IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jacrfn/v15y2002i1p57-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Raising Contingent Capital: The Case Of Cephalon

Author

Listed:
  • George Chacko
  • Peter Tufano
  • Geoffrey Verter

Abstract

In early 1997, Cephalon, Inc., a biotechnology firm, purchased 2.5 million capped call options on its own stock, with a potential value of as much as $45 million, in exchange for $9.8 million worth of its common shares. Cephalon's first major drug, Myotrophin, was under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Cephalon's management reasoned that, upon FDA approval, the company's stock would rise in value to reflect the future value of the drug, in which case the call options would pay off and the firm could use the proceeds to help fund commercialization of the drug. The managers thus viewed the call options as a form of “contingent capital,” capital that would be available only if and when the firm needed it. The availability and cost of financing constitute major uncertainties for any company and perhaps even more so for a biotech firm. But was the options transaction a cost‐effective way to raise capital? The authors' analysis suggests that the cost of the capped calls—underwriting fees, expenses, underpricing, and market impact—was quite high compared to alternative sources of financing that may have been available to Cephalon in the wake of a favorable decision by the FDA. An equally interesting aspect of this case is that the size of Cephalon's funding requirements was determined in large part by accounting rules and management's desire to report higher (non‐cash) earnings.

Suggested Citation

  • George Chacko & Peter Tufano & Geoffrey Verter, 2002. "Raising Contingent Capital: The Case Of Cephalon," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 15(1), pages 57-70, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:15:y:2002:i:1:p:57-70
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2002.tb00341.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2002.tb00341.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2002.tb00341.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:15:y:2002:i:1:p:57-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1078-1196 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.