Viewing offline content

Limited functionality available

Dismiss
Deloitte Middle East
Annotations
  • Services

    What's New

    • Deloitte175

      Join us for a celebration of 175 years of making an impact that matters.

    • Building the Resilient Organization

      2021 Deloitte Global resilience report

    • 2020 Global Gender Impact Report

      A collection of Butterfly Effect stories highlighting how our Deloitte professionals are positively impacting the lives of women and girls around the world

    • Audit & Assurance

      • Assurance
    • Consulting

      • Strategy, Analytics and M&A
      • Customer and Marketing
      • Business Operations
      • Human Capital
      • Enterprise Technology & Performance
    • Financial Advisory

      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Forensic
      • Real Estate
      • Turnaround & Restructuring
    • Risk Advisory

      • Strategic & Reputation Risk
      • Regulatory Risk
      • Financial Risk
      • Operational Risk
      • Cyber Risk
    • Tax

      • Global Business Tax Services
      • Indirect Tax
      • Global Employer Services
    • Deloitte Private

      • Family Enterprise
    • Legal

    • Sustainability

  • Industries

    What's New

    • Deloitte perspectives

      Leadership perspectives from across the globe.

    • Deloitte Insights App

      Our thought leadership and Dow Jones news, now at your fingertips

    • Future of Mobility

      Learn how this new reality is coming together and what it will mean for you and your industry.

    • Consumer

      • Automotive
      • Consumer Products
      • Retail, Wholesale & Distribution
      • Transportation, Hospitality & Services
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials

      • Industrial Products & Construction
      • Mining & Metals
      • Oil, Gas & Chemicals
      • Power, Utilities & Renewables
    • Financial Services

      • Banking & Capital Markets
      • Insurance
      • Investment Management
      • Real Estate
    • Government & Public Services

      • Civil Government
      • Defense, Security & Justice
      • Health & Social Care
      • Transport
    • Life Sciences & Health Care

      • Health Care
      • Life Sciences
    • MENA Sovereign Wealth Funds

    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications

      • Technology
      • Telecommunications, Media & Entertainment
  • Insights

    Deloitte Insights

    What's New

    • Deloitte Insights Magazine

      Explore the latest issue now

    • Deloitte Insights app

      Go straight to smart with daily updates on your mobile device

    • Weekly economic update

      See what's happening this week and the impact on your business

    • Strategy

      • Business Strategy & Growth
      • Digital Transformation
      • Governance & Board
      • Innovation
      • Marketing & Sales
      • Private Enterprise
    • Economy & Society

      • Economy
      • Environmental, Social, & Governance
      • Health Equity
      • Trust
      • Mobility
    • Organization

      • Operations
      • Finance & Tax
      • Risk & Regulation
      • Supply Chain
      • Smart Manufacturing
    • People

      • Leadership
      • Talent & Work
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Technology

      • Data & Analytics
      • Emerging Technologies
      • Technology Management
    • Industries

      • Consumer
      • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Public Services
      • Life Sciences & Health Care
      • Technology, Media, & Telecommunications
    • Spotlight

      • Deloitte Insights Magazine
      • Press Room Podcasts
      • Weekly Economic Update
      • COVID-19
      • Resilience
  • Careers

    What's New

    • Millennial Survey 2022

      Gen Zs and millennials are striving for balance and advocating for change.

    • Candidate Profile

      After applying for a job in this country, you can access/update your candidate profile at any time.

    • Job Search

    • Students

    • Experienced Hires

    • Executives

    • Life at Deloitte

    • Alumni

    • Diversity and Inclusion

  • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
  • Contact us
  • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
  • Contact us
    • Dashboard
    • Saved items
    • Content feed
    • Profile/Interests
    • Account settings

