A closed Caldrion loan, shown under its project code name. The borrower and sponsor are not named. Terms are as of closing; returns are our underwriting targets, not realized results.
Royalty monetization · $30.0M · 42% of royalty value · 11.75% fixed
At a glance
| Borrower | A bankruptcy-remote SPV of a Boston clinical-stage biotech with a market value of about $180M |
| Collateral | A 6% royalty on worldwide net sales of an FDA-approved orphan drug, sold by an investment-grade global pharma licensee; patent protection to 2034 |
| Loan | $30.0M |
| Leverage | 41.7% of the royalty’s present value ($72M at a 12% discount, on our haircut forecast) |
| Term | 36 months, with 100% of royalties swept to the loan (projected payoff around month 32) |
| Pricing | 11.75% fixed (roughly S+800); 2.00% origination; plus 10% of royalties for 12 months after payoff |
The situation
The drug launched in 2022, with trailing net sales of $187M, which yields an $11.2M royalty. The biotech needed $30M for a Phase 2 trial of a different drug candidate. Its stock traded near its cash value, so raising equity would have been heavily dilutive. Banks don’t lend to unprofitable biotechs, and selling the royalty outright to a royalty fund would have given away the upside through 2034.
Our royalty forecast (15% below analyst consensus)
| Year | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royalty ($M) | 12.5 | 13.8 | 14.8 | 15.5 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 12.0 |
That totals $116.8M undiscounted, or about $72M discounted at 12%.
Paydown
In year one, $12.5M comes in: about $3.2M of interest and $9.3M of principal, leaving $20.7M. In year two, $13.8M comes in, paying about $1.9M of interest and $11.9M of principal and leaving $8.8M. The rest is repaid around month 32.
Structure
- The royalty was sold into the SPV with true-sale and non-consolidation opinions, so a bankruptcy of the parent can’t reach it.
- The licensee signed a payment direction letter and pays royalties straight into an account we control.
- The license can’t be amended, waived or terminated without our consent, and we can exercise the licensor’s right to audit royalty reports.
- The biotech must maintain and enforce the patents, and must notify us immediately of any patent challenge (an IPR or Paragraph IV filing) or label change.
- Diligence covered IP counsel’s review of the patents, the license’s net-sales definition (rebates, chargebacks, government pricing deductions), currency exposure (about 40% of sales are outside the US) and competitors’ pipelines.
- The parent gave a limited guaranty covering its true-sale representations and bad acts.
Risks and mitigants
| Risk | Mitigant |
|---|---|
| A competitor enters | Forecast already 15% below consensus; 41.7% LTV |
| Patent challenge | IP diligence; low LTV leaves years of cushion |
| Licensee under-reports royalties | Audit rights |
| Licensee credit | Investment-grade global pharma |
| Currency moves | Forecast stressed for a 10% FX hit |
Downside
If a competitor launches in 2028 and sales run 35% below our forecast, about $11M is still owed at month 36. We can extend 12 months, and the remaining royalties through 2034 (about $49M even in this case) cover that balance roughly 4.5 times.
Returns, as underwritten
Including the post-payoff royalty participation, the target is about a 14% gross IRR.
See all our transactions, the twelve loans compared and our criteria.
This case study is provided for information only. It is not an offer of securities or investment advice, and targeted results do not indicate future results.