PALISADE BIO, INC. - Annual Report: 2008 (Form 10-K)
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark
One)
x
|
ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934
|
For the fiscal year ended December
31, 2008.
or
o
|
TRANSITION
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934
|
For the transition period
from
to
.
Commission
File Number 000-1357459
NEURALSTEM,
INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
|
52-2007292
|
|
State
or other jurisdiction of
incorporation
or organization
|
(I.R.S.
Employer
Identification
No.)
|
|
9700
Great Seneca Highway
Rockville,
MD
|
20850
|
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code (301)-366-4841)
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title
of each class
|
Name
of each exchange on which registered
|
|
Common
stock, $0.01 par value
|
NYSE
Amex
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in
Rule 405 of the Securities Act o Yes x No
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to
Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. oYes x No
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. x Yes o No
Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will
not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See
the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated filer o
|
Non-accelerated filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting
company)
|
Smaller reporting company x
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No x
The
aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by
non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was
last sold as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently
completed second fiscal quarter based upon the closing price of the common stock
as reported by NYSE Amex on such date, was approximately
$42,611,966
The
number of shares outstanding of Registrant’s common stock, $0.01 par value at
March 13, 2009 was 33,751,300.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
None.
SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
On
February 20, 2009 we announced our spinal cord stem cell trial to treat ALS was
on clinical hold and that the FDA has provided us with specific comments,
questions and recommendations for modifications to our trial
protocol. The FDA has asked for additional information regarding our
product manufacturing process and pre-clinical studies, as well as our novel
clinical delivery injection device and technique. We believe we can provide this
information in an expeditious manner. We are evaluating various
modifications to the protocol and eligibility criteria for patients in the trial
proposed by the FDA, as well as slight changes to the timing of the
surgeries. The FDA had extensive 'non hold' comments, requests for
information, and recommendations. These items concerned issues that will need to
be addressed for final product manufacturing and testing. We expect
to reach agreement with the FDA on all matters so that our application can be
approved and the trial commenced.
NEURALSTEM,
INC
FORM 10-K
FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008
INDEX
Page
|
||||
PART I
|
||||
Item
1.
|
Business
|
3
|
||
Item
1A.
|
Risk
Factors
|
13
|
||
Item
2.
|
Properties
|
20
|
||
Item
3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
20
|
||
Item
4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
21
|
||
PART II
|
||||
Item
5.
|
Market
for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and
Issuer Purchases
of Equity Securities
|
21
|
||
Item
6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
24
|
||
Item
7.
|
Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
|
24
|
||
Item
7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
F-1
|
||
Item
8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
F-1
|
||
Item
9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial
Disclosure
|
30
|
||
Item
9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
30
|
||
PART III
|
||||
Item
10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
31
|
||
Item
11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
34
|
||
Item
12.
|
38
|
|||
Item
13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
39
|
||
Item
14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
39
|
||
PART IV
|
||||
Item
15.
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
40
|
2
PART I
We
urge you to read this entire Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the” Risk
Factors” section, the financial statements and related notes included
herein. As used in this Annual Report, unless context otherwise
requires, the words “we,” “us,”“our,” “the Company,” “Neuralstem” and
“Registrant” refer to Neuralstem, Inc. Also, any reference to “common
shares,” “Common Stock,” “common stock” or “Common Shares” refers to our $.01
par value common stock.
SPECIAL
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain
statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute
“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. All statements included in this Annual Report, including those related to
our cash, liquidity, resources and our anticipated cash expenditures, as well as
any statements other than statements of historical fact, regarding our strategy,
future operations, financial position, projected costs, prospects, plans and
objectives are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking
statements are derived, in part, from various assumptions and analyses we have
made in the context of our current business plan and information currently
available to us and in light of our experience and perceptions of historical
trends, current conditions and expected future developments and other factors we
believe are appropriate in the circumstances. You can generally identify forward
looking statements through words and phrases such as “believe”, “expect”, “seek”,
“estimate”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “plan”, “budget”, “project”, “may likely
result”, “may be”, “may continue” and other similar
expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these
identifying words. We cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity,
performance or achievements, and you should not place undue reliance on our
forward-looking statements.
Our
actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these
forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including the risks
described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere
in this Annual Report. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the
potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint
ventures or strategic investments. In addition, any forward-looking statement
represents our expectation only as of the day this Annual Report was first filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and should not be relied on
as representing our expectations as of any subsequent date. While we may elect
to update forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we
specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, even if our expectations
change.
When
reading any forward-looking statement, you should remain mindful that actual
results or developments may vary substantially from those expressed in or
implied by such statement for a number of reasons or factors, including but not
limited to:
·
|
the
success of our research and development activities, the development of a
viable commercial product, and the speed with which regulatory
authorizations and product launches may be
achieved;
|
·
|
whether
or not a market for our product develops and, if a market develops, the
rate at which it develops;
|
·
|
our
ability to successfully sell our products if a market
develops;
|
·
|
our
ability to attract and retain qualified personnel to implement our
business plan and corporate growth
strategies;
|
·
|
our
ability to develop sales, marketing, and distribution
capabilities;
|
·
|
our
ability to obtain reimbursement from third party payers for our proposed
products if they are developed;
|
·
|
the
accuracy of our estimates and
projections;
|
·
|
our
ability to fund our short-term and long-term financing
needs;
|
·
|
changes
in our business plan and corporate strategies;
and
|
·
|
other
risks and uncertainties discussed in greater detail in the section
captioned “Risk
Factors”
|
Each
forward-looking statement should be read in context with and in understanding of
the various other disclosures concerning our company and our business made
elsewhere in this Annual Report as well as our public filings with the SEC. You
should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. We are not
obligated to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this
Annual Report or any other filing to reflect new events or circumstances unless
and to the extent required by applicable law.
ITEM
1.
|
BUSINESS
|
We are a
biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing human neural
stem cell technology in the emerging field of regenerative
medicine. We are headquartered in Rockville
Maryland.
3
Our
History
We began
operations in 1996 and were incorporated in 1997 in the state of
Maryland. In 2001 we re-incorporated in the state of Delaware. From
1997 to 2003, our research focused on:
|
·
|
“Genomics,” which
is the study of genes and their
functions;
|
|
·
|
“Drug Discovery,” which
consists of the identification of molecules with desired biological
effects that have promise as new therapeutic drugs;
and
|
|
·
|
“Cell Therapy,” which
consists of therapies in which cells are administered to patients in order
to repair damaged or depleted
tissues.
|
In 2001,
we were paid a licensing fee of $7.5 million by Gene Logic, Inc., payable over
three years, to create a database using our technology. Also, in 2001, we
received a United States Defense Department contract to do drug screening using
the cells derived from our technology in the amount of $2.5 million over 18
months. Finally, during this period, we pursued our own research into
transplanting cells derived from our technology to cure disease. We reached a
high of roughly 50 employees in early 2000, mostly involved in the
infrastructure involved with the Gene Logic/genomics and drug discovery
programs.
In late
2000 and early 2001, as a result of the decline in biotech funding and the
accompanying devaluation of the genomics industry, our genomics program was no
longer commercially viable. Additionally, in late 2002, the Department of
Defense cancelled the program which funded our drug discover efforts. As a
result, by the end of 2003, we made the strategic decision to lay off our
employees involved in the genomic and drug discovery programs and focus entirely
on the transplantation of neural stem cells to treat diseases in
patients.
We spent
2004 restructuring our capitalization and creating an “outsourced” model of
product development by having our research conducted at various universities and
research labs and having all other functions outsourced. In November of 2004 we
completed a ten-for-three reverse stock split.
In 2005,
we continued to operate under this model, with all accounting, facility,
manufacturing, transplantation experimentation and regulatory functions
outsourced, under the supervision of Richard Garr, our President, Chief
Executive Officer, and general counsel and Dr. Karl Johe, our Chairman and Chief
Scientific Officer.
Overview
Starting
in 2004, we refocused our research efforts to concentrate primarily in the field
of Cell Therapy. Specifically, we are focused on the development and
commercialization of treatments based on transplanting human neural stem
cells.
We have
developed and maintain a portfolio of patents and patent applications that form
the proprietary base of our research and development efforts in the area of
neural stem cell research, and related technologies. We believe our technology
base, in combination with our know-how, and collaborative projects with major
research institutions, provide a competitive advantage and will facilitate the
successful development and commercialization of products for use in treatment of
a wide array of neurodegenerative conditions and in regenerative repair of acute
disease. We are focused on leveraging our key assets, including our
intellectual property, our scientific team, our facilities and our capital, to
accelerate the advancement of our stem cell technologies. In addition, we are
pursuing strategic collaborations with members of academia.
Regenerative
Medicine is a young and emerging field. There can be no assurances that our
intellectual property portfolio will ultimately produce viable commercialized
products and processes. Even if we are able to produce a commercially viable
product, there are strong competitors in this field and our product may not be
able to successfully compete against them.
All of
our research efforts to date are at the level of basic research or in the
pre-clinical stage of development. On December 18, 2008 we filed our first
Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (“FDA”) to begin a clinical trial to treat amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (“ALS” or “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”). On February 20, 2009, the FDA
provided us with specific comments, questions and recommendations for
modification to the protocol submitted in our IND. The trial is currently
on clinical hold. We are in the process of analyzing the notice and the FDA’s
comments and recommendations.
