Sen­ate Dems blast No­var­tis’ ties to Trump at­tor­ney, claim phar­ma gi­ant of­fered mis­lead­ing ex­pla­na­tions in damn­ing re­port

Sen­ate De­moc­rats is­sued a damn­ing re­port Fri­day morn­ing say­ing that their probe of the $1.2 mil­lion in pay­ments No­var­tis made to Don­ald Trump’s per­son­al at­tor­ney Michael Co­hen re­vealed that ex-CEO Joe Jimenez had ex­ten­sive con­tacts with Co­hen re­lat­ed to drug pol­i­cy and ac­cess to the White House, and that com­pa­ny of­fi­cials then went on to mis­lead the pub­lic re­cent­ly with their ex­pla­na­tion for what had hap­pened.

Joe Jimenez

The ex­plo­sive charges con­tend that rather than the brief and in­con­se­quen­tial con­tact No­var­tis claimed to have had with Co­hen, Jimenez was in con­tact with the at­tor­ney by phone on 4 oc­ca­sions, with mul­ti­ple email ex­changes over 6 months. The com­mu­ni­ca­tions in­clud­ed “the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s drug pric­ing pro­pos­als, No­var­tis’s po­ten­tial in­vest­ment in a small drug com­pa­ny backed by Colum­bus No­va, and with re­gard to opi­oid law­suits.”

“What he was sell­ing was a line of ac­cess to the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion,” said Sen. Ron Wyden in an in­ter­view with ABC News. “That would be how I would char­ac­ter­ize it.”

No­var­tis quick­ly kicked back at the Dems’ re­port this morn­ing, say­ing that they had co­op­er­at­ed ful­ly with the probe and that it dis­agreed with its con­clu­sion that the phar­ma gi­ant had of­fered mis­lead­ing com­ments.

This was No­var­tis’ de­fense last May, which the sen­a­tors say doesn’t stand up un­der ex­am­i­na­tion:

“Mr. Co­hen had made no ef­fort to learn any­thing about No­var­tis, or the pol­i­cy is­sues that were of con­cern to No­var­tis specif­i­cal­ly, or the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try gen­er­al­ly…[he] was not able to pro­vide guid­ance as to how [the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion] would eval­u­ate and re­spond to the rel­e­vant pol­i­cy is­sues. …[and] was not able to de­liv­er … sub­stan­tive con­sult­ing ad­vice and in­sight.”

Ac­cord­ing to the re­port, No­var­tis’ claim that it sus­pend­ed con­tact af­ter one meet­ing in ear­ly March is sim­ply not true, of­fer­ing re­peat­ed ex­am­ples of e-mail com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­tween Co­hen and Jimenez, as they dis­cussed in­vest­ments, pub­lished ar­ti­cles and pol­i­cy.

(C)on­trary to No­var­tis’s state­ment that it did not have fur­ther en­gage­ment with Mr. Co­hen, the doc­u­ments No­var­tis pro­vid­ed to the Sen­a­tors show that Mr. Co­hen main­tained reg­u­lar con­tact with Mr. Jimenez un­til at least Sep­tem­ber 2017.  No­var­tis’ cur­rent CEO Vas­ant Narasimhan nev­er com­mu­ni­cat­ed with Mr. Co­hen.

The re­port goes on to state that No­var­tis’ claim — made two months ago un­der Narasimhan — that the on­ly rea­son it con­tin­ued to pay Co­hen month­ly pay­ments for a year was that it was con­trac­tu­al­ly ob­lig­at­ed to do so al­so ap­pears to be un­true.

No­var­tis may have mis­led the pub­lic when the com­pa­ny stat­ed that it con­tin­ued to pay Mr. Co­hen the full $1.2 mil­lion even af­ter dis­cov­er­ing that he could not pro­vide the promised con­sult­ing ser­vices be­cause “the con­tract could not be ter­mi­nat­ed at will.” To the ex­tent this as­ser­tion is true, it is be­cause No­var­tis en­gaged in ex­ten­sive ne­go­ti­a­tions that re­sult­ed in weak­er and vaguer con­tract lan­guage than the com­pa­ny had ini­tial­ly sought. But the as­ser­tion does not ap­pear to be cor­rect. It ap­pears that in fact the com­pa­ny could have ter­mi­nat­ed Mr. Co­hen’s con­tract.

The damn­ing re­port al­so notes:

The ini­tial draft con­tract pro­pos­al that No­var­tis sent to Mr. Co­hen – which Mr. Co­hen lat­er mod­i­fied – called ex­plic­it­ly for him to pro­vide “ac­cess to key pol­i­cy­mak­ers” in the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion, and he rep­re­sent­ed that he would do so. In June 2017, Mr. Jimenez sent Mr. Co­hen an email – “based on our con­ver­sa­tion last week” – trans­mit­ting a six-point plan con­tain­ing No­var­tis’s list of “ideas to low­er drug costs in the U.S.” which, ac­cord­ing to No­var­tis, was for “dis­cus­sion with Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion” of­fi­cials.

