IMMUNE PHARMACEUTICALS INC 10-K 2008
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
777 Old Saw Mill River Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (914) 606-3500
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
(Title of Class)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, $.0001 par value
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No þ.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No þ.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o.
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ.
As of June 30, 2007, the last business day of the registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of shares of common stock held by non-affiliates was $59,460,151.
As of March 14, 2008, the registrant had outstanding 51,295,304 shares of its $.0001 par value Common Stock.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements give our current expectations and projections relating to our financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business. You can identify forward-looking statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements may include words such as anticipate, estimate, expect, project, plan, intend, believe, may, should, can have, likely and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with any discussion of the timing or nature of future operating or financial performance or other events.
These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that we have made in light of our industry experience and on our perceptions of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate under the circumstances. As you read and consider this Form 10-K, you should understand that these statements are not guarantees of performance or results. They involve risks, uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, you should be aware that many factors could affect our actual financial results and cause them to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others:
There may be other factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Because of these factors, we caution that you should not place undue reliance on any of our forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. Except as required by law, we have no duty to, and do not intend to, update or revise the forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K after the date of this Form 10-K. This Form 10-K also contains market data related to our business and industry. This market data includes projections that are based on a number of assumptions. If these assumptions turn out to be incorrect, actual results may differ from the projections based on these assumptions. As a result, our markets may not grow at the rates projected by these data, or at all. The failure of these markets to grow at these projected rates may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and the market price of our common stock. We do not undertake to discuss matters relating to our ongoing clinical trials or our regulatory strategies beyond those which have already been made public or discussed herein. As used herein, references to we, us, our, EpiCept or the Company refer to EpiCept Corporation and its subsidiaries. References in this Form 10-K to the FDA means the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
We are a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of cancer and pain. We have a portfolio of five product candidates in active stages of development: an oncology product candidate undergoing final review for European registration, two other oncology compounds, and two pain product candidates,. Our portfolio of oncology and pain management product candidates allows us to be less reliant on the success of any single product candidate.
Our lead oncology product candidate, Ceplene®, has been submitted for European registration as remission maintenance therapy of acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, for patients who are in their first complete remission (CR1). A second oncology product candidate, AzixaTM, licensed to Myriad Genetics, Inc., is currently in a Phase II clinical trial and we recently completed a Phase I monotherapy clinical trial for EPC2407, our early stage oncolocy product candidate. Our late stage pain product candidates are: EpiCept NP-1, a prescription topical analgesic cream designed to provide effective long-term relief of peripheral neuropathies; and LidoPAIN BP, a prescription analgesic non-sterile patch designed to provide sustained topical delivery of lidocaine for the treatment of acute or recurrent lower back pain. Two Phase II trials and one Phase III trial are currently underway with our NP-1 product candidate. None of our product candidates has been approved by the FDA or any comparable agency in another country and we have yet to generate product revenues from any of our product candidates in development.
The following chart illustrates the depth of our product pipeline:
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Half of all men and one third of all women in the United States will develop cancer during their lifetimes. Today, millions of people are living with cancer or have had cancer. Although there are many kinds of cancer, they are all caused by the out-of-control growth of abnormal cells. Normal body cells grow, divide, and die in an orderly fashion. During the early years of a persons life, normal cells divide more rapidly until the person becomes an adult. After that, cells in most parts of the body divide only to replace worn-out or dying cells and to repair injuries. Because cancer cells continue to grow and divide, they are different from normal cells. Instead of dying, they outlive normal cells and continue to form new abnormal cells.
Cancer cells develop because of damage to DNA. This substance is in every cell and directs all biological activities. Usually, when DNA becomes damaged the body is able to repair it. In cancer cells, the damaged DNA is not repaired. People can inherit damaged DNA, which accounts for inherited cancers. More often, though, a persons DNA becomes damaged by exposure to something in the environment, like smoking.
Cancer usually forms as a tumor. However, some cancers, like leukemia, do not form tumors. Instead, these cancer cells involve the blood and blood-forming organs and circulate through other tissues where they grow. Often, cancer cells travel to other parts of the body where they begin to grow and replace normal tissue. This process is called metastasis. Regardless of where a cancer may spread, however, it is always named for the place it began. For instance, breast cancer that spreads to the liver is still called breast cancer.
Different types of cancer can behave very differently. For example, lung cancer and breast cancer are very different diseases. They grow at different rates and respond to different treatments. That is why people with cancer need treatment that is aimed at their particular kind of cancer. The risk of developing most types of cancer can be reduced by changes in a persons lifestyle, for example, by quitting smoking and eating a better diet. The sooner a cancer is found and treatment begins, the better are the chances for living for many years.
Oxidative Stress. Oxidation is essential to nearly all cells in the body as it is involved with energy production. Nearly all of the oxygen consumed by the body is reduced to water during metabolic processes. However a small fraction, between 2% and 5% of the oxygen, may be converted into so-called reactive oxygen species or ROS. These ROS, also known as free radicals, are extremely unstable molecules that interact quickly and aggressively with other molecules in the body to create abnormal cells. Under normal conditions the bodys natural antioxidant defenses are sufficient to neutralize ROS and prevent such damage. Oxidative stress occurs when the generation of ROS exceeds the bodys ability to neutralize and eliminate them.
ROS have beneficial roles, one of which is fighting foreign infections in the body to inactivate bacteria and viruses. This is carried out primarily by some specialized cells in the blood (e.g., monocytes and macrophages). However, these same cells can create an undesired environment in tumors where the ROS can kill beneficial tumor fighting cells (e.g., Natural Killer cells and T cells). It is this type of oxidative stress that Ceplene® has shown to stop. Ceplene® decreases the production of ROS by these specialized infection fighting cells, thereby continuing the survival and effectiveness of tumor fighting cells.
Mechanism of Action. Ceplene® (histamine dihydrochloride), based on the naturally occurring molecule histamine, prevents the production and release of oxygen free radicals, thereby reducing oxidative stress. Research suggests that treatment with Ceplene® has the potential to protect critical cells and tissues, and prevent or reverse the cellular damage induced by oxidative stress. This body of research has demonstrated that the primary elements of Ceplene®s proposed mechanism of action are as follows:
Two kinds of immune cells, Natural Killer, or NK, cells and cytotoxic T cells, possess an ability to kill and support the killing of cancer cells and virally infected cells. Natural Killer/T cells, or NK/T cells, a form of NK cells that are commonly found in the liver, also have anti-cancer and anti-viral properties. Much of the current practice of immunotherapy is based on treatment with cytokines such as interferon, or IFN, and low-dose interleukin-2, or IL-2, proteins that stimulate NK, T and NK/T cells.
Research has shown that phagocytic cells (including monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils), a type of white blood cell typically present in large quantities in virally infected liver tissue and in sites of malignant cell growth, release reactive oxygen free radicals and have been shown to inhibit the cell-killing activity of human NK cells and T cells. In preclinical studies, human NK, T, and liver-type NK/T cells have been shown to be sensitive to oxygen free radical-induced apoptosis when these immune cells were exposed to phagocytes. The release of free radicals by phagocytes results in apoptosis, or programmed cell death, of NK, T and NK/T cells, thereby destroying their cytotoxic capability and rendering the immune response against the tumor or virus largely ineffective.
Histamine, a natural molecule present in the body, and other molecules in the class known as histamine type-2, or H2, receptor agonists, bind to the H2 receptor on the phagocytes, temporarily preventing the production and release of oxygen free radicals. By preventing the production and release of oxygen free radicals, histamine based therapeutics may protect NK, T, and liver-type NK/T cells. This protection may allow immune-stimulating agents, such as IL-2 and IFN-alpha, to activate NK cells, T cells and NK/T cells more effectively, thus enhancing the killing of tumor cells or virally infected cells.
Potential Benefits of Histamine Based Therapy. The results from our clinical development program and other research suggest that histamine based therapeutics, such as Ceplene®, may be integral in the growing trend toward combination therapy for certain cancers and may offer a number of important clinical and commercial advantages relative to current therapies or approaches, including:
Regulatory Status. On October 6, 2006, we submitted a Market Authorization Application, or MAA, to the European Medicines Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products also known as EMEA for Ceplene®, our lead oncology product candidate, administered in conjunction with low dose IL-2, for the maintenance of first remission in patients with AML. Successful validation of the MAA for Ceplene® by the EMEA occurred on October 25, 2006. We received, and have responded to as appropriate, the Day 90 assessment, the Day 120 List of Questions, the Day 150 assessment, and the Day 180 List of Outstanding Issues. We recently presented at the Oral Explanation meeting to the European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, the scientific committee of the EMEA, regarding the remaining outstanding issues on the MAA for Ceplene®. A non-binding trend vote taken after the Oral Explanation indicated that a slight majority of the votes by CHMP members were not in favor of recommending a positive opinion. The majority view of the CHMP considered that the data presented in the application, while supportive of the products efficacy and safety in AML, the indication for which approval is being sought, should be confirmed by further clinical data from an additional, replicate study. Discussions by CHMP members of the MAA noted findings from a 2003 study of Ceplene/IL-2 (at a higher dose) in malignant melanoma (a metastatic solid tumor disease with a high tumor burden), in which Ceplene® failed to meet its primary endpoints. By contrast, AML patients in first remission have a microscopically and cytogenetically undetectable tumor burden (minimal residual disease) and are ideal candidates for Ceplene/IL-2 immunotherapy. We are assessing potential options to gain approval and, if the final vote is negative, whether that decision should be appealed.
Estimated Incidence for AML in Europe. AML is the most common form of acute leukemia in adults. Prospects for long-term survival are poor for the majority of AML patients. There are approximately 12,000 new cases of AML and 9,000 deaths caused by this cancer each year in the United States. There are approximately 47,000 AML patients in the EU, with 16,000 new cases occurring each year. Once diagnosed with AML, patients are typically treated with chemotherapy, and the majority of those patients reach complete remission. Approximately 75-80% of patients who achieve their first complete remission will relapse, and the median time in remission before relapse with current treatments is only 12 months. The prospects for these relapsed patients is poor, and 5-15% survive long term. There are currently no approved remission maintenance therapies for AML patients. The objective of the Ceplene®/IL-2 combination is to treat AML patients in remission to prevent relapse and prolong leukemia-free survival while maintaining a good quality of life for patients during treatment. Ceplene was designated as an orphan medicinal product in the European Union on April 11, 2005 in respect of this indication.
Phase III Clinical Trial. The pivotal efficacy and safety data for the MAA is based on a Phase III clinical trial for Ceplene® in conjunction with low dose IL-2. The MP-MA-0201 Phase 3 AML clinical trial, or M0201 trial, was an international, multi-center, randomized, open-label, Phase III trial that commenced in November 1997. The trial was designed to evaluate whether Ceplene® in conjunction with low dose IL-2, given as a remission therapy can prolong leukemia-free survival time and prevent relapse in AML patients in first or subsequent remission compared to the current standard of care, which is no therapy during remission. Accordingly, Ceplene® is intended to complement rather than supplant chemotherapy.
Prior to enrollment for remission therapy, patients were treated with induction and consolidation therapy according to institutional practices. Upon enrollment patients were randomized to one of two treatment groups, either the Ceplene® plus IL-2 group or the control group (standard of care, no treatment). Randomization was stratified by country and complete remission status. Complete remission status was divided into two groups; CR1, and those in their second or later complete remission, or CR>1. Altogether 320 patients were entered into this study; 160 were randomized to active treatment and 160 were randomized to standard of care, i.e. no treatment.
Patients on the active treatment arm received Ceplene® plus IL-2 during ten 3-week treatment periods. After each of the first 3 treatment periods, there was a 3-week rest period, whereas each of the remaining cycles was followed by a 6-week rest period. Treatment duration was approximately 18 months. IL-2 was administered subcutaneously, or sc, 1 µg/kg body weight twice daily, or BID, during treatment periods. Ceplene® was administered sc 0.5 mg BID after IL-2. After the patient became familiar and comfortable with self-injection under the investigators supervision, both drugs could be administered at home. Patients were followed for relapse and survival until at least 3 years from randomization of the last patient enrolled.
Safety was assessed throughout the study by clinical symptoms, physical examinations, vital signs, and clinical laboratory tests. In addition, patients were monitored for safety for 28 days following removal from treatment for any reason. Additional assessments included bone marrow biopsies as clinically indicated and quality of life.
This study met its primary endpoint of preventing relapse as shown by increased leukemia-free survival for AML patients in remission. The study was conducted in eleven countries and included 320 randomized patients. The data demonstrated that patients with AML in complete remission who received 18 months of treatment with Ceplene® in conjunction with low dose IL-2 experienced a significantly improved leukemia-free survival compared to the current standard of care, which is no treatment, after successful induction of remission. The improvement in leukemia-free survival achieved by Ceplene® in conjunction with low dose IL-2 was highly statistically significant (p=0.0008, analyzed according to Intent-to-Treat).
An additional benefit was also observed in patients in their first remission, also known as CR1. These patients had a 55% improvement in leukemia free survival. This represented an absolute improvement of more than 22 weeks in terms of delayed progression of the disease. This benefit was also highly statistically significant, (p=0.011) and is the intended patient population under consideration for this application. The results of this trial were published in Blood, a leading scientific journal in hematology, (Blood; The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, volume 108, pages 88-96, 2006). There is a distinctive need for new treatment options to improve long-term leukemia free survival among AML patients. The majority of AML patients in complete remission will experience a relapse of leukemia with a poor prognosis. These study results indicate that Ceplene®, in conjunction with low dose IL-2, may significantly improve leukemia-free survival among these patients.
The two treatment groups appear well balanced regarding baseline characteristics and prognostic factors. With a minimum follow-up of 3 years a stratified log-rank test (stratified by country and CR1 vs. second or CR>1) of the Kaplan-Meier, or KM, estimate of leukemia free survival of all randomized patients showed a statistically significant advantage for the treatment group (p =0.008). At three years after randomization, 24% of control patients were alive and free of leukemia, compared with 34% of patients treated with Ceplene® in conjunction with IL-2, stratified by log-rank.
Phase II Clinical Trial. A Phase II investigator trial was conducted in Sweden in which 39 AML patients in complete remission were treated with various combinations of Ceplene® and low-dose IL-2. The objective of the study was to determine a Ceplene® in conjunction with IL-2 treatment regimen that would have the least negative impact on normal living for patients in remission, and to determine the feasibility of using that regimen in a larger study of AML patients in complete remission in a long-term, at-home, self-administration clinical trial. Some patients were treated with chemotherapy as well as Ceplene® and IL-2 therapy.
Results of the first 29 patients enrolled from this investigator trial were encouraging: of the 18 patients in their first complete remission 67% remained in complete remission (median 23 months follow-up), and of the 11 patients in their second or later complete remission, 36% remained in complete remission (median 32 months follow-up). The trial results also demonstrated that the regimen of Ceplene® 0.5 mg and IL-2 1 ug/kg administered subcutaneously at home was safe and well tolerated by most subjects. The results of this study led to the development of protocol M0201.
ASAP (Anti-cancer Screening Apoptosis Platform)
Small-Molecule Apoptosis Inducers. All cells have dedicated molecular processes required for cell growth and expansion, but also have programmed pathways specific for inducing cell death. Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cellular growth e.g., tumor formation without any differentiation of those cells. One reason for unchecked growth in cancer cells is the disabling, or absence, of the natural process of programmed cell death called apoptosis. Apoptosis is normally activated to destroy a cell when it outlives its purpose or it is seriously damaged. One of the most promising approaches in the fight against cancer is to selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells, thereby checking, and perhaps reversing, the improper cell growth. Using chemical genetics and our proprietary high-throughput cell-based screening technology, our researchers can effectively identify new cancer drug candidates and molecular targets with the potential to induce apoptosis selectively in cancer cells.
Chemical genetics is a research approach that investigates the effect of small molecules on the cellular activity of a protein, enabling researchers to determine protein function. By combining chemical genetics with its proprietary live cell high-throughput caspase screening technology, our researchers can specifically investigate the cellular activity of a small molecule drug candidate and its relationship to apoptosis. Screening for the activity of caspases, a family of protein-degrading enzymes with a central role in cleaving other important proteins necessary for inducing apoptosis, is an effective method for researchers to efficiently discover and rapidly test the effect of small molecules on pathways and molecular targets crucial to apoptosis.
Our screening technology is particularly versatile, since it can adapt its assays for use in a wide variety of primary cells or cultured cancer cell lines. We call this platform technology ASAP, which is an acronym for Apoptosis Screening and Anti-cancer Platform. The technology can monitor activation of caspases inside living cells and is versatile enough to measure caspase activity across multiple cell types including cancer cells, primary immune cells, cell lines from different organ systems or genetically engineered cells. This allows us to find potential drug candidates that are selective for specific cancer types, permitting the ability to focus on identifying potential cancer-specific drugs that will have increased therapeutic benefit and reduced toxicity or for immunosuppressive agents selective for activated B/T cells. Our high-throughput screening capabilities allow us to screen approximately 30,000 compounds per day. To date, this program has identified more than 40 in vitro lead compounds with potentially novel mechanisms that induce apoptosis in cancer cells. Four lead oncology candidates, two in pre-clinical and two in Phase I/II clinical programs, are being developed independently or through strategic collaborations. The assays underlying the screening technology are protected by multiple United States and international patents and patent applications.
EPC2407. In November 2004, two publications appeared in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, a journal of the American Association of Cancer Research ( Discovery and mechanism of action of a novel series of apoptosis inducers with potential vascular targeting activity, Kasibhatla, S., Gourdeau, H., Meerovitch, K., Drewe, J., Reddy, S., Qiu, L., Zhang, H., Bergeron, F., Bouffard, D., Yang, Q., Herich, J., Lamothe, S., Cai, S. X., Tseng, B., Mol. Cancer Ther. 2004 vol. 3 pp. 1365-1374; and Antivascular and antitumor evaluation of 2-amino-4-(3-bromo-4,5-dimethoxy-phenyl)-3-cyano-4H-chromenes, a novel series of anticancer agents, Henriette Gourdeau, Lorraine Leblond, Bettina Hamelin, Clemence Desputeau, Kelly Dong, Irenej Kianicka, Dominique Custeau, Chantal Boudreau, Lilianne Geerts, Sui-Xiong Cai, John Drewe, Denis Labrecque, Shailaja Kasibhatla, and Ben Tseng, Mol. Cancer Ther. 2004 vol. 3 pp.1375-1384) describing EPC2407 anticancer drug candidate as part of a novel class of microtubule inhibitors were published. The manuscripts characterize EPC2407 as a potent caspase activator demonstrating vascular targeting activity and potent antitumor activity in pre-clinical in vitro and in vivo studies. EPC2407 appeared highly effective in mouse tumor models, producing tumor necrosis at doses that correspond to only 25% of the maximum tolerated dose. Moreover, in combination treatment, EPC2407 significantly enhanced the antitumor activity of cisplatin, resulting in tumor-free animals.
In October 2007, we completed a Phase I clinical trial for EPC2407. We successfully identified the maximum tolerated dose of EPC2407 in the Phase I study. The maximum tolerated dose was below the dose which produced the expected toxicity based on preclinical studies at higher doses. EPC2407 was administered as a single agent in increasing doses to small cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors. A total of seventeen patients were enrolled in the study. The drug was tested in a variety of cancer types including melanoma, prostate, lung, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancers. The study, which was initiated in December 2006, was conducted at three cancer centers in the U.S. In addition to determining the maximum tolerated dosage of EPC2407, the primary objective of the study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of the drug. Results from the study will also help characterize the pharmacodynamic effects on tumor blood flow and potentially identify early signs of objective anti-tumor response as measured by CT scans, MRI or PET, in advanced cancer patients with well vascularized solid tumors. A Phase Ib study of EPC2407 in combination with cisplatin is expected to commence in the second half 2008.
AzixaTM (MPC6827). AzixaTM is a compound discovered from the ASAP drug discovery platform at EpiCept and licensed to Myriad Genetics for clinical development. AzixaTM demonstrated a broad range of anti-tumor activities against many tumor types in various animal models as well as activity against different types of multi-drug resistant cell lines. The Phase I clinical testing was conducted by Myriad, on patients with solid tumors with a particular focus on brain cancers or brain metastases due to the pharmacologic properties of AzixaTM in pre-clinical animal studies that indicated higher drug levels in the brain than in the blood. Myriad reported in the third quarter of 2006 that a maximum tolerated dose, or MTD had been reached for AzixaTM and that they had seen evidence of tumor regression at doses less than the MTD in some patients. In March 2007, Myriad initiated two Phase II registration sized clinical trial for AzixaTM in patients with primary brain cancer and in patients with melanoma that has spread to the brain. In August 2007, Myriad initiated a third Phase II clinical trial for AzixaTM in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain. The trials are designed to assess the safety profile of AzixaTM and the extent to which it can improve the overall survival of these patients. In March 2008, we received a milestone payment of $1.0 million upon dosing of the first patient in a Phase II registration-sized clinical trial.
Pain and Pain Management
Pain occurs as a result of surgery, trauma or disease. It is generally provoked by a harmful stimulus to a pain receptor in the skin or muscle. Pain can range in severity (mild, moderate or severe) and duration (acute or chronic). Acute pain, such as pain resulting from an injury or surgery, is of short duration, generally less than a month, but may last up to three months. Chronic pain is more persistent, extending long after an injury has healed, and typically results from a chronic illness or appears spontaneously and persists for undefined reasons. Examples of chronic pain include chronic lower back pain and pain resulting from bone cancer or advanced osteoarthritis. If treated inadequately, unrelieved acute and chronic pain can slow recovery and healing and adversely affect a persons quality of life.
Limitations of Current Therapies
Until recently, analgesics primarily have been delivered systemically and absorbed into the bloodstream where they can then alleviate the pain. Systemic delivery is achieved either orally, via injection or through a transdermal patch. Systemic delivery of analgesics can have significant adverse side effects because the concentration of analgesics in the bloodstream can impact other organs and systems throughout the body.
Adverse side effects of systemically-delivered analgesics are well documented. Systemically-delivered opioid analgesics can cause respiratory distress, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sedation, constipation, urinary retention and severe itching. In addition, chronic use of opioid analgesics can lead to the need for increased dosing and potential addiction. Concerns about addiction and abuse often influence physicians to prescribe less than adequate doses of opioids or to prescribe opioids less frequently. Systemically-delivered NSAIDs and adjuvant therapeutics can also have significant adverse side effects, including kidney failure, liver dysfunction, gastric ulcers and nausea. In the United States, there are approximately 16,500 NSAID-related deaths each year, and over 103,000 patients are hospitalized annually due to NSAID complications. These adverse side effects may lead doctors to prescribe analgesics less often and at lower doses than may be necessary to alleviate pain. Further, patients may take lower doses for shorter periods of time and opt to suffer with the pain rather than risk the adverse side effects. Systemic delivery of these drugs may also result in significant interactions with other drugs, which is of particular concern when treating elderly patients who typically take multiple pharmaceutical therapies.
Recent Scientific Developments
Almost every disease and every trauma is associated with pain. Injury or inflammation stimulates the pain receptors, causing electrical pain signals to be transmitted from the pain receptors through nerve fibers into the spinal cord and eventually to the brain. Pain receptors include central pain receptors, such as those found in the brain and spinal cord, and peripheral nerve receptors, also called nociceptors, such as those located directly beneath the skin and in joints, eyes and visceral organs. Within the spinal cord, the electrical pain signals are received by a second set of nerve fibers that continue the transmission of the signal up the spinal cord and through the central nervous system into the brain. Within the brain, additional nerve fibers transmit the electrical signals to the pain center of the brain. The brain decodes the messages being sent to the central nervous system from the peripheral nervous system, and the signals are perceived as pain and pain is felt. These messages can be disrupted with pharmaceutical intervention either at the source of the pain, such as the pain receptor, or at the point of receipt of the pain message, in the brain. Topical delivery of analgesics blocks the transmission of pain at the source of the pain message, whereas systemic delivery of analgesics primarily blocks the perception of pain within the brain.
Not until recently has the contribution of peripheral nerve receptors to the perception of pain been well understood. Recent studies have indicated that peripheral nerve receptors can play an important role in both the sensory perception of pain and the transmission of pain impulses. Specifically, certain types of acute and chronic pain depend to some degree on the activation of peripheral pain receptors located beneath the skins surface. The topical administration of well-known analgesics can localize drug concentrations at the point where the pain signals originate, resulting in dramatically lower systemic blood levels. We believe this results in a new treatment strategy that provides significant pain relief, with fewer adverse side effects, fewer drug to drug interactions and lower potential for abuse.
