Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Flamel Technologies SA (NASDAQ:FLML)

Q2 2011 Earnings Call

July 26, 2011 8:30 am ET

Executives

Stephen H. Willard – Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel

Siân Crouzet – Principal Financial Officer

Analysts

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Peter Lux – Private Investor

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

Operator

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Flamel Technologies’ Second Quarter 2011 Results Conference Call. After prepared remarks, we will be opening the call to a Q&A period. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this call is being recorded.

The following presentation regarding Flamel Technologies SA includes a number of matters, particularly as related to the status of various research projects and technology platforms, that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The presentation reflects the current views of Flamel's management with respect to future events and is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements.

These risks include risks that product in the development stage may not achieve scientific objectives or milestones meet strategic regulatory requirement, uncertainties regarding market acceptance of products in development, the impact of competitive products and pricing, and the risks associated with Flamel's reliance on outside parties and key strategic alliances. These and other risks are described more fully in Flamel's public filings, except as required by law, Flamel does not intend any disclaims any duty or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this presentation to reflect new information, future events or otherwise.

It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Mr. Stephen Willard, CEO. Please go ahead Mr. Willard.

Stephen H. Willard

Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It’s great that my lawyers got to the conference call operator for which I am very grateful.

First, I would like to summarize some important events that Flamel made during the second quarter. We completed new licensing agreements with two specialty pharma companies for the creation of three new controlled release formulations, which leverage new advances in our Micropump and Trigger Lock platforms.

We’ve also entered into joint development agreements with two companies for work involving controlled release formulations of four new molecules. These joint development agreements are part of a new initiative that we are undertaking to identify promising first-in-class early stage therapeutic candidates being created at developing corporations and which benefit from our drug delivery expertise.

Engaging in these joint development agreements complements our existing strategies of working with large pharmaceutical partners.

In these projects, we contribute our formulation expertise while our partner performs the clinical trials and licenses the formulations to large pharma. Such licenses are expected to occur significant lead before ultimate pivotal trials, but Flamel will receive greater economic returns substantially sooner than with our conventional business.

The financial percentages due to Flamel are also significantly higher than with our conventional agreements. We do however share the risk of early stage developments which is not the case when we worked with many currently approved molecules.

We believe that these programs offer us higher risk, higher reward, opportunities that address attractive market opportunities with significant unmet medical needs, but at low cost to ourselves as the work we are performing involves applications of our existing platforms and low external costs. I would discuss these agreements and the strategic initiative later.

We are continuing our discussions with GSK and seek a mutually beneficial agreement that ensures unfettered patient access to the life saving drug Coreg CR. As the discussions are well advanced and ongoing, I will be limiting my comments on the status through these negotiations. While we negotiated new supplier agreements, we’ve continued to provide GSK with interim supply of Coreg CR micro particles. We continue to believe that the eventual resolution of our negotiations with GSK would be a positive catalyst for our company.

As a result of the second quarter advances as well as funds we have received related to our R&D tax credits, our cash increased during the quarter to $33 million. This compares to $31.3 million at the end of last year and this is also virtually the same as with $33.7 million of cash, which we had 12 months ago at the end of the second quarter 2010.

At this point, I would like to ask Siân Crouzet, our Principal Financial Officer to please review the second, and the results of the second quarter. Siân?

Siân Crouzet

Thank you, Steve. Good morning. During the second quarter, as Steve mentioned, our cash balance increased to $33 million, up from $26 million at the end of the first quarter. This increase was driven by the signature with new licensing agreement and the factoring of research and development tax credit from 2010.

Revenues during the quarter declined to $6.8 million from $7.5 million in the prior year. License and research revenues were $2.5 million versus $3.3 million in the year ago quarter.

This reduction is driven partly by the fact the programs that we were developing last year have either entered preclinical or clinical testing conducted by our partners, and partly by the fact, that having accomplished a considerable number of programs as in the last couple years we are now waiting for our partners to indicate how they wish to proceed.

Product sales and services during the quarter were $3.3 million compared to $1.9 million in 2010. A new supply agreement is under negotiation with GSK, and in the interim we have continued to supply products inline to demand requirement from GSK.

