e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2005
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-19871
STEMCELLS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
DELAWARE
|
|
94-3078125
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
3155 PORTER DRIVE,
PALO ALTO, CA
(Address of principal
offices)
|
|
94304
(zip
code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(650) 475 3100
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
NONE
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
COMMON
STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE
JUNIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE RIGHTS
Title
of class
Indicate by check mark if 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 if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer o Accelerated
Filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o
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
Aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates at
June 30, 2005: $262,614,171. Inclusion of shares held
beneficially by any person should not be construed to indicate
that such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to
direct or cause the direction of management policies of the
registrant, or that such person is controlled by or under common
control with the Registrant.
Common stock outstanding at March 7,
2006: 65,402,682 shares.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrants definitive Proxy Statement
relating to the registrants 2006 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be filed with the Commission pursuant to
Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference in
Part III of this report.
FORWARD
LOOKING STATEMENTS
THIS REPORT CONTAINS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AS DEFINED UNDER
THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. ACTUAL RESULTS COULD VARY
MATERIALLY. FACTORS THAT COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS TO VARY
MATERIALLY ARE DESCRIBED HEREIN AND IN OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. READERS SHOULD PAY
PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE CONSIDERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE
SECTION OF THIS REPORT ENTITLED MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AS WELL AS ITEM 1A UNDER THE HEADING
RISK FACTORS.
PART I
Overview
StemCells, Inc. is focused on the discovery and development of
stem cell therapeutics to treat damage to or degeneration of
major organ systems such as the central nervous system, liver
and pancreas. Our aim is to return patients to productive lives
and significantly reduce the substantial health care costs often
associated with these diseases and disorders. We seek to
identify and purify rare stem cells, develop methods and
processes to expand and bank them as transplantable cells, and
then demonstrate their safety and efficacy as therapeutic
agents. In October 2005, we received clearance from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate a
Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety and
preliminary efficacy of our human neural stem cells
(HuCNS-SCtm)
as a treatment for infantile and late infantile neuronal ceroid
lipofuscinosis (NCL), two forms of a group of disorders often
referred to as Batten disease. In March 2006, we received
approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Oregon
Health & Science University to begin our Phase I
clinical trial at OHSU Doernbecher Childrens Hospital in
Portland.
Stem cells are cells that can produce all the functional mature
cell types found in normal organs of healthy individuals.
Progenitor cells are cells that have already developed from the
stem cells, but can still produce one or more types of mature
cells within an organ. We use cells derived from donated fetal
or adult tissue sources, which are supplied to us in compliance
with all applicable state and federal regulations. We are not
developing embryonic stem cells for therapeutic use. Neither are
we involved in any activity directed toward human cloning; our
programs are all directed toward the use of tissue-derived cells
for treating or curing diseases and injuries.
We have successfully identified, purified, and characterized the
human neural stem cell. Our neural stem cell product, HuCNS-SC,
is about to begin clinical development for its first indication.
We have also identified candidate stem or progenitor cells of
the liver and the pancreas. Our candidate liver stem cell, when
transplanted into a mouse model of liver degeneration, shows
long-term engraftment evidenced by secretion of human hepatic
proteins. Based on this data, we plan to develop this cell for
potential therapeutic applications to liver diseases.
We believe that, if successfully developed, our stem cell
technologies will create the basis for therapies that would
address a number of conditions with significant unmet medical
needs. Many diseases, such as Alzheimers,
Parkinsons, lysosomal storage diseases and other
degenerative diseases of the brain or central nervous system,
involve the failure of organs that cannot be transplanted. Other
diseases, such as hepatitis and diabetes, involve organs such as
the liver or pancreas that can be transplanted, but there is a
very limited supply of those organs available for transplant. We
estimate that these neural, liver and pancreatic conditions
affect more than 55 million people in the United States and
account for more than $325 billion annually in health care
costs.1
On September 26, 1997, we acquired by merger StemCells
California, Inc., a California corporation, in exchange for
1,320,691 shares of our common stock and options and
warrants for the purchase of 259,296 common shares. StemCells
California remains our wholly-owned subsidiary, and the owner or
licensee of most of our intellectual property. The members of
its Board of Directors are Irving L. Weissman, M.D., and
Fred H. Gage, Ph.D., who were the founders of StemCells
California, as well as John J. Schwartz, Ph.D. and Martin
McGlynn. Drs. Weissman and Schwartz and Mr. McGlynn
are also members of the Board of the parent company;
Mr. McGlynn is President of StemCells California as well as
President and CEO of StemCells, Inc. References in this annual
report to the Company, we,
us, and similar words include this subsidiary.
1 This
estimate is based on information from the Alzheimers
Association, the Alzheimers Disease Education &
Referral Center (National Institute on Aging), the National
Institutes of Healths National Institute on Neurological
Disorders and Stroke, the Foundation for Spinal Cord Injury
Prevention, Care & Cure, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Spinal Cord Injury Information
Network, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the
Wisconsin Chapter of the Huntingtons Disease Society of
America, the Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center,
JAIDs, the American Liver Foundation, the Northwest
Parkinsons Foundation and the Parkinsons Action
Network.
3
Stem Cell
Therapy Background
Cells maintain normal physiological function in healthy
individuals by secreting or metabolizing substances, such as
sugars, amino acids, neurotransmitters and hormones, which are
essential to life. When cells are damaged or destroyed, they no
longer produce, metabolize or accurately regulate those
substances. Cell loss or impaired cellular function are leading
causes of degenerative diseases, and some of the specific
substances or proteins that are deficient in some of these
diseases have been identified. Although administering these
substances or proteins has some advantages over traditional
pharmaceuticals, such as specificity, there is no existing
technology that can deliver them precisely to the sites of
action, under the appropriate physiological regulation, in the
appropriate quantity, nor for the duration required to cure the
degenerative condition. Cells, however, can do all this
naturally. Thus, where failing cells are no longer producing
needed substances or proteins or where there has been
irreversible tissue damage or organ failure, transplantation of
stem or progenitor cells may enable the generation of new
functional cells, thus potentially restoring organ function and
the patients health.
Stem cells have two defining characteristics: (i) they
produce all the kinds of mature cells making up the particular
organ; and (ii) they self renew that is,
some of the cells developed from stem cells are themselves new
stem cells, thus permitting the process to continue again and
again. Stem cells are known to exist for a number of systems of
the human body, including the blood and immune system, the
central and peripheral nervous systems (including the brain),
the skin, bone, and even hair. They are thought to exist for
many others, including the liver and pancreas endocrine systems,
gut, muscle, and heart. Stem cells are responsible for organ
regeneration during normal cell replacement and, to a greater or
lesser extent, after injury.
Stem cells are rare and only available in limited supply,
whether from the patients themselves or from donors. Cells
obtained from the same person who will receive them may be
abnormal if the patient is ill or the tissue is contaminated
with disease-causing cells. Also, such cells can often be
obtained only through significant surgical procedures.
Therefore, in order to develop stem cell therapeutics, three key
challenges must be overcome: (i) identifying the stem or
progenitor cells of a particular organ and testing them for
therapeutic potential; (ii) creating processes to enable
use of these rare cells in clinical applications, such as
expanding and banking them in sufficient quantities to
transplant into multiple patients, or purifying them for use in
direct transplantation; and (iii) demonstrating the safety
and efficacy of these potential therapeutics in human clinical
trials.
The
Potential of Our Tissue-Derived Stem Cell-Based
Therapy
We believe that, if successfully developed, stem cell
therapeutics have the potential to provide a broad therapeutic
approach comparable in importance to traditional pharmaceuticals
and genetically engineered biologics. Stem cells can self-renew
and specialize into the different kinds of cells that are
commonly lost in various diseases, and our preclinical research
suggests that transplanted stem cells may also be able to
migrate some distance to the proper location within the body,
expand, specialize and replace damaged or defective cells.
Because of this, we believe that stem cell therapy may
facilitate the return to proper function, potentially for the
life of the patient.
To our knowledge, no one has developed an FDA-approved method
for replacing lost or damaged tissues from the human nervous
system. Replacement of tissues in other areas of the human body
is mainly limited to those few cases, such as bone marrow or
peripheral blood cell transplants, where transplantation of the
patients own cells is now feasible. In a few additional
areas, including the liver, transplantation of donor organs is
now used, but is limited by the scarcity of organs available
through donation. More recently, investigators have isolated a
subset of cells called islet cells from the human pancreas,
which have been transplanted into severe diabetic patients with
measurable success. However, islet cell transplants are also
limited by the availability of suitable pancreata.
StemCells has focused on tissue-derived stem cells for use in
homologous therapy, that is, use of brain derived neural stem
cells for treatment of brain disorders; liver derived
stem/progenitor cells for treatment of liver disorders or
pancreas derived stem/progenitor cells for treatment of pancreas
disorders. Tissue derived stem cells are poised along the
developmental pathway to become the specialized cells of the
organ from which they are derived by responding directly to the
environmental cues of the host. We believe the homologous use of
normal, unmodified tissue-derived stem cells is the most direct
way to provide for engraftment of the cells and their
differentiating into
4
the mature specialized cells of the organ, and may decrease the
likelihood that the transplanted cells will differentiate into
unwanted cell types.
We have developed techniques for discovering novel monoclonal
antibodies that can be used to label markers on cell surfaces to
identify and isolate specific cell types, and particularly stem
and progenitor cells. This methodology allows us to purify the
stem cell population and eliminate other unwanted cell types.
For example, we have discovered and patented the use of
monoclonal antibodies to identify the human neural stem cell as
well as a candidate human liver stem cell and a candidate
pancreatic stem/progenitor cell.
With respect to the human neural stem cell, our lead product
candidate, we have developed proprietary and reproducible
processes to identify, purify, expand and bank human neural stem
cells from brain tissue. Because the cells are purified normal
human neural stem cells, they may be better suited for
transplantation and may provide a safer and more effective
alternative to therapies that are based on cells derived from
cancer cells, animal derived cells or are an unpurified mix of
many different cell types. Furthermore, we have shown that these
purified and expanded stem cells, when transplanted into
immunodeficient mice, engraft, migrate, differentiate into
neurons and glial cells and survive for as long as one year with
no sign of tumor formation or adverse effects on the
animals; moreover, the cells were still dividing at the end of
the test period. These findings show that our neural stem cells,
when transplanted, adopt the characteristics of the host brain
and act like normal stem cells, suggesting the possibility of a
continual replenishment of normal human brain cells.
Business
Strategy
We are seeking to develop and commercialize stem cell
therapeutics to treat, and possibly cure, a range of human
diseases. Our strategy is to be the first to identify, isolate
and patent multiple types of human stem and progenitor cells
derived from human tissue with therapeutic and commercial
importance; to develop techniques and processes either to
reproducibly purify the cells for direct transplant or to enable
the expansion and banking of those cells; and then to take them
into clinical development as transplantable therapeutics. We
believe that patent protection will be available to the first to
identify and isolate any of the finite number of different types
of human stem cells, and the first to define methods to culture
such cells, making the commercial development of stem cell
treatment and possible cure of currently intractable diseases
financially feasible.
To date, we have identified three rare cell types: the human
neural stem cell, a candidate liver stem cell and a candidate
pancreas stem cell. We have developed the methods and processes
to expand and bank the neural stem cell and are now beginning
clinical development of our neural stem cell product, HuCNS-SC.
A central element of our business strategy is to obtain patent
protection for the compositions, processes and uses of these
multiple types of cells that would make the commercial
development of stem cell therapeutics financially feasible. We
have obtained rights to certain inventions relating to stem
cells and progenitor cells from academic institutions. We expect
to continue to expand our search for, and to seek to acquire
rights from third parties relating to, new stem and progenitor
cells, and to further develop our intellectual property
positions with respect to these cells in-house and through
research at scholarly institutions. Our portfolio of issued
patents includes a method of culturing normal human central
nervous system stem and progenitor cells in our proprietary
chemically defined media, and our published studies show that
these cultured and expanded cells give rise to all three major
cell types of the central nervous system. We also have patent
applications pending in connection with our search for liver and
pancreas stem and progenitor cells.
Research
and Development Programs
Overview
We have devoted substantial resources to our research programs
to isolate and develop a series of stem and progenitor cells
that we believe can serve as a basis for replacing diseased or
injured cells. Our efforts to date have been directed at methods
to identify, isolate and culture large varieties of stem and
progenitor cells of the human nervous system, liver and pancreas
and to develop therapies utilizing these stem and progenitor
cells.
5
The following table shows the current status of, and the
potential initial indications for, our primary research and
product development programs and projects. The table is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the more detailed
descriptions of such programs and projects appearing elsewhere
in this report. We continually evaluate our research and product
development efforts and reallocate resources among existing
programs or to new programs in light of experimental results,
commercial potential, availability of third party funding,
likelihood of near-term efficacy, collaboration success or
significant technology enhancement, as well as other factors.
Our research and product development programs are at relatively
early stages of development and will require substantial
resources to commercialize.
|
|
|
Program Description and
Objective
|
|
Stage/Status(1)
|
|
Human Neural Stem
Cell
|
|
Clinical:
|
Repair or replace damaged central
nervous system tissue (including spinal cord, stroke-damaged
tissue, and tissue affected by certain genetic disorders)
|
|
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis
(also known as Batten disease):
Demonstrated
in vivo proof of principle showing in a mouse model for
Batten disease that HuCNS-SC can
|
|
|
continuously
produce the enzyme that is deficient in Infantile Batten disease
|
|
|
protect
host neurons from death
|
|
|
extend
the lifespan of the HuCNS-SC transplanted mice
|
|
|
Investigational
New Drug (IND) application was cleared by the FDA in October
2005
|
|
|
IRB of
the Oregon Health & Science University approved
initiation of Phase I clinical trial in March 2006
|
|
|
Preclinical
|
|
|
Spinal Cord
Indications:
|
|
|
Demonstrated
in vivo proof of principle in a mouse model for spinal
cord injury that transplanted HuCNS-SC
|
|
|
restores
motor function in injured animals
|
|
|
directly
contributes to the functional recovery: destruction of the human
cells results in loss of the re-established motor function
|
|
|
become
specialized oligodendrocytes and neurons
|
|
|
Myelin Disorders:
|
|
|
Demonstrated
in vivo proof of principle in the myelin deficient
shiverer mouse and spinal cord injured mouse that transplanted
HuCNS-SC
|
|
|
make
new myelin-producing oligodendrocytes in the mouse brain and
spinal cord
|
|
|
the
oligodendrocytes produce new myelin that wraps tightly around
the mouse nerve axons to form myelin sheath
|
|
|
Research
|
|
|
Identified cell
surface markers and methods for purification of human central
nervous system stem cells
|
6
|
|
|
Program Description and
Objective
|
|
Stage/Status(1)
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated the
ability to reproducibly identify and purify human neural stem
cells
|
|
|
Demonstrated
in vitro the ability to initiate and expand stem
cell-containing human neural cultures and specialization into
three types of central nervous system cells
|
|
|
Demonstrated the
ability to create human neural stem cell banks
|
|
|
Demonstrated in
rodent studies that transplants of expanded and banked human
brain-derived stem cells are accepted and properly specialized
into the three major cell types of the central nervous system
with no tumor formation
|
Liver Stem Cell
|
|
Identified cell
surface markers and methods for purification of candidate human
liver stem/progenitor cells (hLECs)
|
Repair or replace liver tissue
damaged or destroyed by cirrhosis and certain metabolic genetic
diseases
|
|
Identified
in vitro culture assay for growth of human liver
stem/progenitor cells that express markers for both bile duct
cells and hepatocytes
|
|
|
Demonstrated the
engraftment and survival of the hLECs in an in vivo mouse
liver degeneration model
|
|
|
Detected human
albumin and -amino transferase in mouse serum in animals
transplanted with hLECs
|
Pancreas Stem Cell
|
|
Identified cell
surface markers and methods for purification of candidate human
pancreatic stem/progenitor cells (hPSCs)
|
Repair or replace damaged pancreas
islet tissue
|
|
Developed
in vitro screening assay for testing biological
activity of hPSCs
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Research refers to early stage research and product
development activities in vitro, including the
selection and characterization of product candidates for
preclinical testing. Preclinical refers to further
testing of a defined product candidate in vitro and
in animals prior to clinical studies. Clinical
refers to the testing of a defined product candidate in humans. |
Neural
Program
Neurological disorders such as Parkinsons disease,
Alzheimers disease, the side effects of stroke, and the
neural degeneration that accompanies genetic disorders such as
Type II Gauchers Disease, Krabbes Disease, and
Batten disease affect a significant portion of the
U.S. population and there currently are no effective
long-term therapies for them. We believe that therapeutics based
on our process for identifying, isolating and culturing neural
stem and progenitor cells may be useful in treating such
diseases. We are continuing our research into, and have
initiated the development of, human central nervous system stem
and progenitor cell-based therapies for some of these diseases.
StemCells Inc holds a substantial portfolio of issued and
allowed patents in the neural field. See Patents,
Proprietary Rights and Licenses.
Neuronal
Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (NCL; also known as Batten
disease).
Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL), which is often referred to
as Batten disease, is a rare neurodegenerative disease that
affects infants and young children. All three forms of
NCL infantile, late infantile and
juvenile
7
are caused by the lack of a lysosomal enzyme, but all are
genetically different. Infantile and late infantile NCL are
brought on by inherited genetic mutations in the CLN1
gene, which codes for palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1
(PPT1) and in the CLN2 gene, which codes for tripeptidyl
peptidase I (TPP-I), respectively. As a result of these
mutations, the relevant enzyme is either defective or missing,
leading to the accumulation of non-degraded lysosomal substrates
in various cell types. This accumulation eventually interferes
with normal cellular and tissue function, and leads to seizures
and progressive loss of motor skills, sight and mental capacity.
Today, NCL is always fatal. To correct the major defect in
Batten patients, the missing enzyme has to be provided to the
brain where it can be taken up by the enzyme-deficient cells. In
October 2005, we received clearance from the FDA to initiate a
Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety and
preliminary efficacy of HuCNS-SC as a treatment for infantile
and late infantile NCL. Our clinical trial will not treat
juvenile NCL. In March 2006, we received approval from the
Institutional Review Board at the Oregon Health &
Science University to conduct the trial at OHSU Doernbecher
Childrens Hospital in Portland.
The Phase I trial will be an open label study with two dose
levels and is expected to enroll six patients. HuCNS-SC will be
transplanted into patients, who will then receive
immunosuppression for one year following transplantation. In
addition to measuring the safety of HuCNS-SC, the trial will
also evaluate HuCNS-SCs ability to affect the progression
of the disease. We believe this clinical trial will be the first
FDA-approved trial to use purified human neural stem cells as a
potential therapeutic agent.
Our preclinical data demonstrates that HuCNS-SC, when
transplanted in a mouse model of infantile Batten disease,
engraft, migrate throughout the brain, produce the missing PPT1
enzyme, measurably reduce the toxic storage material in the
brain, and protect host neurons so that more of them survive; in
addition, we have shown that the lifetime of the HuCNS-SC
transplanted mice is extended compared to the control group. We
have also demonstrated in vitro that HuCNS-SC
produce TPP-I, the enzyme that is deficient in late infantile
Batten disease.
Other
Lysosomal Storage Diseases.
Batten disease is one of a group of approximately 46 lysosomal
storage diseases (LSDs). Some of these LSDs, which
are all caused by defective or missing enzymes, can be treated
by enzyme replacement therapies. Examples of enzyme replacement
products used in these therapies are
Cerezymetm
for Gaucher disease,
Fabryzymetm
for Fabry disease, Myozyme for Pompe disease,
Aldurazymetm
for MPS I and
Naglazymetm
for MPS VI. About half of the lysosomal storage diseases,
however, affect the central nervous system; consequently, enzyme
replacement therapy is not currently a practical treatment
option for this subset of LSDs because enzymes are typically too
large to cross the blood-brain barrier. We believe that HuCNS-SC
may have the potential to treat some LSDs that affect the CNS by
acting as cellular mini-pumps for the secretion and supply of
missing enzymes to the brain. To date, we have found that
HuCNS-SC can produce the relevant enzyme in several LSDs that
affect the CNS, including the infantile and late infantile forms
of Batten disease.
Spinal
Cord Indications.
Stem cells may have the potential to treat various spinal cord
indications. Using a mouse model of spinal cord injury, our
collaborators, Drs. Aileen Anderson and Brian Cummings of
the Reeve-Irvine Center at the University of California, have
shown that HuCNS-SC have the potential to protect and regenerate
damaged nerves and nerve fibers, and that injured mice
transplanted with our human neural stem cells showed improved
motor function compared to control animals. Inspection of the
spinal cords from these mice showed significant levels of human
neural cells derived from the transplanted stem cells. Moreover,
the human cells that are found in the spinal cord of the
transplanted mice matured into oligodendrocytes, the specialized
neural cell that forms the myelin sheath around axons,
insulating them and enabling them to conduct signals to other
axons. Drs. Anderson and Cummings then selectively ablated
the human cells, and found that the functional improvement was
lost, thus demonstrating that the human cells had played a
direct role in the functional recovery of the transplanted mice.
We continue to conduct preclinical research on using HuCNS-SC as
a potential therapeutic for various spinal cord indications.
8
Other
Remyelination Indications.
In addition to certain spinal cord indications, loss of myelin
characterizes conditions such as multiple sclerosis, cerebral
palsy and certain genetic disorders (for example, Krabbes
disease and metachormatic leukodystrophy). We have transplanted
HuCNS-SC into the brain of the mutant shiverer mouse, which is
deficient in myelin, and shown widespread engraftment of human
cells that matured into oligodendrocytes, the myelin producing
cells, and that these oligodendrocytes produce myelin.
Furthermore, analysis of the brain tissue of these mice shows
the myelin produced by the human cells ensheathes the mouse
nerve, providing the proper layers of insulation. Further
studies are in progress to demonstrate proper function of the
newly produced myelin. Pilot studies for understanding myelin
production and repair were conducted in collaboration with
researchers at the Oregon Health & Science University
and the Yale University School of Medicine.
Alzheimers
Disease.
We have an NIH-funded collaboration with Dr. George A.
Carlson of the McLaughlin Research Institute to understand the
role of Alzheimers plaques in neuronal cell death in
Alzheimers disease. Dr. Carson has transplanted
HuCNS-SC into mouse models of Alzheimers disease and the
cells showed robust engraftment in an environment riddled with
Alzheimers plaques. Longer term studies are in progress to
determine whether the HuCNS-SC produce new neurons in specific
target areas such as the hippocampus, an area significantly
affected in Alzheimers patients.
Other
Neural Collaborations.
We have established a number of other research collaborations in
the neural field to assess the effects of transplanting HuCNS-SC
into preclinical animal models, including a collaboration with
researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine
pertaining to the evaluation of our human neural stem cells in
animal models of stroke. Collaborative studies regarding the
formation of specific populations of neurons have also been done
with researchers at The University of Texas Medical Branch and
the University of California, San Diego.
Liver
Program
Approximately 1 in 10 Americans suffers from diseases and
disorders of the liver for many of which there currently are no
effective, long-term treatments. Liver stem cells may be useful
in the treatment of some of these diseases, such as hepatitis,
liver failure, blood-clotting disorder, cirrhosis of the liver
and liver cancer. We focus on isolating candidate liver stem and
progenitor cells with therapeutic potential, and seek to
establish purified cell populations suitable for
transplantation. A source of defined human cells capable of
engraftment and substantial liver regeneration could provide a
cell-based therapeutic product available to a wider patient base
than whole liver (or organ) transplants.
We have identified and purified a candidate human liver
stem/progenitor cell (hLEC). When tested in our in vitro
culture assay, these cells produce human serum albumin, a
measure of hepatocyte generation. Our research also shows that
hLECs can produce human serum albumin in mouse serum following
transplantation into immunodeficient mice, suggesting that once
transplanted, hLECs become functional cells. Further, we have
demonstrated the robust engraftment and function of these hLECs
in a preclinical animal model of liver degeneration, thereby
establishing proof of principle of a therapeutic cell for liver
disease. Our efforts are now focused on determining which
clinical applications of the hLECs to pursue and moving the
hLECs into product development.
Pancreas
Program
We have used our monoclonal antibody-based search methodology to
identify a rare subset of human pancreatic cells that may be
candidate pancreatic stem/progenitor cells. If those cells can
be differentiated into islet cells, the pancreas cells that
produce insulin, they may be useful in the treatment of Type 1
diabetes and those cases of Type 2 diabetes where insulin
secretion is defective. We have filed a patent application on
the monoclonal antibodies used and have developed what we
believe to be an appropriate animal model to test the biological
activity of the purified candidate pancreatic stem cells.
9
Note on
State and Federal Grants
In November 2004, California State Proposition 71 (Prop. 71),
the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, was
adopted by the electorate. It is intended to encourage stem cell
research in the State of California, and to finance such
research with State funds of approximately $295 million
annually for 10 years beginning with 2005. It is our
understanding that the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine created under the Initiative will provide grants,
primarily but not exclusively to academic institutions, to
advance both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell
research; the latter is the current and exclusive focus at
StemCells. We are eligible to receive Prop. 71 generated funds
and we do intend to apply for such funding; no funding is now
available, however, pending resolution of legal issue challenges
to Prop 71. We also remain eligible for federal government
support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) due to our
focus on adult stem cells. NIH grants to us or to our academic
collaborators assist research in the use of our cells for
various diseases and conditions such as Alzheimers disease
and spinal cord injuries. Prop. 71 funds will not go to any
project that receives NIH funding. We consider government grants
to be important confirmation of the quality of our science and
intellectual property, but do not rely on them as a significant
source of financial support.
License
Agreements
We have entered into a number of research-plus-license
agreements with academic organizations including The Scripps
Research Institute (Scripps), the California Institute of
Technology (Cal Tech), the Oregon Health & Science
University (OHSU), and the University of Texas Medical Branch.