Welcome back

Still not a member? Join My Deloitte

External innovation

by Philip Pfrang, Kelley Dealhoy, Tatjana Heller, Sonal Shah
  • Save for later
  • Download
  • Share
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
Deloitte Insights
  • Strategy
    Strategy
    Strategy
    • Business Strategy & Growth
    • Digital Transformation
    • Governance & Board
    • Innovation
    • Marketing & Sales
    • Private Enterprise
  • Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    • Economy
    • Environmental, Social, & Governance
    • Health Equity
    • Trust
    • Mobility
  • Organization
    Organization
    Organization
    • Operations
    • Finance & Tax
    • Risk & Regulation
    • Supply Chain
    • Smart Manufacturing
  • People
    People
    People
    • Leadership
    • Talent & Work
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
  • Technology
    Technology
    Technology
    • Data & Analytics
    • Emerging Technologies
    • Technology Management
  • Industries
    Industries
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Tech, Media, & Telecom
  • Spotlight
    Spotlight
    Spotlight
    • Deloitte Insights Magazine
    • Press Room Podcasts
    • Weekly Economic Update
    • COVID-19
    • Resilience
    • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
    • Contact us
      • Dashboard
      • Saved items
      • Content feed
      • Profile/Interests
      • Account settings
    27 October 2017

    External innovation How biopharma companies are bolstering R&D pipelines through deal-making

    27 October 2017
    • Philip Pfrang United States
    • Kelley Dealhoy United States
    • Tatjana Heller United States
    • Philip Pfrang United States
    • Kelley Dealhoy United States
    • Tatjana Heller United States
    • Sonal Shah United States
    • See more See more See less
      • Philip Pfrang United States
      • Kelley Dealhoy United States
      • Tatjana Heller United States
      • Sonal Shah United States
    • Save for later
    • Download
    • Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on Linkedin
      • Share by email
    • Introduction
    • Why pursue external innovation?
    • Licensing and JV outperform M&A
    • Spotlight: Oncology and CNS underperform
    • Deal costs may sway companies’ strategy
    • What factors should you consider when selecting a deal type?
    • Tax and accounting considerations
    • How can you be successful executing different deal structures?
    • Appendix

    Sourcing research externally seems to be the preferred path for biopharma companies to strengthen their R&D pipeline. But when choosing from the three main options open to them—licensing, mergers and acquisitions, and joint ventures—what factors should they examine, and do deal types differ in the ways they accelerate development and deliver long-term value?

    Introduction

    Learn More

    View the related bifold

    Many biopharma companies, in pursuit of a balanced portfolio and a robust development pipeline, are increasingly sourcing research and development (R&D) assets externally. In fact, the proportion of biopharma revenue generated by drugs sourced from other companies rose from 41 percent in 2005 to 50 percent in 2014.1 As biopharma companies seek such external deals to source assets for innovation, in general, they have three structuring options: licensing, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and joint ventures (JVs) (figure 1).

    Three main types of external innovation

    technical expertise2, profit3

    The differences between these types of deals are not always clear cut; some deals may include elements of other types. But what factors should companies examine when deciding what type of deal to pursue, and do deal types differ in the ways they accelerate development and deliver long-term value? In this article, based on an analysis of almost 3,000 biopharma deals over the past decade, we evaluate the pros and cons of each deal type, present research on their relative success rates, and offer some reasons for success or failure. (See the appendix for more information on our research methodology.)

    Why pursue external innovation?

    The rise in external innovation among biopharma companies could help companies turn around decreasing returns on R&D efforts overall. According to Deloitte research, returns on biopharmaceutical innovation have declined from 10.1 percent in 2010 to 3.7 percent in 2016.4 Further, biopharma assets sourced via open innovation approaches are three times more likely to be successful than those sourced via traditional approaches.5 An analysis of our current data set confirms that launch rates among externally sourced drugs are consistently higher than the industry benchmark noted by Biomedtracker, which analyzes the likelihood of approval (LOA) for internally developed and externally sourced drugs across therapeutic areas (figure 2).

    Externally sourced assets’ launch rates are higher than industry benchmarks (2007–2016)

    Licensing and JV outperform M&A when it comes to progressing assets through development phases

    Do biopharma companies tend to prefer one deal type over others in R&D? Our research indicates a resounding “yes.” Among the transactions we analyzed, licensing was by far the most prevalent approach, comprising about 93 percent of the deals in our data set. M&A came in second at 6 percent, while JVs made up just 1 percent of the deals.