Other revenues comprised primarily of royalties received on sales of Coreg CR with $2 million compared to $2.4 million in the year ago quarter. We have maintained a strict cost control during the quarter such that, total costs and expenses were $10.4 million compared to $12.2 million in the second quarter of 2010.

Our SG&A costs are declined by nearly 10% year-on-year as we continue to control discretionary spend and closely monitor our headcount.

Research and development expenses were $5.9 million compared to $7.9 million in the second quarter of 2010. This reduction is largely as a result of quarter-to-quarter timing on clinical and preclinical study expenditure, but equally our efforts to efficiently manage our personnel requirements.

These results reflect our commitment to maintaining a lean cost structure while we pursue our partnership strategy and complement this strategy with joint-venture agreement such as those recently completed with Digna and Theralpha.

Stephen H. Willard

Thank you, Siân. One brief further comment on the financials. For some of our investors, there may be a perceived disconnect between our revenue numbers and our strong cash positions, this is because of the revenue recognition rules that apply to us. For example, the $3 million we received from the new collaboration in the second quarter is fully reflected in our cash since it is non-refundable, but it will amortize over a roughly two-year period through our revenues. For this reason, I believe that it’s the best way to manage and to chart the progress of the company is based on real cash flows, and the revenue will catch up overtime through amortization.

Our cash levels during the quarter clearly benefited from strong business development trends including a new agreement for two Trigger Lock formulations with a leading specialty pharmaceutical company as well as the second Micropump license agreement that we signed for the development of a controlled release formulation of an already marketed CNS or central nervous system drugs.

Interestingly, the marketed products already employs a different control release technology, which we believe is an indication that Micropump can offer significant advantages when compared to the largely commoditized offerings available from competitive technologies.

These advantages are important as they may provide significant barriers to entry for potential generic competitors. As we have shown with the formulation of Coreg CR, the pharmacokinetics that may be achieved using the Micropump technology platform are very therapeutic yet hard for others to duplicate.

Trigger Lock has garnered increased attention from the industry as a result of its ability to deliver unsurpassed control release of substances that are prone to [of use], while also effectively defeating all of the commonly employed methods of tampering with controlled release formulations.

In addition, Micropump may be used to offer important advantages with respect to solubility and stability, which make Micropump formulations even more difficult to reverse engineer.

Our current expectation is that we will be in the clinic for a pivotal trial of one Trigger Lock formulation this year and that we should enter the clinic with a Phase I clinical trial on the CNS drug this year as well.

The newer Trigger Lock collaborations we signed this year are on an agreed track with our partners to expectedly beyond the markets in 2013 as well. We’re looking forward to increased visibility for shareholders as the projects advance.

Regarding the formulation work that we are undertaking with Theralpha and Digna, I would like to brief everyone on what this means for Flamel, and why we are excited to be undertaking this work as a compliment to our overall strategy of partnering with larger companies on a more traditional basis.

First of all, all these molecules are potential first-in-class medications whose mechanisms of action address important indications with large unmet medical needs. The molecule that we are formulating with Theralpha is an acid sensing ion channel blocker. Acid sensing ion channels are a class of compounds that are the subjects of ground breaking works by one of Theralpha’s founders.

Information is often associated with a drop in body pH. The body senses the drop in pH by way of acid sensing ion channels, which communicate this drop in pH and this is associated with what we experience as pain.

By blocking these channels, experiments have shown, pain can be reduced. If the preclinical data that we have on THA-902 are confirmed in the formulation we’re developing, we anticipate that our formulation could attract significant interest from pharmaceutical companies that are already interested in this mechanism of action.

Our work with Digna is equally exciting. There are two; we have entered into a joint development agreement for formulation using our drug delivery expertise. Two of the molecules that we’re developing are transforming growth factor beta-1 inhibitors.

TGF beta-1 as their called, have been associated with cell growth regulation, immunomodulation, angiogenesis, fibrogenesis, and tumor development among others. We plan to prioritize clinical development of one of the TGF beta-1 inhibitors based on the preclinical findings that we generate over the coming months.