The
Field of Regenerative Medicine
The
emerging field of treatment called "regenerative medicine" or "cell therapy"
refers to treatments that are founded on the concept of producing new cells to
replace malfunctioning or dead cells as a way to treat disease and injury. Many
significant and currently untreatable human diseases arise from the loss or
malfunction of specific cell types in the body. Our focus is the development of
effective methods to generate replacement cells from neural stem cells. We
believe that replacing damaged or malfunctioning or dead neural cells with fully
functional ones may be a useful therapeutic strategy in treating many diseases
and conditions of the central nervous system (“CNS”) including: Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, depression, and injuries
to the spinal cord.
4
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 functions 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, may 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 patient's health.
Stem
cells have two defining characteristics: (i) they produce mature cells
which make up particular organs; 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. Also, 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) identification of
stem or progenitor cells of a particular organ and testing them for therapeutic
potential; (ii) creation of 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; and (iii) demonstration of
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. With respect
to the human neural stem cells, we have developed proprietary and reproducible
processes to identify, isolate, expand, purify1 and
control cell differentiation in mature functioning human neurons2 and
glia3 and bank
human neural stem cells derived 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 cells derived from an unpurified mix of many different cell
types.
Potential
Markets
We
believe that, if successfully developed, neural stem cell-based therapies have
the potential to treat a broad range of diseases and injuries of the CNS. We
believe the potential application of our technologies given our current research
focus includes developing neural cell therapies to treat Parkinson's disease,
ALS, and injuries to the spinal cord.
We
believe the potential markets for regenerative medicine based on our
technologies are large. The table below summarizes the potential United States
patient populations which we believe may be amenable to neural cell
transplantation and represent potential target markets for our proposed
products:
Medical Condition
|
Number of Patients *
|
|
Parkinson's
Disease
|
1
million
|
|
Spinal-cord
injuries
|
0.25
million
|
|
Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis
|
0.03
million
|
*These estimates are
based on the estimates published by the following organizations as of April
2006; the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, the Parkinson's Action Network, the
Foundation for Spinal Cord Injury Prevention, Care and Cure, and the Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis Association.
1 Purification of our cells
is the process whereby we separate “raw” donor tissue into our cells. During the
process, we monitor the division of the neural stems cells and remove or “weed
out” any cells which have failed to divide after a predetermined period of time.
We repeat this process 3 to 4 times until the cells remaining have been
“purified” in our estimation.
2 Neurons are a major class
of cells in the nervous system. Neurons are sometimes called nerve cells, though
this term is technically imprecise since many neurons do not form nerves. In
vertebrates, they are found in the brain, the spinal cord and in the nerves and
ganglia of the peripheral nervous system, and their primary role is to process
and transmit neural information. One important characteristic of neurons is that
they have excitable membranes which allow them to generate and propagate
electrical signals.
3 Glia cells, commonly
called neuroglia or simply glia, are non-neuronal cells that provide support and
nutrition, maintain homeostasis, form myelin, and participate in signal
transmission in the nervous system. In the human brain, glia are estimated to
outnumber neurons by as much as 50 to 1.
5
Our
Technology
Our
technology is the ability to isolate human neural stem cells from most areas of
the developing human brain and spinal cord. Our technology includes
the ability to grow neural stem cells into physiologically relevant human
neurons of all types. Our two issued core patents entitled “Isolation, Propagation,
and Directed Differentiation of Stem Cell from Embryonic and Adult Central
Nervous System of Mammals” and “ In Vitro Generation of
Differentiated Neurons from Cultures of Mammalian Multi-potential CNS Stem
Cell” contain claims which cover the process of deriving the
cells and the cells created from such process.
Our
technology is the ability to isolate human neural stem cells from most areas of
the human brain and spinal cord and to grow them into physiologically relevant
human neurons of all types. Our core patents entitled:
·
|
Isolation, Propagation, and
Directed Differentiation of Stem Cell from Embryonic and Adult Central
Nervous System of Mammal;
and
|
·
|
In Vitro Generation of
Differentiated Neurons from Cultures of Mammalian Multi-potential CNS Stem
Cell
|
contain
claims which cover the details of this process and the culture of cells created.
What differentiates our stem cell technology from others is that our patented
processes do not require us to “push” the cells towards a certain fate by adding
specific growth factors. Our cells actually “become” the type of cell they are
fated to be. We believe this process and the resulting cells create a technology
platform that allows for the efficient isolation and ability to produce, in
commercially reasonable quantities, neural stem cells.
Our
technology allows for cells to grow in cultured dishes, also known as “in vitro” growth, without
mutations or other adverse events that would compromise their usefulness. We
believe this provides two distinct advantages:
·
|
First,
the growth or expansion of the cells in vitro occurs while
the cells are still in their “stem cell” or blank state which allows for
the creation of commercially reasonable quantities of neural stem cells.
Once a sufficient number of blank cells have been grown, our technology
allows us to program or differentiate the cells into either neurons or
glia; and
|
·
|
Secondly,
we have the ability to sample the cells while still in vitro in order to
confirm that the cells are differentiating in the desired cell
type.
|
Although
not the focus of our business, our technology also has ancillary uses with
respect to drug development. Our ability to grow and differentiate neural
cells in vitro, gives
us the ability to analyze the potential biological effects of molecules on these
cells. This has resulted in the identification of a group of small molecule
compounds with the potential to enhance the survival of the endogenous cells
residing in the hippocampus4
region on the brain.
Business
Strategy
We are
seeking to develop and commercialize stem cell therapeutics to treat, and
possibly cure, a range of human diseases. Our strategy has been to identify,
isolate and patent important human neural stem and progenitor cells derived from
human tissue with therapeutic and commercial importance; to develop techniques
which enable the expansion and banking of those cells; and then to take them
into clinical development as transplantable therapeutics.
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 neural stem cell therapeutics financially
feasible. We have obtained rights to certain inventions relating to stem cells
and progenitor through our own research and from academic collaborators. We
expect to continue to expand our search for, and to seek to acquire rights from
third parties where relevant, and to further develop our intellectual property
positions with respect to both in-house research and through research conducted
at commercial and scholarly institutions.
Our
Research and Programs
We have
devoted substantial resources to our research programs to isolate and develop a
series of neural stem cell banks that we believe can serve as a basis for
therapeutic products. Our efforts to date have been directed at methods to
identify, isolate and culture large varieties of stem cells of the human nervous
system, and to develop therapies utilizing these stem cells. This research is
conducted both internally and through the use of third party laboratory
consulting companies under our direct supervision.
In
addition to research which we conduct internally or under our direct
supervision, we conduct research and development through research
collaborations. These collaborations, or programs, are undertaken with both
commercial and scholarly institutes pursuant to the terms and conditions of our
standard material transfer agreement.
The terms
of our standard material transfer agreement require us to provide our research
partner or collaborator with access to our technology or “research materials,”
which are comprised of our neurological stem cells, for a specific pre-defined
purpose. As part of the agreement, we agree to provide sufficient research
materials and technical assistance to accomplish the purpose of the program. The
determination of sufficiency is determined at our sole discretion. As part of
these agreements, we are entitled to certain reporting rights and the right to
have patentable discoveries presented to us prior to publication in order for us
to file applicable patents. In the event we choose to file a patent, we will
either be responsible for all filing and maintenance fees or we will split the
fees with our research partner depending on the type of patent to be filed. The
agreements also provide for us to receive a fully paid up, royalty free,
non-exclusive license to any inventions made by our partner with respect to our
technologies and their interest in any intellectual property jointly developed
and first right to negotiate an exclusive license. The agreements also provide
confidentiality between the parties. Generally each party is responsible for its
own expense, there are no milestone payment or royalty payment requirements
and the duration of these agreements is for a three year term which can be
terminated by either party by providing 90 days written notice. Also,
these agreements may require us to pay for certain costs and expenses incurred
in connection with the research.
4 The
hippocampus region of the brain plays a part in memory and navigation. We
believe that this ability to enhance the survival rate of the endogenous cells
may result in the development of drugs or compounds that could be used to treat
a variety of central nervous system diseases.
6
Examples
of such projects include:
University
of California San Diego, San Diego, CA: In May of 2002, we initiated a
research project with the University of California in San Diego for the purpose
of researching the applicability of our technology to the treatment of Ischemic
Spastic Paraplegia and traumatic spinal cord injury. The project is ongoing. The
research yielded findings that contributed to our filing of patent entitled
Transplantation of Human Cells for Treatment of Neurological
Disorders.
Johns
Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD: In March of 2001
we initiated a research project with Johns Hopkins University, School of
Medicine for the purpose of researching the applicability of our technology to
the treatment of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and traumatic spinal cord injury.
The project is ongoing. The research yielded findings that contributed to our
filing of patent entitled Transplantation of Human Cells for Treatment of
Neurological Disorders.
University
of Southern Florida, Tampa, FL: In September of 2005 we initiated a
research project with the University of Southern Florida for the purpose of
researching the applicability of our technology to the treatment of Parkinson's
Disease. The project is ongoing.
University
of Central Florida, Orlando, FL: In March of 2006 we initiated a research
project with the University of Central Florida for the purpose of researching
the applicability of our technology to the treatment of spinal cord injuries.
The project is ongoing.
University
of Pennsylvania whereby we have entered into an agreement with the
university to assist us in developing “A Feasibility and Safety Study of human
Spinal Stem Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Ischemic Spastic
Paraplegia Due to Spinal Cord Ischemia.
Albany
Molecular Research, Inc., whereby we have contracted with Albany to
assist us in manufacturing small molecule neurogenises treatment using “Good
Manufacturing Practice procedures.
