They were nervous, that is, because always creates a case of the nerves in someone, often in many people. They weren't nervous as a recognition of Pearson's great leadership. Indeed, he had run up a heck of a lot of debt on acquisitions, some of which at least were of dubious value to the company.

Joseph Papa, formerly of Perrigo, formally replaced Pearson on Monday, May 2.

On May 16, Bloomberg reported that one renowned hedge fund, Jana Partners, well regarded partly as a consequence of its campaigns to change policies at ConAgra Foods and Computer Sciences Corp., had sold its (considerable) holdings in Valeant in the first quarter.

Some commenters were by this time predicting that Valeant's stock was headed to zero. It hasn't gotten any lower than $23.55 though.

Just yesterday, Reuters reported on several letters the SEC has sent Valeant expressing concern about its non-GAAP accounting. For those not in these weeds, GAAP stands for "generally accepted accounting practices." Non-GAAP practices, then, are the not-so-accepted ones.  On the day this became public knowledge, oddly, the stock price went up. At the end of trading Wednesday it was at $27.13.

How much trouble is it in? Or, looking at the glass half full: Could it get back to the $70 neighborhood?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…