The plan in­clud­ed ini­tia­tives cham­pi­oned by the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try.Mr. Co­hen stat­ed he would show the doc­u­ment to an uniden­ti­fied third par­ty linked to the ad­min­is­tra­tion, who would pro­vide feed­back on the doc­u­ment. Mr. Co­hen promised to pro­vide the third-par­ty feed­back to Mr. Jimenez.

Sev­er­al of the No­var­tis pro­pos­als would lat­er ap­pear in the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s drug pric­ing plan re­leased in May 2018.

An­drew In­trater runs Colum­bus No­va, which is linked to his cousin, Vik­tor Vek­sel­berg, a Russ­ian bil­lion­aire oli­garch with close ties to Russ­ian pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin. Ac­cord­ing to the re­port, Co­hen brought up an in­vest­ment op­por­tu­ni­ty in Yamo Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, which has ties to Colum­bus No­va, with Jimenez. States the re­port:

While No­var­tis had de­clined to in­vest in Yamo af­ter a pre­vi­ous meet­ing, Mr. Co­hen asked Mr. Jimenez to “check to see if it was han­dled prop­er­ly.” With­in an hour, Mr. Jimenez promised to over­see the is­sue  per­son­al­ly. Key Colum­bus No­va per­son­nel al­so serve as Yamo of­fi­cials, and Colum­bus  No­va pro­vid­ed “Back Of­fice & Fi­nance Ser­vices” to the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny.

The re­port was writ­ten by staff for Sen­a­tors Wyden, Pat­ty Mur­ray, Eliz­a­beth War­ren and Richard Blu­men­thal, who de­mand­ed more in­fo from No­var­tis af­ter the pay­ments were re­vealed in May.

Com­pa­ny ex­ecs knew back in No­vem­ber that they could face a pub­lic out­cry over the is­sue, when Robert Mueller’s team came in to ask ques­tions about the re­la­tion­ship. Co­hen him­self has been at the cen­ter of a me­dia cir­cus sur­round­ing the rev­e­la­tion that he had paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep qui­et about an al­leged af­fair with Trump — writ­ing a check from the same shell com­pa­ny that No­var­tis paid in­to. But No­var­tis nev­er dis­closed any­thing about the fed­er­al in­ves­ti­ga­tion in pub­lic fil­ings.

No­var­tis quick­ly turned de­fen­sive once the pay­ments were re­vealed, trig­ger­ing a fire storm of con­tro­ver­sy. The com­pa­ny quick­ly leaked com­pa­ny mem­os from Narasimhan con­ced­ing that the com­pa­ny had made a mis­take and pledg­ing to do bet­ter in the fu­ture. But the com­pa­ny has nev­er of­fered an ex­pla­na­tion of what the new CEO knew about the Co­hen mat­ter and when he knew it.

No­var­tis quick­ly kicked back at the re­port, not­ing:

We dis­agree with the re­port’s con­clu­sion that we is­sued a mis­lead­ing pub­lic state­ment re­gard­ing the ex­tent of our en­gage­ment with Mr. Co­hen. As the doc­u­ments we pro­duced show, No­var­tis had one and on­ly meet­ing with Mr. Co­hen on March 1, 2017 and then con­clud­ed he was not able to pro­vide the sub­stan­tive con­sult­ing ad­vice and in­sight for which he was hired. We nev­er asked Mr. Co­hen to per­form any ser­vices on our be­half af­ter March 1, nor did he per­form any.

The on­ly ad­di­tion­al com­mu­ni­ca­tion we had be­yond the March 1 meet­ing was when Mr. Co­hen ini­ti­at­ed con­tact with our for­mer CEO, Mr. Jimenez, on a hand­ful of oc­ca­sions. On one of these oc­ca­sions, Mr. Co­hen asked Mr. Jimenez for ideas on how to low­er drug prices. In re­sponse, Mr. Jimenez pro­vid­ed him with a list of well-known ideas for low­er­ing the cost of phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals that had been dis­cussed pub­licly in the in­dus­try.

As we have al­ready ac­knowl­edged, No­var­tis made a mis­take in en­ter­ing in­to the con­tract with Michael Co­hen. And in hind­sight – and cer­tain­ly know­ing every­thing we know now – we should have tried to ter­mi­nate the con­tract with Mr. Co­hen re­gard­less of our views at the time of its le­gal en­force­abil­i­ty.”

Sen­ate De­moc­rats Re­port: White House Ac­cess for Sale by ar­salan arif on Scribd


Im­age: Michael Co­hen. SHUT­TER­STOCK

Grow­ing ac­cep­tance of ac­cel­er­at­ed path­ways for nov­el treat­ments: but does reg­u­la­to­ry ap­proval lead to com­mer­cial suc­cess?