The third molecule that we are developing with Digna is a Micropump enabled formulation of MTA, a small molecule drug that would be administered early and have shown promising results to the potential treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Interestingly, MTA has both immunomodulatory and neuro protective properties meaning, that it could benefit from a dual mechanism of actions for the treatment of MS. We are excited to be working on all of these programs as we believe that they are promising novel molecules that can showcase the advantages offered by our drug delivery platforms and of course, the joint development agreements have been structured to create significant economic participation for your company.

This new initiative which is complementary to and not a replacement of our core strategy of partnerships with Big Pharma, provides in my opinion several important benefits.

First, it involves us with novel new molecules, which are increasingly desirable to Big Pharma in redeveloping their pipelines.

Second, it can be done without consuming Flamel’s financial resources. Third, in the events of success, we will obtain financial returns relatively sooner as we do not expect these molecules to go through the full regulatory process before they are acquired, so that we will see financial benefits sooner.

Fourth, the terms of these agreements provide a much larger share of the revenues than our traditional projects. And finally, our partners share our desire to speak frequently and candidly about the progress of these programs, which will increase information flow to our shareholders.

Moving on, we have discussed our Alpha Interferon study in the past and the enrollment problems that we had experienced with that trial, which is being conducted free of charge by the French agency responsible for research in cancer and viral diseases the ANRS. Following discussions with that agency, our current expectation is that interim data from the trial will be presented at a scientific (inaudible) this fall. We’re still waiting final confirmation and we’ll update shareholders as information becomes available.

As it is a two week trial, the results will be the first publicly available demonstration of the Medusa Platforms advantages over a three months time period. We also believe that the results are a significant data point for shareholders. As alpha interferon is a potential model for beta interferon, the molecules that we are formulating using the same Medusa [polymer] with Merck Serono.

As many of you are aware, the beta interferon market is on track to be over $6 billion this year. It’s largely made up of three products Avonex, which has approximately 40% market share and is dosed once weekly via an intermuscular injection, Rebif, Merck Serono product, which has approximately 35% market share, and Betaseron from Bayer-Schering. Both Rebif and Betaseron are administered three times a week, but they collectively outsell Avonex, which is dosed once weekly.

There are host of reasons for this, but among the most important are the fact that the once weekly intermuscular injection is painful and is also extremely difficult for patients to self administer.

We are convinced to that the formulation of beta interferon that maintains its bio activity and that is injected subcutaneously once a week or even longer would be very well received by patients and their caregivers.

As many of you know, our initial clinical trial with Merck Serono began last October. We are pleased with the progress being made thus far, and we will be updating shareholders about the progress of our development with Merck Serono.

And now, we would be very pleased to take your questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of David Moskowitz with Roth [Madison William].

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Hi. Good morning, guys.

Stephen H. Willard

Good morning, David. How are you?

David Moskowitz – Madison William

I’m doing well. Thanks. Thanks for taking my questions. So, the first question relates to what you just had finished talking about, and that was the long-acting beta interferon with Merck Serono. Thanks for the update, and I guess, can you just clarify for us, what is the next milestone that we’re looking for, what are we hoping to see there?

Stephen H. Willard

I think you would be seeing progress to the next stage of clinical development, and you would see milestones related to that.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Do you think, I mean, the trial that you spoke about that’s a Phase I trial that started in October?

Stephen H. Willard

Yes.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Okay. And do you expect, I guess, we would see data from that. Can you give us a rough idea on timing? I guess, may be a better way to do is more generally, how long do Phase I trials typically take with the Medusa formulation?

Stephen H. Willard

Merck Serono was obviously extremely sensitive about this product given, its significant score all of Merck Serono. So, I’d rather not speculate certainly, a Phase I trial tend to go relatively quickly and general. They take somewhat longer in diseases like multiple sclerosis, but they are not typically anything like of course the length and complexity of the Phase III trial.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

And because this is a molecule that’s already on the market, the compound that’s already in the market, does that present unique opportunities in developing this product from a timing standpoint from a decision making standpoint?