    When we looked at success rates among the three types of deals—that is, the likelihood that an asset would launch or progress—licensing and JV deals appeared to enjoy higher success rates than M&A. We evaluated the first five years of our data set to allow sufficient time for assets to progress in R&D. For deals executed between 2007 and 2012, a greater percentage of assets sourced through licensing (22 percent) and JVs (56 percent) made it to market than assets sourced through M&A (12 percent) (figure 3).

    Assets sourced via licensing and JV were more likely to launch and progress in R&D as compared to M&A over 2007–2012

    We also evaluated the frequency with which assets progressed out of the phase at which they were sourced. Here, too, licensing agreements were more likely to progress than M&A ones (figure 4). Phase transitions and progression are crucial measures to assess if assets are advancing toward launch, remaining in phase, or are discontinued or suspended following the deal.

    Licensed drugs were more likely to progress to the next phase compared to those acquired through M&A over 2007–2012

    Why pursue single-asset transactions, and what about megamergers?

    Our analysis compares licensing with single-asset M&A only. We evaluated deals in our data set working under the assumption that the buyer’s rationale for pursuing the deal is to advance innovation. However, some single-asset transactions could be pursued for different reasons. For example, a company may seek to acquire an asset to thwart a competitive threat, or a buyer’s interest may lie in the acquisition of key talent and capabilities rather than a specific asset. In these situations, success may be defined differently than asset progression through R&D to market.

    It is also important to note that our data set excludes deals where multiple assets are involved. Assets acquired as part of a portfolio might outperform the single-asset deals we evaluated, but these were not considered as part of our analysis.

    The differences in success rates raise some interesting ideas about how deal strategy impacts R&D execution.

    Collaboration could be the key to success

    Our data suggests that greater collaboration and commitment to a drug’s success lead to progression in development and a greater likelihood of launch. Licensing involves working with a licensor that is committed to the continued success of the asset. This helps create accountability for both the licensee and licensor to hit key milestones. In M&A, if the strategic focus of the acquiring company changes, assets could linger in development pipelines without being progressed or terminated, especially in phase 1 or 2.

    M&A may be more disruptive than licensing

    Key talent or capabilities could be lost in M&A transactions, potentially disrupting R&D. The acquiring company might underestimate the integration demands of an acquisition compared to a transformative megamerger. Thoughtful post-merger integration planning—including dedicating sufficient resources to execute the plan—could increase the success of acquired assets.

    Acquirers might be more decisive than licensors in terminating development programs

    Abandonment does not always equal failure: Terminating programs with a low likelihood of commercial success saves companies from making additional investment that will not generate a return.

    According to our research, a higher percentage of development programs sourced via M&A were abandoned across phases than those via licensing. This could suggest that acquirers are more willing to terminate development programs that are not likely to be successful. Licensors may struggle to gain consensus with licensees to make the same hard choice.

    Deal structure could reflect asset value

    If one party is willing to give up control of an asset through a merger or acquisition, does that suggest that the asset is of lower quality? Or does it mean that the asset was highly valued and drew an attractive acquisition bid? It is possible that the deal type reflects the seller’s commitment or perceived value of the program. Often, novel and highly sought-after assets are tied up in licensing agreements early on in development, leaving a smaller pool of assets to shop from in later phases. Further, an attractive acquisition bid that prompts a sale might overvalue the asset.

    Spotlight: Oncology and CNS underperform as compared to all therapeutic areas

    Our research showed that central nervous system (CNS) treatment and oncology were the top two therapeutic areas (TAs) for deal-making activity, followed by infectious disease (these three areas accounted for 46 percent of deals in our data set). The vast majority of deals for both therapeutic areas were via licensing (97 percent for oncology, and 98 percent for CNS).

    Given the challenging scientific nature of these therapeutic areas, it was no surprise that many companies try to hedge against clinical failure by employing a licensing strategy. Our data also shows that when it comes to rates of launch and progression, oncology and CNS deals underperformed other therapeutic areas (figure 5).