The research components of these agreements have been concluded
and have resulted in a number of licenses for resultant
technology. Under the license agreements, we are typically
subject to obligations of due diligence and the requirement to
pay royalties on products that use patented technology licensed
under such agreements. The license agreements with these
institutions relate largely to stem or progenitor cells and or
to processes and methods for the isolation, identification,
expansion or culturing of stem or progenitor cells. Generally
speaking, these license agreements will terminate upon
expiration, revocation or invalidation of the patents licensed
to us, unless governmental regulations require a shorter term.
They also will terminate earlier if we breach our obligations
under the agreement and do not cure the breach, or if we declare
bankruptcy, and we can terminate the license agreements at any
time upon notice.
In the case of Scripps, we must pay $50,000 upon the initiation
of the Phase II trial for our first product using Scripps
licensed technology, and upon completion of that Phase II
trial we must pay Scripps an additional $125,000. Upon approval
of the first product for sale in the market, we must pay Scripps
$250,000.
Pursuant to the terms of our license agreement with Cal Tech, we
must pay $10,000 upon the issuance of the first patent in each
family licensed to us under the relevant agreement and $5,000 on
the first anniversary of the issuance of each such patent. We
have paid $30,000 on account of these patents through
December 31, 2005. These amounts are creditable against
royalties we must pay under the license agreements. The maximum
royalties that we will have to pay to the California Institute
of Technology will be $2 million per year, with an overall
maximum of $15 million. Once we pay the $15 million
maximum royalty, the licenses will become fully paid and
irrevocable. In August 2002 we acquired an additional license
from Cal Tech to different technology, pursuant to which we
issued 27,535 shares of our common stock with a market
value of approximately $35,000; we have also issued
9,535 shares of our common stock with a market value of
approximately $15,000 to Cal Tech on the issuance of two patents
covered under this additional license.
In 2002, we issued a license to BioWhittaker, Inc., for the
exclusive right to make, sell and distribute one of our
proprietary cells for the research market only. In 2003 and 2004
respectively, we issued non-exclusive licenses to StemCell
Technologies, Inc. to make, use and sell certain proprietary
mouse and rat neural stem cells and culture media for all
mammalian neural stem cells, and to R&D Systems to make, use
and sell certain stem cell expansion kits, also for the research
market. These licenses are not expected to generate material
revenues.
Signal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In December 1997, we entered into two sublicense agreements with
Signal Pharmaceuticals (Signal), Inc. under which each party
sublicensed to the other certain patent rights and biological
materials for use in defined fields. Signal has now been
acquired by Celgene, which in 2004 relinquished its license to
the University of
10
California, which then terminated the sublicense to StemCells
for lack of diligence. Effective September 11, 2005,
StemCells terminated the remaining sublicense.
NeuroSpheres,
Ltd.
In March 1994, we entered into a Contract Research and License
Agreement with NeuroSpheres, Ltd., which was clarified in a
License Agreement dated as of April 1, 1997. Under the
agreement as clarified, we obtained an exclusive patent license
from NeuroSpheres for neural stem cells in the field of
transplantation, subject to a limited right of NeuroSpheres to
purchase a nonexclusive license from us, which right was not
exercised and has expired. We have developed additional
intellectual property relating to the subject matter of the
license. We entered into an additional license agreement with
NeuroSpheres as of October 30, 2000, under which we
obtained an exclusive license in the field of non-transplant
uses, such as drug discovery and drug testing. Together, our
rights under the licenses are exclusive for all uses of the
technology. We made up-front payments to NeuroSpheres of
65,000 shares of our common stock in October 2000 and
$50,000 in January 2001, and we will make additional cash
payments when milestones are achieved in the non-transplant
field, or in any products employing NeuroSpheres patents for
generating cells of the blood and immune system from neural stem
cells. In addition, in October 2000 we reimbursed Neurospheres
for patent costs amounting to $341,000. Milestone payments,
payable at various stages in the development of potential
products, would total $500,000 for each product that is approved
for market. The first milestone for a potential product is
$50,000, became due in 2004 when the product candidate for
Batten disease entered preclinical development in a non-rodent
model, and has been paid. The next milestone for that product
candidate will be $75,000, due upon the commencement of a
clinical trial. In addition, we made our second annual payment
of $50,000 in 2005; the annual payments are due by the last day
of the year and are fully creditable against royalties due to
NeuroSpheres. Our agreements with NeuroSpheres will terminate at
the expiration of all patents licensed to us, but can terminate
earlier if we breach our obligations under the agreement and do
not cure the breach, or if we declare bankruptcy. We have a
security interest in the licensed technology.
Manufacturing
We believe that our facility in Palo Alto has the capacity to be
used for cell processing under FDA-determined Good Manufacturing
Practices-like conditions in quantities sufficient for clinical
trials, and we believe we have developed a robust and replicable
process for producing and processing the cells. In June 2005, we
received a manufacturing license for our California-based cell
processing facility from the State of California Department of
Health Services. In March 2006, we entered an agreement under
which additional GMP space for manufacturing and cell processing
will be available to us.
Marketing
Because of the early stage of our stem and progenitor cell
programs, we have not yet addressed questions of channels of
distribution and marketing of potential future products.
Patents,
Proprietary Rights and Licenses
We believe that proprietary protection of our inventions will be
critical to our future business. We vigorously seek out
intellectual property that we believe might be useful in
connection with our products, and have an aggressive program of
protecting our intellectual property. We believe that our
know-how will also provide a significant competitive advantage,
and we intend to continue to develop and protect our proprietary
know-how. We may also from time to time seek to acquire licenses
to important externally developed technologies.
We have exclusive or non-exclusive rights to a portfolio of
patents and patent applications related to various stem and
progenitor cells and methods of deriving and using them. These
patents and patent applications relate to compositions of
matter, methods of obtaining such cells, and methods for
preparing, transplanting and utilizing such cells. Currently,
our U.S. patent portfolio includes forty-one issued
U.S. patents, three of which issued in 2005. More than
thirty additional patent applications are pending, three of
which have been allowed. In addition, we have foreign
counterparts to many of the U.S. applications and patents;
counterparts to twelve of our U.S. patents or applications
have issued in various countries, making a total of over 100
individual
non-U.S. patents
from those
11
twelve cases. In 2003, one party filed an opposition to two of
our issued European patent cases, which pertains to methods for
the in vitro production of a cell culture of
multipotent neural stem cells and to methods for the
differentiation of human neural stem cells into the different
types of mature neural cells in vitro. Both
oppositions were heard in 2005, and the patents were maintained
in somewhat altered form by the Opposition Division of the
European Patent Office. The time for appeal begins to run in
each case when the Opposition Division issues its written
opinions, which has not yet occurred. While we are confident
that, should the decision be appealed by the opposing party, it
will be upheld, there can be no guarantee of this. If we are
ultimately unsuccessful in our defense of the opposed patents,
all claimed rights in the opposed patents will be lost in
Europe. U.S. counterparts to these patents are part of our
issued patent portfolio; they are not subject to opposition,
since that procedure does not exist under U.S. patent law,
although other types of proceedings may be available to third
parties to contest our U.S. patents.
Among our most significant patents are:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832, directed to our methods for
the human CNS cell cultures containing central nervous system
stem cells, for compositions of human CNS cells expanded by
these methods, and for use of these cultures in human
transplantation. These human CNS stem and progenitor cells
expanded in culture may be useful for repairing or replacing
damaged central nervous system tissue, including the brain and
the spinal cord;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 5,968,829, entitled Human CNS
Neural Stem Cells, which is directed to our composition of
matter for human CNS stem cells;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,103,530, directed to our media for
culturing human CNS stem cells;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent Number 6,468,794, entitled Enriched
central nervous system stem cell and progenitor cell
populations, and methods for identifying, isolating and
enriching for such populations which pertains to the
identification and purification of the human CNS stem cell;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,238,922 (Use of collagenase in
the preparation of neural stem cell cultures), which
described methods to advance the in vivo culture and
passage of human CNS stem cells that result in a
100-fold
increase in CNS stem and progenitor cell production after 6
passages. We believe the methodologies of this patent and the
one mentioned immediately above together gives us a dominant
intellectual property position in the stem cell field by
providing a reproducible proprietary method for obtaining and
expanding stem cells for therapeutic uses;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent Number 6,294,346 (Use of multipotent
neural stem cells and their progeny for the screening of drugs
and other biological agents); and
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent Number 6,497,872, entitled Neural
transplantation using proliferated multipotent neural stem cells
and their progeny, pertains to transplanting any neural
stem cells or their differentiated progeny, whether the cells
have been cultured in suspension or as adherent cells, for the
treatment of any disease. We are the exclusive licensees of the
patent, which gives us the right to exclude others from
practicing the claimed invention.
|
Among the recent patents issued or exclusively licensed to us
are two neurogenin-related patents (U.S. Patents Numbers
12,555,337 and 6,566,496), U.S. Patent Number 6,541,251,
relating to a novel pancreatic progenitor gene and its uses,
U.S. Patent Number 6,777,233, relating to a cell culture
composition of multipotent human neural stem cells regardless of
the source of tissue from which the cells are derived,
U.S. Patent Number 6,824,774, relating to antibodies that
specifically bind to a neuron-restrictive silencer factor
protein, and U.S. Patent Number 6,753,153, relating to
markers for identification and isolation of certain pancreatic
islet progenitors. In addition, we have been informed that three
patents pertaining to methods of enriching for neural stem
cells, methods of drug screening or drug discovery using
enriched populations of neural stem cells, and methods for the
in vitro proliferation of neural stem cell cultures
have been allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
We expect these cases to issue shortly.
12
These new patents have strengthened our already extensive patent
portfolio and, we believe, give StemCells the dominant
intellectual property position in the field, covering methods
for identification, isolation, expansion, and transplantation of
neural stem cells as well as drug discovery and testing.
The following table lists our issued U.S. patents:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent
Number
|
|
Subject
|
|
Expiration Date
|
|
Owned by
StemCells
|
|
|
|
|
5,968,829
|
|
Human CNS neural stem cells
|
|
5/12/15
|
6,103,530
|
|
Human CNS neural stem
cells culture media
|
|
12/22/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,238,922
|
|
Use of collagenase in the
preparation of neural stem cell cultures
|
|
11/9/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,468,794
|
|
Enriched neural stem cell
populations, and methods for identifying, isolating and
enriching for neural stem cells
|
|
11/9/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,498,018
|
|
Human CNS neural stem cells
|
|
6/19/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,777,233
|
|
Cultures of human CNS neural stem
cells
|
|
6/19/18
|
|
|
|
|
10/20/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensed from
NeuroSpheres
|
|
|
|
9/25/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,750,376
|
|
In vitro
genetic modification
|
|
10/20/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,851,832
|
|
In vitro
proliferation
|
|
6/4/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,980,885
|
|
Methods for inducing in vivo
proliferation of precursor cells
|
|
12/24/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,981,165
|
|
In vitro
production of
dopaminergic cells from mammalian central nervous system
multipotent stem cell compositions
|
|
6/19/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,071,889
|
|
Methods for in vivo
transfer of a nucleic acid sequence to proliferating neural
cells
|
|
6/19/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,093,531
|
|
Generation of hematopoietic cells
from multipotent neural stem cells
|
|
10/20/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,165,783
|
|
Methods of inducing
differentiation of multipotent neural stem cells
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,294,346
|
|
Methods for screening biological
agents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,368,854
|
|
Hypoxia-mediated neurogenesis
|
|
12/31/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,399,369
|
|
cDNA libraries derived from
populations of non-primary neural cells
|
|
5/13/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,497,872
|
|
Neural transplantation using
proliferated multipotent neural stem cells and their progeny
|
|
8/5/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,638,501
|
|
Use of multipotent neural stem
cell progeny to augment non-neural tissues
|
|
9/30/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,897,060 B1
|
|
Generation of hematopoietic cells
|
|
12/2/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,924,142 B2
|
|
Hypoxia-mediated neurogenesis assay
|
|
10/20/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/15/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensed from the
California Institute
of Technology
|
|
|
|
7/27/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,589,376
|
|
Mammalian neural crest stem cells
|
|
8/10/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,629,159
|
|
Immortalization and
disimmortalization of cells
|
|
7/27/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,654,183
|
|
Genetically engineered mammalian
neural crest stem cells
|
|
3/7/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,672,499
|
|
Methods for immortalizing
multipotent neural crest stem cells
|
|
3/3/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,693,482
|
|
In vitro
neural crest stem cell
assay
|
|
9/27/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,824,489
|
|
Methods for isolating mammalian
multipotent neural crest stem cells
|
|
9/27/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,849,553
|
|
Immortalizing and disimmortalizing
multipotent neural crest stem cells
|
|
3/3/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,928,947
|
|
Mammalian multipotent neural crest
stem cells
|
|
9/25/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,935,811
|
|
Neuron restrictive silencer factor
proteins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,001,654
|
|
Methods for differentiating neural
stem cells to neurons or smooth muscle cells (TGFb)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent
Number
|
|
Subject
|
|
Expiration Date
|
|
6,033,906
|
|
Differentiating mammalian neural
stem cells to glial cells using neuregulins
|
|
12/16/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,270,990
|
|
Neuron restrictive silencer factor
proteins
|
|
4/26/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,555,337
|
|
Neurogenin
|
|
12/13/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,566,496
|
|
Neurogenin
|
|
4/26/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,824,774
|
|
Antibodies that bind
neuron-restrictive silencer factor proteins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,890,724 B2
|
|
Methods and Compositions for
Neural Progenitor Cells (cRET)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/10/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensed from the
Scripps Research
Institute
|
|
|
|
5/12/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,242,666
|
|
An animal model for identifying a
common stem/progenitor to liver cells and pancreatic cells
|
|
12/22/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,541,251
|
|
Pancreatic progenitor 1 gene
and its uses
|
|
11/9/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,753,153
|
|
Markers for identification and
isolation of pancreatic islet alpha and beta progenitors
|
|
11/9/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,911,533
|
|
Pancreatic progenitor I gene
and its uses
|
|
6/6/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/19/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensed from
Oregon Health &
Science University
|
|
|
|
10/20/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,132,708
|
|
Liver regeneration using pancreas
cells
|
|
9/25/18
|
We also rely upon trade-secret protection for our confidential
and proprietary information and take active measures to control
access to that information.
Our policy is to require our employees, consultants and
significant scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers
to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of
an employment or consulting relationship with us. These
agreements generally provide that all confidential information
developed or made known to the individual by us during the
course of the individuals relationship with us is to be
kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in
specific circumstances. In the case of employees and
consultants, the agreements generally provide that all
inventions conceived by the individual in the course of
rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property.
We have obtained rights from universities and research
institutions to technologies, processes and compounds that we
believe may be important to the development of our products.
These agreements typically require us to pay license fees, meet
certain diligence obligations and, upon commercial introduction
of certain products, pay royalties. These include exclusive
license agreements with NeuroSpheres, The Scripps Institute, the
California Institute of Technology and the Oregon
Health & Science University, to certain patents and
know-how regarding present and certain future developments in
CNS, liver and pancreas stem cells. Our licenses may be canceled
or converted to non-exclusive licenses if we fail to use the
relevant technology or if we breach our agreements. Loss of such
licenses could expose us to the risks of third party patents
and/or
technology. There can be no assurance that any of these licenses
will provide effective protection against our competitors.
The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies, including ours, are uncertain and involve complex and
evolving legal and factual questions. The coverage sought in a
patent application can be denied or significantly reduced before
or after the patent is issued. Consequently, we do not know
whether any of our pending applications will result in the
issuance of patents, or if any existing or future patents will
provide significant protection or commercial advantage or will
be circumvented by others. Since patent applications are secret
until the applications are published (usually eighteen months
after the earliest effective filing date), and since publication
of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags
behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the
first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending
patent applications or that we were the first to file patent
applications for such inventions. There can be no assurance that
patents will issue from our pending or
14
future patent applications or, if issued, that such patents will
be of commercial benefit to us, afford us adequate protection
from competing products, or not be challenged or declared
invalid.
In the event that a third party has also filed a patent
application relating to inventions claimed in our patent
applications, we may have to participate in interference
proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office to determine priority of invention, which could result in
substantial uncertainties and cost for us, even if the eventual
outcome is favorable to us. There can be no assurance that our
patents, if issued, would be held valid by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
A number of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other companies,
universities and research institutions have filed patent
applications or have been issued patents relating to cell
therapy, stem cells and other technologies potentially relevant
to or required by our expected products. We cannot predict
which, if any, of such applications will issue as patents or the
claims that might be allowed.
If third party patents or patent applications contain claims
infringed by our technology and such claims or claims in issued
patents are ultimately determined to be valid, there can be no
assurance that we would be able to obtain licenses to these
patents at a reasonable cost, if at all, or be able to develop
or obtain alternative non-infringing technology. If we are
unable to obtain such licenses or develop or obtain alternative
non-infringing technology at a reasonable cost, we may not be
able to develop certain products commercially. There can be no
assurance that we will not be obliged to defend ourselves in
court against allegations of infringement of third party
patents. Patent litigation is very expensive and could consume
substantial resources and create significant uncertainties. An
adverse outcome in such a suit could subject us to significant
liabilities to third parties, require us to seek licenses from
third parties, or require us to cease using such technology.
Competition
The targeted disease states for our initial products in some
instances currently have no effective long-term therapies.
However, we do expect that our initial products will have to
compete with a variety of therapeutic products and procedures.
Major pharmaceutical companies currently offer a number of
pharmaceutical products to treat lysosomal storage disorders,
neurodegenerative and liver diseases, diabetes and other
diseases for which our technologies may be applicable. Many
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are investigating new
drugs and therapeutic approaches for the same purposes, which
may achieve new efficacy profiles, extend the therapeutic window
for such products, alter the prognosis of these diseases, or
prevent their onset. We believe that our products, when and if
successfully developed, will compete with these products
principally on the basis of improved and extended efficacy and
safety and their overall economic benefit to the health care
system. The market for therapeutic products that address
degenerative diseases is large, and competition is intense. We
expect competition to increase. We believe that our most
significant competitors will be fully integrated pharmaceutical
companies and more established biotechnology companies. Smaller
companies may also be significant competitors, particularly
through collaborative arrangements with large pharmaceutical or
biotechnology companies. Many of these competitors have
significant products approved or in development that could be
competitive with our potential products.
Competition for any stem and progenitor cell products that we
may develop may be in the form of existing and new drugs, other
forms of cell transplantation, ablative and simulative
procedures, and gene therapy. We believe that some of our
competitors are also trying to develop stem and progenitor
cell-based technologies. We expect that all of these products
will compete with our potential stem and progenitor cell
products based on efficacy, safety, cost and intellectual
property positions.
We may also face competition from companies that have filed
patent applications relating to the use of genetically modified
cells to treat disease, disorder or injury. In the event our
therapies should require the use of such genetically modified
cells, we may be required to seek licenses from these
competitors in order to commercialize certain of our proposed
products, and such licenses may not be granted or may be
available only on unfavorable terms.
If we develop products that receive regulatory approval, they
would then have to compete for market acceptance and market
share. For certain of our potential products, an important
success factor will be the timing of
15
market introduction of competitive products. This is a function
of the relative speed with which we and our competitors can
develop products, complete the clinical testing and approval
processes, and supply commercial quantities of a product to
market. These competitive products may also impact the timing of
clinical testing and approval processes by limiting the number
of clinical investigators and patients available to test our
potential products.
While we believe that the primary competitive factors will be
product efficacy, safety, and the timing and scope of regulatory
approvals, other factors include, in certain instances,
obtaining marketing exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act,
availability of supply, marketing and sales capability,
reimbursement coverage, price, and patent and technology
position.
Government
Regulation
Our research and development activities and the future
manufacturing and marketing of our potential products are, and
will continue to be, subject to regulation for safety and
efficacy by numerous governmental authorities in the United
States and other countries.
In the United States, pharmaceuticals, biologicals and medical
devices are subject to rigorous Food and Drug Administration, or
FDA, regulation. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as
amended, and the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the
regulations promulgated thereunder, and other Federal and state
statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the
testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage,
export, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and
promotion of our potential products. Product development and
approval within this regulatory framework takes a number of
years and involves significant uncertainty combined with the
expenditure of substantial resources. In addition, the federal,
state, and other jurisdictions have restrictions on the use of
fetal tissue.
FDA
Approval
The steps required before our potential products may be marketed
in the United States include:
|
|
|
Steps
|
|
Considerations
|
|
1. Preclinical laboratory and
animal tests
|
|
Preclinical tests include
laboratory evaluation of the cells and the formulation intended
for use in humans for quality and consistency. In vivo
studies are performed in normal animals and specific disease
models to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the cell
therapy product.
|
|
|
|
2. Submission to the FDA of
an Investigational New Drug application (IND), which must become
effective before U.S. human clinical trials may commence
|
|
The IND is submitted to the FDA
with the preclinical and manufacturing data, a proposed
development plan and a proposed protocol for a study in humans.
The IND becomes effective 30 days following receipt by the
FDA, provided there are no questions, requests for delay or
objections from the FDA. If the FDA has questions or concerns,
it notifies the sponsor, and the IND will then be on clinical
hold until the sponsor responds satisfactorily.
|
|
|
|
3. Adequate and
well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety
and efficacy of the product
|
|
Clinical trials involve the
evaluation of a potential product under the supervision of a
qualified physician, in accordance with a protocol that details
the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to
monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each
protocol is submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The
protocol for each clinical study must be approved by an
independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the institution
at which the study is conducted and the informed consent of all
|
16
|
|
|
Steps
|
|
Considerations
|
|
|
|
participants must be obtained.
The IRB reviews the existing information on the product,
considers ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, the
potential benefits of the therapy and the possible liability of
the institution. The IRB is responsible for ongoing safety
assessment of the subjects during the clinical investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinical development is
traditionally conducted in three sequential phases, Phase
1, 2 and 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 1 studies for a cell
therapy product are designed to evaluate safety in a small
number subjects in a selected patient population by assessing
adverse effects, and may include multiple dose levels. This
study may also gather preliminary evidence of a beneficial
effect on the disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 2 may involve studies
in a limited patient population to determine biological and
clinical effects of the product and to identify possible adverse
effects and safety risks of the product in the selected patient
population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 3 trials would be
undertaken to conclusively demonstrate clinical benefit or
effect and to test further for safety within a broader patient
population, generally at multiple study sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The FDA continually reviews the
clinical trial plans and results and may suggest changes or may
require discontinuance of the trials at any time if significant
safety issues arise.
|
|
|
|
4. Submission to the FDA of
marketing authorization applications
|
|
The results of the preclinical
studies and clinical studies are submitted to the FDA in the
form of marketing approval authorization applications.
|
|
|
|
5. FDA approval of the
application(s) prior to any commercial sale or shipment of the
drug. Biologic product manufacturing establishments located in
certain states also may be subject to separate regulatory and
licensing requirement
|
|
The testing and approval process
will require substantial time, effort and expense. The time for
approval is affected by a number of factors, including relative
risks and benefits demonstrated in clinical trials, the
availability of alternative treatments and the severity of the
disease. Additional animal studies or clinical trials may be
requested during the FDA review period, which might add to that
time.
|
After FDA approval for the product, the manufacturing and the
initial indications, further clinical trials may be required to
gain approval for the use of the product for additional
indications. The FDA may also require unusual or restrictive
post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor for adverse
effects, which could involve significant expense, or may elect
to grant only conditional approvals.
FDA
Manufacturing Requirements
Among the conditions for product licensure is the requirement
that the prospective manufacturers quality control and
manufacturing procedures conform to the FDAs current good
manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements. Even after product
licensure approval, the manufacturer must comply with cGMP on a
continuing basis, and what constitutes cGMP may change as the
state of the art of manufacturing changes. Domestic
manufacturing facilities are subject to regular FDA inspections
for cGMP compliance, which are normally held at
17
least every two years. Foreign manufacturing facilities are
subject to periodic FDA inspections or inspections by the
foreign regulatory authorities with reciprocal inspection
agreements with the FDA. Domestic manufacturing facilities may
also be subject to inspection by foreign authorities.
Orphan
Drug Act
The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to drug manufacturers to
develop and manufacture drugs for the treatment of diseases or
conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 individuals in the
United States. Orphan drug status can also be sought for
treatments for diseases or conditions that affect more than
200,000 individuals in the United States if the sponsor does not
realistically anticipate its product becoming profitable from
sales in the United States. We may apply for orphan drug
status for certain of our therapies. Under the Orphan Drug Act,
a manufacturer of a designated orphan product can seek tax
benefits, and the holder of the first FDA approval of a
designated orphan product will be granted a seven-year period of
marketing exclusivity in the United States for that product for
the orphan indication. While the marketing exclusivity of an
orphan drug would prevent other sponsors from obtaining approval
of the same compound for the same indication, it would not
prevent other compounds or products from being approved for the
same use including, in some cases, slight variations on the
originally designated orphan product.
FDA
Human Cell and Tissue Regulations
Our research and development is based on the use of human stem
and progenitor cells. The FDA has initiated a risk-based
approach to regulating Human Cell, Tissue and Cellular and
Tissue-based products and has published current Good Tissue
Practice (cGTP) regulations. As part of this approach, the FDA
has published final rules for registration of establishments
that engage in the recovery, screening, testing, processing,
storage or distribution of human cells, tissues, and cellular
and tissue-based products, and for the listing of such products.
In addition, the FDA has published rules for making suitability
and eligibility determinations for donors of cells and tissue
and for current good tissue practice for manufacturers using
them, which came into effect in May 2005. We cannot yet
determine the full effects of this regulatory initiative,
including precisely how it may affect the extent of regulatory
obligations associated with multipotent stem cell research, and
the manufacture and marketing of stem cell products.