Ricera
Biosciences, LLC, whereby we have entered into an agreement whereby
Ricera will assist us in performing toxicity tests on small molecule neurgenisis
treatments.
China
Medical University & Hospital of Taiwan, to collaborate on
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease) with Dr. Shinn-Zong
Lin, MD, PhD as principle investigator.
Albert-Ludwigs-University
in Freiburg, Germany, to collaborate on the treatment of Huntington's
disease.
The
forgoing is not exhaustive and is only meant to provide a brief overview of the
types of projects we are undertaking with third parties.
Manufacturing
We
currently manufacture our cells both in-house and on an outsource basis. We
manufacture cells in-house which are not required to meet stringent FDA
requirements. We use these cells in our research and collaborative programs. We
outsource all the manufacturing and storage of our stem cells to be used in
pre-clinical works, and which are accordingly subject to higher FDA
requirements, to Charles River Laboratories, Inc., of Wilmington, Massachusetts.
The Charles River facility has the capacity to be used for cell processing under
the FDA determined Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) in quantities sufficient
for our current pre-trial and anticipated future clinical trial needs. We
believe the facility has sufficient capacity to provide for our needs in both
the near to intermediate term. We have no quantity or volume commitment with
Charles River Laboratories and our cells are ordered and manufactured on an as
needed basis.
Products
& Marketing
Because
of the early stage of our programs, we have yet to identify any specific product
and we have not yet addressed questions of channels of distribution and
marketing of potential future products.
Our
Intellectual Property
Our
research and development is supported by our intellectual property. We currently
own or have exclusive licenses to 4 patents and 13 patent applications pending
worldwide in the field of regenerative medicine and cell
therapy.
7
Our
success will likely depend upon our ability to preserve our technologies and
operate without infringing the proprietary rights of other parties. However, we
may rely on certain proprietary technologies and know-how that are not
patentable. We protect our proprietary information, in part, by the use of
confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and certain of our
contractors.
When
appropriate, we seek patent protection for inventions in our core technologies
and in ancillary technologies that support our core technologies or which we
otherwise believe will provide us with a competitive advantage. We accomplish
this by filing patent applications for discoveries we make, either alone or in
collaboration with scientific collaborators and strategic partners. Typically,
although not always, we file patent applications both in the United States and
in select international markets. In addition, we plan to obtain licenses or
options to acquire licenses to patent filings from other individuals and
organizations that we anticipate could be useful in advancing our research,
development and commercialization initiatives and our strategic business
interests.
The
following table identifies the issued and pending patents we own that we believe
currently support our technology platform.
Patents
Pending
Number
|
Country
|
Filing
Date
|
Issue Date
|
Expiration
Date
|
Title
|
|||||
2257068
|
CA
|
5/7/1997
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
ISOLATION,
PROPOGATION, AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM CENTRAL
NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
2343571
|
CA
|
9/20/1999
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
STABLE
NEURAL STEM CELL LINES
|
|||||
99948396.9
|
EP
|
9/20/1999
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
STABLE
NEURAL STEM CELL LINES
|
|||||
2000-574224
|
JP
|
9/20/1999
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
STABLE
NEURAL STEM CELL LINES
|
|||||
10/047,352
|
US
|
1/14/2002
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
STABLE
NEURAL STEM CELLS
|
|||||
3790356.4
|
EP
|
12/5/2003
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
METHOD
FOR DISCOVERING NEUROGENIC AGENTS
|
|||||
10/914,460
|
US
|
8/9/2004
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
USE
OF FUSED IMIDAZOLES, AMINOPYRIMIDINES, ISONICOTINAMIDES, MINOMETHYL
PHENOXYPIPERIDINES AND ARYLOXYPIPERIDINES TO PROMOTE AND DETECT ENDOGENOUS
NEUROGENESIS
|
|||||
11/281,640
|
US
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
200580039450
|
CN
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
5851748.3
|
EP
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
2613/CHENP/2007
|
IN
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
183092
|
IL
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
2007-543219
|
JP
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
10-2007-7012097
|
KR
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
8
1-2007-501016
|
PH
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
2007122507
|
RU
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
200703490-3
|
SG
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
1-2007-01216
|
VN
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEURODEGENERATIVE
CONDITIONS
|
|||||
20073078
|
NO
|
11/17/2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
|||||
11/852,922
|
US
|
9/10/2007
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
METHOD
FOR DISCOVERING NEUROGENIC AGENTS
|
|||||
11/932,923
|
US
|
10/31/2007
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
TRANSPLANTATION
OF HUMAN NEURAL CELLS FOR TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL
DISORDERS
|
Patents
Issued
Number
|
Country
|
Filing
Date
|
Issue
Date
|
Expiration
Date
|
Title
|
|||||
5,753,506
|
US
|
9/25/1996
|
5/19/1998
|
9/25/2016
|
ISOLATION
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
6,040,180
|
US
|
5/7/1997
|
3/21/2000
|
5/7/2017
|
IN
VITRO GENERATION OF DIFFERENTIATED NEURONS FROM CULTURES OF MAMMALIAN
MULTIPOTENTIAL CNS STEM CELLS
|
|||||
6,284,539
|
US
|
10/9/1998
|
9/4/2001
|
10/9/2018
|
METHOD
FOR GENERATING DOPAMINERGIC CELLS DERIVED FROM NEURAL
PRECURSORS
|
|||||
755849
|
AU
|
9/20/1999
|
4/3/2003
|
9/20/2019
|
STABLE
NEURAL STEM CELL LINES
|
|||||
915968
|
EP
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPOGATION, AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM CENTRAL
NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
915968
|
ES
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
915968
|
FR
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF
MAMMALS
|
9
915968
|
GB
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
915968
|
IE
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF MAMMALS
|
|||||
915968
|
SE
|
5/7/1997
|
7/25/2007
|
5/7/2017
|
ISOLATION,
PROPAGATION AND DIRECTED DIFFERENTIATION OF STEM CELLS FROM EMBRYONIC AND
ADULT CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM OF
MAMMALS
|
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 and
assignment of invention 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 individual's 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.
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 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 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
biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly evolving technology and
intense competition. Our competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical
companies, specialty biotechnology companies and chemical and medical products
companies operating in the fields of regenerative medicine, cell therapy, tissue
engineering and tissue regeneration. Many of these companies are
well-established and possess technical, research and development, financial and
sales and marketing resources significantly greater than ours. In addition,
certain smaller biotech companies have formed strategic collaborations,
partnerships and other types of joint ventures with larger, well established
industry competitors that afford these companies potential research and
development and commercialization advantages. Academic institutions,
governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are
also conducting and financing research activities which may produce products
directly competitive to those we are developing. Moreover, many of these
competitors may be able to obtain patent protection, obtain FDA and other
regulatory approvals and begin commercial sales of their products before we
do.
10
Although
not necessarily direct competitors, some of the specialty biotechnology
companies include Geron Corporation, Genzyme Corporation, StemCells, Inc.,
Aastrom Biosciences, Inc. and Viacell, Inc. Some of these companies
are well-established and have substantial technical and financial resources
compared to us. However, as cell-based products are only just emerging as
medical therapies, many of our direct competitors are smaller biotechnology and
specialty medical products companies. These smaller companies may become
significant competitors through rapid evolution of new technologies. Any of
these companies could substantially strengthen their competitive position
through strategic alliances or collaborative arrangements with large
pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.
The
diseases and medical conditions we are targeting have no effective long-term
therapies. Nevertheless, we expect that our technologies and products will
compete with a variety of therapeutic products and procedures offered by major
pharmaceutical companies. 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. Competition
for our products may be in the form of existing and new drugs, other forms of
cell transplantation, surgical procedures, and gene therapy. We believe that
some of our competitors are also trying to develop similar stem cell-based
technologies. We expect that all of these products will compete with our
potential stem 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 be extremely expensive.
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 market introduction
of competitive products. This timing will be 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.
Government
Regulation
Regulation
by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries is a
significant factor in our research and development and will be a significant
factor in the manufacture and marketing of our proposed products. The nature and
extent to which such regulation applies to us will vary depending on the nature
of any products we may develop. We anticipate that many, if not all, of our
products will require regulatory approval by governmental agencies prior to
commercialization. In particular, human therapeutic products are subject to
rigorous preclinical and clinical testing and other approval procedures of the
FDA and similar regulatory authorities in European and other countries. Various
governmental statutes and regulations also, govern, or influence testing,
manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage and recordkeeping related to such
products and their marketing. The process of obtaining these approvals and the
subsequent compliance with appropriate statutes and regulations require the
expenditure of substantial time and money, and there can be no guarantee that
approvals will be granted.
FDA
Approval
We are
presently at the stage of pre-clinical development. On December 18, 2008
we filed our first investigational new drug application (IND) with the FDA to
begin a clinical trial to treat amyotrophic ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease. On
February 20, 2009, the FDA provided us with specific comments, questions and
recommendations for modification to the protocol submitted in our IND. The
trial is on clinical hold. We are in the process of analyzing the notice and the
FDA’s comments and recommendations. Prior to marketing our proposed
product, we will need to achieve FDA approval. The FDA requirements
for our potential products to be marketed in the United States include the
following steps:
Preclinical
laboratory and animal tests must be conducted. 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.
An
investigational new drug application, or IND, must be submitted to the FDA, and
the IND must become effective before human clinical trials in the United States
may commence. The IND is submitted to the FDA with the preclinical 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 a satisfactory response is made by the
sponsor. In our case, we have received notification from the FDA that
our IND is on hold. We are currently analyzing the FDA comments and
recommendations.