Peripheral neuropathy is a medical condition caused by damage to the nerves in the peripheral nervous system. The peripheral nervous system includes nerves that run from the brain and spinal cord to the rest of the body. According to Business Insights study The Pain Market Outlook to 2011 published in June 2006, peripheral neuropathy affects over 15 million people in the United States and is associated with conditions that injure peripheral nerves, including herpes zoster, or shingles, diabetes, HIV and AIDS and other diseases. It can also be caused by trauma or may result from surgical procedures. Peripheral neuropathy is usually first felt as tingling and numbness in the hands and feet. Symptoms can be experienced in many ways, including burning, shooting pain, throbbing or aching. Peripheral neuropathy can cause intense chronic pain that, in many instances, is debilitating.
Post-herpetic neuralgia or PHN is one type of peripheral neuropathic pain associated with herpes zoster, or shingles that exists after the rash has healed. According to Datamonitor, PHN affects over 100,000 people in the United States each year. PHN causes pain on and around the area of skin that was affected by the shingles rash. Most people with PHN describe their pain as mild or moderate. However, the pain can be severe in some cases. PHN pain is usually a constant, burning or gnawing pain but can be an intermittent sharp or stabbing pain. Current treatments for PHN have limited effectiveness, particularly in severe cases and can cause significant adverse side effects. One of the initial indications for our EpiCept NP-1 product candidate is for the treatment of peripheral neuropathy in PHN patients.
Cancer pain represents a large unmet market. This condition is caused by the cancer tumor itself as well as the side effects of cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy. According to Business Insights study, Pain Market Outlook for 2011, published in June 2006, over 5 million patients in the United States experience cancer-related pain. This pain can be placed in three main areas: visceral, somatic and neuropathic. Visceral pain is caused by tissue damage to organs and may be described as gnawing, cramping, aching or sharp. Somatic pain refers to the skin, muscle or bone and is described as stabbing, aching, throbbing or pressure. Neuropathic pain is caused by injury to, or compression of, the structures of the peripheral and central nervous system. Chemotherapeutic agents, including vinca alkaloids, cisplatin and paclitaxel, are associated with peripheral neuropathies. Neuropathic pain is often described as sharp, tingling, burning or shooting.
Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or DPN is common in patients with long-standing Type 1(juvenile) and Type 2 (adult onset) diabetes mellitus. An estimated 18.2 million people have diabetes mellitus in the United States. The prevalence of neuropathy approaches 50% in those with diabetes mellitus for greater than 25 years. Specifically, the lifetime incidence of DPN is 11.6% and 32.1% for type 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively. Common symptoms of DPN are sharp, stabbing, burning pain, or allodynia (pain to light touch) with numbness and tingling of the feet and sometimes the hands.
Various drugs are currently used in the treatment of DPN. These include tricyclic antidepressants or TCAs such as amitriptyline, anticonvulsants such as gabapentin, serotonin and norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine), and opioids (e.g.,oxycodone). Unfortunately, the use of these drugs is often limited by the extent of the pain relief provided and the occurrence of significant central nervous system (CNS) side effects such as dizziness, somnolence, and confusion. Because of its limited systemic absorption into the blood, EpiCept NP-1 topical cream (amitriptyline 4%/ketamine 2%) potentially fulfills the unmet need for a safe, better tolerated, and effective agent for painful DPN.
EpiCept NP-1. EpiCept NP-1 is a prescription topical analgesic cream containing a patented formulation of two FDA-approved drugs, amitriptyline (a widely-used antidepressant) and ketamine (an NMDA antagonist that is used as an intravenous anesthetic). EpiCept NP-1 is designed to provide effective, long-term relief from the pain caused by peripheral neuropathies. We believe that EpiCept NP-1 can be used in conjunction with orally delivered analgesics, such as Neurontin®. The cream contains a 4% concentration of amitriptyline and a 2% concentration of ketamine. Since each of these ingredients has been shown to have significant analgesic effects and because NMDA antagonists, such as ketamine, have demonstrated the ability to enhance the analgesic effects of amitriptyline, we believe the combination is a good candidate for the development of a new class of analgesics.
EpiCept NP-1 is a white vanishing cream that is applied twice daily and is quickly absorbed into the applied area. We believe the topical delivery of its patented combination represents a fundamentally new approach for the treatment of pain associated with peripheral neuropathy. In addition, we believe that the topical delivery of its product candidate will significantly reduce the risk of adverse side effects and drug to drug interactions associated with the systemic delivery of the active ingredients. The results of our clinical trials to date have demonstrated the safety of the cream for use for up to one year and a potent analgesic effect in subjects with both post-herpetic neuralgia and other types of peripheral neuropathy, such as those with diabetic, traumatic and surgical causes.
Clinical Development. We have completed three Phase II clinical trials, the most recent being a study of 215 patients suffering from DPN. This results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study trial demonstrated that the primary endpoint, the difference in changes in pain intensity between NP-1 and placebo over the four week duration of the trial, nearly reached statistical significance (p=0.0715). The analgesic benefits of NP-1 continued to build over time during the course of the study. Key secondary endpoints measured in the trial from a responder analysis indicate that 60% of patients in the NP-1 treatment arm achieved a reduction of pain scores of at least 30% compared with 48% of patients in the placebo arm (p=0.076). In addition, 33% of patients in the NP-1 treatment arm achieved a reduction in pain scores of at least 50% compared with 21% of patients in the placebo arm (p=0.078). All pain scores measured trended in favor of the NP-1 treated patients over the placebo group, indicative of an analgesic effect in this type of peripheral neuropathic pain. We concluded that preliminary data derived from the trial support the continued study of NP-1 in a late-stage pivotal clinical trial.
Placebo-controlled Factorial Trial. Earlier Phase II studies included a placebo-controlled factorial trial, which compared the effects of the combination of amitriptyline and ketamine and was designed to demonstrate that the use of this combination was more effective than either drug alone. A factorial trial is a trial in which the active ingredients in combination are compared with each drug used alone and by a placebo control. The trial included 92 subjects with a history of diabetic, post surgical or traumatic neuropathy or PHN. While not statistically significant, the results indicated a desirable rank order of the combination being more effective than either amitriptyline or ketamine alone or placebo. The cream was well-tolerated by a majority of the subjects, and no significant adverse reactions were observed
Dose-Response Clinical Trial. In 2003, we conducted a Phase II placebo-controlled dose-response clinical trial in subjects recruited from 21 pain centers to determine an effective clinical dose of EpiCept NP-1. The trial included 251 subjects with post-herpetic neuralgia who had been suffering significant pain for at least three months. We tested two dosage formulations, one containing a 4% concentration of amitriptyline and a 2% concentration of ketamine, which we refer to as high-dose and one containing a 2% concentration of amitriptyline and a 1% concentration of ketamine, which we refer to as low-dose, as compared to placebo. The clinical trial results indicated that the high-dose formulation of EpiCept NP-1 met the primary endpoint for the trial and resulted in a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity and increase in pain relief as compared to placebo. We also observed a dose-related effect, i.e. the subjects receiving the high-dose formulation had more favorable results than the subjects receiving the low-dose formulation. In addition, the subjects receiving the high-dose formulation reported better sleep quality and greater overall satisfaction than subjects receiving placebo. In addition, we observed a greater number of responders, which for purposes of the responder analysis conducted during the 14-day period were defined as subjects with a two or more point drop in average daily pain scores on the 11-point numerical pain scale. No significant adverse reactions were observed other than skin irritation and rash, which were equivalent to placebo.
Current Clinical Initiatives. In 2007, we initiated a Phase IIb, multi-center, randomized, placebo controlled trial in approximately 500 patients evaluating the analgesic properties and safety of NP-1 cream in patients with post-herpetic neuropathy. This trial was designed to provide further evidence of NP-1s efficacy in PHN and to compare its safety and efficacy against gabapentin, the leading drug prescribed for this indication. The trial will compare the differences at baseline (at randomization) to the last seven days of treatment between NP-1 and either placebo cream or gabapentin in the mean daily intensity scores. In addition, the trial will investigate the quality of life and disability modification profile of the NP-1 cream.
In the third quarter 2007 EpiCept initiated a Phase III multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in approximately 400 patients evaluating the effects of EpiCept NP-1 cream in treating patients suffering from chemotherapeutic (induced) peripheral neuropathy, also known as CPN. CPN may affect 50% of women undergoing treatment for breast cancer. A common therapeutic agent for the treatment of advanced breast cancer is paclitaxel, and as many as 80% of the patients with advanced breast cancer experience some signs and symptoms of CPN, such as burning, tingling pain associated sometimes with mild muscular weakness, after high dose paclitaxel administration. The study is being conducted within a network of approximately 25 sites under the direction of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP).
We held an End of Phase II meeting with the FDA in April 2004 to discuss the protocols for our planned Phase III clinical trials. In that meeting, the FDA accepted our stability data and manufacturing plans for the combination product, as well as toxicology data on ketamine from studies conducted by others and published literature. The FDA also confirmed that the proposed New Drug Application, (NDA) would qualify for a Section 505(b)(2) submission (for details on this submission process, see Item 1. Business Government Regulation United States Section 505(b)(2) Drug Applications below). In addition, the FDA approved our Phase III clinical trial protocol and indicated that a second factorial Phase III clinical trial would be required. The FDA also requested that we conduct an additional pharmacokinetic trial to assess dermal absorption of ketamine and outlined the parameters for long-term safety studies for the high-dose formulation. The pharmacokinetic clinical trial involved applying the cream twice daily and measuring blood concentration levels of amitriptyline and ketamine over 96 hours.
In the United States, 80% of the U.S. population will experience significant back pain at some point. Back pain ranks second only to headaches as the most frequently experienced pain. It is the leading reason for visits to neurologists and orthopedists and the second most frequent reason for physician visits overall. Both acute and chronic back pain are typically treated with NSAIDs, muscle relaxants or opioid analgesics. All of these drugs can subject the patient to systemic toxicity, significant adverse side effects and drug to drug interactions.
LidoPAIN BP. LidoPAIN BP is a prescription analgesic non-sterile patch designed to provide sustained topical delivery of lidocaine for the treatment of acute or recurrent lower back pain of moderate severity of less than three months duration. The LidoPAIN BP patch contains 140 mg of lidocaine in a 19.0% concentration, is intended to be applied once daily and can be worn for a continuous 24-hour period. The patchs adhesive is strong enough to permit a patient to move and conduct normal daily activities but can be removed easily.
Current Clinical Initiatives. Based on the results from the Phase I and Phase II clinical trials, we are designing a new pivotal Phase II/III clinical trial in acute musculoskeletal low back pain. Our new trial will be designed to address the issues raised in our previous Phase IIb clinical trial. The trial will be longer and will have more stringent enrollment criteria. We are consulting with our partner Endo to help optimize the trials design.
LidoPAIN SP. LidoPAIN SP is a sterile prescription analgesic patch designed to provide sustained topical delivery of lidocaine to a post-surgical or post-traumatic sutured wound while also providing a sterile protective covering for the wound. The LidoPAIN SP patch contains a 10% concentration of lidocaine and is intended to be applied as a single administration over one to three days. LidoPAIN SP can be targeted for use following both inpatient and ambulatory surgical procedures, including among others: hernia repair, plastic surgery, puncture wounds, biopsy, cardiac catheterization and tumor removal.
We completed a Phase III pivotal clinical trial in Europe during the fourth quarter of 2006. The trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial in which 570 patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair received one LidoPAIN SP patch or a placebo patch, for 48 hours. Trial results indicated that the LidoPAIN SP patch did not achieve a statistically significant effect relative to the placebo patch with respect to its primary endpoint of self-assessed pain intensity between 4 and 24 hours. In addition, statistical significance was not achieved in the trials co-primary endpoint of patient use of rescue medication, i.e. systemically-delivered analgesics used to alleviate pain. The analyses of the trial data demonstrated that the total amount of pain from 4-24 hours as measured by the area under the curve had a p value of approximately 0.4; and co-primary endpoint rescue medication use also from 4-24 hours had a p-value of approximately 0.09. Both treatment groups showed an analgesic effect with greater analgesic response in the active group. The product was well tolerated in both treatment groups.
Based on the analyses of this trials data, we have concluded that the LidoPAIN SP patch is unlikely to achieve commercial success without significant improvements in its onset of therapeutic activity. We do not plan further development at this time.
Our Strategic Alliances
We licensed the MX90745 series of caspase-inducer anti-cancer compounds to Myriad in 2003. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted to Myriad a research license to develop and commercialize any drug candidates from the series of compounds with a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, without the right to sublicense the technology. Myriad is responsible for the worldwide development and commercialization of any drug candidates from the series of compounds. We also granted to Myriad a worldwide royalty bearing development and commercialization license with the right to sublicense the technology. The agreement required Myriad to make research payments to us totaling $3 million which was paid and recognized as revenue prior January 4, 2006. Assuming the successful commercialization of the compound for the treatment of cancer, we are also eligible to receive up to $24.0 million upon the achievement of certain milestones and the successful commercialization of the compound for treatment of cancer as well as a royalty on product sales. In March 2007, Myriad initiated a Phase II registration sized clinical trial for AzixaTM (MPC6827). In March 2008, we received a milestone payment of $1.0 million following dosing of the first patient in this trial.
In December 2003, we entered into a license agreement with Endo under which we granted Endo (and its affiliates) the exclusive (including as to us and our affiliates) worldwide right to commercialize LidoPAIN BP. We also granted Endo worldwide rights to use certain of our patents for the development of certain other non-sterile, topical lidocaine patches, including Lidoderm, Endos non-sterile topical lidocaine-containing patch for the treatment of chronic lower back pain. Upon the execution of the Endo agreement, we received a non-refundable payment of $7.5 million, and we may receive additional payments of up to $52.5 million upon the achievement of various milestones relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercial success for both our LidoPAIN BP product and Endos own back pain product, so long as, in the case of Endos product candidate, our patents provide protection thereof. We will also receive royalties from Endo based on the net sales of LidoPAIN BP. These royalties are payable until generic equivalents to the LidoPAIN BP product are available or until expiration of the patents covering LidoPAIN BP, whichever is sooner. We are also eligible to receive milestone payments from Endo of up to approximately $30.0 million upon the achievement of specified net sales milestones of Lidoderm, Endos chronic lower back pain product candidate, so long as our patents provide protection thereof. The future amount of milestone payments we are eligible to receive under the Endo agreement is $82.5 million. There is no certainty that any of these milestones will be achieved or any royalty earned.
We remain responsible for continuing and completing the development of LidoPAIN BP, including conducting all clinical trials (and supplying the clinical products necessary for those trials) and the preparation and submission of the NDA in order to obtain regulatory approval for LidoPAIN BP. We may subcontract with third parties for the manufacture and supply of LidoPAIN BP. Endo is conducting Phase II clinical trials for its Lidoderm patch in chronic back pain and remains responsible for continuing and completing the development, including conducting all clinical trials (and supplying the clinical products necessary for those trials) in connection with that indication.
The license terminates upon the later of the conclusion of the royalty term, on a country-by-country basis, and the expiration of the last applicable our patent covering licensed Endo product candidates on a country-by-country basis. Either Endo or we may terminate the agreement upon an uncured material breach by the other or, subject to the relevant bankruptcy laws, upon a bankruptcy event of the other.
In December 2006, we entered into a license agreement with DURECT Corporation (DURECT), pursuant to which we granted DURECT the exclusive worldwide rights to certain of our intellectual property for a transdermal patch containing bupivacaine for the treatment of back pain. Under the terms of the agreement, we received a $1.0 million upfront payment and may receive up to an additional $9.0 million in license fees and milestone payments as well as certain royalty payments based on net sales.
We have no in-house manufacturing capabilities. We intend to outsource all of our manufacturing activities for the foreseeable future. We believe that this strategy will enable us to direct operational and financial resources to the development of our product candidates rather than diverting resources to establishing a manufacturing infrastructure.
We have entered into arrangements with qualified third parties for the formulation and manufacture of our clinical supplies. We intend to enter into additional written supply agreements in the future and are currently in negotiations with several potential suppliers. We generally purchase our supplies from current suppliers pursuant to purchase orders. We plan to use a single, separate third party manufacturer for each of our product candidates for which we are responsible for manufacturing. In some cases, the responsibility to manufacture product, or to identify suitable third party manufacturers, may be assumed by our licensees. We cannot assure you that our current manufacturers can successfully increase their production to meet full commercial demand. We believe that there are several manufacturing sources available to us, including our current manufacturers, which can meet our commercial supply requirements on commercially reasonable terms. We will continue to look for and secure the appropriate manufacturing capabilities and capacity to ensure commercial supply at the appropriate time.
Sales and Marketing
We do not currently have internal sales or marketing capabilities. In order to commercially market our product candidates if we obtain regulatory approval, we must either develop an internal sales and marketing infrastructure or collaborate with third parties with sales and marketing expertise. We have retained full rights to commercialize Ceplene®, EpiCept NP-1, LidoPAIN SP and EPC2407 worldwide. In addition, we have granted Myriad exclusive worldwide commercialization rights, with rights to sublicense, for MPC 6827. We have also granted Endo exclusive worldwide marketing and commercialization rights for LidoPAIN BP but have retained the right to negotiate with Endo co-promotion rights for LidoPAIN BP worldwide. We will likely market our products in international markets outside of North America through collaborations with third parties. We intend to make decisions regarding internal sales and marketing of our product candidates on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis.
Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of our technologies and drug candidates as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. We have various compositions of matter and use patents, which have claims directed to our product candidates or methods of their use. Our patent policy is to retain and secure patents for the technology, inventions and improvements related to our core portfolio of product candidates. We currently own eighty one U.S. and international patents. EpiCept also relies on trade secrets, technical know-how and continuing innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position.
The following is a summary of the patent position relating to our five in-house product candidates:
Ceplene® The intellectual property protection surrounding our histamine technology includes 24 United States patents issued or allowed that expire in February 2023, with patents issued or pending in the international markets concerning specific therapeutic areas or manufacturing. Claims include the therapeutic administration of histamine or any H2 receptor agonist in the treatment of cancer, infectious diseases and other diseases, either alone or in combination therapies, the novel synthetic method for the production of pharmaceutical-grade histamine dihydrochloride, the mechanism of action including the binding receptor and pathway, and the rate and route of administration.
EPC2407 The intellectual property protection regarding this compound is covered by two issued U.S. patents that expire in May 2022 and one application pending covering the composition and uses of this compound and structurally related analogs. Additional foreign patent applications are pending in major pharmaceutical markets outside the United States.
EpiCept NP-1 We own a U.S. patent with claims directed to a formulation containing a combination of amitriptyline and ketamine, which can be used as a treatment for the topical relief of pain, including neuropathic pain, that expires in August 2021. We also have a license to additional patents, which expire in September 2015 and May 2018, and which have claims directed to topical uses of tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, and NMDA antagonists, such as ketamine, as treatments for relieving pain, including neuropathic pain. Additional foreign patent applications are pending related to EpiCept NP-1 in many major pharmaceutical markets outside the United States.
LidoPAIN SP We own two U.S. patents that have claims directed to the topical use of a local anesthetic or salt thereof, such as lidocaine, for the prevention or relief of pain from surgically closed wounds, in a hydrogel patch, which expire in October 2019. Additionally, we own a pending U.S. patent application that is directed to a breathable, sterile patch that can be used to treat pain caused by various types of wounds, including surgically closed wounds. We have foreign patent applications pending relating to LidoPAIN SP in many major pharmaceutical markets outside the United States.
LidoPAIN BP We own a U.S. patent that has claims directed to the use and composition of a patch containing a local anesthetic, such as lidocaine, to topically treat back pain, myofascial pain and muscular tensions, which expires in July 2016. Equivalent foreign patents have been granted in many major European pharmaceutical markets.
We may seek to protect our proprietary information by requiring our employees, consultants, contractors, outside partners and other advisers to execute, as appropriate, nondisclosure and assignment of invention agreements upon commencement of their employment or engagement. We also require confidentiality or material transfer agreements from third parties that receive our confidential data or materials.
We also rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, partners and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.
The pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences industries are characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent litigation based upon allegations of patent infringement. While our drug candidates are in clinical trials, and prior to commercialization, we believe our current activities fall within the scope of the exemptions provided by 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e) in the United States and Section 55.2(1) of the Canadian Patent Act, each of which covers activities related to developing information for submission to the FDA and its counterpart agency in Canada. As our drug candidates progress toward commercialization, the possibility of an infringement claim against us increases. While we attempt to ensure that our drug candidates and the methods we employ to manufacture them do not infringe other parties patents and other proprietary rights, competitors or other parties may assert that we infringe on their proprietary rights.
For a discussion of the risks associated with our intellectual property, see Item 1A. Risk Factors Risks Relating to Intellectual Property.
We have in the past licensed and will continue to license patents from collaborating research groups and individual inventors.
In October 1999, we acquired from Dr. R. Douglas Cassel certain patent applications relating to technology for the treatment of surgical incision pain. We will pay Dr. Cassel royalties based on the net sales of any of our products for the treatment of pain associated with surgically closed wounds, after deducting the amount of consulting fees we paid him pursuant to an amendment to the license agreement signed in 2003, which has since lapsed. The royalty obligations will terminate upon the expiration of the last to expire acquired patent. As part of the royalty arrangement, we have engaged Dr. Cassel as a consultant, for which he is paid on a per diem basis. Dr. Cassel provides us with general scientific consulting services, particularly with respect to the development and commercialization of LidoPAIN SP. Dr. Cassel has also granted us an option to obtain, on mutually agreeable terms, an exclusive, worldwide license to any technology discovered by Dr. Cassel outside of his performance of services for us.
In August 1999, we entered into a sublicense agreement with Epitome Pharmaceuticals Limited under which EpiCept was granted an exclusive license to certain patents for the topical use of tricyclic anti-depressants and NMDA antagonists as topical analgesics for neuralgia that were licensed to Epitome by Dalhousie University. These and other patents cover the combination treatment consisting of amitriptyline and ketamine in EpiCept NP-1. This technology has been incorporated into EpiCept NP-1. In July 2007, we converted the sublicense agreement previously established with Epitome Pharmaceuticals Limited, related to our product candidate EpiCept NP-1, into a direct license with Dalhousie University. Under this new arrangement, we gained more favorable terms, including a lower maintenance fee obligation and reduced royalty rate on future product sales.
We have been granted worldwide rights to make, use, develop, sell and market products utilizing the licensed technology in connection with passive dermal applications. We are obligated to make payments to Dalhousie upon achievement of specified milestones and to pay royalties based on annual net sales derived from the products incorporating the licensed technology. At the end of each year in which there has been no commercially sold products, we are obligated to pay Dalhousie a maintenance fee, or Dalhousie will have the option to terminate the contract. The license agreement with Dalhousie terminates upon the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent. The sublicense agreement with Epitome terminated in July 2007. During 2007, 2006 and 2005, we paid Epitome a fee of $0.3 million, $0 and $0.2 million, respectively and will be required to pay an annual fee of $0.3 million for the next two years if the agreement with Dalhousie remains in effect. During 2007, we paid Dalhousie a signing fee of $0.3 million, a maintenance fee of $0.4 million and a milestone payment of $0.2 million upon the dosing of the first patient in a Phase III clinical trial for the licensed product. These payments were expensed to research and development in 2007.
In March 2004 and as amended in January 2005, we entered into a license agreement reacquiring the rights to the MX2105 series of apoptosis inducer anti-cancer compounds from Shire Biochem, Inc (formerly known as BioChem Pharma, Inc.) who had previously announced that oncology would no longer be a therapeutic focus of the companys research and development efforts. Under the agreements, Shire BioChem agreed to assign and/or license to us rights it owned under or shared under its oncology research program. The agreement requires that we provide Shire Biochem a portion of any sublicensing payments we receive if we relicense the series of compounds, and make milestone payments to Shire BioChem totaling up to $26 million, assuming the successful commercialization of a compound for the treatment of a cancer indication, as well as pay a royalty on product sales. In 2006, we recorded a license fee expense of $0.5 million upon the commencement of a Phase I clinical trial for EPC2407.
In October 1999, we entered into a royalty agreement with Dr. Kristoffer Hellstrand under which we have an exclusive license to certain patents for Ceplene® (histamine dihydrochloride or any other H2 receptor agonist) configured for the systemic treatment of cancer, infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases and other medical conditions. We previously paid Dr. Hellstrand $1 million. In addition, we owe a royalty of 1% of net sales. As of December 31, 2007, no royalties have been paid.
The FDA and comparable state and local regulatory agencies impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion of our product candidates. In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and implementing regulations. The process required by the FDA before our product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Pre-clinical Activities. Pre-clinical activities include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals. The results of pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of an IND application to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Our submission of an IND, or those of our collaborators, may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development, and the FDA must grant permission before each clinical trial can begin. Further, an independent institutional review board, or IRB, for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that center, and it must monitor the study until completed. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations and regulations for informed consent of subjects.
Clinical Trials. For purposes of NDA submission and approval, clinical trials are typically conducted in the following three sequential phases, which may overlap:
In some cases, the FDA may give conditional approval of an NDA for a drug candidate on the sponsors agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the drugs safety and effectiveness after NDA approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase IV clinical trials.
New Drug Application. The results of drug candidate development, pre-clinical testing, chemistry and manufacturing controls and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA. The NDA also must contain extensive manufacturing information. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, by law the FDA has 180 days to review the application and respond to the applicant. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and 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. The FDA may deny approval of an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or it may require additional clinical data or an additional pivotal Phase III clinical trial. Even if such data is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we do. Once issued, the FDA may withdraw drug approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the drug reaches the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a drug based on the results of these post-marketing programs. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, we may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials.
Satisfaction of FDA regulations and requirements or similar requirements of state, local and foreign regulatory agencies typically takes several years, and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of drug candidates for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures upon our activities. The FDA or any other regulatory agency may not grant approvals for new indications for our drug candidates on a timely basis, if at all. Even if a drug candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific usages, patient populations and dosages. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug may result in restrictions on the drug or even complete withdrawal of the drug from the market. Delays in obtaining, or failures to obtain, regulatory approvals for any of our drug candidates would harm its business. In addition, we cannot predict what additional governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. governmental action.
Any drugs manufactured or distributed by us or our collaborators pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including record keeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences associated with the drug. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to potential legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or civil penalties. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other ongoing FDA regulatory requirements. If our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may halt EpiCepts clinical trials, require EpiCept to recall a drug from distribution, or withdraw approval of the NDA for that drug.
The 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. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the drugs labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers communications regarding off-label use.
Section 505(b)(2) Drug Applications. Once an FDA-approved new drug is no longer patent-protected, another company may sponsor a new indication, a new use or put the drug in a new dosage form. Each new indication from a different company requires an NDA filing. As an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations of previously approved products, a company may file a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. 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. However, this NDA does not have to contain all of the information or data that was submitted with the original NDA because of the FDAs prior experience with the drug product. An original NDA for an FDA-approved new drug would have required numerous animal toxicology studies that have been reviewed by the FDA. These can be referenced in the 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by the new applicant. Many studies in humans that support the safety of the drug product may be in the published literature. The FDA allows the new sponsor company to submit these publications to support its 505(b)(2) NDA. By allowing the new sponsor company to use this information, the time and cost required to obtain approval for a drug product for the new indication can be greatly reduced. 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 FDAs Orange Book publication. 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. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the Section 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. The Section 505(b)(2) 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.
Whether or not EpiCept obtains FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials 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. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement also vary greatly from country to country. Although governed by the applicable country, clinical trials conducted outside of the United States typically are administered with the three-phase sequential process that is discussed above under Government Regulation United States. However, the foreign equivalent of an IND is not a prerequisite to performing pilot studies or Phase I clinical trials.
Under European Union regulatory systems, we may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure, which is available for medicines produced by biotechnology or which are highly innovative, provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states. This authorization is a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The decentralized procedure provides for mutual recognition of national approval decisions. Under this procedure, the holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the remaining member states. Within 90 days of receiving the applications and assessment report, each member state must decide whether to recognize approval. This procedure is referred to as the mutual recognition procedure.
In addition, regulatory approval of prices is required in most countries other than the United States. We face the risk that the resulting prices would be insufficient to generate an acceptable return to us or our collaborators.
We were incorporated in Delaware in March 1993. We have two wholly-owned subsidiaries, EpiCept GmbH, based in Munich, Germany, which is engaged in research and development activities on our behalf and Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which we acquired on January 4, 2006. Our principal executive offices are located at 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY, and our telephone number is (914) 606-3500. Our website address is www.epicept.com. Our website, and the information contained in our website, is not a part of this annual report.
As of March 14, 2008, EpiCepts workforce consists of 32 full-time employees, eleven of whom hold a Ph.D. or M.D., and one of whom holds another advanced degree. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and have not experienced any work stoppages. We believe that our relations with our employees are good.
Research and Development
Since our inception, we have made substantial investments in research and development. In the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, we incurred research and development expenses of $15.3 million, $15.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively.
Availability of SEC Filings
We have filed reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Copies of EpiCepts reports, proxy statements and other information may be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the SEC at SEC Headquarters, Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the SECs public reference facilities by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding EpiCept. The address of the SEC website is http://www.sec.gov. We will also provide copies of our Forms 8-K, 10-K, 10-Q, Proxy and Annual Report at no charge available through our website at www.epicept.com as soon as reasonably practicable after filing electronically such material with the SEC. Copies are also available, without charge, from EpiCept Corporation, 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY, 10591.
An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risk factors described below as well as the other information contained in this prospectus before buying shares of our common stock. If any of the following risks or uncertainties occurs, our business, financial conditions and operating results could be materially and adversely affected. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or a part of your investment in our common stock.
Risks Relating to our Financial Condition
We have a history of losses, and as a result we may not be able to generate sufficient net revenue from product sales in the foreseeable future.
We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we expect that we will experience net losses and negative cash flow for the foreseeable future. Since our inception in 1993, we have incurred significant net losses in each year. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in connection with our development activities and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. Our net loss for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $28.7 and $65.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, our accumulated deficit was $170.8 and $142.2 million, respectively. We may never generate sufficient net revenue to achieve or sustain profitability.
We expect to continue to incur increasing expenses over the next several years as we:
We expect that we will have large fixed expenses in the future, including significant expenses for research and development and general and administrative expenses. We will need to generate significant revenues to achieve and maintain profitability. If we cannot successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, we will not be able to generate significant revenue from product sales or achieve profitability in the future. As a result, our ability to achieve and sustain profitability will depend on our ability to generate and sustain substantially higher revenue while maintaining reasonable cost and expense levels.
We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise additional capital when needed. This could force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development and commercialization activities.
Developing drugs, conducting clinical trials and commercializing products is time-consuming and expensive. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:
We believe that our existing cash resources will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements into the second quarter of 2008 but will not be sufficient to meet our obligations thereafter, including but not limited to, our obligations to repay $2.2 million of outstanding indebtedness that matures in June 2008. We will need to raise additional equity capital, incur indebtedness or enter into collaboration and licensing agreements to continue to fund our operations in the future. We cannot assure you that sufficient funds will be available to us when required or on satisfactory terms. If necessary funds are not available, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate some of our development programs, which could delay the time to market for any of our product candidates.
We may raise additional capital through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements. Our ability to raise additional capital will depend on financial, economic and market conditions and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. We cannot be certain that such additional funding will be available upon acceptable terms, or at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our then-existing stockholders may experience further dilution. Recently, we raised equity financing through the sale of common stock and warrants. If these warrants are exercised in the future, stockholders may experience significant additional dilution. Debt financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants that could limit our flexibility in conducting future business activities. To the extent that we raise additional capital through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary for us to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates that we might otherwise seek to develop or commercialize independently. In addition, we only have approximately 5.7 million shares of authorized common stock to raise additional capital through an offering of common stock or warrants. We intend to pursue stockholder approval of an amendment to our certificate of incorporation to increase the amount of authorized capital stock at our annual meeting of stockholders to be held in the second quarter. We can not assure you that any such stockholder approval will be obtained. If we are unable to obtain such stockholder approval, we will not be able to raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or warrants to purchase common stock which would severely limit our ability to fund our operations. Debt financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants that could limit our flexibility in conducting future business activities. Given our available cash resources, existing indebtedness and results of operations, obtaining debt financing may not be possible. To the extent that we raise additional capital through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary for us to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates that we might otherwise seek to develop or commercialize independently. We cannot be certain that any such additional capital will be available upon acceptable terms, or at all.
We may not be able to continue as a going concern.
Our recurring losses from operations and our stockholders deficit raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and as a result our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007 with respect to this uncertainty. We will need to raise additional debt or equity capital to fund our product development efforts and to meet our obligations, including servicing our existing indebtedness and performing our contractual obligations under our license agreements and strategic alliances. In addition, the perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations.
We have a limited amount of shares of common stock available for issuance under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which will limit our ability to raise capital by issuing equity securities.
Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, we have 80,000,000 authorized shares consisting of (i) 75,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, and (ii) 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share. As of March 10, 2008, there were outstanding 51,295,304 shares of common stock and an additional 12,500 shares were held in the treasury. Of the 28,704,696 authorized and unissued shares on that date, 5,635,269 shares were reserved for issuance under EpiCepts 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the employee stock options issued in connection with the acquisition of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In addition, 12,304,297 shares were reserved for issuance pursuant to various private placements and other financing arrangements. As of March 10, 2008, 5,765,130 unissued shares were available for issuance (giving effect to shares reserved for issuance). The limited number of shares available for issuance significantly limits our ability to raise capital through the issuance of equity securities.
Our quarterly financial results are likely to fluctuate significantly, which could have an adverse effect on our stock price.
Our quarterly operating results will be difficult to predict and may fluctuate significantly from period to period, particularly because we are a relatively small company with no approved products. The level of our revenues, if any, expenses and our results of operations at any given time could fluctuate as a result of any of the following factors:
Until we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we cannot begin to market or sell them. As a result, it will be difficult for us to forecast demand for our products with any degree of certainty. It is also difficult to predict the timing of the achievement of various milestones under our strategic relationships. In addition, our operating expenses may continue to increase as we develop product candidates and build commercial capabilities. Accordingly, we may experience significant quarterly losses. Because of these factors, our operating results in one or more future quarters may fail to meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline significantly.
We may be required to comply with Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and obtain an attestation of our internal controls and procedures in 2008, which, if a material weakness exists, could adversely impact our ability to report our consolidated financial results accurately and on a timely basis.
We may be required to comply with Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for the year ending December 31, 2008, which requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and an attestation to, and testing and assessment of, our internal control over financial reporting by our independent registered public accounting firm. For 2007, our internal controls and procedures were not subject to attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit us to provide only our managements report in this annual report. There have not been any changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting. We may not be able to maintain the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in the future.
We have had limited operating activities, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.
Our activities to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our operations, acquiring, developing and securing our technology, licensing product candidates, and undertaking preclinical and clinical studies and clinical trials. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain regulatory approval, manufacture products or conduct sales and marketing activities. Consequently, it is difficult to make any predictions about our future success, viability or profitability based on our historical operations.
Clinical and Regulatory Risks
We may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for Ceplene®, our lead product candidate, which could delay or prevent us from being able to generate revenue from sales of Ceplene®, and require additional expenditures.
None of our products has received regulatory approval. Ceplene® is our lead product candidate and our only product candidate currently under regulatory consideration. A non-binding trend vote taken after the Oral Explanation with the CHMP indicated that a slight majority of the votes by CHMP members were not in favor of recommending a positive opinion. The majority view of CHMP considered that the data presented in the application, while supportive of the products efficacy and safety in AML, the indication for which approval was sought, should be confirmed by further clinical data from an additional, replicate study. A final determination will be made in March 2008.
While a final determination has not been made, we may not be successful in our efforts to advocate for a positive final determination after the trend vote. In the event of a negative determination, we may appeal CHMPs determination, but such an appeal may not be successful. A negative determination would also delay or prevent us from generating revenue from product sales of Ceplene® for the foreseeable future and may require us to conduct additional costly and time-consuming clinical trials. We will incur additional expenses in advocating for a positive determination, or appealing a negative determination should we pursue an appeal.
We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee you that we will ever obtain regulatory approval for product candidates, which could delay or prevent us from being able to generate revenue from product sales.
We currently have no products approved for sale, and we cannot guarantee you that we will ever obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. Our product candidates will be subject to extensive government regulations related to development, clinical trials, manufacturing and commercialization. The process of obtaining FDA, European Medicines Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, or EMEA, and other governmental and similar international regulatory approvals is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. The FDA, EMEA and similar international regulatory authorities may not ultimately approve the candidate for commercial sale in any jurisdiction. The FDA, EMEA or similar international regulators may refuse to approve an application for approval of a drug candidate if they believe that applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied. The FDA, EMEA or similar international regulators may also require additional testing for safety and efficacy. Any failure or delay in obtaining these approvals could prohibit or delay us from marketing product candidates. If our product candidates do not meet applicable regulatory requirements for approval, we may not have the financial resources to continue research and development of these product candidates, and we may not generate revenues from the commercial sale of any of our products.
To obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we or our partners must conduct extensive human tests, which are referred to as clinical trials, as well as meet other rigorous regulatory requirements. Satisfaction of all regulatory requirements typically takes many years and requires the expenditure of substantial resources.
We currently have several product candidates in various stages of clinical testing. All of our product candidates are prone to the risks of failure inherent in drug development and testing. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to show desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through initial clinical testing. In addition, the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support regulatory approval, or regulators could interpret the data differently than we do. The regulators may require us or our partners to conduct additional clinical testing, in which case we would have to expend additional time and resources. The approval process may also be delayed by changes in government regulation, future legislation or administrative action or changes in regulatory policy that occur prior to or during regulatory review.
We and other drug development companies have suffered set backs in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in early stage development. Accordingly, the results from completed preclinical studies and early stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results in later stage trials and may not be predictive of the likelihood of regulatory approval. Any failure or significant delay in completing clinical trials for our product candidates, or in receiving regulatory approval for the sale of our product candidates, may severely harm our business and delay or prevent us from being able to generate revenue from product sales, and our stock price will likely decline.
Clinical trial designs that were discussed with regulatory authorities prior to their commencement may subsequently be considered insufficient for approval at the time of application for regulatory approval.
We or our partners discuss with and obtain guidance from regulatory authorities on clinical trial protocols. Over the course of conducting clinical trials, circumstances may change, such as standards of safety, efficacy or medical practice, which could affect regulatory authorities perception of the adequacy of any of our clinical trial designs or the data we develop from our studies. Changes in circumstances could affect our ability to conduct clinical trials as planned. Even with successful clinical safety and efficacy data, we may be required to conduct additional, expensive trials to obtain regulatory approval. For example, in May 2004, we announced the results of an international Phase III clinical trial testing the combination of Ceplene® plus IL-2 in patients with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, in complete remission. The primary endpoint of the Phase III trials was achieved using intent-to-treat analysis, as patients treated with the Ceplene® plus IL-2 combination therapy experienced a statistically significant increase in leukemia-free survival compared to patients in the control arm of the trial. In January 2005, we announced that based on ongoing correspondence with the FDA, as well as consultations with external advisors, it determined that an additional Phase III clinical trial would be necessary to further evaluate Ceplene® plus IL-2 combination therapy for the treatment of AML patients in complete remission before applying for regulatory approval in the United States. In October 2006, we submitted a Market Authorization Application to EMEA for Ceplene®, our lead oncology product candidate, administered in conjunction with interleukin-2 (IL-2), for the maintenance of first remission in patients with AML. However, we have no assurance that (i) the EMEA or similar regulatory agencies will not require an additional Phase III trial, (ii) the EMEA or similar regulatory agencies would approve regulatory filings for drug approval, or (iii) if an additional Phase III trial is required, that the results from such additional Phase III trial would confirm the results from the first Phase III trial.
If we receive regulatory approval, our marketed products will also be subject to ongoing FDA and/or foreign regulatory agency obligations and continued regulatory review, and if we fail to comply with these regulations, we could lose approvals to market any products, and our business would be seriously harmed.
Following initial regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, we will be subject to continuing regulatory review, including review of adverse experiences and clinical results that are reported after our products become commercially available. This would include results from any post-marketing tests or vigilance required as a condition of approval. The manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to make any of our product candidates will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies. If a previously unknown problem or problems with a product, manufacturing or laboratory facility used by us is discovered, the FDA or foreign regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or on the manufacturing facility, including requiring us to withdraw the product from the market. Any changes to an approved product, including the way it is manufactured or promoted, often require FDA approval before the product, as modified, can be marketed. We and our manufacturers will be subject to ongoing FDA requirements for submission of safety and other post-market information. If we and our manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:
In addition, the policies of the FDA or other applicable regulatory agencies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad.
Even if we obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates, the approval will be limited to those indications and conditions for which we are able to show clinical safety and efficacy.
Any regulatory approval that we may receive for our current or future product candidates will be limited to those diseases and indications for which such product candidates are clinically demonstrated to be safe and effective. For example, in addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication to an approved product also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain regulatory approval for a broad range of indications for our product candidates, our ability to effectively market and sell our product candidates may be greatly reduced and may harm our ability to generate revenue.
While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the products labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by regulatory authorities, our regulatory approvals will be limited to those indications that are specifically submitted to the regulatory agency for review. These off-label uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use. If our promotional activities fail to comply with these regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to warnings from, or enforcement action by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow regulatory rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the regulatory agency to delay its approval or refuse to approve a product, the suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, recalls, fines, disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or criminal prosecutions, any of which could harm our business.
The results of our clinical trials are uncertain, which could substantially delay or prevent us from bringing our product candidates to market.
Before we can obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, we must undertake extensive clinical testing in humans to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or other regulatory agencies. Clinical trials are very expensive and difficult to design and implement. The clinical trial process is also time consuming. The commencement and completion of our clinical trials could be delayed or prevented by several factors, including:
We cannot assure you that our planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time or at all, or that they will not need to be restructured prior to completion. Significant delays in clinical testing will impede our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue from product sales and could materially increase our development costs. Completion of clinical trials may take several years or more, but the length of time generally varies according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a drug candidate. The cost of clinical trials may vary significantly over the life of a project as a result of differences arising during clinical development, including:
The use of FDA-approved therapeutics in certain of our pain product candidates could require us to conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could increase development costs and lengthen the regulatory approval process.
Certain of our pain product candidates utilize proprietary formulations and topical delivery technologies to administer FDA-approved pain management therapeutics. We may still be required to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials to determine if our product candidates are safe and effective. In addition, we may also be required to conduct additional preclinical studies and Phase I clinical trials to establish the safety of the topical delivery of these therapeutics and the level of absorption of the therapeutics into the bloodstream. The FDA may also require us to conduct clinical studies to establish that our delivery mechanisms are safer or more effective than the existing methods for delivering these therapeutics. As a result, we may be required to conduct complex clinical trials, which could be expensive and time-consuming and lengthen the anticipated regulatory approval process.
In some instances, we rely on third parties, over which we have little or no control, to conduct clinical trials for our products and their failure to perform their obligations in a timely or competent manner may delay development and commercialization of our product candidates.
The nature of clinical trials and our business strategy requires us to rely on clinical research centers and other third parties to assist us with clinical testing and certain research and development activities, such as our agreement with Myriad Genetics, Inc. related to the MX90745 series of apoptosis-inducer anti-cancer compounds. As a result, our success is dependent upon the success of these third parties in performing their responsibilities. We cannot directly control the adequacy and timeliness of the resources and expertise applied to these activities by such third parties. If such contractors do not perform their activities in an adequate or timely manner, the development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, we rely on Myriad for research and development related to the MX90745 series of apoptosis-inducer anti-cancer compounds. We may enter into similar agreements from time to time with additional third parties for our other product candidates whereby these third parties undertake significant responsibility for research, clinical trials or other aspects of obtaining FDA approval. As a result, we may face delays if Myriad or these additional third parties do not conduct clinical studies and trials, or prepare or file regulatory related documents, in a timely or competent fashion. The conduct of the clinical studies by, and the regulatory strategies of, Myriad or these additional third parties, over which we have limited or no control, may delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates, which would delay or limit our ability to generate revenue from product sales.
Risks Relating to Commercialization
If we fail to enter into and maintain successful strategic alliances for our product candidates, we may have to reduce or delay our product commercialization or increase our expenditures.
Our strategy for developing, manufacturing and commercializing potential product candidates in multiple therapeutic areas currently requires us to enter into and successfully maintain strategic alliances with pharmaceutical companies that have product development resources and expertise, established distribution systems and direct sales forces to advance our development programs and reduce our expenditures on each development program and market any products that we may develop. EpiCept has formed a strategic alliance with Endo with respect to EpiCepts LidoPAIN BP product candidate, Myriad with respect to the MX90745 series of apoptosis-inducer anti-cancer compounds and with DURECT for our intellectual property for a transdermal patch containing bupivacaine for the treatment of back pain. We may not be able to negotiate additional strategic alliances on acceptable terms, or at all.
We may rely on collaborative partners to market and sell Ceplene® in international markets, if approved for sale in such markets. We have not yet entered into any collaborative arrangements with respect to marketing or selling Ceplene® with the exception of agreements relating to Australia, New Zealand and Israel. We cannot assure you that we will be able to enter into any such arrangements on terms favorable to us, or at all.
If we are unable to maintain our existing strategic alliances or establish and maintain additional strategic alliances, we may have to limit the size or scope of, or delay, one or more of our product development or commercialization programs, or undertake the various activities at our own expense. In addition, our dependence on strategic alliances is subject to a number of risks, including:
If the market does not accept and use our product candidates, we will not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.
If we receive regulatory approval to market our product candidates, physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community may not accept and use them. The degree of market acceptance and use of any approved products will depend on a number of factors, including:
Because we expect to rely on sales and royalties generated by our current lead product candidates for a substantial portion of our product revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of any of these drugs to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional funding to continue our other development programs.
Our product candidates could be rendered obsolete by technological change and medical advances, which would adversely affect the performance of our business.
Our product candidates may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by the development of medical advances to treat the conditions that our product candidates are designed to address. Pain management therapeutics are the subject of active research and development by many potential competitors, including major pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology firms, universities and other research institutions. Research and development by others may render our technology or product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive or result in treatments or cures superior to any therapy we developed. Technological advances affecting costs of production could also harm our ability to cost-effectively produce and sell products.
We have no manufacturing capacity and anticipate continued reliance on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates.
We do not currently operate manufacturing facilities for our product candidates. We lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our product candidates. We currently rely on a single contract manufacturer for each product candidate to supply, store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure or delay on the part of our existing manufacturers could delay clinical development or regulatory approval of our product candidates and commercialization of our drugs, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenues.
If the FDA or other regulatory agencies approve any of our product candidates for commercial sale, the product will need to be manufactured in larger quantities. To date most of our product candidates have been manufactured in only small quantities for preclinical and clinical trials. In those case, our third party manufacturers may not be able to successfully increase their manufacturing capacity in a timely or economical manner, or at all. We may be forced to identify alternative or additional third party manufacturers, which may prove difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA must approve any replacement contractor prior to manufacturing our products. Such approval would require new testing and compliance inspections. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our product candidates. It may be difficult or impossible for us to find a replacement manufacturer on acceptable terms quickly, or at all. If we are unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for a drug candidate in a timely and economical manner, the regulatory approval or commercial launch of any related products may be delayed or there may be a shortage in supply, both of which may have an adverse effect on our business.
Our product candidates require precise, high quality manufacturing. A failure to achieve and maintain high manufacturing standards, including the incidence of manufacturing errors, could result in patient injury or death, product recalls or withdrawals, delays or failures in product testing or delivery, cost overruns or other problems that could seriously hurt our business. Manufacturers often encounter difficulties involving production yields, quality control and quality assurance, as well as shortages of qualified personnel. These manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice and other applicable government regulations and corresponding foreign standards; however, we do not have control over third party manufacturers compliance with these regulations and standards. If one of our manufacturers fails to maintain compliance, the production of our product candidates could be interrupted, resulting in delays, additional costs and potentially lost revenues. Additionally, third-party manufacturers must pass a pre-approval inspection before we can obtain marketing approval for any of our products in development.
Furthermore, our existing and future contract manufacturers may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to successfully produce, store and distribute our product candidates. We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to such innovation. In the event of a natural disaster, equipment failure, power failure, strike or other difficulty, we may be unable to replace our third party manufacturers in a timely manner.
We may be the subject of costly product liability claims or product recalls, and we may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance adequate to cover potential liabilities.
The risk of product liability is inherent in the development, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
If we succeed in marketing our products, product liability claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety or efficacy of our products or our marketing programs. An FDA investigation could also potentially lead to a recall of our products or more serious enforcement actions, or limitations on the indications for which our products may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approval.
We cannot be certain that the coverage limits of the insurance policies or those of our strategic partners will be adequate. We further intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if marketing approval is obtained for our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain additional insurance or maintain our existing insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance at an acceptable cost or if a claim is brought against us, whether fully covered by insurance or not, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
The coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare drugs is uncertain and failure to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement could limit our ability to market our products.
Our ability to commercialize any products successfully will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement will be available from governmental and other third-party payors, both in the United States and in foreign markets. The amount reimbursed for our products may be insufficient to allow them to compete effectively with products that are reimbursed at a higher level. If the price we are able to charge for any products we develop is inadequate in light of our development costs, our profitability would be reduced.
Reimbursement by a governmental and other third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the governmental and other third-party payors determination that the use of a product is:
Obtaining reimbursement approval for a product from each third-party and governmental 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 obtain reimbursement.
Eligibility for coverage does not imply that any drug product will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that allows us to make a profit. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not become permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower-cost drugs that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other products or services and may reflect budgetary constraints and/or Medicare or Medicaid data used to calculate these rates. Net prices for products also may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government health care programs or by any future relaxation of laws that restrict imports of certain medical products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.
The health care industry is experiencing a trend toward containing or reducing costs through various means, including lowering reimbursement rates, limiting therapeutic class coverage and negotiating reduced payment schedules with service providers for drug products. There have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, federal and state proposals to constrain expenditures for medical products and services, which may affect reimbursement levels for our future products. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services frequently change product descriptors, coverage policies, product and service codes, payment methodologies and reimbursement values. Third-party payors often follow Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates and may have sufficient market power to demand significant price reductions.
Foreign governments tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our future profitability.
In some foreign countries, particularly in the European Union, prescription drug pricing is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time 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 candidates 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 profitability would be reduced.
Risks Relating to the Our Business and Industry
Our failure to attract and retain skilled personnel could impair our product development and commercialization efforts.
Our success is substantially dependent on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, scientific and technical personnel and our ability to develop and maintain important relationships with leading institutions, clinicians and scientists. We are highly dependent upon our key management personnel, particularly John V. Talley, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Robert W. Cook, our Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Stephane Allard, our Chief Medical Officer and Dr. Ben Tseng, our Chief Scientific Officer. We are also dependent on certain scientific and technical personnel. The loss of the services of any member of senior management, or scientific or technical staff may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of product development, commercialization and other business objectives. Messrs. Talley and Cook have entered into employment agreements with EpiCept. However, either of them may decide to voluntarily terminate his employment with us. We do not maintain key-man life insurance on any of our employees.
We believe that we will need to recruit additional management and technical personnel. There is currently a shortage of, and intense competition for, skilled executives and employees with relevant scientific and technical expertise, and this shortage may continue. The inability to attract and retain sufficient scientific, technical and managerial personnel could limit or delay our product development efforts, which would reduce our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and our business.
We expect to expand our operations, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.
We expect to have significant growth in the scope of our operations as our product candidates are commercialized. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand facilities and 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 management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business strategy or disrupt our operations.
Our competitors may develop and market drugs that are less expensive, safer, or more effective, which may diminish or eliminate the commercial success of any of our product candidates.
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive and characterized by rapid technological change. Because we anticipate that our research approach will integrate many technologies, it may be difficult for us to stay abreast of the rapid changes in technology. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we will be unable to compete effectively. Our competitors may render our technologies obsolete by advances in existing technological approaches or the development of different approaches by one or more of our current or future competitors.
We will compete with Pfizer and Endo in the treatment of neuropathic pain; Purdue Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson and Endo in the treatment of post-operative pain; and Johnson & Johnson and others in the treatment of back pain. There are also many companies, both publicly and privately held, including well-known pharmaceutical companies and academic and other research institutions, engaged in developing pharmaceutical products for the treatment of life-threatening cancers and liver diseases.
Our competitors may:
We will compete for market share against fully-integrated pharmaceutical companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, new companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Many of these competitors, either alone or together with their partners, may develop new product candidates that will compete with our product candidates, as these competitors may operate larger research and development programs or have substantially greater financial resources than us. Our competitors may also have significantly greater experience in:
EpiCept GmbH, our German subsidiary, is subject to various risks associated with its international operations.
Our subsidiary, EpiCept GmbH, operates in Germany, and we face a number of risks associated with its operations, including:
Expenses incurred by our German operations are typically denominated in euros. In addition, EpiCept GmbH has incurred indebtedness that is denominated in euros and requires that interest be paid in euros. As a result, our costs of maintaining and operating our German subsidiary, and the interest payments and costs of repaying its indebtedness, increase if the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the euro declines.
Risks Relating to Intellectual Property
If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, our competitors could develop and market products with features similar to our products and demand for our products may decline.
Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of our technologies and product candidates as well as successfully defending these patents and trade secrets against third party challenges. We will only be able to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them.
The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. In addition, changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States or other countries may diminish the value of the combined organizations intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third party patents.
The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:
Moreover, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its validity or enforceability and it is uncertain how much protection, if any, will be afforded by our patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged in court or in other proceedings, such as oppositions, which may be brought in U.S. or foreign jurisdictions to challenge the validity of a patent. A third party may challenge the validity or enforceability of a patent after its issuance by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. It is possible that a third party could attempt to challenge the validity or enforceability of EpiCepts two issued patents related to LidoPAIN SP based upon a short videotape prepared by the inventor more than one year prior to the filing of the initial patent application related to LidoPAIN SP. It is possible that a third party could attempt to challenge the validity and enforceability of these patents based on the videotape and/or its nondisclosure to the USPTO.
The defense and prosecution of intellectual property suits, interferences, oppositions and related legal and administrative proceedings in the United States are costly, time consuming to pursue and result in diversion of resources. The outcome of these proceedings is uncertain and could significantly harm our business.
We will also rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We will use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific partners and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose its confidential information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party improperly obtained and is using our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.
If we are not able to defend the patent protection position of our technologies and product candidates, then we will not be able to exclude competitors from marketing product candidates that directly compete with our product candidates, and we may not generate enough revenue from our product candidates to justify the cost of their development and to achieve or maintain profitability.
If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome could increase our costs or have a negative impact on our business.
Our ability to commercialize our products depends on our ability to sell our products without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending applications, which are owned by third parties, exist with respect to the therapeutics utilized in our product candidates and topical delivery mechanisms. Because we are utilizing existing therapeutics, we will continue to need to ensure that we can utilize these therapeutics without infringing existing patent rights. Accordingly, we have reviewed related patents known to us and, in some instances, licensed related patented technologies. In addition, because patent applications can take several years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that the combined organizations product candidates may infringe. There could also be existing patents of which we are not aware that our product candidates may inadvertently infringe.
We cannot assure you that any of our product candidates infringe the intellectual property of others. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we infringe on their technology, we could face a number of issues that could increase its costs or have a negative impact on its business, including:
We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.
Many of our employees were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that we or these employees have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary claims, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Risks Relating to our Common Stock
Our common stock may be delisted from The Nasdaq Capital Market, which may make it more difficult for you to sell your shares.
If we fail to maintain the qualification for our common stock to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market, our securities would be delisted. Factors giving rise to such delisting include a minimum bid price being less than $1.00 per share for ten consecutive days, with a 30 day period to cure. In the past our common stock has traded below $1.00 and may continue to do so in the future. If this occurs, our stock would be delisted and the liquidity of the our common stock would be impaired as there would be no market for the shares.
We expect that our stock price will fluctuate significantly due to external factors.
Since January 30, 2007, our common stock trades on The Nasdaq Capital Market and on the OM Stockholm Exchange. From January 5, 2006 through January 29, 2007, our common stock traded on The Nasdaq National Market. Prior to January 4, 2006, our common stock did not trade on an exchange. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market could adversely affect the prevailing market prices of the common stock and our ability to raise equity capital in the future.
The volatility of biopharmaceutical stocks often does not relate to the operating performance of the companies represented by the stock. Factors that could cause this volatility in the market price of our common stock include:
These and other factors may cause the market price and demand for our common stock to fluctuate substantially, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their shares of common stock and may otherwise reduce the liquidity of our common stock. In addition, in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about us, if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.
Future sales of common stock by our existing stockholders may cause our stock price to fall.
The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by our existing stockholders in the market or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales might also make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities at a time and price that we deem appropriate.
Provisions of our charter documents or Delaware law could delay or prevent an acquisition of us, even if the acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and could make it more difficult for you to change management.
Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. This is because these provisions may prevent or frustrate attempts by stockholders to replace or remove our management. These provisions include:
In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person that together with its affiliates owns or within the last three years has owned 15% of voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Accordingly, Section 203 may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of us.
As a result of these provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law, the price investors may be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock may be limited.
We have never paid dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
We have never paid cash dividends on any of our classes of capital stock to date, and we intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of existing or any future debt may preclude us from paying these dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.
The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources and distract management.
As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market and the OM Stockholm Exchange. The obligations of being a public company require significant additional expenditures and place additional demands on our management as we comply with the reporting requirements of a public company. We may need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge.
Risks related to our Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (SEDA)
Existing stockholders will experience significant dilution from our sale of shares under the SEDA.
Although we have not yet done so, any sale of shares pursuant to our SEDA will have a dilutive impact on our stockholders. As a result, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly as we sell shares pursuant to the SEDA. In addition, for any particular advance, we will need to issue a greater number of shares of common stock under the standby equity distribution agreement as our stock price declines. If our stock price is lower, then our existing stockholders would experience greater dilution.
The investor under the SEDA will pay less than the then-prevailing market price of our common stock
The common stock to be issued under the SEDA will be issued at 97% of the lowest daily volume weighted average price of our common stock during the five consecutive trading days immediately following the date we send an advance notice to the investor. These discounted sales could cause the price of our common stock to decline.
The sale of our stock under the SEDA could encourage short sales by third parties, which could contribute to the further decline of our stock price.
The significant downward pressure on the price of our common stock caused by the sale of material amounts of common stock under the SEDA could encourage short sales by third parties. Such an event could place further downward pressure on the price of our common stock.
We may not be able to access sufficient funds under the SEDA when needed.
Our ability to raise funds under the SEDA is limited by a number of factors, including the fact that the maximum advance amount is limited by the greater of $200,000 or the variable weighted average price of the common stock during the five trading days immediately prior to such advance notice multiplied by the average daily volume traded for the common stock during the same five trading days prior to such advance notice, we may not submit any request for an advance within five trading days of a prior request, we may have concerns about the impact of an advance on the stock price, and we may not be able to use the facility because we are in possession of material nonpublic information.
We may be limited in the amount we can raise under the SEDA because of concerns about selling more shares into the market than the market can absorb without a significant price adjustment.
We will want to avoid placing more shares into the market than the markets ability to absorb without a significant downward pressure on the price of our common stock. This potential adverse impact on the stock price may limit our willingness to use the SEDA. Until there is a greater trading volume, it seems unlikely that we will be able to access the maximum amount we can draw without an adverse impact on the stock price.
We will not be able to use the SEDA when we are in possession of material nonpublic information.
Whenever we are issuing shares to YA Global Investments, L.P., we will be deemed to be involved in an indirect primary offering. We cannot engage in any offering of securities without disclosing all information that may be material to an investor in making an investment decision. Accordingly, we may be required to either disclose such information in a registration statement or refrain from using the SEDA.
We will not be able to use the SEDA if the shares to be issued in connection with an advance would result in YA Global Investments, L.P. owning more than 9.9% of our outstanding common stock.
Under the terms of the SEDA, we may not request advances if the shares to be issued in connection with such advances would result in YA Global Investments, L.P. and its affiliates owning more than 9.9% of our outstanding common stock. As of December 31, 2007, YA Global Investments beneficial ownership of our common stock was 1.64% per schedule 13G, Amendment No. 1, filed with the SEC on February 13, 2008. We will be permitted to make limited draws on the SEDA so long as YA Global Investments beneficial ownership of our common stock (taking into account such 9.9% ownership limitation) remains lower than 9.9%. A possibility exists that YA Global Investments and its affiliates may own more than 9.9% of our outstanding common stock (whether through open market purchases, retention of shares issued under the SEDA, or otherwise) at a time when we would otherwise plan to obtain an advance under the SEDA.
YA Global Investments, L.P. may sell shares of our common stock after we deliver an advance notice during the pricing period, which could cause our stock price to decline.
YA Global Investments, L.P., is deemed to beneficially own the shares of common stock corresponding to a particular advance on the date that we deliver an advance notice to YA Global Investments, which is prior to the date the shares are delivered to YA Global Investments. YA Global Investments may sell such shares any time after we deliver an advance notice. Accordingly, YA Global Investments may sell such shares during the pricing period. Such sales may cause our stock price to decline and if so would result in a lower volume weighted average price during the pricing period, which would result in us having to issue a larger number of shares of common stock to YA Global Investments in respect of the advance.
The SEDA will restrict our ability to engage in alternative financings.
Because of the structure of standby equity distribution transactions, we will be deemed to be involved in a near continuous indirect primary public offering of our securities. As long as we are deemed to be engaged in a public offering, our ability to engage in a private placement will be limited because of integration concerns.
The pricing is relatively expensive if only a small part of the facility is ever used.
We have not decided how much of the commitment amount under the SEDA we will use. The pricing ($25,000 structuring fee, $5,000 due diligence fee, $450,000 commitment fee, 3% discount plus $500 to the investor on each advance) is relatively expensive if only a small part of the facility is ever used.
Private equity lines are relatively new concepts and it is not clear how the courts and the SEC will treat them.
Private equity lines of credit are relatively recent creations and differ in significant ways from traditional Private Placement financing transactions. The staff of the SECs Division of Corporation Finance has taken the position that, as long as certain criteria are met, the staff will not recommend enforcement action with respect to the private equity lines of credit or the related resale registration statement. It should be noted however, that the staffs position, although significant, is not a definitive interpretation of the law and is not binding on courts. Accordingly, there is a risk that a court may find this type of financing arrangement, or the manner in which it is implemented, to violate securities laws.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED SEC STAFF COMMENTS
We have no written comments regarding our periodic or current reports from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that were issued 180 days or more preceding the end of our 2007 fiscal year that remain unresolved.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
EpiCept leases approximately 10,000 square feet located at 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY until February 2012. EpiCept also leases approximately 3,000 square feet in Munich, Germany until July 2009, with automatic year-long extensions for an additional two years. EpiCept currently leases approximately 38,000 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space in San Diego, California. We believe that our existing facilities will be adequate to accommodate our business needs.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
The Companys Common Stock is traded on both The Nasdaq Capital Market and the OM Stockholm Exchange under the symbol EPCT. The following table sets forth the range of high and low bid prices per share for the Common Stock as reported on The National Market System or The Nasdaq Capital Market during the periods indicated. Prior to January 4, 2006, all of the Companys outstanding shares of common stock, par value $.0001 per share, were privately held.
Price Range of Common Stock
The high and low bid prices for the Common Stock during the first quarter of 2008 (through March 12, 2008) were $1.59 and $0.77, respectively. The closing price on March 12, 2008 was $0.80.
As of March 13, 2008, there were approximately 3,992 stockholders of record of our common stock. EpiCept has never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those set forth under the section entitled Risk Factors and elsewhere in this reports, our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements.
We are a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of cancer and pain. We have a portfolio of five product candidates in active stages of development: an oncology product candidate submitted for European registration, two oncology compounds, a pain product candidate for the treatment of peripheral neuropathies and another pain product candidate for the treatment of acute back pain. Our portfolio of oncology and pain management product candidates allows us to be less reliant on the success of any single product candidate. Our strategy is to focus development efforts on innovative cancer therapies and topically delivered analgesics targeting peripheral nerve receptors.
Our leading oncology product candidate, Ceplene®, was submitted for European registration in October 2006. Ceplene® is intended as remission maintenance therapy in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, or AML specifically for patients who are in their first complete remission. We have completed our first Phase I clinical trial for EPC2407, a small molecule vascular disruption agent, or VDA and apoptosis inducer for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas. AzixaTM (MPC-6827), an apoptosis inducer with VDA activity, is licensed by EpiCept to Myriad Genetics, Inc. as part of an exclusive, worldwide development and commercialization agreement and is currently in Phase II clinical trials in patients with primary glioblastoma, melanoma that has metastasized to the brain and non-small-cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.
Our most promising pain product candidate is EpiCept NP-1, a prescription topical analgesic cream designed to provide effective long-term relief of peripheral neuropathies. We recently concluded a Phase II clinical study of NP-1 in patients suffering from diabetic peripheral neuropathy, or DPN, and have ongoing clinical trials for herpetic peripheral neuropathy, or PHN, and chemotherapy induced neuropathy, or CIN. LidoPAIN BP, licensed by us to Endo Pharmaceuticals, is currently in Phase II development for the treatment of acute back pain. Our portfolio of pain product candidates targets moderate-to-severe pain that is influenced, or mediated, by nerve receptors located just beneath the skins surface. Our pain product candidates utilize proprietary formulations and several topical delivery technologies to administer FDA approved pain management therapeutics, or analgesics directly on the skins surface at or near the site of the pain.
None of our product candidates has been approved by the FDA or any comparable agency in another country and we have yet to generate product revenues from any of our product candidates in development. Our operations to date have been funded principally through the proceeds from the sale of common and preferred securities, debt instruments, cash proceeds from collaborative relationships, investment income earned on cash balances and short-term investments.
Our merger with Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Maxim, in January 2006 created a specialty pharmaceutical company that leverages our portfolio of topical pain therapies with product candidates having significant market potential to treat cancer. In addition to entering into opportunistic development and commercial alliances for its product candidates, our strategy is to focus our development efforts on topically-delivered analgesics targeting peripheral nerve receptors, alternative uses for FDA-approved drugs, and innovative cancer therapeutics.
We have two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Maxim, based in San Diego, CA, and EpiCept GmbH, based in Munich, Germany, which are engaged in research and development activities on our behalf.
Nasdaq Global Market Listing
On April 10, 2007, we received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market indicating that we are now compliant with the terms of the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panels decision dated January 26, 2007, and therefore the Panel determined to continue the listing of our securities on The Nasdaq Capital Market.
In its earlier decision, the Panel conditioned continued listing on meeting the following requirements: (1) on or before April 11, 2007, we shall publicly announce and inform the Panel that the Private Placement and SEDA have been approved by its shareholders, and (2) on or before April 25, 2007, the Nasdaq staff shall have approved our application for new listing, we will have paid all applicable listing fees and evidenced compliance with all requirements for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market. The letter indicated that we met both conditions within the required time period, and therefore the Panel determined to continue the listing of our securities on The Nasdaq Capital Market.
On March 6, 2008, we received gross proceeds of approximately $5.0 million (net proceeds of approximately $4.7 million after the deduction of fees and expenses) from the public offering of our common stock and common stock purchase warrants registered pursuant to a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 registering the issuance and sale of up to $50,000,000 of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, convertible debt securities and/or warrants to purchase our securities. Approximately 5.4 million shares of our common stock were sold at a price of $0.9225 per share. Five year common stock purchase warrants were issued to investors granting them the right to purchase approximately 2.7 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.86 per share.
In March 2008, we received a $1.0 million milestone payment from our partner, Myriad, following dosing of the first patient in a Phase II registration sized clinical trial for AzixaTM (MPC6827).
In February 2008, we presented at the Oral Explanation meeting to the CHMP, the scientific committee of the EMEA, regarding the remaining outstanding issues on the MAA for Ceplene®. A non-binding trend vote taken after the Oral Explanation indicated that a slight majority of the votes by CHMP members were not in favor of recommending a positive opinion. The majority view of the CHMP considered that the data presented in the application, while supportive of the products efficacy and safety in AML, the indication for which approval is being sought, should be confirmed by further clinical data from an additional, replicate study. Discussions by CHMP members of the MAA noted findings from a 2003 study of Ceplene/IL-2 (at a higher dose) in malignant melanoma (a metastatic solid tumor disease with a high tumor burden), in which Ceplene® failed to meet its primary endpoints. By contrast, AML patients in first remission have a microscopically and cytogenetically undetectable tumor burden (minimal residual disease) and are ideal candidates for Ceplene/IL-2 immunotherapy. We are assessing potential options to gain approval and, if the final vote is negative, whether that decision should be appealed.
Since inception, we have incurred significant net losses each year. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $28.7 million and $65.5 million, respectively, and we had an accumulated deficit of $170.8 million as of December 31, 2007. Our recurring losses from operations and our accumulated deficit raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in connection with our development activities and from general and administrative expenses. Even if we succeed in developing and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we may never become profitable. We expect to continue to incur increasing expenses over the next several years as we:
Acquisition of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On January 4, 2006, Magazine Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of EpiCept, merged with Maxim pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, among the Company, Magazine and Maxim, dated as of September 6, 2005.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, Magazine merged with and into Maxim, with Maxim continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. We issued 5.8 million shares of our common stock to Maxim stockholders in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of Maxim, with Maxim stockholders receiving 0.203969 of a share of our common stock for each share of Maxim common stock. Our stockholders retained approximately 72%, and the former Maxim stockholders received approximately 28%, of outstanding shares of our common stock. We accounted for the merger as an asset acquisition as Maxim is a development stage company. The transaction valued Maxim at approximately $45.1 million.
In connection with the merger, Maxim option holders who held options granted under Maxims Amended and Restated 1993 Long Term Incentive Plan, also known as the 1993 Plan, and options granted under the other Maxim stock option plans, with a Maxim exercise price of $20.00 per share or less, received a total of 0.4 million options to purchase our common stock at a range of exercise prices between $3.24 $77.22 per share in exchange for the options to purchase Maxim common stock they held at the Maxim exercise price divided by the exchange ratio of 0.203969. Maxim obtained agreements from each holder of options granted under the 1993 Plan, with a Maxim exercise price above $20.00 per share, to terminate those options immediately prior to the completion of the merger and agreed to take action under the other plans so that each outstanding Maxim option granted under the other Maxim stock option plans that has an exercise price above $20.00 per share terminated on or prior to the completion of the merger. In addition, we issued warrants to purchase approximately 0.3 million shares at an exercise price range of $13.48 $37.75 per share of our common stock in exchange for Maxims outstanding warrants.
Purchase Price Allocation
The total purchase price of $45.1 million includes costs of $3.7 million to complete the transaction and has been allocated based on a final valuation of Maxims tangible and intangible assets and liabilities based on their fair values (table in thousands) as follows:
We initially acquired in-process research and development assets of approximately $33.7 million, which were immediately expensed to research and development on January 4, 2006. A reduction of approximately $0.3 million of in-process research and development expense was recognized during 2006. The reduction of $0.3 million was a result of the decrease in merger restructuring and litigation accrued liabilities by approximately $0.6 million due to the termination of one lease in San Diego, which was partially offset by an increase in legal litigation settlements of approximately $0.4 million. We acquired assembled workforce of approximately $0.5 million, which was capitalized and is being amortized over its useful life of 6 years. We also acquired fixed assets of approximately $2.0 million, which have been depreciated over their remaining useful life.
The value assigned to the acquired in-process research and development was determined by identifying the acquired in-process research projects for which: (a) there is exclusive control by the acquirer; (b) significant progress has been made towards the projects completion; (c) technological feasibility has not been established, (d) there is no alternative future use, and (e) the fair value is estimable based on reasonable assumptions. The total acquired in-process research and development is valued at $33.4 million, assigned entirely to one qualifying program, the use of Ceplene® as remission maintenance therapy for the treatment of AML in Europe, and expensed on the closing date of the merger. The value of in-process research and development was based on the income approach that focuses on the income-producing capability of the asset. The underlying premise of the approach is that the value of an asset can be measured by the present worth of the net economic benefit (cash receipts less cash outlays) to be received over the life of the asset. In determining the value of in-process research and development, the assumed commercialization date for the product was 2007. Given the risks associated with the development of new drugs, the revenue and expense forecast was probability-adjusted to reflect the risk of advancement through the approval process. The risk adjustment was applied based on the stage of development of Ceplene® at the time of the assessment and the historical probability of successful advancement for compounds at that stage. The modeled cash flow was discounted back to the net present value. The projected net cash flows for the project were based on managements estimates of revenues and operating profits related to such project. Significant assumptions used in the valuation of in-process research and development included: the stage of development of the project; future revenues; growth rates; product sales cycles; the estimated life of a products underlying technology; future operating expenses; probability adjustments to reflect the risk of developing the acquired technology into commercially viable products; and a discount rate of 30% to reflect present value, which approximates the implied rate of return on the merger.
In connection with the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, we originally recorded estimated merger-related liabilities for severance, lease termination, and legal settlements of $1.2 million, $1.1 million and $2.3 million, respectively. During the second quarter of 2006, the gross amounts of merger-related liabilities for lease termination and legal settlements were revised to $0.8 million and $2.8 million, respectively. In July 2006, in connection with the lease termination, we issued a six year non-interest bearing note in the amount of $0.8 million to the new tenant. Total future payments including broker fees amount to $1.0 million. In addition, we increased our legal accrual by $0.4 million during the second quarter of 2006 to $2.8 million. As of December 31, 2006, we paid $1.0 million and issued 1.0 million shares of our common stock with a market value of approximately $1.7 million for the settlement of certain Maxim lawsuits. See Note 10 of the consolidated financial statement for a roll-forward of Merger Restructuring and Litigation Accrued Liabilities.
Conversion and Exercise of Preferred Stock, Warrants and Notes, Loans and Financings
On January 4, 2006, immediately prior to the closing of the merger with Maxim, we issued common stock to certain stockholders upon the conversion or exercise of all outstanding preferred stock, convertible debt and warrants. The following tables illustrate the carrying value and the amount of shares issued for each instrument converted into our common stock as of January 4, 2006:
Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, we recorded a beneficial conversion feature or BCF charge relating to the anti-dilution rights of each of the Series A convertible preferred stock, the Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock and the Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock, which we refer to collectively as the Preferred Stock, of approximately $2.1 million, $1.7 million, and $4.8 million, respectively related to the conversion of the Preferred Stock. In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force , or EITF, Issue 98-5, Accounting For Convertible Securities With Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently Adjustable Conversion Ratio, or EITF 98-5, and EITF No. 00-27, Application of EITF Issue 98-5 To Certain Convertible Instruments or EITF 00-27, the BCF was calculated as the difference between the number of shares of common stock each holder of each series of Preferred Stock would have received under anti-dilution provisions prior to the merger and the number of shares of common stock received at the time of the merger multiplied by the implied value of our common stock on January 4, 2006. Such amounts were charged to deemed dividends in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The following table illustrates the carrying value and the amount of shares issued for warrants exercised into the Companys common stock as of January 4, 2006:
Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, we recorded a BCF relating to the anti-dilution rights of each of the Series B convertible preferred stock warrants and the Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants, which we refer to as the Preferred Warrants, of approximately $0.1 million and $0.3 million, respectively related to the conversion of the Preferred Warrants into common shares. In accordance with EITF 98-5 and EITF 00-27, the BCF was calculated as the difference between the number of shares of common stock each holder of each series of Preferred Warrants would have received under anti-dilution provisions prior to the merger and the number of shares of common stock received at the time of the merger multiplied by the implied value of our common stock on January 4, 2006 of $5.84. Such amounts were charged to deemed dividends in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Notes, Loans and Financings:
The following table illustrates the principal balances and the amount of shares issued for each debt instrument converted into our common stock upon the closing of the merger on January 4, 2006:
Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, we recorded BCFs related to the difference between the fair value of our common stock on the closing date and the conversion rates of certain of the Companys debt instruments. In accordance with EITF 98-5 and EITF 00-27, BCFs amounting to $4.4 million were expensed as interest expense for the conversion of our March 2005 Senior Notes and the November 2005 Senior Notes. Since the conversion of the March 2005 Senior Notes and the November 2005 Senior Notes were contingent upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, no accounting was required at the modification date or issuance date of each instrument in accordance with EITF 98-5 and EITF 00-27 as the completion of the merger with Maxim was dependent on an affirmative vote of Maxims shareholders and other customary closing conditions.
Reverse Stock Split
On September 5, 2005, our stockholders approved a one-for-four reverse stock split of our common stock, which was contingent on the merger with Maxim. The reverse stock split occurred immediately prior to the completion of the merger. As a result of the reverse stock split, every four shares of our common stock were combined into one share of common stock and any fractional shares created by the reverse stock split were rounded down to whole shares. The reverse stock split affected all of our common stock, stock options and warrants outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the reverse stock split. All references to common stock and per common share amounts for all periods presented have been retroactively restated to reflect this reverse split.
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. In addition, we do not engage in trading activities involving non-exchange traded contracts. Therefore, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in these relationships. We do not have relationships or transactions with persons or entities that derive benefits from their non-independent relationship with us or our related parties.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires we make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We review our estimates on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report, we believe the following accounting policies to be critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Estimates also affect the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period, stock-based compensation, contingent interest, warrant liability, the allocation of the purchase price of Maxim and the costs of the exit plan related to the merger with Maxim. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
We recognize revenue relating to our collaboration agreements in accordance with the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 104, Revenue Recognition, and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. Revenue under collaborative arrangements may result from license fees, milestone payments, research and development payments and royalties.
Our application of these standards involves subjective determinations and requires management to make judgments about value of the individual elements and whether they are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship. We evaluate our collaboration agreements to determine units of accounting for revenue recognition purposes. For collaborations containing a single unit of accounting, we recognize revenue when the fee is fixed or determinable, collectibility is assured and the contractual obligations have occurred or been rendered. For collaborations involving multiple elements, our application requires management to make judgments about value of the individual elements and whether they are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship. To date, we have determined that its upfront non-refundable license fees cannot be separated from its ongoing collaborative research and development activities to the extent such activities are required under the agreement and, accordingly, do not treat them as a separate element. We recognize revenue from non-refundable, up-front licenses and related payments, not specifically tied to a separate earnings process, either on the proportional performance method with respect to our license with Endo, or ratably over either the development period or the later of 1) the conclusion of the royalty term on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis; and 2) the expiration of the last EpiCept licensed patent as we do with respect to our license with DURECT.
Proportional performance is measured based on costs incurred compared to total estimated costs over the development period which approximates the proportion of the value of the services provided compared to the total estimated value over the development period. The proportional performance method currently results in revenue recognition at a slower pace than the ratable method as many of our costs are incurred in the latter stages of the development period. EpiCept periodically reviews its estimates of cost and the length of the development period and, to the extent such estimates change, the impact of the change is recorded at that time. During 2006, with respect to LidoPAIN BP, we changed the estimated development period by an additional twenty-one months and during 2007 we increased the estimated development period by an additional twelve months to reflect additional time required to obtain clinical data from our partner.
We will recognize milestone payments as revenue upon achievement of the milestone only if (1) it represents a separate unit of accounting as defined in EITF 00-21; (2) the milestone payments are nonrefundable; (3) substantive effort is involved in achieving the milestone; and (4) the amount of the milestone is reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the risk associated with the achievement of the milestone. If any of these conditions are not met, we will recognize milestones as revenue in accordance with its accounting policy in effect for the respective contract. At the time of a milestone payment receipt, we will recognize revenue based upon the portion of the development services that are completed to date and defer the remaining portion and recognize it over the remainder of the development services on the proportional or ratable method, whichever is applicable. When payments are specifically tied to a separate earnings process, revenue will be recognized when the specific performance obligation associated with the payment has been satisfied. Deferred revenue represents the excess of cash received compared to revenue recognized to date under licensing agreements. In the fourth quarter of 2006, we recognized remaining deferred revenue of $1.2 million with respect to the terminated agreement with Adolor.
Upon receipt of marketing approval and commencement of commercial sales, which may not occur for several years, EpiCept will owe royalties to licensors of certain patents generally based upon net sales of the respective products. Under a royalty agreement with respect to LidoPAIN SP, we are obligated to pay a royalty based on net sales of any of our products for the treatment of pain associated with surgically closed wounds. Under a license agreement with respect to EpiCept NP-1, we are obligated to pay royalties based on annual net sales derived from the products incorporating the licensed technology. Under a license agreement with respect to EPC2407, we are required to provide a portion of any sublicensing payments we receive if we relicense the series of compounds or make milestone payments, assuming the successful commercialization of the compound by us for the treatment of a cancer indication, as well as pay a royalty on product sales. Under a royalty agreement with respect to Ceplene®, we are obligated to pay royalties based on annual net sales derived from the products incorporating the licensed technology. In each case, our royalty obligation ends the later of 1) the conclusion of the royalty term on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis; and 2) the expiration of the last EpiCept licensed patent.
Prior to January 1, 2006 and in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation which we refer to as FAS 123, EpiCept accounted for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees or APB 25, using intrinsic values with appropriate disclosures using the fair value based method. Accordingly, EpiCept recorded stock-based compensation expense for stock options issued to employees in fixed amounts with exercise prices that are, for financial reporting purposes, deemed to be below fair market value on the measurement date generally being the date of grant. In the notes to EpiCepts consolidated financial statements, EpiCept provides pro forma disclosures for 2005 as required by FAS 123 and related pronouncements. We accounted for stock-based transactions with non-employees in which services are received in exchange for the equity instruments based upon the fair value of the equity instruments issued, in accordance with FAS 123 and EITF 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments that are Issued to Other than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services. The two factors that most affect charges or credits to operations related to stock-based compensation are the estimated fair market value of the common stock underlying stock options for which stock-based compensation is recorded and the estimated volatility of such fair market value.
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB issued FAS 123R, "Share-Based Payment (FAS 123R). This statement is a revision to FAS 123, supersedes APB 25, and amends FAS 95, Statement of Cash Flows. FAS 123R eliminates the ability to account for share-based compensation using the intrinsic value method allowed under APB 25 and requires companies to recognize such transactions as compensation expense in the statement of operations based on the fair values of such equity on the date of the grant, with the compensation expense recognized over the period in which the recipient is required to provide service in exchange for the equity award. This statement also provides guidance on valuing and expensing these awards, as well as disclosure requirements of these equity arrangements. We adopted the statement on January 1, 2006. We utilize the Black-Scholes valuation method to recognize compensation expense over the vesting period. Certain assumptions need to be made with respect to utilizing the Black-Scholes valuation model, including the expected life, volatility, risk-free interest rate and forfeiture of the stock options. The expected life of the stock options was calculated using the method allowed by the provisions of SFAS No. 123R and interpreted by an SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (SAB 107). In accordance with SAB 107, the simplified method for plain vanilla options may be used where the expected term is equal to the vesting term plus the original contract term divided by two. Due to limited Company specific historical volatility data, we have based our estimate of expected volatility of stock awards upon historical volatility rates of comparable public companies to the extent it was not materially lower than our actual volatility. The risk-free interest rate is based on the rates paid on securities issued by the U.S. Treasury with a term approximating the expected life of the options. Estimates of pre-vesting option forfeitures are based on our experience. We will adjust our estimate of forfeitures over the requisite service period based on the extent to which actual forfeitures differ, or are expected to differ, from such estimates. Changes in estimated forfeitures will be recognized through a cumulative catch-up adjustment in the period of change and will also impact the amount of compensation expense to be recognized in future periods.
Accounting for stock-based compensation granted by EpiCept requires fair value estimates of the equity instrument granted or sold. If EpiCepts estimates of fair value of stock-based compensation is too high or too low, it will have the effect of overstating or understating expenses. When stock-based grants are granted in exchange for the receipt of goods or services, we estimate the value of the stock-based compensation based upon the value of our common stock.
Stock-based compensation expense for non-employees is recorded based on the fair value method utilizing the Black-Scholes option pricing model and is recognized during the vesting period. Stock-based compensation expense is classified as either research and development expense or general and administrative expense depending on the nature of the compensated services.
Deferred financing costs represent legal and other costs and fees incurred to negotiate and obtain financing. These costs are capitalized and amortized on the effective interest method over the life of the applicable financing.
As a result of certain financings, derivative instruments were created that EpiCept has measured at fair value and marks to market at each reporting period. Fair value of the derivative instruments will be affected by estimates of various factors that may affect the respective instrument, including our cost of capital, the risk free rate of return, volatility in the fair value of our stock price, future foreign exchange rates of the U.S. dollar to the euro and future profitability of EpiCepts German subsidiary. At each reporting date, we review applicable assumptions and estimates relating to fair value and record any changes in the statement of operations.
Beneficial Conversion Feature of Certain Instruments
The convertible feature of certain financial instruments provided for a rate of conversion that is below market value at the commitment date. Such feature is normally characterized as a beneficial conversion feature or BCF. Pursuant to EITF 98-5, and EITF 00-27, the estimated fair value of the BCF is recorded as interest expense if it relates to debt or a dividend if it is related to equity. If the conversion feature is contingent, then the BCF is measured but not recorded until the contingency is resolved. Our Convertible Bridge loans due October 2006 and the November 2005 Senior Notes due October 2006 both contained contingent BCFs. Upon closing of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, the contingency was resolved and we recorded BCFs of approximately $4.4 million as an additional charge to interest expense. Our Preferred Stock contained anti-dilution provisions. Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, a BCF of approximately $8.6 million was recorded as a result of the anti-dilution provisions.
Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
We have a 100%-owned subsidiary in Germany, EpiCept GmbH, that performs certain research and development activities pursuant to a research collaboration agreement. EpiCept GmbH has generally been unprofitable since its inception. Its functional currency is the euro. The process by which EpiCept GmbHs financial results are translated into U.S. dollars is as follows: income statement accounts are translated at average exchange rates for the period and balance sheet asset and liability accounts are translated at end of period exchange rates. Translation of the balance sheet in this manner affects the stockholders equity account, referred to as the cumulative translation adjustment account. This account exists only in EpiCept GmbHs U.S. dollar balance sheet and is necessary to keep the foreign balance sheet stated in U.S. dollars in balance.
Certain of our debt instruments, originally expressed in German deutsche marks, are now denominated in euros. Changes in the value of the euro relative to the value of the U.S. dollar could affect the U.S. dollar value of our indebtedness at each reporting date as substantially all of our assets are held in U.S. dollars. These changes are recognized by us as a foreign currency transaction gain or loss, as applicable, and are reported in other expense or income in EpiCepts consolidated statements of operations.
Research and Development Expenses
We expect that a large percentage of our future research and development expenses will be incurred in support of current and future preclinical and clinical development programs. These expenditures are subject to numerous uncertainties in timing and cost to completion. We test our product candidates in numerous preclinical studies for toxicology, safety and efficacy. We then conduct early stage clinical trials for each drug candidate. As we obtain results from clinical trials, we may elect to discontinue or delay clinical trials for certain product candidates or programs in order to focus resources on more promising product candidates or programs. Completion of clinical trials may take several years but the length of time generally varies according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a drug candidate. The cost of clinical trials may vary significantly over the life of a project as a result of differences arising during clinical development, including:
Expenses related to clinical trials are based on estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple research institutions and clinical research organizations that conduct clinical trials on the our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation and vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. If timelines or contracts are modified based upon changes in the clinical trial protocol or scope of work to be performed, estimates of expenses are modified accordingly on a prospective basis.
None of our drug candidates have received FDA or foreign regulatory marketing approval. In order to grant marketing approval, the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies must conclude that EpiCepts and our collaborators clinical data establishes the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates. Furthermore, our strategy includes entering into collaborations with third parties to participate in the development and commercialization of our products. In the event that third parties have control over the preclinical development or clinical trial process for a product candidate, the estimated completion date would largely be under control of that third party rather than under our control. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which of our drug candidates will be subject to future collaborations or how such arrangements would affect our development plan or capital requirements.
Results of Operations
Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
Revenues. During 2007 and 2006, we recognized revenue of approximately $0.3 million and $2.1 million, respectively, from prior upfront licensing fees and milestone payments received from Adolor, Endo and DURECT and royalties with respect to certain technology. We recognized revenue from our agreement with Endo using the proportional performance method with respect to LidoPAIN BP. During 2007 and 2006, we recorded revenue from Endo of $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively. In October 2006, we were informed of the decision by Adolor to discontinue its licensing agreement with us for LidoPAIN SP. Previously, we recognized revenue on a straight line basis over the development period for LidoPAIN SP. During 2006, we recognized $1.5 million of deferred revenue from Adolor of which $1.2 million was recognized in the fourth quarter due to the termination of the license agreement by Adolor. We have no further obligations to Adolor. In December 2006, we received an upfront license fee payment of $1.0 million from DURECT. We recognize revenue from our agreement with DURECT on a straight line basis over the life of the last to expire patent. During 2007 and 2006 we recognized deferred revenue of approximately $0.1 million and $2,000 respectively relating to our agreement with DURECT. During 2007 and 2006, we also recognized revenue of $43,000 and $36,000, respectively, from royalties with respect to acquired Maxim technology.
The current portion of deferred revenue as of December 31, 2007 of $0.2 million represents our estimate of revenue to be recognized over the next twelve months primarily related to the upfront payments from Endo and DURECT.
General and administrative expense. General and administrative expense decreased by 17% or $2.5 million to $11.8 million for 2007 from $14.2 million in 2006. For 2007, stock-based compensation charges amounted to $2.1 million, or a decrease of $1.6 million from 2006. In addition, our premises, legal, personnel and insurance expenses decreased $2.1 million for 2007 as compared to the same period in 2006. These decreases were partially offset by an increase in investor relations, public reporting costs and other administrative expenses of $0.5 million, a $0.4 million charge for liquidated damages as a result of a registration statement not being declared effective by the required date and a $0.3 million charge relating to a release and settlement agreement with our senior secured lender (See Contractual Obligations) for 2007.
Research and development expense. Research and development expense decreased by $0.4 million to $15.3 million for 2007 from $15.7 million for 2006. During 2007, our clinical activity increased significantly as we completed preparation for the clinical trials of NP-1, two of which commenced in April, and continued our Phase I clinical trial of EPC 2407. Consulting expenses also increased significantly as we received and reviewed the Day 80 report, the Day 120 List of Questions and the Day 150 List of Questions related to the Ceplene® MAA, and prepared our response to the EMEA. The increase in clinical activity and consulting expense during the year ended December 31, 2007 was offset by a reduction in preclinical activity. During 2006, our research and development efforts concentrated on preparing EPC 2407 for an IND filing and commencement of clinical trials, the continuation of our Phase III clinical trial for LidoPAIN SP, and preparation of the Ceplene® MAA filing with the EMEA. Stock-based compensation and depreciation expense declined by $0.4 million during 2007 compared 2006. We recorded a $0.4 million non-cash charge relating to the issuance of warrants in connection with the termination of a sublicense agreement with Epitome Analgesics Inc. during 2007. Finally, our license fees increased by approximately $0.7 million during 2007, compared to 2006 primarily as a result of terminating our sub-license agreement with Epitome and entering into a direct license agreement with Dalhousie (see License Agreements).
For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, EpiCept incurred the following research and development expense:
Direct expenses consist primarily of fees paid to vendors and consultants for services related to preclinical product development, clinical trials, and manufacturing of the respective products. EpiCept generally maintains few fixed commitments; therefore, we have flexibility with respect to the timing and magnitude of a significant portion of our direct expenses. Indirect expenses are those expenses EpiCept incurs that are not allocated by project, which consist primarily of the salaries and benefits of EpiCepts research and development staff.
Acquired In-Process Research and Development. In connection with the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, we recorded an in-process research and development charge of $33.4 million representing the estimated fair value of the acquired in-process research and development related to the acquired interest that had not yet reached technological feasibility and had no alternative future use (see Purchase Price Allocation).
Other income (expense), net. Our other income (expense), net consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006:
During 2007, we recorded other expense, net of $2.0 million as compared to other expense, net of $4.3 million during 2006. The $2.3 million decrease in other expense, net was primarily related to a BCF charge to interest expense of approximately $4.4 million during 2006 related to a contingency resolved at the closing of our merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, a $0.5 million gain on extinguishment of debt relating to the repayment agreement with tbg (see Contractual Obligations) during 2007 and a larger foreign exchange gain of $0.3 million during 2007 as compared to 2006. The decrease in other expense, net was partially offset by a decrease in interest income of approximately $0.2 million due to lower average cash balances during 2007, the $1.0 million reversal of contingent interest in connection with the IKB loan no longer deemed necessary at December 31, 2006, a $1.2 million increase in the fair value of certain warrants and derivatives which we were marking to market and a $0.7 million increase in interest expense related to the senior secured term loan we entered into in August 2006 (see Contractual Obligations). In 2006, we sold one of our web site addresses for $0.1 million which was recognized in other income.
Income Taxes. Income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $4,000 and $0, respectively. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs), of $72.8 and $436.8 million, state NOLs of $77.6 and $279.3 million, and foreign NOLs of $13.6 and $9.4 million respectively, available to reduce future taxable income. Our federal and state NOLs expire in various intervals through 2027. In 2007 we determined that an ownership change occurred under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. The utilization of our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes will be limited to approximately $1.6 million per year. We also determined that we were in a Net Unrealized Built-in Gain position (for purposes of Section 382) at the time of the ownership change, which increases our annual limitation over the next five years through 2011 by approximately $2.9 million per year. Accordingly, we have reduced our net operating loss carryforwards and research and development tax credits to the amount that we estimate that we will be able to utilize in the future, if profitable, considering the above limitations. In accordance with FAS 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, we have provided a valuation allowance for the full amount of our net deferred tax assets because it is not more likely than not that we will realize future benefits associated with deductible temporary differences and NOLs at December 31, 2007 and 2006.
Deemed Dividends and Convertible Preferred Stock Dividends. Deemed and accreted convertible preferred stock dividends amounted to $0 and $9.0 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to our Series A, Series B and C convertible preferred stock. Our Preferred Stock contained anti-dilution provisions and upon the closing of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, a BCF of approximately $8.9 million was recorded as a deemed dividend in accordance with EITF 98-5 as a result of the anti-dilution provisions contained in the preferred stock. Due to the conversion of all of the Preferred Stock to common stock on January 4, 2006. There will be no further accretion of dividends.
Years Ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
Revenues. During 2006 and 2005, we recognized deferred revenue of approximately $2.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively, from prior upfront licensing fees and milestone payments received from Adolor and Endo and a new license agreement with DURECT. We recognized revenue from our agreement with Endo using the proportional performance method with respect to LidoPAIN BP. During 2006 and 2005, we recorded revenue from Endo of $0.5 million and $0.4 million, respectively. On October 27, 2006, we were informed of the decision by Adolor to discontinue its licensing agreement with us for LidoPAIN SP. Previously, we recognized revenue on a straight line basis over the development period for LidoPAIN SP. During 2006, we recognized $1.5 million of deferred revenue from Adolor of which $1.2 million was recognized in the fourth quarter relating to the terminated Adolor license agreement. We have no further obligations to Adolor. In December 2006, we received an upfront license fee payment of $1.0 million, of which approximately $2,000 was recognized as revenue from DURECT. We will recognize revenue from our agreement with DURECT on a straight line basis over the life of the last to expire patent. We also recognized revenue of $36,000 from royalties with respect to acquired Maxim technology.
General and administrative expense. General and administrative expense increased by 146% or $8.4 million to $14.2 million for 2006 from $5.8 million in 2005. A significant factor in the increase was our adoption of FAS 123R, on January 1, 2006, which resulted in a $3.7 million charge for stock-based compensation for the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, as a result of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, we incurred $3.1 million in legal and other general and administrative expense related to the activities we are continuing at the San Diego facility including information technology and human resources. We also incurred an increase in staff compensation due to the payment of certain one-time bonuses totaling $0.5 million in connection with the closing of the merger with Maxim and the February 2006 sale of common stock and warrants, and we expensed bonuses in connection with the Companys 2006 results which were paid in early 2007. We incurred higher accounting and legal expenses of $0.7 million and $0.4 million, respectively, as well as higher travel and recruiting expenses for the year ended 2006 as compared to 2005. Finally, as we became a public company upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, we incurred $1.0 million in costs related to our activity as a public company including listing fees, investor relations activities and expenses related to the production of our annual report. Deferred initial public offering costs of $1.7 million were expensed in 2005 following the withdrawal of our initial public offering in May 2005.
Research and development expense. Research and development expense increased by $13.9 million to $15.7 million for 2006 from $1.8 million for 2005. As a result of the merger with Maxim, we continued development of two programs: the registration of Ceplene® in Europe as remission maintenance therapy for AML, and an early stage program to discover and develop novel compounds that induce apoptosis and may be indicated for the treatment of certain cancers. The continuation of these programs contributed $10.9 million in research and development expense during 2006, including staffing and direct third party costs. We completed the enrollment of our Phase III trial for LidoPAIN SP in Europe, and initiated manufacturing and commercial scale-up efforts with respect to our EpiCept NP-1 and LidoPAIN BP product candidates resulting in higher research costs of $1.5 million. In connection with the adoption of FAS 123R, we recorded $0.4 million of stock-based compensation expense during 2006. We incurred higher payroll and recruiting fees of $0.4 million and $0.1 million for 2006 as compared to 2005.
Acquired In-Process Research and Development. In connection with the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, we recorded an in-process research and development charge of $33.4 million representing the estimated fair value of the acquired in-process research and development related to the acquired interest that had not yet reached technological feasibility and had no alternative future use (see Purchase Price Allocation).
Other income (expense), net. Our other income (expense), net consisted of the following for 2006 and 2005:
Other income (expense), net, increased $3.6 million to a net expense of $4.3 million in 2006 from $0.7 million for 2005. Certain of our debt instruments contained contingent BCFs. Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, the contingency was resolved and we recorded BCFs of approximately $4.4 million in 2006 as an additional charge to interest expense. During the quarter ended September 30, 2006, we determined that the Company was unlikely to be profitable in 2007 as a result of the negative results of the LidoPAIN SP Phase III clinical trial in Europe. Accordingly, we determined that the fair value of the contingent interest potentially due to one of our lenders should be valued at $0 as of December 31, 2006, and we accordingly reversed the contingent interest derivative liability of $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The fair value of the contingent interest derivative was approximately $0.9 million as of December 31, 2005. In August 2006, we entered into a senior secured term loan and issued five year common stock purchase warrants granting the lender the right to purchase 0.5 million shares of our common stock. The warrants issued to the lender meet the requirements of and are being accounted for as a liability in accordance with Emerging Issue Task Force 00-19 Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to or Potentially Settled in a Companys Own Stock. The value of the warrants is being marked to market each reporting period as a derivative gain or loss until exercised or expiration. For 2006, we recognized the change in the value of warrants and derivatives of approximately $0.4 million, as other income in the consolidated statement of operations. Other income (expense) for 2005 included a warrant derivative gain of $0.8 million related to stock purchase warrants issued with the March 2005 Senior Notes. The March 2005 Senior Notes warrants were converted into common stock upon the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006. Interest income increased by approximately $0.3 million due to higher interest rates and cash balances resulting from the cash and marketable securities acquired in connection with the merger with Maxim, proceeds of senior secured term loan from Hercules and sales of common stock and warrants. In 2006, we sold one of our web site addresses for $0.1 million which was recognized in other income.
Benefit for Income Taxes. Income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 was $0 and $0.3 million. The 2005 income tax benefit of $0.3 million consisted primarily of a New Jersey state income tax benefit resulting from the sale of a portion of our New Jersey state NOLs. As a result of our move from New Jersey to New York in December 2006, we did not qualify for the New Jersey state NOL program. The sales of cumulative state NOLs are a result of a New Jersey law enacted January 1, 1999 allowing emerging technology and biotechnology companies to transfer or sell their unused New Jersey net operating loss carryforwards and New Jersey research and development tax credits to any profitable New Jersey company qualified to purchase them for cash.
Deemed Dividends and Convertible Preferred Stock Dividends. Deemed and accreted convertible preferred stock dividends amounted to $9.0 million and $1.3 million for 2006 and 2005, respectively, relating to our Series A, Series B and C convertible preferred stock. Our Preferred Stock contained anti-dilution provisions and upon the closing of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, a BCF of approximately $8.9 million was recorded as a deemed dividend in accordance with EITF 98-5 as a result of the anti-dilution provisions contained in the preferred stock. Due to the conversion of all of the Preferred Stock to common stock on January 4, 2006, there will be no further accretion of dividends.
On December 20, 2006, we entered into a license agreement with DURECT, pursuant to which we granted DURECT the exclusive worldwide rights to certain of our intellectual property for a transdermal patch containing bupivacaine for the treatment of back pain. Under the terms of the agreement, we received a $1.0 million payment and may receive up to an additional $9.0 million in license fees and milestone payments as well as certain royalty payments based on net sales. As of December 31, 2007, we recorded inception to date revenue of $0.1 million related to this license agreement.
In December 2003, we entered into a license agreement with Endo under which EpiCept granted Endo (and its affiliates) the exclusive (including as to EpiCept and its affiliates) worldwide right to commercialize LidoPAIN BP. We also granted Endo worldwide rights to certain of our other patents used by Endo in the development of certain Endo products, including Lidoderm, Endos topical lidocaine-containing patch, for the treatment of chronic lower back pain. We remain responsible for continuing and completing the development of LidoPAIN BP, including the conduct of all clinical trials and the supply of the clinical products necessary for those trials and the preparation and submission of the NDA in order to obtain regulatory approval for LidoPAIN BP. Upon the execution of the Endo agreement, we received a payment of $7.5 million, which has been deferred and is being recognized as revenue on the proportional performance method, and we may receive payments of up to $52.5 million upon the achievement of various milestones relating to product development and regulatory approval for both EpiCepts LidoPAIN BP product candidate and Endos own back pain product candidate, so long as, in the case of Endos product candidate, our patents provide protection thereof. As of December 31, 2007, we recorded inception to date revenue related to this license agreement in the amount of $1.6 million of which $0.2 million was recorded as revenue during 2007. We may also receive royalties from Endo based on the net sales of LidoPAIN BP. These royalties are payable until generic equivalents of the LidoPAIN BP product candidate are available or until expiration of the patents covering LidoPAIN BP, whichever is sooner. We are also eligible to receive milestone payments from Endo of up to approximately $30.0 million upon the achievement of specified net sales milestones of covered Endo products, including Lidoderm, Endos chronic lower back pain product candidate, so long as our patents provide protection thereof. The total amount of upfront and milestone payments we are eligible to receive under the Endo agreement is $90.0 million. There is no certainty that any of these milestones will be achieved or any royalty earned.
In July 2003, we entered into a license agreement with Adolor under which we granted Adolor the exclusive right to commercialize, among other products, LidoPAIN SP throughout North America. We received total payments of $3.0 million, which were deferred and were being recognized as revenue ratably over the estimated development period of LidoPAIN SP. In October 2006, Adolor informed us of their decision to discontinue their licensing agreement with us for LidoPAIN SP. As a result, we regained full worldwide development and commercialization rights to our product candidate. As a result of the termination of the contract, we recognized the remaining deferred revenue of approximately $1.2 million during the fourth quarter 2006, as we have no further obligations to Adolor.
In connection with our merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, we acquired a license agreement with Myriad under which we licensed our MX90745 series of caspase-inducer anti-cancer compounds to Myriad. Myriad has initiated clinical trials for AzixaTM, also known as MPC6827, for the treatment of brain cancer. We are also eligible to receive milestone payments from Myriad of up to approximately $24.0 million upon the achievement of specified net sales milestones of covered Myriad products. The total amount of upfront and milestone payments we are eligible to receive under the Myriad agreement is $27.0 million. There is no certainty that any of these milestones will be achieved or any royalty earned. Under the terms of the agreement, Myriad is responsible for the worldwide development and commercialization of any drug candidates from this series of compounds. The agreement requires that Myriad make licensing, research and milestone payments to us assuming the successful commercialization of a compound for the treatment of cancer, as well as pay a royalty on product sales. In September 2006, Myriad announced positive Phase I clinical trial results for AzixaTM and in March 2007 announced that it had commenced a registration size clinical trial for the product candidate. In March 2008, we received a milestone payment of $1.0 million upon dosing of the first patient in this trial.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We have devoted substantially all of our cash resources to research and development programs and general and administrative expenses. To date, we have not generated any meaningful revenues from the sale of products and may not generate any such revenues for a number of years, if at all.. As a result, EpiCept has incurred an accumulated deficit of $170.8 million as of December 31, 2007, and we anticipate that we will incur operating losses, potentially greater than losses in prior years, for a number of years in the future. Our recurring losses from operations and our stockholders deficit raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Should we be unable to raise adequate financing or generate revenue in the future, operations will need to be scaled back or discontinued. Since our inception, we have financed our operations primarily through the proceeds from the sales of common and preferred securities, debt, revenue from collaborative relationships, investment income earned on cash balances and short-term investments and the sales of a portion of our New Jersey net operating loss carryforwards.
The following table describes our liquidity and financial position on December 31, 2007 and 2006.
Working Capital Deficit
As of December 31, 2007, we had a working capital deficit of $8.2 million, consisting of current assets of $5.6 million and current liabilities of $13.8 million. This represents an unfavorable change in working capital of approximately $3.7 million from our working capital deficit of $4.5 million on current assets of $15.2 million and current liabilities of $19.7 million at of December 31, 2006. We funded our working capital deficit and the cash portion of our 2007 operating loss with proceeds from our December 2007, October 2007, June 2007, December 2006, and August 2006 financings. Our note payable with Hercules which matures on August 30, 2009, contains a subjective acceleration clause and, accordingly, has been classified as a current liability as of December 31, 2007 in accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin (FTB) 79-3 Subjective Acceleration Clauses in Long-Term Debt Agreements (FTB 79-3).
Upon the closing of the merger with Maxim, approximately $12.3 million of our outstanding debt instruments were repaid or converted into 2.7 million shares of common stock. At the time of the merger, Maxim had cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities approximating $15.1 million.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
At December 31, 2007, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $4.9 million. At December 31, 2006, cash and cash equivalents totaled $14.1 million. At the time of the merger, Maxim had cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities approximating $15.1 million. In December 2007, October 2007 and June 2007, we sold collectively approximately 12.7 million shares of common stock and warrants to purchase 6.5 million shares of our common stock for gross proceeds of $23.0 million. The proceeds were offset by transaction related payments of $2.3 million of financing costs. Proceeds were utilized to fund some of the cash portion of the operating loss for 2007.
Current and Future Liquidity Position
During 2007, we raised gross proceeds of $23.0 million, $20.7 net of $2.3 million in transaction costs, and in March 2008, we raised gross proceeds of $5.0 million, $4.7 million net of $0.3 million in transaction costs, from the sale of common stock and warrants. Our cash at December 31, 2007 of $4.9 million plus the proceeds from the sale of our common stock and common stock purchase warrants registered pursuant to a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2007, potential future payments from our strategic partners and interest earned on cash balances and investments are expected to be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements into the second quarter 2008. We anticipate the need to raise additional funds in the future through public or private financings, strategic relationships or other arrangements.
Our future capital uses and requirements depend on numerous forward-looking factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following:
If, at any time, our prospects for financing our clinical development programs decline, we may decide to reduce research and development expenses by delaying, discontinuing or reducing our funding of development of one or more product candidates. Alternatively, we might raise funds through public or private financings, strategic relationships or other arrangements. There can be no assurance that the funding, if needed, will be available on attractive terms, or at all. Furthermore, any additional equity financing may be dilutive to stockholders and debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants and increased interest expense. Similarly, financing obtained through future co-development arrangements may require us to forego certain commercial rights to future drug candidates. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on our consolidated financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.
In December 2006, we entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement or SEDA with YA Global Investments, L.P. Pursuant to this agreement, YA Global Investments, L.P. has committed to purchase up to $15.0 million of shares of our common stock from us over the next three years at a discount to be calculated at the time of issuance. Under the terms of the agreement, we will determine, at our sole discretion, the exact timing and amount of any SEDA financings, subject to certain conditions (see Risk Factors: Risks Related to our Standby Equity Distribution Agreement).
Net cash used in operating activities for 2007 was $25.8 million as compared to $25.2 million in 2006. Cash was primarily used to fund our net loss for the year for research and development, general, administrative and interest expense. The net loss was partially offset by non-cash charges of $2.5 million of FAS 123R stock-based compensation, $1.8 million of depreciation and amortization expense and $0.4 million relating to the issuance of warrants upon termination of a sublicense agreement. Accounts payable decreased by $0.9 million and merger restructuring and litigation payments were $0.5 million during 2007, reflecting payments made following the closing of the merger. Deferred revenue decreased by $0.3 million to account for the portion of the Endo and DURECT deferred revenue recognized as revenue.
In 2007, net cash flows used in investing activities of $0.2 million consisted primarily of the purchase of property and equipment. In 2007, as a result of our move to new corporate headquarters, we purchased furniture and equipment totaling $0.2 million. Our capital expenditures for 2006 and 2005 totaled approximately $0.1 million and $3,000, respectively. We do not anticipate significant capital expenditures in the near future.
Net cash provided by financing activities for 2007 was $16.8 million compared to $27.6 million for 2006. The decrease was primarily attributed to the issuance of a $10.0 million senior secured term loan together with common stock purchase warrants in 2006 and an increase in loan repayments of $2.0 million in 2007. During 2007 and 2006, we issued common stock and common stock purchase warrants for $20.8 million and $20.8 million, respectively, net of transaction costs of $2.3 million and $1.4 million respectively.
As of December 31, 2007, the annual amounts of future minimum payments under debt obligations, interest, lease obligations and other long term liabilities consisting of research, development, consulting and license agreements (including maintenance fees) are as follows (in thousands of U.S. dollars, using exchange rates where applicable in effect as of December 31, 2007):
1.5 Million Due 2007. In August 1997, our subsidiary, EpiCept GmbH entered into a ten-year non-amortizing loan in the amount of 1.5 million with Technologie-Beteiligungs Gesellschaft mbH der Deutschen Ausgleichsbank, or tbg. This loan is referred to in this report as the tbg I loan. Proceeds must be directed toward research, development, production and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The tbg I loan bears interest at 6% per annum. Tbg was also entitled to receive additional compensation equal to 9% of the annual surplus (income before taxes, as defined in the debt agreement) of EpiCept GmbH, reduced by any other compensation received from EpiCept GmbH by virtue of other loans to or investments in EpiCept GmbH provided that tbg is an equity investor in EpiCept GmbH during that time period. We considered the additional compensation element based on the surplus of EpiCept GmbH to be a derivative. EpiCept assigned no value to the derivative at each reporting period as no surplus of EpiCept GmbH was anticipated over the term of the agreement. In addition, any additional compensation as a result of surplus would be reduced by the additional interest noted below. At the demand of tbg, additional amounts could have been due at the end of the loan term up to 30% of the loan amount, plus 6% of the principal balance of the loan for each year after the expiration of the fifth complete year of the loan period, such payments to be offset by the cumulative amount of all payments made to tbg from the annual surplus of EpiCept GmbH. We were accruing these additional amounts as additional interest up to the maximum amount due over the term of the loan.
On December 20, 2007, Epicept GmbH entered into a repayment agreement with tbg, whereby Epicept GmbH paid tbg approximately 0.2 million ($0.2 million) in January 2008, representing all interest payable to tbg as of December 31, 2007. The loan balance of 1.5 million ($2.2 million), plus accrued interest at a rate of 7.38% per annum beginning January 1, 2008 is required to be repaid to tbg no later than June 30, 2008. Tbg waived any additional interest payments of approximately 0.5 million ($0.7 million). Epicept GmbH considered this a modification to the original debt agreement and has recorded the new debt at its fair value in accordance with EITF 96-19, Debtors Accounting for a Modification of Debt Instruments. Accrued interest attributable to the additional interest payments totaled $0 and $0.6 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
$0.8 million Due 2012. In July 2006, Maxim, our wholly-owned subsidiary, issued a six-year non-interest bearing promissory note in the amount of $0.8 million to Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Inc., or PRA, as compensation for PRA assuming the liability on a lease in San Diego, CA. The note is payable in seventy-two equal installments of approximately $11,000 per month. We terminated our lease of certain property in San Diego, CA as part of our exit plan upon the completion of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006.
Senior Secured Term Loan. In August 2006, we entered into a term loan in the amount of $10.0 million with Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc., (Hercules). The interest rate on the loan is 11.7% per year. In addition, we issued five year common stock purchase warrants to Hercules granting them the right to purchase 0.5 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.65 per share. As a result of certain anti-dilution adjustments resulting from a financing consummated by us on December 21, 2006 and an amendment entered into on January 26, 2007, the terms of the warrants issued to Hercules were adjusted to grant Hercules the right to purchase an aggregate of 0.9 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $1.46 per share. The basic terms of the loan require monthly payments of interest only through March 1, 2007, with 30 monthly payments of principal and interest commencing on April 1, 2007. Any outstanding balance of the loan and accrued interest will be repaid on August 30, 2009. In connection with the terms of the loan agreement, we granted Hercules a security interest in substantially all of our personal property including our intellectual property.
Our term loan with Hercules, which matures on August 30, 2009, contains a subjective acceleration clause. Our recurring losses from operations and our stockholders deficit raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and, accordingly, our term loan with Hercules has been classified as a current liability of $7.3 million and $10.0 million as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, in accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin 79-3 Subjective Acceleration Clauses in Long-Term Debt Agreements. However, the table above lists maturity based on the stated terms.
Other Commitments. Our long-term commitments under operating leases shown above consist of payments relating to our facility leases in Tarrytown, New York, which expires in February 2012, and Munich, Germany, which expires in July 2009. Long-term commitments under operating leases for facilities leased by Maxim and retained by EpiCept relate primarily to the research and development site at 6650 Nancy Ridge Drive in San Diego, which is leased through October 2013. In July 2006, we terminated our lease of certain property in San Diego, CA. In connection with the lease termination, we issued a six year non-interest bearing note payable in the amount of $0.8 million to the new tenant. These payments are reflected in the long-term debt section of the above table.
We have a number of research, consulting and license agreements that require us to make payments to the other party to the agreement upon us attaining certain milestones as defined in the agreements. As of December 31, 2007, we may be required to make future milestone payments, totaling approximately $5.9 million, (see note above) under these agreements, depending upon the success and timing of future clinical trials and the attainment of other milestones as defined in the respective agreement. Our current estimate as to the timing of other research, development and license payments, assuming all related research and development work is successful, is listed in the table above in Other obligations.
We are also obligated to make future royalty payments to four of our collaborators under existing license agreements, based on net sales of Ceplene®, EpiCept NP-1, LidoPAIN SP and EPC2407, to the extent revenues on such products are realized. We can not reasonably determine the amount and timing of such royalty payments and they are not include in the table above.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (FAS 141R). FAS 141R establishes guidelines for the recognition and measurement of assets, liabilities and equity in business combinations. FAS 141R is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. The adoption of this pronouncement is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 110 (SAB 110), Share-Based Payment, which amends SAB 107, Share-Based Payment, to permit public companies, under certain circumstances, to use the simplified method in SAB 107 for employee option grants after December 31, 2007. Use of the simplified method after December 2007 is permitted only for companies whose historical data about their employees exercise behavior does not provide a reasonable basis for estimating the expected term of the options. The adoption of this pronouncement is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 07-1 Accounting for Collaborative Arrangements (EITF 07-1), which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. The Task Force clarified the manner in which costs, revenues and sharing payments made to, or received by a partner in a collaborative arrangements should be presented in the statement of operations and set forth certain disclosures that should be required in the partners financial statements. We have not completed our assessment of EITF 07-1 and the impact, if any, on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2007, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 07-03 (EITF 07-03), Accounting for Non-Refundable Advance Payments for Goods or Services to Be Used in Future Research and Development Activities. EITF 07-03 provides guidance on whether non-refundable advance payments for goods that will be used or services that will be performed in future research and development activities should be accounted for as research and development costs or deferred and capitalized until the goods have been delivered or the related services have been rendered. EITF 07-03 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007. The adoption of this pronouncement is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued FAS 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities-Including an amendment of FASB Statement 115 (FAS 159). FAS 159 permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value and amends FAS 115 to, and among other things, require certain disclosures for amounts for which the fair value option is applied. Additionally, this statement provides that an entity may reclassify held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities to the trading account when the fair value option is elected for such securities, without calling into question the intent to hold other securities to maturity in the future. This statement is effective as of the beginning of an entitys first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year that begins on or before November 15, 2007, provided the entity also elects to apply the provisions of FAS 157. We have not completed our assessment of FAS 159 and the impact, if any, on our consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FAS 157, Fair Value Measurements or FAS 157. FAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. FAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 with earlier application encouraged. We have not completed our assessment of FAS 157 and the impact, if any, on our consolidated financial statements.
The financial currency of our German subsidiary is the euro. As a result, we are exposed to various foreign currency risks. First, our consolidated financial statements are in U.S. dollars, but a portion of our consolidated assets and liabilities is denominated in euros. Accordingly, changes in the exchange rate between the euro and the U.S. dollar will affect the translation of our German subsidiarys financial results into U.S. dollars for purposes of reporting consolidated financial results. We also bear the risk that interest on our euro-denominated debt, when translated from euros to U.S. dollars, will exceed our current estimates and that principal payments we make on those loans may be greater than those amounts currently reflected on our consolidated balance sheet. If the U.S. dollar depreciation to the euro had been 10% more throughout 2007, we estimate that our interest expense and the fair value of our euro-denominated debt would have increased by $13,000 and $0.3 million, respectively. Historically, fluctuations in exchange rates resulting in transaction gains or losses have had a material effect on our consolidated financial results. We have not engaged in any hedging activities to minimize this exposure, although we may do so in the future. Our exposure to changes in the exchange rate between U.S. dollars and euros was reduced on January 4, 2006 following the completion of the merger with Maxim at which time $2.4 million of outstanding euro denominated debt was converted into common shares, and was further reduced when we prepaid our loan from IKB on January 3, 2007.
Our exposure to interest rate risk is limited to interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because the majority of our investments are in short-term debt securities and bank deposits. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive without significantly increasing risk. To minimize risk, we maintain our portfolio of cash and cash equivalents in a variety of interest- bearing instruments, primarily bank deposits and money market funds, which may also include U.S. government and agency securities, high-grade U.S. corporate bonds and commercial paper. Due to the nature of our short-term and restricted investments, we believe that we are not exposed to any material interest rate risk.
We do not have any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. In addition, we do not engage in trading activities involving non-exchange traded contracts. Therefore, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in these relationships. We do not have relationships or transactions with persons or entities that derive benefits from their non-independent relationship with us or our related parties.
See our consolidated financial statements filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K under Item 15 below.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Companys Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with the assistance of other members of the Companys management, have evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act)) as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K in connection with the preparation of this Form 10-K. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2007, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Companys registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Managements report was not subject to attestation by the Companys independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only managements report in this annual report.
There have not been any changes in the Companys internal control over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Managements assessment included an evaluation of the design of the Companys internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee.
Based on this assessment, management determined that, as of December 31, 2007, the Companys internal control over financial reporting was effective to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF REGISTRANT
Management and Board of Directors
EpiCept has a strong team of experienced business executives, scientific professionals and medical specialists. EpiCepts executive officers and directors, their ages and positions as of March 13, 2008 are as follows:
Executive Officers and Key Employees
John V. Talley has been EpiCepts President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director since October 2001. Mr. Talley has more than 29 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. Prior to joining EpiCept, Mr. Talley was the Chief Executive Officer of Consensus Pharmaceuticals, a biotechnology drug discovery start-up company that developed a proprietary peptide-based combinatorial library screening process. Prior to joining Consensus, Mr. Talley led Penwest Ltd.s efforts in its spin-off of its subsidiary Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. in 1998 and served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Penwest Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Talley started his career at Sterling Drug Inc., where he was responsible for all U.S. marketing activities for prescription drugs, helped launch various new pharmaceutical products and participated in the 1988 acquisition of Sterling Drug by Eastman Kodak Co. Mr. Talley received his B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Connecticut and completed coursework towards an M.B.A. in Marketing from New York University, Graduate School of Business.
Robert W. Cook has been EpiCepts Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration since April 2004. Prior to joining EpiCept, Mr. Cook was Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial officer of Pharmos Corporation since January 1998 and became Executive Vice President of Pharmos in February 2001. From May 1995 until his appointment as Pharmoss Chief Financial Officer, he was a vice president in GE Capitals commercial finance subsidiary, based in New York. From 1977 until 1995, Mr. Cook held a variety of corporate finance and capital markets positions at The Chase Manhattan Bank, both in the United States and in several overseas locations. He was named a managing director of Chase and several of its affiliates in January 1986. Mr. Cook received his B.S. in International Finance from The American University, Washington, D.C.
Stephane Allard, M.D. has been EpiCepts Chief Medical Officer since March 2007. Prior to that he was Chief Executive Officer, President and a Director of Biovest International. Dr. Allard also served in executive positions at Sanofi-Synthelabo, Synthelabo, Inc. and Lorex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Allard received his medical doctorate from Rouen Medical College and received a Diplomate of CESAM (Certificate of Statistical Studies Applied to Medicine) and a PhD in Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics (Pitie Salpetriere Hospital); Paris, France.
Ben Tseng, Ph.D. has been EpiCepts Chief Scientific Officer since January 2006. Prior to that he was Vice President, Research, at Maxim. Mr. Tseng joined Maxim as Senior Director, Research in 2000. Prior to its acquisition by Maxim in 2000, Dr. Tseng served as Vice President, Biology for Cytovia, Inc., which he joined in 1998. Dr. Tseng also served in executive research positions at Chugai Biopharmaceutical, Inc. from 1995-1998 and, Genta Inc. from 1989 to 1995. Prior to joining Genta, Dr. Tseng was a tenured Associate Adjunct Professor in the Department of Medicine, faculty member of the Physiology and Pharmacology Program, and Associate Member of the Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tseng received a B.A. in Mathematics from Brandeis University and a Ph.D in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry from Yale University.
Dileep Bhagwat, Ph.D., has been EpiCepts Senior Vice President of Pharmaceutical Development since February 2004 and has more than 25 years of pharmaceutical experience developing and commercializing various dosage forms. Prior to joining EpiCept in 2004, Dr. Bhagwat worked at Bradley Pharmaceuticals, as Vice President, Research and Development and Chief Scientific Officer. From November 1994 through September 1999, Dr. Bhagwat was employed at Penwest Pharmaceuticals in various capacities, including Vice President, Scientific Development and Regulatory Affairs and at Purdue Frederick Research Center as Assistant Director of Pharmaceutical Development. Dr. Bhagwat holds many U.S. and foreign patents and has presented and published on dosage form development and drug delivery. Dr. Bhagwat holds a B.S. in Pharmacy from Bombay University, an M.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial Pharmacy from St. Johns University in New York and an M.B.A. in International Business from Pace University in New York.
Board of Directors
Robert G. Savage has been a member of EpiCepts Board since December 2004 and serves as the Chairman of the Board. Mr. Savage has been a senior pharmaceutical executive for over twenty years. He held the position of Worldwide Chairman of the Pharmaceuticals Group at Johnson & Johnson and was both a company officer and a member of the Executive Committee. He also served Johnson & Johnson in the capacity of a Company Group Chairman and President of Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Most recently, Mr. Savage was President of the Worldwide Inflammation Group for Pharmacia Corporation and is presently President and CEO of Strategic Imagery LLC, a consulting company which he is the principal of. He has held multiple positions leading marketing, business development and strategic planning at Hoffmann-La Roche and Sterling Drug. Mr. Savage is a director of The Medicines Company, a specialty pharmaceutical company, Noven Pharmaceuticals, a drug delivery company and Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a development stage biotechnology company. Mr. Savage received a B.S. in Biology from Upsala College and an M.B.A. from Rutgers University.
Guy C. Jackson has been a member of EpiCepts Board since December 2004. In June 2003, Mr. Jackson retired from the Minneapolis office of the accounting firm of Ernst & Young LLP after 35 years with the firm and one of its predecessors, Arthur Young & Company. During his career, he served as audit partner for numerous public companies in Ernst & Youngs New York and Minneapolis offices. Mr. Jackson also serves as a director and chairman of the audit committee of Cyberonics, Inc. and Urologix, Inc., both medical device companies; Digi International Inc., a technology company; and Life Time Fitness, Inc., an operator of fitness centers. Mr. Jackson received a B.S. in Business Administration from The Pennsylvania State University and a M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School.
Gerhard Waldheim has been a member of EpiCepts board since July 2005. Since 2000, he has co-founded and built Petersen, Waldheim & Cie. GmbH, Frankfurt, which focuses on private equity and venture capital fund management, investment banking and related financial advisory services. Biotech and pharma delivery systems are among the focal points of the funds managed by his firm. Prior to that, Mr. Waldheim held senior executive and executive board positions with Citibank, RZB Bank Austria, BfG Bank in Germany and Credit Lyonnais in Switzerland; over the years, his banking focus covered lending, technology, controlling, investment banking and distressed equity. Prior to that, he worked for the McKinsey banking practice. He received an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1974 and a JD from the Vienna University School of Law in 1972.
John F. Bedard has been a member of EpiCepts board since January 2006 and prior thereto served as a member of Maxims board of directors since 2004. Mr. Bedard has been the Senior Vice President, Worldwide Regulatory Affairs for Mannkind Corporation (a biopharmaceutical company) since April, 2007. Previously, Mr. Bedard was engaged as a principal in a pharmaceutical consulting practice since 2002. Prior to that, he served in senior management positions during a 15-year career at Bristol-Myers Squibb, a pharmaceutical company, most recently as Vice President, FDA Liaison and Global Strategy. In that position, Mr. Bedard was the liaison with the FDA for new drug development, and he was also responsible for global development plans and registration activities for new drugs. Before his tenure at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mr. Bedard held senior regulatory affairs positions at Smith Kline & French Laboratories and Ayerst Laboratories. Mr. Bedard also serves on the Board of Directors for Synvista Therapeutics, Inc. (a drug development company).
Wayne P. Yetter has served as a member of EpiCepts board of directors since January 2006, and prior thereto served as a member of Maxims board of directors. Mr. Yetter has been the Chief Executive Officer of Verispan LLC (health care information) since September 2005. From 2003 to 2005 he was the founder of BioPharm Advisory LLC and served on the Advisory Board of Alterity Partners (mergers and acquisition advisory firm) which is now part of FTN Midwest Securities. Also, from November 2004 to September 2005, Mr. Yetter served as the interim Chief Executive Officer of Odyssey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the specialty pharmaceutical division of Pliva d.d. From September 2000 to June 2003, Mr. Yetter served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Synavant Inc. (pharmaceutical marketing/technology services). From 1999 to 2000, he served as Chief Operating Officer at IMS Health, Inc. (information services for the healthcare industry). He also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the U.S. Division of the global pharmaceutical company Novartis Pharma AG, and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Astra Merck. Mr. Yetter began his career with Pfizer and later joined Merck & Co., holding a variety of marketing and management positions including Vice President, Marketing Operations, responsible for global marketing functions and Vice President, Far East and Pacific. Mr. Yetter serves on the board of directors of Matria Healthcare (disease management company) and Noven Pharmaceuticals (drug delivery company), Synvista Therapeutics, Inc. (drug development company), and InfuSystem Holdings Inc. (a healthcare services company).
Gert Caspritz was a member of EpiCepts board of directors at December 31, 2007. Mr. Caspritz resigned effective March 6, 2008.
Scientific and Medical Advisory Board
EpiCepts Scientific and Medical Advisory Board is composed of individuals with expertise in clinical pharmacology, clinical medicine and regulatory matters. Advisory board members assist EpiCept in identifying scientific and product development opportunities and in reviewing with management progress of the EpiCepts projects.
Dr. Gavril Pasternak, Chief Advisor, is a recognized authority on opioid receptor mechanisms. He has published a substantial body of literature on the subject, and he is on the editorial boards of numerous journals related to the subjects of neuropharmacology and pain. Dr. Pasternak is a Member and attending Neurologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and is Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience, Pharmacology and Psychiatry at Cornell University Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences.
Prof. Dr. Christoph Stein is a recognized authority in experimental and clinical pain research. He has studied mechanisms of peripherally mediated opioid analgesia and has published an extensive body of literature on this topic. He is on editorial boards of several journals related to pain, anesthesia and analgesia. Dr. Stein is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, and Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Bruce F. Mackler, Ph.D., J.D., M.S., received his J.D. from the South Texas College of Law of the Texas A&M University, his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon Medical School, his M.S. from Pennsylvania State University and his B.A. from Temple University. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and admitted to practice before the Federal District and Appeals Court and before the Supreme Court. He has published some 100 scientific articles, abstracts and books during his tenure as a scientist and has been an attorney in the food and drug area for 25 years.
Dr. Howard Maibach is a dermatologist whose research area is dermatology, dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology. Dr. Maibach has published over 1900 articles on various dermatology-related subjects and is a frequent lecturer on various subjects related to dermatology. Dr. Maibach is currently professor in the Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, at the University of California in San Francisco.
Our board of directors is divided into three classes, with each director serving a three-year term and one class being elected at each years annual meeting of stockholders. A majority of the members of our board of directors are independent of EpiCept and its management. Directors Jackson and Yetter are in the class of directors whose initial term expires at the 2009 annual meeting of stockholders. Directors Waldheim and Bedard are in the class of directors whose term expires at the 2010 annual meeting of the stockholders. Directors Talley and Savage are in the class of directors whose initial term expires at the 2008 annual meeting of stockholders.
Committees of the Board
Our board of directors has established three standing committees: the audit committee, the compensation committee and the corporate governance and nominating committee.
Audit Committee. EpiCepts audit committee is responsible for the oversight of such reports, statements or charters as may be required by the Nasdaq Capital Market, The OM Stockholm Exchange or federal securities laws, as well as, among other things:
Messrs. Jackson, Waldheim and Yetter are currently members of the audit committee, each of whom is a non-employee member of the board of directors. Mr. Jackson serves as Chairman of the audit committee and also qualifies as an audit committee financial expert, as that term is defined under the SEC rules implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The board has determined that each member of EpiCepts audit committee meets the current independence and financial literacy requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Nasdaq Capital Market and SEC rules and regulations. We intend to comply with future requirements to the extent they become applicable to EpiCept.
Compensation Committee. Our compensation committee is composed of Messrs. Savage, Bedard and Jackson, each of whom is a non-employee member of the board of directors. Mr. Savage serves as Chairman of EpiCepts compensation committee. Each member of EpiCepts compensation committee is an outside director as that term is defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and a non-employee director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 of the rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules of the Nasdaq Capital Market. The compensation committee is responsible for, among other things:
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. Our corporate governance and nominating committee is composed of Messrs. Yetter, Savage and Waldheim, each of whom is a non-employee member of the board of directors and independent in accordance with the applicable rules of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Nasdaq Capital Market. Mr. Yetter serves as chairman of the corporate governance and nominating committee. The corporate governance and nominating committee is responsible for, among other things:
Code of Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all our employees, and a Supplemental Code of Ethics that specifically applies to chief executive officer and chief financial officer. This Code of Ethics is designed to comply with the Nasdaq marketplace rules related to codes of conduct. A copy of this Supplemental Code of Ethics may be obtained on our website at http://www.epicept.com. We intend to post on our website any amendments to, or waiver from, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or our Supplemental Code of Ethics for the benefit of our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing a similar function, and other named executives.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Other than Stephane Allard and Oliver Wiedemann, no person who, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, was a Reporting Person defined as a director, officer or beneficial owner of more than ten percent of the our common stock which is the only class of securities of the Company registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act), failed to file on a timely basis, reports required by Section 16 of the Act during the most recent fiscal year. Messrs. Allard and Wiedemann each filed one late report on Form 4, reflecting one transaction each that was not filed in a timely manner. The foregoing is based solely upon a review by us of Forms 3 and 4 during the most recent fiscal year as furnished to us under Rule 16a-3(d) under the Act, and Forms 5 and amendments thereto furnished to the Company with respect to its most recent fiscal year, and any representation received by us from any reporting person that no Form 5 is required.
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
The following discussion and analysis of compensation arrangements of our named executive officers for 2007 should be read together with the compensation tables and related disclosures set forth below. This discussion contains forward looking statements that are based on our current plans, considerations, expectations and determinations regarding future compensation programs. Actual compensation programs that we adopt may differ materially from currently planned programs as summarized in this discussion.
Role of the Compensation Committee
Our executive compensation is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The members of this committee are Robert G. Savage (Chairman), Guy C. Jackson and John F. Bedard, each an independent, non-employee director. In 2007, the Compensation Committee met seven times and all of the members of the Compensation Committee were present during those meetings.
Under the terms of its Charter, the Compensation Committee is responsible for delivering the type and level of compensation to be granted to our executive officers. In fulfilling its role, the Compensation Committee reviews and approves for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other executive officers (1) the annual base salary, (2) the annual incentive bonus, including the specific goals and amounts, (3) equity compensation, (4) employment agreements, severance arrangements and change in control arrangements and (5) any other benefits, compensation, compensation policies or arrangements.
During 2007, the Compensation Committee delegated the authority to the CEO to make initial option grants to certain new employees (within an approved range) that do not report directly to the CEO. All new employee grants in excess of the CEO limit, subsequent grants to existing employees and any grant to executive officers are approved by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee does not intend to delegate that authority in the future.
While management may use consultants to assist in the evaluation of the CEO or executive officer compensation, the Compensation Committee has authority to retain its own compensation consultant, as it sees fit. The Compensation Committee also has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from internal or external legal, accounting or other advisors.
Prior to becoming a public reporting company in 2006, the Compensation Committee relied on informal industry surveys of the compensation practices of similarly-sized corporations and general knowledge and experience in setting compensation levels. During 2007, the Compensation Committee relied on compensation information produced by Radford Surveys or Radford. The Compensation Committee received the compensation recommendations from management, relevant background information on our executive officers and compensation studies conducted by Radford. The Compensation Committee then reviewed the compensation recommendation with the CEO for all executives, except for the CEO. The CEO was not present during the discussion of his compensation. The Compensation Committee then determined the compensation levels for the executive officers and reported that determination to the Board.
Compensation Objectives Philosophy
The primary objectives of the Compensation Committee with respect to executive compensation are to attract and retain the most talented and dedicated executives possible, to tie annual cash and bonuses and long-term equity incentives to achievement of measurable performance objectives, and to align executives incentives with stockholder value creation. To achieve these objectives, the Compensation Committee implements and maintains compensation plans that tie a substantial portion of executive officers overall compensation to (i) operational goals such as the establishment of operating plans and budgets, review of organization and staff and the implementation of requisite changes, (ii) strategic goals such as the establishment and maintenance of key strategic relationships, the development of our product candidates and the identification and advancement of additional product candidates and (iii) financial factors, such as success in raising capital and improving our results of operations. The Compensation Committee evaluates individual executive performance with the goal of setting compensation at levels the Compensation Committee believes are comparable with executives in other companies of similar size and stage of development operating in the biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical industries while taking into account our relative performance and our own strategic goals.
In order to achieve the above goals, our total compensation packages include base salary and annual bonus, all paid in cash, as well as long-term compensation in the form of stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units. We believe that appropriately balancing the total compensation package is necessary in order to provide market-competitive compensation. The costs of our compensation programs are a significant determinant of our competitiveness. Accordingly, we are focused on ensuring that the balance of the various components of our compensation program is optimized to motivate employees to achieve our corporate objectives on a cost-effective basis.
Review of External Data. The Compensation Committee obtained a survey of the compensation practices of our peers in the United States in order to assess the competitiveness of our executive compensation. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Compensation Committee obtained data from Radford for a number of biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies with less than $50.0 million in revenue, comparable numbers of employees, comparable market capitalization and/or similar product offerings (the general peer group). The peer group consists of Adolor Corporation, Anesiva, Inc., A.P. Pharma, Inc., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Depomed, Inc., Durect Corporation, Genta, Inc., Nastech Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., NeoPharm, Inc., Novacea, Inc., NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Oxigene, Inc., Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Pozen, Inc. and Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Compensation Committee asked Radford to conduct assessments in three areas of compensation for executive positions: 1) total direct compensation (base salary) for our executive officers; 2) target total cash compensation (salary and bonus); and 3) equity grants.
For executive officers, we targeted the aggregate value of our total cash compensation (base salary and bonus) at the 50th percentile of the general peer group and long-term equity incentive compensation at the 75th percentile. The Compensation Committee strongly believes in engaging the best talent in critical functions, and this may entail negotiations with individual executives who may have significant retention packages in place with other employers. In order to attract such individuals to our Company, the Compensation Committee may determine that it is in our best interests to negotiate packages that deviate from the general principle of benchmarking our compensation on our general peer group. Similarly, the Compensation Committee may determine to provide compensation outside of the normal cycle to individuals to address retention issues.
Base Salary. Base salaries for our executive officers are established based on the scope of their responsibilities, taking into account competitive market compensation paid by other benchmark companies for similar positions. Generally, we believe that executive base salaries should be targeted near the 50th percentile of the range of salaries for executives in similar positions with similar responsibilities at comparable companies, in line with our compensation philosophy. Base salaries are reviewed by the Compensation Committee annually, and adjusted from time to time to realign salaries with market levels after taking into account individual responsibilities, performance and experience. This review generally occurs each year in the fourth quarter for implementation in the first quarter.
Annual Bonus. The Compensation Committee has the authority to award annual performance bonuses to our executive officers and other key employees. In 2007, the Compensation Committee awarded bonuses to certain of our executive officers. The Compensation Committee reviews potential annual cash incentive awards for our named executive officers annually to determine award payments, if any, for the last completed fiscal year, as well as to establish award opportunities for the current year. The Compensation Committee intends to utilize annual incentive bonuses to compensate executive officers for achieving financial and operational goals and for achieving individual annual performance objectives. These objectives will vary depending on the individual executive officer, but will relate generally to (i) operational goals such as those related to operating plans and budgets, review of organization and staff and the implementation of requisite changes, (ii) strategic goals such as the establishment and maintenance of key strategic relationships, the development of our product candidates and the identification and advancement of additional product candidates and (iii) financial factors, such as success in raising capital and our results of operations. The Compensation Committee evaluates individual executive performance with the goal of setting compensation at levels the Compensation Committee believes, based on the Radford survey, are comparable with executive officers in other companies of similar size and stage of development operating in the biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical industries while taking into account our relative performance and our own strategic goals. The Compensation Committee also has the ability to grant discretionary bonuses to executive officers. No discretionary bonuses were granted in 2007.
For 2007, annual cash bonus award opportunities for the named executive officers are summarized below. These awards were determined and paid in 2008, accordingly, they are not reflected in the summary compensation table.
Annual Cash Bonus Award Opportunity
Long-Term Incentive Program
We believe that long-term performance is achieved through an ownership culture that encourages such performance by our executive officers through the use of stock and stock-based awards. Our equity plans have been established to provide our employees, including our executive officers, with incentives to help align those employees interests with the interests of stockholders. The Compensation Committee believes that the use of stock and stock-based awards offers the best approach to achieving our compensation goals. We have historically elected to use stock options as the primary long-term equity incentive vehicle. We believe that the annual aggregate value of these awards should be set near the 75th percentile of our general peer group. Due to the early stage of our business, our desire to preserve cash, and the limited nature of our retirement benefit plans, we expect to provide a greater portion of total compensation to our executives through stock options, restricted stock units and restricted stock grants than through cash-based compensation.
Stock Options Our stock plans authorize 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 option plan. Stock options may be granted at the commencement of employment, annually, occasionally following a significant change in job responsibilities or to meet other special retention objectives.
The Compensation Committee reviews 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 stock option grants are made at the discretion of the Compensation Committee to eligible employees and, in appropriate circumstances, the Compensation Committee considers the recommendations of members of management, such as John Talley, our President and CEO.
In 2007, certain named executive officers were awarded stock options in the amounts indicated in the section entitled Stock Option Grants to Executive Officers. These grants included grants made in March 2007 in connection with the commencement of employment of Stephane Allard, our Chief Medical officer, and in January 2007 in connection with merit-based grants made by the board of directors to a large number of employees, including executive officers, which were intended to encourage an ownership culture among our employees. The January 2007 grants were made to certain of our employees, including executive officers, based on performance of such employees and to reward our executive officers for their service and to encourage continued service with us. In January 2008, we granted options to purchase approximately 0.9 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $1.34 per share. Since these awards delivered and granted in 2008, they are not reflected in the Summary Compensation Table or the other tables set forth below. Stock options granted by us have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the day of grant, typically vest monthly over a four-year period based upon continued employment, and generally expire ten years after the date of grant.
We expect to continue to use stock options as a long-term incentive vehicle because:
Stock Appreciation Rights Our 2005 equity incentive plan authorizes us to grant stock appreciation rights, or SARs. To date, we have not granted any SAR under our 2005 equity incentive plan. An SAR represents a right to receive the appreciation in value, if any, of our common stock over the base value of the SAR. The base value of each SAR equals the value of our common stock on the date the SAR is granted. Upon surrender of each SAR, unless we elect to deliver common stock, we will pay an amount in cash equal to the value of our common stock on the date of delivery over the base price of the SAR. SARs typically vest based upon continued employment on a pro-rata basis over a four-year period, and generally expire ten years after the date of grant. Our Compensation Committee is the administrator of our stock appreciation rights plan.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units Our 2005 equity incentive plan authorizes us to grant restricted stock and restricted stock units. In 2007, we granted 0.1 million shares of restricted stock at a fair market value of $1.46 per share. In January 2008, we granted 0.2 million restricted stock units with an aggregate fair market value of $0.3 million. In order to implement our long-term incentive goals, we anticipate granting restricted stock units in the future in conjunction with stock options.
Our executive officers, who are parties to employment agreements, will continue to be parties to such employment agreements in their current form until such time as the Compensation Committee determines in its discretion that revisions to such employment agreements are advisable. In addition, 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 and the ability to contribute to a 401(k) retirement plan; however, the Compensation Committee in its discretion may revise, amend or add to the officers executive benefits if it deems it advisable. We believe these benefits are currently comparable to the median competitive levels for comparable companies. We have no current plans to change either the employment agreements (except as required by law or as required to clarify the benefits to which our executive officers are entitled as set forth herein) or levels of benefits provided thereunder.
Tax Implications of Executive Compensation
We do not believe that Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, which limits deductions for executive compensation paid in excess of $1.0 million, is applicable, and accordingly, our Compensation Committee did not consider its impact in determining compensation levels for our named executive officers in 2007.
Accounting Implications of Executive Compensation
Effective January 1, 2006, we were required to recognize compensation expense of all stock-based awards pursuant to the principles set forth in Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R Share-Based Payments (SFAS No. 123R). The Summary Compensation and Director Compensation Tables below used the principles set forth in FAS 123R to recognize expense for new awards granted after January 1, 2006 and for unvested awards as of January 1, 2006. The non-cash stock compensation expense for stock-based awards that we grant is generally recognized ratably over the requisite vesting period. We continue to believe that stock options, restricted stock and other forms of equity compensation are an essential component of our compensation strategy, and we intend to continue to offer these awards in the future.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
All members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 were independent directors and none of them were our employees or our former employees. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, none of our executive officers served on the Compensation Committee (or equivalent), or the board of directors, of another entity whose executive officers served on the Compensation Committee of our board of directors.
Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation Committee of the Board has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, and based on such discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in EpiCepts annual report on Form 10-K.
Respectfully Submitted by:
MEMBERS OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
Robert G. Savage
Guy C. Jackson
John F. Bedard
The following table sets forth the compensation earned for services rendered to EpiCept in all capacities by our chief executive officer and certain executive officers whose total cash compensation exceeded $100,000 for the year ended December 31, 2007, collectively referred to in this annual report as the named executive officers.
Summary Compensation Table
Option Grants in Last Fiscal Year (2007)
During 2007, the Company granted approximately 1.1 million stock options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units to employees and directors, of which approximately 0.7 million were to the below named executive officers.
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Aggregate Option Exercises in Last Fiscal Year (2007) and Values at December 31, 2007
None of the named executive officers exercised any options in 2007. The named executive officers in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table above, received a aggregate of 31,456 shares of common stock representing the vested portion of their restricted stock grant in 2007.
Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2007
We have entered into employment agreements with Messrs. John V. Talley and Robert W. Cook, each dated as of October 28, 2004. Effective January 4, 2006, pursuant to their employment agreements, Messrs. Talley and Cook received base salaries of $350,000 and $250,000, respectively. For 2008, Messrs. Talley and Cook will receive a base salary of $424,000, and $270,400, respectively. Each employment agreement also provides for discretionary bonuses and stock option awards and reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with services performed under each officers respective employment agreement. The discretionary bonuses and stock options are based on performance standards determined by our Board. Individual performance is determined based on quantitative and qualitative objectives, including EpiCepts operating performance relative to budget and the achievement of certain milestones largely related to the clinical development of its products and licensing activities. The future objectives will be established by our Board. In addition, Mr. Talleys employment agreement provides for automobile benefits and term life and long-term disability insurance coverage. Both employment agreements expired on December 31, 2007 but are automatically extended for unlimited additional one-year periods. Upon termination for any reason and in addition to any other payments disbursed in connection with termination, Mr. Talley and Mr. Cook will receive payment of his applicable base salary through the termination date, the balance of any annual, long-term or incentive award earned in any period prior to the termination date and a lump-sum payment for any accrued but unused vacation days.
If Mr. Talley dies or becomes disabled, he is entitled to (i) receive a lump-sum payment equal to (a) one-third of his base salary times (b) a fraction, the numerator being the number of days he was employed in the calendar year of termination and the denominator being the number of days in that year and (ii) have (a) 50% of outstanding stock options that are not then vested or exercisable become vested and exercisable as of the termination date; (b) the remaining outstanding stock options that are not then vested or exercisable become vested and exercisable ratably and quarterly for two years following the termination date; and (c) each outstanding stock option remain exercisable for all securities for the later of (x) the 90th day following the date that the option becomes fully vested and exercisable and (y) the first anniversary of the termination date. If Mr. Cook dies or becomes disabled, he is entitled to the same benefits as Mr. Talley, except the equation for his lump-sum payment is based on one-fourth of his base salary.
If Mr. Talley is terminated without cause or the term of his agreement is not extended pursuant to the employment agreement, he is entitled to the same benefits as if he were terminated due to death or disability and to receive a lump-sum payment equal to (a) one and one-third times (b) his base salary times (c) the number of whole and partial months remaining in the term of the agreement (but no more than 12 and no less than 6) divided by (d) 12. If Mr. Cook is terminated without cause or the term of his agreement is not extended pursuant to the employment agreement, he is entitled to the same benefits as Mr. Talley, but the equation for his lump-sum payment is based on one and one-fourth times his base salary.
If Mr. Talley is terminated in anticipation of, or within one year following, a change of control, he is entitled to: (i) receive a lump-sum payment equal to (a) one and one third times (b) his base salary times (c) the number of whole and partial months remaining in the term of the agreement (but not less than 24) divided by (d) 12 and (ii) have (a) 50% of outstanding stock options that are not then vested or exercisable become vested and exercisable as of the termination date; (b) the remaining outstanding stock options that are not then vested or exercisable become vested and exercisable ratably and monthly for the first year following the termination date; and (c) each outstanding stock option remain exercisable for all securities for the later of (x) the 90th day following the date that the option becomes fully vested and exercisable and (y) the first anniversary of the termination date. If Mr. Cook is terminated in anticipation of, or within one year following, a change of control, he is entitled to the same benefits as Mr. Talley, except his lump sum is equal to (a) one and one-fourth times (b) his base salary times (c) the number of whole and partial months remaining in the term of the agreement (but no more than 18 and no less than 12) divided by (d) 12.
We reimburse our non-employee directors for their expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meetings. In addition, prior to 2006, each non-employee director received $2,500 for their attendance at each board meeting and $250 for their participation in a telephonic board or committee meeting.
We have also in the past granted non-employee directors options to purchase EpiCepts common stock pursuant to the terms of our 1995 Stock Option Plan, and our board continues to have the discretion to grant options to new and continuing non-employee directors. In August 2005, our stockholders approved the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, the terms of which also include the grant of stock options to directors who are not officers or employees of EpiCept.