Other
Regulations
In addition to safety regulations enforced by the FDA, we are
also subject to regulations under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act and other present and potential future
foreign, Federal, state and local regulations.
Outside the United States, we will be subject to regulations
that govern the import of drug products from the United States
or other manufacturing sites and foreign regulatory requirements
governing human clinical trials and marketing approval for our
products. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical
trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursements vary
widely from country to country. In particular, the European
Union, or EU, is revising its regulatory approach to
biotechnology products, and representatives from the United
States, Japan and the EU are in the process of harmonizing and
making more uniform the regulations for the registration of
pharmaceutical products in these three markets.
Reimbursement
and Health Care Cost Control
Reimbursement for the costs of treatments and products such as
ours from government health administration authorities, private
health insurers and others both in the United States and abroad
is a key element in the success of new health care products.
Significant uncertainty often exists as to the reimbursement
status of newly approved health care products.
The revenues and profitability of some health care-related
companies have been affected by the continuing efforts of
governmental and third party payers to contain or reduce the
cost of health care through various means. Payers are
increasingly attempting to limit both coverage and the levels of
reimbursement for new therapeutic products approved for
marketing by the FDA, and are refusing, in some cases, to
provide any coverage for uses of
18
approved products for disease indications for which the FDA has
not granted marketing approval. In certain foreign markets,
pricing or profitability of prescription pharmaceuticals is
subject to government control. In the United States, there
have been a number of Federal and state proposals to implement
government control over health care costs.
Employees
As of December 31, 2005, we had forty-five full-time
employees, of whom eleven have Ph.D. degrees. Thirty-three
full-time employees work in research and development and
laboratory support services. No employees are covered by
collective bargaining agreements.
Scientific
Advisory Board
Members of our Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) provide us with
strategic guidance in regard to our research and product
development programs, as well as assistance in recruiting
employees and collaborators. Each SAB member has entered into a
consulting agreement with us. These consulting agreements
specify the compensation to be paid to the consultant and
require that all information about our products and technology
be kept confidential. All of the SAB members are employed by
employers other than us and may have commitments to or
consulting or advising agreements with other entities that limit
their availability to us. The SAB members have generally agreed,
however, for so long as they serve as consultants to us, not to
provide any services to any other entities that would conflict
with the services the member provides to us. We are entitled to
terminate the arrangements if we determine that there is such a
conflict. Members of the SAB offer consultation on specific
issues encountered by us as well as general advice on the
directions of appropriate scientific inquiry for us. In
addition, SAB members assist us in assessing the appropriateness
of moving our projects to more advanced stages. The following
persons are members of our SAB:
|
|
|
|
|
Irving L. Weissman, M.D., is the Virginia and Daniel K.
Ludwig Professor of Cancer Research, Professor of Pathology and
Professor of Developmental Biology at Stanford University,
Stanford California, and Director of the Stanford University
Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, as
well as Director of the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Dr. Weissmans lab was responsible for the discovery
of the first ever mammalian stem cell, the hematopoietic
(blood-forming) stem cell. Dr. Weissman was responsible for the
formation of three stem cell companies, SyStemix, Inc.,
StemCells, Inc., and Cellerant, Inc. He is a member of the Board
of Directors and Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Boards of
StemCells and Cellerant. Dr. Weissman co-discovered the
mammalian and human hematopoietic stem cells and the human
neural stem cell. He has extended these stem cell discoveries to
cancer and leukemia, discovering the leukemic stem cells in
human and mouse acute myeloid leukemias, and has enriched the
cancer stem cells in several human brain cancers. Past
achievements of Dr. Weissmans laboratory include
identification of the states of development between stem cells
and mature blood cells, the discovery and molecular isolation
and characterization of lymphocyte and stem cell homing
receptors, and identification of the states of thymic lymphocyte
development. His laboratory at Stanford has developed accurate
mouse models of human leukemias, and has shown the central role
of inhibition of programmed cell death in that process. He has
also established the evolutionary origins of pre-vertebrate stem
cells, and identified and cloned the transplantation genes that
prevent their passage from one organism to another.
Dr. Weissman has been elected to the National Academy of
Science, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,
the American Association of the Arts and Sciences, the American
Society of Microbiology, and several other societies. He has
received the Kaiser Award for Excellence in Preclinical
Teaching, the Pasarow Foundation Award for Cancer Research, the
California Scientist of the Year (2002), the Kovalenko Medal of
the National Academy of Sciences, the Elliott Joslin Medal for
Diabetes Research, the de Villiers Award for Leukemia Research,
the Irvington Award for Immunologist of the Year, the Bass Award
of the Society of Neurosurgeons, the New York Academy of
Medicine Award for Medical Research, the Alan Cranston Award for
Aging Research, the Linus Pauling Award for Biomedical Research,
the E. Donnall Thomas Award for Hematology Research, the van
Bekkum Award for Stem Cell Research, the Outstanding
Investigator Award from the National Institutes of Health, and
many other awards.
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
David J. Anderson, Ph.D., is Roger W. Sperry Professor of
Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California and Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
His laboratory was the first to isolate a multipotent,
self-renewing, stem cell for the peripheral nervous system, the
first to identify instructive signals that promote the
differentiation of these stem cells along various lineages, and
the first to accomplish a direct purification of peripheral
neural stem cells from uncultured tissue.
Dr. Andersons laboratory also was the first to
isolate transcription factors that act as master regulators of
neuronal fate. More recently, he has identified signals that
tell a neural stem cell to differentiate to oligodendrocytes,
the myelinating glia of the central nervous system. Dr. Anderson
is a co-founder of StemCells and a member of its SAB, and was a
founding SAB member of the International Society for Stem Cell
Research. Dr. Anderson also serves on the SAB of Allen
Institute for Brain Science. He has held a presidential Young
Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation, a Sloan
Foundation Fellowship in Neuroscience, and has been Donald D.
Matson lecturer at Harvard Medical School. He has received the
Charles Judson Herrick Award from the American Association of
Anatomy, the 1999 W. Alden Spencer Award in
Neurobiology from Columbia University, and the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation Award. Dr. Anderson is a member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
|
|
|
|
Fred H. Gage, Ph.D., is Professor, Laboratory of Genetics,
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla,
California and Adjunct Professor, Department of neurosciences,
University of California, San Diego, California.
Dr. Gages lab was the first to discover Neurogenesis
in the adult human brain. His research focus is on the
development of strategies to induce recovery of function
following central nervous system (CNS) damage. Dr. Gage is
a co-founder of StemCells and of BrainCells, Inc., and a member
of the SAB of each. Dr. Gage also serves on the Scientific
Advisory Board of Ceregene, Inc. Dr. Gage has been the
recipient of numerous awards, including the 1993 Charles A. Dana
Award for Pioneering Achievements in Health and Education, the
Christopher Reeves Medal, the Decade of the Brain Medal, the Max
Planck Research Award, and the Pasarow Foundation Award.
Professor Gage is a member of the Institute of Medicine, a
member of the National Academy of Science, and a Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Science.
|
Consultants to our SAB include William C.
Mobley, M.D., Ph.D., Ben Barres, Ph.D., and
Seung Kim, M.D., Ph.D., all of Stanford
University.
AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
Our principal executive offices are located at 3155 Porter
Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304, and our main telephone number is
(650) 475-3100.
Investors can obtain access to this annual report on
Form 10-K,
our quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
our current reports on
Form 8-K
and all amendments to these reports, free of charge, on our
website at http://www.stemcellsinc.com as soon as reasonably
practicable after such filings are electronically filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public may
read and copy any material we file with the SEC at the
SECs Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington D.C., 20549. The public may obtain information on the
operations of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC maintains an Internet site, http://www.sec.gov, which
contains reports, proxy and information statements and other
information regarding issuers that file electronically with the
SEC.
Risks
Related to our Business
Any
adverse development in the initial clinical trial for our stem
cell technology could substantially depress our stock price and
prevent us from raising the capital we will need to further
develop our stem cell technology.
To an unusual extent, our ability to progress as a company is
significantly dependent on a single early stage clinical trial.
Any clinical, regulatory or other development that prevents or
delays us from conducting our initial clinical trial for Batten
disease, or any safety issue or adverse side effect to any
patient that occurs during the trial, or the failure of this
initial trial to enroll patients and proceed to completion as
anticipated or to show the results expected by investors, would
likely significantly depress our stock price and could prevent
us from raising the substantial additional capital we will
require to further develop our stem cell technologies.
20
Our
financial situation is precarious and, based on currently
estimated operating expenses, our existing capital resources may
not be sufficient to fund our operations beyond the next
eighteen months.
We have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash
flows since inception. We have not achieved profitability and
may not be able to realize sufficient revenues to achieve or
sustain profitability in the future. We do not expect to be
profitable in the next several years, but rather expect to incur
additional and increasing operating losses. We have limited
liquidity and capital resources and must obtain significant
additional capital resources in order to sustain our product
development efforts and for acquisition of technologies and
intellectual property rights, preclinical and clinical testing
of our anticipated products, pursuit of regulatory approvals,
acquisition of capital equipment, laboratory and office
facilities, establishment of production capabilities,
maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property portfolio,
general and administrative expenses and other working capital
requirements. We rely on cash reserves and proceeds from equity
and debt offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of our
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or
investments, and government grants and funding from
collaborative arrangements, if obtainable, to fund our
operations. If we exhaust our cash reserves and are unable to
realize adequate financing, we may be unable to meet operating
obligations and be required to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.
Our existing capital resources may not be sufficient to fund our
operations beyond the next eighteen months. We intend to pursue
opportunities to obtain additional financing in the future
through equity and debt financings, corporate alliances, grants
and collaborative research arrangements. The source, timing and
availability of any future financing will depend principally
upon market conditions, interest rates and, more specifically,
on our progress in our exploratory, preclinical and future
clinical development programs. Funding may not be available when
needed at all or on terms acceptable to us.
Lack of necessary funds may require us to delay, scale back or
eliminate some or all of our research and product development
programs
and/or our
capital expenditures or to license our potential products or
technologies to third parties.
Our
product development programs are based on novel technologies and
are inherently risky.
We are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the
development of products based on new technologies. The novel
nature of the therapies creates significant challenges in
regards to product development and optimization, manufacturing,
government regulation, third party reimbursement and market
acceptance. For example, the FDA has relatively little
experience with stem cell-based therapeutics, and the pathway to
regulatory approval for our product candidates may accordingly
be more complex and lengthy than the pathway for new
conventional drugs. These challenges may prevent us from
developing and commercializing products on a timely or
profitable basis or at all.
Our
technology is at an early stage of discovery and development,
and we may fail to develop any commercially acceptable or
profitable products.
We have yet to develop any products. Before we may market any
product, we must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA and
equivalent foreign agencies after conducting extensive
preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that
our product candidates are safe and effective for each disease
for which we seek approval. We have no experience in conducting
clinical trials. We expect that none of our cellular therapy
product candidates will be commercially available for several
years, if at all.
Our programs are still at the preclinical phase for our
candidate human liver stem cell, and at the discovery phase for
our candidate human pancreas stem cell. While the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has permitted us to go forward
with our proposed Phase I clinical trial of our proprietary
neural stem cell therapy product HuCNS
SC in Batten disease, and the Institutional
Review Board of the Oregon Health & Science University
has approved the protocol, that trial has not yet enrolled or
treated any patients and there can be no assurance that the
clinical investigators will be able to identify suitable
candidates for the trial or of a successful outcome of the trial
if candidates are enrolled. We may fail to discover the stem
cells we are seeking, to develop any products, to obtain
regulatory approvals, to enter clinical trials, or to
commercialize any products. We may elect to delay or discontinue
preclinical studies or clinical trials based on unfavorable
results. Any product using stem cell technology may fail to:
|
|
|
|
|
survive and persist in the desired location;
|
|
|
|
provide the intended therapeutic benefits;
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
properly integrate into existing tissue in the desired
manner; or
|
|
|
|
achieve therapeutic benefits equal to or better than the
standard of treatment at the time of testing.
|
In addition, our products may cause undesirable side effects.
Results of preclinical research may not be indicative of the
results that will be obtained in later stages of preclinical or
clinical research. If regulatory authorities do not approve our
products or if we fail to maintain regulatory compliance, we
would be unable to commercialize our products, and our business
and results of operations would be harmed. Furthermore, because
stem cells are a new form of therapy, the marketplace may not
accept any products we may develop. If we do succeed in
developing products, we will face many potential obstacles such
as the need to obtain regulatory approvals and to develop or
obtain manufacturing, marketing and distribution capabilities.
In addition, we will face substantial additional risks such as
product liability claims.
Moreover, because our cell therapy treatments will be derived
from tissue of individuals other than the patient (that is, they
will be non-self or allogeneic
transplant products), patients will require the use of
immunosuppressive drugs such as cyclosporine, FK506, or others
to prevent rejection of the cells. While immunosuppression is
now standard in connection with allogeneic transplants of
various kinds, long-term maintenance on immunosuppressive drugs
can produce complications that include infection, cancer,
cardiovascular disease, renal dysfunction and other side effects
depending upon which immunosuppressive regimen is employed.
Immunosuppression has not been tested with our therapies since
we have not yet conducted any clinical trials.
Our
success will depend in large part on our ability to develop and
commercialize products that treat diseases other than Batten
disease.
Although we have initially focused on evaluating our neural cell
therapy product for the treatment of infantile and late
infantile forms of NCL (Batten disease), this disease is rare,
and the market for treating this disease is small. Accordingly,
even if we obtain marketing approval for
HuCNS-SC for
Batten disease, in order to achieve profitability, if at all, we
will need to obtain approval for
HuCNS-SC and
other potential products to treat additional diseases that
present more significant market opportunities.
We
have payment obligations resulting from real property owned or
leased by us in Rhode Island, which diverts funding from our
stem cell research and development.
Prior to our reorganization in 1999 and the consolidation of our
business in California, we carried out our former encapsulated
cell therapy programs in Lincoln, Rhode Island, where we also
had our administrative offices. Although we have vacated the
Rhode Island facilities, we remain obligated to make lease
payments and payments for operating costs for our former science
and administrative facility, which we have leased through
June 30, 2013. These costs, before sub-tenant rental
income, amounted to approximately $1,450,000 in 2005; our rent
payments will increase over the term of the lease, and our
operating costs may increase as well. In addition to these costs
of our former science and administrative facility, we are
obligated to make debt service payments and payments for
operating costs of approximately $450,000 per year for our
former encapsulated cell therapy pilot manufacturing facility,
which we own. We have currently subleased a portion of the
science and administrative facility, and are seeking to sublease
the remaining portion, but we cannot be sure that we will be
able to keep any part of the facility subleased for the duration
of our obligation. We have currently subleased the entire pilot
manufacturing facility to a privately-held biotechnology
company, but may not be able to sublease or sell the facility in
the future once the current sublease agreements expire. These
continuing costs significantly reduce our cash resources and
adversely affect our ability to fund further development of our
stem cell technology. In addition, changes in real estate market
conditions and assumptions regarding the length of time it may
take us to either fully sublease, assign or sell our remaining
interest in the our former research facility in Rhode Island may
have a significant impact on and cause large variations in our
quarter to quarter results of operations. In 1999, in connection
with exiting our former research facility in Rhode Island, we
created a reserve for the estimated lease payments and operating
expenses related to it. The reserve is periodically re-evaluated
and adjusted based on assumptions relevant to real estate market
conditions and the estimated time until we can either fully
sublease, assign or sell our remaining interests in the
property. At December 31, 2005, the reserve was $7,306,000.
In 2005 and 2004, we incurred $1,079,000 and $1,152,000 in
operating expenses net of sub-tenant income for this facility.
Expenses for this facility will fluctuate based on changes in
tenant occupancy rates and other operating expenses related to
the lease. Even though it is our intent to sublease, assign,
sell or otherwise divest ourselves of our interests in the
facility at the earliest possible time, we cannot determine
22
with certainty a fixed date by which such events will occur. In
light of this uncertainty, based on estimates, we will
periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve, as necessary,
and we may make significant adverse adjustments to the reserve
in the future.
We may
need but fail to obtain partners to support our stem cell
development efforts and to commercialize our
technology.
Equity and debt financings alone may not be sufficient to fund
the cost of developing our stem cell technologies, and we may
need to rely on our ability to reach partnering arrangements to
provide financial support for our stem cell discovery and
development efforts. In addition, in order to successfully
develop and commercialize our technology, we may need to enter
into a wide variety of arrangements with corporate sponsors,
pharmaceutical companies, universities, research groups and
others. While we have engaged, and expect to continue to engage,
in discussions regarding such arrangements, we have not reached
any agreement, and we may fail to obtain any such agreement on
terms acceptable to us. Even if we enter into these
arrangements, we may not be able to satisfy our obligations
under them or renew or replace them after their original terms
expire. Furthermore, these arrangements may require us to grant
certain rights to third parties, including exclusive marketing
rights to one or more products, may require us to issue
securities to our collaborators or may contain other terms that
are burdensome to us. If any of our collaborators terminates its
relationship with us or fails to perform its obligations in a
timely manner, the development or commercialization of our
technology and potential products may be adversely affected.
Because
the patient population for NCL, or Batten disease, is very
small, we may encounter difficulties in enrolling subjects in
our first planned clinical trial.
The first clinical application we are
pursuing NCL (also known as Batten
disease) has a very small patient population.
From this small population, we must locate and enroll patients
that satisfy the specific enrollment criteria for our planned
clinical trial for this indication. This clinical trial may be
delayed significantly or terminated if we are unable to enroll a
sufficient number of qualified patients.
We
have a history of operating losses, and we may fail to obtain
revenues or become profitable.
We expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses in
the future in order to conduct our research and development
activities, and, if those activities are successful, to fund
clinical trials and other expenses. These expenses include the
cost of acquiring technology, product testing, acquiring
regulatory approvals, establishing production, marketing, sales
and distribution programs and administrative expenses. We have
not earned any revenues from sales of any product. All of our
past revenues have been derived from, and any revenues we may
obtain for the foreseeable future are expected to be derived
from, cooperative agreements, research grants, investments and
interest on invested capital. We currently have no cooperative
agreements, we have only one current research grant for our stem
cell technology, and we may not obtain any such agreements or
additional grants in the future or receive any revenues from
them.
If we
are unable to protect our patents and proprietary rights, our
business, financial condition and results of operations will be
harmed.
We own or license a number of patents and pending patent
applications related to various stem and progenitor cells and
methods of deriving and using them, including human neural stem
cell cultures. Patent protection for products such as those we
propose to develop is highly uncertain and involves complex and
continually evolving factual and legal questions. The
governmental authorities that consider patent applications can
deny or significantly reduce the patent coverage requested in an
application before or after issuing the patent. Consequently, we
do not know whether any of our pending applications will result
in the issuance of patents, if any existing or future patents
will provide sufficient protection or significant commercial
advantage or if others will circumvent these patents. We cannot
be certain that we were the first to discover the inventions
covered by each of our pending patent applications or that we
were the first to file patent applications for such inventions
because patent applications are secret until they are published,
and because publication of discoveries in the scientific or
patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Patents
may not issue from our pending or future patent applications or,
if issued, may not be of
23
commercial benefit to us. In addition, our patents may not
afford us adequate protection from competing products. Third
parties may challenge our patents or governmental authorities
may declare them invalid or reduce their scope. In the event
that a third party has also filed a patent application relating
to inventions claimed in our patent applications, we may have to
participate in proceedings to determine priority of invention.
Even if a patent issues, a court could decide that the patent
was issued invalidly. Because patents issue for a limited term,
our patents may expire before we utilize them profitably. Our
most important patents begin to expire in 2015. Under the
procedures of the European Patent Office, third parties may
oppose our issued European patents during the relevant
opposition period. These proceedings and oppositions could
result in substantial uncertainties and cost for us, even if the
eventual outcome is favorable to us, and the outcome might not
be favorable to us. One party has opposed two of our granted
European patents. Both oppositions were heard in 2005, and the
patents were maintained in somewhat altered form. The time for
appeal has not yet run and there can be no assurance that the
opposing party will not appeal. While we are confident that,
should the decision be appealed by the opposing party, it will
be upheld, there can be no guarantee of this. If we are
ultimately unsuccessful in our defense of the opposed patents,
all claimed rights in the opposed patents will be lost in
Europe. U.S. counterparts to these patents are part of our
issued patent portfolio; they are not subject to opposition,
since that procedure does not exist under U.S. patent law,
but other types of proceedings may be available to third parties
to contest our U.S. patents. See Item 1.
Business Patents, Proprietary Rights and
Licences and Item 3. Legal proceedings.
If we learn of third parties who infringe our patent rights, we
may need to initiate legal proceedings to enforce our patent
rights. These proceedings may entail significant costs, and
these third parties may have significantly greater financial
resources than us. We may not prevail in these proceedings.
Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also
important to our research and development activities. We cannot
be certain that others will not independently develop the same
or similar technologies on their own or gain access to our trade
secrets or disclose such technology or that we will be able to
meaningfully protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how.
We require our employees, consultants, and significant
scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers to execute
confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of an
employment or consulting relationship with us. These agreements
may, however, fail to provide meaningful protection or adequate
remedies for us in the event of unauthorized use, transfer or
disclosure of such information or technology.
If
others are first to discover and patent the stem cells we are
seeking to discover, we could be blocked from further work on
those stem cells.
Because the first person or entity to discover and obtain a
valid patent to a particular stem or progenitor cell may
effectively block all others, it will be important for us or our
collaborators to be the first to discover any stem cell that we
are seeking to discover. Failure to be the first could prevent
us from commercializing all of our research and development
affected by that patent.
If we
are unable to obtain necessary licenses to third-party patents
and other rights, we may not be able to commercially develop our
expected products.
A number of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other companies,
universities and research institutions have filed patent
applications or have received patents relating to cell therapy,
stem cells and other technologies potentially relevant to or
necessary for our expected products. We cannot predict which, if
any, of the applications will issue as patents, and there may be
existing patents of which we are currently unaware which the
commercialization of our product candidates would infringe. If
third party patents or patent applications contain valid claims
that our technology infringes upon their technology, we may be
prevented from commercializing that technology unless the third
party is willing to grant a license to us. We may be unable to
obtain licenses to the relevant patents at a reasonable cost, if
at all, and may also be unable to develop or obtain alternative
non-infringing technology. If we are unable to obtain such
licenses or develop non-infringing technology at a reasonable
cost, our business could be significantly harmed. Also, any
infringement lawsuits commenced against us may result in
significant costs, divert our managements attention and
result in an award against us for substantial damages.
24
We are aware of intellectual property rights held by third
parties that relate to products or technologies we are
developing. For example, some aspects of our stem cell product
candidates involve the use of growth factors, antibodies and
other reagents that may, in certain cases, be the subject of
third party rights. Before we commercialize any product using
these growth factors, antibodies or reagents, we may need to
obtain license rights from third parties or use alternative
growth factors, antibodies and reagents that are not then the
subject of third party patent rights. We currently believe that
the commercialization of our products as currently planned will
not infringe these third party rights, or, alternatively, that
we will be able to obtain necessary licenses or otherwise use
alternate non-infringing technology. However, third parties may
nonetheless bring suit against us claiming infringement. If we
are unable to prove that our technology does not infringe their
patents, or if we are unable to obtain necessary licenses or
otherwise use alternative non-infringing technology, we may not
be able to commercialize any products. Also, if we use
alternative non-infringing technology, we may need to
demonstrate comparability in subsequent clinical trials.
We have obtained rights from universities and research
institutions to technologies, processes and compounds that we
believe may be important to the development of our products.
These licensors, however, may cancel our licenses or convert
them to non-exclusive licenses if we fail to use the relevant
technology or otherwise breach these agreements. Loss of these
licenses could expose us to the risk that our technology
infringes the rights of third parties. We can give no assurance
that any of these licenses will provide effective protection
against our competitors.
We
compete with companies that have significant advantages over
us.
The market for therapeutic products to treat diseases of, or
injuries to, the central nervous system (CNS) is large, and
competition is intense. The majority of the products currently
on the market or in development are small molecule
pharmaceutical compounds. Many of the worlds large
pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Abbott,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, have made
significant commitments to the CNS field. Any cell-based therapy
to treat diseases of, or injuries to, the CNS is likely to face
intense competition from the small molecule sector. In addition,
a number of biotechnology companies with resources far greater
than ours may also emerge as competitors. These include Genzyme,
Amgen, Cephalon, Shire Pharmaceuticals, BioMarin, Celgene,
Biogen Idec, and Titan Pharmaceuticals/Schering AG. Finally, we
also expect to compete with smaller biotechnology companies,
such as NeuralStem, Geron, NeuroNova, ReNeuron, and ES Cell
International, some of which are privately owned.
We believe that our human neural stem cells may have application
to many or most of the Lysosomal Storage Diseases
(LSDs) with CNS involvement. We have received FDA
approval for our first IND to treat the Infantile and Late
Infantile forms of NCL (also known as Batten disease), which are
among the LSDs that affect the CNS, and our Phase I
clinical trial expected to begin at Doernbecher Childrens
Hospital at Oregon Health & Safety University. There
can be no assurance that the trial will demonstrate either
safety or efficacy of our HuCNS-SC. There are, so far as we
know, no approved therapies for Batten disease or any of the
other CNS-specific LSDs, but other companies, including Genzyme,
BioMarin, and Shire, have products approved to treat peripheral
aspects of some of the other LSDs, and other products are in
clinical trials.
In the liver field, there are no broad-based therapies for the
treatment of liver disease at present. The primary therapy is
liver transplantation, which is limited by the availability of
matched donor organs. Liver-assist devices, when and if they
become available, could also be used to help patients while they
await suitably matched organs for transplantation. In addition,
new therapies may become available before we successfully
develop a cell-based therapy for liver disease.