11
Adequate
and well-controlled human clinical trials must be conducted 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, or IRB, of the
institution at which the study is conducted, and the informed consent of all
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 studies for a cell therapy product are designed to evaluate safety in a
small number of 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.
|
The
results of the preclinical studies and clinical studies are submitted to the FDA
in the form of a Biological License Application (“BLA”) marketing approval
authorization applications. The FDA must approve the applications
prior to any commercial sale or practice of the technology or product. Biologic
product manufacturing establishments located in certain states also may be
subject to separate regulatory and licensing requirements. 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, and animal studies or clinical
trials that may be requested during the FDA review period.
Our
research and development is based largely 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 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. While the Company believes that it is in compliance with all such
practices and regulations; we are not required to register until we apply for
licensure from the FDA for our product, subject to successful completion of
human trials. 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 have
recently taken effect. We cannot now determine the full effects of this
regulatory initiative, including precisely how it may affect the clarity of
regulatory obligations and the extent of regulatory burdens associated with our
stem cell research and the manufacture and marketing of stem cell
products.
European and
Other Regulatory Approval Approval of a product by
regulatory authorities comparable to the FDA in Europe and other countries will
likely be necessary prior to commencement of marketing a product in any of these
countries. The regulatory authorities in each country may impose their own
requirements and may refuse to grant approval, or may require additional data
before granting approval, even though the relevant product has been approved by
the FDA or another authority. The regulatory authorities in the European Union,
or EU, and other developed countries have lengthy approval processes for
pharmaceutical products. The process for gaining approval in particular
countries varies, but is generally similar to the FDA approval process. In
Europe, the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products provides a
mechanism for EU-member states to exchange information on all aspects of product
licensing. The EU has established a European agency for the evaluation of
medical products, with both a centralized community procedure and a
decentralized procedure, the latter being based on the principle of licensing
within one member country followed by mutual recognition by the other member
countries.
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 and federal, state, local, and foreign
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.
The
United States Congress, several states and foreign countries have considered
legislation banning or restricting human application of stem cell-based and
nuclear transfer based technologies. No assurance can be given regarding future
restrictions or prohibitions that might affect our technology and business. In
addition, we cannot assure you that future judicial rulings with respect to
nuclear transfer technology or human stem cells will not have the effect of
delaying, limiting or preventing the use of nuclear transfer technology or stem
cell-based technology or delaying, limiting or preventing the sale, manufacture
or use of products or services derived from nuclear transfer technology or stem
cell-derived material. Any such legislative or judicial development would harm
our ability to generate revenues and operate profitably.
For additional information about governmental regulations that
will affect our planned and intended business operations, see "Risk Factor"
beginning on page 13.
12
Employees
As of
March 13, 2009, we had 8 full-time employees. Of these employees 4 work on
Research and development and 4 in administration. We also use the services of
numerous outside consultants in business and scientific matters.
Where
to Find More Information
We make
our public filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all
exhibits and amendments to these reports. Also our executive
officers, directors and holders of more than 10% of our common stock, file
reports with the SEC on Forms 3, 4 and 5 regarding their ownership of our
securities. These materials are available on the SEC’s web site, http://www.sec.gov.
You may also read or copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public
Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. You may
obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the
SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Alternatively, you may obtain copies of these
filings, including exhibits, by writing or telephoning us at:
NEURALSTEM,
INC
9700
Great Seneca Highway,
Rockville,
Maryland 20850
Attn:
Chief Financial Officer
Tel:
(301) 366-4841
ITEM
1A.
|
RISK
FACTORS
|
We
have described below a number of uncertainties and risks which, in addition to
uncertainties and risks presented elsewhere in this Annual Report, may adversely
affect our business, operating results and financial condition. The
uncertainties and risks enumerated below as well as those presented elsewhere in
this Annual Report should be considered carefully in evaluating our company and
our business and the value of our securities. The following important factors,
among others, could cause our actual business, financial condition and future
results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements
made in this Annual Report or presented elsewhere by management from time to
time.
Risks
Relating to Our Stage of Development
We have a limited
operating history and have significantly shifted our operations and strategies
since inception.
Since
inception in 1996 and through December 31, 2008, we have raised $61,690,040 of
capital and recorded accumulated losses totaling $57,486,795. On December 31,
2008, we had a working capital surplus of $3,774,078 and stockholders’ equity of
$4,203,245. Our net losses for the two most recent fiscal years have been
$11,830,798 and $7,063,272 for 2008 and 2007 respectively. We had no revenues
for the twelve months ended December 31, 2008.
Our
ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability will depend upon our
ability to complete the development of our proposed stem cell products, obtain
the required regulatory approvals, manufacture, and market and sell our proposed
products. In part because of our past operating results, no assurances can be
given that we will be able to accomplish any of these goals.
Although
we have generated some revenue in prior years, we have not generated any revenue
from the commercial sale of our proposed stem cell products. Since inception, we
have engaged in several related lines of business and have discontinued
operations in certain areas. For example, in 2002, we lost a material contract
with the Department of Defense and were forced to close our principal facility
and lay off almost all of our employees in an attempt to focus our development
strategy on stem cell technologies. This limited and changing history may not be
adequate to enable you to fully assess our current ability to develop and
commercialize our technologies and proposed products, obtain approval from the
FDA, achieve market acceptance of our proposed products, and respond to
competition. No assurances can be given as to exactly when, if at all, we will
be able to fully develop, commercialize, market, sell and derive material
revenues from our proposed products in development.
We will need to
raise additional capital to continue operations.
Historically
we have generates limited amounts of cash which are not sufficient to meet
current or future operating or capital requirements. We have relied
almost entirely on external financing to fund operations. Such financing has
historically come primarily from the sale of common stock, and the exercise of
investor warrants. As of December 31, 2008, we had cash and cash
equivalents on hand of approximately $5.0 million. Presently, we have a monthly
cash burn rate of approximately $500,000. We will need to raise
additional capital to fund anticipated operating expenses and future expansion.
Among other things, external financing will be required to cover the further
development of our technologies and products and other operating costs. On
December 18, 2008, we filed our first IND to commence clinical trials on one of
our proposed products. On February 20, 2009 we received notification from
the FDA that our IND was on hold pending our submission of additional
information and modifications to our IND. In the event the IND is
approved, we expect additional cost related to the trials to be phased in slowly
over the following 12 months.
13
We have
expended and expect to continue to expend substantial cash in the research,
development, clinical and pre-clinical testing of our stem cell technologies
with the goal of ultimately obtaining FDA approval to market our proposed
products. We will require additional funds to conduct research and development,
establish and conduct clinical and pre-clinical trials and commercial-scale
manufacturing arrangements and to provide for marketing and distribution. These
funds may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are
unavailable, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate one or more
of our research, development or commercialization programs, which may materially
harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our long
term capital requirements are expected to depend on many factors,
including:
·
|
the continued progress and cost
of our research and development
programs;
|
·
|
the progress with pre-clinical
studies and clinical trials;
|
·
|
the time and costs involved in
obtaining regulatory
clearance;
|
·
|
the costs involved in preparing,
filing, prosecuting, maintaining and enforcing patent
claims;
|
·
|
the costs of developing sales,
marketing and distribution channels and our ability to sell the stem cell
products if developed;
|
·
|
the costs involved in
establishing manufacturing capabilities for commercial quantities of our
proposed products;
|
·
|
competing technological and
market developments;
|
·
|
market acceptance of our proposed
stem cell products;
|
·
|
the costs for recruiting and
retaining employees and consultants;
and
|
·
|
the costs for educating and
training physicians about our proposed
products.
|
We may
expend available resources more rapidly than currently anticipated, resulting in
the need for additional funding. We cannot assure you that financing
whether from external sources or related parties will be available if needed or
on favorable terms. If additional financing is not available when required or is
not available on acceptable terms, we may not be unable to fund operations and
planned growth, develop or enhance our technologies, take advantage of business
opportunities or respond to competitive market pressures.
Additional
financing requirements could result in dilution to existing
stockholders.
At
present, we are not able to finance our operations through the sale of our
products. Accordingly, we will be required to secure additional
financing. If we are able to obtain such additional financing, it may be
dilutive to current shareholders. We have authority to issue additional shares
of common stock and preferred stock, as well as additional classes or series of
capital stock, or warrants which may be convertible into any one or more classes
or series of capital stock. We are authorized to issue 150,000,000 shares of
common stock and 7,000,000 shares of preferred stock. Such securities may
generally be issued without the approval or other consent of our
stockholders.
Risks
Relating to Intellectual Property and Government Regulation
We may not be
able to withstand challenges to our intellectual property
rights.
We rely
on our intellectual property, including issued and applied-for patents, as the
foundation of our business. Our intellectual property rights may come under
challenge, and no assurances can be given that, even though issued, our current
and potential future patents will survive such challenges. For example, in 2005
our neural stem cell technology was challenged in the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office. Although we prevailed in this particular matter upon re-examination by
the patent office, these cases are complex, lengthy and expensive, and could
potentially be adjudicated adversely to our interests, removing the protection
afforded by an issued patent. The viability of our business would suffer if such
patent protection were limited or eliminated. Moreover, the costs associated
with defending or settling intellectual property claims would likely have a
material adverse effect on our business and future prospects. At present, there
is new litigation with StemCells, Inc. which is in its initial stages and any
likely outcome is difficult to predict.
We may not be
able to adequately protect against piracy of intellectual property in foreign
jurisdictions.