    Oncology deals were more likely to remain in phase as compared to all TAs; central nervous system (CNS) deals were more likely to be abandoned than all TAs over 2007–2012

    In oncology, deals were more likely to remain in phase than to progress or be abandoned. This may reflect the rapid pace of change in the scientific understanding of disease and molecular targets. Some older programs may have been shelved to make room for new ones. It is possible that more recent oncology deals may be more successful than the older deals evaluated in our data set. More recent deals tend to include assets that pursue specific biomarkers or a targeted approach, and clinical activity can be seen as early as phase 1. Product approval can be accelerated using studies in smaller populations, sometimes before phase 3. A targeted approach could also decrease the likelihood that compounds in development will be discontinued due to scientific failure in later stages.

    In CNS, the high rates of launch (20 percent) and progression (18 percent) are encouraging, but higher-than-average abandonment rates (33 percent) might indicate high clinical failures in this therapeutic area. Clinical failures, even in later stages, might explain the increased percentage of abandoned CNS development programs in our analysis.

    Deal costs may sway companies’ strategy

    Comparisons in success rates address only one part of the question, “what deal type generates more value?” Significant differences in the cost of licensing deals versus M&A deals might lead a business development executive to make a trade-off on success rates. For example, even if an M&A deal might have a lower likelihood of success, it may be worth considering if the deal price is much lower than licensing.

    Cash at risk—calculated as average up-front payments ($M)—are higher for M&A deals across all phases (2007–2016)

    To explore this relationship, we compared average cash at risk, or average up-front payments, of both licensing and M&A deals (inclusive of both contingent M&A and outright acquisition deals) from 2007 through 2016 (where data was available). For both licensing and M&A, the average amount paid up-front increases as products progress through R&D, from phase 1 to 2 and 3. However, average up-front payments are consistently higher for M&A than licensing (figure 6).

    The lower up-front payments associated with licensing, combined with licensing’s higher success rates over M&A, would appear to suggest that licensing is a more logical choice across all phases. However, licensing deals could include significant costs related to milestone payments and royalty streams, costs not captured here. And while 50 percent of M&A deals analyzed use a contingent structure, meaning some payments are deferred until certain milestones are met, the other 50 percent reflects a one-time payment for outright acquisition of a company or asset. This could mean that total deal costs for licensing might exceed M&A in some instances.

    A business development executive may want to think about how success rates impact potential future value. For example, even if the total costs of a licensing deal could exceed those of M&A in phase 3, leaders may wish to consider whether licensing’s threefold advantage in success rate in phase 3—47 percent of phase 3 assets progress or launch after licensing deals, versus 16 percent for M&A (figure 4)—might offset licensing’s greater cost.

    What factors should you consider when selecting a deal type?

    As we noted earlier, licensing deals are not necessarily always the preferred option. Each deal type has advantages and disadvantages, and there are scenarios in which an M&A or JV might be the optimal solution. Table 1 gives an overview of strategic reasons that buyers and sellers might consider each kind of deal.

    Deal types and potential strategic rationale, advantages, and disadvantages

    Here are some important factors companies should consider when evaluating what type of deal they should pursue.

    Cash at risk. R&D organizations can seek to reduce their financial exposure by using deal structures that make payment contingent upon hitting specific milestones. This type of structure is typical in R&D licensing agreements, but can also be incorporated into M&A agreements—for instance, subsequent payments to the acquired company are contingent on achieving key milestones or metrics. Contingent M&A deal structures, however, can be harder to execute. Companies with constrained R&D budgets might seek to use licensing or contingent M&A structures to limit their cash at risk, especially when M&A valuations are high.

    Asset value. Another question that companies in pursuit of innovation should consider is whether or not the seller or licensor’s preferred deal strategy reflects the value of the assets being pursued. Buyers or licensors might want to consider if the seller’s preferred M&A strategy suggests a lower-value asset or an overpriced acquisition bid.

    Expanding into new therapeutic areas. Companies may pursue different strategies depending on how reliant they are on the partner to advance the drug asset in question. When a buyer or licensor is entering into new disease areas, and the target company’s know-how would be critical to the success of drug development, companies might choose to license assets; but when they have expertise in the targeted disease area and are able to progress assets through development independently, M&A may be a better choice.