In the field of diabetes, a number of major companies currently
market products for the treatment of diabetes and are also
engaged in the research and development of new therapies. Such
companies include Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, J&J, Amylin,
ViaCell, and Serono. Consequently, should we successfully
develop a cell-based therapy for diabetes, we would expect to
face severe competition from these and similar companies.
25
Development
of our technology is subject to and restricted by extensive
government regulation, which could impede our
business.
Our research and development efforts, as well as any future
clinical trials, and the manufacturing and marketing of any
products we may develop, will be subject to and restricted by
extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United
States and other countries. The process of obtaining
U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other necessary
regulatory approvals is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. We or
our collaborators may fail to obtain the necessary approvals to
commence or continue clinical testing or to manufacture or
market our potential products in reasonable time frames, if at
all. In addition, the U.S. Congress and other legislative
bodies may enact regulatory reforms or restrictions on the
development of new therapies that could adversely affect the
regulatory environment in which we operate or the development of
any products we may develop.
We base our research and development on the use of human stem
and progenitor cells obtained from fetal tissue. The federal and
state governments and other jurisdictions impose restrictions on
the use of fetal tissue, including those incorporated in the
recent federal current Good Tissue Practice, or cGTP,
regulations. These regulatory and other constraints could
prevent us from obtaining cells and other components of our
products in the quantity or quality needed for their development
or commercialization. These restrictions change from time to
time and may become more onerous. Additionally, we may not be
able to identify or develop reliable sources for the cells
necessary for our potential products that is,
sources that follow all state and federal guidelines for cell
procurement. Certain components used to manufacture our stem
cell product candidates will need to be manufactured in
compliance with the FDAs Good Manufacturing Practices, or
cGMP. Accordingly, we will need to enter into supply agreements
with companies that manufacture these components to cGMP
standards.
Although we do not use embryonic stem cells, government
regulation and threatened regulation of embryonic tissue may
lead top researchers to leave the field of stem cell research,
or the country, in order to assure that their careers will not
be impeded by restrictions on their work. Similarly, these
factors may induce the best graduate students to choose other
fields less vulnerable to changes in regulatory oversight, thus
exacerbating the risk, discussed below, that we may not be able
to attract and retain the scientific personnel we need in face
of the competition among pharmaceutical, biotechnology and
health care companies, universities and research institutions
for what may become a shrinking class of qualified individuals.
In addition, we cannot assure you that constraints on the use of
embryonic stem cells will not be extended to use of fetal stem
cells. Moreover, it is possible that concerns regarding research
using embryonic stem cells will negatively impact our stock
price and our ability to attract collaborators and investors.
We may apply for status under the Orphan Drug Act for some of
our therapies to gain a seven-year period of marketing
exclusivity for those therapies. The U.S. Congress in the past
has considered, and in the future again may consider,
legislation that would restrict the extent and duration of the
market exclusivity of an orphan drug. If enacted, such
legislation could prevent us from obtaining some or all of the
benefits of the existing statute even if we were to apply for
and obtain orphan drug status with respect to a potential
product.
We are
dependent on the services of key personnel.
We are highly dependent on the principal members of our
management and scientific staff and some of our outside
consultants, including the members of our scientific advisory
board, our chief executive officer, our vice presidents and the
director of our liver stem cell program. Although we have
entered into employment agreements with some of these
individuals, they may terminate their agreements at any time. In
addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to
attract and retain additional qualified scientific and
management personnel. We may not be able to attract and retain
the personnel we need on acceptable terms given the competition
for experienced personnel among pharmaceutical, biotechnology
and health care companies, universities and research
institutions.
Our
activities involve hazardous materials and experimental animal
testing; improper handling of these animals and materials by our
employees or agents could expose us to significant legal and
financial penalties.
Our research and development activities involve the controlled
use of hazardous chemicals and potentially hazardous biological
materials such as human tissue and animals. Their use subjects
us to environmental and safety
26
laws and regulations such as those governing laboratory
procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens, use of animals
and the handling of biohazardous materials. Compliance with
current or future laws and regulations may be expensive and the
cost of compliance could adversely affect us.
Although we believe that our safety procedures for using,
handling, storing and disposing of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials comply with the standards prescribed by
California and federal regulations, the risk of accidental
contamination or injury from these materials cannot be
eliminated. In the event of such an accident or of any violation
of these or future laws and regulations, state or federal
authorities could curtail our use of these materials; we could
be liable for any civil damages that result, the cost of which
could be substantial; and we could be subjected to substantial
fines or penalties. In addition, any failure by us to control
the use, disposal, removal or storage, or to adequately restrict
the discharge, or to assist in the cleanup, of hazardous
chemicals or hazardous, infectious or toxic substances could
subject us to significant liability. Any such liability could
exceed our resources and could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Moreover, an accident could damage our research and
manufacturing facilities and operations and result in serious
adverse effects on our business.
The
manufacture, development and commercialization of stem cell
products expose us to product liability claims, which could lead
to substantial liability.
By developing and, ultimately, commercializing medical products,
we are exposed to the risk of product liability claims. Product
liability claims against us could entail substantial litigation
costs and damage awards against us. We are in the process of
obtaining liability insurance that covers our clinical trials,
and we will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when
we begin commercializing products. We may not be able to obtain
insurance on acceptable terms, if at all, and the policy limits
on our insurance policies may be insufficient to cover our
liability.
Since
health care insurers and other organizations may not pay for our
products or may impose limits on reimbursements, our ability to
become profitable could be reduced.
In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of potential
products are likely to depend in part upon the availability and
amounts of reimbursement from third party health care payor
organizations, including government agencies, private health
care insurers and other health care payors, such as health
maintenance organizations and self-insured employee plans. There
is considerable pressure to reduce the cost of therapeutic
products, and government and other third party payors are
increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting
both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new therapeutic
products and by refusing, in some cases, to provide any coverage
for uses of approved products for disease indications for which
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not granted
marketing approval. Significant uncertainty exists as to the
reimbursement status of newly approved health care products or
novel therapies such as ours. Even if we obtain regulatory
approval to market our products, we can give no assurance that
reimbursement will be provided by such payors at all or without
substantial delay or, if such reimbursement is provided, that
the approved reimbursement amounts will be sufficient to enable
us to sell products we develop on a profitable basis. Changes in
reimbursement policies could also adversely affect the
willingness of pharmaceutical companies to collaborate with us
on the development of our stem cell technology. In certain
foreign markets, pricing or profitability of prescription
pharmaceuticals is subject to government control. We also expect
that there will continue to be a number of federal and state
proposals to implement government control over health care
costs. Efforts at health care reform are likely to continue in
future legislative sessions. We do not know what legislative
proposals federal or state governments will adopt or what
actions federal, state or private payers for health care goods
and services may take in response to health care reform
proposals or legislation. We cannot predict the effect
government control and other health care reforms may have on our
business.
We
have limited liquidity and capital resources and may not obtain
the significant capital resources we will need to sustain our
research and development efforts.
We have limited liquidity and capital resources and must obtain
substantial additional capital to support our research and
development programs, for acquisition of technology and
intellectual property rights and, to the extent we decide to
undertake these activities ourselves, for preclinical and
clinical testing of our anticipated products,
27
pursuit of regulatory approvals, establishment of production
capabilities, maintaining and enforcing our intellectually
property portfolio, establishment of marketing and sales
capabilities and distribution channels, and general
administrative expenses. If we do not obtain the necessary
capital resources, we may have to delay, reduce or eliminate
some or all of our research and development programs or license
our technology or any potential products to third parties rather
than commercialize them ourselves. We intend to pursue our
needed capital resources through equity and debt financings,
corporate alliances, grants and collaborative research
arrangements. We may fail to obtain the necessary capital
resources from any such sources when needed or on terms
acceptable to us. Our ability to complete successfully any such
arrangements will depend upon market conditions and, more
specifically, on continued progress in our research and
development efforts.
Ethical
and other concerns surrounding the use of stem cell therapy may
negatively affect regulatory approval or public perception of
our product candidates, which could reduce demand for our
products.
The use of stem cells for research and therapy has been the
subject of debate regarding related ethical, legal and social
issues. Although these concerns have mainly been directed to the
use of embryonic stem cells, which we do not use, the
distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells is
frequently overlooked; moreover, our use of human stem cells
from fetal sources might raise these or similar concerns.
Negative public attitudes toward stem cell therapy could result
in greater governmental regulation of stem cell therapies, which
could harm our business. For example, concerns regarding such
possible regulation could impact our ability to attract
collaborators and investors. Also, existing regulatory
constraints on the use of embryonic stem cells may in the future
be extended to use of fetal stem cells, and these constraints
might prohibit or restrict us from conducting research or
commercializing products. Government regulation and threatened
regulation of embryonic tissue could also harm our ability to
attract and retain qualified scientific personnel by causing top
researchers to leave the country or the field of stem cell
research altogether; and by encouraging the best graduate
students to choose other fields that are less vulnerable to
changes in regulatory oversight.
Our
corporate documents and Delaware law contain provisions that may
make it difficult for us to be acquired in a transaction that
would be beneficial to our shareholders.
Our board of directors has the authority to issue shares of
preferred stock and to fix the rights, preferences, privileges
and restrictions of these shares without shareholder approval.
In addition, we have adopted a rights plan that generally
permits our existing shareholders to acquire additional shares
at a substantial discount to the market price in the event of
certain attempts by third parties to acquire us. These rights,
along with certain provisions in our corporate documents and
Delaware law, may make it more difficult for a third party to
acquire us or discourage a third party from attempting to
acquire us, even if the acquisition might be beneficial to our
shareholders.
Risks
Related to the Securities Market
Our
stock price has been, and will likely continue to be, highly
volatile, which may negatively affect our ability to obtain
additional financing in the future.
The market price of our stock has been and is likely to continue
to be highly volatile due to the risks and uncertainties
described in this section of the
Form 10-K,
as well as other factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to develop and test our technology;
|
|
|
|
our ability to patent or obtain licenses to necessary technology;
|
|
|
|
conditions and publicity regarding the industry in which we
operate, as well as the specific areas our product candidates
seek to address;
|
|
|
|
competition in our industry;
|
|
|
|
price and volume fluctuations in the stock market at large that
are unrelated to our operating performance; and
|
|
|
|
comments by securities analysts, or our failure to meet market
expectations.
|
28
In September 2005 the Nasdaq Stock Market approved our
application to move the listing of our common stock from the
Nasdaq Capital Market (previously known as the Nasdaq SmallCap
Market) to the Nasdaq National Market. The stock began trading
on the Nasdaq National Market on September 30, 2005 under
the same symbol, STEM. Over the two-year period ended
December 31, 2005, the closing price of our common stock as
reported on the Nasdaq Markets ranged from a high of $6.77 to a
low of $1.24. As a result of this volatility, your investment in
our stock is subject to substantial risk. Furthermore, the
volatility of our stock price could negatively impact our
ability to raise capital in the future.
We are
contractually obligated to issue shares in the future, diluting
the interest of current shareholders.
As of December 31, 2005, there were outstanding warrants to
purchase 2,521,400 shares of our common stock, at a
weighted average exercise price of $1.92 per share. As of
December 31, 2005, there were also outstanding options to
purchase 6,608,109 shares of our common stock, at a
weighted average exercise price of $3.02 per share.
Moreover, we expect to issue additional options to purchase
shares of our common stock to compensate employees, consultants
and directors, and may issue additional shares to raise capital,
to acquire other companies or technologies, to pay for services,
or for other corporate purposes. Any such issuances will have
the effect of diluting the interest of current shareholders.
|
|
ITEM 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
None.
We entered into a
5-year
lease, as of February 1, 2001, for a 40,000 square
foot facility, located in the Stanford Research Park in Palo
Alto, California. This facility includes space for animals as
well as laboratories, offices, and a suite designed to be used
to manufacture materials for clinical trials. Effective
July 1, 2006, under an agreement that extends the lease
through March 31, 2010, we take over the remainder of the
building, adding approximately 27,500 square feet to our
leased premises. The facility will better enable us to achieve
our goal of utilizing genetically unmodified human stem cells
for the treatment of disorders of the nervous system, liver, and
pancreas. We have a space-sharing agreement with Stanford
University for part of the animal facility not needed for our
own use.
We continue to lease the following facilities in Lincoln, Rhode
Island obtained in connection with our former encapsulated cell
technology: our former research laboratory and corporate
headquarters building which contains 62,500 square feet of
wet labs, specialty research areas and administrative offices
held on a lease agreement that goes through June 2013, as well
as a 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility and a
3,000 square-foot cell processing facility financed by
bonds issued by the Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation. We have subleased the 21,000 square-foot and
the 3,000 square foot facilities. We have also subleased
small portions of the 62,500 square foot facility,
amounting to approximately ten percent for most of 2006. We are
actively seeking to sublease, assign or sell our remaining
interests in these properties.
|
|
ITEM 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
Geron Corporation has opposed two of our European patents that
relate to neural stem cells and their uses. The oppositions were
filed with the European Patent Office on December 11, 2003
(Patent
No. EP-B-0594669)
and February 13, 2004 (Patent
No. EP-B-0669973).
We filed responses to both oppositions on September 23,
2004. Geron alleged that each patent should be revoked on
multiple grounds. Both oppositions were heard in 2005, and the
patents were maintained in somewhat altered form by the
Opposition Division of the European Patent Office. The written
opinions have not yet issued; the time for appeal begins to run
in each case when the Opposition Division opinion issues.
|
|
ITEM 4.
|
SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
|
None.
29
PART II
|
|
ITEM 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
|
|
(a)
|
Market
Price and dividend information
|
In September 2005 the Nasdaq Stock Market approved our
application to move the listing of our common stock from the
Nasdaq Capital Market (previously known as the Nasdaq SmallCap
Market) to the Nasdaq National Market. The stock began trading
on the Nasdaq National Market on September 30, 2005 under
the same symbol, STEM. The quarterly ranges of high and low bid
prices for the last two fiscal years as reported by NASDAQ are
shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
6.76
|
|
|
$
|
3.00
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.60
|
|
|
$
|
2.58
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
6.57
|
|
|
$
|
4.19
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
5.53
|
|
|
$
|
3.40
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
2.69
|
|
|
$
|
1.56
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
2.19
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.85
|
|
|
$
|
1.52
|
|
No cash dividends have been declared on our common stock since
our inception.
(b) Approximate Number of Holders of Common Stock
As of March 2, 2006, there were approximately 565 holders
of record of the common stock, and as of the same date the
closing price per share of our common stock on the NASDAQ
National Market was $3.60.
(c) Recent Sale of Unregistered Securities
We issued the following unregistered securities in 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
By agreement with one of our outside providers of legal
services, a part of the fees incurred were paid in authorized,
unregistered stock of the Company, issued pursuant to the
exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. In 2003, we issued
80,940 shares with a fair market value of $125,499 under
that agreement. The agreement has been changed to provide that
the payments be made in registered stock.
|
We issued the following unregistered securities in 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2004, StemCells issued 9,535 shares of common
stock to the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) as
payment for fees of $10,000 and $5,000 that were due on the
issuance of two patents to which StemCells holds a license from
Cal Tech that were payable in cash or stock at the
Companys option. The shares were issued in a transaction
not involving any public offering pursuant to Section 4(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
|
|
|
|
In December 2004, StemCells issued 1,816 shares of common
stock to inventors of a technology as part payment for
approximately $2,800 of the total option fee of $25,000 to
acquire an exclusive license to the technology from the Board of
Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University. The shares
were issued in a transaction not involving any public offering
pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
|
No unregistered securities were issued in 2005.
30
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table provides certain information with respect to
all our equity compensation plans in effect as of
December 31, 2005.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted-average
|
|
|
Future Issuance Under
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Equity Compensation Plans
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
(Excluding Securities
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Reflected in
Column(a))
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by security holders
|
|
|
6,608,109
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
3.02
|
|
|
|
1,583,543
|
|
Equity compensation arrangements
not approved by security holders
|
|
|
100,000
|
(2)
|
|
$
|
1.20
|
|
|
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,708,109
|
|
|
$
|
2.99
|
|
|
|
1,583,543
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists of Incentive Stock Options issued to employees and
options issued as compensation to consultants for consultation
services. These options were issued under the Companys
1992 Equity Incentive Plan, its Directors Stock Option
Plan, its StemCells, Inc. Stock Option Plan, or its 2001 and
2004 Equity Incentive Plans. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the portion outstanding of a fully vested warrant
issued in January 2003, to purchase 200,000 shares with an
exercise price of $1.20 per share and exercisable, in whole
or in part, for five years from the date of issuance. The
warrant which constitutes an equity compensation arrangement not
approved by security holders was issued in exchange for advisory
services by non-employees. |
31
|
|
ITEM 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
The following selected financial and operating data are derived
from our audited consolidated financial statements. The selected
financial and operating data should be read in conjunction with
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operation and the
consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained
elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from collaborative and
licensing agreements
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
18
|
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from grants
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
255
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from assignment of rights
to technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
273
|
|
|
|
415
|
|
|
|
805
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
8,929
|
|
|
|
8,760
|
|
|
|
6,144
|
|
|
|
7,382
|
|
|
|
8,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
4,837
|
|
|
|
3,954
|
|
|
|
3,391
|
|
|
|
3,359
|
|
|
|
3,788
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encapsulated Cell Technology (ECT)
wind-down and corporate relocation(1)
|
|
|
2,827
|
|
|
|
2,827
|
|
|
|
2,885
|
|
|
|
1,164
|
|
|
|
575
|
|
|
|
|
|
License & settlement
agreement, net(2)
|
|
|
3,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before deemed dividends and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
(11,738
|
)
|
|
|
(15,330
|
)
|
|
|
(12,291
|
)
|
|
|
(11,644
|
)
|
|
|
(4,021
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders
|
|
|
(11,738
|
)
|
|
|
(15,330
|
)
|
|
|
(14,425
|
)
|
|
|
(13,276
|
)
|
|
|
(5,567
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted loss per share
applicable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.45
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.53
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.25
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in computing basic and
diluted loss per share amounts
|
|
|
63,643
|
|
|
|
49,606
|
|
|
|
32,080
|
|
|
|
25,096
|
|
|
|
22,242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
34,541
|
|
|
$
|
41,060
|
|
|
$
|
13,082
|
|
|
$
|
4,236
|
|
|
$
|
13,697
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
3,721
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
44,839
|
|
|
|
47,627
|
|
|
|
19,786
|
|
|
|
11,329
|
|
|
|
20,803
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses and
deferred rent(1)
|
|
|
7,306
|
|
|
|
5,528
|
|
|
|
3,823
|
|
|
|
1,931
|
|
|
|
575
|
|
Long-term debt, including capital
leases
|
|
|
1,351
|
|
|
|
1,646
|
|
|
|
1,850
|
|
|
|
2,087
|
|
|
|
2,316
|
|
Redeemable preferred stock (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,660
|
|
|
|
2,663
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
32,376
|
|
|
|
36,950
|
|
|
|
10,964
|
|
|
|
1,933
|
|
|
|
12,633
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Relates to wind-down expenses in respect of the Companys
Rhode Island facility. See Note 8 in the consolidated
financial statements. |
|
(2) |
|
Relates to an agreement with ReNeuron Limited. See Note 2
in the consolidated financial statements. |
|
(3) |
|
See Note 10 in the consolidated financial statements. |
32
|
|
ITEM 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
The following discussion of our financial condition and results
of operations should be read in conjunction with the
accompanying financial statements and the related footnotes
thereto.
This report contains forward looking statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act that involve
substantial risks and uncertainties. Such statements include,
without limitation, all statements as to expectation or belief
and statements as to our future results of operations, the
progress of our research, product development and clinical
programs, the need for, and timing of, additional capital and
capital expenditures, partnering prospects, costs of manufacture
of products, the protection of and the need for additional
intellectual property rights, effects of regulations, the need
for additional facilities and potential market opportunities.
Our actual results may vary materially from those contained in
such forward-looking statements because of risks to which we are
subject, including uncertainty as to whether the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) will permit us to proceed to
clinical testing of proposed products despite the novel and
unproven nature of our technology; the risk that, even if
approved, our initial clinical trial could be substantially
delayed beyond its expected dates or cause us to incur
substantial unanticipated costs; uncertainties regarding our
ability to obtain the capital resources needed to continue our
current research and development operations and to conduct the
research, preclinical development and clinical trials necessary
for regulatory approvals; failure to obtain a corporate partner
or partners to support the development of our stem cell
programs; the uncertainty regarding the outcome of the
Phase I clinical trial and any other trials we may conduct
in the future; the uncertainty regarding the validity and
enforceability of issued patents; the uncertainty whether any
products that may be generated in our stem cell programs will
prove clinically effective and not cause tumors or other side
effects; the uncertainty whether we will achieve revenues from
product sales or become profitable; uncertainties regarding our
obligations in regard to our former encapsulated cell therapy
facilities in Rhode Island; obsolescence of our technology;
competition from third parties; intellectual property rights of
third parties; litigation and other risks to which we are
subject. See Risk Factors under Item 1A above.
Overview
Since our inception in 1988, we have been primarily engaged in
research and development of human therapeutic products. Since
the second half of 1999, our sole focus has been on our stem
cell technology. In October 2005, we received clearance from the
FDA to initiate a Phase I clinical trial of our human
neural stem cells as a treatment for the infantile and late
infantile forms of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL), a rare,
fatal neurodegenerative disease often referred to as Batten
disease. In March 2006, we received approval from the
Institutional Review Board of the Oregon Health &
Science University (OHSU) to conduct the Phase I trial at
Doernbecher Childrens Hospital at OHSU in Portland,
Oregon. This IND is the first in a planned series of INDs for
CNS diseases or conditions.
We have not derived any revenues from the sale of any products
apart from license revenue for the research use of our human
neural stem cells and other patented cells and media, and we do
not expect to receive revenues from product sales for at least
several years. We have not commercialized any product and in
order to do so we must, among other things, substantially
increase our research and development expenditures as research
and product development efforts accelerate and clinical trials
are initiated. We had expenditures for toxicology and other
studies in preparation for submitting the Batten disease IND to
the FDA and getting it cleared by the FDA, and will incur more
such expenditures for any future INDs. We have incurred annual
operating losses since inception and expect to incur substantial
operating losses in the future. As a result, we are dependent
upon external financing from equity and debt offerings and
revenues from collaborative research arrangements with corporate
sponsors to finance our operations. We have no such
collaborative research arrangements at this time and there can
be no assurance that such financing or partnering revenues will
be available when needed or on terms acceptable to us.
In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with ReNeuron
Limited, a UK biotech corporation, under which we granted
ReNeuron a license that allows ReNeuron to exploit their
c-mycER conditionally immortalized adult human
neural stem cell technology for therapy and other purposes. In
return for the license, we received a 7.5% fully-diluted equity
interest in ReNeuron Group plc, the listed UK parent corporation
of ReNeuron Limited, and a
33
cross-license to the exclusive use of their technology for
certain diseases and conditions. See License and
Settlement Agreement below.
In September 2005, we transferred the listing of our shares to
the NASDAQ National Market from the NASDAQ Capital Market
(formerly known as the Small Cap Market), and in October 2005,
we filed a shelf registration statement on
Form S-3
for up to $100 million in common stock. See Liquidity
and Capital Resources below.
Also in September 2005, our collaborators, Drs. Aileen J.
Anderson and Brian J. Cummings of the Reeve-Irvine Center at the
University of California-Irvine published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America (PNAS) the first study to show a direct
link between transplanted human neural stem cells and
restoration of motor function in spinal cord injured mice. This
research, which used our human neural stem cells, was funded in
part by a multi-year grant awarded in 2004 by the NIH. See
Note 7, Grants, in the consolidated financial statements.
Our results of operations have varied significantly from year to
year and quarter to quarter and may vary significantly in the
future due to the occurrence of material recurring and
nonrecurring events, including without limitation the receipt
and payment of recurring and nonrecurring licensing payments,
the initiation or termination of research collaborations, the
on-going expenses to lease and maintain our facilities in Rhode
Island and the increasing costs associated with our facility in
California. To expand and provide high quality systems and
support to our research and development programs, as well as to
enhance our internal controls over financial reporting, we will
need to hire more personnel, which will lead to higher operating
expenses. In 2005 and early 2006, we made several key additions
to our management team, including our Chief Medical Officer; our
Chief Financial Officer; our Director, Cell Processing; our
Director, Human Resources and our Director, Liver Cell
Transplant Program.
Our program in neural stem and progenitor cells ranges from the
preclinical stage, in which we test human neural stem cells in
small animal models of human diseases, both in-house and through
external academic collaborators, through the development phase,
in which we evaluate improvements to expansion methods and the
toxicology of the cells, and through the clinical development
phase, with respect to the planned clinical trial in Batten
disease mentioned above. In our liver program, we are engaged in
evaluating our proprietary liver engrafting cell in various
in vivo assays, and are planning to advance our liver
program into product development as rapidly as we can. Our
pancreas program is still in the discovery stage and further
evaluation of the therapeutic potential of the candidate human
pancreatic stem/progenitor cell will be required.
Critical
Accounting Policies
We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our
more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation
of our consolidated financial statements:
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America requires our management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in
the consolidated financial statements. Actual results could
differ from these estimates. The significant estimates are the
accrued wind-down expenses (Note 8) and valuation
allowance against net deferred tax assets. See Note 8 and
Note 12 in the consolidated financial statements.