We
anticipate conducting research in countries outside of the United
States. A number of our competitors are located in these countries
and may be able to get access to our technology or test results. The laws
protecting intellectual property in some of these countries may not adequately
protect our trade secrets and intellectual property. The
misappropriation of our intellectual property may materially impact our position
in the market and any competitive advantages, if any, that we may
have.
14
Our products may
not receive FDA approval.
The FDA
and comparable government agencies in foreign countries impose substantial
regulations on the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products through
lengthy and detailed laboratory, pre-clinical and clinical testing procedures,
sampling activities and other costly and time-consuming procedures. Satisfaction
of these regulations typically takes several years or more and vary
substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the proposed
product. On December 18, 2008, we submitted its first IND, application to the
FDA. We cannot assure you when or if such IND application will be
granted. Nor can we assure you that if the IND is granted, whether we
will successfully complete any clinical trials in connection with such IND
application. Further, we cannot yet accurately predict when we might first
submit any product license application for FDA approval or whether any such
product license application will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Moreover, we cannot assure you that FDA approvals for any products developed by
us will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Any delay in obtaining, or
failure to obtain, such approvals could have a material adverse effect on the
marketing of our products and our ability to generate product
revenue.
Development
of our technologies is subject to extensive government regulation.
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 FDA and other
necessary regulatory approvals is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. FDA and
other legal and regulatory requirements applicable to the development and
manufacture of the cells and cell lines required for our preclinical and
clinical products could substantially delay or prevent us from producing the
cells needed to initiate additional clinical trials. We or our collaborators may
fail to obtain the necessary approvals to commence 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 cells obtained from human
tissue. The U.S. federal and state governments and other jurisdictions impose
restrictions on the acquisition and use of human tissue, including those
incorporated in federal 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 of the 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 laws and guidelines for cell
procurement. Certain components used to manufacture our stem and progenitor cell
product candidates will need to be manufactured in compliance with the FDA’s
Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP. Accordingly, we will need to enter into
supply agreements with companies that manufacture these components to cGMP
standards. There is no assurance that we will be able to enter into
any such agreements.
Noncompliance
with applicable requirements both before and after approval, if any, can subject
us, our third party suppliers and manufacturers and our other collaborators to
administrative and judicial sanctions, such as, among other things, warning
letters, fines and other monetary payments, recall or seizure of products,
criminal proceedings, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals,
interruption or cessation of clinical trials, total or partial suspension of
production or distribution, injunctions, limitations on or the elimination of
claims we can make for our products, refusal of the government to enter into
supply contracts or fund research, or government delay in approving or refusal
to approve new drug applications.
We cannot predict
if or when we will be permitted to commercialize our products due to regulatory
constraints.
Federal,
state and local governments and agencies in the United States (including the
FDA) and governments in other countries have significant regulations in place
that govern many of our activities. We are or may become subject to
various federal, state and local laws, regulations and recommendations relating
to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the
experimental use of animals and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially
hazardous substances used in connection with its research and development work.
The preclinical testing and clinical trials of our proposed products are subject
to extensive government regulation that may prevent us from creating
commercially viable products. In addition, our sale of any commercially viable
product will be subject to government regulation from several standpoints,
including manufacturing, advertising, marketing, promoting,
selling, labeling and distributing. If, and to the extent that, we are
unable to comply with these regulations, our ability to earn revenues will be
materially and negatively impacted.
Risks
Relating to Our Business
Our business
relies on stem cell technologies that we may not be able to commercially
develop.
We have
concentrated our research on stem cell technologies, and our ability to generate
revenue and operate profitably will depend on being able to develop these
technologies for human applications. These are emerging technologies and have
limited human applications. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to develop
our technologies or that such development will result in products with any
commercial utility or value. We anticipate that the commercial sale of such
products and royalty/licensing fees related to the technology, will be our
primary sources of revenues. If we are unable to develop the technologies,
investors will likely lose their entire investment.
15
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 these therapies creates significant
challenges in regard to product development and optimization, manufacturing,
government regulation, third party reimbursement, and market acceptance. For
example, the pathway to regulatory approval for cell-based therapies, including
our product candidates, may be more complex and lengthy than the pathway for
conventional drugs. These challenges may prevent us from developing and
commercializing products on a timely or profitable basis or at all.
Our inability to
complete pre-clinical and clinical testing and trials will impair our
viability.
On
December 18, 2008, we submitted our first IND application to the
FDA. On February 20, 2009, the FDA provided us with specific
comments, questions and recommendations for modification to the protocol
submitted in our IND. The trial is on clinical hold. We are in the process
of analyzing the notice and the FDA’s comments and recommendations. Even
if we eventually receive approval from the FDA to commence clinical trials, the
outcome of pre-clinical, clinical and product testing of our products is
uncertain. If we are unable to satisfactorily complete testing, or if
such testing yields unsatisfactory results, we will be unable to commercially
produce its proposed products. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the
commercial sale of any potential human products, our products will be subjected
to extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing to demonstrate their safety and
efficacy in humans. No assurances can be given that the clinical trials will
demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such products at all, or to the extent
necessary to obtain appropriate regulatory approvals, or that the testing of
such products will be completed in a timely manner, if at all, or without
significant increases in costs, program delays or both, all of which could harm
our ability to generate revenues. In addition, our proposed products may not
prove to be more effective for treating disease or injury than current
therapies. Accordingly, we may have to delay or abandon efforts to research,
develop or obtain regulatory approval to market its proposed products. Many
companies involved in biotechnology research and development have suffered
significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after promising results
in earlier trials. The failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy
of a therapeutic product under development could delay or prevent regulatory
approval of the product and could harm our ability to generate revenues, operate
profitably or produce any return on an investment.
Our proposed
products may not have favorable results in clinical trials or receive regulatory
approval.
Positive
results from pre-clinical studies should not be relied upon as evidence that
clinical trials will succeed. Even if our product candidates achieve positive
results in clinical studies, we will be required to demonstrate through clinical
trials that these product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse
population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale.
There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of
product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. If any product candidate
fails to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy in any clinical trial, then
we would experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to
abandon, development of that product candidate. If we delay or abandon our
development efforts of any of our product candidates, then we may not be able to
generate sufficient revenues to become profitable, and our reputation in the
industry and in the investment community would likely be significantly damaged,
each of which would cause our stock price to decrease
significantly.
The
commencement of clinical testing of our current and potential product candidates
may be delayed.
The
commencement of clinical trials may be delayed for a variety of reasons,
including:
•
|
delays
in demonstrating sufficient safety and efficacy in order to obtain
regulatory approval to commence clinical
trials;
|
•
|
delays
in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with contract research
organizations and clinical trial
sites;
|
•
|
delays
in manufacturing quantities of a product candidate sufficient for clinical
trials;
|
•
|
delays
in obtaining approval of an IND from the FDA or similar foreign
approvals;
|
•
|
delays
in obtaining institutional review board approval to conduct a clinical
trial at a prospective site; and
|
•
|
insufficient
financial resources.
|
In
addition, the commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient
patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of
the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to
clinical sites, the availability of effective treatments for the relevant
disease, and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial. Delays
in the commencement of clinical testing of our product candidates could
significantly increase our product development costs and delay product
commercialization. In addition, many of the factors that may cause, or lead to,
a delay in the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to
denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.
There
are no assurances that we will be able to submit or obtain FDA approval of a
biologics license application.
There can
be no assurance that if our clinical trials of any potential product candidate
are successfully initiated and completed, we will be able to submit an Biologics
License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA or that any BLA we submit will be
approved by the FDA in a timely manner, if at all. If we are unable to submit a
BLA with respect to any future product candidate, or if any BLA we submit is not
approved by the FDA, we will be unable to commercialize that product. The FDA
can and does reject BLAs and requires additional clinical trials, even when
product candidates performed well or achieved favorable results in clinical
trials. If we fail to commercialize any future product candidate in clinical
trials, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to attain profitability
and our reputation in the industry and in the investment community would likely
be damaged, each of which would cause our stock price to
decrease.
16
The
manufacturing of cell-based therapeutic products is novel, highly regulated,
critical to our business, and dependent upon specialized key
materials.
The
manufacturing of cell-based therapeutic products is a complicated and difficult
process, dependent upon substantial know-how and subject to the need for
continual process improvements to be competitive. We depend almost
exclusively on third party manufacturers to supply our cells. In
addition, our suppliers’ ability to scale-up manufacturing to satisfy the
various requirements of our planned clinical trials, such as GTP, GMP and
release testing requirements, is uncertain. Manufacturing
irregularities or lapses in quality control could have a serious adverse effect
on our reputation and business, which could cause a significant loss of
stockholder value. Many of the materials that we use to prepare our cell-based
products are highly specialized, complex and available from only a limited
number of suppliers or are derived from a biological origin. At present, some of
our material requirements are single sourced, and the loss of one or more of
these sources may adversely affect our business if we are unable to obtain
alternatives or alternative sources at all or upon terms that are acceptable to
us.
Ethical
and other concerns surrounding the use of stem cells may negatively affect
regulatory approval or public perception of our product candidates.
The use
of stem cells for research and therapy has been the subject of debate regarding
related ethical, legal and social issues. 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. Existing and potential U.S. government regulation of human
tissue may lead researchers to leave the field of stem cell research or the
country altogether, in order to assure that their careers will not be impeded by
restrictions on their work. Similarly, these factors may induce graduate
students to choose other fields less vulnerable to changes in regulatory
oversight, thus exacerbating the risk that we may not be able to attract and
retain the scientific personnel we need in the face of competition among
pharmaceutical, biotechnology and health care companies, universities and
research institutions for what may become a shrinking class of qualified
individuals.