    Strategic commitment to the asset in question. Where a company has a clear commitment to advancing a particular asset, licensing may be a better choice, as it involves a licensee working with a licensor that is committed to the continued success of the asset. This accountability for both the licensee and licensor to hit key milestones could drive greater success in R&D phases. However, in cases where the strategy of an acquiring company is still in flux and there is a high likelihood of the strategic focus changing, M&A can ease prioritization of the development program. Assets can be put on hold, or their progress can be calibrated as per the acquirer’s needs.

    Ownership structure. Companies might choose to pursue different strategies depending on their ownership structure and investor preferences. For example, small privately owned companies might prefer to be acquired as a way for venture investors to realize a return on their investment. Public companies, however, might want to retain value and license assets instead. Private companies that are seeking out external innovation may avoid acquiring public companies because of the complications that it could create.

    Tax and accounting considerations

    Each type of deal structure has different tax and accounting implications. M&A, for example, can come with some tax benefits if the target company has net operating losses or R&D incentives that can be utilized by the acquiring company to reduce cash taxes. However, M&A also requires consolidation of assets, liabilities, and other financial items of two or more entities into one, which could negatively impact financial statements.

    How can you be successful executing different deal structures?

    Once a company decides on which deal structure to use, it should take specific steps to help ensure the success of the deal depending on the deal type:

    • Licensing or contingent M&A: While considering this option, companies should identify key programmatic risks, align key milestones and payments to those risks, and invest time in building strong collaborative working relationships. A stepwise approach could include:
      • Determining key risks, and setting up the deal structure to mitigate those risks
      • Understanding the value each brings to the table in addressing key risks that were identified during deal diligence
      • Clearly aligning the incentives in the deal terms
      • Investing time in building a post-deal relationship, and scheduling periodic check-ins to help ensure all parties continue to be aligned and that progress is being made in achieving key goals
    • M&A: Biopharma companies should consider thorough due diligence and integration planning in advance of the transaction to help increase the success of assets sourced through M&A. In a Deloitte Survey conducted by OnSearch6 (a market research firm), executives working closely on M&A pointed to the following success factors:
      • Following a stepwise approach helped bring faster integration
      • Understanding each other’s governance process and the target company’s internal controls could help streamline decision-making 7
      • Measuring and achieving synergies is key to success
      • A communication strategy involving management from both sides helps execute the integration effectively8
    • JVs: To successfully execute a JV, companies should work toward developing a contractual agreement with time-bound objectives, defined ownership structure, and clarity on profit/loss sharing. Specifically, they should consider:
      • Creating a compelling value proposition for all stakeholders involved by establishing clear goals and objectives9
      • Developing a governance policy that includes division of responsibilities, ownership rights, lines of accountability, and clearly defined leadership roles10
      • Establishing a good risk and performance management system, with defined protocols for decision-making11
      • Dedicating and incentivizing skilled resources who understand the product, and have existing relationships with markets they are selling to12

    As biopharma companies look to reverse the trend of declining return on R&D investment, they are likely to search for therapies that have the potential to drive significant revenue growth.13 While biopharma companies tend to opt for licensing as a preferred deal structure in R&D, under some circumstances, M&A or JV could be a better option. But whatever the deal type, planning and due diligence are important for companies to beat the odds and leverage deal-making to successfully build R&D pipelines.

    Appendix

    Research methodology

    We analyzed Cortellis Deals Intelligence data for select licensing, M&A, and JV deals that took place between 2007 and 2016 to help us understand trends, progression of assets through phases of development, deal terms, and how this varies across deal types and therapeutic areas:

    1. We excluded deals related to medical devices and diagnostics, generics, and scientific or technology platforms. The final analysis was carried out on around 3,000 single-asset transactions that occurred in R&D phases (preclinical through registration) over the past 10 years.
    2. Under the three deal types—licensing, M&A, and JVs—we focused on deals executed between the preclinical and registration phases:
      1. Licensing deal types included patents with exclusive and nonexclusive rights, development/commercialization licenses, and technology/other proprietary licensing terms.
      2. M&A deals included those that were either acquisition in whole or in part, or drug-asset divestments sold by the principal company to a partner company. Deals including multiple assets were excluded to allow for more accurate comparisons between M&A and licensing.
      3. JV deals included those where a principal and partner come together to form a venture.

