|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
EpiCept 10-K 2008 Documents found in this filing:Table of Contents
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
EpiCept Corporation
(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) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (914) 606-3500
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None
(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 registrant’s 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 registrant’s 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
2
Table of Contents
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
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.
3
Table of Contents
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.
Product Portfolio
The following chart illustrates the depth of our product pipeline:
Cancer
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 person’s 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.
4
Table of Contents
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 person’s 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 person’s
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.
Ceplene®
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 body’s natural antioxidant defenses are
sufficient to neutralize ROS and prevent such damage. Oxidative stress occurs when the generation
of ROS exceeds the body’s 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.
5
Table of Contents
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 product’s 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.
6
Table of Contents
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 investigator’s 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.
7
Table of Contents
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.
8
Table of Contents
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 person’s 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 skin’s 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.
9
Table of Contents
Peripheral Neuropathy
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 Insight’s 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 Insight’s 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 TCA’s 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.
10
Table of Contents
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-1’s 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.
11
Table of Contents
Back Pain
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 patch’s 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 trial’s design.
Surgical Pain
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 trial’s
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 trial’s 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
Myriad
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.
12
Table of Contents
Endo
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, Endo’s
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 Endo’s own back pain product, so long as, in the case of Endo’s 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, Endo’s 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.
Durect
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.
Manufacturing
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.
13
Table of Contents
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.
Intellectual Property
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.
14
Table of Contents
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.”
License Agreements
We have in the past licensed and will continue to license patents from collaborating research
groups and individual inventors.
Cassel
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.
Epitome/Dalhousie
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.
15
Table of Contents
Shire Biochem
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 company’s 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.
Hellstrand
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.
Government Regulation
United States
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.
16
Table of Contents
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
sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the drug’s 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.
17
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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 drug’s 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 FDA’s 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 FDA’s 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.
Foreign Regulation
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.
18
Table of Contents
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.
Corporate Information
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.
Employees
As of March 14, 2008, EpiCept’s 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
EpiCept’s 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
SEC’s 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.
19
Table of Contents
RISK FACTORS
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:
20
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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.
21
Table of Contents
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 management’s 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.
22
Table of Contents
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 product’s 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 CHMP’s 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.
23
Table of Contents
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:
24
Table of Contents
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
product’s 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:
25
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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.
26
Table of Contents
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:
27
Table of Contents
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.
28
Table of Contents
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 payor’s 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.
29
Table of Contents
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.
30
Table of Contents
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:
31
Table of Contents
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 organization’s 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 EpiCept’s 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.
32
Table of Contents
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 organization’s 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.
33
Table of Contents
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:
34
Table of Contents
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.
35
Table of Contents
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 market’s 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.
36
Table of Contents
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 Investment’s 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
Investment’s 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 SEC’s 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 staff’s 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.
37
Table of Contents
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
None.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
38
Table of Contents
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF
EQUITY SECURITIES
The Company’s 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 Company’s
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
39
Table of Contents
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
40
Table of Contents
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.
Overview
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 skin’s 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 skin’s 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 Panel’s 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.
41
Table of Contents
Recent Events
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 product’s 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.
Financial Update
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.
42
Table of Contents
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 Maxim’s
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 Maxim’s 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 Maxim’s 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 project’s 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 management’s 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 product’s 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.
43
Table of Contents
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:
Preferred Stock:
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.
Warrants:
The following table illustrates the carrying value and the amount of shares issued for
warrants exercised into the Company’s 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.
44
Table of Contents
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 BCF’s related to the difference between
the fair value of our common stock on the closing date and the conversion rates of certain of the
Company’s debt instruments. In accordance with EITF 98-5 and EITF 00-27, BCF’s 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
Maxim’s 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.
45
Table of Contents
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.
Revenue Recognition
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.
Royalty Expense
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.
46
Table of Contents
Stock-Based Compensation
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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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
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.
47
Table of Contents
Derivatives
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 EpiCept’s 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 BCF’s. 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 GmbH’s 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 GmbH’s 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 EpiCept’s
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:
48
Table of Contents
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
EpiCept’s 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”).