We
may be subject to litigation that will be costly to defend or pursue and
uncertain in its outcome.
Our
business may bring us into conflict with licensees, licensors, or others with
whom we have contractual or other business relationships or with our competitors
or others whose interests differs from ours. If we are unable to resolve these
conflicts on terms that are satisfactory to all parties, we may become involved
in litigation brought by or against it. Any litigation is likely to be expensive
and may require a significant amount of management's time and attention, at the
expense of other aspects of our business. The outcome of litigation is always
uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against us which could have
a significant adverse effect on our business. By way of example, in May of
2008, we filed a complaint against StemCells Inc., alleging that U.S. Patent No.
7,361,505 (the “‘505 patent”), allegedly exclusively licensed to StemCells,
Inc., is invalid, not infringed and unenforceable. On the same day, StemCells,
Inc. filed a complaint alleging that we had infringed, contributed to the
infringement of, and or induced the infringement of two patents owned by or
exclusively licensed to StemCells relating to stem cell culture compositions. At
present, the litigation is in its initial stages and any likely outcome is
difficult to predict.
We
may not be able to obtain third-party patient reimbursement or favorable product
pricing.
Our
ability to successfully commercialize certain proposed products in the human
therapeutic field may depend to a significant degree on patient reimbursement of
the costs of such products and related treatments. We cannot assure you that
reimbursement in the United States or foreign countries will be available for
any products developed, or, if available, will not decrease in the future, or
that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our
products. The Company cannot predict what additional regulation or
legislation relating to the health care industry or third-party coverage and
reimbursement may be enacted in the future or what effect such regulation or
legislation may have on our business. If additional regulations are overly
onerous or expensive or if health care related legislation makes our business
more expensive or burdensome than originally anticipated, we may be forced to
significantly downsize our business plans or completely abandon the current
business model.
Our products may
not be profitable due to manufacturing costs.
Our
products may be significantly more expensive to manufacture than most other
drugs or therapies currently on the market today due to a fewer number of
potential manufacturers, greater level of needed expertise and other general
market conditions affecting manufacturers of stem cell based products. We
hope to substantially reduce manufacturing costs through process improvements,
development of new science, increases in manufacturing scale and outsourcing to
experienced manufacturers. If we are not successful in these and other
initiatives, and depending on the pricing of the product, our profit margins may
be significantly less than that of most drugs or therapies on the market today.
Accordingly, we may not be able to charge a high enough price for us to make a
profit from the sale of our cell therapy products. If we are unable to realize
significant profits from our potential product candidates, its business would be
materially harmed.
17
We are dependent
on the acceptance of our products by the health care community.
Our
proposed products, if approved for marketing, may not achieve market acceptance
since hospitals, physicians, patients or the medical community in general may
decide not to accept and utilize these products. The products that we are
attempting to develop represent substantial departures from established
treatment methods and will compete with a number of more conventional drugs and
therapies manufactured and marketed by major pharmaceutical companies. The
degree of market acceptance, of any, will depend on a number of factors,
including:
·
|
the clinical efficacy and safety
of our proposed products;
|
·
|
the superiority of our products
to alternatives currently on the
market;
|
·
|
the potential advantage of our
product over alternative treatment methods;
and
|
·
|
the reimbursement policies of
government and third-party
payors.
|
If the
health care community does not accept our products for any of the foregoing
reasons, or for any other reason, our business would be materially
harmed.
We depend on two
key employees for our continued operations and future success.
The loss
of either of our key executive officers, Richard Garr and Karl Johe, would be
detrimental to us.
·
|
We currently do
not maintain
“key person” life insurance on the life of Mr. Garr. As a result, the
Company will not receive any compensation upon the death or incapacity of
this key individuals;
|
·
|
We currently do maintain “key person” life
insurance on the life of Mr. Johe. As a result, the Company will receive
approximately $1,000,000 in the event of his death or
incapacity.
|
In
addition, we anticipate growth and expansion into areas and activities requiring
additional expertise, such as clinical testing, regulatory compliance,
manufacturing and marketing, will require the addition of new management
personnel and the development of additional expertise by existing management
personnel. There is intense competition for qualified personnel in the areas of
our present and planned activities, and there can be no assurance that we will
be able to continue to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for
the development our business. The failure to attract and retain such personnel
or to develop such expertise would adversely affect our business.
We have entered
into long-term contracts containing significant anti-termination provisions with
our key could make future changes in management difficult or expensive.
We have
entered into employment agreements with Messrs. Garr and Johe which expire on
November 1, 2012. In the event either individual is terminated prior
to the full term of their respective contracts, for any reason other than a
voluntary resignation, all compensation due to such employee under the terms of
the respective agreement shall become due and payable immediately. These
provisions will make the replacement of either of these employees very costly
and could cause difficulty in effecting a change in control. Termination prior
to the full term of these contracts would cost us as much as $1,230,000 per
contract and the immediate vesting of all outstanding options and/or warrants
held by Messrs. Garr and Johe.
We have no
product liability insurance, which may leave us vulnerable to future claims that
we will be unable to satisfy.
The
testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of human therapeutic products entails
an inherent risk of product liability claims, and we cannot assure you that
substantial product liability claims will not be asserted against us. We have no
product liability insurance. In the event we are forced to expend significant
funds on defending product liability actions, and in the event those funds come
from operating capital, we will be required to reduce its business activities,
which could lead to significant losses.
We cannot assure
you that adequate insurance coverage will be available in the future on
acceptable terms.
We have
limited commercial insurance policies. Any significant claim would have a
material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of
operations. Insurance availability, coverage terms and pricing continue to vary
with market conditions. We will endeavor to obtain appropriate insurance
coverage for insurable risks that we identify. In the event a loss
occurs that is not covered, depending on the size of such loss, it could
materially affect our business plan or ability to operate.
18
Our
outsource model depends on third parties to help develop and test its proposed
products.
Our
strategy for the development, clinical and preclinical testing and
commercialization of our proposed products is based on an outsource model. This
model requires us to enter into collaborations with third parties in order to
further develop the technology and products. In the event we are not able to
enter into such relationships in the future, our ability to develop products may
be seriously hindered or we would be required to expend considerable resources
to bring such functions in-house. Either outcome could result in our inability
to develop a commercially feasible product or in the need for substantially more
working capital to complete the research in-house. Also, we currently rely on
third parties to assist us with a substantial portion of our research and
development. Although our collaborative agreements do not impose any duties or
obligations on us other than the licensing of our technology, the failure of any
of these third parties may hinder our ability to develop products in a timely
fashion. By way of example, our collaboration with John Hopkins University,
School of Medicine yielded findings that contributed to our patent application
entitled Transplantation of Human Cells for Treatment of Neurological Disorder.
Had the collaboration not existed, our ability to apply for such patent would
have been greatly hindered.
We
intend to rely upon third-party FDA-approved manufacturers for our stem
cells.
We
currently have no internal manufacturing capability, and will rely extensively
on FDA-approved licensees, strategic partners or third party contract
manufacturers or suppliers. We currently have an agreement with Charles River
Laboratories International, Inc. (“Charles River”) for the manufacturing and
storage of our cells. In the event Charles River fails to provide suitable
cells, we would be forced to either manufacture the cells ourselves or seek
other third party vendors. Should we be forced to manufacture our stem cells, we
cannot give you any assurance that we will be able to develop an internal
manufacturing capability or procure alternative third party suppliers. Moreover,
we cannot give you any assurance that any contract manufacturers or suppliers we
procure will be able to supply our product in a timely or cost effective manner
or in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or our
specifications.
Our competition
includes both public and private organizations and collaborations among academic
institutions and large pharmaceutical companies, most of which have
significantly greater experience and financial resources than ours.
The
biotechnology industry is characterized by intense competition. We compete
against numerous companies, many of which have substantially greater resources.
Several such enterprises have initiated cell therapy research programs and/or
efforts to treat the same diseases which we target. Although not necessarily
direct competitors, companies such as Geron Corporation, Genzyme Corporation,
StemCells, Inc., Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., Aastrom Biosciences, Inc. and
Viacell, Inc., as well as others, may have substantially greater resources and
experience in our fields which put us at a competitive
disadvantage.
Risks
Relating to Our Common Stock
Our
common shares are sporadically or “thinly” traded.
Our
common shares have historically been sporadically or “thinly” traded, meaning
that the number of persons interested in purchasing our common shares at or near
ask prices at any given time may be relatively small or non-existent. This
situation is attributable to a number of factors, including the facts that we
are a small company which is relatively unknown to stock analysts, stock
brokers, institutional investors and others in the investment community that
generate or influence sales volume, and that even if we came to the attention of
such persons, they tend to be risk-averse and would be reluctant to follow an
unproven development stage company such as ours or purchase or recommend the
purchase of our shares until such time as we became more seasoned and viable. As
a consequence, there may be periods of several days or more when trading
activity in our shares is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned
issuer which has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will
generally support continuous sales without a material reduction in share price.
We cannot give you any assurance that a broader or more active public trading
market for our common shares will develop or be sustained, or that current
trading levels will be sustained. Due to these conditions, we can give you no
assurance that you will be able to sell your shares at or near ask prices or at
all if you need money or otherwise desire to liquidate your shares.
The
market price for our common shares is particularly volatile.