Stephen H. Willard

Yes. It makes it much more attractive and fairly moves faster.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

All right. I’ll leave that one there. And in terms of the negotiations with GSK, we haven’t really heard anything about the supply agreement. Can you give us an update on what’s happening there? How is GSK getting products from you, and again, what are we hoping to see in the final negotiation of this agreement?

Stephen H. Willard

Sure. I’m going to be somewhat guarded, because negotiations are continuing and we have another call today on it. We have made the decision to furnish them with some interim supply, because I think it’s the right thing to do for patients. But we have strong expectations for what the new supply agreements would look like, and we believe that they will be beneficial to Flamel as well as fair to our partners and ensure the continuing supply of this very important in many cases life-saving drug.

It’s pretty matured given that we’re negotiating to talk about the ways in which the new agreements will benefit us as we believe, but I do think it needs to be resolved soon, and I certainly don’t expect to get to my next conference call without having being able to resolve this and report it to the shareholders.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Yeah, that’s fair. With regard to Coreg CR, any further action or a commentary that you received from the FDA related to the citizens petition on the product?

Stephen H. Willard

No, I was very pleased with the thoughtfulness that the FDA showed in the citizen’s petition process. They’ve made their determination. They’ve accepted, from our perspective to give a very significant portion of our arguments. And URL, it’s still not on the market and I think the thoughtfulness of the FDA is going to make sure that any generic Coreg CR is yet in a very full and fair attention, and that was the goal of our citizen’s petition.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Okay. Well, thanks for taking the questions. I appreciate it, Steve.

Stephen H. Willard

Thank you, David for being on the call.

David Moskowitz – Madison William

Okay.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Matt Kaplan with Ladenberg.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Hi, guys. Can you hear me?

Stephen H. Willard

Hi, Matt. We can hear you well.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Great, great. I apologize if there is any background noise. Couple questions, follow-up just to one of David’s questions, what are you saying I think, with respect to the Merck Serono at Flamel from the Phase 1 trial. It sounds like it could be a 2011 event? Is that a fair estimation?

Stephen H. Willard

I’d really rather differ on that one because as I said, Matt, beta interferon is such a huge product for Merck Serono that I really want to be a good partner to them. I’m not disagreeing with you; I’m saying that I’d really like to leave the announcements on this large product to Merck Serono.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Fair enough. Great. And with the new agreements that you had signed in terms of the collaborations with the two European companies, how does that impact your burn rate, if at all, and talk a little bit more about your cash position and going forward into your business, can you continue to [act to] your cash position in 2011 or what’s your sense right now?

Stephen H. Willard

First of all with regard to how these new earlier stage partnerships go, they will have almost no impact on our cash position. They are carefully structured to be a contribution of our formulations in the time of our scientists, the clinical trials and the external expenses are largely borne by our partners, and so I expect any cash effect to be somewhat minimal.

On the positive side, my expectation with these drugs is, if our formulations are successful, they will be bought out by Big Pharma potentially at the Phase I or Phase II stage rather than going all the way through the clinical process, and that can take years of the amount of time necessary to recover Flamel’s financial benefit from the work and our contributions.

And then finally, we are negotiating deals where Flamel’s contribution is valued at say the 30% to 40% range of the project and so, if we are able to sell these products successfully there could not only be very meaningful financial contribution to Flamel, but also it could happen sooner than with our core model, which again, I want to be quite clear this is a compliment to.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

And…

Stephen H. Willard

I’m sorry. Go ahead, please.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

No, and just before you get to the other part of the question, who is responsible for partnering the products after they reach that Phase I stage or certain stage of development. I mean, it is the partner or…

Stephen H. Willard

Our partners will lead the efforts. An additional reason for structuring it this way is that I have a limited amount of business development resources and we’re working on so many different things to the extent, we can get our partners to take the lead, it’s a good thing, because I’ve got plenty of other things for us to do. But we do have inputs and rights with regard to the terms and the nature of the disposition of the assets.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Now you did two of these partnerships last quarter. Is this a model that you think you have the resources to continue to do additional deals efficiently?