      The distribution of deals sourced in each phase was similar for M&A and licensing.

    3. We excluded deals where no information was reported on the clinical status of assets (at deal start or current) or deal terms.
    4. Finally, we shared our initial findings with industry experts to get their insights on preferred strategies, explanations for trends, and thoughts on making each type of deal successful.
    Authors

    Phil Pfrang  is the Global managing partner of Deloitte’s Health Care & Life Sciences Financial Advisory Practice and is located in New York.

    Kelley Dealhoy is a senior advisor in Deloitte’s Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) practice with a global focus on the Life Sciences & Health Care sector and is located in Toronto, Canada.

    Tatjana Heller has more than 10 years of experience leading complex valuation engagements to assist global life sciences clients with mergers, acquisitions, and dispositions; taxation planning and compliance; and bankruptcy and reorganization and is located in Boston. 

    Sonal Shah is a senior manager with the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions within Deloitte Services LP and leads the center’s life sciences research and is located in New York.

    Acknowledgements

    The authors would like to thank the project team for their contributions. Bushra Naaz led the research and analysis and wrote sections of the paper. Kiran Vipparthi conducted analysis and created the charts and tables in this paper. Rahul Singh built the deals database for analysis.

     

    The authors would also like to thank Susan Dettmar, Neil Lesser, Ralph Marcello, Colin Terry, Prateep Menon, Teresa Leste, Will Engelbrecht, Kyle Woitel, Victoria Bough, Uma Shankar Gupta, Anupam Sahni, Lauren Wallace, Steve Davis, Lynn Sherry, Junko Kaji, Ramani Moses, and the many other Deloitte professionals who contributed their ideas and insights to this project. 

     

    Cover image by: Molly Woodworth

    Endnotes
      1. Informa, The next frontier for cancer immunotherapy trials, 2017, p. 14, accessed September 14, 2017. View in article

      2. Thomas L. Wheelen and David J. Hunger, Strategic Management and Business Policy: Toward Global Sustainability, (London: Prentice Hall, 2011), p. 212. View in article

      3. The free dictionary, accessed September 21, 2017. View in article

      4. Karen Taylor, Mark Stockbridge, and Sonal Shah, Balancing the R&D equation: Measuring the return on pharmaceutical innovation: 2016 report, p. 3, accessed September 21, 2017. View in article

      5. Ralph Marcello, Glenn Carroll, Gaurav Vadnerkar, and Adam Volini, Executing an open innovation model: Cooperation is key to competition for biopharmaceutical companies, p. 6, Deloitte, 2015, accessed September 27, 2017. View in article

      6. Deloitte M&A Institute, M&A trends report, mid-year 2016, p. 3, accessed September 21, 2017. View in article

      7. Joel Schlachtenhaufen and Bob Lamm, On the board’s agenda: Post-merger integration, p. 2, 2017, September 21, 2017. View in article

      8. Deloitte M&A Institute, Integration report 2015: Putting the pieces together, p. 6, 2015, accessed September 21, 2017. View in article

      9. Harvard Business Review, “Launching a world-class joint venture,” February 2004,accessed October 2, 2017. View in article

      10. Bruce Caldwell, “Critical success factors for joint ventures,” Gartner, p. 2, 2001, accessed October 2, 2017. View in article

      11. Harvard Business Review, “Launching a world-class joint venture.” View in article

      12. Caldwell, “Critical success factors for joint ventures,” p.3. View in article

      13. Taylor, Stockbridge, and Shah, Balancing the R&D equation, p. 6. View in article

    Show moreShow less

    Topics in this article

    Life Sciences , Innovation , Pharmaceutical , Life Sciences & Health Care

    Learn more about the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions

    View
    Download Subscribe

    Related

    img Trending

    Interactive 3 days ago

    Philip Pfrang

    Philip Pfrang

    Partner | Deloitte Risk & Financial Advisory

    Phil is the Global managing partner of Deloitte & Touche LLP's Health Care & Life Sciences practice. Phil has more than 27 years of M&A experience and has assisted clients with more than 1,000 completed or proposed transactions in a broad cross-section of industries. Phil has served many of our most important strategic and private equity clients on both the buy side and sell side of their most important transactions. Phil has extensive experience in international and cross-border transactions. Phil is a frequent speaker on topics relating to mergers and acquisitions and the health care and life sciences industry.