The
market for our common shares is characterized by significant price volatility
when compared to seasoned issuers, and we expect that our share price will
continue to be more volatile than a seasoned issuer’s. The volatility in our
share price is attributable to a number of factors. First, our common shares are
sporadically or thinly traded. As a consequence of this lack of liquidity, the
trading of relatively small quantities of shares by our shareholders may
disproportionately influence the price of those shares in either direction. The
price for our shares could, for example, decline precipitously in the event that
a large number of our common shares are sold on the market without commensurate
demand. A seasoned issuer could better absorb sales without a
material reduction in share price. Secondly, we are a speculative or “risky”
investment due to our limited operating history, lack of significant revenues to
date and uncertainty of future market acceptance for our products if
successfully developed. As a consequence of this enhanced risk, more
risk-adverse investors may, under the fear of losing all or most of their
investment in the event of negative news or lack of progress, be more inclined
to sell their shares on the market more quickly and at greater discounts than
would be the case with the stock of a seasoned issuer. Additionally, in the
past, plaintiffs have often initiated securities class action litigation against
a company following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities.
We may in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation
could result in substantial costs and liabilities and could divert management’s
attention and resources.
The
following factors may add to the volatility in the price of our common
shares: actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly or annual
operating results; government regulations; announcements of significant
acquisitions, strategic partnerships or joint ventures; our capital commitments;
and additions or departures of our key personnel. Many of these factors are
beyond our control and may decrease the market price of our common shares,
regardless of our operating performance. We cannot make any predictions or
projections as to what the prevailing market price for our common shares will be
at any time, including as to whether our common shares will sustain their
current market prices, or as to what effect the sale of shares or the
availability of common shares for sale at any time will have on the prevailing
market price.
19
We face risks
related to compliance with corporate governance laws and financial reporting
standard.
The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as related new rules and regulations
implemented by the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,
require changes in the corporate governance practices and financial reporting
standards for public companies. These new laws, rules and regulations, including
compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 relating to
internal control over financial reporting (“Section 404”), will materially
increase the Company's legal and financial compliance costs and make some
activities more time-consuming, burdensome and
expensive. Additionally, in 2008 the SEC extended the compliance
period for non-accredited filers with regard to Section
404(b). Unless further extended, we will be required to include
attestation reports in our annual report for year ending on December 31,
2009. We anticipate this will further increase the costs associated
with our compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Any
failure to comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, our
ability to remediate any material weaknesses that we may identify during our
compliance program, or difficulties encountered in their
implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us
to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result
in material misstatements in
our financial statements. Any
such failure could
also adversely affect the results of the
periodic management evaluations of our internal controls
and, in the case of a
failure to remediate any material weaknesses that
we may identify, would
adversely affect the annual auditor attestation reports regarding the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that are required
under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Inadequate
internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported
financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price
of our common stock.
We have never
paid a cash dividend and do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock
in the foreseeable future.
Any
payment of cash dividends is at the sole discretion of our Board of
Directors. We have never paid cash dividends nor do we anticipate
paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, any
return on investment will be as a result of stock appreciation.
Issuance
of additional securities could dilute your proportionate ownership and voting
rights.
We are
entitled under our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to issue up
to 150,000,000 common and 7,000,000 “blank check” preferred shares. As
of December 31, 2008, we have issued and outstanding 33,751,300 common shares,
21,880,421 common shares reserved for issuance upon the exercise of current
outstanding options and warrants (excluding options and warrants issued under
our equity compensation plans), 669,341 common shares reserved for issuance of
additional grants under our 2005 incentive stock plan, and 830,000 shares
reserved for issuance of grants under our 2007 stock plan. Accordingly, we will
be entitled to issue up to 92,868,938 additional common shares
and 7,000,000 additional preferred shares. Our board may generally issue
those common and preferred shares, or options or warrants to purchase those
shares, without further approval by our shareholders based upon such factors as
our board of directors may deem relevant at that time. Any preferred shares we
may issue shall have such rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions as
may be designated from time-to-time by our board, including preferential
dividend rights, voting rights, conversion rights, redemption rights and
liquidation provisions. It is likely that we will be required to issue a large
amount of additional securities to raise capital to further our development and
marketing plans. It is also likely that we will be required to issue a large
amount of additional securities to directors, officers, employees and
consultants as compensatory grants in connection with their services, both in
the form of stand-alone grants or under our various stock option plans, in order
to attract and retain qualified personnel. In the event of issuance, your
proportionate ownership and voting rights may be significantly decreased and the
value of your investment impacted.
ITEM
2.
|
PROPERTIES
|
We
currently lease two facilities.
Our executive offices and primary research facilities are located at 9700 Great
Seneca Highway, Rockville MD, 20850. We lease these facilities consisting of
approximately 2,500 square feet for $8,220 per month. The term of our lease
expires on January 31, 2010.
We
entered into a lease in 2007 consisting of approximately 900 square feet of
research space in San Diego, California at a monthly lease rate of $3,278. The
lease terminates in August of 2009.
The
aforesaid properties are in good condition and we believe they will be suitable
for our purposes for the next 12 months. There is no affiliation between us or
any of our principals or agents and our landlords or any of their principals or
agents.
ITEM
3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
As of the
date of this Annual Report, there are no material pending legal or governmental
proceedings relating to our company or properties to which we are a party, and
to our knowledge there are no material proceedings to which any of our
directors, executive officers or affiliates are a party adverse to us or which
have a material interest adverse to us, other than the
following:
20
|
·
|
On May 7, 2008, we filed suit
against StemCells, Inc., StemCells California, Inc. (collectively
“StemCells”) and Neurospheres Holding Ltd., (collectively StemCells and
Neurospheres Holding Ltd are referred to as “Plaintiffs”) in U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that U.S. Patent No.
7,361,505 (the “’505 patent”), alleging that the ‘505 patent was
exclusively licensed to the Plaintiffs, is invalid, not infringed, and
unenforceable. See Civil Action No. 08-1173. On
May 13, we filed an Amended Complaint seeking declaratory judgment that
U.S. Patent No. 7,155,418 (the “’418 patent”) is invalid and not infringed
and that certain statements made by our CEO are not trade libel or do not
constitute unfair competition as alleged by the Plaintiffs. On July
15, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Improper Venue or
in the Alternative to Transfer to the Northern District of
California. On August 27, 2008, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the
District of Maryland denied StemCells’ Motion to Dismiss, but granted
Neurospheres’ motion to dismiss. On September 11, 2008, StemCells filed
its answer asserting counterclaims of infringement for the ‘505 patent,
the 418 patent, and state law claims for trade libel and unfair
competition. On October 1, 2008, Neuralstem filed a motion to dismiss or
strike StemCells’ state law trade libel and unfair competition
claims. That motion is still pending and it is not known when
nor on what basis will this matter be
concluded.
|
|
·
|
On July 28, 2006, StemCells,
Inc., filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the U.S. District Court in
Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem has been infringing, contributing to
the infringement of, and or inducing the infringement of four patents
owned by or exclusively licensed to StemCells relating to stem cell
culture compositions, genetically modified stem cell cultures, and methods
of using such cultures.
|
In
October 2006, Neuralstem filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for
summary judgment, arguing that its preclinical research activities are covered
under the “safe harbor” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) (the ‘“safe harbor”
defense’). The parties agreed to stay substantive discovery in the case pending
resolution of Neuralstem’s motion to dismiss based on the “safe harbor” defense.
While limited discovery was on-going on the “safe harbor” defense, in response
to submissions from Neuralstem, the Patent Office ordered reexamination of all
four of the patents-in-suit owned by StemCells. In view of the reexamination
proceedings, both parties agreed that a stay of the entire lawsuit was
warranted. On June 25, 2007, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. entered an order
staying the entire litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination
proceedings. It is not known when nor on what basis this matter will be
concluded.
ITEM
4.
|
SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY
HOLDERS
|
None.
PART
II
ITEM
5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Market
Information
Our
common stock is traded on the NYSE Amex under the symbol "CUR." The
following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low intraday
sale prices for our common stock.
High
|
Low
|
|||||||
2007:
|
||||||||
First
Quarter
|
$
|
3.95
|
$
|
2.25
|
||||
Second
Quarter(1)
|
$
|
3.45
|
$
|
2.20
|
||||
Third
Quarter
|
$
|
4.17
|
$
|
2.75
|
||||
Fourth
Quarter
|
$
|
3.36
|
$
|
2.25
|
||||
2008:
|
||||||||
First
Quarter
|
$
|
3.58
|
$
|
2.29
|
||||
Second
Quarter
|
$
|
2.59
|
$
|
1.31
|
||||
Third
Quarter
|
$
|
1.86
|
$
|
1.20
|
||||
Fourth
Quarter
|
$
|
2.15
|
$
|
1.01
|
1
|
On
August 27, 2007, our common stock began trading on the NYSE Amex (previously the
American Stock Exchange) under the ticker symbol CUR. Prior to
such time, our common stock was traded on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin
Board. Information for all quotation information prior to
August 27, 2007 sets forth the range of high and low prices for our common
stock as reported by the NASDAQ website. These prices represent reported
transactions that do not include retail markups, markdowns or commissions,
and may not necessarily represent actual
transactions
|
21
Holders
As of
March 16, 2009 our common stock was held by approximately 740 record
holders. We believe our actual number of shareholders may be
significantly higher as 25,942,945 shares are currently being held in street
name.
Dividends
We have
not paid any cash dividends to date and have no plans to do so in the immediate
future.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The
following table sets forth information with respect to our 2005 & 2007 Stock
Plans as of December 31, 2008.