In 2007, each non-employee director board member also received an annual retainer of $25,000. The chair person of the board received an annual retainer of $40,000, the chairperson of the audit committee received an annual retainer of $10,000 and the chairperson of each of the other committees received an annual retainer of $7,500. In addition, each non-employee director received $1,500 for their attendance at each board meeting and $750 for their participation in each telephonic board meeting. Each non-employee director also received $750 for their attendance at each committee meeting and $500 for their participation in a telephonic committee meeting. We have in the past granted non-employee directors options to purchase our common stock pursuant to the terms of our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. Upon joining the board, each member received 35,000 options and the chairman received 100,000 shares each, vesting over three years. Annually thereafter, each director and chairperson will receive equity compensation in amounts to be determined annually by the Compensation Committee. Typically such equity compensation vests over two years. The option and restricted stock unit awards to the directors in 2007 represent awards to Messrs. Savage, Jackson, Waldheim, Bedard and Yetter. The value of the options and restricted stock units granted to non-employee directors set forth in the table below reflect grants of options to compensate for their service and were issued at the market value of the Companys common stock at the date of grant.
The following table set forth all material Director compensation information during the year ended December 31, 2007:
Director Compensation Table
For 2007, the compensation committee retained Radford to analyze the Companys non-executive director and chairman compensation. The committee determined that cash compensation should be benchmarked at the 50th percentile and that equity-based compensation should be benchmarked at the 75th percentile for comparable companies in the biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical industries. As a result of that analysis, the Board approved the following changes: (1) the annual cash retainer for the Chairman was reduced to $40,000, (2) the annual cash retainer for the Audit Committee chair was increased to $10,000 and for the Compensation Committee chair to $7,500 and (3) the annual equity grant for each director and the chairman was increased to 25,000 shares and 80,000 shares, respectively, vesting over two years. Two-thirds of the annual director equity grant were in the form of stock options and the remainder was comprised of restricted stock.
The following graph and table compare the cumulative total return of our common stock, The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index and AMEX Biotechnology Index, as described below, for the period beginning January 4, 2006 (the date we became a public company) and ending December 31, 2007, assuming an initial investment of $100 and the reinvestment of any dividends. We obtained the information reflected in the graph and table from independent sources we believe to be reliable, but we have not independently verified the information.
COMPARISON OF 2 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among EpiCept Corporation, the AMEX Biotechnology Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index
Performance Graph and related information shall not be deemed soliciting material or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.
The following table provides certain information with respect to all of the Companys equity compensation plans in effect as of December 31, 2007.
The following table sets forth information as of March 13, 2008 regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock by:
Except as indicated by footnote, and subject to community property laws where applicable, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned by them. Unless otherwise indicated, the principal address of each of the stockholders below is in care of EpiCept Corporation, 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591.
STOCK OPTION PLANS
2005 Equity Incentive Plan
The 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, was adopted on September 1, 2005 and approved by stockholders on September 5, 2005, and subsequently amended and approved by stockholders on May 23, 2007. EpiCepts Equity Incentive Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code, to EpiCepts employees and its parent and subsidiary corporations employees, and for the grant of nonstatutory stock options, restricted stock, performance-based awards and cash awards to its employees, directors and consultants and its parent and subsidiary corporations employees and consultants.
A total of 7,000,000 shares of our common stock are reserved for issuance pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2007 , 3.9 million shares are outstanding. No optionee may be granted an option to purchase more than 1,500,000 shares in any fiscal year.
Our board of directors or a committee of its board administers the Equity Incentive Plan. In the case of options intended to qualify as performance-based compensation within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, the committee will consist of two or more outside directors within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. The administrator has the power to determine the terms of the awards, including the exercise price, the number of shares subject to each such award, the exercisability of the awards and the form of consideration, if any, payable upon exercise. The administrator also has the authority to institute an exchange program by which outstanding awards may be surrendered in exchange for awards with a lower exercise price.
The administrator will determine the exercise price of options granted under the Equity Incentive Plan, but with respect to nonstatutory stock options intended to qualify as performance-based compensation within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code and all incentive stock options, the exercise price must at least be equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. The term of an incentive stock option may not exceed ten years, except that with respect to any participant who owns 10% of the voting power of all classes of EpiCepts outstanding stock, the term must not exceed five years and the exercise price must equal at least 110% of the fair market value on the grant date. The administrator determines the term of all other options.
Restricted stock may be granted under the Equity Incentive Plan. Restricted stock awards are shares of our common stock that vest in accordance with terms and conditions established by the administrator. The administrator will determine the number of shares of restricted stock granted to any employee. The administrator may impose whatever conditions to vesting it determines to be appropriate. For example, the administrator may set restrictions based on the achievement of specific performance goals. Shares of restricted stock that do not vest are subject to our right of repurchase or forfeiture.
Performance-based awards may be granted under the Equity Incentive Plan. Performance-based awards are awards that will result in a payment to a participant only if performance goals established by the administrator are achieved or the awards otherwise vest. The administrator will establish organizational or individual performance goals in its discretion, which, depending on the extent to which they are met, will determine the number and/or the value of performance units and performance shares to be paid out to participants.
The Equity Incentive Plan generally does not allow for the transfer of awards and only the recipient of an award may exercise an award during his or her lifetime.
The Equity Incentive Plan provides that if EpiCept experiences a Change of Control (as defined), the administrator may provide at any time prior to the Change of Control that all then outstanding stock options and unvested cash awards shall immediately vest and become exercisable and any restrictions on restricted stock awards shall immediately lapse. In addition, the administrator may provide that all awards held by participants who are at the time of the Change of Control in EpiCepts service or the service of one of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall remain exercisable for the remainder of their terms notwithstanding any subsequent termination of a participants service. All awards will be subject to the terms of any agreement effecting the Change of Control, which agreement may provide, without limitation, that in lieu of continuing the awards, each outstanding stock option shall terminate within a specified number of days after notice to the holder, and that such holder shall receive, with respect to each share of common stock subject to such stock option, an amount equal to the excess of the fair market value of such shares of common stock immediately prior to the occurrence of such Change of Control over the exercise price (or base price) per share underlying such stock option with such amount payable in cash, in one or more kinds of property (including the property, if any, payable in the transaction) or in a combination thereof, as the administrator, in its discretion, shall determine. A provision like the one contained in the preceding sentence shall be inapplicable to a stock option granted within six months before the occurrence of a Change of Control if the holder of such stock option is subject to the reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and no exception from liability under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act is otherwise available to such holder.
The Equity Incentive Plan will automatically terminate ten years from the effective date, unless it is terminated sooner. In addition, EpiCepts board of directors has the authority to amend, suspend or terminate the Equity Incentive Plan provided such action does not impair the rights of any participant.
1995 Stock Option Plan
EpiCepts 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, was approved by our board of directors in November 1995, and subsequently amended in April 1997, March 1999, February 2002 and June 2002. A total of 797,080 shares of EpiCepts common stock were authorized for issuance under the 1995 Stock Option Plan. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, 251,943 shares were available for issuance under the 1995 Stock Option Plan. We do not plan to grant any further options from this plan.
The purpose of the 1995 Stock Option Plan was to provide EpiCept and its stockholders the benefits arising out of capital stock ownership by its employees, officers, directors, consultants and advisors and any of its subsidiaries, who are expected to contribute to its future growth and success. EpiCepts 1995 Stock Option Plan provides for the grant of non-statutory stock options to its (and its majority-owned subsidiaries) employees, officers, directors, consultants or advisors, and for the grant of incentive stock options meeting the requirements of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code to its employees and employees of its majority-controlled subsidiaries.
A committee duly appointed by our board of directors administered the 1995 Stock Option Plan. The committee has the authority to (a) construe the respective option agreements and the terms of the plan; (b) prescribe, amend and rescind rules and regulations relating to the plan; (c) determine the terms and provisions of the respective option agreements, which need not be identical; (d) make all other determinations in the judgment of the committee necessary or desirable for the administration of the plan. From and after the registration of EpiCepts common stock under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the selection of a director or an officer who is a reporting person under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act as a recipient of an option, the timing of the option grant, the exercise price of the option and the number of shares subject to the option shall be determined by (a) the committee of the Board, each of which members shall be an outside director or (b) by a committee consisting of two or more directors having full authority to act in the matter, each of whom shall be an outside director.
The committee shall determine the exercise price of stock options granted under the 1995 Stock Option Plan, but with respect to all incentive stock options, the exercise price must be at least equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant or, in the case of grants of incentive stock options to holders of more than 10% of the total combined voting power of all classes of our stock (10% owners), at least equal to 110% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant.
The committee shall determine the term of stock options granted under the 1995 Stock Option Plan, but such date shall not be later than 10 years after the date of the grant, except in the case of incentive stock options granted to 10% owners in which case such date shall not be later than five years after the date of the grant.
Each option granted under the 1995 Stock Option Plan is exercisable in full or in installments at such time or times and during such period as is set forth in the option agreement evidencing such option, but no option granted to a reporting person shall be exercisable during the first six months after the grant.
No optionee may be granted an option to purchase more than 350,000 shares in any fiscal year. In addition, no incentive stock option may be exercisable for the first time in any one calendar year for shares of common stock with an aggregate fair market value (as of the date of the grant) of more than $100,000.
EpiCepts 1995 Stock Option Plan generally does not allow for the transfer of options and only the optionee may exercise an option during his or her lifetime.
An optionee may exercise an option at any time within three months following the termination of the optionees employment or other relationship with EpiCept or within one year if such termination was due to the death or disability of the optionee, but except in the case of the optionees death, in no event later than the expiration date of the option. If the termination of the optionees employment is for cause, the option expires immediately upon termination.
EpiCepts 1995 Stock Option Plan automatically terminated on November 14, 2005.
2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
The 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan was adopted on September 1, 2005 and approved by the stockholders on September 5, 2005. The Employee Stock Purchase Plan became effective at the effective time of the merger and a total of 500,000 shares of our common stock have been reserved for sale.
Our board of directors or a committee of the board will administer the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Our board of directors or the committee will have full and exclusive authority to interpret the terms of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and determine eligibility.
All of EpiCepts employees are eligible to participate if they are customarily employed by EpiCept or any participating subsidiary for at least 20 hours per week and more than five months in any calendar year. However, an employee may not be granted an option to purchase stock if such employee:
The Employee Stock Purchase Plan is intended to qualify under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code and generally provides for six-month offering periods beginning on January 1 and July 1 of each calendar year, commencing on January 1, 2006 or such other date as may be determined by the committee appointed by us to administer the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The plan commenced on November 16, 2007.
The Employee Stock Purchase Plan permits participants to purchase common stock through payroll deductions from their eligible compensation, which includes a participants base salary, wages, overtime pay, shift premium and recurring commissions, but does not include payments for incentive compensation or bonuses.
Amounts deducted and accumulated by the participant are used to purchase shares of our common stock at the end of each six-month purchase period. The price is 85% of the lower of the fair market value of our common stock at the beginning of an offering period or end of an offering period. Participants may end their participation at any time during an offering period, and will be paid their payroll deductions to date. Participation ends automatically upon termination of employment with EpiCept.
A participant may not transfer rights granted under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan other than by will, the laws of descent and distribution or as otherwise provided under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
Our board of directors has the authority to amend or terminate the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, except that, subject to certain exceptions described in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, no such action may adversely affect any outstanding rights to purchase stock under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
In January 2007, we adopted a new Retirement Savings and Investment Plan, the 401(k) Plan, whereby the two previously existing plans were terminated. The 401(k) Plan provides for matching contributions by the Company in an amount equal to the lesser of 50% of the employees deferral or 3% of the employees qualifying compensation. The 401(k) Plan is intended to qualify under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, so that contributions to the 401(k) Plan by employees or by us, and the investment earnings thereon, are not taxable to the employees until withdrawn. If the 401(k) Plan qualifies under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, the contributions will be tax deductible by us when made. Our employees may elect to reduce their current compensation by up to the statutorily prescribed annual limit of $15,500 if under 50 years old and $20,500 if over 50 years old in 2007 and to have those funds contributed to the 401(k) Plan.
In 1998, EpiCept adopted a Retirement Savings and Investment Plan, the old EpiCept 401(k) Plan, covering its full-time employees located in the United States. The old EpiCept 401(k) Plan was intended to qualify under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, so that contributions to the 401(k) Plan by employees or by EpiCept, were the investment earnings thereon, are not taxable to the employees until withdrawn. The old EpiCept 401(k) Plan was terminated in January 2007.
Upon the completion of the merger with Maxim on January 4, 2006, EpiCept adopted and continued the existing 401(k) retirement plan, the Maxim 401(k) Plan, under which employees of its San Diego office who met the eligibility requirements may participate and contribute to the 401(k) Plan. The Maxim 401(k) Plan was terminated in January 2007.
We retained Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm to audit our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.
To ensure the independence of the firm selected to audit the Companys annual consolidated financial statements, the audit committee of the Board of Directors has established a policy allowing it to review in advance and either approve or disapprove, any audit, audit-related, internal control-related, tax or non-audit service to be provided to us by Deloitte & Touche LLP. Annually and generally, in the early part of each fiscal year, the audit committee will approve the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm to perform the annual audit of our consolidated financial statements, to provide an annual attestation report on managements evaluation of the Companys internal controls over financial reporting, and our internal controls over financial reporting, and to review our interim consolidated financial statements.
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fees
The aggregate fees billed for professional services by Deloitte & Touche LLP in 2007 and 2006 for these various services were:
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a) (1) and (2) Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules
The following consolidated financial statements of EpiCept Corporation and subsidiaries, the notes thereto, the related report thereon of independent auditors are filed under Item 8 of this report.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statement of Preferred Stock and Stockholders Deficit for Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission are omitted because they either are not required under the related instructions, are inapplicable, or the required information is shown in the consolidated financial statements or the notes thereto.
(a) (3) See Exhibits Index.
(b) Exhibits. See Item 15 (a) (3) above.
(c) Financial Statement Schedules
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this report has been signed by the following persons in the capacities indicated and on the dates indicated:
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
EpiCept Corporation and subsidiaries:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of EpiCept Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, preferred stock and stockholders deficit, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of EpiCept Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for stock-based compensation effective January 1, 2006.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Companys recurring losses from operations and stockholders deficit raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Managements plans concerning these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
March 14, 2008
EpiCept Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
EpiCept Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
EpiCept Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Preferred Stock and Stockholders Deficit
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
For the Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
EpiCept Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
EPICEPT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
1. Organization and Description of Business
EpiCept Corporation (EpiCept or the Company) is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of cancer and pain. The Company has a portfolio of five product candidates in active stages of development: an oncology product candidate undergoing final review for European registration, two oncology compounds, a pain product candidate for the treatment of peripheral neuropathies and another pain product candidate for the treatment of acute back pain. This portfolio of pain management and oncology product candidates allows us to be less reliant on the success of any single product candidate. The Companys strategy is to focus its development efforts on innovative cancer therapies and topically delivered analgesics targeting peripheral nerve receptors. The Company has yet to generate product revenues from any of its product candidates in development.
EpiCepts leading oncology product candidate, Ceplene®, has been submitted for European registration as remission maintenance therapy of acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, for patients who are in their first complete remission (CR1). EpiCept has completed its first Phase I clinical trial for EPC2407, a novel small molecule vascular disruption agent (VDA) and apoptosis inducer for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas. AzixaTM (MPC-6827), an apoptosis inducer with VDA activity licensed by the Company to Myriad Genetics, Inc. as part of an exclusive, worldwide development and commercialization agreement, is currently in Phase II clinical trials in patients with primary glioblastoma, melanoma that has metastasized to the brain and non-small-cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.
EpiCepts pain product candidate, EpiCept NP-1, is a prescription topical analgesic cream designed to provide effective long-term relief of pain associated with peripheral neuropathies. The Company recently concluded a Phase II clinical study of NP-1 in patients suffering from diabetic peripheral neuropathy, or DPN, and has ongoing clinical trials for herpetic peripheral neuropathy, or PHN, and chemotherapy induced neuropathy, or CIN. LidoPAIN BP, licensed to Endo Pharmaceuticals, is currently in Phase II development for the treatment of acute back pain. The Companys portfolio of pain product candidates targets moderate-to-severe pain that is influenced, or mediated, by nerve receptors located just beneath the skins surface. The Companys pain product candidates utilize proprietary formulations and several topical delivery technologies to administer U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pain management therapeutics, or analgesics directly on the skins surface at or near the site of the pain. None of EpiCepts product candidates has been approved by the U.S. FDA or any comparable agency in another country.
The Company is subject to a number of risks associated with companies in the specialty pharmaceutical industry. Principal among these are risks associated with the Companys ability to obtain regulatory approval for its product candidates, including Ceplene®, its ability to adequately fund its operations, dependence on collaborative arrangements, the development by the Company or its competitors of new technological innovations, the dependence on key personnel, the protection of proprietary technology, the compliance with the U.S. FDA and other governmental regulations.
The Company has prepared its financial statements under the assumption that it is a going concern. The Company has devoted substantially all of its cash resources to research and development programs and general and administrative expenses, and to date it has not generated any meaningful revenues from the sale of products and may not generate any such revenues for a number of years, if at all. As a result, the Company has an accumulated deficit of $170.8 million as of December 31, 2007 and may incur operating losses for a number of years. The Companys recurring losses from operations and the accumulated deficit raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. The Company has financed its operations primarily through the proceeds from the sales of common and preferred equity securities, debt, proceeds from collaborative relationships, investment income earned on cash balances and short-term investments.
The Company expects to utilize its cash and cash equivalents to fund its operations, including research and development of its product candidates, primarily for clinical trials. Based upon the projected spending levels for the Company, the Company does not currently have adequate cash and cash equivalents to complete the trials and therefore will require additional funding. As a result, the Company intends to monitor its liquidity position and the status of its clinical trials and to continue to actively pursue fund-raising possibilities through various means, including the sale of its equity securities. If the Company is unsuccessful in its efforts to raise additional funds through the sale of its equity securities, achievement of development milestones or entering into new license arrangements, it may be required to significantly reduce or curtail its research and development activities and other operations. The Company believes that its existing cash and cash equivalents, together with the proceeds from the sale of common stock and common stock purchase warrants on March 6, 2008 and a $1.0 million milestone payment received in March 2008 (see Note 16), will be sufficient to fund its operations into the second quarter 2008.
The Company will require, over the long-term, substantial new funding to pursue development and commercialization of its product candidates and continue its operations. The Company believes that satisfying these capital requirements over the long-term will require successful commercialization of its product candidates. However, it is uncertain whether any products will be approved or will be commercially successful. The amount of the Companys future capital requirements will depend on numerous factors, including the progress of its research and development programs, the conduct of pre-clinical tests and clinical trials, the development of regulatory submissions, the costs associated with protecting patents and other proprietary rights, the development of marketing and sales capabilities and the availability of third-party funding.
There can be no assurance that such funding will be available at all or on terms acceptable to the Company. If the Company obtains funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or others, the Company may be required to relinquish rights to certain of its technologies or product candidates.
2. Significant Accounting Policies
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of EpiCept Corporation and the Companys 100%-owned subsidiaries. All significant inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Estimates also affect the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
The Company recognizes revenue relating to its collaboration agreements in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commissions Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition, and Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. Revenue under collaborative arrangements may result from license fees, milestone payments, research and development payments and royalty payments.
The Companys application of these standards requires subjective determinations and requires management to make judgments about value of the individual elements and whether they are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship. The Company evaluates its collaboration agreements to determine units of accounting for revenue recognition purposes. To date, the Company has determined that its upfront non-refundable license fees cannot be separated from its ongoing collaborative research and development activities and, accordingly, do not treat them as a separate element. The Company recognizes revenue from non-refundable, upfront licenses and related payments, not specifically tied to a separate earnings process, either on the proportional performance method or ratably over either the development period in which the Company is obligated to participate on a continuing and substantial basis in the research and development activities outlined in the contract, or the later of 1) the conclusion of the royalty term on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis or 2) the expiration of the last EpiCept licensed patent. Ratable revenue recognition is only utilized if the research and development services are performed systematically over the development period. Proportional performance is measured based on costs incurred compared to total estimated costs to be incurred over the development period which approximates the proportion of the value of the services provided compared to the total estimated value over the development period. The Company periodically reviews its estimates of cost and the length of the development period and, to the extent such estimates change, the impact of the change is recorded at that time.
EpiCept recognizes milestone payments as revenue upon achievement of the milestone only if (1) it represents a separate unit of accounting as defined in EITF Issue 00-21; (2) the milestone payments are nonrefundable; (3) substantive effort is involved in achieving the milestone; and (4) the amount of the milestone is reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the risk associated with the achievement of the milestone. If any of these conditions is not met, EpiCept will recognize milestones as revenue in accordance with its accounting policy in effect for the respective contract. For current agreements, EpiCept recognizes revenue for milestone payments based upon the portion of the development services that are completed to date and defers the remaining portion and recognizes it over the remainder of the development services on the proportional or ratable method, whichever is applicable. Deferred revenue represents the excess of cash received compared to revenue recognized to date under licensing agreements.
Foreign Currency Translation
The financial statements of the Companys foreign subsidiary are translated into U.S. dollars using the period-end exchange rate for all balance sheet accounts and the average exchange rates for expenses. Adjustments resulting from translation have been reported in other comprehensive loss.
Gains or losses from foreign currency transactions relating to inter-company debt are recorded in the consolidated statements of operations in other income (expense).
The Company has various stock-based compensation plans for employees and outside directors, which are described more fully in Note 12 Stock Options and Warrants. Effective January 1, 2006, the Company accounts for these plans under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) No. 123R Share-Based Payment (FAS 123R).
The Company adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, or FIN 48, on January 1, 2007. The Company recorded an unrecognized tax benefit related to certain tax credits for the year ended December 31, 2007. There was no effect on its financial condition or results of operations as a result of adopting FIN 48.
The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state and foreign jurisdictions. The Companys income tax returns for tax years after 2003 are still subject to review. The Company does not believe there will be any material changes in its unrecognized tax positions over the next 12 months.
The Companys policy is to recognize interest and penalties accrued on any unrecognized tax benefits as a component of operating expense. As of the date of adoption of FIN 48, the Company did not have any accrued interest or penalties associated with any unrecognized tax benefits, nor was any interest expense recognized during the quarter. The tax expense is primarily due to minimum state and local income taxes.
The Company accounts for its income taxes under the asset and liability method. Under the asset and liability method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized based upon the differences arising from carrying amounts of the Companys assets and liabilities for tax and financial reporting purposes using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The effect on the deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in the period when the change in tax rates is enacted. A valuation allowance is established when it is determined that it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, a full valuation allowance has been applied against the Companys deferred tax assets based on historical operating results (See Note 13).
Loss Per Share
Basic and diluted loss per share is computed by dividing loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted weighted average shares outstanding excludes shares underlying the Series A convertible preferred stock, the Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock and the Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock (collectively the Preferred Stock), stock options and warrants, since the effects would be anti-dilutive. Accordingly, basic and diluted loss per share is the same. Such excluded shares are summarized as follows:
The Company considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of 90 days or less when purchased to be cash equivalents.
The Company has determined that all its marketable securities should be classified as available-for-sale. Available-for-sale securities are carried at estimated fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses reported in Stockholders Deficit under the caption Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss. The amortized cost of debt securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity. Such amortization is included in interest income. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary on available-for-sale securities are included in other income and expense. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method. Interest and dividends on securities classified as available-for-sale are included in interest income. Upon closing of the merger with Maxim Pharmaceuticals on January 4, 2006, the Company acquired marketable securities of approximately $11.4 million. During 2006, all of the acquired marketable securities matured. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006 the Company had no marketable securities.
The Company has lease agreements for the premises it occupies. Letters of credit in lieu of lease deposits for leased facilities totaling $0.3 million are secured by restricted cash in the same amount at December 31, 2007 and 2006.
Identifiable Intangible Asset
Intangible asset consists of the assembled workforce acquired in the merger with Maxim. The assembled workforce is being amortized on the greater of the straight-line basis or actual assembled workforce turnover over six years. The gross carrying amount of the assembled workforce is $0.5 million and approximately $0.2 million of accumulated amortization has been recorded as of December 31, 2007. Amortization will be approximately $0.1 million per year from 2008 through 2011. Assembled workforce amortization is recorded in research and development expense. During 2007 and 2006, the Company recorded $0.1 million of amortization in each year.
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets
As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, prepaid expenses and other current assets are summarized below:
Deferred Financing and Initial Public Offering Costs
Deferred financing costs represent legal and other costs and fees incurred to negotiate and obtain financing. Deferred financing costs are capitalized and amortized using the effective interest method over the life of the applicable financing. Deferred initial public offering costs of $1.7 million were expensed during the second quarter of 2005 following the withdrawal of the Companys initial public offering in May 2005. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, deferred financing costs were approximately $0.6 and $1.1 million, respectively. Amortization expense was $0.5 million and $0.2 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively. Accumulated amortization was $0.7 million as of December 31, 2007.
Property and Equipment