By Mwango Kashoki, MD, MPH, Vice President-Technical, and Richard Macaulay, Senior Director, of Parexel Regulatory & Access

In recent years, we’ve seen a significant uptake in the use of regulatory options by companies looking to accelerate the journey of life-saving drugs to market. In 2018, 73% of the novel drugs approved by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) were designated under one or more expedited development program categories (Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval).ᶦ

Take­da swoops in to buy lit­tle biotech part­ner and its celi­ac drug poised to 'change stan­dard of care'

Having spent three years carefully grooming PvP Biologics and its drug for celiac disease, Takeda is happy enough with the proof-of-concept data to buy it all.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Fol­low­ing US, Chi­na hos­pi­tal ef­forts, Gilead plots its own PhI­II tri­als for close­ly watched Covid-19 drug

Gilead is launching its own Phase III trials of remdesivir, the repurposed antiviral that a WHO official called the “one drug right now we think may have real efficacy” against Covid-19 as the novel coronavirus originating from Wuhan, China ravages the world.

Announced just a day after the NIH and the University of Nebraska Medical Center registered their US-based trial online, Gilead’s program will comprise two studies enrolling around 1,000 patients beginning in March. They will recruit primarily in Asian countries but will also include patients from other locations with “high numbers of diagnosed cases,” the company said.

Bio­gen touts new ev­i­dence from the gene ther­a­py com­pa­ny it wa­gered $800M on

A year ago, Biogen made a big bet on a small gene therapy company. Now they have new evidence one of their therapies could work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mi­cro­bio­me Q&A: New study maps the vagi­na's 'op­ti­mal mi­cro­bio­ta' — and its im­pli­ca­tions for bio­phar­ma

The widely-held notion that the “optimal” vaginal microbiota is dominated by one strain of lactic-acid producing bacteria has now been challenged in a new paper, published in Nature Communications on Wednesday, which used advanced gene sequencing methods to map out the most comprehensive gene catalog of the human vaginal microbiome.

Things have changed in the more than 50 years since the concept of vaginal microbiota transplants was proposed and subsequently tainted by a Texas-based gynecologist who transplanted the vaginal fluid of women who had bacterial vaginosis into healthy females, suspecting he had isolated the bacteria responsible for the condition.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In at least one life-sci hub, gen­der and di­ver­si­ty ini­tia­tives haven’t made a dent

Gender and racial diversity at the top of UK life science companies has hardly budged over the last seven years despite repeated advocacy efforts, according to a new report.

The report, from the recruiting firm Liftstream, found that 14.8% of directors on life sciences boards were women and 21.1% of top executives were women. That’s a modest bump from the 9.8% of directors and 18.1% of executives Liftstream identified in their last report from 2014. The percentage of women CEOs moved from 8% to 9.8%.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Will a 'risk-of­f' mind­set has­ten cell ther­a­py M&A? Io­vance surges on buy­out chat­ter

Is it time for some cell therapy M&A?

Investors of Iovance Biotherapeutics certainly thought so, sending its stock $IOVA up as much as 40% after Bloomberg reported that the cancer-focused biotech is talking to potential buyers.

While 2019 saw a number of high-profile gene therapy company takeovers — led by Roche’s $4.3 billion bid of Spark as Astellas went for Audentes, Biogen snapped up Nightstar and Vertex absorbed Exonics — large players appeared to prefer partnering on the cell therapy front, particularly when it comes to cancer. Hal Barron put his weight behind Rick Klausner’s startup as he rebuilt GlaxoSmithKline’s cancer pipeline. Takeda turned to MD Anderson to license their natural killer cell therapy.

One less ri­val for Im­muno­vant, as Alex­ion aban­dons FcRn in­hibitor

Less than one year after Alexion parted with $25 million upfront to secure access to a second anti-FcRn asset, it is abandoning the experimental drug. The discontinuation, disclosed at the SVB Leerink Global Healthcare Conference in New York during a fireside chat, bodes well for rival Immunovant.

The drug (ABY-039), partnered for development with Sweden’s Affibody, was forsaken on the basis of early-stage data that was not viewed favorably, Baird and SVB Leerink analysts noted.

Clin­i­cal tri­al spon­sors have to dis­close decade’s worth of un­re­leased da­ta, fed­er­al judge rules

A decade’s worth of unreleased trial data may soon see the light of day.

A New York federal judge ruled this week that the FDA and the NIH have for years misinterpreted a law that would require companies, universities and other clinical trial sponsors to release trial data from studies completed between 2007 and 2017. The ruling covers drugs and medical devices that were experimental when the study was completed but have since been approved, potentially putting hundreds of sponsors out of compliance if they don’t put their results on clinicaltrials.gov.