Stock-Based
Compensation
As permitted by the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 148, Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation Transition and
Disclosure, and SFAS No. 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, our
employee stock option plan is accounted for under Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 25 (APB 25),
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. We
grant qualified stock options for a fixed number of shares to
employees with an exercise price equal to the fair market value
of the shares at the date of grant. In these circumstances and
in accordance with APB 25, we recognize no compensation
expense for qualified stock option grants. We also issue
non-qualified stock options for a fixed number of shares to
employees with an exercise price
34
less than the fair market value of the shares at the date of
grant. When such options vest, we recognize the difference
between the exercise price and fair market value at date of
grant as compensation expense in accordance with APB 25.
We account for certain stock options granted to non-employees in
accordance with FAS No. 123 and Emerging Issues Task
Force (EITF) 96-18, Accounting for equity instruments
that are issued to other than employees for acquiring, or in
conjunction with selling, goods or services, and
accordingly, recognize as expense the estimated fair value of
such options as calculated using the Black-Scholes valuation
model, a methodology allowed by FAS No. 123. The
calculated value is re-measured during the service period, and
the cost is amortized over the vesting period of each option or
the recipients contractual arrangement, if shorter.
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123R (revised
2004), Share-Based Payments. This Statement
is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation. This Statement supersedes
APB 25 and its related implementation guidance. Upon the
adoption of SFAS No. 123R we will be required to
expense stock options using a fair-value method in our Statement
of Operations. We will be required to apply
SFAS No. 123R as of the first annual reporting period
starting on or after June 15, 2005, which is our first
quarter beginning January 1, 2006. Adoption of the
expensing requirements will increase our net loss. See
Stock-based Compensation in Note 1 for
disclosures regarding the effect on net earnings and earnings
per share if we had applied the fair value recognition
provisions of SFAS No. 123R. Upon adoption, we intend
to use the modified prospective method. Under this method,
compensation cost is recognized beginning with the effective
date of adoption (a) based on the requirements of
SFAS 123R for all share-based payments granted after the
effective date of adoption and (b) based on the
requirements of SFAS 123R for all awards granted to
employees prior to the effective date of adoption that remain
unvested on the date of adoption. We currently utilize the
Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value.
The Black-Scholes model meets the requirements of SFAS 123R
but the fair values generated by the model may not be indicative
of the actual fair values of our stock-based awards. Although
StemCells has not yet determined whether the adoption of
SFAS 123R will result in amounts that are similar to the
current pro forma disclosures under SFAS 123, it believes
the adoption will have a material negative impact on the
Companys operating results.
Long-Lived
Assets
We routinely evaluate the carrying value of our long-lived
assets. We record impairment losses on long-lived assets used in
operations when events and circumstances indicate that assets
may be impaired and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be
generated by the assets are less than the carrying amount of
those assets. If an impairment exists, the charge to operations
is measured as the excess of the carrying amount over the fair
value of the assets.
Wind-down
and Exit Costs
In connection with our wind-down of our Encapsulated Cell
Therapy (ECT) operations, our research and manufacturing
operations in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the relocation of our
remaining research and development activities and corporate
headquarters to California in October 1999, we have provided our
estimate of the exit cost obligation in accordance with
EITF 94-3,
Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination
Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (Including Certain
Costs Incurred in a Restructuring). On an ongoing
basis we re-evaluate such estimate. For further discussion, see
Wind-down expenses under Results of
Operations below, and Note 8 to the consolidated
financial statements.
35
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Years
Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
Revenues
Revenues totaled approximately $206,000, $141,000, and $273,000
for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Year: 2005
|
|
|
Previous Year: 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versus 2004
|
|
|
Versus 2003
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from licensing revenue
|
|
$
|
19,526
|
|
|
$
|
22,206
|
|
|
$
|
18,307
|
|
|
$
|
(2,680
|
)
|
|
|
(12
|
)%
|
|
$
|
3,899
|
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
Revenue from grants
|
|
|
186,388
|
|
|
|
118,828
|
|
|
|
255,123
|
|
|
|
67,560
|
|
|
|
57
|
%
|
|
|
(136,295
|
)
|
|
|
(53
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
205,914
|
|
|
$
|
141,034
|
|
|
$
|
273,430
|
|
|
$
|
64,880
|
|
|
|
46
|
%
|
|
$
|
(132,396
|
)
|
|
|
(48
|
)%
|
Revenues for 2005 include $186,000 that is part of a Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grant received in 2004 for
approximately $464,000 over one and one half years for studies
in Alzheimers disease. The STTR grant will support joint
work with the McLaughlin Research Institute (MRI) in Great
Falls, Montana. We will retain $243,000 and the remaining
$221,000 will be disbursed to MRI. Revenues for 2004 include
$93,000 that completed the draw down of a one-year Small
Business Innovation Research grant of $342,000 from the National
Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke (NINDS) received at
the end of 2003, and $26,000 which is part of the STTR grant
received in 2004. Total revenue includes licensing revenue of
$20,000 and $23,000 for 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Revenues for 2003 include $143,000, which was part of the
$342,000 NINDS grant and $112,000 from the grant awarded by the
National Institute of Diabetes &
Digestive & Kidney Disorders (NIDDKD) of the National
Institutes of Health. In addition, revenues for 2003 include
$18,000 in licensing revenue. The decrease from 2003 to 2004 was
primarily attributable to the NIDDKD grant, for which we drew
down $112,000 in 2003. Subsequent to 2003, we have not, and
shall not, draw further funds from the grant since we are no
longer pursuing the particular research that the grant covered.
The decrease was also attributable to the completed draw down of
the $342,000 NINDS grant. The draw down was $143,000 in 2003 and
$93,000 in 2004. The remaining $106,000 was paid to a
subcontractor.
Operating
Expenses
Operating expenses totaled approximately $16,594,000,
$15,541,000, and $12,420,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 Versus 2004
|
|
|
2004 Versus 2003
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
$
|
8,929,282
|
|
|
$
|
8,760,431
|
|
|
$
|
6,143,676
|
|
|
$
|
168,851
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,616,755
|
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
General & Administrative
|
|
|
4,837,297
|
|
|
|
3,953,564
|
|
|
|
3,390,652
|
|
|
|
883,733
|
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
562,912
|
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Wind-down expenses
|
|
|
2,827,403
|
|
|
|
2,826,879
|
|
|
|
2,885,329
|
|
|
|
524
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
(58,450
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expense
|
|
$
|
16,593,982
|
|
|
$
|
15,540,874
|
|
|
$
|
12,419,657
|
|
|
$
|
1,053,108
|
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,121,217
|
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Research &
Development Expenses
Research and development expenses totaled approximately
$8,929,000 in 2005, as compared to $8,760,000 in 2004 and
$6,144,000 in 2003.
36
2005 versus 2004. The increase of
$169,000 or 2% from 2004 to 2005 was primarily attributable to
increased head count and related costs of $848,000 in 2005 as
compared to 2004. At December 31, 2005, we had thirty-three
full-time employees working in research and development and
laboratory support services as compared to twenty-eight at
December 31, 2004. This increase in 2005 was partially
offset by a net decrease in expenses of $679,000 primarily
related to external services. We required a high level of
external services in 2004 for preclinical pharmacology and
toxicology studies and other external services in preparation
for submitting our first IND to the FDA. The decrease in
expenses related to external services was also attributable to a
decrease in valuation in 2005 of stock options granted as
compensation to non-employees as compared to the valuation in
2004. The valuation computed by the Black
Scholes Method is dependant on variable factors
at the time of such valuation such as stock price, stock price
volatility, interest rate and remaining life of the option. Our
stock price at December 31, 2005 was $3.45 as compared to
$4.23 at December 31, 2004.
2004 versus 2003. The increase of
$2,616,000 or 43% from 2003 to 2004 was primarily due to the
expenditures required for preclinical pharmacology and
toxicology studies, supplies, personnel and other external
services in preparation for submitting our first IND to the FDA.
The increase was also attributable to a higher valuation in 2004
of stock options granted as compensation to non-employees as
compared to the valuation in 2003. The
valuation computed by the Black Scholes
Method is dependant on variable factors at the
time of such valuation such as stock price, stock price
volatility, interest rate and remaining life of the option. Our
stock price at December 31, 2004 was $4.23 as compared to
$1.98 at December 31, 2003. In addition, the increase
reflects higher patent fees and costs than incurred in the same
period in 2003. At December 31, 2004, we had twenty-eight
full-time employees working in research and development and
laboratory support services as compared to twenty-one at
December 31, 2003.
General &
Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses were approximately
$4,837,000 in 2005, compared with $3,954,000 in 2004 and
$3,391,000 in 2003.
2005 versus 2004. The increase of
$884,000 or 22% from 2004 to 2005 was primarily attributable to
expensing the fair value of stock options granted to our
previous chief financial officer, which was approximately
$457,000. The vesting of the options was accelerated as part of
an agreement that retained our previous chief financial officer
as a consultant for approximately six months following her
employment termination date. The increase was also attributable
to the increase in head count and related costs of approximately
$394,000; increase in recruiting fees of approximately $145,000;
and the increase in listing fees of approximately $114,000
incurred in 2005 for moving the listing of our shares from the
Nasdaq Capital Market to the Nasdaq National Market. The
aforementioned increases were partially offset by a decrease in
2005 of approximately $186,000 for external services to evaluate
and test our internal financial control systems so as to meet
the requirements of and be in compliance with the Securities and
Exchange Commission rules issued under Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and a net decrease of approximately $40,000
in other expenses.
2004 versus 2003. The increase of
$563,000 or 17% from 2003 to 2004 was primarily attributable to
the cost of external services incurred in the evaluation and
testing of our internal financial control systems so as to meet
the requirements of and be in compliance with the new Securities
and Exchange Commission rules issued under Section 404 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The increase in general and
administrative expenses was also attributable to the separate
printing of our proxy statement and our
Form 10-K
and the effect of a greater number of shareholders in 2004 when
compared to 2003. In addition, we incurred an increase in the
external auditor fees in the first quarter of 2004 as a result
of the restatement of our prior year financial statements.
Wind-Down
Expenses
In connection with the wind-down of our former encapsulated cell
technology operations, our research and manufacturing operations
in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the relocation of our remaining
research and development activities and corporate headquarters
to California in October 1999, we provided a reserve for our
estimate of the exit cost obligation in accordance with
EITF 94-3,
Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination
Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (Including Certain
Costs Incurred in a Restructuring. The reserve
37
reflects estimates of the ongoing costs of our former research
and administrative facility in Lincoln, which we hold on a lease
that terminates on June 30, 2013. We are seeking to
sublease, assign, sell or otherwise divest ourselves of our
interest in the facility at the earliest possible time, but we
cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such
events will occur, if at all.
In determining the facility exit cost reserve amount, we are
required to consider our lease payments through to the end of
the lease term and estimate other relevant factors such as
facility operating expenses, real estate market conditions in
Rhode Island for similar facilities, occupancy rates and
sublease rental rates projected over the course of the
leasehold. We re-evaluate the estimate each quarter, taking
account of changes, if any, in each underlying factor. The
process is inherently subjective because it involves projections
over time from the date of the estimate through
the end of the lease and it is not possible to
determine any of the factors except the lease payments with
certainty over that period.
Our management forms its best estimate on a quarterly basis,
after considering actual sublease activity, reports from our
broker/realtor about current and predicted real estate market
conditions in Rhode Island, the likelihood of new subleases in
the foreseeable future for the specific facility and significant
changes in the actual or projected operating expenses of the
property. We discount the projected net outflow over the term of
the leasehold to arrive at the present value and adjust the
reserve to that figure. The estimated vacancy rate for the
facility is an important assumption in determining the reserve
because changes in this assumption have the greatest effect on
estimated sublease income. In addition, the vacancy rate
estimate is the variable most subject to change, while at the
same time it involves the greatest judgment and uncertainty due
to the absence of highly predictive information concerning the
future of the local economy and future demand for specialized
laboratory and office space in that area. The average vacancy
rate of the facility for years 2001 through 2005 was
approximately 64%, varying from 49% to 80%. The actual rate in
2005 was 62%. As of December 31, 2005, based on current
information available to management, the vacancy rate is
projected to be 84% for 2006, 86% for 2007, and approximately
70% from 2008 through the end of the lease. These estimates are
based on actual occupancy in 2005, expiration of subleases in
2006 and 2008, predicted lead time for acquiring new subtenants,
historical vacancy rates for the area and assessments by our
broker/realtor of future real estate market conditions. If the
assumed vacancy rate for 2008 to the end of the lease had been
five percentage points higher at December 31, 2005, then
the reserve would have been increased by approximately $222,000;
conversely, if the assumed vacancy rate for that period were
five percentage points lower, then the reserve would have been
decreased by approximately $222,000. Similarly, a 5% increase or
decrease in the operating expenses for the facility from 2006
would have increased or decreased the reserve by approximately
$138,000, and a 5% increase or decrease in the assumed average
rental charge per square foot would have increased or decreased
the reserve by approximately $67,000. Our management does not
wait for specific events to change its estimate, but instead
uses its best efforts to anticipate them on a quarterly basis.
The wind-down reserve at the end of December 31, 2004 was
$4,350,000. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, we
recorded actual expenses of $1,079,000 against this reserve.
Based on managements evaluation of the factors mentioned,
and particularly the projected vacancy rates described above, we
adjusted the reserve to $6,098,000 by recording an additional
$2,827,000 during the fiscal year 2005. See Note 8 for a
breakdown of these figures by quarter.
38
Other
Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 Versus 2004
|
|
|
2004 Versus 2003
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License and settlement agreement
|
|
$
|
3,735,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,735,556
|
|
|
|
*N/M
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,122,963
|
|
|
$
|
322,227
|
|
|
$
|
38,826
|
|
|
|
800,736
|
|
|
|
249
|
%
|
|
$
|
283,401
|
|
|
|
730
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(171,909
|
)
|
|
|
(191,006
|
)
|
|
|
(207,112
|
)
|
|
|
19,097
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)%
|
|
|
16,106
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)%
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
(36,892
|
)
|
|
|
(61,680
|
)
|
|
|
23,761
|
|
|
|
24,788
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)%
|
|
|
(85,441
|
)
|
|
|
(360
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
$
|
4,649,718
|
|
|
$
|
69,541
|
|
|
$
|
(144,525
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,580,177
|
|
|
|
*N/M
|
|
|
$
|
214,066
|
|
|
|
148
|
%
|
License
and Settlement Agreement
In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with ReNeuron
Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of ReNeuron Group plc, a
listed UK corporation (collectively referred to as
ReNeuron). As part of the agreement, we granted
ReNeuron a license that allows ReNeuron to exploit their
c-mycER conditionally immortalized adult human
neural stem cell technology for therapy and other purposes. In
return for the license, we received a 7.5% fully-diluted equity
interest in ReNeuron, subject to certain anti-dilution
provisions, and a cross-license to the exclusive use of
ReNeurons technology for certain diseases and conditions,
including lysosomal storage diseases, spinal cord injury,
cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. The agreement also
provides for full settlement of any potential claims that either
we or ReNeuron might have had against the other in connection
with any putative infringement of certain of each partys
patent rights prior to the effective date of the agreement. The
agreement is Exhibit 10.71 to our Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005.
We recorded approximately $3,736,000 as other income in 2005,
which was the fair value of the ReNeuron shares net of legal
fees and the value of 104,000 shares that was transferred
to NeuroSpheres Ltd., an Alberta corporation from which we have
licensed some of the patent rights that are the subject of the
agreement with ReNeuron. See Note 2 for more details on
this transaction.
Interest
Income
Interest income for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004
and 2003 totaled approximately $1,123,000, $322,000 and $39,000,
respectively. The increase in interest income from 2003 to 2005
was primarily attributable to a higher average bank balance as a
result of our financing transactions in 2004 (See
Liquidity and Capital Resources below for further
detail on these transactions) and a higher yield on overnight
and money market funds.
Interest
Expense
In 2005, interest expense was $172,000, compared to $191,000 in
2004 and $207,000 in 2003. The decrease from 2003 to 2005 was
attributable to lower outstanding debt and capital lease
balances.
Other
Income/Expense, Net
Other expenses for 2005 include $36,000 in state franchise taxes
and $1,000 from a write-off of obsolete equipment. Other
expenses for 2004 include a loss of $56,000 resulting from a
write-off of obsolete lab equipment and $6,000 in state
franchise taxes. For 2003, other income net of other expenses
was $24,000, consisting of income received from the leasing of
equipment to subtenants and state franchise taxes paid.
39
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Since our inception, we have financed our operations through the
sale of common and preferred stock, the issuance of long-term
debt and capitalized lease obligations, revenues from
collaborative agreements, research grants and interest income.
We had cash and cash equivalents totaling $34,541,000 at
December 31, 2005. Cash equivalents are generally invested
in U.S. Treasuries with maturities of less than
90 days. The table below summarizes our cash flows for the
respective twelve month periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
Change from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
Previous Year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 Versus 2004
|
|
|
2004 Versus 2003
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating
activities
|
|
$
|
(11,870,568
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,273,908
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,543,196
|
)
|
|
$
|
(596,660
|
)
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
$
|
(2,730,712
|
)
|
|
|
32
|
%
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(847,505
|
)
|
|
|
(748,305
|
)
|
|
|
(189,733
|
)
|
|
|
(99,200
|
)
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
|
|
(558,572
|
)
|
|
|
(294
|
)%
|
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
6,199,450
|
|
|
|
40,000,042
|
|
|
|
17,578,265
|
|
|
|
(33,800,592
|
)
|
|
|
(85
|
)%
|
|
|
22,421,777
|
|
|
|
128
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
(6,518,623
|
)
|
|
$
|
27,977,829
|
|
|
$
|
8,845,336
|
|
|
$
|
(34,496,452
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)%
|
|
$
|
19,132,493
|
|
|
|
216
|
%
|
We used approximately $11,871,000, $11,274,000, and $8,543,000
of cash, in 2005, 2004 and 2003 respectively, in our operating
activities. The increase in cash used in 2005 in comparison to
2004 was primarily attributable to an increase in head count to
strengthen our scientific and management team. The increase in
cash used in 2004 in comparison to 2003, was primarily
attributable to the expenses incurred in preparing to submit our
first IND to the FDA for a clinical trial of our human neural
stem cells as a treatment for Batten disease.
In 2005, an aggregate of 2,958,348 warrants were exercised. For
the exercise of these warrants, we issued 2,842,625 shares
of our common stock and received proceeds of approximately
$5,939,000.
Listed below are key financing transactions entered into by us
in the last three years:
|
|
|
|
|
On October 26, 2004, we entered into an agreement with
institutional investors with respect to the registered direct
placement of 7,500,000 shares of our common stock at a
purchase price of $3.00 per share, for gross proceeds of
$22,500,000. Unterberg and Shoreline Pacific, LLC (Shoreline)
served as placement agents for the transaction. We sold these
shares under a shelf registration statement previously filed
with and declared effective by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. For acting as our placement agent Unterberg
and Shoreline received fees of approximately $1,350,000 and
expense reimbursement of approximately $40,000. No warrants were
issued as part of this financing transaction.
|
|
|
|
On June 16, 2004, we entered into an agreement with
institutional and other accredited investors with respect to the
private placement of approximately 13,160,000 shares of our
common stock at a purchase price of $1.52 per share, for
gross proceeds of approximately $20,000,000. Investors also
received warrants exercisable for five years to purchase
approximately 3,290,000 shares of common stock at an
exercise price of $1.90 per share. During the period
October 2004 to December 2005, part of these warrants were
exercised to purchase an aggregate of 1,459,342 shares of
our common stock at $1.90 per share. We received proceeds
of $2,772,750 on issuance of the shares. C.E. Unterberg, Towbin
LLC (Unterberg) served as placement agent for the private
placement. For acting as our placement agent, Unterberg received
fees of approximately $1,200,000, expense reimbursement of
approximately $25,000 and a five year warrant to purchase
526,400 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of
$1.89 per share.
|
|
|
|
On December 10, 2003 we completed a $9.5 million
financing transaction with Riverview Group L.L.C. (Riverview),
through the sale of 5 million shares of common stock at a
price of $1.90 per share. The closing price of our common
stock on that date was $2.00 per share.
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
On May 7, 2003, we entered into a stock purchase agreement
with Riverview, under which Riverview agreed to purchase
4 million shares of our common stock for $6.5 million,
or $1.625 per share. On the date of the agreement, the sale
price was above the trading price of our common stock, which
closed at $1.43 per share on that date. We also agreed to
issue a
2-year
warrant to Riverview to purchase 1,898,000 shares of common
stock at $1.50 per share. The exercise price is subject to
adjustment for stock splits, dividends, distributions,
reclassifications and similar events. On May 15, 2003 we
issued the purchased shares and the warrant, and registered the
resale of the purchased shares and the shares underlying the
warrant. The exercise price may be below the trading market
price at the time of the exercise. In the event that certain
conditions are met, including the closing sale price per share
of our common stock remaining at or above $2.50 per share
for 10 consecutive trading days, we may require Riverview to
exercise the warrant for any remaining shares or to relinquish
any unexercised portion. On November 11, 2003 and
May 6, 2005, Riverview exercised the warrant acquiring
1,098,000 shares and 800,000 shares respectively at
$1.50 per share. The total proceeds to us from this warrant
exercise were $2,847,000.
|
We continue to have outstanding obligations in regard to our
former facilities in Lincoln, Rhode Island. In 1997, we had
entered into a fifteen-year lease for a scientific and
administrative facility (the SAF) in a sale and leaseback
arrangement. The lease includes escalating rent payments. For
the year 2006, we expect to pay $938,000 as an operating lease
payment and in addition, based on our 2005 expenses,
approximately $490,000 as operating expenses. In 1992 and 1994
we had undertaken direct financing transactions with the State
of Rhode Island and received proceeds from the issuance of
industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to finance the
construction of a pilot manufacturing facility and a related
cell processing facility. The related leases are structured such
that lease payments will fully fund all semiannual interest
payments and annual principal payments through maturity in
August 2014. For these related facilities we expect to pay
approximately $432,000 in principal, interest and related
expenses in 2006. In addition based on 2005 expenses we expect
to incur approximately $20,000 in expenses common to both
facilities such as property management and legal fees. We have
subleased the pilot manufacturing facility and the cell
processing facility, as well as a portion (approximately
one-fourth) of the SAF. We expect to receive, in aggregate,
approximately $686,000 in sub-tenant rent for all of the Rhode
Island facilities. As a result of the above transactions, our
estimated cash outlay net of sub-tenant rent for the Rhode
Island facilities will be approximately $1,194,000 for 2006. We
are actively seeking to sublease, assign or sell our remaining
interests in these facilities. Failure to do so within a
reasonable period of time will have a material adverse effect on
our liquidity and capital resources.
The following table summarizes our future contractual cash
obligations (including both Rhode Island and California leases,
but excluding interest income and sub-lease income with respect
to the Rhode Island properties):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
|
at 12/31/05
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011 and Beyond
|
|
|
Capital lease payments
(principal & interest)
|
|
$
|
2,381,739
|
|
|
$
|
460,100
|
|
|
$
|
332,545
|
|
|
$
|
244,531
|
|
|
$
|
244,572
|
|
|
$
|
242,560
|
|
|
$
|
857,431
|
|
Operating lease payments
|
|
|
17,846,427
|
|
|
|
2,831,929
|
|
|
|
3,165,162
|
|
|
|
3,469,017
|
|
|
|
3,536,843
|
|
|
|
1,767,304
|
|
|
|
3,076,172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash obligations
|
|
$
|
20,228,166
|
|
|
$
|
3,292,029
|
|
|
$
|
3,497,707
|
|
|
$
|
3,713,548
|
|
|
$
|
3,781,415
|
|
|
$
|
2,009,864
|
|
|
$
|
3,933,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash
flows since inception. We have not achieved profitability and
may not be able to realize sufficient revenues to achieve or
sustain profitability in the future. We do not expect to be
profitable in the next several years, but rather expect to incur
additional operating losses. We have limited liquidity and
capital resources and must obtain significant additional capital
resources in order to sustain our product development efforts,
for acquisition of technologies and intellectual property
rights, for preclinical and clinical testing of our anticipated
products, pursuit of regulatory approvals, acquisition of
capital equipment, laboratory and office facilities,
establishment of production capabilities, for general and
administrative expenses and other working capital requirements.
We rely on cash balances and proceeds from equity and debt
offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of our
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or
investments, and government grants and funding from
collaborative arrangements, if obtainable, to fund our
operations.
41
We intend to pursue opportunities to obtain additional financing
in the future through equity and debt financings, grants and
collaborative research arrangements. We have a shelf
registration covering shares of our common stock up to a value
of $100 million that could be available for financings. The
source, timing and availability of any future financing will
depend principally upon market conditions, interest rates and,
more specifically, on our progress in our exploratory,
preclinical and future clinical development programs. Funding
may not be available when needed at all, or on
terms acceptable to us. Lack of necessary funds may require us
to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our research
and product development programs, planned clinical trials,
and/or our
capital expenditures or to license our potential products or
technologies to third parties.
Off-Balance
Sheet Transactions
With the exception of operating leases for facilities, we have
not entered into any off balance sheet financial arrangements
and have not established any special purpose entities. We have
not guaranteed any debts or commitments of other entities or
entered into any options on non-financial assets.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123R (revised
2004), Share-Based Payments. This Statement
is a revision of SFAS 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation. This Statement supersedes
APB 25, and its related implementation guidance. Upon the
adoption of SFAS No. 123R we will be required to expense
stock options using a fair-value method in our Statement of
Operations. We will be required to apply SFAS No. 123R as
of the first annual reporting period starting on or after
June 15, 2005, which is our first quarter beginning
January 1, 2006. Adoption of the expensing requirements
will increase our net loss. See Stock-based
Compensation in Note 1 for disclosures regarding the
effect on net earnings and earnings per share if we had applied
the fair value recognition provisions of SAFS No. 123R.
Upon adoption, we intend to use the modified prospective method.