Stephen H. Willard

Yes, I do, because again, our participation is limited to providing our technology and doing the formulation work. And because we won’t be involved in the clinicals, we’ll have the ability to once we get formulation is gone past the months who are partners and do other projects.

I would think that with regard to our resources, I wouldn’t want to put more than 10% or 12% at a maximum of our resources on these initiatives, but that would allow us to work with another two or three partners and still stay within that 10% to 12% maximum range given the fact that we can time our work in the various formulations.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

And then, just going back to my questions concerning cash and cash balance (inaudible) that you guys in ’11 what you visibility is that being able to continue to grow that as you go in the second quarter?

Stephen H. Willard

Sure. It depends on well, first of all, this is an opportunity to repeat something that I have said for years and I will continue to repeat which is, we foresee absolutely no reason to go to the capital markets. We are very strong financially in cash with no debt. There are various scenarios that we are looking at depending on what comes through. We have an active, very active second half depending on how that comes through. We could be meaningfully cash flow positive, we could be neutral, we could be down a bit if everything goes against us. But we foresee under no circumstances being financially strained or needing to access the capital markets for the foreseeable future.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Thanks. And then one last question and then I’ll jump back in the queue. With respect to the alpha interferon, I’m going to miss some of your prepared remarks that you said it was ongoing, when should we expect to receive some data from them?

Stephen H. Willard

Sure. We have been told that there will be data presented, that’s interim data presented this fall in a well respected peer reviewed scientific form. As soon as we have confirmation on the timing of that and the date and the location, we will issue that out to our shareholders.

Matthew Kaplan – Ladenberg Thalm

Great. Thanks for taking all my questions.

Stephen H. Willard

Thanks for your call, Matt.

Operator

(Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from the line of Peter Lux.

Peter Lux – Private Investor

Hi. How are you guys doing?

Stephen H. Willard

Good morning, Peter. How are you?

Peter Lux – Private Investor

Okay. Well, am hanging in. Listen, I hate to say this, but all the listening and meeting you guys have had several years, and listening to your calls, it seems like I’m listening to the emperor’s new close.

I mean, we promised we deliver, we talk a lot of footwork and then in the end there is nothing substantive that is delivered to the stockholders. We keep coming up with new initiatives that go nowhere. You talk about higher risk and reward. I’ve seen higher risk and no award. So that’s just my comment, and I think it is well taken.

In the last year, you had promised a lot and delivered a little. But let me ask you a question on GSK. And I understand that they owe you a lot of money from all the product you’ve delivered and ultimately, you’re still in court and hopefully there will be a resolution. But I also understand that potentially there is a nuclear option that you could really put them in the corner. And at some point, don’t you think you’ve got to fire that nuclear option?

Stephen H. Willard

Well, the first comment I would mention Peter is, we’re not in court with GSK.

Peter Lux – Private Investor

Well, in associations with and so forth.

Stephen H. Willard

Yeah, yeah. We’re, but that’s important to say. I mean, we’re a partnership company and I personally think litigation is not the kind of thing that would benefit from our shareholders. We do that…

Peter Lux – Private Investor

I’m just talking about putting them on notice or putting the world on notice, how they are potentially keeping life-saving product off the market for a couple of bucks.

Stephen H. Willard

I hear you, and I’m going to be continuing my negotiations with them today.

Operator

And our next question comes from the line of Peter Butler with GlenHill Investments.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

Good morning, good morning.

Stephen H. Willard

Good morning, Peter.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

I’m scratching my head a bit about these deals that you have with Theralpha and Digna. It sounds like the game plan, Peter is to push along the technology to the point where you can add enough value for you and your partner either its Theralpha or Digna to sell these products to Big Pharma.

Stephen H. Willard

Correct.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

And at that point, I think you indicated that you might be in for 30%, 40% share of the potential gain on the sale.