    • ppfrang@deloitte.com
    • +1 212 436 3481
    Kelley Dealhoy

    Kelley Dealhoy

    Senior Advisor | Life Sciences M&A | Deloitte LLP

    Kelley is a senior advisor in Deloitte’s Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) practice with a global focus on the Life Sciences & Health Care sector. She has significant experience in the life science sector including pharmaceuticals, consumer, and animal health. With more than 20 years of industry experience, she has had leadership roles in leading multinational pharmaceutical companies in R&D, commercial, and corporate development supporting both emerging and established markets. Most recently, Kelley was the vice president and Global head of Business Development for Novartis Consumer Health business headquartered in NJ, USA. In this role, she and her team were responsible for driving inorganic growth through M&A including bolt on acquisitions with a focus on emerging markets as well as transformational global transactions. Kelley also led the global strategy to stream line the portfolio through divestment. Kelley led, closed, and was responsible for the separation of over 15 businesses involving prescription, OTC, and VMS products during her tenure at Novartis.

    • kdealhoy@deloitte.ca
    • +1 416 801 8455
    Tatjana Heller

    Tatjana Heller

    Senior Manager | Deloitte & Touche LLP

    Tatjana has more than 10 years of experience leading complex valuation engagements to assist global life sciences clients with mergers, acquisitions, and dispositions; taxation planning and compliance; and bankruptcy and reorganization. Tatjana has been supporting clients in all aspects of financial valuation, strategic decision support, including portfolio and capital allocation decisions, and financial deal term analysis.

    • taheller@deloitte.com
    • +1 617 437 2935
    Sonal Shah

    Sonal Shah

    Senior Manager | Deloitte Services LP

    Sonal is a senior manager with the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions within Deloitte Services LP and leads the center’s life sciences research. Through her research, she helps inform Deloitte’s health care, life sciences, and government clients about emerging trends, challenges, and opportunities. Her research focuses on R&D and innovation, the impact of the ongoing health care transformation to life sciences companies, and value-based care. Prior to Deloitte, Sonal worked in the biopharma industry. Sonal has a Master of Business Administration in health care management from the Wharton School, and a Doctor of Pharmacy from the Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy.

    • sonshah@deloitte.com
    • +1 212 653 6025

    Share article highlights

    See something interesting? Simply select text and choose how to share it:

    Email a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy your highlighted text.

    External innovation has been saved

    External innovation has been removed

    An Article Titled External innovation already exists in Saved items

     
    Forgot password

    To stay logged in, change your functional cookie settings.

    OR

    Social login not available on Microsoft Edge browser at this time.

    Connect Accounts

    Connect your social accounts

    This is the first time you have logged in with a social network.

    You have previously logged in with a different account. To link your accounts, please re-authenticate.

    Log in with an existing social network:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    OR

    Log in with an existing site account:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    Forgot password

    Subscribe

    to receive more business insights, analysis, and perspectives from Deloitte Insights
    ✓ Link copied to clipboard
    • Contact us
    • Search Jobs
    • Submit RFP
    Follow Deloitte Insights:
    Global office directory Office locations
    XE-EN Location: XE-English  
    About Deloitte
    • Newsroom
    • Deloitte events
    • Our blog collections
    • Press releases
    • Press contacts
    • Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability
    • Report an ethics complaint
    Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Consulting
    • Financial Advisory
    • Risk Advisory
    • Tax
    • Deloitte Private
    • Legal
    • Sustainability
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • MENA Sovereign Wealth Funds
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications
    Careers
    • Job Search
    • Students
    • Experienced Hires
    • Executives
    • Life at Deloitte
    • Alumni
    • Diversity and Inclusion
    • About Deloitte
    • About Deloitte in the Middle East
    • Privacy
    • Terms of use
    • Cookies
    • Avature Privacy

    © 2022. See Terms of Use for more information.

    Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see About Deloitte to learn more about our global network of member firms.