49
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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.
50
Table of Contents
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 Company’s 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).
51
Table of Contents
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 Company’s 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.
License Agreements
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.
52
Table of Contents
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, Endo’s
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 EpiCept’s LidoPAIN BP product candidate and Endo’s own
back pain product candidate, so long as, in the case of Endo’s 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, Endo’s
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.
53
Table of Contents
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:
54
Table of Contents
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”).
Operating Activities
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.
Investing Activities
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.
Financing Activities
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.
Contractual Obligations
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):
55
Table of Contents
€ 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, “Debtor’s 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.
56
Table of Contents
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
entity’s 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.
57
Table of Contents
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
subsidiary’s 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.
None.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with the assistance of
other members of the Company’s management, have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s
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 Company’s registered public
accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not
subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to
temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only
management’s report in this annual report.
There have not been any changes in the Company’s 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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
58
Table of Contents
Management’s 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 Company’s 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 Company’s 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. Management’s
assessment included an evaluation of the design of the Company’s 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 Company’s
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.
59
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
PART III
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. EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 Pharmos’s Chief
Financial Officer, he was a vice president in GE Capital’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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.
61
Table of Contents
Dileep Bhagwat, Ph.D., has been EpiCept’s 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. John’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 & Young’s 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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s board since January 2006 and prior thereto
served as a member of Maxim’s 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 EpiCept’s board of directors since January 2006, and
prior thereto served as a member of Maxim’s 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 EpiCept’s board of directors at December 31, 2007. Mr. Caspritz
resigned effective March 6,
2008.
62
Table of Contents
Scientific and Medical Advisory Board
EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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.
Board Composition
Our board of directors is divided into three classes, with each director serving a three-year
term and one class being elected at each year’s 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. EpiCept’s 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:
63
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s compensation committee. Each member of EpiCept’s 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.
64
Table of Contents
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.
65
Table of Contents
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 officer’s 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.
Compensation Program
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.
66
Table of Contents
Compensation Elements
Cash Compensation
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.
67
Table of Contents
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 executive’s 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.
68
Table of Contents
Other Compensation
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 officer’s 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
EpiCept’s annual report on Form 10-K.
Respectfully Submitted by:
MEMBERS OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
Robert G. Savage Guy C. Jackson John F. Bedard
69
Table of Contents
Executive compensation
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
70
Table of Contents
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
71
Table of Contents
Employment Agreements
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 officer’s 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 EpiCept’s 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. Talley’s 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.
Director Compensation
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 EpiCept’s 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.
72
Table of Contents
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
Company’s 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 Company’s 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.
73
Table of Contents
Performance Graph
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.
74
Table of Contents
The following table provides certain information with respect to all of the Company’s 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.
75
Table of Contents
76
Table of Contents
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. EpiCept’s Equity Incentive Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, within the
meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code, to EpiCept’s 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.
77
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s
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 EpiCept’s 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
participant’s 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, EpiCept’s 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
EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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. EpiCept’s 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.
78
Table of Contents
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 EpiCept’s 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.
EpiCept’s 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 optionee’s 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
optionee’s death, in no event later than the expiration date of the option. If the termination of
the optionee’s employment is for cause, the option expires immediately upon termination.
EpiCept’s 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 EpiCept’s 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:
79
Table of Contents
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 participant’s 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.
401(k) 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 employee’s deferral or
3% of the employee’s 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.
None.
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 Company’s 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
management’s evaluation of the Company’s internal controls
over financial reporting, and our internal controls over financial
reporting, and to review our interim consolidated financial
statements.
80
Table of Contents
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:
81
Table of Contents
PART IV
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 Stockholder’s 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
None.
82
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
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:
83
Table of Contents
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-1
Table of Contents
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 Company’s 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 Company’s 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 Company’s recurring losses from operations and stockholders’ deficit raise
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s 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
F-2
Table of Contents
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.