Under this method, compensation cost is recognized beginning
with the effective date of adoption (a) based on the
requirements of SFAS 123R for all share-based payments
granted after the effective date of adoption and (b) based
on the requirements of SFAS 123R for all awards granted to
employees prior to the effective date of adoption that remain
unvested on the date of adoption. We currently utilize the
Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value.
The Black-Scholes model meets the requirements of SFAS 123R
but the fair values generated by the model may not be indicative
of the actual fair values of our stock-based awards. Although
StemCells has not yet determined whether the adoption of SFAS
123R will result in amounts that are similar to the current pro
forma disclosures under SFAS 123, it believes the adoption will
have a material negative impact on our operating results.
Accounting
for Changes and Error Corrections
In June 2005, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections
(SFAS 154). SFAS 154 replaces APB Opinion
No. 20, Accounting Changes and
SFAS No. 3, Reporting Accounting Changes in
Interim Financial Statements. SFAS 154 requires
that a voluntary change in accounting principle be applied
retrospectively with all prior period financial statements
presented on the new accounting principle. SFAS 154 also
requires that a change in method of depreciating or amortizing a
long-lived non-financial asset be accounted for prospectively as
a change in estimate, and correction of errors in previously
issued financial statements should be termed a restatement.
SFAS 154 is effective for accounting changes and correction
of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2005. The implementation of FAS 154 is not expected to have
a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
42
|
|
ITEM 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with ReNeuron. As
part of the agreement, we granted ReNeuron a license that allows
ReNeuron to exploit its c-mycER conditionally
immortalized adult human neural stem cell technology for therapy
and other purposes. In return for the license, we received a
7.5% fully-diluted equity interest in ReNeuron, subject to
certain anti-dilution provisions, and a cross-license to the
exclusive use of ReNeurons technology for certain diseases
and conditions, including lysosomal storage diseases, spinal
cord injury, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. The
agreement also provides for full settlement of any potential
claims that either StemCells or ReNeuron might have had against
the other in connection with any putative infringement of
certain of each partys patent rights prior to the
effective date of the agreement. The agreement is
Exhibit 10.71 to our Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. On August 22,
2005, we received 3,774,493 shares of ReNeuron,
representing 7.5% of its fully-diluted share capital. On
August 12, 2005 ReNeuron listed its shares on the London
Stock Exchanges Alternative Investment Market
(AIM), a market for smaller, growing companies. As
provided for under the agreement, the placement and listing of
additional shares by ReNeuron resulted in StemCells
receiving an additional 5,165,000 shares. Approximately
104,000 shares of ReNeuron were transferred to NeuroSpheres
LTD., an Alberta corporation from which StemCells has licensed
some of the patent rights that are the subject of the agreement
with ReNeuron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share Price at
|
|
|
Rate at
|
|
|
Market Value
|
|
|
Expected
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Shares
|
|
|
December
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
in USD at
|
|
|
Future
|
|
Company/Stock
|
|
|
|
Associated
|
|
at December 31,
|
|
|
31,2005 in
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
Symbol
|
|
Exchange
|
|
Risks
|
|
2005
|
|
|
GBP (£)
|
|
|
1 GBP = USD
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Flows
|
|
|
ReNeuron Group plc/RENE
|
|
AIM (AIM is
the London Stock
Exchanges
Alternative
Investment Market)
|
|
Lower share price
Foreign currencytranslation
Liquidity
Bankruptcy
|
|
|
8,835,629
|
|
|
|
0.245
|
|
|
|
1.7188
|
|
|
$
|
3,720,794
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have not formally adopted a liquidation plan for this
investment. Liquidation may be necessary in the future to meet
operating cash flow requirements. Although we are not legally
restricted from selling the stock, the share price is subject to
change and the volume traded has been very small since the stock
was listed on the AIM on August 12, 2005. The performance
of ReNeuron Group plc stock since its listing does not predict
its future value. |
43
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Board of Directors and Stockholders
StemCells, Inc.
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2005, that the
Company maintained effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Companys management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on managements assessment, and an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit 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 effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit of internal control included obtaining an
understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
evaluating managements assessment, testing and evaluating
the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
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.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2005, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO). Furthermore, in our opinion, the
Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,
based on Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO).
We do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on
managements statements with respect to their remediation
actions.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of StemCells Inc. as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in redeemable convertible
preferred stock and stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2005 and our report dated March 3, 2006
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
San Jose, CA
March 3, 2006
44
|
|
ITEM 8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
STEMCELLS,
INC.
INDEX TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
45
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Stockholders
StemCells, Inc.
We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of StemCells
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2005. These financial statements are the
responsibility of 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 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, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of StemCells Inc. as of December 31,
2005 and 2004, and the consolidated results of their operations
and their consolidated cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2005, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
We also have audited, in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of StemCells Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on
criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission, and our report dated March 3, 2006, expressed
an unqualified opinion on managements assessment of, and
an unqualified opinion on the effective operation of, internal
control over financial reporting.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
San Jose, California
March 3, 2006
46
StemCells,
Inc.
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
34,540,908
|
|
|
$
|
41,059,532
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
201,919
|
|
|
|
180,963
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
386,966
|
|
|
|
209,074
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
35,129,793
|
|
|
|
41,449,569
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
3,720,794
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
3,282,588
|
|
|
|
3,424,294
|
|
Other assets, net
|
|
|
2,705,513
|
|
|
|
2,753,419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
44,838,688
|
|
|
$
|
47,627,282
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
637,122
|
|
|
$
|
524,917
|
|
Accrued expenses and other
|
|
|
1,483,300
|
|
|
|
1,547,370
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses
|
|
|
1,118,796
|
|
|
|
1,013,460
|
|
Capital lease obligations, current
portion
|
|
|
54,676
|
|
|
|
52,843
|
|
Bonds payable, current portion
|
|
|
254,167
|
|
|
|
244,167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
3,548,061
|
|
|
|
3,382,757
|
|
Capital lease obligations, less
current maturities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,065
|
|
Bonds payable, less current
maturities
|
|
|
1,351,250
|
|
|
|
1,605,417
|
|
Deposits and other long-term
liabilities
|
|
|
522,866
|
|
|
|
610,126
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses non
current
|
|
|
6,186,930
|
|
|
|
4,514,569
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
853,997
|
|
|
|
523,801
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
12,463,104
|
|
|
|
10,677,735
|
|
Commitments (Note 6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $.01 par value;
125,000,000 and 75,000,000 shares authorized; 65,396,022
and 62,129,407 shares issued and outstanding at
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively
|
|
|
653,960
|
|
|
|
621,294
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
217,919,336
|
|
|
|
211,419,299
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(185,943,565
|
)
|
|
|
(174,205,214
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
(254,147
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(885,832
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
32,375,584
|
|
|
|
36,949,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
44,838,688
|
|
|
$
|
47,627,282
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
47
StemCells,
Inc.
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Revenue from collaborative and
licensing agreements
|
|
$
|
19,526
|
|
|
$
|
22,206
|
|
|
$
|
18,307
|
|
Revenue from grants
|
|
|
186,388
|
|
|
|
118,828
|
|
|
|
255,123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
|
|
205,914
|
|
|
|
141,034
|
|
|
|
273,430
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
8,929,282
|
|
|
|
8,760,431
|
|
|
|
6,143,676
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
4,837,297
|
|
|
|
3,953,564
|
|
|
|
3,390,652
|
|
Encapsulated Cell Therapy
wind-down and corporate relocation
|
|
|
2,827,403
|
|
|
|
2,826,879
|
|
|
|
2,885,329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,593,982
|
|
|
|
15,540,874
|
|
|
|
12,419,657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations
|
|
|
(16,388,068
|
)
|
|
|
(15,399,840
|
)
|
|
|
(12,146,227
|
)
|
Other Income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License and settlement agreement,
net
|
|
|
3,735,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,122,963
|
|
|
|
322,227
|
|
|
|
38,826
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(171,909
|
)
|
|
|
(191,006
|
)
|
|
|
(207,112
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
(36,892
|
)
|
|
|
(61,680
|
)
|
|
|
23,761
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,649,718
|
|
|
|
69,541
|
|
|
|
(144,525
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before deemed dividend
|
|
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
|
(12,290,752
|
)
|
Dividends to preferred stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(68,497
|
)
|
Deemed dividend to preferred
stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,065,911
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14,425,160
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per
share applicable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.45
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares used in
basic and diluted loss per share calculations
|
|
|
63,643,176
|
|
|
|
49,606,277
|
|
|
|
32,080,233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
48
STEMCELLS,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN REDEEMABLE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable Convertible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2002
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,659,686
|
|
|
|
26,860,078
|
|
|
$
|
268,601
|
|
|
$
|
149,238,207
|
|
|
$
|
(146,515,666
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,057,773
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,933,369
|
|
Issuance of common stock related to
equity financing net of issuance costs of $310,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,303,988
|
|
|
|
93,040
|
|
|
|
16,037,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,130,347
|
|
Dividends paid to 3% convertible
preferred holders in stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,809
|
|
|
|
498
|
|
|
|
68,000
|
|
|
|
(68,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accretion of redeemable convertible
preferred stock and beneficial conversion feature
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,065,911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,065,911
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,065,911
|
)
|
Conversion of redeemable
convertible preferred shares to common stock
|
|
|
(4,000
|
)
|
|
|
(4,725,597
|
)
|
|
|
3,500,000
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,725,597
|
|
Common stock issued for external
services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,180
|
|
|
|
982
|
|
|
|
296,821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
297,803
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to
employee benefit plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,425
|
|
|
|
494
|
|
|
|
61,769
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,263
|
|
Exercise of warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,098,000
|
|
|
|
10,980
|
|
|
|
1,636,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,647,000
|
|
Exercise of employee and consultant
stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,378
|
|
|
|
394
|
|
|
|
29,692
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,086
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of
options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242,548
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(171,343
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred
compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251,208
|
|
|
|
251,208
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,290,752
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(12,290,752
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,998,858
|
|
|
$
|
409,989
|
|
|
$
|
170,406,393
|
|
|
$
|
(158,874,916
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(977,908
|
)
|
|
$
|
10,963,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock related to
equity financing net of issuance cost of $2,863,021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,660,000
|
|
|
|
206,600
|
|
|
|
39,433,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,640,178
|
|
Common stock issued for licensing
agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,351
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
17,719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,833
|
|
Common stock issued for external
services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,050
|
|
|
|
410
|
|
|
|
72,640
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,050
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to
employee benefit plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,707
|
|
|
|
487
|
|
|
|
93,526
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94,013
|
|
Exercise of employee and consultant
stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,916
|
|
|
|
629
|
|
|
|
44,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,379
|
|
Exercise of warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306,525
|
|
|
|
3,065
|
|
|
|
579,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
582,398
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of
options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,868
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,868
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
737,493
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(737,493
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred
compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
829,569
|
|
|
|
829,569
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,129,407
|
|
|
$
|
621,294
|
|
|
$
|
211,419,300
|
|
|
$
|
(174,205,215
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(885,832
|
)
|
|
$
|
36,949,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses related to equity financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(193,946
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(193,946
|
)
|
Common stock issued for external
services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,022
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
8,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,330
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to
employee benefit plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,459
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
110,772
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111,057
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of
options and stock (fair value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
461,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
461,675
|
|
Exercise of employee and consultant
stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
393,509
|
|
|
|
3,935
|
|
|
|
733,753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
737,688
|
|
Exercise of warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,842,625
|
|
|
|
28,426
|
|
|
|
5,910,680
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,939,106
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(531,208
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531,208
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred
compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354,624
|
|
|
|
354,624
|
|
Unrealized loss on marketable
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(254,147
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(254,147
|
)
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,992,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,396,022
|
|
|
$
|
653,960
|
|
|
$
|
217,919,336
|
|
|
$
|
(185,943,565
|
)
|
|
$
|
(254,147
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
32,375,584
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
49
StemCells,
Inc.
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before deemed dividend
|
|
$
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,290,752
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss
to net cash used in operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,082,793
|
|
|
|
1,037,719
|
|
|
|
1,013,133
|
|
Amortization of deferred
compensation
|
|
|
354,624
|
|
|
|
829,569
|
|
|
|
251,208
|
|
Issue of shares and options in
exchange for services
|
|
|
581,062
|
|
|
|
200,931
|
|
|
|
602,613
|
|
Loss on disposal of fixed assets
|
|
|
1,377
|
|
|
|
54,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from license and settlement
agreement
|
|
|
(3,974,941
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and
liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued interest receivable
|
|
|
(47,928
|
)
|
|
|
(61,660
|
)
|
|
|
(4,831
|
)
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
26,972
|
|
|
|
26,160
|
|
|
|
(75,740
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
(177,892
|
)
|
|
|
(29,026
|
)
|
|
|
(77,219
|
)
|
Other assets, net
|
|
|
(47,053
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(277,863
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued
expenses
|
|
|
48,135
|
|
|
|
665,409
|
|
|
|
725,673
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses
|
|
|
1,777,697
|
|
|
|
1,705,045
|
|
|
|
1,891,620
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
330,196
|
|
|
|
(372,400
|
)
|
|
|
(429,218
|
)
|
Deposits and other long-term
liabilities
|
|
|
(87,260
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating
activities
|
|
|
(11,870,568
|
)
|
|
|
(11,273,908
|
)
|
|
|
(8,543,196
|
)
|
Cash flows from investing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of property, plant and
equipment
|
|
|
(817,505
|
)
|
|
|
(676,138
|
)
|
|
|
(189,733
|
)
|
Acquisition of other assets
|
|
|
(30,000
|
)
|
|
|
(72,167
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(847,505
|
)
|
|
|
(748,305
|
)
|
|
|
(189,733
|
)
|
Cash flows from financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds (expense) from issuance of
common stock, net
|
|
|
(193,946
|
)
|
|
|
39,640,178
|
|
|
|
16,130,347
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock
options
|
|
|
737,688
|
|
|
|
45,379
|
|
|
|
30,085
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of
warrants
|
|
|
5,939,106
|
|
|
|
582,398
|
|
|
|
1,647,000
|
|
Repayments of capital lease
obligations
|
|
|
(39,232
|
)
|
|
|
(30,830
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt obligations
|
|
|
(244,167
|
)
|
|
|
(237,083
|
)
|
|
|
(229,167
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
6,199,449
|
|
|
|
40,000,042
|
|
|
|
17,578,265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
|
(6,518,624
|
)
|
|
|
27,977,829
|
|
|
|
8,845,336
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of year
|
|
|
41,059,532
|
|
|
|
13,081,703
|
|
|
|
4,236,367
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of
the year
|
|
$
|
34,540,908
|
|
|
$
|
41,059,532
|
|
|
$
|
13,081,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash
flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid
|
|
$
|
171,909
|
|
|
$
|
191,006
|
|
|
$
|
207,112
|
|
Supplemental schedule of non-cash
investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock issued for licensing
agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
17,833
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
3,920
|
(2)
|
Conversion of 3% cumulative
preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,725,597
|
(3)
|
Dividends paid to
3% convertible preferred stock holders in stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68,497
|
(4)
|
Accretion of redeemable preferred
stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,067,579
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Under the terms of a license agreement with the California
Institute of Technology (Cal Tech), fees of $10,000 and $5,000
were due on the issuance of two patents to which StemCells holds
a license from Cal Tech, payable in cash or stock at the
Companys choice. The Company elected to pay the fees in
stock and issued 9,535 unregistered shares to Cal Tech. The
Company paid $2,833 in stock (1,816 shares) as part of an
option agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University to acquire an exclusive license to an
invention. |
|
(2) |
|
Under the terms of an amended license agreement with the Oregon
Health & Science University (OHSU), 4,000 shares
of stock were due to OHSU on execution of the amended agreement. |
|
(3) |
|
4,000 shares of the 3% cumulative convertible preferred
stock was converted for 3,500,000 shares of the
Companys common stock with a market value of $4,725,597. |
|
(4) |
|
Accumulated dividends to 3% convertible preferred stock holders
for 2003 was paid in stock with a total market value of
$68,497(49,809 shares). |
|
(5) |
|
See Note 10 under 3% Cumulative Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock |
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
50
StemCells,
Inc.
December 31, 2005
Note 1. Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
Nature
of Business
StemCells, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the Company) is a
biopharmaceutical company that operates in one segment, the
development of novel stem cell therapies designed to treat human
diseases and disorders.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared on the basis that the Company will continue as a going
concern. Since inception, the Company has incurred annual losses
and negative cash flows from operations and has an accumulated
deficit of approximately $185.9 million at
December 31, 2005. The Company has not derived revenues
from the sale of products, and does not expect to receive
revenues from product sales for at least several years.
StemCells expects to incur additional operating losses over the
next several years. The Company has very limited liquidity and
capital resources and must obtain significant additional capital
resources in order to sustain its product development efforts,
for acquisition of technologies and intellectual property
rights, for preclinical and clinical testing of its anticipated
products, pursuit of regulatory approvals, acquisition of
capital equipment, laboratory and office facilities,
establishment of production capabilities, maintaining and
enforcing its intellectual property portfolio, for general and
administrative expenses and other working capital requirements.
StemCells relies on cash reserves and proceeds from equity and
debt offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or
investments, and government grants and funding from
collaborative arrangements, if obtainable, to fund its
operations. If the Company exhausts its cash reserves and is
unable to realize adequate financing, it may be unable to meet
operating obligations and be required to initiate bankruptcy
proceedings. The financial statements do not include any
adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the
recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and
classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome
of this uncertainty.
Principles
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include accounts of the
Company and StemCells California, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary. All significant inter-company balances and
transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of consolidated 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 amounts reported in the
consolidated financial statements. Actual results could differ
from these estimates. The significant estimates include the
accrued wind-down expenses (Note 8) and valuation
allowance against deferred tax assets (Note 12).
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
The Company considers cash equivalents to be only those
investments that are highly liquid, readily convertible to cash
and which mature within three months from the date of purchase.
Marketable
securities
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard
No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in
Debt and Equity Securities, the Company has classified
the Companys short-term investments as available-for-sale
marketable securities in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements. The marketable securities are stated at fair market
value, with unrealized gains and losses reported in other
comprehensive income. Management
51
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
reviews securities with unrealized losses for other than
temporary impairment. A decline in the fair value of securities,
that is deemed other than temporary, is charged to earnings.
Estimated
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, other
receivables, accounts payable and the current portion of the
bonds payable approximates their estimated fair values due to
the short maturities of these instruments. The carrying value of
long-term debt approximates its fair value based on current
rates available to the Company for similar debt.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment, including that held under capital
lease obligations, is stated at cost and depreciated using the
straight-line method over the estimated life of the respective
asset, or the lease term if shorter, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
|
3 - 20 years
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
3 - 10 years
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
3 - 10 years
|
|
Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis
over the shorter of their estimated useful lives or lease terms.
Patent
and License Costs
Prior to fiscal year 2001, the Company capitalized certain
patent costs related to patent applications. Accumulated costs
were amortized over the estimated economic life of the patents,
not to exceed 17 years, using the straight-line method,
commencing at the time the patent was issued. Costs related to
patent applications are charged to expense at the time such
patents are deemed to have no continuing value. Since 2001, the
Companys policy has been to expense all patent costs as
incurred. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, total costs
capitalized amounted to approximately $980,000 and the related
accumulated amortization was approximately $348,000 and
$292,000, respectively. Patent related expenses totaled
approximately $703,000, $753,000, and $665,000 in 2005, 2004 and
2003, respectively. License costs are capitalized and amortized
as research and development expense over the period of the
license agreement.
Stock-Based
Compensation
The Companys employee stock option plan is accounted for
under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25
(APB 25), Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees. The Company grants qualified stock options for
a fixed number of shares to employees with an exercise price
equal to the fair market value of the shares at the date of
grant. In these circumstances and in accordance with
APB 25, the Company recognizes no compensation expense for
qualified stock option grants. The Company also issues
non-qualified stock options for a fixed number of shares to
employees with an exercise price less than the fair market value
of the shares at the date of grant. When such options vest, the
Company recognizes the intrinsic value (difference between the
exercise price and fair market value at date of grant) as
compensation expense in accordance with APB 25.
52
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
For purposes of disclosures pursuant to Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation, (FAS 123) as amended
by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148,
Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation Transition and Disclosure,
(FAS 148), the estimated fair value of options is amortized
to expense over the options vesting period. The following
table illustrates the effect on net loss and net loss per share
if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions
of FAS 123 to stock-based employee compensation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders as reported
|
|
$
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14,425,160
|
)
|
Add: Stock-based employee/
director compensation expense included in reported net loss
under the intrinsic value method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,868
|
|
|
|
242,548
|
|
Deduct: Total stock-based
employee/director compensation expense under the fair value
based method for all awards
|
|
|
(1,019,120
|
)
|
|
|
(819,317
|
)
|
|
|
(960,166
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders pro forma
|
|
$
|
(12,757,470
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16,115,748
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,142,778
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per
share applicable to common stockholders as
reported
|
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.45
|
)
|
Basic and diluted net loss per
share applicable to common stockholders pro
forma
|
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.32
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.47
|
)
|
Shares used in computing basic and
diluted loss per share amounts
|
|
|
63,643,176
|
|
|
|
49,606,277
|
|
|
|
32,080,233
|
|
The effects on pro forma net loss and net loss per share of
expensing the estimated fair value of stock options are not
necessarily representative of the effects on reporting the
results of operations for future years. As permitted by
FAS 123, the Company has used the Black-Scholes model for
option valuation, which method may not accurately value the
options described.
The Company accounts for stock options granted to non-employees
in accordance with SFAS 123 and Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF) 96-18 Accounting For Equity
Instruments That Are Issued To Other Than Employees For
Acquiring, Or In Conjunction With Selling, Goods Or
Services, and accordingly, recognizes as expense the
estimated fair value of such options as calculated using the
Black-Scholes valuation model. The fair value is remeasured
during the service period and is amortized over the vesting
period of each option or the recipients contractual
arrangement, if shorter.
Long-Lived
Assets
The Company routinely evaluates the carrying value of its
long-lived assets. The Company records impairment losses on
long-lived assets used in operations when events and
circumstances indicate that assets may be impaired and the
undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by the assets
are less than the carrying amount of those assets. If an
impairment exists, the charge to operations is measured as the
excess of the carrying amount over the fair value of the assets.
No such impairment was recognized during the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.
Income
Taxes
The liability method is used to account for income taxes.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on
differences between financial reporting and income tax bases of
assets and liabilities as well as net
53
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
operating loss carry forwards and tax credits carryforwards and
are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that are
expected to be in effect when the differences reverse. Deferred
tax assets may be reduced by a valuation allowance to reflect
the uncertainty associated with their ultimate realization.
Revenue
Recognition
Revenues from collaborative agreements and grants are recognized
as earned upon either the incurring of reimbursable expenses
directly related to the particular research plan or the
completion of certain development milestones as defined within
the terms of the collaborative agreement. Payments received in
advance of research performed are designated as deferred
revenue. The Company recognizes non-refundable upfront license
fees and certain other related fees on a straight-line basis
over the development period. Fees associated with substantive at
risk, performance based milestones are recognized as revenue
upon their completion, as defined in the respective agreements.
Incidental assignment of technology rights is recognized as
revenue at time of receipt.
Research
and Development Costs
The Company expenses all research and development costs as
incurred. Research and Development costs include costs of
personnel, external services, supplies, facilities and
miscellaneous other costs.
Net
Loss per Share
Basic and diluted net loss per share have been computed using
the weighted-average number of shares of common stock
outstanding during the period. Basic earnings per share excludes
any dilutive effects of options, shares subject to repurchase,
warrants and convertible securities. Diluted earnings per share
includes the impact of potentially dilutive securities if
dilutive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
(11,738,350
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,330,299
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14,425,160
|
)
|
Weighted average shares used in
computing basic and diluted net loss per share amounts
|
|
|
63,643,176
|
|
|
|
49,606,277
|
|
|
|
32,080,233
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per
share applicable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.45
|
)
|
The Company has excluded outstanding stock options and warrants
from the calculation of diluted loss per common share because
all such securities are anti-dilutive for all applicable periods
presented. These outstanding securities consist of the following
potential common shares:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Outstanding options
|
|
|
6,608,109
|
|
|
|
6,682,201
|
|
|
|
5,025,374
|
|
Outstanding warrants
|
|
|
2,521,400
|
|
|
|
5,490,285
|
|
|
|
2,101,074
|
|
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Comprehensive income (loss) is comprised of net income (loss)
and other comprehensive income (loss). The only component of
other comprehensive income (loss) is an unrealized loss of
$254,147 related to the Companys marketable securities.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123R (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payments. This Statement is a
revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation. This Statement supersedes
APB 25, and its
54
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
related implementation guidance. Upon the adoption of SFAS
No. 123R the Company will be required to expense stock
options using a fair-value method in its Statement of
Operations. The Company will be required to apply SFAS
No. 123R as of the first annual reporting period starting
on or after June 15, 2005, which is its first quarter
beginning January 1, 2006. Adoption of the expensing
requirements will increase the Companys net loss. See
Stock-based Compensation above in this Note 1
for disclosures regarding the effect on net earnings and
earnings per share if the Company had applied the fair value
recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123R. Upon adoption, the
Company intends to use the modified prospective method. Under
this method, compensation cost is recognized beginning with the
effective date of adoption (a) based on the requirements of
SFAS 123R for all share-based payments granted after the
effective date of adoption and (b) based on the
requirements of SFAS 123R for all awards granted to
employees prior to the effective date of adoption that remain
unvested on the date of adoption. The Company currently utilizes
the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair
value. The Black-Scholes model meets the requirements of
SFAS 123R but the fair values generated by the model may
not be indicative of the actual fair values of the
Companys stock-based awards. Although StemCells has not
yet determined whether the adoption of SFAS 123R will
result in amounts that are similar to the current pro forma
disclosures under SFAS 123, it believes the adoption will
have a material negative impact on the Companys operating
results.