Stephen H. Willard

Correct.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

Now, in today’s world with the huge expenses of pushing a product through the commercial Big Pharma usually doesn’t get involved in a product unless it could be of the blockbuster, in the blockbuster category in other words, something over a billion dollars. Okay. So on a theoretical product that you sell after it passes Phase I or Phase II, what is that worth in the market now keeping in mind that’s also at a risk. But if you were to sell a product that your partner Big Pharma or thinks is going to be say $2 billion a year drug, what is that worth if you were to sell it at Phase I or after Phase II?

Stephen H. Willard

An interesting question. The problem is that sort of each molecule is different. I mean, we could look together at a variety of the different deals that Big Pharma has done in terms of acquisition of products recently.

There seem to be two trends in the industry, one is to acquire in a very late stage or already marketed molecules in order to deal with the eminent patent [cliffs] that many of them has. And then a second element of their strategy is to sort of rebuild their pipeline not as much it seems to me by developing things internally, but rather buying other people’s drugs at the Phase I or Phase II stage.

Some of the prices of those have been extremely attractive even at the earlier stages, but each deal is completely dependent on what the indication is that’s being cured by the product, what the needs and desperation level are of the acquirer, what their corporate strategy is, what their tolerance for risk is, it’s really hard in the abstract even with these molecules to predict the kinds of results that we would get after Phase I and Phase II among other things, because we don’t have the Phase I or Phase II results yet.

But I do know that I think we’ve selected four molecules that have tremendous potential and it’s our hope that if even one or two of them are successful, we could not only get unusually strong returns compared to our core business, but also return substantially in advance of Phase III clinical trails or approvals.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

I seem to recall that Flamel has a rather large tax loss carry forward, could you update us on what that is and it would seem that if you were able to sell one of these early stage products that the earnings would be tax sheltered.

Stephen H. Willard

That’s true. I don’t have the number in front of me, but I believe it’s a $160 million; $170 million of net operating loss carry forwards. I’ll get you the exact number. But yes, that is a real positive for us both in terms of not only these programs, but also profitability from our core business, and also I’m exploring another one of my efforts for the remainder of 2006, is seeking to sell applications of our technology to a class of compounds rather than just one at a time. Examples of that might be our long acting liquid technology or our vaccine technology or whatever. And you’re right, the profits from that would be protected from a tax perspective by very significant net loss carry forwards that we maintain on our balance sheet, and those loss carry forwards do not expire.

Peter Butler – Glen Hill Investment

Okay. You know your shareholders are waiting with some anticipation for Flamel to start ringing in the cash register on some of these deals. What are your objectives for the second half? Can we hear the chimes of the cash register being rung or are we expecting to get positive cash flow and some pretty good deals signed or what are your deals in the second half?

Stephen H. Willard

Predicting the future is difficult, because it does require the decisions of our partners, and we have been disappointed in the past, all of us. And I’m very focused on delivering for our shareholders who, many of them have been with Flamel for a long time.

But in terms of goals for this year, the most immediate is to resolve the outstanding issues with GSK, potentially more information about our beta interferon project, the interferon alpha results in the public domain in the fall. We are negotiating a variety of new license agreements including license agreements based on successful feasibility studies we’ve done. I’m seeking to sell applications of our technology to a class of compounds, which could potentially result in much higher payments, since this would be the first time we’ve gone from a sort of molecule by molecule approach and there are so many different applications of our technology that we could easily sell two or three show the value of those and have, you know, we could have a dozen or two dozen more are left.

And then finally, I’m looking to, we’re negotiating to explore deals outside of the United States. All of our deals in the past have been largely focused around the United States whereas there are very rapidly developing markets in another portions of the world and there are people who are very eager to license our technology with the focus towards other parts of the world other than the United States and trying to bring those to fruition is probably the final goal I would mention right now for the remaining five months of the year.

Operator

And at this time, Mr. Willard there are no further questions in the queue. I would like to turn the conference back over to you for any additional or closing remarks.

Stephen H. Willard

Well, thank you very much. Thank you all once again very much for your interest in Flamel Technology. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak with you and we look forward to speaking with you soon. Thanks again for your interest in Flamel Technologies.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen this does conclude today’s conference. We thank for your participation.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Flamel Technologies CEO Discusses Q2 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts