S-1
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 30, 2007.
Registration
No. 333-
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form S-1
REGISTRATION
STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS,
INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
2834
|
|
20-0422823
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
|
6 Cedar Brook Drive
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
(609) 662-2000
(Address, including zip code,
and telephone number, including area code, of Registrants
principal executive offices)
John F. Crowley
Chief Executive Officer
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
6 Cedar Brook Drive
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
(609) 662-2000
(Name, address, including zip
code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for
service)
Copies to:
|
|
|
|
|
Julio E. Vega
Bingham McCutchen LLP
150 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1726
(617) 951-8000
|
|
Douglas A. Branch
Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
6 Cedar Brook Drive
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
(609) 662-2029
|
|
Patrick OBrien
Ropes & Gray LLP
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1726
(617) 951-7000
|
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: As soon as practicable after this
Registration Statement is declared effective.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act), please check the following
box. o
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act,
please check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
_
_
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, please check the
following box and list the Securities Act registration statement
number of the earlier effective registration statement for the
same offering.
o _
_
If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, please check the
following box and list the Securities Act registration statement
number of the earlier effective registration statement for the
same
offering. o _
_
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Maximum
|
|
|
Amount of
|
Title of Each Class of
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Registration
|
Securities to be Registered
|
|
|
Offering Price(1)
|
|
|
Fee(2)
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per
share
|
|
|
$86,250,000
|
|
|
$2,647.88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration
fee pursuant to Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of
1933. |
|
(2) |
|
Calculated pursuant to Rule 457(o) based on an estimate of
the proposed maximum aggregate offering price. |
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on
such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective
date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act or until this Registration Statement shall
become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant
to said Section 8(a), may determine.
The
information contained in this prospectus is not complete and may
be changed. We may not sell these securities until the
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell
these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these
securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
|
PROSPECTUS (Subject to
Completion)
Issued ,
2007
Shares
Common Stock
This offering is our initial public offering of shares of our
common stock. We are
offering shares
of common stock.
We expect the initial public offering price to be between
$ and
$ per share. Currently, no
public market exists for our shares. After pricing of the
offering, we expect that the shares will be quoted on the Nasdaq
Global Market under the symbol FOLD.
Investing in our common stock involves risks. See Risk
Factors beginning on page 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
Total
|
|
Public offering price
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Underwriting discount
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
The underwriters may also purchase up to an
additional shares
of common stock from us at the public offering price, less the
underwriting discount, within 30 days from the date of this
prospectus to cover over-allotments.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state
securities commission has approved or disapproved these
securities, or determined if this prospectus is truthful or
complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares to purchasers on
or
about ,
2007.
|
|
Morgan
Stanley |
Merrill
Lynch & Co. |
JPMorgan
|
|
Lazard
Capital Markets |
Pacific
Growth Equities, LLC |
,
2007
Table of
Contents
You should rely only on the information contained in this
prospectus. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with
information different from that contained in this prospectus. We
are offering to sell, and seeking offers to buy, shares of our
common stock only in jurisdictions where offers and sales are
permitted. The information contained in this prospectus is
accurate only as of the date of this prospectus, regardless of
the time of delivery of this prospectus or of any sale of our
common stock. In this prospectus, unless otherwise stated or the
context otherwise requires, references to Amicus
Therapeutics, Amicus, we,
us, our and similar references refer to
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
Until ,
2007, 25 days after the commencement of this offering, all
dealers that buy, sell or trade shares of our common stock,
whether or not participating in this offering, may be required
to deliver a prospectus. This is in addition to the
dealers obligation to deliver a prospectus when acting as
underwriters and with respect to their unsold allotments or
subscriptions.
For investors outside the United States: Neither we nor any of
the underwriters have done anything that would permit this
offering or possession or distribution of this prospectus in any
jurisdiction where action for that purpose is required, other
than in the United States. You are required to inform yourselves
about and to observe any restrictions relating to this offering
and the distribution of this prospectus.
i
PROSPECTUS
SUMMARY
This summary highlights selected information contained
elsewhere in this prospectus. This summary may not contain all
of the information that is important to you. Before investing in
our common stock, you should read this prospectus carefully in
its entirety, especially the risks of investing in shares of our
common stock that we discuss in the Risk Factors
section of this prospectus beginning on page 8 and our
financial statements and related notes beginning on
page F-1.
AMICUS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.
Our
Company
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel small
molecule, orally-administered drugs, known as pharmacological
chaperones, for the treatment of a range of human genetic
diseases. Our lead products in development are Amigal for Fabry
disease, Plicera for Gaucher disease and AT2220 for Pompe
disease. Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe are relatively rare disorders
but represent substantial commercial markets due to the severity
of the symptoms and the chronic nature of the diseases. The
worldwide net product sales for the five approved therapeutics
to treat Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe disease were more than
$1.5 billion in 2006, as publicly reported by companies
that market these therapeutics. We hold worldwide
commercialization rights to Amigal, Plicera and AT2220 and we
intend to establish a commercial infrastructure and targeted
sales force to market some or all of our products.
We have completed enrollment of our Phase II clinical trials of
Amigal, and have obtained initial results in the first eleven
patients who have completed at least 12 weeks of treatment.
These initial results suggest that treatment with Amigal causes
an increase in the activity of alpha galactosidase A, or
α-GAL, the enzyme deficient in Fabry disease. We believe
this increase is likely to be clinically meaningful for a wide
range of Fabry patients. Data for the two patients from whom we
have kidney biopsies suggest that the increased level of
α-GAL that occurs after treatment with Amigal may result in
a decrease of globotriaosylceramide, or GL-3. GL-3 is the
substrate that accumulates in the cells of patients with Fabry
disease and is believed to cause the majority of disease
symptoms. Reduction of the level of
GL-3 in a
specific cell type of the kidney was the basis of prior
regulatory approval by the FDA of an enzyme replacement therapy
for the treatment of Fabry disease. We expect to complete our
Phase II clinical trials of Amigal by the end of 2007.
We are currently conducting two Phase II clinical trials of
Plicera in Type I Gaucher patients. We expect to obtain
preliminary results from the first of these Phase II clinical
trials by the end of 2007. We are currently conducting Phase I
trials of AT2220 for Pompe disease and expect to initiate a
Phase II clinical trial by the end of 2007.
Certain human diseases result from mutations in specific genes
that, in many cases, lead to the production of proteins with
reduced stability. Proteins with such mutations may not fold
into their correct three-dimensional shape and are generally
referred to as misfolded proteins. The cell ensures that
proteins are folded into their correct shape before they can
move from where they are made, the endoplasmic reticulum, or ER,
to the appropriate destination in the cell, a process referred
to as protein trafficking. Proteins that do not achieve their
correct shape are often eliminated by the cell, resulting in
reduced biological activity that can lead to impaired cellular
function and ultimately to disease. In certain instances,
misfolded proteins can accumulate in the ER instead of being
eliminated. This accumulation of misfolded proteins may lead to
various types of stress on cells, which may also contribute to
cellular dysfunction and disease.
Our novel approach to the treatment of human genetic diseases
consists of using pharmacological chaperones that selectively
bind to the target protein, increasing the stability of the
protein and helping it fold into the correct three-dimensional
shape. This allows proper trafficking of the protein, thereby
increasing protein activity, improving cellular function and
potentially reducing cell stress.
The current standard of treatment for Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe
is enzyme replacement therapy. This therapy compensates for the
reduced level of activity of specialized proteins called enzymes
through regular
1
infusions of recombinant enzyme. Instead of adding enzyme from
an external source by intravenous infusion, our approach uses
small molecule, orally-administered pharmacological chaperones
to restore the function of the enzyme that is already made by
the patients own body. We believe our product candidates
may have advantages relative to enzyme replacement therapy
relating to biodistribution and ease of use, potentially
improving treatment of these diseases. In addition, we believe
our technology is broadly applicable to other diseases for which
protein stabilization and improved folding may be beneficial,
including certain types of neurological disease, metabolic
disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Our Lead
Programs
Our three most advanced product development programs target
lysosomal storage disorders, which are chronic genetic diseases
that frequently result in severe symptoms. Each of these
disorders results from the deficiency of a single enzyme.
|
|
|
|
|
Amigal for Fabry disease. We are developing
Amigal for the treatment of patients with Fabry disease, which
commonly causes kidney failure and increased risk of heart
attack and stroke. We are currently conducting multiple Phase II
clinical trials of Amigal. We expect to complete our Phase II
trials of Amigal by the end of 2007.
|
|
|
|
Plicera for Gaucher disease. We are developing
Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease, which commonly
causes an enlarged liver and spleen, abnormally low levels of
red blood cells and platelets, and skeletal complications. Some
patients also present with neurological complications. We are
currently conducting two Phase II clinical trials of Plicera in
Type I Gaucher patients. We expect to obtain preliminary results
from the first of these two trials by the end of 2007.
|
|
|
|
AT2220 for Pompe disease. We are developing
AT2220 for the treatment of Pompe disease, which commonly causes
progressive muscle weakness, particularly affecting breathing,
mobility and heart function. We are currently conducting Phase I
clinical trials of AT2220 and expect to initiate a Phase II
clinical trial by the end of 2007.
|
Preliminary
Data from our Ongoing Phase II Clinical Trials in Fabry
Disease
We have completed enrollment of our four Phase II clinical
trials of Amigal and have obtained initial results for the first
eleven patients that have completed at least 12 weeks of
treatment. Each of these patients has been treated with various
doses and regimens of Amigal for various periods of time in
accordance with the Phase II protocols. Amigal has been
well-tolerated to date with no reported drug-related serious
adverse events.
The eleven patients represent ten different genetic mutations
and have baseline levels of α-GAL in white blood cells of
between 0% and 30% of normal. An increase in α-GAL enzyme
levels in white blood cells has been observed in ten out of the
eleven patients. These initial results suggest that treatment
with Amigal causes an increase in the level of α-GAL, the
enzyme deficient in Fabry disease, in a wide range of Fabry
patients. In addition, we believe that this increase is likely
to be therapeutically meaningful because it is generally
believed that even small increases in lysosomal enzyme levels
may have clinical benefits.
GL-3, the lipid substrate broken down by α-GAL in the
lysosome, accumulates in the cells of patients with Fabry
disease and is believed to be the cause of the majority of
disease symptoms. Reduction of the level of GL-3 in a specific
cell type of the kidney was the basis of prior regulatory
approval by the FDA of an enzyme replacement therapy for the
treatment of Fabry disease. Kidney GL-3 levels are available for
two patients and were assessed by an independent expert using
light and electron microscopy. A decrease in GL-3 was observed
in multiple cell types of the kidney of one patient after
12 weeks of treatment. A second patient showed a decrease
of GL-3 levels in the same kidney cell types after 24 weeks
of treatment, but these decreases were not independently
conclusive because of the patients lower levels of GL-3 at
baseline. These initial results are consistent with the GL-3
reductions observed after oral administration of Amigal to mice
that produce a form of human α-GAL found in some Fabry
patients.
2
Amigal has been well-tolerated to date with no reported
drug-related serious adverse events. Four patients have been on
Amigal for over a year. Adverse events were mostly mild and
reported by the investigators as unlikely to be related to
Amigal. One patient with a history of hypertension discontinued
study treatment due to increased blood pressure, which was
reported by the investigator as possibly related to the study
drug.
The results of our Phase II clinical trials to date do not
necessarily predict final results for our Phase II clinical
trials. The results from additional patients in our ongoing
Phase II clinical studies or additional data from these first
eleven patients may cause the results of our Phase II studies to
differ from or be less favorable than the preliminary results
presented above. We cannot guarantee that our Phase II clinical
studies will ultimately be successful.
Data from
our Phase I Clinical Trials in Gaucher Disease
We recently completed two double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose
escalation Phase I clinical trials in healthy volunteers.
These trials were designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability
and pharmacokinetics of Plicera. In the first study, 36 subjects
received a single dose of one of five dose levels of Plicera.
This was followed by a multiple-dose study in which 18 subjects
received one of three dose levels of Plicera once daily for 7
consecutive days. The data from our Phase I clinical trials in
healthy volunteers showed that Plicera was generally safe and
well tolerated at all doses. There were no serious adverse
events and no subjects withdrew or discontinued due to an
adverse event. The trials also demonstrate that Plicera has good
oral bioavailability, and linear pharmacokinetics with a
terminal half-life in plasma of approximately fourteen hours.
Also, the data from the multiple-dose Phase I clinical trial
showed a statistically significant, dose-related increase in
-glucocerebrosidase,
or GCase, levels in the white blood cells of normal, healthy
volunteers who received oral administration of Plicera for seven
days. GCase is the enzyme deficient in Gaucher disease.
Our
Strategy
Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company
focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of
pharmacological chaperone therapies for the treatment of a wide
range of human diseases. The introduction of pharmacological
chaperones as a treatment option has the potential to address
significant unmet medical needs and improve the quality of life
for patients.
To achieve this goal, we intend to:
|
|
|
|
|
focus our initial efforts on developing pharmacological
chaperones for severe genetic diseases called lysosomal storage
disorders;
|
|
|
|
rapidly advance our lead programs;
|
|
|
|
leverage our proprietary approach to the discovery and
development of additional small molecules; and
|
|
|
|
build a targeted sales and marketing infrastructure.
|
Our success in achieving our goal, however, depends in part on
the risks and uncertainties described in this prospectus in the
section entitled Risk Factors, including, without
limitation, those relating to our ability to conduct preclinical
and clinical trials that demonstrate safety and efficacy of our
product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approvals
and our ability to attract and retain effective sales and
marketing personnel.
Risks
Associated with Our Business
Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should
be aware before making an investment decision. We discuss these
risks more fully in the Risk Factors section of this
prospectus immediately following this prospectus summary. We
have a limited operating history and have not yet commercialized
any products. We have incurred substantial operating losses in
each year since inception. Our net loss attributable to common
stockholders was $65.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2006, we had an
accumulated deficit of $83.7 million. We expect to incur
significant and increasing net losses for at least the next
several years. It is uncertain whether any of our product
candidates under development will become effective treatments.
All of our product candidates are undergoing clinical trials or
are in earlier stages
3
of development, and failure in the development of new drugs is
common and can occur at any stage of development. None of our
product candidates has received regulatory approval for
commercialization, and we do not expect that any drugs resulting
from our research and development efforts will be commercially
available for a number of years, if at all. We may never
generate any revenues or achieve profitability.
Our
Corporate Information
We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on
February 4, 2002. Our principal executive offices are
located at 6 Cedar Brook Drive, Cranbury, New Jersey 08512, and
our telephone number is
(609) 662-2000.
Our website address is www.amicustherapeutics.com. The
information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is
not part of this prospectus. We have included our website
address in this prospectus solely as an inactive textual
reference.
We have filed applications to register certain trademarks in the
United States and abroad, including
AMICUStm,
AMICUS
THERAPEUTICStm
(and design),
AMIGALtm
and
PLICERAtm.
Fabrazyme®,
Cerezyme®,
Myozyme®,
Replagaltm
and
Zavesca®
are the property of their respective owners.
4
THE
OFFERING
|
|
|
Common stock we are offering |
|
shares |
|
Common stock to be outstanding after this offering
|
|
shares |
|
Over-allotment option |
|
shares |
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be
approximately $ million, or
approximately $ million if
the underwriters exercise their over-allotment option in full,
assuming an initial public offering price of
$ per share, which is the midpoint
of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus,
after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions
and offering expenses payable by us. We expect to use most of
the net proceeds from this offering to fund clinical trial
activities and preclinical research and development activities,
and the balance for other general corporate purposes. See
Use of Proceeds. |
|
Risk factors |
|
You should read the Risk Factors section of this
prospectus for a discussion of the factors to consider carefully
before deciding to purchase any shares of our common stock. |
|
Proposed NASDAQ Global Market symbol
|
|
FOLD |
The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding
immediately after the offering is based on 7,452,959 shares
of common stock outstanding as of March 15, 2007, and gives
effect to the automatic exercise for cash upon the closing of
this offering of outstanding warrants to purchase
447,583 shares of series B redeemable convertible
preferred stock, and the issuance of 120,987,335 shares of
common stock issuable upon the automatic conversion of all
shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock outstanding
upon the closing of this offering. The number of shares of
common stock to be outstanding after this offering excludes:
|
|
|
|
|
14,064,554 shares of common stock issuable upon the
exercise of stock options outstanding as of March 15, 2007,
with a weighted average exercise price of $0.57 per share;
|
|
|
|
40,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of a
warrant to purchase common stock at an exercise price of $0.75
per share; and
|
|
|
|
an aggregate
of shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2007
equity incentive plan as of the closing of this offering.
|
Unless otherwise noted, all information in this prospectus
assumes:
|
|
|
|
|
no exercise of the outstanding options or warrant to purchase
common stock described above; and
|
|
|
|
no exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase
shares of common stock to cover over-allotments.
|
We expect to complete a
one-for- reverse
split of our common stock before completion of this offering.
All share numbers will be adjusted to give effect to this
reverse stock split.
5
SUMMARY
FINANCIAL DATA
The following is a summary of our financial data. You should
read the summary financial data together with our financial
statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this
prospectus, and Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and other
financial information appearing elsewhere in this prospectus.
The pro forma net loss and pro forma net loss per share data for
the year ended December 31, 2006, give effect, as of the
beginning of such period, to the issuance on March 12, 2007
of 14,823,985 shares of our series D redeemable
convertible preferred stock, the automatic exercise for cash
upon the closing of this offering of all outstanding warrants to
purchase 447,583 shares of our series B redeemable
convertible preferred stock, and the automatic conversion of all
outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock
into 120,987,335 shares of common stock upon the closing of
this offering. The pro forma balance sheet data set forth below
also give effect, as of December 31, 2006, to the foregoing
events.
The pro forma as adjusted balance sheet data gives further
effect to our issuance and sale of shares of common stock in
this offering at an assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share, which is the midpoint
of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus,
after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions
and offering expenses payable by us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
(Inception) to
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data)
|
|
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
$
|
6,301
|
|
|
$
|
13,652
|
|
|
$
|
33,630
|
|
|
$
|
58,804
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
2,081
|
|
|
|
6,877
|
|
|
|
12,277
|
|
|
|
22,792
|
|
Impairment of leasehold improvements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
|
303
|
|
|
|
952
|
|
|
|
1,557
|
|
In-process research and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
8,528
|
|
|
|
20,831
|
|
|
|
46,859
|
|
|
|
84,601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(8,528
|
)
|
|
|
(20,831
|
)
|
|
|
(46,859
|
)
|
|
|
(84,601
|
)
|
Other income (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
1,991
|
|
|
|
2,808
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(550
|
)
|
|
|
(82
|
)
|
|
|
(273
|
)
|
|
|
(1,083
|
)
|
Change in fair value of warrant
liability
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(280
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
(304
|
)
|
Other expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,182
|
)
|
|
|
(1,182
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before tax benefit
|
|
|
(8,890
|
)
|
|
|
(20,584
|
)
|
|
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
(84,362
|
)
|
Income tax benefit
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(8,807
|
)
|
|
|
(19,972
|
)
|
|
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
Deemed dividend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,424
|
)
|
|
|
(19,424
|
)
|
Preferred stock accretion
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
(159
|
)
|
|
|
(451
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(8,932
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20,111
|
)
|
|
$
|
(65,928
|
)
|
|
$
|
(103,543
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common
stockholders per common shares basic and diluted
|
|
$
|
(3.87
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.54
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11.94
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average common shares
outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
2,306,541
|
|
|
|
3,076,649
|
|
|
|
5,519,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited pro forma net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited pro forma basic and
diluted net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.37
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited shares used to compute
pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126,507,084
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma as
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents and
marketable securities
|
|
$
|
54,699
|
|
|
$
|
79,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
44,814
|
|
|
|
69,247
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
59,646
|
|
|
|
84,079
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
13,071
|
|
|
|
12,463
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable convertible preferred
stock(1)
|
|
|
124,091
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deficit accumulated during the
development stage
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders
(deficiency) equity
|
|
|
(77,515
|
)
|
|
|
71,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
In March 2007, we issued additional
14,823,985 shares of series D redeemable convertible
preferred stock for proceeds of $24.1 million.
|
7
RISK
FACTORS
Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk.
You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties
described below together with all of the other information
included in this prospectus, including the financial statements
and related notes appearing at the end of this prospectus,
before deciding to invest in our common stock. If any of the
following risks actually occur, they would materially harm our
business, prospects, financial condition and results of
operations. In this event, the market price of our common stock
could decline and you could lose part or all of your
investment.
Risks
Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional
Capital
We have
incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We
currently do not, and since inception never have had, any
products available for commercial sale. We expect to incur
operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never
achieve or maintain profitability.
Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses.
Our net loss attributable to common stockholders was
$65.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. As
of December 31, 2006, we had an accumulated deficit of
$83.7 million. To date, we have financed our operations
primarily through private placements of our redeemable
convertible preferred stock. We have devoted substantially all
of our efforts to research and development, including our
preclinical development activities and clinical trials. We have
not completed development of any drugs. We expect to continue to
incur significant and increasing operating losses for at least
the next several years and we are unable to predict the extent
of any future losses. We anticipate that our expenses will
increase substantially as we:
|
|
|
|
|
continue our ongoing Phase II clinical trials of Amigal for the
treatment of Fabry disease and potentially conduct later-stage
clinical trials of Amigal;
|
|
|
|
continue our ongoing Phase II clinical trials of Plicera for the
treatment of Gaucher disease and potentially conduct later-stage
clinical trials of Plicera;
|
|
|
|
continue our ongoing Phase I clinical trials of AT2220 for the
treatment of Pompe disease and potentially conduct later-stage
clinical trials of AT2220;
|
|
|
|
continue the research and development of additional product
candidates;
|
|
|
|
seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates that
successfully complete clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
establish a sales and marketing infrastructure to commercialize
products for which we may obtain regulatory approval; and
|
|
|
|
add operational, financial and management information systems
and personnel, including personnel to support our product
development efforts and our obligations as a public company.
|
To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing
and commercializing drugs with significant market potential.
This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging
activities, including the discovery of product candidates,
successful completion of preclinical testing and clinical trials
of our product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for
these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and
selling those products for which we may obtain regulatory
approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of these
activities. We may never succeed in these activities and may
never generate revenues that are large enough to achieve
profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not
be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or
annual basis. Our failure to become or remain profitable could
depress the market price of our common stock and could impair
our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our
product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the
market price of our common stock would also cause you to lose a
part or all of your investment.
8
We will
need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise
capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or
eliminate our product development programs or commercialization
efforts.
We expect our research and development expenses to increase in
connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we
continue our Phase II clinical trials of Amigal, our Phase II
clinical trials of Plicera and our Phase I clinical trials of
AT2220, and for any later-stage clinical trials of our product
candidates. In addition, subject to obtaining regulatory
approval of any of our product candidates, we expect to incur
significant commercialization expenses for product sales and
marketing, securing commercial quantities of product from our
manufacturers and product distribution. We currently have no
additional commitments or arrangements for any additional
financing to fund the research and development and commercial
launch of our product candidates.
We believe that the net proceeds from this offering, together
with our existing cash and cash equivalents and marketable
securities, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our
operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements until at
least .
Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms
that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not
available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to reduce
or eliminate research development programs or commercial efforts.
Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
the progress and results of our clinical trials of Amigal,
Plicera and AT2220;
|
|
|
|
the scope, progress, results and costs of preclinical
development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our
other product candidates;
|
|
|
|
the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our
product candidates;
|
|
|
|
the number and development requirements of other product
candidates that we pursue;
|
|
|
|
the costs of commercialization activities, including product
marketing, sales and distribution;
|
|
|
|
the emergence of competing technologies and other adverse market
developments;
|
|
|
|
the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent
applications and maintaining, enforcing and defending
intellectual property related claims;
|
|
|
|
the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products
and technologies; and
|
|
|
|
our ability to establish collaborations and obtain milestone,
royalty or other payments from any such collaborators.
|
Any
additional funds that we obtain may not be on terms favorable to
us or our stockholders or may require us to relinquish valuable
rights.
Until such time, if ever, as we generate product revenue to
finance our operations, we expect to finance our cash needs
through public or private equity offerings and debt financings,
corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements and grants
from patient advocacy groups, foundations and government
agencies. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity
securities, our stockholders will experience dilution. Debt
financing, if available, may involve agreements that include
covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific
actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital
expenditures or declaring dividends and may include rights that
are senior to the holders of our common stock. Any debt
financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms,
such as liquidation and other preferences, which are not
favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional
funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with
third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish valuable rights
to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs
or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not
be favorable to us or our stockholders.
9
Our short
operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the
success of our business to date and to assess our future
viability.
We are a development stage company. We commenced operations in
February 2002. Our operations to date have been limited to
organizing and staffing our company, acquiring and developing
our technology and undertaking preclinical studies and limited
clinical trials of our most advanced product candidates. We have
not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete
large-scale, clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals,
manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third
party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing
activities necessary for successful product commercialization.
Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success
or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a
longer operating history.
In addition, as a new business, we may encounter unforeseen
expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known
and unknown factors. If we are successful in obtaining marketing
approval for any of our lead product candidates, we will need to
transition from a company with a research focus to a company
capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be
successful in such a transition.
Risks
Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Product
Candidates
We depend
heavily on the success of our most advanced product candidates,
Amigal, Plicera and AT2220. All of our product candidates are
still in either preclinical or clinical development. Clinical
trials of our product candidates may not be successful. If we
are unable to commercialize Amigal, Plicera or AT2220, or
experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be
materially harmed.
We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and
financial resources in the development of our most advanced
product candidates, Amigal, Plicera and AT2220. Our ability to
generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for
at least the next several years, if ever, will depend heavily on
the successful development and commercialization of these
product candidates. The successful commercialization of our
product candidates will depend on several factors, including the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
obtaining supplies of Amigal, Plicera and AT2220 for completion
of our clinical trials on a timely basis;
|
|
|
|
successful completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
obtaining marketing approvals from the United States Food and
Drug Administration, or FDA, and similar regulatory authorities
outside the United States;
|
|
|
|
establishing commercial-scale manufacturing arrangements with
third party manufacturers whose manufacturing facilities are
operated in compliance with current good manufacturing practice,
or cGMP, regulations;
|
|
|
|
launching commercial sales of the product, whether alone or in
collaboration with others;
|
|
|
|
acceptance of the product by patients, the medical community and
third party payors;
|
|
|
|
competition from other companies and their therapies;
|
|
|
|
successful protection of our intellectual property rights from
competing products in the United States and abroad; and
|
|
|
|
a continued acceptable safety and efficacy profile of our
product candidates following approval.
|
If the
market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than
we believe they are, then our revenues may be adversely affected
and our business may suffer.
Each of the diseases that our product candidates are being
developed to address is relatively rare. Our projections of both
the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the
subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to
benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on
estimates.
10
Currently, most reported estimates of the prevalence of these
diseases are based on studies of small subsets of the population
of specific geographic areas, which are then extrapolated to
estimate the prevalence of the diseases in the broader world
population. In addition, as new studies are performed the
estimated prevalence of these diseases may change. In fact, as a
result of some recent studies, we believe that previously
reported studies do not accurately account for the prevalence of
Fabry disease and that the prevalence of Fabry disease could be
many times higher than previously reported. There can be no
assurance that the prevalence of Fabry disease, Gaucher disease
or Pompe disease in the study populations, particularly in these
newer studies, accurately reflect the prevalence of these
diseases in the broader world population.
We estimate the number of potential patients in the broader
world population who have those diseases and may respond to
treatment with our product candidates by further extrapolating
estimates of the prevalence of specific types of genetic
mutations giving rise to these diseases. For example, we base
our estimate of the percentage of Fabry patients who may respond
to treatment with Amigal on the frequency of missense and other
similar mutations that cause Fabry disease reported in the Human
Gene Mutation Database. As a result of recent studies that
estimate that the prevalence of Fabry disease could be many
times higher than previously reported, we believe that the
number of patients diagnosed with Fabry disease will increase
and estimate that the number of Fabry patients who may benefit
from the use of Amigal is significantly higher than some
previously reported estimates of Fabry disease generally. If our
estimates of the prevalence of Fabry disease, Gaucher disease or
Pompe disease or of the number of patients who may benefit from
treatment with our product candidates prove to be incorrect, the
market opportunities for our product candidates may be smaller
than we believe they are, our prospects for generating revenue
may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.
Initial
results from a clinical trial do not ensure that the trial will
be successful and success in early stage clinical trials does
not ensure success in later-stage clinical trials.
We will only obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a
product candidate if we can demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the FDA or the applicable
non-United
States regulatory authority, in well-designed and conducted
clinical trials, that the product candidate is safe and
effective and otherwise meets the appropriate standards required
for approval for a particular indication. Clinical trials are
lengthy, complex and extremely expensive processes with
uncertain results. A failure of one or more of our clinical
trials may occur at any stage of testing. We have limited
experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials
necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by
the FDA.
Our efforts to develop all of our product candidates are at an
early stage. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical
trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be
successful, and initial results from a clinical trial do not
necessarily predict final results. For example, results to date
in our Phase II clinical trials of Amigal for the treatment of
Fabry disease caused by missense mutations are based on data
from only eleven patients and the kidney biopsy data are based
on data from only two patients. Additional data from these
eleven patients and data from additional patients in these
trials may be less favorable than the results to date. No
definitive conclusions as to the safety or efficacy of any drug
candidate can be drawn from such a small number of patients. We
cannot assure you that these trials will ultimately be
successful.
Patients may not be compliant with their dosing regimen or trial
protocols or they may withdraw from the study at any time for
any reason. We note that a patient in the ongoing Phase II
clinical trials for Amigal for the treatment of Fabry disease
elected to withdraw from the study. This patient had a history
of hypertension and discontinued study treatment due to
increased blood pressure, which was reported by the investigator
as possibly related to the study drug.
Even if our early stage clinical trials are successful, we will
need to conduct additional clinical trials with larger numbers
of patients receiving the drug for longer periods for all of our
product candidates before we are able to seek approvals to
market and sell these product candidates from the FDA and
regulatory authorities outside the United States. In
addition, each of our product candidates is based on our
pharmacological chaperone technology. To date, we are not aware
that any product based on chaperone technology has been approved
by the FDA. As a result, we cannot be sure what endpoints the
FDA will require us to measure in later-stage clinical trials of
our product candidates. We are aware that the currently
available enzyme
11
replacement therapy for the treatment of Fabry disease was
approved by the FDA based on an endpoint measuring GL-3 levels
in a specific type of kidney cell. We cannot be certain that the
FDA will permit the use of this endpoint in our Phase III trials
of Amigal. If the FDA requires different endpoints than the
endpoints we anticipate using, it may be more difficult for us
to obtain, or we may be delayed in obtaining, FDA approval of
our product candidates. If we are not successful in
commercializing any of our lead product candidates, or are
significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be
materially harmed.
We have
limited experience in conducting and managing the preclinical
development activities and clinical trials necessary to obtain
regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA.
We have limited experience in conducting and managing the
preclinical development activities and clinical trials necessary
to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA.
To date, we have only three lead product candidates: Amigal,
Plicera and AT2220. We have not obtained regulatory approval nor
commercialized any of these or any other product candidates. We
are currently conducting Phase II clinical trials for Amigal and
Plicera and a Phase I clinical trial for AT2220 but have not yet
initiated a Phase III clinical trial, or even completed a Phase
II clinical trial, for any of our product candidates. Our
limited experience might prevent us from successfully designing
or implementing a clinical trial. We have limited experience in
conducting and managing the application process necessary to
obtain regulatory approvals and we might not be able to
demonstrate that our product candidates meet the appropriate
standards for regulatory approval. If we are not successful in
conducting and managing our preclinical development activities
or clinical trials or obtaining regulatory approvals, we might
not be able to commercialize our lead product candidates, or
might be significantly delayed in doing so, which will
materially harm our business.
We may
find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical
trials.
Each of the diseases that our lead product candidates are
intended to treat is relatively rare and we expect only a subset
of the patients with these diseases to be eligible for our
clinical trials. Given that each of our product candidates is in
the early stages of required testing, we may not be able to
initiate or continue clinical trials for each or all of our
product candidates if we are unable to locate a sufficient
number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical
trials required by the FDA or other
non-United
States regulatory agencies. The requirements of our clinical
testing mandates that a patient cannot be involved in another
clinical trial for the same indication. We are aware that our
competitors have ongoing clinical trials for products that are
competitive with our product candidates and patients who would
otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may be involved in
such testing, rendering them unavailable for testing of our
product candidates. Additionally, many patients with Fabry
disease, Gaucher disease and Pompe disease may already be
receiving existing therapies, such as enzyme replacement
therapy, which would render them ineligible for our current
clinical trials if they are not willing to stop receiving such
therapies. Further, if we are required to include patients in
our clinical trials who have never received enzyme replacement
therapy, we may experience yet further difficulty and delay
enrolling patients in our trials. Our inability to enroll a
sufficient number of patients for any of our current or future
clinical trials would result in significant delays or may
require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.
If our
preclinical studies do not produce positive results, if our
clinical trials are delayed or if serious side effects are
identified during drug development, we may experience delays,
incur additional costs and ultimately be unable to commercialize
our product candidates.
Before obtaining regulatory approval for the sale of our product
candidates, we must conduct, at our own expense, extensive
preclinical tests to demonstrate the safety of our product
candidates in animals, and clinical trials to demonstrate the
safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans.
Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive, difficult to
design and implement, and can take many years to complete. A
failure of one or more of our preclinical studies or clinical
trials can occur at any stage of testing. We may experience
12
numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of,
preclinical testing and the clinical trial process that could
delay or prevent our ability to obtain regulatory approval or
commercialize our product candidates, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our preclinical tests or clinical trials may produce negative or
inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may
require us, to conduct additional preclinical testing or
clinical trials or we may abandon projects that we expect to be
promising;
|
|
|
|
regulators or institutional review boards may not authorize us
to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a
prospective trial site;
|
|
|
|
conditions imposed on us by the FDA or any
non-United
States regulatory authority regarding the scope or design of our
clinical trials or may require us to resubmit our clinical trial
protocols to institutional review boards for re-inspection due
to changes in the regulatory environment;
|
|
|
|
the number of patients required for our clinical trials may be
larger than we anticipate or participants may drop out of our
clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;
|
|
|
|
our third party contractors or clinical investigators may fail
to comply with regulatory requirements or fail to meet their
contractual obligations to us in a timely manner;
|
|
|
|
we might have to suspend or terminate one or more of our
clinical trials if we, the regulators or the institutional
review boards determine that the participants are being exposed
to unacceptable health risks;
|
|
|
|
regulators or institutional review boards may require that we
hold, suspend or terminate clinical research for various
reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
|
the cost of our clinical trials may be greater than we
anticipate;
|
|
|
|
the supply or quality of our product candidates or other
materials necessary to conduct our clinical trials may be
insufficient or inadequate or we may not be able to reach
agreements on acceptable terms with prospective clinical
research organizations; and
|
|
|
|
the effects of our product candidates may not be the desired
effects or may include undesirable side effects or the product
candidates may have other unexpected characteristics.
|
If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or
other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we
currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete
our clinical trials or other testing, if the results of these
trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive
or if there are safety concerns, we may:
|
|
|
|
|
be delayed in obtaining, or may not be able to obtain, marketing
approval for one or more of our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
obtain approval for indications that are not as broad as
intended or entirely different than those indications for which
we sought approval; or
|
|
|
|
have the product removed from the market after obtaining
marketing approval.
|
Our product development costs will also increase if we
experience delays in testing or approvals. We do not know
whether any preclinical tests or clinical trials will be
initiated as planned, will need to be restructured or will be
completed on schedule, if at all. Significant preclinical or
clinical trial delays also could shorten the patent protection
period during which we may have the exclusive right to
commercialize our product candidates. Such delays could allow
our competitors to bring products to market before we do and
impair our ability to commercialize our products or product
candidates.
13
The
commercial success of any product candidates that we may
develop, including Amigal, Plicera and AT2220, will depend upon
the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third
party payors and others in the medical community.
Any products that we bring to the market, including Amigal,
Plicera and AT2220, if they receive marketing approval, may not
gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third party
payors and others in the medical community. If these products do
not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate
significant product revenue and we may not become profitable.
The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if
approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of
factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the prevalence and severity of any side effects, including any
limitations or warnings contained in a products approved
labeling;
|
|
|
|
the efficacy and potential advantages over alternative
treatments;
|
|
|
|
the pricing of our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
relative convenience and ease of administration;
|
|
|
|
the willingness of the target patient population to try new
therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
|
|
|
|
the strength of marketing and distribution support and timing of
market introduction of competitive products;
|
|
|
|
publicity concerning our products or competing products and
treatments; and
|
|
|
|
sufficient third party insurance coverage or reimbursement.
|
Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and
safety profile in preclinical and clinical trials, market
acceptance of the product will not be known until after it is
launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third
party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may
require significant resources and may never be successful. Such
efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources
than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by
our competitors.
If we are
unable to obtain adequate reimbursement from governments or
third party payors for any products that we may develop or if we
are unable to obtain acceptable prices for those products, our
prospects for generating revenue and achieving profitability
will suffer.
Our prospects for generating revenue and achieving profitability
will depend heavily upon the availability of adequate
reimbursement for the use of our approved product candidates
from governmental and other third party payors, both in the
United States and in other markets. Reimbursement by a third
party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the
third party payors determination that use of a product is:
|
|
|
|
|
a covered benefit under its health plan;
|
|
|
|
safe, effective and medically necessary;
|
|
|
|
appropriate for the specific patient;
|
|
|
|
cost-effective; and
|
|
|
|
neither experimental nor investigational.
|
Obtaining reimbursement approval for a product from each
government or other third party payor is a time consuming and
costly process that could require us to provide supporting
scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of
our products to each payor. We may not be able to provide data
sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to reimbursement or
we might need to conduct post-marketing studies in order to
demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of any future products to
such payors satisfaction. Such studies might require us to
commit a significant amount of management time and financial and
other resources. Even when a payor determines that a product is
eligible for reimbursement, the payor may impose coverage
limitations
14
that preclude payment for some uses that are approved by the FDA
or
non-United
States regulatory authorities. In addition, there is a risk that
full reimbursement may not be available for high priced
products. Moreover, eligibility for coverage does not imply that
any product will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that
allows us to make a profit or even cover our costs. Interim
payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be
sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. A
primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and
elsewhere is toward cost containment. We expect recent changes
in the Medicare program and increasing emphasis on managed care
to continue to put pressure on pharmaceutical product pricing.
For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003 provides a new Medicare prescription
drug benefit that began in 2006 and mandates other reforms.
While we cannot predict the full outcome of the implementation
of this legislation, it is possible that the new Medicare
prescription drug benefit, which will be managed by private
health insurers and other managed care organizations, will
result in additional government reimbursement for prescription
drugs, which may make some prescription drugs more affordable
but may further exacerbate industry wide pressure to reduce
prescription drug prices. If one or more of our product
candidates reaches commercialization, such changes may have a
significant impact on our ability to set a price we believe is
fair for our products and may affect our ability to generate
revenue and achieve or maintain profitability.
Governments
outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls
and reimbursement approval policies, which may adversely affect
our prospects for generating revenue.
In some countries, particularly European Union countries, the
pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to
governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations
with governmental authorities can take considerable time (6 to
12 months or longer) after the receipt of marketing
approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing
approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a
clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our
product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement
of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or
if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our prospects for
generating revenue, if any, could be adversely affected and our
business may suffer.
If we are
unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter
into agreements with third parties to market and sell our
product candidates, we may be unable to generate product
revenue.
At present, we have no sales or marketing personnel. In order to
commercialize any of our product candidates, we must either
acquire or internally develop sales, marketing and distribution
capabilities, or enter into collaborations with partners to
perform these services for us. We may not be able to establish
sales and distribution partnerships on acceptable terms or at
all, and if we do enter into a distribution arrangement, our
success will be dependent upon the performance of our partner.
In the event that we attempt to acquire or develop our own
in-house sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, factors
that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products
without strategic partners or licensees include:
|
|
|
|
|
our inability to recruit and retain adequate numbers of
effective sales and marketing personnel;
|
|
|
|
the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to or persuade
adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe our products;
|
|
|
|
the lack of complementary products to be offered by our sales
personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage
against companies with broader product lines;
|
|
|
|
unforeseen costs associated with creating our own sales and
marketing team or with entering into a partnering agreement with
an independent sales and marketing organization; and
|
|
|
|
efforts by our competitors to commercialize products at or about
the time when our product candidates would be coming to market.
|
We may co-promote our product candidates in various markets with
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in instances where we
believe that a larger sales and marketing presence will expand
the market or
15
accelerate penetration. If we do enter into arrangements with
third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our
product revenues will be lower than if we directly sold and
marketed our products and any revenues received under such
arrangements will depend on the skills and efforts of others.
We may not be successful in entering into distribution
arrangements and marketing alliances with third parties. Our
failure to enter into these arrangements on favorable terms
could delay or impair our ability to commercialize our product
candidates and could increase our costs of commercialization.
Dependence on distribution arrangements and marketing alliances
to commercialize our product candidates will subject us to a
number of risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
we may not be able to control the amount and timing of resources
that our distributors may devote to the commercialization of our
product candidates;
|
|
|
|
our distributors may experience financial difficulties;
|
|
|
|
business combinations or significant changes in a
distributors business strategy may also adversely affect a
distributors willingness or ability to complete its
obligations under any arrangement; and
|
|
|
|
these arrangements are often terminated or allowed to expire,
which could interrupt the marketing and sales of a product and
decrease our revenue.
|
If we are unable to establish adequate sales, marketing and
distribution capabilities, whether independently or with third
parties, we may not be able to generate product revenue and may
not become profitable.
Product
liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur
substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any
products that we may develop.
We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related
to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical
trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially
sell any products that we may develop and which are approved for
sale. We may be exposed to product liability claims and product
recalls, including those which may arise from misuse or
malfunction of, or design flaws in, such products, whether or
not such problems directly relate to the products and services
we have provided. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves
against claims that our product candidates or products caused
injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of
merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
|
|
|
|
|
decreased demand for any product candidates or products that we
may develop;
|
|
|
|
damage to our reputation;
|
|
|
|
regulatory investigations that could require costly recalls or
product modifications;
|
|
|
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
|
|
costs to defend the related litigation;
|
|
|
|
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients,
including awards that substantially exceed our product liability
insurance, which we would then be required to pay from other
sources, if available, and would damage our ability to obtain
liability insurance at reasonable costs, or at all, in the
future;
|
|
|
|
loss of revenue;
|
|
|
|
the diversion of managements attention from managing our
business; and
|
|
|
|
the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.
|
We have liability insurance policies for our clinical trials in
the geographies in which we are conducting trials. The aggregate
annual limit of coverage amount under these policies expressed
in United States dollars is approximately $31.4 million,
and these policies are also subject to per claim deductibles.
The amount of insurance that we currently hold may not be
adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance
coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to
maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost and we may not
be able to obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to
satisfy any liability that may
16
arise. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class
action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side
effects. A successful product liability claim or a series of
claims brought against us could cause our stock price to fall
and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease
our available cash and adversely affect our business.
We face
substantial competition which may result in others discovering,
developing or commercializing products before or more
successfully than we do.
The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly
competitive and competition is expected to increase. We face
competition with respect to our current product candidates and
any products we may seek to develop or commercialize in the
future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty
pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.
For example, several large pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies currently market and sell products for the treatment
of Fabry disease. These products include Genzyme
Corporations Fabrazyme and Shire PLCs Replagal. In
addition, Genzyme Corporation and Actelion, Ltd. market and sell
Cerezyme and Zavesca, respectively, for the treatment of Gaucher
disease, and Genzyme Corporation markets and sells Myozyme for
the treatment of Pompe disease. We are also aware of other
enzyme replacement and substrate reduction therapies in
development by third parties.
Potential competitors also include academic institutions,
government agencies and other public and private research
organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and
establish collaborative arrangements for research, development,
manufacturing and commercialization. Our competitors may develop
products that are more effective, safer, more convenient or less
costly than any that we are developing or that would render our
product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. Our competitors
may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their
products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. We
may also face competition from off-label use of other approved
therapies. There can be no assurance that developments by others
that will not render our product candidates obsolete or
noncompetitive either during the research phase or once the
products reach commercialization.
We believe that many competitors, including academic
institutions, government agencies, public and private research
organizations, large pharmaceutical companies and smaller more
focused companies, are attempting to develop therapies for many
of our target indications.
Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial
resources and expertise in research and development,
manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials,
obtaining regulatory approvals, prosecuting intellectual
property rights and marketing approved products than we do.
Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be
significant competitors, particularly through collaborative
arrangements with large and established companies. These third
parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified
scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial
sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as
in acquiring technologies complementary to or necessary for our
programs or advantageous to our business. In addition, if we
obtain regulatory approvals for our products, manufacturing
efficiency and marketing capabilities are likely to be
significant competitive factors. We currently have no commercial
manufacturing capability, sales force or marketing
infrastructure. Further, many of our competitors have
substantial resources and expertise in conducting collaborative
arrangements, sourcing in-licensing arrangements and acquiring
new business lines or businesses that are greater than our own.
Our
business activities involve the use of hazardous materials,
which require compliance with environmental and occupational
safety laws regulating the use of such materials. If we violate
these laws, we could be subject to significant fines,
liabilities or other adverse consequences.
Our research and development programs involve the controlled use
of hazardous materials, including microbial agents, corrosive,
explosive and flammable chemicals and other hazardous compounds
in addition to certain biological hazardous waste. Ultimately,
the activities of our third party product manufacturers when a
product candidate reaches commercialization will also require
the use of hazardous materials. Accordingly, we are subject to
federal, state and local laws governing the use, handling and
disposal of these materials. Although we believe that our safety
procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply
in all material
17
respects with the standards prescribed by local, state and
federal regulations, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of
accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In
addition, our collaborators may not comply with these laws. In
the event of an accident or failure to comply with environmental
laws, we could be held liable for damages that result, and any
such liability could exceed our assets and resources or we could
be subject to limitations or stoppages related to our use of
these materials which may lead to an interruption of our
business operations or those of our third party contractors.
While we believe that our existing insurance coverage is
generally adequate for our normal handling of these hazardous
materials, it may not be sufficient to cover pollution
conditions or other extraordinary or unanticipated events.
Furthermore, an accident could damage or force us to shut down
our operations. Changes in environmental laws may impose costly
compliance requirements on us or otherwise subject us to future
liabilities and additional laws relating to the management,
handling, generation, manufacture, transportation, storage, use
and disposal of materials used in or generated by the
manufacture of our products or related to our clinical trials.
In addition, we cannot predict the effect that these potential
requirements may have on us, our suppliers and contractors or
our customers.
Risks
Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties
Use of
third parties to manufacture our product candidates may increase
the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our
product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, and
clinical development and commercialization of our product
candidates could be delayed, prevented or impaired.
We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for clinical
or commercial production of our product candidates. We have
limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and we
lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of
our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We
currently outsource all manufacturing and packaging of our
preclinical and clinical product candidates and products to
third parties. The manufacture of pharmaceutical products
requires significant expertise and capital investment, including
the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process
controls. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often
encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up
initial production. These problems include difficulties with
production costs and yields and quality control, including
stability of the product candidate.
We do not currently have any agreements with third party
manufacturers for the long-term commercial supply of any of our
product candidates. We may be unable to enter into agreements
for commercial supply with third party manufacturers, or may be
unable to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we enter into these
agreements, the manufacturers of each product candidate will be
single source suppliers to us for a significant period of time.
Reliance on third party manufacturers entails risks to which we
would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates or
products ourselves, including:
|
|
|
|
|
reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and
quality assurance;
|
|
|
|
limitations on supply availability resulting from capacity and
scheduling constraints of the third parties;
|
|
|
|
impact on our reputation in the marketplace if manufacturers of
our products, once commercialized, fail to meet the demands of
our customers;
|
|
|
|
the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third
party because of factors beyond our control; and
|
|
|
|
the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the
third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time
that is costly or inconvenient for us.
|
The failure of any of our contract manufacturers to maintain
high manufacturing standards could result in injury or death of
clinical trial participants or patients using products. Such
failure could also result in product liability claims, product
recalls, product seizures or withdrawals, delays or failures in
testing or delivery, cost overruns or other problems that could
seriously harm our business or profitability.
18
Our contract manufacturers will be required to adhere to FDA
regulations setting forth current good manufacturing processes,
or cGMP. These regulations cover all aspects of the
manufacturing, testing, quality control and recordkeeping
relating to our product candidates and any products that we may
commercialize. Our manufacturers may not be able to comply with
cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the
United States. Our manufacturers are subject to unannounced
inspections by the FDA, state regulators and similar regulators
outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our
third party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations
could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines,
injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities
to grant marketing approval of our product candidates, delays,
suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation,
seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating
restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could
significantly and adversely affect regulatory approval and
supplies of our product candidates.
Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may
compete with other product candidates and products for access to
manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of
manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that are
both capable of manufacturing for us and willing to do so. If
the third parties that we engage to manufacture products for our
preclinical tests and clinical trials should cease to continue
to do so for any reason, we likely would experience delays in
advancing these trials while we identify and qualify replacement
suppliers and we may be unable to obtain replacement supplies on
terms that are favorable to us. Later relocation to another
manufacturer will also require notification, review and other
regulatory approvals from the FDA and other regulators and will
subject our production to further cost and instability in the
availability of our product candidates. In addition, if we are
not able to obtain adequate supplies of our product candidates
or the drug substances used to manufacture them, it will be more
difficult for us to develop our product candidates and compete
effectively.
Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for
the manufacture of our product candidates may adversely affect
our future profit margins and our ability to develop product
candidates and commercialize any products that obtain regulatory
approval on a timely and competitive basis.
Materials
necessary to manufacture our product candidates may not be
available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which may
delay the development and commercialization of our product
candidates.
We rely on the manufacturers of our product candidates to
purchase from third party suppliers the materials necessary to
produce the compounds for our preclinical and clinical studies
and will rely on these other manufacturers for commercial
distribution if we obtain marketing approval for any of our
product candidates. Suppliers may not sell these materials to
our manufacturers at the time we need them or on commercially
reasonable terms and all such prices are susceptible to
fluctuations in price and availability due to transportation
costs, government regulations, price controls, changes in
economic climate or other foreseen circumstances. We do not have
any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of
these materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do
not have any agreements for the commercial production of these
materials. If our manufacturers are unable to obtain these
materials for our preclinical and clinical studies, product
testing and potential regulatory approval of our product
candidates would be delayed, significantly impacting our ability
to develop our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we
are unable to purchase these materials after regulatory approval
has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial
launch of our product candidates would be delayed or there would
be a shortage in supply, which would materially affect our
ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product
candidates.
We rely
on third parties to conduct certain preclinical development
activities and our clinical trials and those third parties may
not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet
established deadlines for the completion of such activities and
trials.
We do not independently conduct certain preclinical development
activities of our product candidates, such as long-term safety
studies in animals, or clinical trials for our product
candidates. We rely on, or work in conjunction with, third
parties, such as contract research organizations, medical
institutions and clinical investigators, to perform this
function. Our reliance on these third parties for preclinical
and clinical
19
development activities reduces our control over these
activities. We are responsible for ensuring that each of our
preclinical development activities and our clinical trials is
conducted in accordance with the applicable general
investigational plan and protocols, however, we have no direct
control over these researchers or contractors (except by
contract), as they are not our employees. Moreover, the FDA
requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as
Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, for conducting, recording and
reporting the results of our preclinical development activities
and our clinical trials to assure that data and reported results
are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety and
confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Our
reliance on third parties that we do not control does not
relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements.
Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships
with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If
these third parties do not successfully carry out their
contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our
preclinical development activities or our clinical trials in
accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols,
we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining,
regulatory approvals for our product candidates and will not be
able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully
commercialize our product candidates. Moreover, these third
parties may be bought by other entities or they may go out of
business, thereby preventing them from meeting their contractual
obligations.
We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug
supplies for our preclinical development activities and our
clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our
existing or future distributors could delay clinical development
or regulatory approval of our product candidates or
commercialization of our products, producing additional losses
and depriving us of potential product revenue.
Extensions, delays, suspensions or terminations of our
preclinical development activities and our clinical trials as a
result of the performance of our independent clinical
investigators and contract research organizations will delay,
and make more costly, regulatory approval for any product
candidates that we may develop. Any change in a contract
research organization during an ongoing preclinical development
activity or clinical trial could seriously delay that trial and
potentially compromise the results of the activity or trial.
We may
not be successful in maintaining or establishing collaborations,
which could adversely affect our ability to develop and,
particularly in international markets, commercialize
products.
For each of our product candidates, we are collaborating with
physicians, patient advocacy groups, foundations and government
agencies in order to assist with the development of our
products. We plan to pursue similar activities in future
programs and plan to evaluate the merits of retaining
commercialization rights for ourselves or entering into
selective collaboration arrangements with leading pharmaceutical
or biotechnology companies. We also may seek to establish
collaborations for the sales, marketing and distribution of our
products outside the United States. If we elect to seek
collaborators in the future but are unable to reach agreements
with suitable collaborators, we may fail to meet our business
objectives for the affected product or program. We face, and
will continue to face, significant competition in seeking
appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements
are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document and
implement. We may not be successful in our efforts, if any, to
establish and implement collaborations or other alternative
arrangements. The terms of any collaborations or other
arrangements that we establish, if any, may not be favorable to
us.
Any collaboration that we enter into may not be successful. The
success of our collaboration arrangements, if any, will depend
heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. It
is likely that any collaborators of ours will have significant
discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they
will apply to these collaborations. The risks that we may be
subject to in possible future collaborations include the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
our collaboration agreements are likely to be for fixed terms
and subject to termination by our collaborators in the event of
a material breach or lack of scientific progress by us;
|
|
|
|
our collaborators are likely to have the first right to maintain
or defend our intellectual property rights and, although we
would likely have the right to assume the maintenance and
defense of our intellectual property rights if our collaborators
do not, our ability to do so may be compromised by our
collaborators acts or omissions; and
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
our collaborators may utilize our intellectual property rights
in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or
invalidate our intellectual property rights or expose us to
potential liability.
|
Collaborations with pharmaceutical companies and other third
parties often are terminated or allowed to expire by the other
party. Such terminations or expirations may adversely affect us
financially and could harm our business reputation in the event
we elect to pursue collaborations that ultimately expire or are
terminated.
Risks
Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are
unable to obtain and maintain protection for the intellectual
property relating to our technology and products, the value of
our technology and products will be adversely
affected.
Our success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain
and maintain protection in the United States and other countries
for the intellectual property covering or incorporated into our
technology and products. The patent situation in the field of
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals generally is highly uncertain
and involves complex legal, technical, scientific and factual
questions. We may not be able to obtain additional issued
patents relating to our technology or products. Even if issued,
patents issued to us or our licensors may be challenged,
narrowed, invalidated, held to be unenforceable or circumvented,
which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing
similar products or reduce the term of patent protection we may
have for our products. Changes in either patent laws or in
interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other
countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or
narrow the scope of our patent protection.
The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is
uncertain, and we cannot ensure that:
|
|
|
|
|
we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions
covered by each of our pending patent applications;
|
|
|
|
we or our licensors were the first to file patent applications
for these inventions;
|
|
|
|
others will not independently develop similar or alternative
technologies or duplicate any of our technologies;
|
|
|
|
any patents issued to us or our licensors will provide a basis
for commercially viable products, will provide us with any
competitive advantages or will not be challenged by third
parties;
|
|
|
|
we will develop additional proprietary technologies that are
patentable;
|
|
|
|
we will file patent applications for new proprietary
technologies promptly or at all;
|
|
|
|
our patents will not expire prior to or shortly after commencing
commercialization of a product; or
|
|
|
|
the patents of others will not have a negative effect on our
ability to do business.
|
In addition, we cannot assure you that any of our pending patent
applications will result in issued patents. In particular, we
have filed patent applications in the European Patent Office and
other countries outside the United States that have not
been issued as patents. These pending applications include,
among others, the patent applications we license pursuant to a
license agreement with Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New
York University. If patents are not issued in respect of our
pending patent applications, we may not be able to stop
competitors from marketing similar products in Europe and other
countries in which we do not have issued patents.
The patents and patent applications that we own or have licensed
relating to use of Amigal expire in 2018 in the United States
and 2019 outside of the United States, and the foreign
counterparts, if issued, would expire in 2019. Patents that we
own or have licensed relating to Plicera expire between 2015 and
2016 in the United States and in 2015 outside of the United
States for composition of matter, and in 2018 in the United
States for methods of use. We currently have no issued patents
or pending applications covering methods of using Plicera
outside of the United States. Patents and patent applications
that we own or have licensed relating to the use of AT2220
expire in 2018 in the United States. Further, we currently
do not have composition of matter or method of use protection
for AT2220 outside of the United States. Where we lack patent
protection outside of the United States, we intend to seek
orphan medicinal product designation and to
21
rely on statutory data exclusivity provisions in jurisdictions
outside the United States where such protections are available,
including Europe. If we are unable to obtain such protection
outside the United States, our competitors may be free to use
and sell Plicera and/or AT2220 outside of the United States and
there will be no liability for infringement or any other barrier
to competition. The patent rights that we own or have licensed
relating to our product candidates are limited in ways that may
affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing
against us if we obtain regulatory approval to market these
product candidates. In particular:
|
|
|
|
|
We do not hold composition of matter patents covering Amigal and
AT2220, two of our three lead product candidates. Composition of
matter patents can provide protection for pharmaceutical
products to the extent that the specifically covered
compositions are important. For our product candidates for which
we do not hold composition of matter patents, competitors who
obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with
the same composition as our products so long as the competitors
do not infringe any method of use patents that we may hold.
|
|
|
|
For some of our product candidates, the principal patent
protection that covers, or that we expect will cover, our
product candidate is a method of use patent. This type of patent
only protects the product when used or sold for the specified
method. However, this type of patent does not limit a competitor
from making and marketing a product that is identical to our
product that is labeled for an indication that is outside of the
patented method, or for which there is a substantial use in
commerce outside the patented method.
|
Moreover, physicians may prescribe such a competitive identical
product for indications other than the one for which the product
has been approved, or off-label indications, that are covered by
the applicable patents. Although such off-label prescriptions
may infringe or induce infringement of method of use patents,
the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to
prevent or prosecute.
Our patents also may not afford us protection against
competitors with similar technology. Because patent applications
in the United States and many other jurisdictions are typically
not published until 18 months after filing, or in some
cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in the
scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries,
neither we nor our licensors can be certain that we or they were
the first to make the inventions claimed in our or their issued
patents or pending patent applications, or that we or they were
the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in
these patent applications. If a third party has also filed a
United States patent application covering our product candidates
or a similar invention, we may have to participate in an
adversarial proceeding, known as an interference, declared by
the United States Patent and Trademark Office to determine
priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these
proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our
efforts could be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our United
States patent position.
If we
fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property
licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that
are important to our business.
We are a party to a number of license agreements including
agreements with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York
University, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and
Novo Nordisk A/S, pursuant to which we license key intellectual
property relating to our lead product candidates. We expect to
enter into additional licenses in the future. Under our existing
licenses, we have the right to enforce the licensed patent
rights. Our existing licenses impose, and we expect that future
licenses will impose, various diligence, milestone payment,
royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to
comply with these obligations, the licensor may have the right
to terminate the license, in which event we might not be able to
market any product that is covered by the licensed patents.
If we are
unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary
information and know-how, the value of our technology and
products could be adversely affected.
We seek to protect our know-how and confidential information, in
part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees,
corporate partners, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored
researchers, consultants and
22
other advisors. We also have confidentiality and invention or
patent assignment agreements with our employees and our
consultants. If our employees or consultants breach these
agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any of these
breaches. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become
known to or be independently developed by others. Enforcing a
claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade
secrets is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the
outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United
States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Costly and
time consuming litigation could be necessary to seek to enforce
and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure
to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely
affect our competitive business position.
If we
infringe or are alleged to infringe the intellectual property
rights of third parties, it will adversely affect our
business.
Our research, development and commercialization activities, as
well as any product candidates or products resulting from these
activities, may infringe or be accused of infringing one or more
claims of an issued patent or may fall within the scope of one
or more claims in a published patent application that may
subsequently issue and to which we do not hold a license or
other rights. Third parties may own or control these patents or
patent applications in the United States and abroad. These third
parties could bring claims against us that would cause us to
incur substantial expenses and, if successful against us, could
cause us to pay substantial damages. Further, if a patent
infringement suit were brought against us, we or they could be
forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or
sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of
the suit.
No assurance can be given that patents do not exist, have not
been filed, or could not be filed or issued, which contain
claims covering our products, technology or methods. Because of
the number of patents issued and patent applications filed in
our field, we believe there is a risk that third parties may
allege they have patent rights encompassing our products,
technology or methods.
We are aware, for example, of United States patents, and
corresponding international counterparts, owned by third parties
that contain claims related to treating protein misfolding. We
have received written notice from one of these third parties
indicating that it believes we may need a license to certain of
these patents in order to avoid infringing such patents. If any
of these third party patents were to be asserted against us we
do not believe that our proposed products would be found to
infringe any valid claim of these patents. If we were to
challenge the validity of any issued United States patent in
court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity that
attaches to every patent. This burden is high and would require
us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity
of the patents claims. There is no assurance that a court
would find in our favor on infringement or validity.
In order to avoid or settle potential claims with respect to any
of the patent rights described above or any other patent rights
of third parties, we may choose or be required to seek a license
from a third party and be required to pay license fees or
royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on
acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our future
collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be
nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining
access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could
be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to
cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of
actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable
to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our
business significantly.
Others may sue us for infringing their patent rights or file
nullity, opposition or interference proceedings against our
patents, even if such claims are without merit, which would
similarly harm our business. Furthermore, during the course of
litigation, confidential information may be disclosed in the
form of documents or testimony in connection with discovery
requests, depositions or trial testimony. Disclosure of our
confidential information and our involvement in intellectual
property litigation could materially adversely affect our
business.
There has been substantial litigation and other proceedings
regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. In addition to
infringement claims against us, we may become a party to other
patent litigation and other proceedings, including interference
proceedings
23
declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office, regarding
intellectual property rights with respect to our products and
technology. Even if we prevail, the cost to us of any patent
litigation or other proceeding could be substantial.
Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of
complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because
they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any
uncertainties resulting from any litigation could significantly
limit our ability to continue our operations. Patent litigation
and other proceedings may also absorb significant management
time.
Many of our employees were previously employed at universities
or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including
our competitors or potential competitors. We try to ensure that
our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how
of others in their work for us. However, we may be subject to
claims that we or these employees have inadvertently or
otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, trade secrets
or other proprietary information of any such employees
former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against
these claims and, even if we are successful in defending
ourselves, could result in substantial costs to us or be
distracting to our management. If we fail to defend any such
claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may
jeopardize valuable intellectual property rights, disclose
confidential information or lose personnel.
Risks
Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product
Candidates
If we are
not able to obtain and maintain required regulatory approvals,
we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and
our ability to generate revenue will be materially
impaired.
Our product candidates, including Amigal, Plicera and AT2220,
and the activities associated with their development and
commercialization, including their testing, manufacture, safety,
efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval,
advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to
comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory
agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in
other countries. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for a
product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the
product candidate in the jurisdiction of the regulatory
authority. We have not obtained regulatory approval to market
any of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. We have only
limited experience in filing and prosecuting the applications
necessary to obtain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on
third party contract research organizations to assist us in this
process.
Securing FDA approval requires the submission of extensive
preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the
FDA for each therapeutic indication to establish the product
candidates safety and efficacy. Securing FDA approval also
requires the submission of information about the product
manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing
facilities by, the FDA. Our future products may not be
effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have
undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other
characteristics that may preclude our obtaining regulatory
approval or prevent or limit commercial use.
Our product candidates may fail to obtain regulatory approval
for many reasons, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our failure to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or
comparable regulatory authorities that a product candidate is
safe and effective for a particular indication;
|
|
|
|
the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of
statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable
regulatory authorities for approval;
|
|
|
|
our inability to demonstrate that a product candidates
benefits outweigh its risks;
|
|
|
|
our inability to demonstrate that the product candidate presents
an advantage over existing therapies;
|
|
|
|
the FDAs or comparable regulatory authorities
disagreement with the manner in which we interpret the data from
preclinical studies or clinical trials;
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
the FDAs or comparable regulatory authorities
failure to approve the manufacturing processes, quality
procedures or manufacturing facilities of third party
manufacturers with which we contract for clinical or commercial
supplies; and
|
|
|
|
a change in the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or
comparable regulatory authorities or a change in the laws
governing the approval process.
|
The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive,
often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can
vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including
the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates
involved. Changes in regulatory approval policies during the
development period, changes in or the enactment of additional
statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for
each submitted product application may cause delays in the
approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and
non-United
States regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the
approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may
decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require
additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition,
varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical
and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent regulatory
approval of a product candidate. Any regulatory approval we
ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or
post approval commitments that render the approved product not
commercially viable. Any FDA or other regulatory approval of our
product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn, including
for failure to comply with regulatory requirements or if
clinical or manufacturing problems follow initial marketing.
Our
product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have
other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory
approval or commercialization.
Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could
interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the
denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory
authorities for any or all targeted indications, and in turn
prevent us from commercializing our product candidates and
generating revenues from their sale. For example, in a clinical
trial of Amigal for Fabry disease, one patient with a history of
hypertension experienced increased blood pressure during the
course of the trial which was reported by the investigator as
possibly related to the drug. Further, Amigal has been shown to
cause reversible infertility effects in mice.
In addition, if any of our product candidates receive marketing
approval and we or others later identify undesirable side
effects caused by the product:
|
|
|
|
|
regulatory authorities may require the addition of restrictive
labeling statements;
|
|
|
|
regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the
product; and
|
|
|
|
we may be required to change the way the product is administered
or conduct additional clinical trials.
|
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or
maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could
substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing
the product candidate, which in turn could delay or prevent us
from generating significant revenues from its sale or adversely
affect our reputation.
We may
not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for our product
candidates. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan drug
exclusivity for their products that are the same drug as our
product candidates, we may not be able to have competing
products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a
significant period of time.
Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the
United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively
small patient populations as orphan drugs. We obtained orphan
drug designations from the FDA for Amigal for the treatment of
Fabry disease on February 25, 2004 and the active
ingredient in Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease on
January 10, 2006. We also obtained orphan drug designation
from the European Medicines Agency, or EMEA, for Amigal on
May 22, 2006. We anticipate filing for orphan drug
designation from the EMEA for Plicera for the treatment of
Gaucher disease and from the FDA and EMEA
25
for AT2220 for the treatment of Pompe disease. Generally, if a
product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives
the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has
such designation, the product is entitled to a period of
marketing exclusivity, which precludes the applicable regulatory
authority from approving another marketing application for the
same drug for that time period. The applicable period is seven
years in the United States and ten years in Europe. For a drug
composed of small molecules, the FDA defines same
drug as a drug that contains the same active molecule and
is intended for the same use. Obtaining orphan drug exclusivity
for Amigal and Plicera may be important to each of the product
candidates success. Even if we obtain orphan drug
exclusivity for Amigal or Plicera for these indications, we may
not be able to maintain it. For example, if a competitive
product that is the same drug as our product candidate is shown
to be clinically superior to our product candidate, any orphan
drug exclusivity we have obtained will not block the approval of
such competitive product and we may effectively lose what had
previously been orphan drug exclusivity.
Any
product for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject
to restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we may be
subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory
requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our
products, when and if any of them are approved.
Any product for which we obtain marketing approval, along with
the manufacturing processes, post approval clinical data,
labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such
product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review
by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities. These
requirements include submissions of safety and other post
marketing information and reports, registration requirements,
cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance
and corresponding maintenance of records and documents,
requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians
and recordkeeping. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of a
product, the approval may be subject to limitations on the
indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the
conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post
marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or
efficacy of the product. We also may be subject to state laws
and registration requirements covering the distribution of our
products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with
our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or
failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in
actions such as:
|
|
|
|
|
restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing
processes;
|
|
|
|
warning letters;
|
|
|
|
withdrawal of the products from the market;
|
|
|
|
refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to
approved applications that we submit;
|
|
|
|
voluntary or mandatory recall;
|
|
|
|
fines;
|
|
|
|
suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals or refusal to
approve pending applications or supplements to approved
applications that we submit;
|
|
|
|
refusal to permit the import or export of our products;
|
|
|
|
product seizure or detentions;
|
|
|
|
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and
|
|
|
|
adverse publicity.
|
If we, or our suppliers, third party contractors, clinical
investigators or collaborators are slow to adapt, or are unable
to adapt, to changes in existing regulatory requirements or
adoption of new regulatory requirements or policies, we or our
collaborators may lose marketing approval for our products when
and if any of them are approved, resulting in decreased revenue
from milestones, product sales or royalties.
26
Failure
to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions
would prevent us from marketing our products abroad.
We intend to have our products marketed outside the United
States. In order to market our products in the European Union
and many other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory
approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory
requirements. The approval procedures vary among countries and
can involve additional testing and clinical trials. The time
required to obtain approval may differ from that required to
obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the
United States may include all of the risks associated with
obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside
the United States, it is required that the product be approved
for reimbursement by government-backed healthcare regulators or
insurance providers before the product can be approved for sale
in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory
authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at
all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory
authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by
one regulatory authority outside the United States does not
ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or
jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for
regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to
commercialize our products in any market.
Risks
Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth
Our
future success depends on our ability to retain our chief
executive officer and other key executives and to attract,
retain and motivate qualified personnel.
We are highly dependent on principal members of our management
team and scientific staff. These executives each have
significant pharmaceutical industry experience, including our
President and Chief Executive Officer, John F. Crowley, with
whom we have entered into an employment agreement that runs for
successive one year terms until either we or Mr. Crowley
elect to terminate the agreement. Mr. Crowley is a
commissioned officer in the United States Navy (Reserve). The
United States recently called Mr. Crowley to service, which
he fulfilled, from September 11, 2006 to March 5,
2007, and he may be called to active duty service again at any
time. The loss of Mr. Crowley for protracted military duty
could materially adversely affect our business. We do not
maintain key person insurance on Mr. Crowley or
on any of our other executive officers.
Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific personnel,
clinical personnel and sales and marketing personnel will also
be critical to our success. Our industry has experienced a high
rate of turnover in recent years. We may not be able to attract
and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the
competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies for similar personnel, particularly in New Jersey and
surrounding areas. Although we believe we offer competitive
salaries and benefits, we may have to increase spending in order
to retain personnel.
We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and
clinical personnel from universities and research institutions.
In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including
scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating
our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our
consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than
us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory
contracts with other entities that may limit their availability
to us.
We expect
to expand our development, regulatory and sales and marketing
capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in
managing our growth, which could disrupt our
operations.
We are a development stage company with 77 full-time employees
as of March 15, 2007. Of these employees, 54 work primarily
in research and development and 23 provide administrative
services. We expect to experience significant growth in the
number of our employees and the scope of our operations,
particularly in the areas of drug development, regulatory
affairs and sales and marketing. Assuming our plans and business
conditions progress consistent with our current projections, we
plan to grow to a total of
90-100
employees by the end of 2007 and to a total of
100-120
employees by the end of 2008. To manage our anticipated future
growth, we must continue to implement and improve our
managerial, operational and financial systems,
27
expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train
additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited resources, we
may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our
operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel.
The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant
costs and may divert our management and business development
resources. Any inability on the part of our management to manage
growth could delay the execution of our business plans or
disrupt our operations.
Risks
Related to Our Common Stock and This Offering
After
this offering, our executive officers, directors and principal
stockholders will maintain the ability to control all matters
submitted to our stockholders for approval.
When this offering is completed, our executive officers,
directors and stockholders who owned more than 5% of our
outstanding common stock before this offering will, in the
aggregate, beneficially own shares representing
approximately % of our common
stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act
together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to
our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and
affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act
together, will control the election of directors and approval of
any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of
our assets or other business combination or reorganization. This
concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an
acquisition of us on terms that other stockholders may desire.
The interests of this group of stockholders may not always
coincide with your interests or the interests of other
stockholders, and they may act, whether by meeting or written
consent of stockholders, in a manner that advances their best
interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders,
including obtaining a premium value for their common stock, and
might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.
Provisions
in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could
make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our
stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our
stockholders to replace or remove our current
management.
Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws that will
become effective upon the closing of this offering may
discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other
change in control of us that stockholders may consider
favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise
receive a premium for your shares. These provisions could also
limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the
future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the
market price of our common stock. In addition, these provisions
may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to
replace or remove our current management by making it more
difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of
directors. Because our board of directors is responsible for
appointing the members of our management team, these provisions
could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace
current members of our management team. Among others, these
provisions:
|
|
|
|
|
establish a classified board of directors, and, as a result, not
all directors are elected at one time;
|
|
|
|
allow the authorized number of our directors to be changed only
by resolution of our board of directors;
|
|
|
|
limit the manner in which stockholders can remove directors from
our board of directors;
|
|
|
|
establish advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals
that can be acted on at stockholder meetings and nominations to
our board of directors;
|
|
|
|
require that stockholder actions must be effected at a duly
called stockholder meeting and prohibit actions by our
stockholders by written consent;
|
|
|
|
limit who may call stockholder meetings;
|
|
|
|
authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock,
without stockholder approval, which could be used to institute a
poison pill that would work to dilute the stock
ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively
preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board
of directors; and
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
require the approval of the holders of at least 67% of the votes
that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast to amend or
repeal certain provisions of our charter or bylaws.
|
Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are
governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in
excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or
combining with us for a period of three years after the date of
the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of
our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination
is approved in a prescribed manner.
If you
purchase shares of common stock in this offering, you will
suffer immediate dilution of your investment.
We expect the initial public offering price of our common stock
to be substantially higher than the net tangible book value per
share of our common stock. Therefore, if you purchase shares of
our common stock in this offering, you will pay a price per
share that substantially exceeds our net tangible book value per
share after this offering. To the extent outstanding options or
warrants are exercised, you will incur further dilution.
Based on an assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share, which is the midpoint
of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus,
you will experience immediate dilution of
$ per share, representing the
difference between our pro forma net tangible book value per
share after giving effect to this offering and the assumed
initial public offering price. In addition, purchasers of common
stock in this offering will have contributed
approximately % of the aggregate
price paid by all purchasers of our common stock but will own
only approximately % of our common
stock outstanding after this offering.
An active
trading market for our common stock may not develop.
This is our initial public offering of equity securities and
prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our
common stock. The initial public offering price for our common
stock will be determined through negotiations with the
underwriters. Although we have applied to have our common stock
approved for quotation on The NASDAQ Global Market, an active
trading market for our common stock may never develop or be
sustained following this offering. If an active market for our
common stock does not develop, it may be difficult for you to
sell shares you purchase in this offering without depressing the
market price for our common stock.
If the
price of our common stock is volatile, purchasers of our common
stock could incur substantial losses.
The price of our common stock is likely to be volatile. The
stock market in general and the market for biotechnology
companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that
has often been unrelated to the operating performance of
particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors
may not be able to sell their shares of our common stock at or
above the initial public offering price. The market price for
our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
results of clinical trials of our product candidates or those of
our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our entry into or the loss of a significant collaboration;
|
|
|
|
regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other
countries, including changes in the health care payment systems;
|
|
|
|
variations in our financial results or those of companies that
are perceived to be similar to us;
|
|
|
|
changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
|
|
|
|
market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology
sectors and issuance of new or changed securities analysts
reports or recommendations;
|
|
|
|
general economic, industry and market conditions;
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
results of clinical trials conducted by others on drugs that
would compete with our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
developments or disputes concerning patents or other proprietary
rights;
|
|
|
|
public concern over our product candidates or any products
approved in the future;
|
|
|
|
litigation;
|
|
|
|
future sales or anticipated sales of our common stock by us or
our stockholders; and
|
|
|
|
the other factors described in this Risk Factors
section.
|
For these reasons and others you should consider an investment
in our common stock as risky and invest only if you can
withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuations in the marked
value of your investment.
We have
broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from this
offering and may not use them effectively.
Our management will have broad discretion in the application of
the net proceeds from this offering and could spend the proceeds
in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance
the value of our common stock. The failure by our management to
apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses
that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause
the price of our common stock to decline and delay the
development of our product candidates. Pending the application
of these funds, we may invest the net proceeds from this
offering in a manner that does not produce income or that loses
value.
We intend to use the proceeds from this offering for clinical
activities, including clinical supplies, preclinical research
and development activities, general and administrative expenses,
working capital needs and other general corporate purposes,
including capital expenditures. Because of the number and
variability of factors that will determine our use of the
proceeds from this offering, their ultimate use may vary
substantially from their currently intended use. For a further
description of our intended use of the proceeds of this
offering, see the Use of Proceeds section of this
prospectus.
We have
never paid cash dividends on our capital stock and we do not
anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
You should not invest in us if you require dividend income. Any
income from an investment in us would only come from a rise in
the market price of our common stock, which is uncertain and
unpredictable.
We have paid no cash dividends on our capital stock to date. We
currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund
the development and growth of our business and do not foresee
payment of a dividend in any upcoming fiscal period. In
addition, the terms of existing or any future debt agreements
may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital
appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole
source of gain for the foreseeable future.
A
significant portion of our total outstanding shares of common
stock is restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into
the market in the near future. This could cause the market price
of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business
is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in
the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the
perception in the market that the holders of a large number of
shares of common stock intend to sell shares, could reduce the
market price of our common stock. After this offering, we will
have
outstanding shares
of common stock based on the number of shares outstanding as
of ,
2007. Of these
shares, may
be resold in the public market immediately and the
remaining shares
are currently restricted under securities laws or as a result of
lock-up
agreements but will be able to be sold after the offering as
described in the Shares Eligible for Future
Sale section of this prospectus. Moreover, after this
offering, holders of an aggregate of 124,769,334 shares of
our common stock will have rights, subject to some conditions,
to require us to file registration statements covering their
shares or to include their shares in registration statements
that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We also
intend to register
all shares
of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation
30
plans. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in
the public market upon issuance, subject to the 180 day
lock-up
periods under the
lock-up
agreements described in the Underwriters section of
this prospectus.
If
securities or industry analysts do not publish research or
reports or publish unfavorable research about our business, the
price of our common stock and trading volume could
decline.
The trading market for our common stock will depend in part on
the research and reports that securities or industry analysts
publish about us or our business. We do not currently have and
may never obtain research coverage by securities and industry
analysts. If no securities or industry analysts commence
coverage of us the trading price for our common stock would be
negatively affected. In the event we obtain securities or
industry analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts who
covers us downgrades our common stock, the price of our common
stock would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts
ceases to cover us or fails to publish regular reports on us,
interest in the purchase of our common stock could decrease,
which could cause the price of our common stock or trading
volume to decline.
We will
incur increased costs as a result of being a public
company.
As a public company, we will incur significant legal,
accounting, reporting and other expenses that we did not incur
as a private company, including costs related to compliance with
the regulations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We expect
these rules and regulations to increase our legal and financial
compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming
and costly. We also expect these new rules and regulations may
make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain
director and officer liability insurance and we may be required
to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur
substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar
coverage. As a result, we may experience more difficulty
attracting and retaining qualified individuals to serve on our
board of directors or as executive officers. We cannot predict
or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur as a
result of these requirements or the timing of such costs.
31
SPECIAL
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This prospectus contains forward-looking statements that involve
substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than
statements of historical facts, included in this prospectus
regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial
position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and
objectives of management are forward-looking statements. The
words anticipate, believe,
estimate, expect, intend,
may, plan, predict,
project, will, would and
similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking
statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain
these identifying words.
The forward-looking statements in this prospectus include, among
other things, statements about:
|
|
|
|
|
our plans to develop and commercialize Amigal, Plicera and
AT2220;
|
|
|
|
our ongoing and planned discovery programs, preclinical studies
and clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
our ability to enter into selective collaboration arrangements;
|
|
|
|
the timing of and our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory
approvals for our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of
our products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to quickly and efficiently identify and develop
product candidates;
|
|
|
|
the extent to which our scientific approach may potentially
address a broad range of diseases across multiple therapeutic
areas;
|
|
|
|
our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities
and strategy;
|
|
|
|
our intellectual property position; and
|
|
|
|
our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital
requirements and needs for additional financing.
|
We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or
expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and
you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking
statements. Actual results or events could differ materially
from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the
forward-looking statements we make. We have included important
factors in the cautionary statements included in this
prospectus, particularly in the Risk Factors
section, that we believe could cause actual results or events to
differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we
make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the
potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers,
dispositions, joint ventures, collaborations or investments we
may make.
You should read this prospectus and the documents that we
reference in this prospectus and have filed as exhibits to the
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part
completely and with the understanding that our actual future
results may be materially different from what we expect. We do
not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking
statements.
32
USE OF
PROCEEDS
We estimate that the net proceeds from the sale
of shares
of common stock in this offering will be approximately
$ million, or
$ million if the underwriters
exercise their over-allotment option in full, based on an
assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share, which is the midpoint
of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus,
and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and
commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to fund the
growth of our business, including:
|
|
|
|
|
$ to
$ million for clinical
development of Amigal for the treatment of Fabry disease;
|
|
|
|
$ to
$ million for clinical
development of Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease;
|
|
|
|
$ to
$ million for clinical
development of AT2220 for the treatment of Pompe disease;
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ to
$ million for research and
development activities relating to additional preclinical
programs; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
the balance, if any, to fund working capital and other general
corporate purposes, which may include the acquisition or
licensing of complementary technologies, products or businesses,
the expansion of our current corporate offices and laboratory
space in Cranbury, New Jersey, and the leasing of additional
space at one or more different facilities.
|
The expected use of net proceeds of this offering represents our
intentions based on our current plans and business conditions.
The amount and timing of our actual expenditures will depend on
numerous factors, including the progress of our research and
development activities and clinical trials, the number and
breadth of our product development programs, whether or not we
establish corporate collaborations and other arrangements, and
the amount of cash, if any, generated by our operations and any
unforeseen cash needs. As a result, we will retain broad
discretion in the allocation and use of the remaining net
proceeds of this offering. We do not expect the net proceeds
from this offering and our other available funds to be
sufficient to fund the completion of the development of our lead
product candidates, and we expect that we will need to raise
additional funds prior to being able to market any products. We
have no current plans, agreements or commitments for any
material acquisitions or licenses of any technologies, products
or businesses.
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $ per share
would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us from this
offering by $ million,
assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the
cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses payable by us.
Pending application of the net proceeds, as described above, we
intend to invest any remaining proceeds in a variety of
short-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities.
DIVIDEND
POLICY
We have never declared or paid any dividends on our capital
stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to
finance our research and development efforts, the further
development of our pharmacological chaperone technology, and the
expansion of our business. We do not intend to declare or pay
cash dividends to our stockholders in the foreseeable future.
33
CAPITALIZATION
The following table sets forth our capitalization as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
on an actual basis;
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma basis to give effect, as of December 31,
2006, to our issuance on March 12, 2007 of
14,823,985 shares of series D redeemable convertible
preferred stock, the automatic exercise for cash upon the
completion of this offering of all outstanding warrants to
purchase 447,583 shares of series B redeemable
convertible preferred stock, and the automatic conversion of all
shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock into an
aggregate of 120,987,335 shares of common stock outstanding
upon the completion of this offering; and
|
|
|
|
on a pro forma as adjusted basis to give further effect to our
issuance and sale of shares of common stock in this offering at
an assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share, which is the midpoint
of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus,
after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions
and offering expenses payable by us.
|
The pro forma information below is illustrative only and our
capitalization following the closing of this offering will be
adjusted based on the actual initial public offering price and
other terms of this offering determined at pricing. You should
read this table together with Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and our financial statements and the related
notes appearing at the end of this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Forma
|
|
|
As Adjusted
|
|
|
|
(audited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
$
|
3,564
|
|
|
$
|
3,564
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A redeemable
convertible preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share;
3,333,334 shares authorized, issued and outstanding,
actual; no shares authorized, issued or outstanding, pro forma
and pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
2,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B redeemable
convertible preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share;
37,025,594 shares authorized, actual,
36,470,591 shares issued and outstanding, actual; no shares
authorized, issued or outstanding, pro forma and pro forma as
adjusted
|
|
|
30,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series C redeemable
convertible preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share;
43,650,262 shares authorized, issued and outstanding,
actual; no shares authorized, issued or outstanding, pro forma
and pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
54,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series D redeemable
convertible preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share;
36,978,145 shares authorized, 22,154,160 issued and
outstanding, actual; no shares authorized, issued or
outstanding, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
35,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.01 per
share; 160,000,000 shares authorized, actual and pro forma;
7,428,854 shares issued and outstanding, actual;
128,416,189 shares issued and outstanding, pro
forma; shares
authorized
and shares
issued and outstanding, pro forma as adjusted
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
1,280
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in
capital(1)
|
|
|
6,067
|
|
|
|
153,989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deficit accumulated during the
development stage
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders
(deficiency)
equity(1)
|
|
$
|
(77,515
|
)
|
|
$
|
71,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
capitalization(1)
|
|
$
|
(50,139
|
)
|
|
$
|
75,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the
assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share would increase
(decrease) each of cash, and cash equivalents and short-term
investments, additional paid-in capital, total
stockholders equity and total capitalization by
approximately $ million,
assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the
cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions
and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
|
34
The table above does not include:
|
|
|
|
|
14,013,659 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
options outstanding as of December 31, 2006 at a weighted
average exercise price of $0.57 per share;
|
|
|
|
40,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of a
warrant to purchase common stock at an exercise price of $0.75
per share; and
|
|
|
|
an aggregate
of shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2007
equity incentive plan as of the closing of this offering.
|
35
DILUTION
If you invest in our common stock in this offering, your
interest will be diluted to the extent of the difference between
the public offering price per share of our common stock and the
pro forma net tangible book value per share of our common stock
after this offering.
The historical net tangible book value of our common stock as of
December 31, 2006 was approximately
$ million or
$ per share, based
on shares
of common stock outstanding, as adjusted to reflect the
one-for- reverse
split of our common stock to be effected prior to the completion
of this offering. Historical net tangible book value per share
represents the amount of our total tangible assets less total
liabilities, divided by the number of shares of common stock
outstanding. Our pro forma net tangible book value as of
December 31, 2006 was approximately
$ million, or
$ per share of common stock. Pro
forma net tangible book value per share represents the amount of
our total tangible assets reduced by the amount of our total
liabilities, divided by the pro forma number of shares of common
stock outstanding after giving effect, as of December 31,
2006, to the issuance on March 12, 2007 of
14,823,985 shares of our series D redeemable
convertible preferred stock, the automatic exercise for cash
upon completion of this offering of all outstanding warrants to
purchase 447,583 shares of series B redeemable
convertible preferred stock, and the automatic conversion of all
shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock into an
aggregate of 120,987,335 shares of common stock outstanding
upon completion of this offering.
After giving effect to our issuance and sale
of shares
of our common stock in this offering at an assumed initial
public offering price of $ per
share (the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover
page of this prospectus) less the estimated underwriting
discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses
payable by us, our pro forma net tangible book value as of
December 31, 2006, would have been approximately
$ million, or
$ per share of our common stock.
This represents an immediate increase in pro forma net tangible
book value of $ per share to our
existing stockholders and an immediate dilution in pro forma net
tangible book value of $ per share
to new investors purchasing shares in this offering at the
initial public offering price. Dilution per share to new
investors is determined by subtracting pro forma net tangible
book value per share after this offering from the initial public
offering price per share paid by a new investor.
The following table illustrates this per share dilution:
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed initial public offering
price per share
|
|
$
|
|
|
Historical net tangible book value
per shares as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
Increase attributable to the
conversion of outstanding preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net tangible book value
per share before this offering
|
|
|
|
|
Increase per share attributable to
new investors
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net tangible book value
per share after this offering
|
|
|
|
|
Dilution per share to new investors
|
|
$
|
|
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $ per share
would increase (decrease) our pro forma net tangible book value
after this offering by approximately
$ million, our pro forma net
tangible book value per share after this offering by
approximately $ per share and
dilution per share to new investors in this offering by
approximately $ assuming that the
number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page
of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting the
estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.
If the underwriters exercise their over-allotment option in full
to
purchase
additional shares of common stock in this offering, the proforma
as adjusted net tangible book value per share after the offering
would be $ per share, the increase
in net tangible book value per share to existing stockholders
would be
36
$ per share and the dilution to
new investors, calculated before deduction of the estimated
underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses
payable by us:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed initial public offering
price per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical net tangible book value
(deficit) per share as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase attributable to the
conversion of outstanding redeemable convertible preferred stock
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net tangible book value
per share as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase per share attributable to
new investors
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma as adjusted net tangible
book value per share after this offering
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilution per share to new investors
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth, as of December 31, 2006, on
a pro forma basis to give effect to our issuance on
March 12, 2006 of 14,823,985 shares of series D
redeemable convertible preferred stock, the automatic exercise
for cash upon completion of this offering of outstanding
warrants to purchase 447,583 shares of series B
redeemable convertible preferred stock, and the automatic
conversion of all shares of our redeemable convertible preferred
stock into an aggregate of 120,987,335 shares of common
stock outstanding upon the closing of this offering, the total
consideration paid investors in this offering and the average
price per share paid, or to be paid, to us by existing
stockholders and by new investors in this offering at an assumed
initial public offering price of $
per share, which is the midpoint of the price range listed on
the cover page of this prospectus, before deducting estimated
underwriting discounts and commissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
|
Consideration
|
|
|
Price Per
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Existing stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
New
investors(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the
assumed initial public offering price of
$ per share would increase
(decrease) the total consideration paid by new investors by
$ million and increase
(decrease) the percentage of total consideration paid by new
investors by approximately %,
assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth
on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same.
|
The discussion and tables above exclude:
|
|
|
|
|
14,013,659 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
stock options outstanding as of December 31, 2006 at a
weighted average exercise price of $0.57 per share;
|
|
|
|
40,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of a
warrant to purchase common stock at an exercise price of $0.75
per share; and
|
|
|
|
an aggregate
of shares
of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2007
equity incentive plan as of the closing of this offering.
|
If the underwriters exercise their over-allotment option
in full, the following will occur:
|
|
|
|
|
the percentage of shares of common stock held by existing
stockholders will decrease to
approximately % of the total number
of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering;
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
the pro forma as adjusted number of shares held by new investors
will be increased
to ,
or approximately %, of the total
pro forma as adjusted number of shares of our common stock
outstanding after this offering.
|
37
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
You should read the following selected financial data together
with our financial statements and the related notes appearing at
the end of this prospectus and the Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations section of this prospectus. We have derived the
statements of operations data for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2005 and 2006 and the period from
February 4, 2002 (inception) to December 31, 2006 and
the balance sheet data at December 31, 2005 and 2006 from
our audited financial statements, which are included in this
prospectus. We have derived the statement of operations for the
period of February 4, 2002 (inception) to December 31,
2002, the year ended December 31, 2003, and the balance
sheet data at December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004, from our
audited financial statements, which are not included in this
prospectus. Our historical results for any prior period are not
necessarily indicative of results to be expected for any future
period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
February 4,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 4,
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(Inception) to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Inception) to
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data)
|
|
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
$
|
788
|
|
|
$
|
4,433
|
|
|
$
|
6,301
|
|
|
$
|
13,652
|
|
|
$
|
33,630
|
|
|
$
|
58,804
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
1,005
|
|
|
|
2,081
|
|
|
|
6,877
|
|
|
|
12,277
|
|
|
|
22,792
|
|
Impairment of leasehold improvements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
|
303
|
|
|
|
952
|
|
|
|
1,557
|
|
In-process research and development
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,783
|
|
|
|
6,600
|
|
|
|
8,528
|
|
|
|
20,831
|
|
|
|
46,859
|
|
|
|
84,601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(1,783
|
)
|
|
|
(6,600
|
)
|
|
|
(8,528
|
)
|
|
|
(20,831
|
)
|
|
|
(46,859
|
)
|
|
|
(84,601
|
)
|
Other income (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
1,991
|
|
|
|
2,808
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(172
|
)
|
|
|
(550
|
)
|
|
|
(82
|
)
|
|
|
(273
|
)
|
|
|
(1,083
|
)
|
Change in fair value of warrant
liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(280
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
(304
|
)
|
Other expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,182
|
)
|
|
|
(1,182
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before tax benefit
|
|
|
(1,776
|
)
|
|
|
(6,768
|
)
|
|
|
(8,890
|
)
|
|
|
(20,584
|
)
|
|
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
(84,362
|
)
|
Income tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(1,776
|
)
|
|
|
(6,768
|
)
|
|
|
(8,807
|
)
|
|
|
(19,972
|
)
|
|
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
Deemed dividend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,424
|
)
|
|
|
(19,424
|
)
|
Preferred stock accretion
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
(159
|
)
|
|
|
(451
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(1,786
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,785
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,933
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20,111
|
)
|
|
$
|
(65,928
|
)
|
|
$
|
(103,543
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common
stockholders per common share basic and diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2.94
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.87
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.54
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11.94
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average common shares
outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,306,541
|
|
|
|
2,306,541
|
|
|
|
3,076,649
|
|
|
|
5,519,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited pro forma net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(46,345
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited pro forma basic and
diluted net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.37
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited shares used to compute
pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126,507,084
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents and
marketable securities
|
|
$
|
1,341
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
4,336
|
|
|
$
|
24,418
|
|
|
$
|
54,699
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
947
|
|
|
|
(5,588
|
)
|
|
|
3,569
|
|
|
|
22,267
|
|
|
|
44,814
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,919
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
5,073
|
|
|
|
28,670
|
|
|
|
59,646
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
752
|
|
|
|
5,776
|
|
|
|
1,346
|
|
|
|
4,031
|
|
|
|
13,071
|
|
Redeemable convertible preferred
stock(1)
|
|
|
2,416
|
|
|
|
2,432
|
|
|
|
20,013
|
|
|
|
60,469
|
|
|
|
124,091
|
|
Deficit accumulated during the
development stage
|
|
|
(1,775
|
)
|
|
|
(8,503
|
)
|
|
|
(17,351
|
)
|
|
|
(37,322
|
)
|
|
|
(83,667
|
)
|
Total stockholders deficiency
|
|
$
|
(1,249
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7,708
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16,287
|
)
|
|
$
|
(35,830
|
)
|
|
$
|
(77,515
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
In March 2007, we issued an
additional 14,823,985 shares of series D redeemable
convertible preferred stock for proceeds of $24.1 million.
|
39
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel small
molecule, orally-administered drugs, known as pharmacological
chaperones, for the treatment of a range of human genetic
diseases. Certain human diseases result from mutations in
specific genes that, in many cases, lead to the production of
proteins with reduced stability. Proteins with such mutations
may not fold into their correct three-dimensional shape and are
generally referred to as misfolded proteins. Misfolded proteins
are often recognized by cells as having defects and, as a
result, may be eliminated prior to reaching their intended
location in the cell. The reduced biological activity of these
proteins leads to impaired cellular function and ultimately to
disease. Our novel approach to the treatment of human genetic
diseases consists of using pharmacological chaperones that
selectively bind to the target protein, increasing the stability
of the protein and helping it fold into the correct
three-dimensional shape. This allows proper trafficking of the
protein, thereby increasing protein activity, improving cellular
function and potentially reducing cell stress. We are currently
conducting Phase II clinical trials of Amigal for Fabry
disease, Phase II clinical trials of Plicera for Gaucher
disease, and Phase I clinical trials of AT2220 for Pompe
disease.
We have generated significant losses to date and expect to
continue to generate losses as we continue the clinical
development of Amigal, Plicera, and AT2220. From our inception
in February 2002 through December 31, 2006, we have
accumulated a deficit of $83.7 million. Because we do not
generate revenue from any of our product candidates, our losses
will continue as we conduct our research and development
activities. These activities are budgeted to expand over time
and will require further resources if we are to be successful.
As a result, our operating losses are likely to be substantial
over the next several years. We will need to obtain additional
funds to further develop our research and development programs.
Financial
Operations Overview
Revenue
We have not generated any revenue since our inception. To date,
we have funded our operations primarily through the sale of
equity securities and equipment financings through capital
leases. If our development efforts result in clinical success,
regulatory approval and successful commercialization of any of
our products, we could generate revenue from sales of any of our
products.
Research
and Development Expense
We expect our research and development expense to increase as we
continue to develop our product candidates. Research and
development expense consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
internal costs associated with our research activities;
|
|
|
|
payments we make to third party contract research organizations,
contract manufacturers, investigative sites, and consultants;
|
|
|
|
manufacturing development costs;
|
|
|
|
personnel related expenses, including salaries, benefits,
travel, and related costs for the personnel involved in drug
discovery and development;
|
|
|
|
activities relating to regulatory filings and the advancement of
our product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical
trials; and
|
|
|
|
facilities and other allocated expenses, which include direct
and allocated expenses for rent, facility maintenance, as well
as laboratory and other supplies.
|
We have multiple research and development projects ongoing at
any one time. We utilize our internal resources, employees and
infrastructure across multiple projects. We do not believe that
allocating internal
40
costs on the basis of estimates of time spent by our employees
would accurately reflect the actual costs of a project. We do,
however, record and maintain information regarding external,
out-of-pocket
research and development expenses on a project-specific basis.
We expense research and development costs as incurred, including
payments made to date under our license agreements. We believe
that significant investment in product development is a
competitive necessity and plan to continue these investments in
order to realize the potential of our product candidates. From
our inception in February 2002 through December 31, 2006,
we have incurred research and development expense in the
aggregate of $58.8 million, including stock-based
compensation expense of approximately $2.0 million.
The following table summarizes our principal product development
programs, including the related stages of development for each
product candidate in development, and the
out-of-pocket,
third party expenses incurred with respect to each product
candidate (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Inception) to
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Product Candidate
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Third party direct project expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amigal (Fabry Disease
Phase II)
|
|
$
|
4,547
|
|
|
$
|
5,579
|
|
|
$
|
3,215
|
|
|
$
|
16,382
|
|
Plicera (Gaucher
Disease Phase II)
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
2,164
|
|
|
|
9,595
|
|
|
|
11,785
|
|
AT2220 (Pompe Disease
Phase I)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
374
|
|
|
|
4,389
|
|
|
|
4,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total third party direct project
expenses
|
|
|
4,573
|
|
|
|
8,117
|
|
|
|
17,199
|
|
|
|
32,930
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal project
costs(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel related costs
|
|
|
1,363
|
|
|
|
4,031
|
|
|
|
8,187
|
|
|
|
15,160
|
|
Other internal costs
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
1,504
|
|
|
|
8,244
|
|
|
|
10,714
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total internal project costs
|
|
|
1,728
|
|
|
|
5,535
|
|
|
|
16,431
|
|
|
|
25,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total research and development
costs
|
|
$
|
6,301
|
|
|
$
|
13,652
|
|
|
$
|
33,630
|
|
|
$
|
58,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
We utilize our internal resources
across multiple projects.
|
The successful development of our product candidates is highly
uncertain. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know
the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be
necessary to complete the remainder of the development of, or
the period, if any, in which material net cash inflows may
commence from Amigal, Plicera, AT2220 or any of our other
preclinical product candidates. This uncertainty is due to the
numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the duration
and cost of clinical trials which vary significantly over the
life of a project as a result of differences arising during
clinical development, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the number of clinical sites included in the trials;
|
|
|
|
the length of time required to enroll suitable patients;
|
|
|
|
the number of patients that ultimately participate in the
trials; and
|
|
|
|
the results of our clinical trials.
|
Our expenditures are subject to additional uncertainties,
including the terms and timing of regulatory approvals, and the
expense of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any
patent claims or other intellectual property rights. We may
obtain unexpected results from our clinical trials. We may elect
to discontinue, delay or modify clinical trials of some product
candidates or focus on others. A change in the outcome of any of
the foregoing variables with respect to the development of a
product candidate could mean a significant change in the costs
and timing associated with the development of that product
candidate. For example, if the FDA or other regulatory
authorities were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond
those
41
which we currently anticipate, or if we experience significant
delays in enrollment in any our clinical trials, we could be
required to expend significant additional financial resources
and time on the completion of clinical development. Drug
development may take several years and millions of dollars in
development costs.
General
and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expense consists primarily of
salaries and other related costs, including stock-based
compensation expense, for persons serving in our executive,
finance, accounting, information technology and human resource
functions. Other general and administrative expense includes
facility-related costs not otherwise included in research and
development expense, promotional expenses, costs associated with
industry and trade shows, and professional fees for legal
services, including patent-related expense, and accounting
services. We expect that our general and administrative expenses
will increase as we add personnel and become subject to the
reporting obligations applicable to public companies. From our
inception in February 2002 through December 31, 2006, we
spent $22.8 million, including stock-based compensation
expense of approximately $2.0 million, on general and
administrative expense.
Beneficial
Conversion Charges
When we issue debt or equity securities which are convertible
into common stock at a discount from the common stock fair value
at the date the debt or equity is issued, a beneficial
conversion charge for the difference between the closing price
and the conversion price multiplied by the number of shares
issuable upon conversion is recognized. The beneficial
conversion charge for our debt instruments is presented as a
discount to the related debt, with an offsetting amount
increasing additional paid-in capital. We recorded a beneficial
conversion charge for a bridge loan financing of
$0.1 million which was initially recorded as debt discount
and amortized to interest expense through May 2004. We also
recorded a beneficial conversion charge (deemed dividend) during
the second quarter of 2006 of approximately $19.4 million
related to the issuance of certain shares of series C
redeemable convertible preferred stock. The beneficial
conversion charge for our equity instruments is recorded with
offsetting charges and credits to additional paid in capital
with no effect on total shareholder equity. The beneficial
conversion charge (deemed dividend) increases the loss
applicable to our common stockholders in the calculation of
basic net loss per share for the year ended December 31,
2006. The estimated fair value of the common stock was
approximately $2.15 per share at the measurement date for the
second tranche of series C redeemable convertible preferred
stock.
Interest
Income and Interest Expense
Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash and cash
equivalents and marketable securities. Interest expense consists
of interest incurred on our capital lease facility.
Other
income and expenses
During the second and third quarter of 2006, we deferred and
capitalized $1.2 million of costs directly attributable to
the planned initial public offering of our common stock as other
non-current assets. These costs were recorded as non-operating
expenses when the planned offering was withdrawn during the
third quarter of 2006.
Change
in Warrant Liability
We account for warrants to purchase shares of our series B
redeemable convertible preferred stock in accordance with FASB
statement No. 150, Accounting for Certain financial
instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity,
or SFAS 150. SFAS 150 requires that a financial
instrument, other than an outstanding share, that, at inception,
is indexed to an obligation to repurchase the issuers
equity shares, regardless of the timing of the redemption
feature, and may require the issuer to settle the obligation by
transferring assets shall be classified as a liability. We
recognize changes in the fair value of the warrants in the
statements of operations as non-operating income or expense.
42
Critical
Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and
Estimates
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and
results of operations are based on our financial statements,
which we have prepared in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these
financial statements requires us to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as
the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods.
On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments,
including those described in greater detail below. We base our
estimates on historical experience and on various other factors
that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the
results of which form the basis for making judgments about the
carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily
apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from
these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
While our significant accounting policies are more fully
described in Note 2 to our financial statements appearing
at the end of this filing, we believe that the following
accounting policies are the most critical to aid you in fully
understanding and evaluating our financial condition and results
of operations.
Accrued
Expenses
As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we
are required to estimate accrued expenses. This process involves
identifying services that have been performed on our behalf and
estimating the level of service performed and the associated
cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced
or otherwise notified of actual cost. The majority of our
service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services
performed. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each
balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts
and circumstances known to us. Examples of estimated accrued
expenses include:
|
|
|
|
|
fees owed to contract research organizations in connection with
preclinical and toxicology studies and clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
fees paid to investigative sites in connection with clinical
trials;
|
|
|
|
fees owed to contract manufacturers in connection with the
production of clinical trial materials;
|
|
|
|
fees owed for professional services, and
|
|
|
|
unpaid salaries, wages, and benefits.
|
Adoption
of SFAS No. 123(R)
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted the fair value
recognition provisions of FASB Statement No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment, or SFAS No. 123(R), using
the prospective transition method. Under the prospective
transition method, compensation expense is recognized in the
financial statements on a prospective basis for all share-based
payments granted subsequent to December 31, 2005, based
upon the grant-date fair value estimated in accordance with the
provisions of SFAS 123(R). Options granted prior to
January 1, 2006, as a non-public company and accounted for
using the intrinsic value method, will continue to be expensed
over the vesting period. The fair value of awards expected to
vest, as measured at grant date, is expensed on a straight-line
basis over the vesting period of the related awards. Under the
prospective transition method, results for prior periods are not
restated.
Stock-Based
Compensation
At December 31, 2006, we had one stock-based employee
compensation plan, which is described more fully in Note 7
to our financial statements appearing at the end of this
prospectus. Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for this
plan under the recognition and measurement provisions of
Accounting Principles Board Opinion No 25, Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees, or APB 25, and related
interpretations, as permitted by SFAS 123. Stock-based
employee compensation cost was recognized in the statement of
operations for periods prior to January 1, 2006, to the
extent options granted under the plan had an exercise price that
was less than the fair market value of the underlying common
stock on the date of grant. Under the prospective
43
transition method, compensation cost recognized for all
stock-based payments granted subsequent to January 1, 2006
is based on the grant-date fair value estimated in accordance
with the provisions of SFAS 123(R). Results for prior
periods have not been restated. As a result of adopting
SFAS 123(R) on January 1, 2006, our net income for the
year ended December 31, 2006 was less than it would have
been had we continued to account for stock-based compensation
under APB 25.
Prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), we presented our
unamortized portion of deferred compensation cost for nonvested
stock options in the statement of changes in shareholders
deficiency with a corresponding credit to additional paid-in
capital. Upon the adoption of SFAS 123(R), these amounts
were offset against each other as SFAS 123(R) prohibits the
gross-up
of stockholders equity. Under SFAS 123(R), an equity
instrument is not considered to be issued until the instrument
vests. As a result, compensation cost is recognized over the
requisite service period with an offsetting credit to additional
paid-in capital.
We recognized employee stock-based compensation expense of
$0.1 million, $0.4 million, and $2.8 million for
the years ended 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded
incremental compensation expense of approximately
$2.2 million ($0.40 per basic and diluted share) related to
the expensing of our options under SFAS 123(R) during the
year. The compensation expense had no impact on our cash flows
from operations and financing activities. The total unrecognized
compensation cost related to non-vested stock option awards as
of December 31, 2006 was approximately $8.1 million.
This expense will be recorded on a straight-line basis over
approximately 2.7 years.
Upon adoption of SFAS 123(R), we selected the Black-Scholes
option pricing model as the most appropriate model for
determining the estimated fair value for stock-based awards. The
fair value of stock option awards subsequent to
December 31, 2005 is amortized on a straight-line basis
over the requisite service periods of the awards, which is
generally the vesting period. Use of a valuation model requires
management to make certain assumptions with respect to selected
model inputs. Expected volatility was calculated based on a
blended weighted average of historical information of our stock
and the weighted average of historical information of similar
public entities for which historical information was available.
We will continue to use a blended weighted average approach
using our own historical volatility and other similar public
entity volatility information until our historical volatility is
relevant to measure expected volatility for future option
grants. The average expected life was determined according to
the SEC shortcut approach as described in Staff Accounting
Bulletin, or SAB, 107, Disclosure about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments, which is the mid-point between the
vesting date and the end of the contractual term. The risk-free
interest rate is based on U.S. Treasury, zero-coupon issues with
a remaining term equal to the expected life assumed at the date
of grant. Forfeitures are estimated based on voluntary
termination behavior, as well as a historical analysis of actual
option forfeitures. The weighted average assumptions used in the
Black-Scholes option pricing model are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
Expected stock price volatility
|
|
|
74.8
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
Expected life of options (years)
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
Expected annual dividend per share
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
The weighted-average fair value (as of the date of grant) of the
options granted during the year ended December 31, 2006 is
$1.36.
The exercise prices for options granted were set by our board of
directors, the members of which have extensive experience in the
life sciences industry and all but one of whom are non-employee
directors, with input from our management, based on our
boards determination of the fair market value of our
common stock at the time of the grants. In connection with the
preparation of the financial statements for a public offering,
we performed a retrospective determination of fair value for
financial reporting purposes of our common stock
44
underlying stock option grants in 2005 and the first quarter of
2006 utilizing a combination of valuation methods described in
the AICPA Technical Practice Aid, Valuation of
Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as
Compensation, or the Practice Aid. We utilized the same
combination of valuation methods to perform contemporaneous
valuations of our common stock for each quarter subsequent to
March 31, 2006. Information on stock option grants during
2005 and 2006 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retrospective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Estimate per
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
per
|
|
Date of 2005 Issuance
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
January - May
|
|
|
3,037,037
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
June - July
|
|
|
1,768,748
|
|
|
|
0.09
|
|
|
|
0.77
|
|
|
|
0.68
|
|
August - September
|
|
|
315,500
|
|
|
|
0.22
|
|
|
|
0.95
|
|
|
|
0.73
|
|
October - November
|
|
|
2,351,000
|
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
1.14
|
|
|
|
0.43
|
|
December
|
|
|
104,500
|
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
1.44
|
|
|
|
0.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,576,785
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Estimate per
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
per
|
|
Date of 2006 Issuance
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
January - March
|
|
|
5,895,000
|
|
|
$
|
0.71
|
|
|
$
|
1.83
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
1.12
|
|
April - June
|
|
|
899,500
|
|
|
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
July - August
|
|
|
405,000
|
|
|
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
September - December
|
|
|
339,000
|
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,538,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Retrospectively determined fair
value for financial reporting purposes.
|
Determining the fair value of the common stock of a private
enterprise requires complex and subjective judgments. Our
retrospective and contemporaneous estimates of enterprise value
at each of the grant dates during 2005 and 2006 used results
from both the income approach and the market approach.
Under the income approach, our enterprise value was based on the
present value of our forecasted operating results. Our revenue
forecasts were based on our estimates of expected annual growth
rates following the anticipated commercial launch of our product
candidates Amigal, Plicera and AT2220. Estimated operating
expenses were based on our internal assumptions, including
continuing research and development activities for Amigal,
Plicera, AT2220 and other preclinical candidates, and
preparation and ongoing support for the commercialization of our
lead product candidates. The assumptions underlying the
estimates are consistent with our business plan. The risks
associated with achieving our forecasts were assessed in
selecting the appropriate discount rates, which were
approximately 25% to 35%.
Under the market approach, our estimated enterprise value was
developed based on a comparison of pre-money initial public
offering, or IPO, values of recent biotechnology and emerging
pharmaceutical companies at a similar stage of development to
ours. When we achieved or exceeded a significant milestone, we
reduced the discount rate applied to determine our enterprise
value.
Once our enterprise value was established, an allocation method
was used to allocate the enterprise value to the different
classes of equity instruments. During our retrospective and
contemporaneous reviews, we used
45
the probability weighted expected returns, or PWER, method to
allocate our enterprise value to our common stock. Under the
PWER method, the value of common stock is estimated based upon
an analysis of future values for the enterprise assuming various
future outcomes. In our retrospective review, the future
outcomes included two scenarios: (i) we become a public
company and; (ii) we remain a private company. In our
contemporaneous review, the future outcomes included three
scenarios: (i) we become a public company, (ii) we
merge or are acquired by another company, and; (iii) we
remain a private company. In general, the closer a company gets
to an IPO, the higher the probability assessment weighting is
for that scenario. We used a low probability assumption for our
January 2005 grants and this percentage increased over time as
significant milestones were achieved and as discussions with our
investment bankers began and continued to increase as we
prepared for our IPO process. An increase in the probability
assessment for an IPO increases the value ascribed to our common
stock while a decrease in that probability has the opposite
effect on the value ascribed to our common stock.
For each of the scenarios, estimated future and present value
for the common shares were calculated using assumptions
including:
|
|
|
|
|
our expected pre-IPO valuation;
|
|
|
|
a risk-adjusted discount rate associated with the IPO scenario;
|
|
|
|
the liquidation preferences of our redeemable convertible
preferred stock;
|
|
|
|
appropriate discount for lack of marketability assuming we
remained a private company;
|
|
|
|
the expected probability of completing an IPO versus remaining a
private company or completing a merger or acquisition; and
|
|
|
|
the estimated timing of a potential IPO.
|
The increase in the fair value of our common stock for financial
reporting purposes during 2005 and the 2006 principally reflects
increases resulting from achieving significant clinical
milestones and a significant increase in our probability
weighting for the IPO scenario until we withdrew our offering in
the third quarter of 2006. The following is a summary of the
significant factors that resulted in changes in the fair value
of our common stock for the two years ended December 31,
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 3,037,037 options granted to employees
during the period from January 2005 through May 2005 was $0.31
per share. This valuation was attributable to the hiring of our
President and Chief Executive Officer and other members of
executive management and a relatively low probability estimate
for the IPO scenario under the PWER method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 1,768,748 options granted to employees
during the period from June 2005 through July 2005 was
determined to be $0.77 per share based on the ongoing clinical
trial of Amigal, additional development of our preclinical
programs, and an increased probability estimate for the IPO
scenario under the PWER method.
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 315,500 options granted to employees
during the period from August 2005 through September 2005 was
determined to be $0.95 per share. This increase in valuation was
based on the completion of Phase I clinical trials for Amigal
and completion of our series C redeemable convertible
preferred stock financing of $55 million.
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 2,351,000 options granted to employees
during the period from October 2005 through November 2005 was
determined to be $1.14 per share. This increase was primarily
based on positive developments in the capital markets for early
stage life science companies, the start of Phase II clinical
trials for Amigal, and further preclinical development of our
other programs.
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 104,500 options granted to employees in
December 2005 and 92,500 options granted to employees in the
period from January 1, 2006 to February 22, 2006 was
determined to be $1.44 per share. This increase was primarily
based on preclinical development of Plicera and AT2220, as well
as an acceleration of our IPO planning.
|
|
|
|
The reassessed fair value for financial reporting purposes of
common stock underlying 5,802,500 options granted to employees
and directors in the period from February 28, 2006 to
March 27, 2006 was determined to be $1.84 per share. This
increase was primarily based on initial data from our Phase II
studies in Fabry disease and a further acceleration of our IPO
timeline.
|
|
|
|
The fair value of common stock underlying 1,304,500 options
granted to employees during the second and third quarters of
2006 was determined to be $1.09 per share. This decrease was
primarily based on a comparison of then current pre-money IPO
values of biotechnology and emerging pharmaceutical companies at
a similar stage of development to ours, a decreased probability
estimate for the IPO scenario under the PWER method due to the
withdrawal of our planned IPO, and an increased the estimate of
the period prior to a potential IPO under that scenario.
|
|
|
|
The fair value of common stock underlying 339,000 options
granted to employees during the fourth quarter of 2006 was
determined to be $1.22 per share. This increase was primarily
based on a comparison to improved pre-money IPO values of
biotechnology and emerging pharmaceutical companies at a similar
stage of development to ours and an increased probability
estimate for the IPO scenario under the PWER method
subsequent to the completion of our Series D financing.
|
The intrinsic value of all outstanding vested and unvested
options based on the estimated IPO price of
$ was
$ based on 14,013,659 options
outstanding at December 31, 2006.
Basic
and Diluted Net Loss Attributable to Common Stockholders per
Common Share
We calculated net loss per share in accordance with
SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share. We have
determined that the series A, B, C, and D redeemable
convertible preferred stock represent participating securities
in accordance with Emerging Issue Task Force, or EITF,
03-6
Participating Securities and the Two
Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128.
However, since we operate at a loss, and losses are not
allocated to the redeemable convertible preferred stock, the two
class method does not affect our calculation of earnings per
share. We had a net loss for all periods presented; accordingly,
the inclusion of common stock options and warrants would be
anti-dilutive. Therefore, the weighted average shares used to
calculate both basic and diluted earnings per share are the same.
47
The following table provides a reconciliation of the numerator
and denominator used in computing basic and diluted net loss
attributable to common stockholders per common share and pro
forma net loss attributable to common stockholders per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Historical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(8,807,102
|
)
|
|
$
|
(19,972,289
|
)
|
|
$
|
(46,344,910
|
)
|
Deemed dividend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,424,367
|
)
|
Accretion of redeemable
convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
(125,733
|
)
|
|
|
(138,743
|
)
|
|
|
(158,802
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(8,932,835
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20,111,032
|
)
|
|
$
|
(65,928,079
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
2,306,541
|
|
|
|
3,076,649
|
|
|
|
5,519,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive common stock equivalents would include the dilutive
effect of convertible securities, common stock options and
warrants for common stock equivalents. Potentially dilutive
common stock equivalents totaled approximately 28,749,798,
70,948,031 and 131,007,390 for the years ended December 31,
2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively. Potentially dilutive common
stock equivalents were excluded from the diluted earnings per
share denominator for all periods because of their anti-dilutive
effect.
Results
of Operations
Year
Ended December 31, 2006 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Research and Development Expense. Research and
development expense was $33.6 million in 2006, an increase
of $19.9 million, or 145%, from $13.7 million in 2005.
The increase was primarily attributable to increased contract
research and manufacturing costs for Amigal, Plicera and AT2220
of $11.1 million, an increase in personnel costs of
$4.6 million, and costs associated with licenses totaling
$2.5 million. The increase in personnel costs was due to
headcount and salary increases in our research, clinical, and
regulatory functions and the impact of adopting SFAS 123(R).
General and Administrative Expense. General
and administrative expense was $12.3 million in 2006, an
increase of $5.4 million, or 78%, from $6.9 million in
2005. The increase resulted principally from an increase in
personnel costs of $3.7 million attributable to increased
headcount, a rise in salaries, and the impact of adopting
SFAS 123(R).
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation
and amortization expense was $1.0 million in 2006, and
increase of $0.7 million or 233%, from $0.3 million in
2005. The increase is primarily due to leasehold improvements
completed in late 2005 and early 2006 as well as purchases of
equipment during 2006.
Interest Income and Interest Expense. Interest
income was $2.0 million in 2006, compared to
$0.6 million in 2005. The increase in interest income
resulted from higher average cash and cash equivalents balances
and higher average interest rates in 2006. Interest expense was
$0.3 million in 2006, compared to $0.1 million in
2005. The increase in interest expense resulted from additional
capital lease borrowings during 2006.
Other Expense. During 2006, we capitalized
$1.2 million of costs directly attributable to the planned
offering of our anticipated IPO. These costs were expensed when
we withdrew our offering in the third quarter of 2006.
Tax Benefit. In 2005, we recognized tax
benefits related to our sale of net operating losses in the New
Jersey Tax Transfer Program. Our tax benefit was
$0.6 million in 2005. We sold $6.7 million of net
operating
48
losses in 2005. We did not sell net operating losses in the New
Jersey Tax Transfer Program in 2006 and therefore we did not
recognize any tax benefits in 2006.
Year
Ended December 31, 2005 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2004
Research and Development Expense. Research and
development expense was $13.7 million in 2005, an increase
of $7.4 million, or 117%, from $6.3 million in 2004.
The increase resulted primarily from an increase in contract
research costs for Amigal, Plicera, and AT2220 of
$3.5 million during 2005, and a rise in personnel related
costs of $2.7 million.
General and Administrative Expense. General
and administrative expense was $6.9 million in 2005, an
increase of $4.8 million, or 228%, from $2.1 million
in 2004. This increase is primarily attributable to a rise in
salaries, as well as an increase in headcount in finance, human
resources, information technology and general management,
including the hiring of many of our current senior executives.
Interest Income and Interest Expense. Interest
income was $0.6 million in 2005, compared to
$0.2 million in 2004. Interest expense was
$0.1 million in 2005, compared to $0.6 million in
2004. The increase in interest income resulted from higher
average cash and cash equivalents balances and higher average
interest rates in 2005. The reduction in interest expense
resulted from the conversion of our bridge loans into
series B redeemable convertible preferred stock during 2004.
Tax Benefit. In 2005 and 2004, we recognized
tax benefits related to our sale of net operating losses in the
New Jersey Tax Transfer Program. Our tax benefit was
$0.6 million in 2005 and $0.1 million in 2004. We sold
$6.7 million and $1.1 million of net operating losses
in 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Source
of Liquidity
As a result of our significant research and development
expenditures and the lack of any approved products to generate
product sales revenue, we have not been profitable and have
generated operating losses since we were incorporated in 2002.
We have funded our operations principally with
$124.5 million of gross proceeds from redeemable
convertible preferred stock offerings through December 31,
2006. We received an additional $24.1 million of proceeds
from a second tranche of Series D redeemable convertible
preferred stock issuance in March 2007. The following table
summarizes our funding sources as of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
Issue
|
|
Year
|
|
|
No. Shares
|
|
|
Amount(1)
|
|
|
Series A Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
3,333,334
|
|
|
$
|
2,500,000
|
|
Series B Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock
|
|
|
2004, 2005, 2006
|
|
|
|
36,578,011
|
|
|
|
31,091,307
|
|
Series C Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock
|
|
|
2005, 2006
|
|
|
|
43,650,262
|
|
|
|
54,999,332
|
|
Series D Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
22,154,160
|
|
|
|
35,946,897
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,715,767
|
|
|
$
|
124,537,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Represents gross proceeds.
|
As of December 31, 2006, we had cash and cash equivalents
and marketable securities of $54.7 million. We hold our
cash and investment balances in a variety of high quality
interest-bearing instruments, including obligations of
U.S. government agencies and money market accounts. We
invest cash in excess of our immediate requirements with regard
to liquidity and capital preservation. Wherever possible, we
seek to minimize the potential effects of concentration and
degrees of risk.
Also, we maintain cash balances with financial institutions in
excess of insured limits. We do not anticipate any losses with
respect to such cash balances.
49
Net
Cash Used in Operating Activities
Net cash used in operations was $33.9 million for the year
ended December 31, 2006. The net loss for the year ended
December 31, 2006 of $46.3 million was offset
primarily by non-cash charges for depreciation and amortization
of $1.0 million, stock-based compensation of
$3.3 million, stock-based license payment of
$1.2 million and changes in operating assets and
liabilities of $7.0 million.
Net
Cash Used in Investing Activities
Net cash used in investing activities was $26.6 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006. Net cash used in
investing activities reflects $62.0 million for the
purchase of marketable securities and $2.0 million for the
acquisition of property and equipment, partially offset by
$37.4 million for the sale and redemption of marketable
securities.
Net
Cash Provided by Financing Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities was $66.2 million
for the year ended December 31, 2006. Net cash provided by
financing activities mainly reflects $27.5 million of
proceeds from the issuance of our series C redeemable
convertible preferred stock, $35.9 million of proceeds from
the issuance of our series D redeemable convertible
preferred stock, and $3.4 million of proceeds from our
capital asset financing arrangement, partially offset by
$0.9 million of payments of capital lease obligations.
Funding
Requirements
We expect to incur losses from operations for the foreseeable
future. We expect to incur increasing research and development
expenses, including expenses related to the hiring of personnel
and additional clinical trials. We expect that our general and
administrative expenses will also increase as we expand our
finance and administrative staff, add infrastructure, and incur
additional costs related to being a public company, including
directors and officers insurance, investor relations
programs, and increased professional fees. Our future capital
requirements will depend on a number of factors, including the
continued progress of our research and development of products,
the timing and outcome of clinical trials and regulatory
approvals, the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting,
maintaining, defending, and enforcing patent claims and other
intellectual property rights, the acquisition of licenses to new
products or compounds, the status of competitive products, the
availability of financing, and our success in developing markets
for our product candidates.
We believe that the net proceeds from this offering, together
with our existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term
investments, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our
operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements at least
until .
We believe that if we sell
the
shares of our common stock in this offering at an initial public
offering price of $ per share
($1.00 lower than the mid-point of the price range set forth on
the cover page of this prospectus), the resultant reduction in
proceeds we receive from the offering would cause us to require
additional capital earlier. We have based this estimate on
assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our
available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with
the development and commercialization of our product candidates,
we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital
outlays and operating expenditures associated with our current
and anticipated clinical trials.
Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors,
including the progress and results of our clinical trials, the
duration and cost of discovery and preclinical development and
laboratory testing and clinical trials for our product
candidates, the timing and outcome of regulatory review of our
product candidates, the number and development requirements of
other product candidates that we pursue, and the costs of
commercialization activities, including product marketing, sales
and distribution.
We do not anticipate that we will generate product revenue for
at least the next several years. In the absence of additional
funding, we expect our continuing operating losses to result in
increases in our cash used in operations over the next several
quarters and years.
50
We will need to finance our future cash needs through public or
private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate
collaboration and licensing arrangements. We do not currently
have any commitments for future external funding. We may need to
raise additional funds more quickly if one or more of our
assumptions prove to be incorrect or if we choose to expand our
product development efforts more rapidly than we presently
anticipate, and we may decide to raise additional funds even
before we need them if the conditions for raising capital are
favorable. We may seek to sell additional equity or debt
securities or obtain a bank credit facility. The sale of
additional equity or debt securities, if convertible, could
result in dilution to our stockholders. The incurrence of
indebtedness would result in increased fixed obligations and
could also result in covenants that would restrict our
operations.
Additional equity or debt financing, grants, or corporate
collaboration and licensing arrangements may not be available on
acceptable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not
available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of or
eliminate our research and development programs, reduce our
planned commercialization efforts or obtain funds through
arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to
relinquish rights to certain product candidates that we might
otherwise seek to develop or commercialize independently.
Contractual
Obligations
The following table summarizes our significant contractual
obligations and commercial commitments at December 31, 2006
and the effects such obligations are expected to have on our
liquidity and cash flows in future periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
1-3
|
|
|
3-5
|
|
|
Over 5
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
$
|
7,631,820
|
|
|
$
|
1,629,181
|
|
|
$
|
4,477,324
|
|
|
$
|
1,525,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
4,113,425
|
|
|
|
1,624,727
|
|
|
|
2,488,698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment agreement
|
|
|
1,850,669
|
|
|
|
1,388,002
|
|
|
|
462,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed contractual obligations
|
|
$
|
13,595,914
|
|
|
$
|
4,641,910
|
|
|
$
|
7,428,689
|
|
|
$
|
1,525,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In May 2005, we entered into a seven-year, non-cancelable
operating sublease agreement for office and laboratory space in
Cranbury, New Jersey. The operating sublease will expire by its
terms in February 2012. In August 2006, we entered into a
sublease agreement for office space in an adjacent building.
This sublease will expire by its terms in August 2009.
In August 2002, we entered into capital lease agreements that
provide for up to $1.0 million of equipment financing
through August 2004. The facility was increased to
$3.0 million in May 2005 and to $5.0 million in
November 2005. These financing arrangements include interest of
approximately 9-12%, and lease terms of 36 or 48 months.
Eligible assets under the lease lines include laboratory and
scientific equipment, computer hardware and software, general
office equipment, furniture, and tenant improvements. Upon
termination of the lease agreements, we may renew the lease or
purchase the leased equipment for $1.00. We also have the option
to purchase the equipment at set prices before termination of
the lease. In addition, at lease inception, we issued a warrant
to the equipment financing lender to purchase 40,000 shares
of common stock. The warrant was valued at $8,000 using a
Black-Scholes option pricing model and this value was amortized
to interest.
On April 28, 2006, we entered into an employment agreement
with our president and chief executive officer that provides for
an annual base salary of $400,000, a cash bonus of up to 50% of
base salary, an executive medical reimbursement contract, annual
reimbursement up to $220,000 for medical expenses not covered by
the executive medical reimbursement contract or our medical or
health insurance policies, and gross up for federal and state
income taxes of income tax incurred in connection with medical
reimbursement. The agreement will continue for successive
one-year terms until either party provides written notice of
termination to the other in accordance with the terms of the
agreement. The table above includes costs
51
associated with the remainder of the first one-year term and
second one-year term ending April 28, 2008. The cost of the
executive medical reimbursement contract is estimated based on
current premiums. This employment agreement is more fully
described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of
this prospectus.
We have entered into agreements with clinical research
organizations and other outside contractors who will be
partially responsible for conducting and monitoring our clinical
trials for Amigal, Plicera and AT2220. These contractual
obligations are not reflected in the table above because we may
terminate them without penalty.
Except for the capital lease agreements described above, we have
no other lines of credit or other committed sources of capital.
To the extent our capital resources are insufficient to meet
future capital requirements, we will need to raise additional
capital or incur indebtedness to fund our operations. We cannot
assure you that additional debt or equity financing will be
available on acceptable terms, if at all.
Effects
of Inflation
Inflation generally affects us by increasing our cost of labor
and clinical trial costs. We do not believe that inflation has
had a material effect on our results of operations during 2004,
2005 or 2006.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements as of
December 31, 2005 and 2006.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, FASB issued FSAB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an
Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, or
FIN No. 48, which clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in tax positions. This Interpretation prescribes a
recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the
financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax
position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. It also
provides guidance on derecognition, clarification, interest and
penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosures and
transitions. The provision of FIN 48 are effective as of
the beginning of our 2007 fiscal year, with the cumulative
effect, if any, of the change in accounting principle recorded
as an adjustment to opening retained earnings. We do not expect
that FIN 48 will impact our financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measures, or SFAS No. 157.
SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value and enhances disclosures
about fair value measures required under other accounting
pronouncements, but does not change existing guidance as to
whether or not an instrument is carried at fair value.
SFAS No. 157 is effective as of the beginning of our
2008 fiscal year. We are currently reviewing the provisions of
SFAS No. 157 to determine the impact. We do not expect
this will have a significant impact on our financial statements.
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
The primary objective of our investment activities is to
preserve our capital to fund operations. We also seek to
maximize income from our investments without assuming
significant risk. To achieve our objectives, we maintain a
portfolio of cash equivalents and investments in a variety of
securities of high credit quality. As of December 31, 2006,
we had cash and cash equivalents and investments in marketable
securities of $54.7 million. A portion of our investments
may be subject to interest rate risk and could fall in value if
market interest rates increase. However, because our investments
are short-term in duration, we believe that our exposure to
interest rate risk is not significant and a 1% movement in
market interest rates would not have a significant impact on the
total value of our portfolio. We actively monitor changes in
interest rates.
52
BUSINESS
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of a new class of
orally-administered, small molecule drugs, known as
pharmacological chaperones, for the treatment of a range of
human genetic diseases. Our lead products in development are
Amigal for Fabry disease, Plicera for Gaucher disease and AT2220
for Pompe disease. We have completed enrollment of our
Phase II clinical trials of Amigal, and are currently
conducting Phase II clinical trials of Plicera and
Phase I clinical trials of AT2220. Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe
are relatively rare disorders but represent substantial
commercial markets due to the severity of the symptoms and the
chronic nature of the diseases. The worldwide net product sales
for the five approved therapeutics to treat Fabry, Gaucher and
Pompe disease were more than $1.5 billion in 2006, as
publicly reported by companies that market these therapeutics.
We hold worldwide commercialization rights to Amigal, Plicera
and AT2220 and we intend to establish a commercial
infrastructure and targeted sales force to market some or all of
our products.
Certain human diseases result from mutations in specific genes
that, in many cases, lead to the production of proteins with
reduced stability. Proteins with such mutations may not fold
into their correct three-dimensional shape and are generally
referred to as misfolded proteins. Misfolded proteins are often
recognized by cells as having defects and, as a result, may be
eliminated prior to reaching their intended location in the
cell. The reduced biological activity of these proteins leads to
impaired cellular function and ultimately to disease.
Our novel approach to the treatment of human genetic diseases
consists of using pharmacological chaperones that selectively
bind to the target protein, increasing the stability of the
protein and helping it fold into the correct three-dimensional
shape. This allows proper trafficking of the protein, thereby
increasing protein activity, improving cellular function and
potentially reducing cell stress.
The current standard of treatment for Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe
is enzyme replacement therapy. This therapy compensates for the
reduced level of activity of specialized proteins called enzymes
through regular infusions of recombinant enzyme. Instead of
adding enzyme from an external source by intravenous infusion,
our approach uses small molecule, orally-administered
pharmacological chaperones to restore the function of the enzyme
that is already made by the patients own body. We believe
our product candidates may have advantages relative to enzyme
replacement therapy relating to biodistribution and ease of use,
potentially improving treatment of these diseases.
Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company
focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of
pharmacological chaperone therapies for the treatment of a wide
range of human diseases. Our initial clinical efforts are
currently focused on developing pharmacological chaperones for
the treatment of lysosomal storage disorders, which are chronic
genetic diseases, such as Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe, that
frequently result in severe symptoms. We believe our technology
also is broadly applicable to other diseases for which protein
stabilization and improved folding may be beneficial, including
certain types of neurological disease, metabolic disease,
cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Our Lead
Programs
Our three most advanced product development programs target
lysosomal storage disorders. Each of these disorders results
from the deficiency of a single enzyme.
|
|
|
|
|
Amigal for Fabry disease. We are developing
Amigal for the treatment of Fabry disease and are currently
conducting multiple Phase II clinical trials of Amigal. We
expect to complete these trials by the end of 2007.
|
|
|
|
Plicera for Gaucher disease. We are developing
Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease and are currently
conducting two Phase II clinical trials of Plicera in Type
I Gaucher patients. We expect to obtain preliminary results from
the first of these two trials by the end of 2007.
|
53
|
|
|
|
|
AT2220 for Pompe disease. We are developing
AT2220 for the treatment of Pompe disease, and are currently
conducting Phase I clinical trials of AT2220. We expect to
initiate a Phase II clinical trial of AT2220 by the end of
2007.
|
Our
Pharmacological Chaperone Technology
In the human body, proteins are involved in almost every aspect
of cellular function. Proteins are linear strings of amino acids
that fold and twist into specific three-dimensional shapes in
order to function properly. Certain human diseases result from
mutations that cause changes in the amino acid sequence of a
protein which reduce its stability and may prevent it from
folding properly. The majority of genetic mutations that lead to
the production of less stable or misfolded proteins are called
missense mutations. These mutations result in the substitution
of a single amino acid for another in the protein. Because of
this error, missense mutations often result in proteins that
have a reduced level of biological activity. In addition to
missense mutations, there are also other types of mutations that
can result in proteins with reduced biological activity.
Proteins generally fold in a specific region of the cell known
as the endoplasmic reticulum, or ER. The cell has quality
control mechanisms that ensure that proteins are folded into
their correct three-dimensional shape before they can move from
the ER to the appropriate destination in the cell, a process
generally referred to as protein trafficking. Misfolded proteins
are often eliminated by the quality control mechanisms after
initially being retained in the ER. In certain instances,
misfolded proteins can accumulate in the ER before being
eliminated.
The retention of misfolded proteins in the ER interrupts their
proper trafficking, and the resulting reduced biological
activity can lead to impaired cellular function and ultimately
to disease. In addition, the accumulation of misfolded proteins
in the ER may lead to various types of stress on cells, which
may also contribute to cellular dysfunction and disease.
At Amicus, we have developed a novel approach to address human
genetic diseases. We use small molecule drugs, which are called
pharmacological chaperones, to selectively bind to a target
protein and increase its stability. The binding of the chaperone
molecule helps the protein fold into its correct
three-dimensional shape. This allows the protein to be
trafficked from the ER to the appropriate location in the cell,
thereby increasing protein activity, improving cellular function
and potentially reducing cell stress.
Pharmacological chaperones represent a new way of increasing the
levels of specific proteins to improve cellular function and
treat disease. Our proprietary approach to the discovery of
pharmacological chaperone drug candidates involves the use of
rapid molecular and cell-based screening methods combined with
our understanding of the intended biological function of
proteins implicated in disease. We use this knowledge to select
and develop compounds with desirable properties. In many cases,
we are able to start with specific molecules and classes of
compounds already known to interact with the target protein but
not used previously as therapies. This can greatly reduce the
time and cost of the early stages of drug discovery and
development.
We believe our technology is broadly applicable to other
diseases for which protein stabilization and improved folding
may be beneficial, including certain types of neurological
disease, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
We are also exploring other applications in which the ability of
pharmacological chaperones to increase the activity of normal
proteins may provide a therapeutic benefit.
Potential
Advantages of Pharmacological Chaperones for the Treatment of
Lysosomal Storage Disorders
To date, we have focused on developing pharmacological
chaperones for the treatment of lysosomal storage disorders.
Lysosomal storage disorders are a type of metabolic disorder
characterized by mutations in lysosomal enzymes, which are
specialized proteins that break down cellular substrates in a
part of the cell called the lysosome.
The current therapeutic standard of care for the most common
lysosomal storage disorders is enzyme replacement therapy.
Enzyme replacement therapy involves regular infusions of
recombinant human enzyme to compensate for the deficient
lysosomal enzyme. We believe that pharmacological chaperone
therapy may have
54
advantages relative to enzyme replacement therapy for the
treatment of lysosomal storage disorders. The following table
compares some features of enzyme replacement therapy to
pharmacological chaperone therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
Product Characteristic
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
Pharmacological Chaperone Therapy
|
|
Biodistribution
|
|
Variable tissue distribution
|
|
Broad tissue distribution,
including brain
|
Ease of Use
|
|
Weekly or every other week
intravenous infusion
|
|
Oral administration
|
Manufacturing
|
|
Recombinant protein manufacturing
|
|
Chemical synthesis
|
An additional therapeutic approach to the treatment of certain
lysosomal storage disorders is called substrate reduction
therapy. We believe our pharmacological chaperone therapies may
have advantages relative to substrate reduction therapy.
Substrate reduction therapy uses orally-administered small
molecules; however, the underlying mechanism of action is very
different than for pharmacological chaperones. Substrate
reduction therapies are designed to prevent the production of
the substrate that accumulates in disease by inhibiting an
enzyme required to make the substrate in cells. This is not the
same enzyme that is deficient in the disease. Importantly, if
synthesis of the substrate is inhibited it cannot perform its
normal biological functions. Additionally, the enzyme that is
inhibited is needed to make other molecules that are used in
other biological processes. As a result, inhibiting this enzyme
may have adverse effects that are difficult to predict. By
contrast, our pharmacological chaperones are designed to bind
directly to the enzyme deficient in the disease, increasing its
stability and helping it fold into its correct three-dimensional
shape. This in turn enables proper trafficking to the lysosome
where the enzyme can directly decrease substrate accumulation.
To date, one substrate reduction therapy product has received
regulatory approval in the United States and the European Union
for the treatment of one lysosomal storage disorder. Zavesca, a
substrate reduction therapy product commercialized by Actelion,
Ltd., is approved for the treatment of Gaucher disease in the
United States, the European Union and other countries.
Our Lead
Product Candidates
The following table summarizes key information about our product
candidates. All of our current product candidates are
orally-administered, small molecules based on our
pharmacological chaperone technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Candidate
|
|
Indication
|
|
Stage of Development
|
|
Worldwide Commercial Rights
|
|
Amigal
|
|
Fabry Disease
|
|
Phase II
|
|
Amicus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plicera
|
|
Gaucher Disease
|
|
Phase II
|
|
Amicus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT2220
|
|
Pompe Disease
|
|
Phase I
|
|
Amicus
|
Amigal
for Fabry Disease
Overview
Our most advanced product candidate, Amigal, is an
orally-administered, small molecule pharmacological chaperone
for the treatment of Fabry disease. We have completed enrollment
of our four Phase II clinical trials of Amigal and have
obtained initial results for the first eleven patients who have
completed at least 12 weeks of treatment. Each of these
patients has been treated with various doses and regimens of
Amigal for various periods of time in accordance with the
Phase II protocols. Amigal has been well-tolerated to date
with no reported drug-related serious adverse events.
The eleven patients represent ten different genetic mutations
and have baseline levels of α-GAL in white blood cells of
between 0% and 30% of normal. An increase in α-GAL enzyme
levels in white blood cells has been observed in ten out of the
eleven patients. These initial results suggest that treatment
with Amigal causes an increase in the level of
alpha-galactosidase A, or α-GAL, the enzyme deficient in
Fabry disease, in a wide range of Fabry patients. In addition,
we believe that this increase is likely to be therapeutically
meaningful because it is generally believed that even small
increases in lysosomal enzyme levels may have clinical benefits.
55
Globotriaosylceramide, or GL-3, the lipid substrate broken down
by α-GAL in the lysosome, accumulates in the cells of
patients with Fabry disease and is believed to be the cause of
the majority of disease symptoms. Reduction of the level of GL-3
in a specific cell type of the kidney was the basis of prior
regulatory approval by the FDA of an enzyme replacement therapy
for the treatment of Fabry disease. Kidney GL-3 levels are
available for two patients treated in our Phase II clinical
trials and were assessed by a blinded independent expert using
light and electron microscopy. A decrease of GL-3 levels was
observed in multiple cell types of the kidney of one patient
after 12 weeks of treatment. A second patient also showed a
decrease of GL-3 levels in these same kidney cell types after
24 weeks of treatment, but these decreases were not
independently conclusive because of the patients lower
levels of GL-3 at baseline. These initial results are consistent
with the GL-3 reductions we have observed after oral
administration of Amigal to mice that produce a form of human
α-GAL found in some Fabry patients.
We expect to complete our Phase II clinical trials of
Amigal by the end of 2007. In February 2004, the FDA granted
orphan drug designation to Amigal for the treatment of Fabry
disease and in March 2006, the European Medicines Agency, or
EMEA, recommended orphan medicinal product designation for
Amigal.
Causes
of Fabry Disease and Rationale for Use of Amigal
Fabry disease is a lysosomal storage disorder resulting from a
deficiency in α-GAL. Symptoms can be severe and
debilitating, including kidney failure and increased risk of
heart attack and stroke. The deficiency of α-GAL in Fabry
patients is caused by inherited genetic mutations. Certain of
these mutations cause changes in the amino acid sequence of
α-GAL that may result in the production of α-GAL with
reduced stability that does not fold into its correct
three-dimensional shape. Although α-GAL produced in patient
cells often retains the potential for some level of biological
activity, the cells quality control mechanisms recognize
and retain misfolded α-GAL in the endoplasmic reticulum, or
ER, until it is ultimately moved to another part of the cell for
degradation and elimination. Consequently, little or no
α-GAL moves to the lysosome, where it normally breaks down
GL-3. This leads to accumulation of GL-3 in cells, which is
believed to be the cause of the symptoms of Fabry disease. In
addition, accumulation of the misfolded α-GAL enzyme in the
ER may lead to stress on cells and inflammatory-like responses,
which may contribute to cellular dysfunction and disease.
Amigal is designed to act as a pharmacological chaperone for
α-GAL by selectively binding to the enzyme, which increases
its stability and helps the enzyme fold into its correct
three-dimensional shape. This stabilization of α-GAL allows
the cells quality control mechanisms to recognize the
enzyme as properly folded so that trafficking of the enzyme to
the lysosome is increased, enabling it to carry out its intended
biological function, the metabolism of GL-3. As a result of
restoring the proper trafficking of α-GAL from the ER to
the lysosome, Amigal also reduces the accumulation of misfolded
protein in the ER, which may alleviate stress on cells and some
inflammatory-like responses that may be contributing factors in
Fabry disease.
Because Amigal increases levels of a patients naturally
produced α-GAL, those Fabry disease patients with a
missense mutation or other genetic mutations that result in
production of α-GAL that is less stable but with some
residual enzyme activity are the ones most likely to respond to
treatment with Amigal. We estimate that the majority of patients
with Fabry disease may respond to pharmacological chaperone
therapy. Patients with genetic mutations leading to a partially
made α-GAL enzyme or α-GAL enzyme with an irreversible
loss of activity are less likely to respond to treatment with
Amigal.
Fabry
Disease Background
The clinical manifestations of Fabry disease span a broad
spectrum of severity and roughly correlate with a patients
residual α-GAL levels. The majority of currently treated
patients are referred to as classic Fabry disease patients, most
of whom are males. These patients experience disease of various
organs, including the kidneys, heart and brain, with disease
symptoms first appearing in adolescence and typically
progressing in severity until death in the fourth or fifth
decade of life. A number of recent studies suggest that there
are a large number of undiagnosed males and females that have a
range of Fabry disease symptoms, such as impaired cardiac or
renal function and strokes, that usually first appear in
adulthood. Individuals with this type
56
of Fabry disease, referred to as later-onset Fabry disease, tend
to have higher residual α-GAL levels than classic Fabry
disease patients. Although the symptoms of Fabry disease span a
spectrum of severity, it is useful to classify patients as
having classic or later-onset Fabry disease when discussing the
disease and the associated treatable population.
Classic
Fabry Disease
Individuals with classic Fabry disease are in most instances
males. They have little or no detectable α-GAL levels and
are the most severely affected. These patients first experience
disease symptoms in adolescence, including pain and tingling in
the extremities, skin lesions, a decreased ability to sweat and
clouded eye lenses. If these patients are not treated, their
life expectancy is reduced and death usually occurs in the
fourth or fifth decade of life from renal failure, cardiac
dysfunction or stroke. Studies reported in JAMA (January
1999) and The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited
Disease (8th edition 2001) suggest the annual
incidence of Fabry disease in newborn males is
1:40,000-1:60,000. Current estimates from the University of Iowa
and the National Kidney Foundation suggest that there are a
total of approximately 5,000 classic Fabry disease patients
worldwide.
Later-onset
Fabry Disease
Individuals with later-onset Fabry disease can be male or
female. They typically first experience disease symptoms in
adulthood, and often have disease symptoms focused on a single
organ. For example, many males and females with later-onset
Fabry disease have enlargement of the left ventricle of the
heart. As the patients advance in age, the cardiac complications
of the disease progress and can lead to death. Studies reported
in Circulation and Journal of the American Heart Association
(March 2002 and August 2004), estimated that 6-12% of patients
between 40 and 60 years of age with an unexplained
enlargement of the left ventricle of the heart, a condition
referred to as left ventricular hypertrophy, have Fabry disease.
A number of males and females also have later-onset Fabry
disease with disease symptoms focused on the kidney that
progress to end stage renal failure and eventually death.
Studies reported in Nephrology Dialysis Transplant (2003),
Clinical and Experimental Nephrology (2005) and Nephrology
Clinical Practice (2005) estimate that 0.20% to 0.94% of
patients on dialysis have Fabry disease.
In addition, later-onset Fabry disease may also present in the
form of strokes of unknown cause. A recent study reported in The
Lancet (November 2005) found that approximately 4% of 721
male and female patients in Germany between the ages of 18 to 55
with stroke of unknown cause have Fabry disease.
It was previously believed to be rare for female Fabry disease
patients to develop overt clinical manifestations of Fabry
disease. Fabry disease is known as an X-linked disease because
the inherited α-GAL gene mutation is located only on the X
chromosome. Females inherit an X chromosome from each parent and
therefore can inherit a Fabry mutation from either parent. By
contrast, males inherit an X chromosome (and potentially a Fabry
mutation) only from their mothers. For this reason, there are
expected to be roughly twice as many females as males that have
Fabry disease mutations. Recently, several studies reported in
the Journal of Medical Genetics (2001), the Internal Medicine
Journal (2002) and the Journal of Inherited Metabolic
Disease (2001), each of which is summarized on the website of
the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Genetics and
Genomic Sciences, report that, while the majority of females
with Fabry disease mutations have mild symptoms, many have
severe symptoms, including enlargement of the left ventricle of
the heart
and/or renal
failure.
In a recent study reported in the American Journal of Human
Genetics, more than thirty-seven thousand newborn males in Italy
were screened for α-GAL activity and mutations. The
incidence of Fabry mutations in this study was 1:3100, over ten
times higher than previous estimates. This high incidence was
attributed to a large number of newborn males with α-GAL
mutations often associated with later-onset Fabry disease, which
may not have been identified in previous screening studies that
relied on diagnosis based on development of symptoms of classic
Fabry disease.
57
Fabry
Disease Market Opportunity
Fabry disease is a relatively rare disorder. The current
estimates of approximately 5,000 patients worldwide are
generally based on a small number of studies in single ethnic
populations in which people were screened for classic Fabry
disease. The results of these studies were subsequently
extrapolated to the broader world population assuming similar
prevalence rates across populations. We believe these previously
reported studies did not account for the prevalence of
later-onset Fabry disease and, as described above, a number of
recent studies suggest that the prevalence of Fabry disease
could be many times higher than previously reported.
We expect that as awareness of later-onset Fabry disease grows,
the number of patients diagnosed with the disease will increase.
Increased awareness of all forms of Fabry disease, particularly
for specialists not accustomed to treating Fabry disease
patients, may lead to increased testing and diagnosis of
patients with the disease. We intend to develop and launch
educational and awareness campaigns targeting cardiologists,
nephrologists and neurologists regarding Fabry disease and its
diagnosis. Assuming we receive regulatory approval, we expect
these educational and awareness campaigns would continue as a
part of the marketing of Amigal. In order to facilitate the
proper diagnosis of Fabry disease patients seen by specialist
physicians, we intend to provide support for testing for the
disease, which is performed using a simple blood test for the
level of α-GAL activity.
Based on published data from the Human Gene Mutation Database
and our experience in the field, we believe the majority of the
known genetic mutations that cause Fabry disease are missense
mutations. There are few widely-occurring genetic mutations
reported for Fabry disease, suggesting that the frequency of a
specific genetic mutation reported in the Human Gene Mutation
Database reflects the approximate frequency of that mutation in
the general Fabry patient population. In addition, data
presented at the 11th International Conference on Health
Problems Related to the Chinese (2002) suggest that the
vast majority of newly diagnosed patients with later-onset Fabry
disease also have missense mutations. Because missense mutations
often result in less stable, misfolded α-GAL with some
residual enzyme activity, we believe patients with these
mutations may benefit from treatment with Amigal. We also
believe that other types of genetic mutations may result in
misfolded α-GAL and therefore may respond to treatment with
Amigal. Based on this, we believe that a majority of the Fabry
disease patient population may benefit from treatment with
Amigal.
Existing
Products for the Treatment of Fabry Disease and Potential
Advantages of Amigal
The current standard of treatment for Fabry disease is enzyme
replacement therapy. There are currently two products approved
for the treatment of Fabry disease. One of the products is
Fabrazyme, a product approved globally and commercialized by
Genzyme Corporation. Fabrazyme was approved in the United States
in 2003 and has orphan drug exclusivity in the United States
until 2010. It was approved in the European Union in 2001 and
has orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union until 2011.
The other product approved for treatment of Fabry disease is
Replagal, a product approved in the European Union and other
countries but not in the United States, commercialized by Shire
PLC. Replagal was approved in the European Union in August 2001
and has orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union until
2011. The net product sales of Fabrazyme and Replagal for 2006
were approximately $359 million and $118 million,
respectively, as publicly reported by Genzyme Corporation and
Shire PLC, respectively.
Prior to the availability of enzyme replacement therapy,
treatments for Fabry disease were directed at ameliorating
symptoms without treating the underlying disease. Some of these
treatments include opiates, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics and
antidepressants to control pain and other symptoms, and
beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors,
angiotensin receptor antagonists and other agents to treat blood
pressure and vascular disease.
For Fabry disease patients who respond to Amigal, we believe
that the use of Amigal may have advantages relative to the use
of Fabrazyme and Replagal. Published data for patients treated
with Fabrazyme and Replagal for periods of up to five years
demonstrate that these drugs can lead to the reduction of GL-3
in multiple cell types in the skin, heart and kidney. However,
because they are large protein molecules, Fabrazyme and Replagal
are believed to have difficulty penetrating some tissues and
cell types. In particular,
58
it is widely believed that Fabrazyme and Replagal are unable to
cross the blood-brain barrier and thus are unlikely to address
the neurological symptoms of Fabry disease. As a small molecule
therapy that has demonstrated high oral bioavailability and good
biodistribution properties in preclinical testing, Amigal has
the potential to reach cells of all the target tissues of Fabry
disease. Furthermore, treatment with Fabrazyme and Replagal
requires intravenous infusions every other week, frequently
on-site at
health care facilities, presenting an inconvenience to Fabry
patients. Oral treatment with Amigal may be much more convenient
for patients and may not have the safety risks associated with
intravenous infusions. See Potential Advantages of
Pharmacological Chaperones in the Treatment of Lysosomal Storage
Disorders.
In February 2004, Amigal was granted orphan drug designation by
the FDA for the treatment of Fabry disease and in March 2006 the
EMEA recommended orphan medicinal product designation for
Amigal. We believe that orphan drug designation of Fabrazyme in
the United States and of Fabrazyme and Replagal in the European
Union will not prevent us from obtaining marketing approval of
Amigal in either geography. See Government
Regulation.
Amigal
Development Activities
Preclinical
Activities
We have completed experiments in collaboration with researchers
in the field to better understand the mechanism of action of
Amigal. In one experiment we crystallized α-GAL both alone
and with Amigal. These data demonstrate that Amigal binds
directly to the active site of α-GAL. See Figure 1
below.
Figure 1:
Crystal Structure of
α-GAL
with Amigal
We have conducted multiple in vitro and in vivo preclinical
studies of Amigal. Key findings of our studies include:
|
|
|
|
|
Amigal increased α-GAL enzyme levels in cells derived from
a variety of different Fabry disease patients. Over 60 different
α-GAL missense mutations have been examined in cell culture
assays with approximately 65% showing an increase in α-GAL
enzyme levels after incubation with Amigal for several days.
|
|
|
|
Treatment of normal mice and mice that produce a form of human
α-GAL resulted in a dose-dependent increase in α-GAL
enzyme levels in a variety of tissues including skin, liver,
heart, kidney and spleen.
|
|
|
|
Treatment of mice that produce a form of human α-GAL
resulted in both an increase of α-GAL enzyme levels and a
decrease in GL-3 levels in skin, heart and kidney.
|
59
Amigal had an acceptable toxicity profile when tested at high
exposure levels in rats, dogs and monkeys. Amigal showed no
signs of systemic toxicity in two-week studies in rats, dogs and
monkeys, in six-month studies in rats and in nine-month studies
in monkeys when tested at levels that were well above those that
we are studying in our current Phase II clinical trials. In
the nine-month monkey study, all doses were well tolerated and
showed no signs of toxicity.
Some treatment-related effects on reproduction and fertility
have been observed in rabbit and rat studies. At high exposure
levels that were well above those that we are studying in our
current Phase II clinical trials, maternal toxicity studies
in rabbits showed a dose-related increase in embryonic death, a
reduction in fetal weight, delayed bone development and slightly
increased incidences of other minor skeletal abnormalities.
These effects were not seen in rats. At exposure levels within
the range of those we are studying in our current Phase II
clinical trials, male rats experienced infertility, which was
completely reversible within four weeks after discontinuation of
treatment. No treatment-related changes have been detected in
the male rat reproductive organs or sperm to account for the
infertility and no mechanism of action has been established to
explain this effect. The implications for humans, if any, of
these treatment-related reproductive and fertility effects in
rabbit and rat studies are unknown at this time. We are
currently planning additional reproductive toxicity and
carcinogenicity studies with Amigal in accordance with standard
regulatory guidelines.
Phase I
Clinical Trials
We have completed Phase I clinical trials of Amigal in a
total of 48 healthy volunteers, of which 36 were treated with
Amigal and 12 were given placebo.
|
|
|
|
|
Single Dose Phase I Trial. Our
single-dose Phase I trial was a single center, randomized,
dose ranging study in healthy volunteers. The clinical phase
began in July 2004 and was completed in November 2004. The study
consisted of a total of 32 healthy volunteers divided into four
groups of eight subjects. Six subjects in each group received
Amigal and two subjects received placebo. All subjects received
single doses of placebo or 25 mg, 75 mg, 225 mg
or 675 mg of Amigal and were evaluated on Day 1 and on Day
8. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety and
pharmacokinetics of Amigal in healthy volunteers.
|
|
|
|
Multiple-Dose Phase I Trial. Our
multiple-dose Phase I trial was a single center,
randomized, dose ranging study in healthy volunteers. The
clinical phase began in December 2004 and was completed in
January 2005. The study consisted of a total of 16 healthy
volunteers divided into two groups of eight subjects. Six
subjects in each group received Amigal and two subjects received
placebo. All subjects in one group received placebo or
50 mg twice a day for seven days, and all subjects in the
other group received placebo or 150 mg twice a day for
seven days. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of the
study, on Day 7 after seven days of treatment and on Day 14
after a seven day washout period. The objectives of the study
were to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of Amigal in
healthy volunteers and to measure α-GAL enzyme levels in
white blood cells of healthy volunteers treated with Amigal.
|
The data from our Phase I clinical trials in healthy
volunteers showed that Amigal was generally safe and well
tolerated at all doses. There were no serious adverse events and
no subjects withdrew or discontinued due to an adverse event.
The studies also demonstrate that Amigal has high oral
bioavailability with a terminal half-life in plasma of
approximately three to four hours.
In addition, the data from the multiple-dose Phase I trial
showed a dose-related increase in the level of α-GAL in the
white blood cells of healthy volunteers administered Amigal for
seven days. At the highest dose level there was approximately a
2-fold increase in levels of α-GAL, and this increase was
maintained for at least seven days after the last dose. We
believe normal enzyme levels can be increased because some
fraction of normal protein molecules can also misfold and fail
to pass the cells quality control mechanisms. Normal
α-GAL is stabilized by binding to the pharmacological
chaperone, which results in an increase in the amount
successfully trafficked to the lysosome. We believe the
sustained elevation of enzyme levels following discontinuation
of treatment occurs because the enzyme is stable for many days
once it reaches the lysosome.
60
We believe these Phase I results are the first
demonstration of an increase in enzyme levels in humans
following oral administration of a pharmacological chaperone.
Phase II
Clinical Trials
We have completed enrollment of our four open-label
Phase II clinical trials of Amigal with a target aggregate
enrollment for all four trials of between 20 and
25 patients, and have obtained initial results for the
first eleven patients who have completed at least 12 weeks
of treatment. These studies were open to male and female
patients with all forms of Fabry disease, including both classic
and later-onset Fabry disease.
In order to qualify for these clinical studies, patients must
have a confirmed diagnosis of Fabry disease with a documented
missense mutation in α-GAL and a positive result in either
an in vitro or in vivo test of the effect of Amigal on
α-GAL enzyme levels. The in vitro test requires a
simple blood draw and consists of incubation of a patients
cells derived from white blood cells, with and without Amigal
for a period of time followed by measurement of α-GAL
enzyme activity. The in vivo test involves measuring α-GAL
enzyme activity from white blood cells before and after
2 weeks of treatment to assess response. For entry into the
Phase II clinical trials, enzyme activity from a
patients white blood cells must show a relative increase
of at least 20% to 100% after treatment in the in vitro or
in vivo screen, depending on the amount of baseline α-GAL
activity.
We have four ongoing Phase II clinical trials.
|
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 201. Eight patients have
been treated in this study and an additional patient is in
screening. Enrollment is complete and the study is expected to
be finished by the end of 2007. The study consists of treatment
with Amigal for a period of twelve weeks with a possible
extension up to 48 weeks in male Fabry disease patients
that are naïve to enzyme replacement therapy or have not
had enzyme replacement therapy for at least one month. These
eight patients received 25 mg of Amigal twice a day for two
weeks, followed by 100 mg of Amigal twice a day for two
weeks, followed by 250 mg of Amigal twice a day for two
weeks and followed by 25 mg of Amigal twice a day for six
weeks. All eight patients are currently in the extension phase
and are now receiving 50 mg of Amigal once a day.
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 202. Two patients have
been treated in this study and additional patients are in
screening. Enrollment is complete and the study is expected to
be finished by the end of 2007. The study consists of treatment
with Amigal for a period of 24 weeks with a possible
extension to 48 weeks in male Fabry disease patients that
are naïve to enzyme replacement therapy or have not had
enzyme replacement therapy for at least one month. All patients
will receive 150 mg of Amigal every other day during the
duration of the study.
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 203. Four patients have
been treated in this study and additional patients are in
screening. Enrollment is complete and the study is expected to
be finished by the end of 2007. The study consists of treatment
with Amigal for a period of 12 weeks with a possible
extension to 48 weeks in male Fabry disease patients that
are naïve to enzyme replacement therapy or have not had
enzyme replacement therapy for at least one month. All patients
will receive 150 mg of Amigal every other day during the
duration of the study.
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 204. Five patients have
been treated in this study and additional patients are in
screening. Enrollment is complete and the study is expected to
be finished by the end of 2007. The study consists of treatment
with Amigal for a period of 12 weeks with a possible
extension to 48 weeks in female Fabry disease patients that
are naïve to enzyme replacement therapy or have not had
enzyme replacement therapy for at least one month. Patients will
receive 50 mg, 150 mg or 250 mg doses of Amigal
every other day for 12 weeks. If the patient participates
in the extension phase, the dose during the extension will be
determined based on data from the first 12 weeks.
|
The primary objective of the Phase II clinical trials is to
evaluate the safety and tolerability of Amigal in patients with
Fabry disease. The secondary objective is to evaluate certain
pharmacodynamic measures of treatment with Amigal including
effects on α-GAL activity and GL-3 levels. GL-3 levels are
measured from skin biopsies,
61
kidney biopsies, plasma and urine of patients in all four
ongoing Phase II clinical studies of Amigal except Study
201 which does not include kidney biopsies. An additional
objective of the Phase II clinical trials is the
preliminary assessment of Amigals effect on cardiac, renal
and central nervous system function in Fabry disease patients.
Preliminary Data From Our Ongoing Phase II Clinical
Trials
We have obtained initial results for the first eleven patients
who have completed at least 12 weeks of treatment in our
Phase II clinical trials of Amigal. Amigal has been
well-tolerated to date with no reported drug-related serious
adverse events. Four patients have been on Amigal for over a
year. Adverse events were mostly mild and reported by the
investigators as unlikely to be related to Amigal. One patient
with a history of hypertension discontinued study treatment due
to increased blood pressure, which was reported by the
investigator as possibly related to the study drug.
Initial results for the first eleven patients suggest that
treatment with Amigal causes an increase in the level of
α-GAL that we believe is likely to be clinically meaningful
for a wide range of Fabry patients. Figure 2 below
summarizes the available white blood cell α-GAL data for
all eleven patients that have completed at least 12 weeks
of treatment.
Figure
2: Enzyme Activity Response to Treatment with
Amigal
Patients in the 202, 203 and 204
studies received 150 mg of Amigal every other day throughout the
study.
For purposes of calculating the
percentage of normal in the table, the level of α-GAL that
is normal was derived by using the average of the levels of
α-GAL in white blood cells of 15 healthy volunteers from
the multiple-dose Phase I trial.
62
A summary of the preliminary data displayed in Figure 2 is
provided below.
|
|
|
|
|
The eleven patients represent ten different genetic mutations.
|
|
|
|
The eleven patients consist of ten males and one female.
|
|
|
|
The eleven patients have baseline levels of α-GAL enzyme
activity in white blood cells that range from 0% to 30% of
normal.
|
|
|
|
Patients have been treated with various doses and regimens of
Amigal for various periods of time in accordance with relevant
protocols of our Phase II clinical trials.
|
|
|
|
An increase in the level of α-GAL in white blood cells was
observed in ten out of eleven patients.
|
|
|
|
The results suggest a dose dependence particularly in several
patients in Study 201, which included ascending doses
through Week 6 and then a significantly decreased dose
thereafter.
|
|
|
|
We believe the α-GAL responses observed are likely to be
therapeutically meaningful because it is generally believed that
even small increases in lysosomal enzyme levels may have
clinical benefits.
|
|
|
|
We believe that these results provide the first evidence in
patients of an effect of an orally administered pharmacological
chaperone on its intended protein target.
|
GL-3, the lipid substrate broken down by α-GAL in the
lysosome, accumulates in the cells of patients with Fabry
disease and is believed to be the cause of the majority of
disease symptoms. Reduction of the level of GL-3 in cells of the
interstitial capillaries of the kidney was the basis of prior
regulatory approval by the FDA of an enzyme replacement therapy
for the treatment of Fabry disease. Initial data on kidney GL-3
levels before and after treatment with Amigal are available for
two patients in our Phase II clinical trials.
Kidney GL-3 levels were assessed by an independent expert using
light and electron microscopy. The expert was blinded to sample
identification, including patient information and whether the
sample came from a patient before or after treatment. GL-3
accumulation in each cell type was scored using a scale of
0-3 units, with 3 indicating severe GL-3, 2 indicating
moderate GL-3, 1 indicating mild GL-3, and 0 indicating no GL-3.
When the level of GL-3 in a cell was assessed to be in between
scoring units, half point scores were used. For example, a score
of 0.5 designates a cell with detectable GL-3, but at levels
that are not as high as in a cell scored as 1. A change in GL-3
of at least 1 unit is considered conclusive. This same
scoring system was used for the prior regulatory approval by the
FDA of an enzyme replacement therapy for the treatment of Fabry
disease.
63
Figure
3: GL-3 Response to Treatment with Amigal in Various
Kidney Cell Types
A summary of the preliminary data displayed in Figure 3 is
provided below.
|
|
|
|
|
A decrease in GL-3 of at least 1 unit was observed in the
kidney of one patient after 12 weeks of treatment in
mesangial cells and the cells of the glomerular endothelium and
distal tubules.
|
|
|
|
A second patient also showed a decrease of GL-3 levels in these
same kidney cell types. In this patient, some of the scores were
zero after treatment, but the decreases cannot be considered
conclusive on their own because they involved a change of less
than 1 full unit due to the lower levels of GL-3 observed
at baseline.
|
|
|
|
Both patients showed a decrease of GL-3 levels in other kidney
cell types including cells of the interstitial capillaries, but
the decreases were less than 1 unit and, thus, even though
the post-treatment GL-3 score was zero, cannot be considered
independently conclusive.
|
|
|
|
Some kidney cell types such as podocyte cells did not show signs
of GL-3 reduction.
|
|
|
|
Results are presented as determined by electron microscopy,
however light and electron microscopy values were generally
consistent with one another.
|
|
|
|
These initial results are consistent with the GL-3 reductions
observed after oral administration of Amigal to mice that
produce a form of human α-GAL.
|
|
|
|
We believe that these data are the first evidence in patients of
treatment with a pharmacological chaperone resulting in an
effect on the biological activity of the intended protein target.
|
A summary of additional preliminary data from the first eleven
patients that have completed 12 weeks of treatment is
provided below.
Skin GL-3 levels at baseline and after treatment as assessed by
light and electron microscopy are available for
10 patients. Seven patients had skin GL-3 levels that were
normal or near normal both before and after treatment. Results
for the three other patients were difficult to interpret because
they showed evidence of a decrease in GL-3 in some skin cell
types and an increase in GL-3 in other skin cell types, with
variability over time.
64
Urine and plasma GL-3 levels at baseline and after treatment as
assessed by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry are
available for 10 patients. Most patients had GL-3 levels in
urine and plasma that were normal or near normal both before and
after treatment. For the few patients that had elevated levels
of GL-3 in urine or plasma at baseline, the results were
difficult to interpret due to high intra-patient variability.
Most patients in these studies had normal or near normal
cardiac, renal and central nervous system function before
treatment, and no clinically meaningful changes have been
observed after 12 to 48 weeks of treatment.
The available data from the first eleven patients suggest that
treatment with Amigal causes an increase in the level of
α-GAL for a wide range of Fabry patients. We believe that
this increase is likely to be therapeutically meaningful because
it is generally believed that even small increases in lysosomal
enzyme levels may have clinical benefits. We also believe the
initial kidney GL-3 data suggest that the increased level of
α-GAL that occurs after treatment with Amigal may result in
a decrease in the substrate believed to be the cause of the
symptoms of Fabry disease. Reduction of the level of GL-3 in
cells of the interstitial capillaries of the kidney was the
basis of prior regulatory approval by the FDA of an enzyme
replacement therapy for the treatment of Fabry disease. We
believe the preliminary results from the first eleven Fabry
patients support the continuation of our current Phase II
clinical trials.
The results of our Phase II clinical trials to date do not
necessarily predict final results for our Phase II clinical
trials. The results from additional patients in our ongoing
Phase II clinical trials or additional data from these
first eleven patients may cause the assessment of our
Phase II trials to differ from or be less favorable than
the assessment based on the initial results presented above. We
cannot guarantee that our Phase II clinical trials will
ultimately be successful.
Plicera
for Gaucher Disease
Overview
Our second most advanced clinical product candidate, Plicera, is
an orally-administered, small molecule, pharmacological
chaperone for the treatment of Gaucher disease. We completed
Phase I clinical trials which demonstrated that Plicera was
safe and well tolerated in healthy subjects at all doses tested.
We are currently conducting Phase II clinical trials of
Plicera in Type I Gaucher patients. We expect to complete
enrollment and obtain preliminary results of our Phase II
trials in 2007. In February 2006, the FDA granted orphan drug
designation for Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease in
the United States.
Causes
of Gaucher Disease and Rationale for Use of
Plicera
Gaucher disease is a lysosomal storage disorder resulting from a
deficiency in the enzyme,
-glucocerebrosidase,
or GCase. Signs and symptoms can be severe and debilitating,
including an enlarged liver and spleen, abnormally low levels of
red blood cells and platelets, and skeletal complications. In
some forms of the disease there is also significant impairment
of the central nervous system. The deficiency of GCase in
Gaucher patients is caused by inherited genetic mutations.
Certain of these mutations cause changes in the amino acid
sequence of GCase that may result in the production of GCase
with reduced stability that does not fold into its correct
three-dimensional shape. Although GCase produced in patient
cells often retains the potential for some level of biological
activity, the cells quality control mechanisms recognize
and retain misfolded GCase in the ER until it is ultimately
moved to another part of the cell for degradation and
elimination. Consequently, little or no GCase moves to the
lysosome, where it normally breaks down its substrate, a complex
lipid called glucocerebroside. This leads to accumulation of
glucocerebroside in cells, which is believed to result in the
clinical manifestations of Gaucher disease. In addition, the
accumulation of the misfolded GCase enzyme in the ER may lead to
cellular stress and inflammatory-like responses, which may
contribute to cellular dysfunction and disease.
Plicera is designed to act as a pharmacological chaperone for
GCase by selectively binding to the enzyme, which increases the
stability of the enzyme and helps it fold into its correct
three-dimensional shape. This stabilization of GCase allows the
cells quality control mechanisms to recognize the enzyme
as properly
65
folded so that trafficking of the enzyme to the lysosome is
increased, enabling it to carry out its intended biological
function, the metabolism of glucocerebroside. As a result of
restoring proper trafficking of GCase from the ER to lysosomes,
Plicera reduces the accumulation of misfolded GCase in the ER,
which may alleviate cellular stress and inflammatory-like
responses that may be contributing factors in Gaucher disease.
Because Plicera increases the cellular levels of a
patients naturally produced GCase, those Gaucher disease
patients with a missense mutation or other genetic mutation that
results in production of GCase that is less stable but with some
residual enzyme activity are the ones most likely to respond to
treatment with Plicera. We estimate that the substantial
majority of patients with Gaucher disease may respond to
pharmacological chaperone therapy. Patients with genetic
mutations leading to a partially made GCase enzyme or GCase
enzyme with an irreversible loss of activity are less likely to
respond to treatment with Plicera.
Gaucher
Disease Background
Gaucher disease is often described in terms of the following
three clinical subtypes:
|
|
|
|
|
Type I Chronic Nonneuronopathic Gaucher
Disease. Type I Gaucher disease is the most
common subtype affecting more than 90% of patients and symptoms
usually first appear in adulthood. Type I Gaucher disease is
characterized by the occurrence of an enlarged spleen and liver,
anemia, low platelet counts and fractures and bone pain.
Patients with Type I Gaucher disease do not experience the
neurological features associated with Types II and III
Gaucher disease. The clinical severity of Type I Gaucher disease
is extremely variable with some patients experiencing the full
range of symptoms, while others are asymptomatic throughout most
of their lives.
|
|
|
|
Type II Acute Neuronopathic Gaucher
Disease. Type II Gaucher disease symptoms
typically appear in infancy with an average age of onset of
about three months. Type II Gaucher disease involves rapid
neurodegeneration with extensive visceral involvement that
usually results in death before two years of age, typically due
to respiratory complications. The clinical presentation in
Type II Gaucher disease is typically more uniform than Type
I Gaucher disease.
|
|
|
|
Type III Subacute Neuronopathic Gaucher
Disease. Type III Gaucher disease symptoms
typically first appear in infancy or early childhood and involve
some neurological symptoms, along with visceral and bone
complications. Age of onset and disease severity can vary
widely. Disease progression in Type III Gaucher disease is
typically slower than in Type II Gaucher disease.
|
Gaucher
Disease Market Opportunity
Gaucher disease is a relatively rare disorder. According to
estimates reported by the American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists (August 2003) and the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke (updated as of January
2006) there are approximately 10,000 patients
worldwide. Type I Gaucher disease is, by far, the most common of
the subtypes.
Published data, including data from the Human Gene Mutation
Database, suggest that the substantial majority of patients with
Gaucher disease have a missense mutation in at least one copy of
the gene. The majority of the Type I Gaucher patients in the
United States, Europe and Israel have at least one copy of
either the N370S or the L444P mutation, both of which are
missense mutations. Based on our experience in the field and
studies we have completed, including a Gaucher Ex Vivo Response
Study, we believe that the substantial majority of individuals
with Gaucher disease may benefit from treatment with Plicera. In
addition, we believe that Plicera may also benefit some patients
with the neuronopathic forms of Gaucher disease (Type II
and Type III) because of the ability of the small molecule
to cross the blood-brain barrier.
Existing
Products for the Treatment of Gaucher Disease and Potential
Advantages of Plicera
The current standard of treatment for Gaucher patients is enzyme
replacement therapy. There are currently two products approved
for the treatment of Gaucher disease, one of which is an enzyme
replacement therapy. One of the products is Cerezyme, an enzyme
replacement therapy approved globally and commercialized by
Genzyme Corporation. Cerezyme was approved in the United States
in 1994 and in the European Union in
66
1997 and no longer has orphan drug exclusivity in the United
States. In the United States, Cerezyme is indicated for
long-term enzyme replacement therapy for pediatric and adult
patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Type I Gaucher disease.
In the European Union, it is indicated for long-term enzyme
replacement therapy for pediatric and adult patients with a
confirmed diagnosis of Type I Gaucher disease and for
Type III Gaucher disease patients who exhibit clinically
significant non-neurological manifestations. The other product
approved for treatment of Gaucher disease is Zavesca, a
substrate reduction therapy product approved in the United
States, the European Union and other countries and
commercialized by Actelion, Ltd. Zavesca was approved in the
United States in 2003 and has orphan drug exclusivity in the
United States until 2010. It was approved in the European Union
in 2002 and has orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union
until 2012. It is indicated for adults with mild to moderate
Type I Gaucher disease for whom enzyme replacement therapy is
not an option. The net product sales of Cerezyme and Zavesca for
the year 2006 were approximately $1.0 billion and
$20 million, respectively, as publicly reported by Genzyme
Corporation and Actelion Ltd. respectively.
For Gaucher disease patients who respond to Plicera, we believe
that the use of Plicera may have advantages relative to the use
of Cerezyme. Published data demonstrate that treatment with
Cerezyme can lead to the reduction of glucocerebroside in
multiple tissue types, especially the liver and spleen, and to
increased levels of red blood cells and platelets. However,
because it is a large protein molecule, Cerezyme is believed to
have difficulty penetrating some tissues and cell types. In
particular, it is widely believed that Cerezyme is unable to
cross the blood-brain barrier and thus unlikely to address the
neurological symptoms of Type II and Type III Gaucher
disease. Studies in animals show that Plicera distributes
throughout the body. In particular, studies show that Plicera
crosses the blood-brain barrier, suggesting that it may provide
a clinical benefit to patients with Type II and
Type III Gaucher disease. Additionally, treatment with
Cerezyme requires intravenous infusions every other week,
presenting an inconvenience to Gaucher disease patients. Oral
treatment with Plicera may be more convenient for patients and
may not have the safety risks associated with intravenous
infusions. See Potential Advantages of Pharmacological
Chaperones in the Treatment of Lysosomal Storage Disorders.
We also believe that Plicera may have advantages over the use of
Zavesca, a substrate reduction therapy. Zavesca is an
orally-administered small molecule; however, the underlying
mechanism of action is very different than for pharmacological
chaperones. Substrate reduction therapies are designed to
prevent the production of the substrate that accumulates in
disease by inhibiting an enzyme required to make the substrate
in cells. This is not the same enzyme that is deficient in
Gaucher disease. Importantly, the enzyme that is inhibited is
needed to make molecules that are used for many types of
biological processes. As a result, inhibiting this enzyme may
have adverse effects that are difficult to predict. By contrast,
Plicera is designed to bind directly to GCase, increasing its
stability and helping it fold into its correct three-dimensional
shape. This in turn enables proper trafficking to the lysosome
where it can directly decrease substrate accumulation. Several
side effects were reported by Actelion, Ltd. in clinical trials
of Zavesca, including diarrhea, which was observed in more than
85% of patients who received the drug. Other side effects
included hand tremors and numbness and tingling in the hands,
arms, legs or feet. Pliceras mechanism of action is very
different from Zavescas, and we do not expect it to have
the same side-effect profile.
In February 2006, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for
the active ingredient in Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher
disease in the United States. We believe that the orphan drug
designation of Zavesca in the United States and the European
Union will not prevent us from obtaining marketing approval of
Plicera in either geography. See Government
Regulation.
Plicera
Development Activities
Preclinical
Activities
We have conducted experiments in collaboration with researchers
in the field to better understand the mechanism of action of
Plicera. The primary conclusions of these experiments are
summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
We have crystallized GCase both alone and with Plicera. These
structural data demonstrate that Plicera binds directly to the
active site of GCase. See Figure 4 below.
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
In vitro exposure to Plicera increased transport of GCase to the
lysosome in cells derived from a patient with the N370S
mutation. Once in the lysosome, the enzyme was stable and active
for more than 3 days after Plicera was removed. The N370S is the
most common mutation associated with Gaucher disease in the
western world.
|
Figure
4: Crystal Structure of GCase with Plicera
We have conducted several in vitro and in vivo preclinical
studies of Plicera. Key findings of our studies are listed below.
|
|
|
|
|
Oral administration of Plicera to both normal mice and mice
expressing the L444P mutation resulted in a dose-dependent
increase in GCase levels in the liver, spleen, brain and lungs.
The L444P is one of the most common mutations associated with
Gaucher disease.
|
|
|
|
Oral administration of Plicera to L444P mice resulted in
decreased spleen and liver weights and reduced plasma IgG and
chitin III levels, which are biomarkers related to Gaucher
disease.
|
|
|
|
Oral administration of Plicera resulted in increased GCase
levels in cells from hard bone and bone marrow in mice.
|
In 14-day,
short-term, repeat dose, oral administration studies in rats and
monkeys, no mortality or morbidity was observed at dose levels
up to 1,500 mg/kg of Plicera. This dose was significantly
higher than the human equivalent doses being considered for our
future clinical studies. All toxicities were found to be
reversible or showed a trend toward reversibility. The clinical
implications of these preclinical observations are unknown at
this time. The primary treatment-related toxicities were
thickening of the lining of the forestomach of rats and mild
reddening of the skin of monkeys. The forestomach is a region of
the stomach that is only present in rodents and its lining is
structurally similar to skin.
Six-month data from
9-month,
repeat dose, oral administration studies in rats and monkeys
showed that there was no mortality or morbidity at dose levels
up to 200 mg/kg of Plicera. As in the
14-day
toxicology studies, the primary treatment-related toxicities
were thickening of the lining of the forestomach of rats and
mild reddening of the skin of monkeys. All toxicities were found
to be dose related and reversible or showed a trend toward
reversibility. The clinical implications of these preclinical
observations are unknown at this time. While the toxicities were
observed at exposures comparable to the projected human
exposure, the effect on the skin of the monkeys was very mild
and any potential effect on the skin of humans could be readily
monitored. In our
7-day,
multiple-dose Phase I clinical trial of Plicera, no
comparable effects on skin were observed.
68
Plicera has been tested for genotoxicity in a battery of both
in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays. The results of
these studies suggest that Plicera has an acceptable safety
profile. We are currently conducting standard reproductive
toxicity studies of Plicera and planning standard
carcinogenicity studies.
Gaucher
Ex Vivo Response Study
We have completed a study that corroborates our belief that a
substantial majority of Gaucher patients may benefit from
treatment with Plicera. The study evaluated and characterized
the effects of Plicera in cells derived from patients with
Gaucher disease. In this study, patients did not receive Plicera
directly but provided blood samples from which certain cell
types were isolated. We measured GCase levels in these cells
before treatment and after incubation with Plicera for several
days. We also measured biomarkers associated with Gaucher
disease and other exploratory biomarkers. Preliminary data are
available from 40 of the 53 patients who were enrolled in
this study. These 40 patients included 21 males and 18
females with Type I Gaucher disease, the most common subtype of
Gaucher disease which accounts for more than 90% of cases. In
addition, preliminary data are available from one male with
type III Gaucher disease. Out of these 40 patients, 34
(85%) had at least one copy of the GCase gene with the N370S
mutation, the most common mutation in Type I Gaucher disease in
the western world, found in more than 80% of the patient
population. Patients ranged in age from 7 to 83 years, 38
of 40 patients were receiving enzyme replacement therapy
and blood was drawn prior to infusion. We were able to derive
usable cells from 34 of 40 subjects. A summary of the
preliminary findings from the study is given below.
|
|
|
|
|
Plicera increased GCase levels in cells derived from 32 of
34 patients (94%).
|
|
|
|
Plicera increased GCase levels in cells derived from 28 of
29 patients (97%) with an N370S mutation and from 4 of
5 patients with mutations other than N370S.
|
Phase I
Clinical Trials
We have completed two Phase I clinical trials of Plicera in
a total of 72 healthy volunteers, of which 54 were treated with
Plicera and 18 were given placebo.
|
|
|
|
|
Single-Dose Phase I Trial. Our
single-dose Phase I trial was a single center, randomized,
dose ranging study in healthy volunteers. The clinical phase
began in June 2006 and was completed in September 2006. The
study consisted of a total of 48 healthy volunteers divided into
six groups of eight subjects. Six subjects in each group
received oral administration of Plicera and two subjects
received placebo. All subjects received single doses of placebo
or 8 mg, 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 150 mg
(repeat) or 300 mg of Plicera and were evaluated on Days 1
to 3 and on Day 7. The objectives of the study were to evaluate
the safety and pharmacokinetics of Plicera in healthy volunteers.
|
|
|
|
Multiple-Dose Phase I Trial. Our
multiple-dose Phase I trial was a single center,
randomized, dose ranging study in healthy volunteers. The
clinical phase began in August 2006 and was completed in October
2006. The study consisted of a total of 24 healthy volunteers
divided into three groups of eight subjects. Six subjects in
each group received oral administration of Plicera and two
subjects received placebo. All subjects received placebo or
25 mg, 75 mg or 225 mg of Plicera once a day for
seven days. Subjects were evaluated on Days 1 to 7 and
Days 9, 14 and 21. The objectives of the study were to
evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of Plicera in healthy
volunteers and to measure the level of GCase enzyme levels in
white blood cells of healthy volunteers who received Plicera.
|
The data from our Phase I clinical trials in healthy
volunteers showed that Plicera was generally safe and well
tolerated at all doses. There were no serious adverse events and
no subjects withdrew or discontinued due to an adverse event. In
these studies, Plicera was shown to have good oral
bioavailability and linear pharmacokinetics with a terminal
half-life in plasma of approximately fourteen hours. Also, the
data from the multiple-dose Phase I trial showed a
statistically significant, dose-related increase in GCase levels
in the white blood cells of normal, healthy volunteers who
received oral administration of Plicera for seven days. The
results are summarized below in Figure 5.
69
Figure
5: GCase Response to Plicera in Normal Volunteers
GCase activity was measured in white blood cells isolated from
subjects receiving Plicera in daily oral doses for 7 days.
Compared to placebo, GCase activity was significantly higher and
increased over time in all treatment groups. GCase activity also
increased with dose with the most marked increase, in absolute
terms, between 25 and 75 mg. Relative percent increases at
day 7 (time of maximal increase) compared to baseline were 147%,
209% and 279% at 25, 75 and 225 mg, respectively. Upon
discontinuation of Plicera, GCase activity declined, returning
to or near to baseline by day 21 (14 days of wash-out). The
terminal half-life for decline of GCase activity upon removal of
Plicera is about 4 to 5 days.
In addition to our findings in the Fabry disease studies, we
believe these Phase I results are the only other
demonstration of an increase in enzyme levels in humans
following oral administration of a pharmacological chaperone. We
believe normal enzyme levels can be increased because some
fraction of normal protein molecules can also misfold and fail
to pass the cells quality control mechanisms. Normal GCase
is stabilized by binding to the pharmacological chaperone, which
results in an increase in the amount of enzyme successfully
trafficked to the lysosome.
Phase II
Clinical Trials
We are conducting two open-label Phase II clinical trials
in up to 48 adult male and female patients with Type I Gaucher
disease. In order to qualify for these clinical studies,
patients must have a confirmed diagnosis of Type I Gaucher
disease with a documented missense mutation in GCase. We expect
to obtain preliminary results from the first of these two
Phase II trials by the end of 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 201. We are conducting a
Phase II trial in which we are seeking to enroll
32 patients with Type I Gaucher disease who are currently
receiving enzyme replacement therapy and have agreed to
discontinue their enzyme replacement therapy for a total of
7 weeks. The study is designed to assess the safety and
pharmacodynamic effects of Plicera, particularly its effect on
GCase levels. We will also monitor the effect of Plicera on
parameters that are commonly abnormal in Gaucher disease
including levels of red blood cells and platelets, although we
do not expect to observe a change in these parameters in this
4-week trial
because of its short duration. Patients will be assigned to one
of four treatment arms and will receive Plicera for 4 weeks.
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
Phase II Study 202. We are conducting a
Phase II trial in which we are seeking to enroll
16 patients with Type I Gaucher disease who are naïve
to enzyme replacement therapy and substrate reduction therapy.
The study is designed to evaluate the safety of Plicera and its
effect on parameters that are commonly abnormal in Gaucher
disease including levels of red blood cells, platelets, liver
and spleen volumes and other biomarkers related to Gaucher
disease. Patients will be assigned to one of two treatment arms
and will receive treatment with Plicera for approximately
6 months.
|
AT2220 for Pompe Disease
Overview
Our third most advanced product candidate, AT2220, is an
orally-administered small molecule pharmacological chaperone for
the treatment of Pompe disease. We are currently conducting
Phase I clinical trials of AT2220 for Pompe disease.
Causes
of Pompe Disease and Rationale for Use of AT2220
Pompe disease is a neuromuscular and lysosomal storage disorder
caused by a deficiency in the enzyme
α-glucosidase,
or Gaa. Symptoms can be severe and debilitating, including
progressive muscle weakness throughout the body, particularly
the heart and skeletal muscles. The deficiency of Gaa in Pompe
patients is caused by inherited genetic mutations. Certain of
these mutations cause changes in the amino acid sequence of Gaa
that may result in the production of Gaa with reduced stability
that does not fold into its correct three-dimensional shape.
Although Gaa produced in patient cells often retains the
potential for biological activity, the cells quality
control mechanisms recognize and retain misfolded Gaa in the ER,
until it is ultimately moved to another part of the cell for
degradation and elimination. Certain other mutations cause
changes in RNA processing that lead to the production of normal
Gaa, but at levels that are much lower than in an unaffected
individual. In either case, little or no Gaa moves to the
lysosome, where it normally breaks down its substrate, glycogen.
This leads to accumulation of glycogen in cells, which is
believed to result in the majority of clinical manifestations of
Pompe disease. In addition, the accumulation and mistrafficking
of Gaa may lead to stress on cells and inflammatory-like
responses, which may contribute to cellular dysfunction and
disease.
AT2220 is designed to act as a pharmacological chaperone for Gaa
by selectively binding to Gaa and increasing its stability which
helps the enzyme fold into its correct three-dimensional shape.
We believe this stabilization of Gaa allows the cells
quality control mechanisms to recognize the protein as properly
folded so that trafficking of the enzyme to the lysosome is
increased, enabling it to carry out its intended biological
function, the metabolism of glycogen. We believe AT2220 may
increase proper trafficking of Gaa in patients that produce
unstable misfolded Gaa, and in patients that produce low levels
of normal Gaa because some fraction of normal Gaa can also fail
to pass the cells quality control system. In addition, as
a result of increasing the proper trafficking of unstable
misfolded Gaa to the lysosome, AT2220 may reduce the
accumulation of misfolded Gaa in the ER, which may alleviate
cellular stress and inflammatory-like responses that may be
contributing factors in Pompe disease.
Because AT2220 is believed to increase the activity of a
patients naturally produced Gaa, those Pompe disease
patients with a mutation that results in production of Gaa with
some residual enzyme activity are the ones most likely to
respond to treatment with AT2220. We estimate that the majority
of patients with Pompe disease may respond to pharmacological
chaperone therapy. Patients with genetic mutations leading to a
partially made Gaa enzyme or Gaa enzyme with an irreversible
loss of activity are less likely to respond to treatment with
AT2220.
Pompe
Disease Background
Pompe disease, also known as glycogen storage disease
type II or acid maltase deficiency, is a relatively rare
disorder caused by mutations in Gaa. The mutations in Gaa result
in the accumulation of lysosomal glycogen, especially in
skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle tissues. According to
reported estimates of the
71
Acid Maltase Deficiency Association, the United Pompe Foundation
and the Lysosomal Disease Program at Massachusetts General
Hospital, there are 5,000-10,000 patients with Pompe
disease worldwide.
Pompe disease ranges from a rapidly fatal infantile form with
severe cardiac involvement to a more slowly progressive,
later-onset form primarily affecting skeletal muscle. All forms
are characterized by severe muscle weakness that worsens over
time. In the rapid onset form, patients are usually diagnosed
shortly after birth and often experience enlargement of the
heart and severe muscle weakness. In later-onset Pompe disease,
symptoms may not appear until late childhood or adulthood and
patients often experience progressive muscle weakness.
Pompe
Disease Market Opportunity
Pompe disease is a relatively rare disorder. Most reported
estimates project that there are 5,000 to 10,000 patients
worldwide, the majority of whom have later-onset Pompe disease.
Based on published data from the Human Gene Mutation Database
and our experience in the field, we believe that many of the
known genetic mutations that cause Pompe disease are mutations
that result in measurable residual enzyme activity. The majority
of Pompe patients have either juvenile or adult-onset disease,
and both types of patients generally have measurable levels of
residual enzyme activity. Because pharmacological chaperone
therapy is most likely to benefit patients with some residual
enzyme activity, we believe that a majority of the Pompe patient
population may benefit from treatment with AT2220. There are a
few mutations reported in Pompe disease that are more common in
specific ethnic populations, including a splice-site mutation
common in Caucasians with adult-onset disease. Studies published
in the Journal of Medical Genetics, Human Mutation, and the
Journal of Neurology suggest that over 70% of all Caucasians
with adult-onset Pompe disease have at least one copy of this
splice-site mutation. Because this splice-site mutation results
in the production of normal Gaa protein, albeit at a level lower
than in a non-affected individual, we believe patients with this
mutation may be addressable with pharmacological chaperone
therapy.
Existing
Products for the Treatment of Pompe Disease and Potential
Advantages of AT2220
The current standard of treatment for Pompe patients is enzyme
replacement therapy. There is currently one product approved for
the treatment of Pompe disease, Myozyme, approved in the United
States and the European Union and commercialized by Genzyme
Corporation. Myozyme was approved in the United States in April
2006 and has orphan drug exclusivity in the United States until
2013. It was approved in the European Union in March 2006 and
has orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union until 2016.
Although Myozyme is approved for use in all Pompe patients,
studies have only been reported in infantile-onset disease. No
data have been reported on the safety or efficacy of Myozyme in
later-onset disease. The net product sales of Myozyme for 2006
were approximately $59 million as publicly reported by
Genzyme Corporation.
For Pompe disease patients who respond to AT2220, we believe
that the use of AT2220 may have advantages relative to the use
of Myozyme. Available data demonstrate that treatment with
Myozyme can improve survival in patients with the infantile form
of the disease. Because it is a large protein molecule, Myozyme
is believed to have difficulty penetrating many tissues and cell
types. Because AT2220 is a small molecule that has demonstrated
high oral bioavailability and good biodistribution properties in
preclinical testing, it has the potential to reach all cells of
the target tissues of Pompe disease patients. Furthermore,
treatment with Myozyme requires intravenous infusions every
other week, frequently on site at health care facilities,
presenting an inconvenience to Pompe disease patients. The label
for Myozyme also indicates that the infusion has safety
concerns, with infusion reactions observed in 51% of patients,
and severe infusion-related reactions observed in 14% of
patients. Oral treatment with AT2220 may be more convenient for
patients and may not have the safety risks associated with
intravenous infusions. See Potential Advantages of
Pharmacological Chaperones in the Treatment of Lysosomal Storage
Disorders.
We believe that the orphan drug designation of Myozyme in the
United States and in the European Union will not prevent us from
obtaining marketing approval of AT2220 in either geography. See
Government Regulation.
72
AT2220
Development Activities
Preclinical Activities
We have conducted multiple in vitro and in vivo preclinical
studies of AT2220. Key findings of our studies include:
|
|
|
|
|
AT2220 increased levels of the active, mature form of Gaa in
cells engineered to express different human Gaa missense
mutations and in cells derived from patients with Pompe disease.
|
|
|
|
Oral administration of AT2220 to normal mice resulted in an
approximately 5-fold increase in the level of Gaa activity in
most tissues examined, including heart, brain, diaphragm,
soleus, tongue, and gastocnemius muscle. This increase in Gaa
was assessed using a lysed cell enzyme activity assay and was
correlated with increased levels of the mature form of Gaa in
heart and gastrocnemius.
|
AT2220 demonstrated a favorable pharmacokinetic profile when
tested in rats and monkeys, including good oral bioavailability
and a terminal half-life of approximately 5 hours in rats,
and 3 hours in monkeys. No mortality or morbidity was
observed in the
14-day
repeat dose, oral administration studies in rats and monkeys at
dose levels up to 2,000 mg/kg of AT2220 in rats and up to
1,000 mg/kg of AT2220 in monkeys. The primary
treatment-related toxicity observed in rats was decreased body
weight gain which was correlated with decreased food
consumption. These findings were modest and only occurred at the
highest dose level. The primary treatment-related toxicities
observed in monkeys were red blood cell, hemoglobin and
hematocrit counts that were slightly lower relative to control.
These toxicities were considered to be minimal and were observed
in male and female monkeys at the highest dose, and male monkeys
at the second highest dose. All of the observed toxicities in
rats and monkeys were found to be reversible or showed a trend
toward reversibility, and occurred only at doses that are
significantly higher than the human equivalent doses being
considered for clinical studies. The clinical implications of
these preclinical observations are unknown at this time. Chronic
toxicity testing of AT2220 is ongoing in
6-month rat
studies and
9-month
monkey studies. We are currently planning reproductive toxicity
and carcinogenicity studies of AT2220.
Phase I Clinical Trials
We have completed a single-dose Phase I clinical trial of
AT2220 and plan to initiate a multiple-dose Phase I
clinical trial. Our single-dose Phase I study was a single
center, randomized, dose-ranging study in healthy volunteers.
The clinical phase began in December 2006 and was completed in
February 2007. The study consisted of a total of 32 healthy
volunteers divided into four groups of eight subjects. Six
subjects in each group received AT2220 and two subjects received
placebo. All subjects received single doses of placebo or
50 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or 600 mg of AT2220
and were evaluated on Day 1 and on Day 8. The objectives of the
study was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AT2220
in healthy volunteers. The data from our single-dose
Phase I clinical trial in healthy volunteers showed that
AT2220 was well tolerated. The study also demonstrated that
AT2220 has high oral bioavailability with a terminal half-life
in plasma of approximately seven to eight hours.
If our Phase I trials are successful, we plan to initiate a
Phase II trial by the end of 2007, and intend to develop
AT2220 for the treatment of all forms of Pompe disease.
Other
Programs
We believe that our pharmacological chaperone technology is
applicable to the development of drugs for the treatment of a
wide range of human genetic and other diseases. We are currently
researching the use of pharmacological chaperones for the
treatment of diseases other than lysosomal storage disorders,
including neurological diseases such as Parkinsons
disease. We have an ongoing research program in Parkinsons
disease and in January 2007, we received a grant from The
Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinsons Research to
further support this research program. Parkinsons disease
is a chronic, progressive, degenerative disorder of the central
nervous system. The disease affects an estimated 1 million
people in the United States.
73
Our
Strategy
Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company
focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of
pharmacological chaperone therapies for the treatment of a wide
range of human diseases. To achieve this objective, we intend to:
|
|
|
|
|
Focus our initial efforts on developing pharmacological
chaperones for severe genetic diseases called lysosomal storage
disorders. Our most advanced programs are for the
treatment of Fabry, Gaucher and Pompe disease. We identify the
compounds for these diseases using our proprietary approach. We
believe our pharmacological chaperone therapy may have
advantages over current therapies. We have focused initially on
lysosomal storage disorders for a number of reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
the therapeutic targets involved in these diseases are amenable
to rapid drug discovery and development using our
pharmacological chaperone technology;
|
|
|
|
the novel mechanism of action of our product candidates may
allow us to better address unmet medical needs in these very
debilitating diseases;
|
|
|
|
the severity of these diseases may permit smaller and more
expedited clinical studies; and
|
|
|
|
the specialized nature of these markets allows for small,
targeted sales and marketing efforts that we can pursue
independently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rapidly advance our lead programs. We are
devoting a significant portion of our resources and business
efforts to completing the development of our most advanced
product candidates. We are currently conducting multiple
Phase II clinical trials of Amigal for the treatment of
Fabry disease. We expect to complete our current Phase II
trials for Amigal by the end of 2007. We completed Phase I
trials for Plicera in 2006 and are currently conducting
Phase II trials for the treatment of Gaucher disease. We
are currently conducting Phase I clinical trials of AT2220
for the treatment of Pompe disease. To accomplish these goals,
we are building an appropriate medical, clinical and regulatory
operations infrastructure. In addition, we are collaborating
with physicians, patient advocacy groups, foundations and
government agencies in order to assist with the development of
our products. We plan to pursue similar activities in future
programs.
|
|
|
|
Leverage our proprietary approach to the discovery and
development of additional small molecules. We are
focused on the discovery and development of small molecules
designed to exert therapeutic effects by acting as
pharmacological chaperones. We have steadily advanced these
proprietary technologies and built an intellectual property
position protecting our discoveries over a number of years. Our
technologies span the disciplines of biology, chemistry and
pharmacology. We believe our technology is broadly applicable to
other diseases for which protein stabilization and improved
folding may be beneficial, including certain types of
neurological disease, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease
and cancer. We are also exploring other applications in which
the ability of pharmacological chaperones to increase the
activity of normal proteins may provide a therapeutic benefit.
We plan to continue to apply our technologies to the discovery
and development of treatments for genetic diseases as well as
other conditions.
|
|
|
|
Build a targeted sales and marketing
infrastructure. We plan to establish our own
sales and marketing capabilities in the U.S. and potentially in
other major markets. We believe that because our current
clinical pipeline is focused on relatively rare genetic
disorders, we will be able to access the market through a
focused, targeted sales force. For example, for Amigal and
Plicera, we believe that the clinical geneticists who are the
key specialists in treating Fabry and Gaucher disease are
sufficiently concentrated that we will be able to effectively
promote the product with our own targeted sales force.
|
74
Intellectual
Property
Patents
and Trade Secrets
Our success depends in part on our ability to maintain
proprietary protection surrounding our product candidates,
technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the
proprietary rights of others, and to prevent others from
infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to
protect our proprietary position by filing U.S. and foreign
patent applications related to our proprietary technology,
including both new inventions and improvements of existing
technology, that are important to the development of our
business, unless this proprietary position would be better
protected using trade secrets. Our patent strategy includes
obtaining patent protection, where possible, on compositions of
matter, methods of manufacture, methods of use, combination
therapies, dosing and administration regimens, formulations,
therapeutic monitoring, screening methods and assays. We also
rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological
innovation, in-licensing and partnership opportunities to
develop and maintain our proprietary position. Lastly, we
monitor third parties for activities that may infringe our
proprietary rights, as well as the progression of third party
patent applications that may have the potential to create blocks
to our products or otherwise interfere with the development of
our business. We are aware, for example, of U.S. patents,
and corresponding international counterparts, owned by third
parties that contain claims related to treating protein
misfolding. If any of these patents were to be asserted against
us we do not believe that our proposed products would be found
to infringe any valid claim of these patents. There is no
assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we
choose or are required to seek a license, a license to any of
these patents would be available to us on acceptable terms or at
all.
As of the date of this prospectus, we own or license rights to a
total of 10 patents issued in the United States, 5 issued in
current member states of the European Patent Convention and 34
pending foreign applications, which are foreign counterparts of
many of our U.S. patents. We also own or license rights to
26 pending U.S. applications, 13 of which are provisional.
Our patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications
with claims relating to methods of increasing deficient enzyme
activity to treat genetic diseases. The patent positions for our
three leading product candidates are described below and include
both patents and patent applications we own or exclusively
license:
|
|
|
|
|
We have an exclusive license to five U.S. patents and three
pending U.S. applications that cover use of Amigal, as well
as corresponding foreign applications. U.S. patents
relating to Amigal expire in 2018, while the foreign counterpart
patents, if granted, would expire in 2019. The patents and the
pending applications include claims covering methods of
increasing the activity of and preventing the degradation of
α-GAL, and methods for the treatment of Fabry disease using
Amigal and other specific competitive inhibitors of
α-GAL.
In addition, we own a pending U.S. application directed to
specific treatment and monitoring regimens with Amigal, which,
if granted, may result in a patent that expires in 2028; three
pending U.S. applications directed to synthetic steps related to
the commercial process for preparing Amigal, which may result in
patents that expire in 2026; and two pending U.S. applications
for diagnosis of Fabry patients that will respond to treatment
with Amigal, which, if granted, will expire in 2027. We have
filed, or plan to file, foreign counterparts of these
applications, where appropriate, by the applicable deadlines.
|
|
|
|
We have an exclusive license to seven U.S. patents and two
pending U.S. applications, and five foreign patents and a
pending foreign application, that cover Plicera or its use. Two
of the U.S. patents relating to Plicera compositions of
matter expire in 2015 and 2016; the five composition of matter
foreign patents and one pending foreign application, if granted,
expire in 2015. The other five U.S. patents and two pending
applications, which claim methods of increasing the activity of
and preventing the degradation of GCase, and methods for the
treatment of Gaucher disease using Plicera and other specific
competitive inhibitors of GCase, expire in 2018. We own two
pending U.S. applications directed to the particular form of the
active agent in Plicera, which, if granted, will expire in 2027.
We have filed, or plan to file, foreign counterparts of these
applications, where appropriate, by the applicable deadlines.
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
We have an exclusive license to three U.S. patents that
cover use of AT2220, two pending U.S. applications, as well
as corresponding foreign applications. The U.S. patents
relating to AT2220 expire in 2018, while the foreign counterpart
patents, if granted, would expire in 2019. The patents and the
pending applications include claims covering methods of
increasing the activity of and preventing the degradation of
Gaa, and methods for the treatment of Pompe disease using AT2220
and other specific competitive inhibitors of Gaa.
|
Our patent estate includes patent applications relating to
combination uses for our product candidates or new potential
product candidates. Some of these applications are pending in
the United States and foreign patent offices, and include one
family of patents licensed from Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and
one U.S. patent application and international application
jointly owned with the Université of Montréal. Others
have to date only been filed as provisional applications in the
United States. We expect to file some of these as
non-provisional applications in United States and in other
countries at the appropriate time. These patent applications,
assuming they issue as patents, would expire in the United
States between 2023 and 2028.
Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the
effective date of filing of the patent application or the date
of patent issuance, and the legal term of the patents in the
countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued
in the United States are effective for:
|
|
|
|
|
the longer of 17 years from the issue date or 20 years
from the earliest effective filing date, if the patent
application was filed prior to June 8, 1995; and
|
|
|
|
20 years from the earliest effective filing date, if the
patent application was filed on or after June 8, 1995.
|
The term of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions
of applicable local law, but typically is 20 years from the
earliest effective filing date.
The United States Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984, more commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman
Act, provides for an extension of patent protection for drug
compounds for a period of up to five years to compensate for
time spent in regulatory review. Similar provisions are
available in European countries, Japan and other countries.
However, we will not know what, if any, extensions are available
until a drug is approved. In addition, in the U.S. we may
be entitled to an additional six month period of patent
exclusivity for pediatric clinical studies.
The patent positions of companies like ours are generally
uncertain and involve complex legal, technical, scientific and
factual questions. Our ability to maintain and solidify our
proprietary position for our technology will depend on our
success in promptly filing patent applications on new
discoveries, and in obtaining effective claims and enforcing
those claims once granted. We focus special attention on filing
patent applications for formulations and delivery regimens for
our products in development to further enhance our patent
exclusivity for those products. We seek to protect our
proprietary technology and processes, in part, by contracting
with our employees, collaborators, scientific advisors and our
commercial consultants to ensure that any inventions resulting
from the relationship are disclosed promptly, maintained in
confidence until a patent application is filed and preferably
until publication of the patent application, and assigned to us
or subject to a right to obtain a license. We do not know
whether any of our own patent applications or those patent
applications that are licensed to us will result in the issuance
of any patents. Our issued patents and those that may issue in
the future, or those licensed to us, may be challenged,
narrowed, invalidated or circumvented or be found to be invalid
or unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop
competitors from marketing related products and reduce the term
of patent protection that we may have for our products. Neither
we nor our licensors can be certain that we were the first to
invent the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents
or patent applications. In addition, our competitors may
independently develop similar technologies or duplicate any
technology developed by us and the rights granted under any
issued patents may not provide us with any meaningful
competitive advantages against these competitors. Furthermore,
because of the extensive time required for development, testing
and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible
that any related patent may expire prior to or shortly after
commencing commercialization, thereby reducing the advantage of
the patent to our business and products.
76
We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect
our technology. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect.
We seek to protect our trade secret technology and processes, in
part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with
commercial partners, collaborators, employees, consultants,
scientific advisors and other contractors, and by contracting
with our employees and some of our commercial consultants to
ensure that any trade secrets resulting from such employment or
consulting are owned by us. We also seek to preserve the
integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by
maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and
electronic security of our information technology systems. While
we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and
systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we
may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our
trade secrets may otherwise become known or be discovered
independently by others. To the extent that our consultants,
contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by
others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights
in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
License
Agreements
We have acquired rights to develop and commercialize our product
candidates through licenses granted by various parties. The
following summarizes our material rights and obligations under
those licenses:
|
|
|
|
|
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine We have
acquired exclusive worldwide patent rights to develop and
commercialize Amigal, Plicera and AT2220 and other
pharmacological chaperones for the prevention or treatment of
human diseases or clinical conditions by increasing the activity
of wild-type and mutant enzymes pursuant to a license agreement
with Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of New York University. Under
this agreement, to date we have paid no upfront or annual
license fees and we have no milestone or future payments other
than royalties on net sales. In connection with this agreement,
we issued 1,742,000 shares of our common stock to Mt. Sinai
School of Medicine in April 2002. In October 2006 we issued Mt.
Sinai School of Medicine an additional 1,000,000 shares of
common stock and made a payment of $1,000,000 in consideration
of an expanded field of use under that license. This agreement
expires upon expiration of the last of the licensed patent
rights, which will be in 2019 if a foreign patent is granted and
2018 otherwise, or later subject to any patent term extension
that may be granted.
|
|
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore County We
have acquired exclusive U.S. patent rights to develop and
commercialize Plicera for the treatment of Gaucher disease from
the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Under this
agreement, to date we have paid aggregate upfront and annual
license fees of $29,500. Upon the satisfaction of certain
milestones and assuming successful development of Plicera, we
could be required to make up to $175,000 in aggregate payments.
We are also required to pay royalties on net sales. This
agreement expires upon expiration of the last of the licensed
patent rights in 2015.
|
|
|
|
Novo Nordisk A/S We have acquired exclusive
patent rights to develop and commercialize Plicera for all human
indications. Under this agreement, to date we have paid an
aggregate of $400,000 in license fees. Upon the satisfaction of
certain milestones and assuming successful development of
Plicera worldwide, we could be required to make up to $7,750,000
in aggregate payments. We are also required to pay royalties on
net sales. This license will terminate in 2016.
|
Under our license agreements, if we owe royalties on net sales
for one of our products to more than one of the above licensors,
then we have the right to reduce the royalties owed to one
licensor for royalties paid to another. The amount of royalties
to be offset is generally limited in each license and can vary
under each agreement. For Amigal and AT2220, we will owe
royalties only to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and will owe no
milestone payments. We expect to pay royalties to all three
licensors with respect to Plicera.
Our rights with respect to these agreements to develop and
commercialize Amigal, Plicera and AT2220 may terminate, in whole
or in part, if we fail to meet certain development or
commercialization requirements or if we do not meet our
obligations to make royalty payments.
77
Trademarks
In addition to our patents and trade secrets, we have filed
applications to register certain trademarks in the U.S. and
abroad, including AMICUS, AMICUS THERAPEUTICS (and design),
AMIGAL and PLICERA. At present we have allowances as
intent-to-use
in the U.S., and some allowances or issued foreign registrations
for all of these marks except PLICERA. In addition, we have
filed an application in the United States to register PLICERA.
We have not yet obtained allowance for this mark. Our ability to
obtain and maintain trademark registrations will in certain
instances depend on making use of the mark in commerce on or in
connection with our products. For the allowed marks for our
candidate products, it may be necessary to re-apply for
registration if it becomes apparent that we will not use the
mark in commerce within the prescribed time period.
Manufacturing
We rely on contract manufacturers to supply the active
pharmaceutical ingredients for Amigal, Plicera and AT2220. The
active pharmaceutical ingredients for all three products are
manufactured under current good manufacturing practices, or
cGMP, at kilogram scale initiated with commercially available
starting materials. We also rely on a separate contract
manufacturer to formulate the active pharmaceutical ingredients
into hard gelatin capsules that are also made under cGMP. The
components in the final formulation for each product are
commonly used in other encapsulated products and are well
characterized ingredients. We have implemented appropriate
controls for assuring the quality of both active pharmaceutical
ingredients and the formulated capsules. Product specifications
will be established in concurrence with regulatory bodies at the
time of product registration.
Competition
Overview
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are
characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense
competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While
we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and
scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we
face potential competition from many different sources,
including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology
enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies and
private and public research institutions. Any product candidates
that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with
existing therapies and new therapies that may become available
in the future.
Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial
resources and expertise in research and development,
manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical studies,
obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products
than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting
and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, as
well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary
for, our programs. Smaller or early stage companies may also
prove to be significant competitors, particularly through
collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if
our competitors develop and commercialize products that are
safer, more effective, have fewer side effects, are more
convenient or are less expensive than products that we may
develop. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected
because in some cases insurers or other third party payors seek
to encourage the use of generic products. This may have the
effect of making branded products less attractive to buyers.
Major
Competitors
Our major competitors include pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies in the United States and abroad that have approved
therapies or therapies in development for lysosomal storage
disorders within our core programs. Other competitors are
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have approved
therapies or therapies in development for genetic diseases for
which pharmacological chaperone technology may be applicable.
Additionally, we are aware of several early-stage, niche
pharmaceutical and biotechnology
78
companies whose core business revolves around protein
misfolding; however, we are not aware that any of these
companies is currently working to develop products that would
directly compete with ours. The key competitive factors
affecting the success of our product candidates are likely to be
their efficacy, safety, convenience and price.
Any product candidates that we successfully develop and
commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new
therapies that may become available in the future. The following
table lists our principal competitors and publicly available
information on the status of their product offerings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitor
|
|
Indication
|
|
|
Product
|
|
|
Class of Product
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
2006 Sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Genzyme Corporation
|
|
|
Fabry disease
|
|
|
|
Fabrazyme
|
|
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
|
|
Marketed
|
|
|
$
|
359
|
|
|
|
|
Gaucher disease
|
|
|
|
Cerezyme
|
|
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
|
|
Marketed
|
|
|
$
|
1,007
|
|
|
|
|
Pompe disease
|
|
|
|
Myozyme
|
|
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
|
|
Marketed
|
|
|
$
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
Gaucher disease
|
|
|
|
Genz-112638
|
|
|
|
Substrate Reduction Therapy
|
|
|
|
Phase II
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Shire PLC
|
|
|
Fabry disease
|
|
|
|
Replagal
|
|
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
|
|
Marketed
|
|
|
$
|
118
|
|
|
|
|
Gaucher disease
|
|
|
|
GA-GCB
|
|
|
|
Enzyme Replacement Therapy
|
|
|
|
Phase III
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Actelion, Ltd.
|
|
|
Gaucher disease
|
|
|
|
Zavesca
|
|
|
|
Substrate Reduction Therapy
|
|
|
|
Marketed
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
We are aware of other companies that are conducting preclinical
development activities for enzyme replacement therapies to treat
Gaucher disease and Pompe disease.
Government
Regulation
FDA
Approval Process
In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to
extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and other federal and state
statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the
research, development, testing, manufacture, storage,
recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing,
distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling,
and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to
comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a
company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions,
such as FDA refusal to approve pending new drug applications or
NDAs, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total
or partial suspension of production or distribution,
injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.
Pharmaceutical product development in the U.S. typically
involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission
to the FDA of a notice of claimed investigational exemption or
an investigational new drug application or IND, which must
become effective before clinical testing may commence, and
adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the
safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for
which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market
approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual
time required may vary substantially based upon the type,
complexity and novelty of the product or disease. Preclinical
tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry,
formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the
characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the
product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with
federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory
practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to
the FDA as part of an IND along with other information including
information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls
and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term preclinical
tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and
carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.
A 30-day
waiting period after the submission of each IND is required
prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the
FDA has not commented on or questioned the IND within this
30-day
period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the
investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under
the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials
must be conducted in compliance with federal regulations, good
clinical practices or GCP, as well as under protocols detailing
the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in
monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be
evaluated. Each protocol
79
involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol
amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of
a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it
believes that the clinical trial is not being conducted in
accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable
risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and
informed consent information for patients in clinical trials
must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB,
for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the
site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for
failure to comply with the IRBs requirements, or may
impose other conditions.
Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are
typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases
may overlap. In Phase I, the initial introduction of the
drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested
to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions,
side effects associated with increasing doses and, if possible,
early evidence on effectiveness. Phase II usually involves
trials in a limited patient population, to determine the
effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication or
indications, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and identify
common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound
demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety
profile in Phase II evaluations, Phase III trials are
undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical
efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at
geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit FDA to
evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and
to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug.
After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is
prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is
required before marketing of the product may begin in the
U.S. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical,
clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to
the products pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and
controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is
substantial. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is
additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and
the manufacturer
and/or
sponsor under an approved new drug application are also subject
to annual product and establishment user fees. These fees are
typically increased annually.
The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a NDA to determine
whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the
agencys threshold determination that it is sufficiently
complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is
accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA
has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of new
drug applications. Most such applications for non-priority drug
products are reviewed within ten months. The review process may
be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider
certain information or clarification regarding information
already provided in the submission. The FDA may also refer
applications for novel drug products or drug products which
present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory
committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other
experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to
whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound
by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally
follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA
will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure
compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the
facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured.
FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current
good manufacturing practices is satisfactory and the NDA
contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is
safe and effective in the indication studied.
After FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it
issues an approval letter, an approvable letter or a
not-approvable letter. Both approvable and not-approvable
letters generally outline the deficiencies in the submission and
may require substantial additional testing or information in
order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when
those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDAs
satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an
approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such
resubmissions in 2 or 6 months depending on the type of
information included.
An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug
with specific prescribing information for specific indications.
As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require substantial
post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the
drugs safety or efficacy and may impose other conditions,
including labeling restrictions which can materially affect the
potential market and profitability of the drug. Once granted,
80
product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory
standards is not maintained or problems are identified following
initial marketing.
The
Hatch-Waxman Act
In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are
required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover
the applicants product. Upon approval of a drug, each of
the patents listed in the application for the drug is then
published in the FDAs Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the
Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be
cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an
abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for
marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients
in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has
been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically
equivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are not required
to conduct or submit results of pre-clinical or clinical tests
to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product,
other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs
approved in this way are commonly referred to as generic
equivalents to the listed drug, and can often be
substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the
original listed drug.
The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning
any patents listed for the approved product in the FDAs
Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that:
(i) the required patent information has not been filed;
(ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed
patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and
approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the
listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new
product. A certification that the new product will not infringe
the already approved products listed patents or that such
patents are invalid is called a Paragraph 4 certification.
If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA
application will not be approved until all the listed patents
claiming the referenced product have expired.
If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph 4
certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of
the Paragraph 4 certification to the NDA and patent holders
once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA
and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement
lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph 4
certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit
within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph 4
certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the
ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the
patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the
infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.
The ANDA application also will not be approved until any
non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining
approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for
the referenced product has expired. Federal law provides a
period of five years following approval of a drug containing no
previously approved active ingredients, during which ANDAs for
generic versions of those drugs cannot be submitted unless the
submission contains a Paragraph 4 challenge to a listed
patent, in which case the submission may be made four years
following the original product approval. Federal law provides
for a period of three years of exclusivity following approval of
a listed drug that contains previously approved active
ingredients but is approved in a new dosage form, route of
administration or combination, or for a new use, the approval of
which was required to be supported by new clinical trials
conducted by or for the sponsor, during which FDA cannot grant
effective approval of an ANDA based on that listed drug for the
same new dosage form, route of administration or combination, or
new use.
Other
Regulatory Requirements
Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain
post-approval requirements. For instance, FDA closely regulates
the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including
standards and regulations for
direct-to-consumer
advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific
and educational activities and promotional activities involving
the internet.
Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in
accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Changes
to some of the conditions established in an approved
application, including changes in indications, labeling, or
manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and
FDA approval
81
of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be
implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically
requires clinical data similar to that in the original
application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in
reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.
Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is
required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may
require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing,
risk minimization action plans, and surveillance to monitor the
effects of an approved product or place conditions on an
approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the
product. In addition, quality control as well as drug
manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to
conform to current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, after
approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors
are required to register their establishments with FDA and
certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced
inspections by the FDA during which the agency inspects
manufacturing facilities to access compliance with cGMPs.
Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money
and effort in the areas of production and quality control to
maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may
withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a
company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it
encounters problems following initial marketing, or if
previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.
Orphan
Drugs
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug
designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or
condition, which is generally a disease or condition that
affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. Orphan
drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA.
After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic
identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed
publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any
advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review
and approval process. The first NDA applicant with FDA orphan
drug designation for a particular active ingredient to receive
FDA approval of the designated drug for the disease for which it
has such designation, is entitled to a seven-year exclusive
marketing period in the U.S. for that product, for that
indication. During the seven-year period, the FDA may not
approve any other applications to market the same drug for the
same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing
of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug
exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from
approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or
the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the
other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for
certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.
Pediatric
Information
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, NDAs
or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety
and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all
relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and
administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the
drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for
submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise
required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an
indication for which orphan designation has been granted.
Fast
Track Designation
Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug
candidate may request FDA to designate the drug candidate as a
fast track drug concurrent with or after the filing of the IND
for the drug candidate. FDA must determine if the drug candidate
qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of
receipt of the sponsors request. Once FDA designates a
drug as a fast track candidate, it is required to facilitate the
development and expedite the review of that drug.
In addition to other benefits such as the ability to use
surrogate endpoints and have greater interactions with FDA, FDA
may initiate review of sections of a fast track drugs NDA
before the application is complete. This rolling review is
available if the applicant provides and FDA approves a schedule
for the submission of the remaining information and the
applicant pays applicable user fees. However, FDAs time
period goal for
82
reviewing an application does not begin until the last section
of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, the fast track
designation may be withdrawn by FDA if FDA believes that the
designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the
clinical trial process.
Priority
Review
Under FDA policies, a drug candidate is eligible for priority
review, or review within a six-month time frame from the time a
complete NDA is accepted for filing, if the drug candidate
provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs in
the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. A fast
track designated drug candidate would ordinarily meet FDAs
criteria for priority review.
Accelerated
Approval
Under FDAs accelerated approval regulations, FDA may
approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that
provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over
existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is
reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. In clinical
trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or
clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a
direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or
survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily
or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate
approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing
compliance requirements, including the completion of
Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the
effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required
post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during
post-marketing studies, will allow FDA to withdraw the drug from
the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for
drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are
subject to prior review by FDA.
Section 505(b)(2)
New Drug Applications
Most drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an
NDA or an ANDA. A third alternative is a special type of NDA,
commonly referred to as a Section 505(b)(2) NDA, which
enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the safety and
efficacy data of an existing product, or published literature,
in support of its application.
505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval
for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously
approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of
an NDA where at least some of the information required for
approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the
applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right
of reference. The applicant may rely upon certain preclinical or
clinical studies conducted for an approved product. The FDA may
also require companies to perform additional studies or
measurements to support the change from the approved product.
The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or
some of the label indications for which the referenced product
has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by
the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is
relying on studies conducted for an already approved product,
the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any
patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to
the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus approval of a
505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents
claiming the referenced product have expired, until any
non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining
approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for
the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a
Paragraph 4 certification and subsequent patent
infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months,
settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case
that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
Anti-Kickback,
False Claims Laws & The Prescription Drug Marketing
Act
In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical
products, several other types of state and federal laws have
been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the
pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include
anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes. The federal
healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other
things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or
receiving
83
remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing,
ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any
healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid
or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute
has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between
pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers,
purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Violations of
the anti-kickback statute are punishable by imprisonment,
criminal fines, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from
participation in federal healthcare programs. Although there are
a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors
protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other
regulatory sanctions, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn
narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to
induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject
to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe
harbor.
Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly
presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for
payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or
causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim
paid. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare
companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly
inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in
turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to
customers with the expectation that the customers would bill
federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing
practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false
claims laws. The majority of states also have statutes or
regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false
claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under
Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply
regardless of the payor.
Physician Drug Samples
As part of the sales and marketing process, pharmaceutical
companies frequently provide samples of approved drugs to
physicians. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA,
imposes requirements and limitations upon the provision of drug
samples to physicians, as well as prohibits states from
licensing distributors of prescription drugs unless the state
licensing program meets certain federal guidelines that include
minimum standards for storage, handling and record keeping. In
addition, the PDMA sets forth civil and criminal penalties for
violations.
Regulation Outside the United States
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be
subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions
governing clinical studies and commercial sales and distribution
of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a
product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable
regulatory authorities of countries outside the United States
before we can commence clinical studies or marketing of the
product in those countries. The approval process varies from
country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than
that required for FDA approval.
To obtain regulatory approval of a drug under European Union
regulatory systems, we may submit marketing authorizations
either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The
centralized procedure, which is compulsory for medicines
produced by certain biotechnological processes and optional for
those which are highly innovative, provides for the grant of a
single marketing authorization that is valid for all European
Union member states. The decentralized procedure provides for
approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an
assessment of an application performed by one member state,
known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, an
applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related
materials including a draft summary of product characteristics,
and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference member
state and concerned member states. The reference member state
prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials
within 120 days after receipt of a valid application.
Within 90 days of receiving the reference member
states assessment report, each concerned member state must
decide whether to approve the assessment report and related
materials. If a member state cannot approve the assessment
report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious
risk to the public health, the disputed points may eventually be
referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding
on all member states.
84
We have obtained an orphan medicinal product designation in the
European Union from the EMEA for Amigal for the treatment of
Fabry disease and we anticipate filing for orphan medicinal
product designation from the EMEA for Plicera for the treatment
of Gaucher disease and for AT2220 for the treatment of Pompe
disease. The EMEA grants orphan drug designation to promote the
development of products that may offer therapeutic benefits for
life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions
affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the
European Union. In addition, orphan drug designation can be
granted if the drug is intended for a life threatening,
seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the
European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that
sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to
justify developing the drug. Orphan drug designation is only
available if there is no other satisfactory method approved in
the European Union of diagnosing, preventing or treating the
condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug
will be of significant benefit to patients.
Orphan drug designation provides opportunities for free protocol
assistance and fee reductions for access to the centralized
regulatory procedures before and during the first year after
marketing approval, which reductions are not limited to the
first year after marketing approval for small and medium
enterprises. In addition, if a product which has an orphan drug
designation subsequently receives EMEA marketing approval for
the indication for which it has such designation, the product is
entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the EMEA may
not approve any other application to market the same drug for
the same indication for a period of ten years. The exclusivity
period may be reduced to six years if the designation criteria
are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product
is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market
exclusivity. Competitors may receive marketing approval of
different drugs or biologics for the indications for which the
orphan product has exclusivity. In order to do so, however, they
must demonstrate that the new drugs or biologics provide a
significant benefit over the existing orphan product. This
demonstration of significant benefit may be done at the time of
initial approval or in post-approval studies, depending on the
type of marketing authorization granted.
As described in the section of this prospectus entitled
Amigal for Fabry Disease Existing Products for
the Treatment of Fabry Disease and Potential Advantages of
Amigal, we believe that the orphan designation of
Fabrazyme and Replagal in the European Union will not prevent us
from obtaining marketing approval of Amigal in the European
Union for the treatment of Fabry disease because Amigal will
provide significant benefits over Fabrazyme and Replagal.
Similarly, we believe the orphan drug designation of Zavesca in
the European Union will not prevent us from obtaining marketing
approval of Plicera in the European Union for the treatment of
Gaucher disease because Plicera will provide significant
benefits over Zavesca.
Pharmaceutical
Pricing and Reimbursement
In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of
any products for which we receive regulatory approval for
commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of
reimbursement from third party payors. Third party payors
include government health administrative authorities, managed
care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.
These third party payors are increasingly challenging the price
and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and
services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the
reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare product
candidates. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic
studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our
products. Our product candidates may not be considered
cost-effective. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be
available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to
realize an appropriate return on our investment in product
development.
In 2003, the United States government enacted legislation
providing a partial prescription drug benefit for Medicare
recipients, that began in 2006. Government payment for some of
the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any
products for which we receive marketing approval. However, to
obtain payments under this program, we would be required to sell
products to Medicare recipients through managed care
organizations and other health care delivery systems operating
pursuant to this legislation. These organizations would
negotiate prices for our products, which are likely to be lower
than we might otherwise obtain. Federal, state and local
governments in the United States continue to consider
legislation to limit the growth of
85
healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs.
Future legislation could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such
as the drug candidates that we are developing.
The marketability of any products for which we receive
regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the
government and third party payors fail to provide adequate
coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis
on managed care in the United States has increased and will
continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing.
Scientific
Advisory Board
Our scientific advisory board consists of scientific advisors
who are leading experts in the fields of lysosomal enzymes,
protein folding and structures, protein trafficking, sugar and
carbohydrate biochemistry, post-transcriptional regulation and
the underlying pathology, clinical diagnosis and treatment of
lysosomal storage disorders. Our scientific advisory board
consults with us regularly on matters relating to:
|
|
|
|
|
our research and development programs;
|
|
|
|
the design, implementation of basic science and mechanistic
studies;
|
|
|
|
the design, implementation and interpretation of animal model
studies;
|
|
|
|
market opportunities from a clinical perspective;
|
|
|
|
new ideas, science and technologies relevant to our research and
development programs; and
|
|
|
|
scientific, technical and medical issues relevant to our
business.
|
Our current scientific advisory board members are:
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Professional
Affiliation
|
|
Michel Bouvier, Ph.D.
|
|
Professor and Director, University
Research Group on Drug Discovery, Department of Biochemistry,
Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Faculty of
Medicine, Université de Montréal; Canada Research
Chair in Signal Transduction and Molecular Pharmacology
|
Barry J. Byrne, M.D.,
Ph.D.
|
|
Director, UF Powell Gene
Therapy Center; Professor, Molecular Genetics &
Microbiology; Associate chair of Pediatrics, Department of
Pediatrics/Powell Gene Therapy Center
|
Gregory A. Grabowski,
M.D.
|
|
The A. Graeme Mitchell Chair in
Human Genetics, Professor of Pediatrics, and Molecular Genetics,
Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Cincinnati College
of Medicine; Director of Human Genetics, Childrens
Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Arthur L. Horwich, M.D.
|
|
Professor of Genetics and
Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine; Investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
|
Stuart A. Kornfeld, M.D.
|
|
Professor, Department of Medicine,
Hematology Division; Professor, Department of Biochemistry &
Molecular Biophysics, Washington University Medical School
|
Gregory A. Petsko, D.Phil.,
Ph.D.
|
|
Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor,
Department of Biochemistry and Department of Chemistry and
Director, Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center,
Brandeis University; Adjunct Professor, Department of Neurology
and Center for Neurologic Diseases, Harvard Medical School
|
86
Medical
Advisory Board
Our medical advisory board consists of physician scientists who
are leading experts in the diagnosis, understanding and
treatment of Gaucher disease, Fabry disease and Pompe disease.
The members of the board are well-published and perform clinical
and basic science research in lysosomal storage disease; they
are recognized as opinion-leaders in the field of genetic
medicine and metabolic disorders. Our medical advisory board
consults with us periodically on matters relating to:
|
|
|
|
|
our research and clinical development programs;
|
|
|
|
the design and implementation of our clinical studies;
|
|
|
|
market opportunities from a medical perspective;
|
|
|
|
leading medical understanding of lysosomal diseases; and
|
|
|
|
current therapeutic paradigms in our target medical areas.
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Professional
Affiliation
|
|
Dominique Germain, M.D.,
Ph.D.
|
|
Assistant Professor, Department of
Genetics; Director, Centre de référence de la
maladie de Fabry et des maladies héréditaires du tissu
conjonctif, Assistance Publique, Hopitaux de Paris, Paris,
France
|
Pramod K. Mistry M.D., Ph.D., FRCP
|
|
Professor and Chief, Section of
Pediatric Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Yale University
School of Medicine; Director, National Gaucher Disease Program;
Director, Inherited Metabolic Liver Disease Clinic, Yale
University School of Medicine
|
Marc Patterson, M.D., FRACP
|
|
Professor of Clinical Neurology
and Pediatrics and Director, Division of Pediatric Neurology,
Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, College of
Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University; Director
of Pediatric Neurology and Child Neurology Training Program
Director, Morgan Stanley Childrens Hospital of New
York-Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center
|
Thomas Voit, M.D., Ph.D.
|
|
Medical and Scientific Director,
Institut de Myologic,
Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpétrière; Assistant
Professor, University Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI,
Paris, France
|
Employees
As of March 15, 2007, we had 77 full-time employees, 54 of
whom were primarily engaged in research and development
activities and 23 of whom provide administrative services. A
total of 30 employees have an M.D. or Ph.D. degree. None of our
employees are represented by a labor union. We have not
experienced any work stoppages and consider our employee
relations to be good.
Property
Our headquarters are located in Cranbury, New Jersey, consisting
of approximately 32,000 square feet of subleased office and
laboratory space. In May 2005, we entered into a seven-year
non-cancelable operating sublease agreement for this office and
laboratory space. This operating sublease will expire by its
terms in February 2012. In August 2006, we entered into a
3-year non-cancellable operating sublease agreement for
additional office and laboratory space at a second facility
located in Cranbury, New Jersey, consisting of
17,000 square feet. This operating sublease will expire by
its terms in August 2009.
Legal
Proceedings
We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.
87
MANAGEMENT
Our executive officers and directors and their respective ages
and positions as of March 15, 2007 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
John F. Crowley
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer and Director
|
Matthew R. Patterson
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
James E. Dentzer
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
David J. Lockhart, Ph.D.
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer
|
David Palling, Ph.D.
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Drug
Development
|
Karin Ludwig, M.D.
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Clinical
Research
|
Mark Simon
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Business
Development
|
Douglas A. Branch
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary
|
Gregory P. Licholai, M.D.
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Vice President, Medical Affairs
|
S. Nicole Schaeffer
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
Vice President, Human Resources
and Leadership Development
|
Donald J.
Hayden(3)
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Chairman and Director
|
Alexander E. Barkas,
Ph.D.(3)
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Director
|
Michael G.
Raab(2)(3)
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Director
|
Glenn P.
Sblendorio(2)
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
Director
|
James N. Topper, M.D.,
Ph.D.(1)
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Director
|
Stephen Bloch,
M.D.(2)
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Director
|
Gregory M. Weinhoff,
M.D.(1)
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
Director
|
P. Sherrill
Neff(1)
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Member of Compensation Committee.
|
(2)
|
|
Member of Audit Committee.
|
(3)
|
|
Member of Nominating/Corporate
Governance Committee.
|
John F. Crowley has served as President and Chief
Executive Officer since January 2005, and has also served as a
Director of Amicus since August 2004, with the exception of the
period from September 2006 to March 2007 when he was not an
officer or director of Amicus while he was in active duty
service in the United States Navy (Reserve). He was
President and Chief Executive Officer of Orexigen Therapeutics,
Inc. from September 2003 to December 2004. Mr. Crowley was
President and Chief Executive Officer of Novazyme
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from March 2000 until that company was
acquired by Genzyme Corporation in September 2001; thereafter he
served as Senior Vice President of Genzyme Therapeutics until
December 2002. Mr. Crowley received a B.S. degree in
Foreign Service from Georgetown Universitys School of
Foreign Service, a J.D. from the University of Notre Dame
Law School, and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.
Matthew R. Patterson has served as Chief Operating
Officer since September 2006. From December 2004 to September
2006 he served as Chief Business Officer. From 1998-2004
Mr. Patterson was Vice President, Regulatory and Government
Affairs and later Vice President, Commercial Planning at
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. From 1993-1998 Mr. Patterson
worked at Genzyme Corporation in Regulatory Affairs and
Manufacturing. Mr. Patterson received a B.A. in
Biochemistry from Bowdoin College.
James E. Dentzer has served as Chief Financial Officer
since October 2006. From November 2003 to October 2006,
Mr. Dentzer was Corporate Controller at Biogen Idec Inc.
From 2001 until the 2003 merger of Biogen, Inc. and IDEC
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Mr. Dentzer served as
Corporate Controller of Biogen, Inc. Prior to that, he served in
a variety of financial positions at E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, most
88
recently as Chief Financial Officer of DuPont Flooring Systems.
Mr. Dentzer received his B.A. from Boston College and his
M.B.A. from the University of Chicago.
David J. Lockhart, Ph.D., has served as Chief Scientific
Officer since January 2006. Prior to joining Amicus,
Dr. Lockhart served as President, Chief Scientific Officer
and co-founder of Ambit Biosciences, a biotechnology company
specializing in small molecule kinase inhibitors, from March
2001 to July 2005. Dr. Lockhart served as a consultant to
Ambit Biosciences from August 2000 to March 2001, and as a
visiting scholar at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies
from October 2000 to March 2001. Prior to that,
Dr. Lockhart served in various positions, including Vice
President of Genomics Research at Affymetrix, and was the
Director of Genomics at the Genomics Institute of the Novartis
Research Foundation from February 1999 to July 2000. He received
his Ph.D. from Stanford University and was a post-doctoral
fellow at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
David Palling, Ph.D., has served as Senior Vice
President, Drug Development, since August, 2002. From September
1998 until August, 2002, Dr. Palling was with
Johnson & Johnson, most recently serving as Vice
President of Worldwide Assay Research and Development at Ortho
Clinical Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson. Dr. Palling received B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in
Chemistry from the University of London, Kings College,
and conducted post-doctoral research in Biochemistry at Brandeis
University.
Karin Ludwig, M.D., has served as Senior Vice President,
Clinical Research, since February 2006. From 1993 until February
2006, Dr. Ludwig served in a variety of clinical research
positions at Pharmacia Corporation and subsequently Pfizer,
Inc., after its acquisition of Pharmacia in 2003, most recently
Group Leader/Senior Director, United States Medical,
Endocrinology and Ophthalmology. She received her M.D. from the
University Freiburg Medical School.
Mark Simon has served as Senior Vice President, Business
Development since June 2006. Since October 2005 he has served as
an industry consultant to multiple biopharmaceutical companies.
From 2002 to 2005 he was Managing Director and Head of Life
Sciences Investment Banking for Citigroup Global Markets. From
1989 to 2002 he served as a Senior Research Analyst and later as
Managing Director, Investment Banking for Robertson Stephens. He
received his B.A. from Columbia College and his M.B.A. from
Harvard Business School.
Douglas A. Branch has served as General Counsel and
Secretary since December 2005, and as Vice President since May
2006. He is also President of Biotech Law Associates, P.C., a
law firm, where he has practiced since April 2004. From 1996 to
April 2004, he was a Director and Shareholder of Phillips McFall
McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, P.C., an Oklahoma City law
firm. He holds B.B.A. (Finance) and J.D. degrees from the
University of Oklahoma.
Gregory P. Licholai, M.D., has served as Vice President,
Medical Affairs since December 2004. From November 2002 to
December 2004, Dr. Licholai was with Domain Associates, a
venture capital firm. From September 2000 to November 2002, he
was director of Ventures and Business Associates for Medtronic
Neurological, a division of Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Licholai
received his B.A. from Boston College and completed Pre-Medical
studies at Columbia University, his M.D. from Yale Medical
School and his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.
S. Nicole Schaeffer has served as Vice President,
Human Resources and Leadership Development since March 2005.
From 2001 to 2004, she served as Senior Director, Human
Resources, for three portfolio companies of Flagship Ventures, a
venture capital firm, and in that capacity she managed human
resources for three life sciences companies. Ms. Schaeffer
received her B.A. from the University of Rochester and her
M.B.A. from Boston University.
Donald J. Hayden, Jr. has served as Chairman since March
2006 and from September 2006 until March 2007 he served as
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer. From 1991 to 2005
he held several executive positions with Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, most recently serving as Executive Vice President and
President, Americas. Mr. Hayden holds a B.A. from Harvard
University and an M.B.A. from Indiana University.
89
Alexander E. Barkas, Ph.D., has served as a member of our
board of directors since 2004. Since 1997, Dr. Barkas has
been a co-founder and served as a managing member, of the
general partner of a series of Prospect Venture Partners
funds. Dr. Barkas serves as the chairman of the board of
directors of two publicly-held biotechnology companies, Geron
Corporation and Tercica, Inc., and as a director of several
private biotechnology and medical device companies. He holds a
B.A. from Brandeis University and a Ph.D. from New York
University.
Michael G. Raab has served as a member of our board of
directors since 2004. Mr. Raab has served as a partner of
New Enterprise Associates since June 2002. From 1999 to 2002, he
was a Senior Vice President, Therapeutics and General Manager,
Renagel®
at Genzyme Corporation. Mr. Raab is a director of Novaceu,
Inc. Mr. Raab holds a B.A. from DePauw University.
Glenn P. Sblendorio has served as a member of our board
of directors since June 2006. Mr. Sblendorio has served as
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of The
Medicines Company since March 2006. Prior to joining The
Medicines Company, Mr. Sblendorio was Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Eyetech
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from February 2002 until it was acquired
by OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in November 2005. From July 2000 to
February 2002, Mr. Sblendorio served as Senior Vice
President of Business Development at The Medicines Company.
Mr. Sblendorio received his B.B.A. from Pace University and
his M.B.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
James N. Topper, M.D., Ph.D., has served as a member of
our board of directors since 2004. Dr. Topper has been a
partner with Frazier Healthcare Ventures since August 2003,
holding the position of General Partner since 2004. Prior to
joining Frazier Healthcare, he served as Head of the
Cardiovascular Research and Development Division of Millennium
Pharmaceuticals and ran Millennium San Francisco (formerly COR
Therapeutics) from 2002 until 2003. Prior to the merger of COR
and Millennium in 2002, Dr. Topper served as the Vice
President of Biology at COR from August 1999 to February 2002.
He holds an appointment as a Clinical Assistant Professor of
Medicine at Stanford University and as a Cardiology Consultant
to the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital.
Dr. Topper currently serves on the board of La Jolla
Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Topper holds an M.D. and a
Ph.D. in Biophysics from Stanford University School of Medicine.
Stephen Bloch, M.D., has served as a member of our board
of directors since 2004. He has served as a venture partner at
Canaan Partners since June 2002. Prior to joining Canaan,
Dr. Bloch founded and served as the Chief Executive Officer
of Radiology Management Sciences, a risk manager of diagnostic
imaging services for health plans and provider networks, from
1995 to 2002. Dr. Bloch received his M.D. from the
University of Rochester. He also received a M.A. in history of
science from Harvard University and an A.B. degree in history
from Dartmouth College.
Gregory M. Weinhoff, M.D. has served as a member of our
board of directors since our inception. Since 2001,
Dr. Weinhoff has served as a Member of Collinson
Howe & Lennox II, L.L.C., the general partner of CHL
Medical Partners II, L.P. Dr. Weinhoff served as our
founding Chief Executive Officer from inception until October
2002. From 2000 to 2001, Dr. Weinhoff was a Senior
Associate at Whitney & Co. Dr. Weinhoff holds an
A.B. degree from Harvard College, an M.D. degree from Harvard
Medical School and an M.B.A. degree from Harvard Business School.
P. Sherrill Neff has served as a member of our board
of directors since 2005. Mr. Neff is a founding partner and
has served as managing partner of Quaker BioVentures, L.P. since
2002. Prior to forming Quaker BioVentures, L.P., he was
President, Chief Operating Officer, and a director of Neose
Technologies, Inc. from 1994 to 2002. Mr. Neff currently
sits on the board of Resource Capital Corporation. Mr. Neff
is a graduate of Wesleyan University and the University of
Michigan Law School.
Board
Composition and Election of Directors
Our board of directors is currently authorized to have, and we
currently have, nine members. In accordance with the terms of
our certificate of incorporation and bylaws that will become
effective upon the closing of this offering, our board of
directors will be divided into three classes, class I,
class II and class III,
90
with each class serving staggered three-year terms. Upon the
closing of this offering, the members of the classes will be
divided as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
the class I directors will
be , and ,
and their term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders
to be held in 2008;
|
|
|
|
the class II directors will
be , and ,
and their term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders
to be held in 2009; and
|
|
|
|
the class III directors will
be , and ,
and their term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders
to be held in 2010.
|
Our certificate of incorporation to be effective upon the
closing of this offering provides that our directors may be
removed only for cause and by the affirmative vote of the
holders of a majority of our voting stock. Upon the expiration
of the term of a class of directors, directors in that class
will be eligible to be elected for a new three-year term at the
annual meeting of stockholders in the year in which their term
expires.
Our board of directors has reviewed the materiality of any
relationship that each of our directors has with us, either
directly or indirectly. Based on this review, the board has
determined that the following directors are independent
directors as defined by the rules of The NASDAQ Global
Market: Messrs. Hayden, Raab, Sblendorio and Neff and
Drs. Barkas, Topper, Bloch and Weinhoff. Upon the closing
of this offering each of these independent directors will serve
on one or more of our audit committee, compensation committee
and nominating and corporate governance committees. There are no
family relationships among any of our directors or executive
officers.
Board
Committees
Our board currently has established an audit committee, a
compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance
committee. The composition of each committee is effective
currently but we expect will be modified prior to the closing of
this offering.
Audit
Committee
The members of our audit committee are Messrs. Sblendorio
and Raab, and Dr. Bloch. Mr. Sblendorio chairs the
audit committee and serves as our audit committee financial
expert. Our audit committee assists our board of directors in
its oversight of the integrity of our financial statements, our
independent registered public accounting firms
qualifications and independence and the performance of our
independent registered public accounting firm.
Upon closing of this offering, our audit committees
responsibilities will include:
|
|
|
|
|
appointing, approving the compensation of, and assessing the
independence of our independent registered public accounting
firm;
|
|
|
|
overseeing the work of our independent registered public
accounting firm, including through the receipt and consideration
of certain reports from our independent registered public
accounting firm;
|
|
|
|
reviewing and discussing with management and the independent
registered public accounting firm our annual and quarterly
financial statements and related disclosures;
|
|
|
|
monitoring our internal control over financial reporting,
disclosure controls and procedures and code of business conduct
and ethics;
|
|
|
|
establishing policies regarding hiring employees from our
independent registered public accounting firm and procedures for
the receipt and retention of accounting related complaints and
concerns;
|
|
|
|
meeting independently with our independent registered public
accounting firm and management; and
|
|
|
|
preparing the audit committee report required by Securities and
Exchange Commission rules.
|
91
All audit and non-audit services to be provided to us by our
independent registered public accounting firm must be approved
in advance by our audit committee. We believe that the
composition of our audit committee will meet the requirements
for independence under the current NASDAQ Global Market and
Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations prior
to the closing of this offering.
Compensation
Committee
Mr. Neff and Drs. Topper and Weinhoff are the members of
our compensation committee. Mr. Neff is the chair of the
committee. Our compensation committee assists our board of
directors in the discharge of its responsibilities relating to
the compensation of our executive officers.
Our compensation committees responsibilities include:
|
|
|
|
|
reviewing and approving, or making recommendations to our board
of directors with respect to, the compensation of our chief
executive officer and our other executive officers;
|
|
|
|
overseeing the evaluation of performance of our senior
executives;
|
|
|
|
overseeing and administering, and making recommendations to our
board of directors with respect to, our cash and equity
incentive plans;
|
|
|
|
reviewing and approving potential executive and senior
management succession plans; and
|
|
|
|
reviewing and approving non-routine employment agreements,
severance agreements and change in control agreements.
|
We believe that the composition of our compensation committee
will meet the requirements for independence under the current
NASDAQ Global Market rules and regulations.
Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee
Messrs. Hayden, Barkas and Raab are the members of our
nominating and corporate governance committee. Mr. Hayden
chairs the committee.
Our nominating and corporate governance committees
responsibilities include:
|
|
|
|
|
recommending to our board of directors the persons to be
nominated for election as directors and to each of the board of
directors committees;
|
|
|
|
conducting searches for appropriate directors;
|
|
|
|
reviewing the size, composition and structure of our board of
directors;
|
|
|
|
developing and recommending to our board of directors corporate
governance principles;
|
|
|
|
overseeing a periodic self-evaluation of our board of directors
and any board committees; and
|
|
|
|
overseeing compensation and benefits for directors and board
committee members.
|
We believe that the composition of our nominating and corporate
governance committee will meet the requirements for independence
under the current NASDAQ Global Market rules and regulations.
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
None of our executive officers serves as a member of the board
of directors or compensation committee, or other committee
serving an equivalent function, of any entity that has one or
more of its executive officers serving as a member of our board
of directors or our compensation committee. None of the members
of our compensation committee has ever been our employee.
92
COMPENSATION
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Objectives
and Philosophy of Executive Compensation
The primary objective of our compensation program, as
established by the compensation committee of our board of
directors, composed entirely of independent directors, is to
attract, retain and motivate the best possible executive talent.
Our overall philosophy is to tie both short and long-term cash
and equity incentives to the achievement of our executives
against measurable corporate and individual performance
objectives, and to align their incentives with the creation of
value for our stockholders. The role of the compensation
committee is to oversee our compensation and benefit plans and
policies, administer our equity incentive plans, and review and
approve annually all compensation decisions relating to all
executive officers. Specifically, our compensation programs are
designed to:
|
|
|
|
|
Attract and retain individuals of superior ability and
managerial talent;
|
|
|
|
Ensure senior officer compensation is aligned with our corporate
strategies, business objectives and the long-term interests of
our stockholders;
|
|
|
|
Increase the incentive to achieve key strategic and financial
performance measures by linking incentive award opportunities to
the achievement of performance goals in these areas; and
|
|
|
|
Enhance the officers incentive to maximize stockholder
value, as well as promote retention of key people, by providing
a portion of total compensation opportunities for senior
management in the form of direct ownership in our company.
|
To achieve these objectives, the compensation committee expects
to implement and maintain compensation plans that tie a
substantial portion of the executives overall compensation
to achievement of key strategic financial and operational goals
such as clinical trial progress, pre-clinical drug development,
continued intellectual property development, and implementation
of appropriate financing or business development strategies. The
compensation committee evaluates individual executive
performance with the goal of setting compensation at levels the
committee believes are in the upper half for executives in
companies of similar size and stage of development operating in
the biotechnology industry, taking into account our relative
performance and our own strategic goals. In order to ensure that
we continue to remunerate our executives appropriately and
consistent with market information, we will participate in, and
review data from, certain compensation surveys, and may confer
with outside compensation consultants.
After the completion of each fiscal year, we evaluate individual
and corporate performance against stated goals for the year.
Consistent with our overall compensation philosophy, each
employee undergoes a performance evaluation process involving
his or her direct supervisor and other senior executives to the
extent appropriate. This process leads to a recommendation for
annual salary increases, bonuses and equity awards, if any,
which are then reviewed and approved by our compensation
committee. The performance of our executive officers, after
input from each of them as to their own performance, is
generally assessed by our chief executive officer. In the case
of our chief executive officer, his performance is assessed
primarily by the chairman of our board of directors, with an
opportunity for input from each member of our board of
directors. Any annual base salary increases, equity awards and
bonuses, to the extent granted, are generally implemented during
the first calendar quarter of the following year.
Elements
of Executive Compensation
Executive compensation consists of the following elements:
Base Salary. Base salaries for our executives
are generally established based on the scope of their
responsibilities, taking into account competitive market
compensation paid by other companies for similar positions and
recognizing cost of living considerations. As with total
executive compensation, we believe that our executive base
salaries should be targeted in the upper half of the range of
salaries for executives in similar positions and with similar
responsibilities in comparable biotechnology companies. We have
reviewed data from the Radford Biotechnology Survey and the
Radford Biotech Pre-IPO Survey as
93
primary reference points. These surveys are analyses of
compensation which uses private biotechnology companies for
benchmarking purposes. In general, base salaries are reviewed
annually, and adjusted to realign salaries with market levels
and adjust for inflation. Base salaries may be adjusted from
time to time during the year in connection with promotions that
may occur.
Annual Performance Bonus. The compensation
committee has the authority to award annual performance bonuses
to our executives. Bonuses are determined by two factors:
individual performance and company performance. Each of our
executives is eligible to receive an annual performance bonus
based upon a targeted percentage of base salary. The targeted
bonus level for a particular executive is determined by the
executives rank, with each level differentiated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Targeted Bonus %
|
|
Position
|
|
of Base Salary
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Other Chief Officers
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
Vice Presidents
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
If an executives personal performance exceeds objectives
established at the beginning of the year, and if our performance
also exceeds objectives, or if either personal performance or
company performance were extraordinary, then the bonus payable
to the executive could exceed the targeted percentages of base
salary.
Long-Term Incentive Program. We believe that
long-term performance will be enhanced through stock and equity
awards that reward our executives for maximizing shareholder
value over time and that align the interests of our employees
and management with those of stockholders. The compensation
committee believes that the use of stock and equity awards
offers the best approach to achieving our compensation goals
because equity ownership ties a significant portion of an
executives compensation to the performance of our
companys stock. We have historically elected to use stock
options as the primary long-term equity incentive vehicle.
Stock Options. Our 2007 equity incentive plan,
or the 2007 plan, to be in effect upon the closing of this
offering, and our 2002 equity incentive plan, or the 2002 plan,
authorize or authorized us to grant options to purchase shares
of common stock to our employees, directors and consultants. Our
compensation committee oversees the administration of our stock
options. Stock option grants are made at the commencement of
employment and, occasionally, following a significant change in
job responsibilities or to meet other special retention
objectives. We have also historically made option grants on a
company-wide basis and may also make company-wide grants in the
future. The compensation committee considers and approves stock
option awards to executive officers based upon a review of
competitive compensation data, its assessment of individual
performance, a review of each executives existing
long-term incentives, and retention considerations. Periodic
company-wide option grants and
case-by-case
option grants are made at the discretion of the compensation
committee to eligible employees and, in appropriate
circumstances, with the input of the chairman of our board of
directors, as well as our chief executive officer and other
members of management.
In 2006, certain named executive officers were awarded stock
options in the amounts indicated in the section entitled
Grants of Plan-Based Awards. This includes stock
options granted company-wide in February 2006, including all
named executive officers (other than Mr. Dentzer who did
not join us until the fall of 2006). These option grants were
based on the performance of the employees, to encourage
continued service with us and to recalibrate their ownership on
a percentage basis, taking into account equity dilution
resulting from stock issuance and grants made to recently hired
executives. All of the stock option awards were subject to a
standard vesting schedule.
In 2006 we made a grant of stock options to Mr. Crowley and
this grant was determined by our compensation committee and
approved by our board of directors. Options granted in 2006 to
Mr. Hayden in connection with his election as chairman were
determined by the board of directors, after obtaining
information from discussions among Mr. Neff, acting on
behalf of our board, and Mr. Crowley. Mr. Hayden was
granted additional options in 2006 in connection with his
service as Interim President and Chief Executive
94
Officer. The amount of that grant was determined by our board of
directors after obtaining information from discussions between
Mr. Neff, acting on behalf of the compensation committee,
and Mr. Hayden. The grant of stock options to
Mr. Dentzer in 2006 in connection with his hiring was made
after obtaining information from discussions among
Mr. Neff, acting on behalf of the compensation committee,
Mr. Crowley and Mr. Dentzer. Option grants in February
2006 for our executive officers were determined by the board on
the recommendation of the compensation committee, based in part
upon recommendations made by Mr. Crowley. Mr. Crowley
and the compensation committee relied in part on the Radford
Survey as a reference point to bring our executive compensation
packages more in line with those prevailing in the market. The
initial grant to Dr. Lockhart upon the commencement of his
employment in January 2006 was made after obtaining information
from discussions among Mr. Neff, acting on behalf of the
compensation committee, Mr. Crowley and Dr. Lockhart.
The exercise price of options is the fair market value of our
common stock as determined by our board of directors on the date
of grant. Our stock options typically vest over a four-year
period with 25% vesting 12 months after the vesting
commencement date and the remainder vesting ratably each month
thereafter in equal installments over a
3-year
period subject to continued employment or association with us,
and generally expire ten years after the date of grant.
Incentive stock options also include certain other terms
necessary to assure compliance with the applicable provision of
the Internal Revenue Code.
We expect to continue to use stock options as a long-term
incentive vehicle because we believe that:
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options and the vesting period of stock options attract
and retain executives.
|
|
|
|
Stock options are inherently performance based. Because all the
value received by the recipient of a stock option is based on
the growth of the stock price, stock options enhance the
executives incentive to increase our stock price and
maximize stockholder value.
|
|
|
|
Stock options help to provide a balance to the overall executive
compensation program as base salary and our annual performance
bonus program focus on short-term compensation, while stock
options reward executives for increases in shareholder value
over the longer term.
|
Restricted Stock. Our 2007 plan and our 2002
plan authorize us to grant restricted stock. To date, we granted
under our 2002 plan 100,000 shares of restricted stock to
Mr. Sblendorio, our audit committee chairman, and
300,000 shares of restricted stock to Mr. Dentzer.
While we have no current plans to grant restricted stock under
our 2007 plan, we may choose to do so in order to implement the
long-term incentive goals of the compensation committee.
Other Compensation. Consistent with our
compensation philosophy, we intend to continue to maintain our
current benefits for our executive officers, including medical,
dental, vision and life insurance coverage; however, the
compensation committee in its discretion may revise, amend or
add to the officers executive benefits if it deems it
advisable. We have no current plans to change the levels of
benefits currently provided to our executives.
Termination Based Change of Control
Compensation. Upon termination of employment
under certain circumstances, our executive officers are entitled
to receive varying types of compensation. Elements of this
compensation may include payments based upon a number of months
of base salary, bonuses amounts, acceleration of vesting of
equity, and health and other similar benefits. We believe that
our termination-based compensation and acceleration of vesting
of equity arrangements are in line with severance packages
offered to executives of other similar companies, including our
package for our chief executive officer, based upon the market
information we have reviewed. We also have granted severance and
acceleration of vesting of equity benefits to our executives in
the event of a change of control if the executive is terminated
within a certain period of time of the change of control. We
believe this double trigger requirement maximizes
shareholder value because it prevents an unintended windfall to
management in the event of a friendly or non-hostile change of
control. Under this structure, unvested equity awards would
continue to incentivize our executives to remain with the
company after a change of control, and more appropriate than a
single trigger acceleration mechanism contingent only upon a
change of control. The specifics of each executive
officers arrangements is described in further detail below.
95
Executive
Compensation
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table provides information regarding the
compensation that we paid to each person serving as our chief
executive officer and our chief financial officer, during the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and each of our other
three most highly paid executive officers serving as of
December 31, 2006 as well as one additional individual who
could have been one of the three most highly paid executive
officers had he been employed as of December 31, 2006. We
use the term named executive officers to refer to
these people later in this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and
|
|
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
|
Bonus(1)
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Awards(2)
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
John F. Crowley
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
$
|
400,000
|
|
|
$
|
210,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,597,512
|
|
|
$
|
659,963
|
(3)
|
|
$
|
3,868,142
|
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donald J. Hayden,
Jr.(4)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
145,705
|
(5)
|
|
|
30,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
691,117
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
866,852
|
|
Chairman and Interim President and
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James E. Dentzer
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
70,000
|
(8)
|
|
|
84,000
|
|
|
|
366,000
|
|
|
|
180,134
|
|
|
|
299,461
|
(9)
|
|
|
999,595
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John M.
McAdam(10)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
110,000
|
|
|
|
40,450
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,828
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237,278
|
|
Principal Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph
Warusz(11)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
48,094
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,887
|
|
|
|
172,981
|
|
Vice President, Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew R. Patterson
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
280,673
|
|
|
|
65,267
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
309,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
655,168
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Lockhart, Ph.D.
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
280,000
|
|
|
|
66,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,236,910
|
|
|
|
94,926
|
(12)
|
|
|
1,678,383
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Palling, Ph.D.
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
236,250
|
|
|
|
40,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,738
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
301,151
|
|
Senior Vice President,
Drug Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Huertas, M.D.,
Ph.D.(13)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
281,875
|
|
|
|
70,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,536
|
|
|
|
191,255
|
(14)
|
|
|
729,135
|
|
Chief Strategic Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Represents bonuses earned in 2006
and paid in 2007.
|
(2)
|
|
The value of each of the option
awards was computed in accordance with FAS 123(R) for 2006.
Valuation assumptions are described in the notes to financial
statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. Options
generally vest over a four year period.
|
(3)
|
|
Includes $214,440 of payments made
in connection with executive medical reimbursement, $256,620 for
health insurance premiums for Mr. Crowleys family and
$188,903 for reimbursement of taxes.
|
(4)
|
|
Mr. Hayden served as interim
president and chief executive officer from September 11,
2006, until March 5, 2007.
|
(5)
|
|
This amount includes all
compensation paid to Mr. Hayden in 2006 and consists of
$61,538 for his service as interim president and chief executive
officer from September 11, 2006 until March 5, 2007,
$25,000 for consulting services provided to us by him from
February 28, 2006 to June 27, 2006, and $59,167 for
his service as the chairman of the board of directors.
|
(6)
|
|
This bonus amount was awarded to
Mr. Hayden solely for his service to us as our interim
president and chief executive officer.
|
(7)
|
|
This amount is the value of the
100,000 common stock options granted to Mr. Hayden for his
service as our interim president and chief executive officer, as
well as the 500,000 common stock options granted to him in
February 2006 for his service to us as the chairman of the board
of directors.
|
(8)
|
|
Mr. Dentzer began serving as
our chief financial officer in October 2006.
|
(9)
|
|
Consists of $199,461 of relocation
expenses and a $100,000 signing bonus.
|
(10)
|
|
Mr. McAdam has served as our
Controller since March 2006. He also served as our Interim
Principal Accounting and Principal Financial Officer from March
2006 to September 2006.
|
(11)
|
|
Mr. Waruszs employment
with us ended in March 2006. Other compensation consists of
severance and salary continuance payments made to him during
2006 in connection with his departure.
|
(12)
|
|
Includes $20,000 of signing bonus,
$31,579 of relocation expenses, $25,550 for commuting expenses,
and $17,797 for reimbursement of taxes.
|
(13)
|
|
Dr. Huertas employment
with us ended on December 31, 2006.
|
96
|
|
|
(14)
|
|
Other compensation consists of
$140,938 for accrued severance, $37,183 for relocation expenses,
and $13,134 for commuting expenses relating to
Dr. Huertas service with the Company through the end
of 2006.
|
The following table presents information concerning grants of
plan-based awards to each of the named executive officers during
2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based Stock
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plans:
|
|
|
Awards:
|
|
|
or Base
|
|
|
Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Price of
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Option or
|
|
|
Stock and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Option
|
|
Name and
|
|
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
|
($/Sh)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
John F. Crowley
|
|
|
2/28/2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,100,000
|
(2)
|
|
$
|
0.71
|
|
|
$
|
2,597,512
|
|
President and Chief
Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donald J. Hayden, Jr.
|
|
|
2/28/2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
618,455
|
|
Chairman and Interim
|
|
|
9/13/2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(4)
|
|
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
72,661
|
|
President and Chief
Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James E. Dentzer
|
|
|
10/2/2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
180,134
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
10/2/2006
|
|
|
|
300,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
366,000
|
|
John M. McAdam
|
|
|
2/28/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
18,541
|
|
Principal Financial Officer
|
|
|
3/27/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
< |