In June 2005, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error
Corrections (SFAS 154). SFAS 154
replaces APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting
Changes and SFAS No. 3, Reporting
Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.
SFAS 154 requires that a voluntary change in accounting
principle be applied retrospectively with all prior period
financial statements presented on the new accounting principle.
SFAS 154 also requires that a change in method of
depreciating or amortizing a long-lived nonfinancial asset be
accounted for prospectively as a change in estimate, and
correction of errors in previously issued financial statements
should be termed a restatement. SFAS 154 is effective for
accounting changes and correction of errors made in fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2005. The implementation of
FAS 154 is not expected to have a material impact on the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
|
|
Note 2.
|
ReNeuron
License and Settlement Agreement
|
In July 2005, the Company entered into a license and settlement
agreement with ReNeuron Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of
ReNeuron Group plc, a publicly listed UK corporation
(collectively referred to as ReNeuron). As part of
the agreement, the Company granted ReNeuron a license that
allows ReNeuron to exploit their c-mycER
conditionally immortalized adult human neural stem cell
technology for therapy and other purposes. In return for the
license, StemCells received a 7.5% fully-diluted equity interest
in ReNeuron, subject to certain anti-dilution provisions, and a
cross-license to the exclusive use of ReNeurons technology
for certain diseases and conditions, including lysosomal storage
diseases, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy and multiple
sclerosis. The agreement also provides for full settlement of
any potential claims that either StemCells or ReNeuron might
have had against the other in connection with any putative
infringement of certain of each partys patent rights prior
to the effective date of the agreement. The agreement is
Exhibit 10.71 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. On July 1, 2005
the Company was entitled to 3,774,493 shares of ReNeuron,
representing 7.5% of its fully-diluted share capital. On
August 12, 2005, ReNeuron listed its shares on the London
Stock Exchanges Alternative Investment Market
(AIM), a market for smaller, growing companies. As
provided for under the agreement, the placement and listing of
additional shares by ReNeuron resulted in StemCells
receiving an additional 5,165,000 shares.
The Company recorded in 2005 approximately $3,736,000 as other
income, which was the fair value of the ReNeuron shares as of
August 12, 2005, net of legal fees and the value of
approximately 104,000 shares that were transferred to
NeuroSpheres Ltd., an Alberta corporation from which StemCells
has licensed some of the patent rights that are the subject of
the agreement with ReNeuron. The ReNeuron shares are classified
as marketable securities. The fair market value of
the securities (8,835,766 shares) as of December 31,
2005 was $3,720,794. Changes in market value, as a result of
changes in market price per share and the exchange rate between
the US dollar and the British pound, are accounted for under
other comprehensive loss and are not recorded as
other income or loss until the shares are disposed,
and a gain or loss realized.
55
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
Note 3.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment, Net
|
Property, plant and equipment consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
$
|
3,359,417
|
|
|
$
|
3,308,098
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
3,489,695
|
|
|
|
2,737,971
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
348,963
|
|
|
|
339,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,198,075
|
|
|
|
6,385,527
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and
amortization
|
|
|
(3,915,487
|
)
|
|
|
(2,961,233
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,282,588
|
|
|
$
|
3,424,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense was approximately
$958,000, $933,000, and $916,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
|
|
Note 4.
|
Other
Assets, Net
|
Other assets are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Patents, net
|
|
$
|
631,764
|
|
|
$
|
687,567
|
|
License agreements, net
|
|
|
437,117
|
|
|
|
376,274
|
|
Security
deposit building lease
|
|
|
752,500
|
|
|
|
752,500
|
|
Restricted Cash-(Letter of Credit)
|
|
|
884,132
|
|
|
|
937,078
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,705,513
|
|
|
$
|
2,753,419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2005 and 2004, accumulated amortization was
approximately $1,715,000 and $1,590,000, respectively, for
patents and license agreements. Over the next five years, the
estimated aggregate annual amortization expense based on current
balances for patents and license agreements is expected to be
approximately $105,000.
|
|
Note 5.
|
Accrued
Expenses and Other
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
External services
|
|
$
|
404,875
|
|
|
$
|
639,989
|
|
Employee compensation
|
|
|
972,906
|
|
|
|
834,039
|
|
Other
|
|
|
105,519
|
|
|
|
73,342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,483,300
|
|
|
$
|
1,547,370
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has undertaken direct financing transactions with
the State of Rhode Island and received proceeds from the
issuance of industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to
finance the construction of its pilot manufacturing facility.
The related leases are structured such that lease payments will
fully fund all semiannual interest payments and annual principal
payments through maturity in August 2014. Interest rates vary
with the
56
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
respective bonds maturities, ranging from 8.1% to 9.5%.
The bonds contain certain restrictive covenants which limit,
among other things, the payment of cash dividends and the sale
of the related assets. The Company entered into a fifteen-year
lease for a laboratory facility in connection with a sale and
leaseback arrangement in 1997. The lease has escalating rent
payments and accordingly, the Company is recognizing rent
expense on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2005, the
Company had $1,208,000 in deferred rent expense for this
facility which is presented as part of the wind-down accrual.
As of February 1, 2001, the Company entered into a
5-year lease
for 40,000 square feet of an approximately
68,000 square foot facility located in the Stanford
Research Park in Palo Alto, CA. The facility includes space for
animals, laboratories, offices, and a GMP (Good Manufacturing
Practices) suite. GMP facilities can be used to manufacture
materials for clinical trials. On December 19, 2002 the
Company negotiated an amendment to the lease, which resulted in
reducing the average annual rent over the remaining term of the
lease from approximately $3.7 million to $2.0 million.
As part of the amendment the Company issued a letter of credit
on January 2, 2003 for $503,079, which was an addition to
the letter of credit in the amount of $275,000 issued at
commencement of the lease, to serve as a deposit for the
duration of the lease. The Company negotiated an amendment to
the lease effective April 1, 2005, which extends the term
of the lease through March 31, 2010, includes an immediate
reduction in the rent per square foot, and provides for an
expansion of the leased premises by approximately 28,000
additional square feet effective July 1, 2006. In addition,
the Company has sublet some of the additional space for the
period from April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The
average annual rent due from the Company under this lease for
the period commencing April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010
will be approximately $2 million before subtenant income.
The lease has escalating rent payments, which the Company is
recognizing on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2005,
the Company had deferred rent liability for this facility of
$854,000. At December 31, 2005 the Company has
space-sharing agreements covering in total approximately
13,000 square feet of this facility. The Company receives
the amount of base rent plus the proportionate share of the
operating expenses that it pays for such space over the term of
these agreements.
As of December 31, 2005, future minimum lease payments and
sublease income under operating and capital leases are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
|
Sublease
|
|
|
|
Leases(1)
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
460,100
|
|
|
$
|
2,831,929
|
|
|
$
|
1,020,889
|
|
2007
|
|
|
332,545
|
|
|
|
3,165,162
|
|
|
|
468,847
|
|
2008
|
|
|
244,531
|
|
|
|
3,469,017
|
|
|
|
407,389
|
|
2009
|
|
|
244,572
|
|
|
|
3,536,843
|
|
|
|
387,210
|
|
2010
|
|
|
242,560
|
|
|
|
1,767,304
|
|
|
|
97,508
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
857,431
|
|
|
|
3,076,172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
2,381,739
|
|
|
$
|
17,846,427
|
|
|
$
|
2,381,843
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less amounts representing interest
|
|
|
721,646
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present value of minimum lease
payments
|
|
|
1,660,093
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less current maturities
|
|
|
308,843
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations and
bonds payable, less current maturities
|
|
$
|
1,351,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes Bonds payable Rent expense for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, was $1,611,000,
$1,109,000 and $1,040,000 respectively. |
57
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
On September 30, 2001, the Company was awarded a four-year,
$225,000 per year grant from the National Institute of
Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Disorders of the
National Institutes of Health for the Companys liver stem
cell program which focuses on identifying liver stem and
progenitor cells for the treatment of liver diseases. The grant
is subject to the availability of funds and satisfactory
progress of the project. For this award, the Company has
recognized $56,000, $225,000 and $112,000 as grant revenue for
2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. The Company did not draw
further funds from this grant after 2003 as it no longer pursued
the particular research it covered.
In September 2003 the Company was awarded a one year, $342,000
Small Business Innovation Research grant from the National
Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke (NINDS), to further
its work in the treatment of spinal cord injuries. For this
award, the Company has recognized $143,000 and $93,000 as grant
revenue for 2003 and 2004, respectively. The remaining $106,000
was reimbursed to a subcontractor.
In September 2004 the Company was awarded a Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) grant for approximately $464,000 over
one and one half years for studies in Alzheimers disease.
The grant supports joint work with Dr. George A. Carlson of the
McLaughlin Research Institute (MRI) in Great Falls, Montana. The
Company is entitled to receive $243,000, and the remainder of
$221,000 will be be reimbursed to MRI. For this award the
Company has recognized $26,000 and $186,000 as grant revenue for
2004 and 2005, respectively.
|
|
Note 8.
|
Wind-down
of Encapsulated Cell Technology Research and Development
Program
|
In July 1999, the Company decided to restructure its research
operations by abandoning its former encapsulated cell technology
program and to concentrate its resources on the research and
development of its proprietary platform of stem cell
technologies. The Company wound down its research and
manufacturing operations in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and relocated
its remaining research and development activities and its
corporate headquarters to California, in October 1999.
The Company established a reserve for the estimated lease
payments and operating costs of the Rhode Island facilities. In
determining the facility exit cost reserve amount, the Company
is required to consider its lease payments through to the end of
the lease term and estimate other relevant factors such as
facility operating expenses, real estate market conditions in
Rhode Island for similar facilities, occupancy rates and
sublease rental rates projected over the course of the lease.
The Company re-evaluates the estimate each quarter, taking
account of changes, if any, in each underlying factor. The
process is inherently subjective because it involves projections
over time from the date of the estimate through
the end of the lease and it is not possible to
determine any of the factors except the lease payments with
certainty over that period.
In 2003, the Company incurred approximately $984,000 in actual
operating expenses for this facility, of which approximately
$775,000 was recorded against the reserve and the remainder was
recorded as wind-down expenses. At the end of 2003, the Company
revised the reserve at December 31, 2003, to approximately
$2,676,000. In 2004, the Company recorded approximately
$1,152,000 in operating expenses against the reserve. In 2004,
after evaluating the aforementioned factors, at the end of each
quarter, the Company re-evaluated its estimate and adjusted the
reserve by recording in total, approximately $2,826,000 as
additional wind-down expense. At December 31, 2004, the
adjusted reserve was approximately $4,350,000. In 2005, the
Company incurred approximately $1,079,000 in operating expenses
against the reserve. The Company re-valued the reserve to
approximately $4,568,000, $5,482,000, $5,520,000 and $6,098,000
at March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005, September 30,
2005, and December 31, 2005, respectively, by recording
approximately $521,000, $1,197,000, $297,000 and $812,000
respectively as additional wind-down expenses. At
December 31, 2005, the adjusted reserve was approximately
$6,098,000. Even though it is the intent of the Company to
dispose of the facility at the earliest possible time, it cannot
determine with certainty a fixed date by which such disposal
will occur. In light of this uncertainty, based on estimates,
the Company will periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve.
58
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Wind-down
reserve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period Covered
|
|
|
|
January 1 to
|
|
|
January 1 to
|
|
|
April 1 to
|
|
|
July 1 to
|
|
|
October 1 to
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Amounts rounded to the nearest
thousand)
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down reserve at
beginning of period
|
|
$
|
2,676,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,350,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,568,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,482,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,520,000
|
|
Less actual expenses recorded
against estimated reserve during the period
|
|
|
(1,152,000
|
)
|
|
|
(303,000
|
)
|
|
|
(283,000
|
)
|
|
|
(259,000
|
)
|
|
|
(234,000
|
)
|
Additional expense recorded to
revise estimated reserve at period-end
|
|
|
2,826,000
|
|
|
|
521,000
|
|
|
|
1,197,000
|
|
|
|
297,000
|
|
|
|
812,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised reserve at period-end
|
|
|
4,350,000
|
|
|
|
4,568,000
|
|
|
|
5,482,000
|
|
|
|
5,520,000
|
|
|
|
6,098,000
|
|
Add deferred rent at period end
|
|
|
1,178,000
|
|
|
|
1,185,000
|
|
|
|
1,192,000
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
|
1,208,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued wind-down expenses
at period-end (current and non current portion)
|
|
$
|
5,528,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,753,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,674,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,720,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,306,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down Expenses Current
Portion
|
|
$
|
1,013,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,034,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,095,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,151,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,119,000
|
|
Non current portion
|
|
|
4,515,000
|
|
|
|
4,719,000
|
|
|
|
5,579,000
|
|
|
|
5,569,000
|
|
|
|
6,187,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued wind-down expenses
|
|
$
|
5,528,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,753,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,674,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,720,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,306,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 9.
|
Consulting
Arrangements
|
In September 1997, the Company entered into consulting
arrangements with the principal scientific founders of StemCells
California, Dr. Irving Weissman, Dr. Fred H. Gage and
Dr. David Anderson and with Dr. Richard M. Rose, then
President and CEO of StemCells California. To attract and retain
Drs. Rose, Weissman, Gage and Anderson, and to expedite the
progress of the Companys stem cell program, the Company
awarded these individuals options to acquire a total of
approximately 1.6 million shares of the Companys
common stock, vesting over a period of eight years and at an
exercise price of $5.25 per share, the quoted market price
at the grant date. The Company, based on the fair value of these
options and their respective vesting schedule, recorded an
expense of $355,000, $830,000 and $251,000 for the years 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively. The fair value was determined using
the Black-Scholes method. As of December 31, 2005, these
options have been fully vested and expensed.
|
|
Note 10.
|
Stockholders
Equity
|
Sale
of Common Stock
Listed below are key financing transactions entered into by the
Company through the sale of its common stock during the last
three years:
|
|
|
|
|
On May 7, 2003, the Company entered into a stock purchase
agreement with Riverview, under which Riverview agreed to
purchase 4 million shares of the Companys common
stock for $6.5 million, or $1.625 per share. On the
date of the agreement, the sale price was above the trading
price of the Companys common stock, which closed at
$1.43 per share on that date. The Company also agreed to
issue a
2-year
warrant to Riverview to purchase 1,898,000 shares of common
stock at $1.50 per share. The exercise price was subject to
adjustment for stock splits, dividends, distributions,
reclassifications and similar events. On
|
59
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
May 15, 2003, the Company issued the purchased shares and
the warrant, and registered the resale of the purchased shares
and the shares underlying the warrant. The exercise price could
be below the trading market price at the time of the exercise.
In the event that certain conditions were met, including the
closing sale price of the Common Stock remaining at or above
$2.50 per share for 10 consecutive trading days, the
Company could have required Riverview to exercise the warrant
for any remaining shares or to relinquish any unexercised
portion. On November 11, 2003 and May 6, 2005,
Riverview exercised the warrant acquiring 1,098,000 shares
and 800,000 shares respectively at $1.50 per share.
The total proceeds to the Company from this warrant exercise
were $2,847,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 10, 2003, the Company completed a
$9.5 million financing transaction with Riverview through
the sale of 5 million shares of common stock at a price of
$1.90 per share.
|
|
|
|
On June 16, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement
with institutional and other accredited investors with respect
to the private placement of approximately 13,160,000 shares
of the Companys common stock at a purchase price of
$1.52 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately
$20,000,000. Investors also received warrants exercisable for
five years to purchase approximately 3,290,000 shares of
the Companys common stock at an exercise price of
$1.90 per share. During the period October 2004 to December
2005, part of these warrants, were exercised to purchase an
aggregate of 1,459,342 shares of the Companys common
stock at $1.90 per share. The Company received proceeds of
$2,772,750 on issuance of the shares. C.E. Unterberg, Towbin LLC
(Unterberg) served as placement agent for the private placement.
For acting as the Companys placement agent, Unterberg
received fees of approximately $1,200,000, expense reimbursement
of approximately $25,000 and a five year warrant to purchase
526,400 shares of the Companys common stock at an
exercise price of $1.89 per share.
|
|
|
|
In October 2004, the Company entered into agreements with
institutional investors with respect to the registered direct
placement of 7,500,000 shares of its common stock at a
purchase price of $3.00 per share, for gross proceeds of
$22,500,000. Unterberg and Shoreline Pacific, LLC (Shoreline)
served as placement agents for the transaction. For acting as
the Companys placement agent, Unterberg and Shoreline
received fees totaling $1,350,000 and expense reimbursement of
approximately $40,000.
|
Equity
Line
On May 10, 2001, the Company entered into a common stock
purchase agreement with Sativum Investments Limited for the
potential future issuance and sale of up to $30,000,000 of the
Companys common stock, subject to restrictions and other
obligations. Under the agreement, which expired in January 2004,
the Company had the right to draw down on the facility, from
time to time, and Sativum was obligated to purchase shares of
the Companys common stock at a 6% discount to a volume
weighted average market price over the 20 trading days following
the draw-down notice. There was neither a requirement that the
Company draw on the facility nor a penalty for not doing so. The
Company was limited with respect to how often it could exercise
a draw down and the amount of each draw down.
In connection with the Companys execution of the common
stock purchase agreement with Sativum, the Company issued three
three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of
350,000 shares of the Companys common stock at $2.38
per share to Sativum (250,000 shares), and to the placement
agents: Pacific Crest Securities Inc. (75,000 shares) and
Granite Financial Group, Inc. (25,000 shares). The
placement agents have exercised their warrants in full, and the
Company received payment of $238,050 for the shares issued to
them in July 2001. The Company has valued the warrants using the
Black-Scholes method and recorded the fair value in
stockholders equity. These amounts are $522,500, $167,750
and $55,250 respectively. The exercise price and number of
shares are subject to adjustment for subdivisions, combinations,
stock dividends and reorganizations.
60
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The Company did draw down $4,000,000 by issuance of
707,947 shares in July of 2001, $118,000 by issuance of
107,812 shares in December of 2002, $66,000 by issuance of
58,516 shares in January of 2003, and $375,000 by issuance
of 245,472 shares in May of 2003, before applicable fees.
3%
Cumulative Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock
On December 4, 2001, the Company issued 5,000 shares
of 3% cumulative convertible preferred stock to Riverview Group,
L.L.C., (Riverview Group), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Millennium Partners, L.P. plus a
5-year
warrant to purchase 350,877 shares of common stock at
$3.42 per share. The Company received net proceeds of
$4,727,515. This preferred stock was convertible into shares of
the Companys common stock at a conversion price of
$2.00 per share at the option of Riverview Group and has a
mandatory redemption feature requiring the Company to redeem
unconverted preferred stock on December 4, 2003. The
conversion price of $2.00 per share was subject to
adjustment for stock splits, dividends, distributions,
reclassifications and similar events. The final closing price of
the Companys common stock on the NASDAQ National Market on
the December 4, 2001 commitment date was $2.90 per
share. The Company valued the warrants and the beneficial
conversion feature reflecting the December 4, 2001
commitment date and the most beneficial per share discount
available to the preferred shareholders. As the preferred shares
contained a stated redemption, such value of $3,185,000,
including issuance costs of $272,485, was recorded as a discount
to the preferred shares. The preferred shares were accreted to
the mandatory redemption amount and the accretion resulted in a
deemed dividend. The deemed dividend has been reflected as an
adjustment to net loss applicable to common stockholders. The
holders of the preferred stock had liquidation rights equal to
their original investment plus accrued but unpaid dividends.
Dividends due on the shares of the preferred stock outstanding
on a Dividend Payment Date (June 30 and
December 31) could be paid in the Companys
common stock if the Company so elected by those dates. The
Company did elect to pay the dividends in stock, and did so by
issuing 38,313 shares of stock on July 3, 2002,
59,656 shares on December 23, 2002 and
17,935 shares June 30, 2003, valued at approximately
$60,000, $69,000 and $30,000 respectively.
The Riverview Group converted all of its holdings of the
Companys 3% cumulative convertible preferred stock as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
On December 7, 2001, 1,000 shares of the 3% cumulative
convertible preferred stock were converted into
500,125 shares of the Companys common stock.
|
|
|
|
On April 9, 2003, the Company agreed with Riverview to
reduce the conversion price to $0.80 per share for a period
of 20 trading days. Riverview immediately agreed to convert
2,000 shares with a face value of $2 million, at the
reduced price. Riverview received 2,521,041 shares of
common stock upon conversion, which includes 21,041 shares
valued at $16,833 as accrued dividends. As a result of the
change in the conversion price, the Company recorded a deemed
dividend to preferred shareholders related to the beneficial
conversion feature of approximately $1,000,000 in the second
quarter of 2003.
|
|
|
|
On November 11, 2003, Riverview converted the remaining
2,000 shares of its 3% cumulative convertible preferred
stock for 1,010,833 shares of the Companys common
stock, which includes 10,833 shares valued at $21,666 as
accrued dividends.
|
The Company recorded deemed dividends related to the 3%
cumulative convertible preferred stock of $2,065,911 and
$1,280,004 in 2003 and 2002. As all of the 3% cumulative
convertible preferred stock was converted prior to
December 31, 2003, no deemed dividends were recorded in
2004 and 2005.
6%
Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock
On April 13, 2000, the Company issued 1,500 shares of
6% cumulative convertible preferred stock plus a warrant for
75,000 shares of common stock to two members of its Board
of Directors for $1,500,000 on terms more favorable to the
Company than it was then able to obtain from outside investors.
The shares were initially convertible at the option of the
holders into common stock at $3.77 per share (based on the
face value of the
61
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
preferred shares). The conversion price for the preferred shares
and the related number of warrants was subject to adjustment
upon certain equity transactions, as defined by the applicable
agreement.
On June 7, 2002, one of the preferred stockholders
converted 750 shares of 6% cumulative convertible preferred
stock plus accumulated dividends, at an effective conversion
price of $1.94 per share for 439,442 shares of common
stock. On October 4, 2002, the remaining 750 shares,
which were held by the other preferred shareholder, together
with accumulated dividends, converted automatically at the
then-effective conversion price of $1.07 to 812,802 shares
of common stock. The accumulated dividends were paid in common
stock with a value of $222,457. No 6% cumulative convertible
preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2005.
In 2005, all of the related warrants were exercised for which
the Company issued 83,036 shares and received proceeds of
$247,102.
Stock
Issued For Technology Licenses
Under License Agreements with NeuroSpheres, Ltd., the Company
obtained an exclusive patent license covering all uses of
certain neural stem cell technology. The Company made up-front
payments to NeuroSpheres of 65,000 shares of its common
stock and $50,000, and will make additional cash payments when
milestones are achieved. Effective in 2004, the Company began
making annual $50,000 payments, creditable against royalties.
Pursuant to the terms of a license agreement with the California
Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) and the Companys
acquisition of its wholly owned subsidiary, StemCells
California, StemCells issued 14,513 shares of common stock
to Cal Tech. The Company issued an additional 12,800 shares
of common stock to Cal Tech with a market value of approximately
$40,000 in May 2000, upon execution of an amendment adding four
families of patent applications to the license agreement. In
August 2002, the Company acquired an additional license from Cal
Tech to a different technology, pursuant to which the Company
issued 27,535 shares of its common stock with a market
value of approximately $35,000; in 2004, the Company also issued
9,535 shares of its common stock with a market value of
approximately $15,000 to Cal Tech on the issuance of two patents
covered under this additional license.
In December 2004, the Company made part payment of $2,833 in
stock (1,816 shares) as part of an option agreement with
the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
to acquire an exclusive license to an invention. The remainder
of the option fee ($7,167) was paid in cash. The Company did not
exercise this option but retains a non-exclusive license to the
invention.
Upon entering a license agreement with the Oregon
Health & Science University (OHSU) in March 1997, the
Company issued it 4,838 shares of common stock and an
option to purchase up to 62,888 additional shares to OHSU with
an exercise price of $.01 per share. The option has vested
as to 9,675 shares for which shares were issued on
March 31, 2002; the remaining option was terminated and the
Company issued 4,000 shares of its common stock, with a
market value of approximately $3,900, to OHSU in January 2003,
pursuant to an amendment to the license agreement.
Stock
Option Plans
The Company has adopted several stock plans that provide for the
issuance of incentive and nonqualified stock options, various
stock and performance awards and stock appreciation rights, at
prices to be determined by the Board of Directors. In the case
of incentive stock options, such price will not be less than the
fair market value on the date of grant. Options granted to
employees generally vest ratably over four years and are
exercisable for ten years from the date of grant or within three
months of termination. The Company has paid its directors and
some of its consultants in below-market options or in stock
awards from its stock plans.
62
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table presents the combined activity of the
Companys stock option plans for the years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at January 1
|
|
|
6,682,201
|
|
|
$
|
2.67
|
|
|
|
5,025,374
|
|
|
$
|
2.91
|
|
|
|
4,294,050
|
|
|
$
|
3.14
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,075,481
|
|
|
|
4.75
|
|
|
|
1,932,772
|
|
|
|
1.92
|
|
|
|
1,125,161
|
|
|
|
1.25
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(423,989
|
)
|
|
|
1.76
|
|
|
|
(152,673
|
)
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
|
|
(97,233
|
)
|
|
|
0.31
|
|
Canceled
|
|
|
(725,584
|
)
|
|
|
3.11
|
|
|
|
(123,272
|
)
|
|
|
3.49
|
|
|
|
(296,604
|
)
|
|
|
2.34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31
|
|
|
6,608,109
|
|
|
$
|
3.02
|
|
|
|
6,682,201
|
|
|
$
|
2.67
|
|
|
|
5,025,374
|
|
|
$
|
2.91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at
December 31
|
|
|
4,265,713
|
|
|
$
|
3.03
|
|
|
|
3,687,243
|
|
|
$
|
2.98
|
|
|
|
3,048,940
|
|
|
$
|
3.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table presents weighted average price and life
information about significant option groups outstanding at
December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Range of
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Exercise Prices
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Life (Yrs.)
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Less than $2.00
|
|
|
2,815,885
|
|
|
|
7.28
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
|
1,627,702
|
|
|
$
|
0.99
|
|
$2.00 - $3.99
|
|
|
1,229,285
|
|
|
|
6.03
|
|
|
$
|
2.76
|
|
|
|
1,024,072
|
|
|
$
|
2.75
|
|
$4.00 - $5.99
|
|
|
2,562,939
|
|
|
|
4.77
|
|
|
$
|
5.14
|
|
|
|
1,613,939
|
|
|
$
|
5.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,608,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,265,713
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted average fair value per share of options granted
during 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $3.75, $1.64 and $0.86,
respectively. The fair value of options at the date of grant
were estimated using the Black-Scholes model with the following
weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.14
|
%
|
|
|
3.60
|
%
|
|
|
3.29
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
100.7
|
%
|
|
|
111.6
|
%
|
|
|
121.1
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
The Company has neither declared nor paid dividends on any share
of its common stock and does not expect to do so in the
foreseeable future.
63
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Common
Stock Reserved
The Company has the following shares of common stock reserved
for the exercise of options, warrants and other contingent
issuances of common stock, as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reserved for exercise of
stock options
|
|
|
8,191,652
|
|
Shares reserved for warrants
related to financing transactions
|
|
|
2,357,058
|
|
Shares reserved for compensation
related to external services
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
Shares reserved for warrants
related to previously converted 3% convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
514,072
|
|
Shelf reserve for possible future
issuances of shares(1)
|
|
|
1,471,962
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
12,634,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In addition, on October 4, 2005, the Company filed a shelf
registration statement providing for the sale of up to
$100,000,000 of its common stock; no specific number of shares
has been reserved for this purpose.
|
|
|
Note 11.
|
Research
Agreements
|
The Company has entered various research agreements and
collaborations with academic institutions. Under such
arrangements, the Company is typically granted rights to the
related intellectual property or an option to obtain such rights
on terms to be agreed, in exchange for research funding and
specified royalties on any resulting product revenue. In
addition, StemCells occasionally makes grants to academic
institutions to support research of interest to the Company
without requesting any intellectual property interests in return.
Under a November 1997 Research Funding and Option Agreement with
The Scripps Research Institute (Scripps), StemCells funded
certain research in the total amount of approximately
$931,000and issued 4,837 shares of the Companys
common stock and a stock option to purchase 9,674 shares of
the Companys Common Stock with an exercise price of
$.01 per share upon the achievement of specified
milestones. As a result of the agreement, StemCells acquired an
exclusive license to certain inventions resulting from the
sponsored research, subject to the payment of royalties and
certain other amounts, including payments totaling $425,000 on
the achievement of certain milestones. The Company has also
entered Sponsored Research Agreements and License Agreements
with Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) under
which it paid OHSU approximately $295,000, 4,838 shares of
the Companys common stock and issued an option to OHSU to
purchase an additional 62,888 shares with an exercise price
of $.01 per share. The option has vested as to
9,675 shares for which shares were issued on March 31,
2002; the remaining option was terminated and the Company issued
4,000 shares of its common stock, with a market value of
approximately $3,900, to OHSU in January 2003, pursuant to an
amendment to the license agreement.
In 2005 and 2004, the Company made research grants and gifts to
support relevant research totaling approximately $200,000 and
$61,000 respectively to academic institutions.
64
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Deferred income taxes reflect net tax effects of temporary
differences between the carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts
used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the
Companys deferred tax assets and liabilities are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating losses
|
|
$
|
39,894,000
|
|
|
$
|
39,287,000
|
|
Capitalized research and
development costs
|
|
|
19,618,000
|
|
|
|
16,046,000
|
|
Research and development credits
|
|
|
5,130,000
|
|
|
|
4,742,000
|
|
Accrued wind down cost
|
|
|
2,439,000
|
|
|
|
1,740,000
|
|
Other
|
|
|
305,000
|
|
|
|
544,000
|
|
|
|
|
67,386,000
|
|
|
|
62,359,000
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(67,386,000
|
)
|
|
|
(62,359,000
|
)
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon future
earnings, if any, the timing and amount of which are uncertain.
Accordingly, the deferred tax assets have been fully offset by a
valuation allowance. The valuation allowance increased by
$5,027,000, $1,974,000, and $3,495,000 during 2005, 2004, and
2003 respectively
The effective tax rate as a percentage of income before income
taxes differs from the statutory federal income tax rate (when
applied to income before income taxes) for the years ended
December 31, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Statutory federal income tax
(benefit) rate
|
|
|
(34
|
%)
|
|
|
(34
|
%)
|
|
|
(34
|
%)
|
Increase (decrease) resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses not deductible for taxes
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Expiration of State net operating
losses
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
Increase in valuation allowance
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
28.4
|
|
Effective tax (benefit) rate
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
Note 13.
|
Employee
Retirement Plan
|
The Company has a qualified defined contribution plan covering
substantially all employees. Participants are allowed to
contribute a fixed percentage of their total annual cash
compensation to the plan (subject to the maximums defined by
law) and the Company matches 50% of employee contributions, up
to a maximum of 6% of the employees compensation, with the
Companys common stock. The related expense was $111,000,
$78,000, and $60,000 for the years ended December 31, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively
65
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
Note 14.
|
Quarterly
Financial Information (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
data)
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
3,645
|
(1)
|
|
|
4,121
|
(1)
|
|
|
4,183
|
(1)
|
|
|
4,645
|
(1)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
3,998
|
(2)
|
|
|
275
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders
|
|
|
(3,449
|
)
|
|
|
(3,868
|
)
|
|
|
(94
|
)
|
|
|
(4,327
|
)
|
Basic and diluted (loss) per share
applicable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.00
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.07
|
)
|
Year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
2,862
|
(1)
|
|
|
3,284
|
(1)
|
|
|
4,325
|
(1)
|
|
|
5,070
|
(1)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
113
|
|
Net loss applicable to common
stockholders
|
|
|
(2,770
|
)
|
|
|
(3,303
|
)
|
|
|
(4,338
|
)
|
|
|
(4,919
|
)
|
Basic and diluted (loss) per share
applicable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes adjustment of wind-down accrual see
note 8. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes income recognized on receipt of shares received from
ReNeuron see note 2. |
|
|
Note 15.
|
Subsequent
Events
|
In March 2006, StemCells received approval from the
Institutional Review Board of the Oregon Health &
Science University to begin its Phase I clinical trial at
OHSU Doernbecher Childrens Hospital in Portland. Also in
March 2006, the Company entered an agreement to gain access to
additional GMP cell manufacturing and processing space to
manufacture products for anticipated clinical trials and for
research and development purposes.
66
|
|
ITEM 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
None.
|
|
ITEM 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Companys management, with the participation of its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, evaluated
the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of the
end of the period covered by this annual report. Based on this
evaluation, the Companys principal executive officer and
principal financial officer concluded that these disclosure
controls and procedures are effective to ensure that the
information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or
submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported within the requisite time
periods, and to provide reasonable assurance that information
required to be disclosed by the Company in such reports is
accumulated and communicated to the Companys management,
including its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure.
Changes
in Internal Controls
There have been no changes in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting during the quarter ended
December 31, 2005, that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting.
The Companys management, including its principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, assessed the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting
based on the framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The evaluation
of the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls
over financial reporting include among others those policies and
procedures that:
|
|
|
|
|
Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the assets of the Company;
|
|
|
|
Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made
only in accordance with authorizations of management and
directors of the Company; and
|
|
|
|
Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
Companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
|
During the fiscal year 2005, the Company periodically tested the
design and operating effectiveness of its internal controls.
Among other matters, the Company sought in its evaluation to
determine whether there were any significant
deficiencies or material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting, or whether it had
identified any acts of fraud involving management or other
employees. The Companys evaluation of its internal
controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004,
led to the conclusion that inadequate segregation of duties
resulted in significant deficiencies, which, in aggregate,
amounted to a material weakness. The Companys hiring of a
chief financial officer and a senior accountant, and the
enhanced policies and procedures implemented with these
additional resources in 2005, have remedied these significant
deficiencies related to the segregation of duties. Additional
significant deficiencies in human resources and stock
administration functions were identified at December 31,
2004, but were not alone or in aggregate deemed a material
weakness. These deficiencies are remedied as of
December 31, 2005.
67
Based on the above evaluation, the Companys chief
executive officer and chief financial officer have assessed that
as of December 31, 2005, the Companys internal
controls over financial reporting were effective. Nonetheless,
it is important to acknowledge that due to its inherent
limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect all misstatements. Therefore, even systems
determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance
with respect to financial statement preparation and
presentation. 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.
Managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005 has been audited by Grant Thornton LLP,
an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in
their report which appears herein.
|
|
ITEM 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None
PART III
|
|
ITEM 10.
|
DIRECTORS
AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting
of Shareholders.
|
|
ITEM 11.
|
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from Item 5 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and our Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders.
|
|
ITEM 12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting
of Shareholders.
|
|
ITEM 13.
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting
of Shareholders.
|
|
ITEM 14.
|
PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting
of Shareholders.
PART IV
|
|
ITEM 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THIS
FORM 10-K.
(1) Financial Statements:
The financial statements filed as part of this Report are listed
and indexed under Item 8 above.
(2) Financial Statement Schedules:
Schedules are not included herein because they are not
applicable or the required information appears in the Financial
Statements or Notes thereto.
68
(b) Exhibits.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1*
|
|
Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
3
|
.2++
|
|
Amended and Restated By-Laws of
the Registrant.
|
|
3
|
.3{***}
|
|
Certificate of Amendment to the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
.4ˆ
|
|
Certificate of Amendment of the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.1ˆˆ
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.2++++
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued
to a certain purchaser of the Registrants Common Stock in
April 1995.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.3X
|
|
Common Stock Purchase Warrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.4X
|
|
Callable Warrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.5XXX
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement
dated as of May 10, 2001 between the Registrant and Sativum
Investments Limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.6XXX
|
|
Callable Warrant, dated
June 21, 2001, issued to Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.7XXX
|
|
Common Stock Purchase Warrant,
Class A, dated June 21, 2001, issued to Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.8{**}
|
|
Certificate of Designations of the
Powers, Preferences and Relative, Participating, Optional and
other Special Rights of Preferred Stock and Qualifications,
Limitations and Restrictions Thereof of 3% Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Stock for StemCells, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.9{**}
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Riverview Group, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.10XXXX
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.11&&
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Riverview Group, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.1XX
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 17,
2001, between the Company and Oleh S. Hnatiuk, regarding
NeuroSphere License Agreement dated October 30, 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
Form of at-will Employment
Agreement between the Registrant and most of its employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
Form of Agreement for Consulting
Services between the Registrant and members of its Scientific
Advisory Board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.4*
|
|
Form of Nondisclosure Agreement
between the Registrant and its Contractors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
1988 Stock Option Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.6*
|
|
1992 Equity Incentive Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.7*
|
|
1992 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.8**!!!!
|
|
1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.9++
|
|
Research Agreement dated as of
March 16, 1994 between NeuroSpheres, Ltd. and Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.10++
|
|
Lease Agreement between the
Registrant and Rhode Island Industrial Facilities Corporation,
dated as of August 1, 1992.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.11++
|
|
First Amendment to Lease Agreement
between Registrant and The Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation dated as of September 15, 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.12+++
|
|
Form of Common Stock Purchase
Agreement to be executed among the Registrant and certain
purchasers of the Registrants Common Stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.13###
|
|
Lease Agreement dated as of
November 21, 1997 by and between Hub RI Properties Trust,
as Landlord, and CytoTherapeutics, Inc., as Tenant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.14!!
|
|
CTI individual stockholders option
agreement dated as of July 10, 1996 among the Company and
the individuals listed therein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.15***
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of August 13, 1997 among StemCells, Inc., the Registrant
and CTI Acquisition Corp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.16***
|
|
Consulting Agreement dated as of
September 25, 1997 between Dr. Irving Weissman and the
Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.17###
|
|
Letter Agreement among each of
Dr. Irving Weissman and Dr. Fred H. Gage and the
Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
10
|
.18****
|
|
StemCells, Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.19****
|
|
1997 StemCells Research Stock
Option Plan (the 1997 Plan)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.20****
|
|
Form of Performance-Based
Incentive Option Agreement issued under the 1997 Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.21{*}
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of
July 27, 1998 between Bank Boston, N.A. as Rights Agent and
the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.22$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
October 27, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute and
the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.23$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
October 27, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute and
the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.24$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
November 20, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute
and the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.25$$**
|
|
Purchase Agreement and License
Agreement dated as of December 29, 1999 between Neurotech
S.A. and the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.26++++**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of June
1999 between The Scripps Research Institute and the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.27++++**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of June
1999 between The Scripps Research Institute and the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.28X
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement dated as of July 31, 2000 between the Registrant
and investors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.29X
|
|
Subscription Agreement dated as of
July 31, 2000 between the Registrant and Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.30XX
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of
October 30, 2000, between the Registrant and NeuroSpheres
Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.31XX
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated
January 2, 2001, between the Registrant and Martin McGlynn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.32XX
|
|
Lease, dated February 1,
2001, between the Board of Trustees of Stanford University and
the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.33XXX
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated as of June 21, 2001, by and between the Registrant
and Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.34XXX
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of June 21, 2001, by and between the Registrant and
Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.35$$$
|
|
2001 Equity Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.36{**}
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and Riverview
Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.37{**}
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated as of December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.38{**}
|
|
Agreement dated as of
December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.39{**}
|
|
Agreement dated as of
December 4, 2001 among the Registrant, Millennium Partners,
L.P. and Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.40&
|
|
Agreement, dated as of
April 9, 2003, between the Registrant and Riverview Group,
L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.41&&
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement between the Registrant and Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.42&&&
|
|
Securities Purchase Agreement,
dated as of May 7, 2003, between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.43%
|
|
Securities Purchase Agreement
dated as of December 9, 2003, between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.44ˆˆˆ
|
|
Form of Securities Purchase
Agreement dated as of June 16, 2004 between the Registrant
and certain Purchasers parties thereto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.45ˆˆˆ
|
|
Form of Warrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.46ˆˆˆˆ
|
|
Amended and Restated 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan of the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
10
|
.47§
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
July 1, 2005 between the Registrant and ReNeuron Limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.48§§
|
|
Letter Agreement effective as of
September 6, 2005, between the Registrant and Rodney K.B.
Young
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.49§§
|
|
Consulting Agreement effective as
of September 6, 2005 between the Registrant and Judi R. Lum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
.1%%
|
|
Code of Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
X
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Grant Thornton, LLP ,
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14(a), as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14(a), as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Martin
McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Rodney K.B.
Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-85494. |
|
+++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 33-97272. |
|
++++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-91228. |
|
* |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-45739. |
|
# |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 and filed
March 30, 1993. |
|
** |
|
Confidential treatment requested as to certain portions. The
term confidential treatment and the mark
** as used throughout the indicated Exhibits mean
that material has been omitted and separately filed with the
Commission. |
|
## |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1994 and filed on
May 14, 1994. |
|
+ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1993 and filed on
March 30, 1994. |
|
! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1996. |
|
!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1996. |
|
!!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 and filed on
March 31, 1997. |
|
!!!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995. |
71
|
|
|
*** |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 and filed on
November 14, 1997. |
|
**** |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-37313. |
|
### |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
annual report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and filed on
March 30, 1998. |
|
{*} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on August 3, 1998. |
|
{**} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on December 7, 2001. |
|
$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
annual report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and filed on
March 31, 1999. |
|
$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on January 14, 2000. |
|
$$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
definitive proxy statement filed May 1, 2001. |
|
X |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 333-45496. |
|
XX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and filed on
April 2, 2001. |
|
XXX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement filed on
Form S-1
as amended to
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-61726. |
|
XXXX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement filed on
Form S-3,
File No.
333-75806. |
|
{***} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement filed on Form
S-3, File
No. 333-83992. |
|
$$$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on August 28, 2002. |
|
& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on April 15, 2003. |
|
&& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on May 13, 2003. |
|
&&& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on May 15, 2003. |
|
% |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on December 10, 2003. |
|
%% |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 |
|
ˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on October 25, 2004. |
|
ˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-117360. |
|
ˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on June 17, 2004. |
72
|
|
|
ˆˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-118263. |
|
ˆˆˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on November 9, 2004. |
|
§ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. |
|
§§ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on September 7, 2005. |
73
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
STEMCELLS, INC.
Martin McGlynn
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Dated: March 14, 2006
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ MARTIN
McGLYNN
Martin
McGlynn
|
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer
and Director
(principal executive officer)
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ RODNEY K.B.
YOUNG
Rodney
K.B. Young
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ GEORGE
KOSHY
George
Koshy
|
|
Chief Accounting Officer
(principal accounting officer)
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ERIC
BJERKHOLT
Eric
Bjerkholt
|
|
Director
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ RICARDO
B. LEVY, PH.D.
Ricardo
B. Levy, Ph.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ROGER
PERLMUTTER, M.D.
Roger
Perlmutter, M.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ JOHN
J. SCHWARTZ, PH.D.
John
J. Schwartz, Ph.D.
|
|
Director, Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ IRVING
L. WEISSMAN, M.D.
Irving
L. Weissman, M.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
74
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1*
|
|
Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
3
|
.2++
|
|
Amended and Restated By-Laws of
the Registrant.
|
|
3
|
.3{***}
|
|
Certificate of Amendment to the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.
|
|
3
|
.4ˆ
|
|
Certificate of Amendment of the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant.
|
|
4
|
.1ˆˆ
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate.
|
|
4
|
.2++++
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued
to a certain purchaser of the Registrants Common Stock in
April 1995.
|
|
4
|
.3X
|
|
Common Stock Purchase Warrant
|
|
4
|
.4X
|
|
Callable Warrant
|
|
4
|
.5XXX
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement
dated as of May 10, 2001 between the Registrant and Sativum
Investments Limited.
|
|
4
|
.6XXX
|
|
Callable Warrant, dated
June 21, 2001, issued to Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
4
|
.7XXX
|
|
Common Stock Purchase Warrant,
Class A, dated June 21, 2001, issued to Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
4
|
.8{**}
|
|
Certificate of Designations of the
Powers, Preferences and Relative, Participating, Optional and
other Special Rights of Preferred Stock and Qualifications,
Limitations and Restrictions Thereof of 3% Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Stock for StemCells, Inc.
|
|
4
|
.9{**}
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Riverview Group, LLC
|
|
4
|
.10XXXX
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
|
|
4
|
.11&&
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock Riverview Group, LLC
|
|
10
|
.1XX
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 17,
2001, between the Company and Oleh S. Hnatiuk, regarding
NeuroSphere License Agreement dated October 30, 2000.
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
Form of at-will Employment
Agreement between the Registrant and most of its employees.
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
Form of Agreement for Consulting
Services between the Registrant and members of its Scientific
Advisory Board.
|
|
10
|
.4*
|
|
Form of Nondisclosure Agreement
between the Registrant and its Contractors.
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
1988 Stock Option Plan.
|
|
10
|
.6*
|
|
1992 Equity Incentive Plan.
|
|
10
|
.7*
|
|
1992 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors.
|
|
10
|
.8**!!!!
|
|
1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
|
|
10
|
.9++
|
|
Research Agreement dated as of
March 16, 1994 between NeuroSpheres, Ltd. and Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.10++
|
|
Lease Agreement between the
Registrant and Rhode Island Industrial Facilities Corporation,
dated as of August 1, 1992.
|
|
10
|
.11++
|
|
First Amendment to Lease Agreement
between Registrant and The Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation dated as of September 15, 1994.
|
|
10
|
.12+++
|
|
Form of Common Stock Purchase
Agreement to be executed among the Registrant and certain
purchasers of the Registrants Common Stock.
|
|
10
|
.13###
|
|
Lease Agreement dated as of
November 21, 1997 by and between Hub RI Properties Trust,
as Landlord, and CytoTherapeutics, Inc., as Tenant.
|
|
10
|
.14!!
|
|
CTI individual stockholders option
agreement dated as of July 10, 1996 among the Company and
the individuals listed therein.
|
|
10
|
.15***
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of August 13, 1997 among StemCells, Inc., the Registrant
and CTI Acquisition Corp.
|
|
10
|
.16***
|
|
Consulting Agreement dated as of
September 25, 1997 between Dr. Irving Weissman and the
Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.17###
|
|
Letter Agreement among each of
Dr. Irving Weissman and Dr. Fred H. Gage and the
Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.18****
|
|
StemCells, Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan.
|
|
10
|
.19****
|
|
1997 StemCells Research Stock
Option Plan (the 1997 Plan)
|
|
10
|
.20****
|
|
Form of Performance-Based
Incentive Option Agreement issued under the 1997 Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
10
|
.21{*}
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of
July 27, 1998 between Bank Boston, N.A. as Rights Agent and
the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.22$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
October 27, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute and
the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.23$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
October 27, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute and
the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.24$**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
November 20, 1998 between The Scripps Research Institute
and the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.25$$**
|
|
Purchase Agreement and License
Agreement dated as of December 29, 1999 between Neurotech
S.A. and the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.26++++**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of June
1999 between The Scripps Research Institute and the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.27++++**
|
|
License Agreement dated as of June
1999 between The Scripps Research Institute and the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.28X
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement dated as of July 31, 2000 between the Registrant
and investors.
|
|
10
|
.29X
|
|
Subscription Agreement dated as of
July 31, 2000 between the Registrant and Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.30XX
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of
October 30, 2000, between the Registrant and NeuroSpheres
Ltd.
|
|
10
|
.31XX
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated
January 2, 2001, between the Registrant and Martin McGlynn
|
|
10
|
.32XX
|
|
Lease, dated February 1,
2001, between the Board of Trustees of Stanford University and
the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.33XXX
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated as of June 21, 2001, by and between the Registrant
and Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.34XXX
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of June 21, 2001, by and between the Registrant and
Millennium Partners, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.35$$$
|
|
2001 Equity Incentive Plan
|
|
10
|
.36{**}
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and Riverview
Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.37{**}
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated as of December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.38{**}
|
|
Agreement dated as of
December 4, 2001 between the Registrant and Millennium
Partners, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.39{**}
|
|
Agreement dated as of
December 4, 2001 among the Registrant, Millennium Partners,
L.P. and Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.40&
|
|
Agreement, dated as of
April 9, 2003, between the Registrant and Riverview Group,
L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.41&&
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement between the Registrant and Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.42&&&
|
|
Securities Purchase Agreement,
dated as of May 7, 2003, between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.43%
|
|
Securities Purchase Agreement
dated as of December 9, 2003, between the Registrant and
Riverview Group, L.L.C.
|
|
10
|
.44ˆˆˆ
|
|
Form of Securities Purchase
Agreement dated as of June 16, 2004 between the Registrant
and certain Purchasers parties thereto.
|
|
10
|
.45ˆˆˆ
|
|
Form of Warrant.
|
|
10
|
.46ˆˆˆˆ
|
|
Amended and Restated 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan of the Registrant.
|
|
10
|
.47§
|
|
License Agreement dated as of
July 1, 2005 between the Registrant and ReNeuron Limited
|
|
10
|
.48§§
|
|
Letter Agreement effective as of
September 6, 2005, between the Registrant and Rodney K.B.
Young
|
|
10
|
.49§§
|
|
Consulting Agreement effective as
of September 6, 2005 between the Registrant and Judi R. Lum
|
|
14
|
.1%%
|
|
Code of Ethics
|
|
21
|
X
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Grant Thornton, LLP ,
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14(a), as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer).
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14(a), as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer).
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Martin
McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Rodney K.B.
Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-85494. |
|
+++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 33-97272. |
|
++++ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-91228. |
|
* |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-45739. |
|
# |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 and filed
March 30, 1993. |
|
** |
|
Confidential treatment requested as to certain portions. The
term confidential treatment and the mark
** as used throughout the indicated Exhibits mean
that material has been omitted and separately filed with the
Commission. |
|
## |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1994 and filed on
May 14, 1994. |
|
+ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1993 and filed on
March 30, 1994. |
|
! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1996. |
|
!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1996. |
|
!!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 and filed on
March 31, 1997. |
|
!!!! |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995. |
|
*** |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 and filed on
November 14, 1997. |
|
**** |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as Exhibits to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-37313. |
|
### |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
annual report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and filed on
March 30, 1998. |
|
{*} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on August 3, 1998. |
|
|
|
{**} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on December 7, 2001. |
|
$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
annual report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and filed on
March 31, 1999. |
|
$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on January 14, 2000. |
|
$$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
definitive proxy statement filed May 1, 2001. |
|
X |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 333-45496. |
|
XX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and filed on
April 2, 2001. |
|
XXX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement filed on
Form S-1
as amended to
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-61726. |
|
XXXX |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement filed on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-75806. |
|
{***} |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement filed on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-83992. |
|
$$$$ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on August 28, 2002. |
|
& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on April 15, 2003. |
|
&& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on May 13, 2003. |
|
&&& |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on May 15, 2003. |
|
% |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
on December 10, 2003. |
|
%% |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 |
|
ˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on October 25, 2004. |
|
ˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated by reference to, the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-117360. |
|
ˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on June 17, 2004. |
|
ˆˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-118263. |
|
ˆˆˆˆˆ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to, and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on November 9, 2004. |
|
§ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. |
|
§§ |
|
Previously filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to and
incorporated herein by reference to, the Registrants
current report on
Form 8-K
filed on September 7, 2005. |