F-3
Table of Contents
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.
F-4
Table of Contents
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.
F-5
Table of Contents
EpiCept Corporation and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(In thousands)
F-6
Table of Contents
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-7
Table of Contents
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 Company’s 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.
EpiCept’s 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.
EpiCept’s 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 Company’s portfolio of
pain product candidates targets moderate-to-severe pain that is influenced, or mediated, by nerve
receptors located just beneath the skin’s surface. The Company’s 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 skin’s
surface at or near the site of the pain. None of EpiCept’s 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 Company’s 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 Company’s 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.
F-8
Table of Contents
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 Company’s 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
Consolidation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of EpiCept Corporation
and the Company’s 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.
Revenue Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue relating to its collaboration agreements in accordance with the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s 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 Company’s 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.
F-9
Table of Contents
Foreign Currency Translation
The financial statements of the Company’s 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).
Stock-Based Compensation
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”).
Income Taxes
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 Company’s 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 Company’s 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 Company’s 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 Company’s deferred tax assets based on
historical operating results (See Note 13).
F-10
Table of Contents
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:
Cash Equivalents
The Company considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of 90 days or less when
purchased to be cash equivalents.
Marketable Securities
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.
Restricted Cash
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
Company’s 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.
F-11
Table of Contents
Property and Equipment
Property and equipment consists of office furniture and equipment, laboratory equipment, and
leasehold improvements stated at cost. Furniture and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line
basis over their estimated useful lives ranging from five to seven years. Leasehold improvements
are amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of the lease term or the estimated useful
life of the asset. The remaining net property and equipment acquired in the merger with Maxim
totaled approximately $1.6 million (see Note 9). The Company depreciated the remaining Maxim
property and equipment over two years. Maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
The Company performs impairment tests on its long-lived assets when circumstances indicate
that their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. If required, recoverability is tested by
comparing the estimated future undiscounted cash flows of the asset or asset group to its carrying
value. If the carrying value is not recoverable, the asset or asset group is written down to fair
value. No such impairments have been identified with respect to the Company’s long-lived assets,
which consist primarily of property and equipment and identifiable intangible asset.
Deferred Rent
As a result of the merger with Maxim and the Company moving its corporate headquarters, the
Company has leases for its facilities, which include escalation clauses as well as tenant
improvement allowances. In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, the Company recognizes rental expense, including tenant improvement allowances,
on a straight-line basis over the life of the leases, irrespective of the timing of payments to or
from the lessor. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company had deferred rent of $0.8 million
and $0.9 million, respectively, and is being amortized through February 2012.
Derivatives
The Company accounts for its derivative instruments in accordance with FAS No. 133,
“Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended by FAS No. 149,
Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (“FAS 133”). FAS 133
establishes accounting and reporting standards requiring that derivative instruments, including
derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, be recorded on the balance sheet as either an
asset or liability measured at its fair value. SFAS 133 also requires that changes in the fair
value of derivative instruments be recognized currently in results of operations unless specific
hedge accounting criteria are met. The Company has not entered into hedging activities to date. As
a result of certain financings (see Note 6), derivative instruments were created that are measured
at fair value and marked to market at each reporting period. Changes in the derivative value are
recorded as change in value of warrants and derivatives on the consolidated statements of
operations.
Beneficial Conversion Feature of Certain Instruments
The convertible features 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 (“BCF”). Pursuant to EITF 98-5, “Accounting For Convertible
Securities With Beneficial Conversion Features Or Contingently Adjustable Conversion Ratio,” and
EITF 00-27, “Application of EITF Issue 98-5 to Certain Convertible Instruments,” the estimated fair
value of the BCF is recorded as interest expense if it is related 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.
Other Comprehensive Loss
For 2007, 2006 and 2005, the Company’s only element of comprehensive loss other than net loss
was foreign currency translation (loss) gain of $(0.8), $(0.6) and $0.7 million, respectively.
F-12
Table of Contents
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The estimated fair values of the Company’s financial instruments are as follows:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||