(a)
|
(b)
|
(c)
|
||||||
Number of Securities
to be Issued
upon Exercise of
Outstanding
Options, Warrants
and Rights
|
Weighted-Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding
Options,
Warrants and
Rights
|
Number of Securities
Remaining Available or
Future Issuance under
Equity Compensation Plans
(Excluding Securities
Reflected in Column (a))
|
||||||
Equity
compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|||||
2005
Stock Plan, as amended
|
3,330,659
|
$
|
1.19
|
669,341
|
||||
2007
Stock Plan
|
5,320,000
|
2.46
|
830,000
|
|||||
Equity
compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|||||
Total
|
8,650,659
|
$
|
1.51
|
1,499,341
|
Recent
Sales of Unregistered Securities
The
following information is given with regard to unregistered securities sold
during the preceding three years. The unregistered securities were
issued pursuant to section 4(2) of the Securities
Act:
.
|
·
|
On
February 16, 2007, we issued 69,000 common shares to a consultant in
connection with the exercise of an option to purchase 69,000 common shares
at an exercise price of $.05 per
share.
|
|
·
|
On
March 15, 2007, we completed the private placement of 2,054,000 units to
15 institutional investors. The units were priced at $2.50 each and
resulted in gross proceeds to the Company of $5,135,000.00. The units
consist of:
|
1
common stock; and
½
common stock purchase warrant.
An
aggregate of 2,054,000 common shares and warrants to purchase an additional
1,027,000 common shares were issued. The investors also received certain
registration rights with regard to the underlying securities. The exercise price
of the warrants is $3.00. The warrants contain certain provisions
providing for an adjustment in the number of common shares underlying the
warrants and the exercise price of the warrants in the event of certain dilutive
issuances. The warrants have a term of 5 years.
T.R.
Winston & Company (TRW) acted as placement agent.
|
·
|
On
March 15, 2007, in connection with the private placement, we issued a
warrant to purchase 246,480 common shares at $3.00 to a placement
agent as compensation for its services as placement
agent. The warrant contains certain provisions providing for an
adjustment in the number of common shares underlying the warrant and the
exercise price of the warrant in the event of certain dilutive
issuances. The warrant has a term of 5
years.
|
|
·
|
On
March 27, 2007, we sold an additional 400,000 units for $1,000,000
pursuant to the terms of our March 15, 2007 private placement. In
connection with the sale of such additional units, we paid fees and
expenses totaling $80,300 and issued a warrant to purchase an additional
48,000 common shares at $3.00 as compensation for acting as placement
agent. The units and warrants issued have the same terms as the
units and warrants issued on March 15,
2007.
|
|
·
|
On
April 1, 2007, we granted an officer options to purchase 100,000 common
shares. The options vest as follows: (i) 25,000 vest immediately; and
(iii) 75,000 vest quarterly over the year. The options have an exercise
price of $3.15 and expire on April 1,
2015.
|
|
·
|
On
April 12, 2007, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of our independent directors options to purchase 20,000
common shares. The options were issued pursuant to our
2005 Stock Plan. The exercise price per share is $3.30. The
options expire on April 12,
2014.
|
22
|
·
|
On
June 5, 2007, in exchange for: (i) the acquisition of certain residual
rights; and (ii) the cancellation of the Hi Med Technologies, Inc.
licensing agreement, we issued Karl Johe, our Chairman and Chief
Scientific Officer, warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,000,000 shares
of our common stock at a price per share of $3.01. The warrants
expire 5 years from the date when they become exercisable. Additionally,
the warrants will become immediately exercisable upon an event which would
result in an acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options granted under his
employment agreement. The warrants vest as
follows:
|
i.
|
1,000,000
warrants vest on October 31, 2010;
and
|
ii.
|
2,000,000
warrants vest on October 31, 2011.
|
|
·
|
On
May 16, 2007, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of our independent directors options to purchase 15,000
shares of our common stock (5,000 shares per each committee on which they
serve). The options were issued pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The
exercise price per share is $3.83 and the options vest quarterly over the
year. The options expire on May 16,
2014.
|
|
·
|
On
September 20, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted Karl Johe, our
Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, an option to purchase an aggregate
of 333.333 shares of our common stock at a price per share of $3.01
pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The option expires 5 years from the date
when they become exercisable. Additionally, the option will become
immediately exercisable upon an event which would result in an
acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options granted under his employment
agreement. The option vests on October 31, 2010 and expire on October 31,
2015.
|
|
·
|
On
September 26, 2007, we issued 13,000 share of our common stock to a
consultant as partial payment for services rendered. The shares were
issued in exchange for services valued at $39,000. We also granted the
consultant piggy back registration rights on any registration statement
filed by the Company (excluding any registration statement filed on form
S-8).
|
|
·
|
On
October 31, 2007, the Company issued warrants to purchase 1,227,000 shares
of common stock at a per share price of $2.75 to investors who
participated in the Company’s March 2007 offering which was previously
disclosed on the current report filed on Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007. The warrants have a term of 5 years
and are substantially identical to those warrants previously issued in the
March 2007 offering. The Company agreed to include the common shares
underlying the warrants in the Company’s next registration statement. The
warrants were granted as an inducement for the investors to exercise their
prior warrants as well as the waiver of certain anti-dilutive and
participation rights provisions contained March 2007 stock purchase
agreement and warrants. The Company hereby incorporates by reference the
stock purchase agreement and form of warrant contained in the Company’s
current report filed on Form 8-K on March 16, 2007. The Company relied on
the exception from registration provided for in section 4(2) of the
Securities Act.
|
|
·
|
On
November 15, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted an employee options
to purchase 15,000 shares of our common stock at a price per share of
$2.71 pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options are fully vested and
expire 10 years from the grant
date.
|
|
·
|
On
December 10, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted an employee options
to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock at a price per share of
$2.00. The options are fully vested and expire on November 15,
2015.
|
|
·
|
On January 21, 2008, we granted
the following options pursuant to our 2007 Stock
Plan:
|
Karl Johe, Chairman and Chief
Science Officer - options to purchase 2.1 million common shares at a
price of $3.66 per share. The options vest over 3.5 years with the vesting
period commencing on January 1, 2008 with 700,000 options vesting on each of
February 28, 2009, April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The options expire on
January 1, 2018. Additionally, the options will become immediately exercisable
upon an event which would result in an acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options
granted under his employment agreement.
Richard Garr, Chief Executive
Officer and General Council - options to purchase 2.1 million common
shares at a price of $3.66 per share. The options vest over 3.5 years with the
vesting period commencing on January 1, 2008 with 700,000 options vesting on
each of February 28, 2009, April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The options expire
on January 1, 2018. Additionally, the options will become immediately
exercisable upon an event which would result in an acceleration of Mr. Garr’s
stock options granted under his employment agreement.
|
·
|
On
February 19, 2008, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with CJ
CheilJedang Corporation (KSE: CJ CheilJedang) for the sale of $2.5 million
of common shares at $4.063 per share. Pursuant to the agreement, we issued
an aggregate of 615,309 common shares to CJ CheilJedang. Please refer to
our Current Report filed on form 8-K on February 25, 2008 for a further
description of the transaction.
|
23
|
·
|
On
April 1, 2008, we granted an officer compensatory options to purchase an
aggregate of 1,050,000 common shares at an exercise price of $2.60. The
options vest as follows: (i) 50,000 vest immediately; and (ii) 1,000,000
vest annually over the next three years so that 100% of the options will
be vested on April 1, 2011. The options were issued pursuant to our two
stock plans as follows: (x) the option to purchase 1,000,000 common shares
was issued pursuant to our 2007 Stock Plan; and (y) options to purchase
50,000 common shares were issued pursuant to our 2005 Stock
Plan.
|
|
·
|
On
May 28, 2008, we granted our independent directors options to purchase an
aggregate of 120,000 common shares at an exercise price of $1.32. The
grant was made pursuant to our 2007 Stock Plan and in compliance with our
non-executive compensation arrangement. The grant consists of: (i) an
option purchase 90,000 common shares as compensation for serving on the
board of directors; (ii) an option to purchase 10,000 common shares as
compensation for serving on our Audit Committee; (iii) an option to
purchase 10,000 common shares as compensation for serving on our
Compensation Committee; and (iv) an option to purchase 10,000 common
shares as compensation for serving on our Governance and Nominating
Committee. The options vest quarterly over the grant year and expire 7
years from the date of grant.
|
|
·
|
On
August 11, 2008, we granted one of our employees options to purchase
200,000. The options vest as follows: (i) 40,000 on the
effective date; and (ii) 40,000 on each of August 11, 2009, 2010, 2011 and
2012. The grant was made pursuant to the 2005 Stock Plan. The options have
an exercise price of $1.89 and expire on August 11,
2018.
|
|
·
|
On
August 14, 2008, we granted options to purchase an aggregate of 30,000
common shares at an exercise price of $1.88 to two employees (15,000
each). The grants were made pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options
vest as follows: (i) 15,000 on the granted date; and (ii) 15,000 on August
14, 2009. The options expire on August 14,
2018.
|
|
·
|
On
November 14, 2008, we granted a consultant a common stock purchase warrant
to purchase 50,000 common shares at a price per share of
$2.75. The warrant was issued as partial compensation for
services rendered. The warrant expires on November 13,
2013.
|
|
·
|
On
December 18, 2008, we completed a registered offering of our shares at a
price per share of $1,25. As a result of this transaction, we
trigger certain anti-dilution provisions in our outstanding series A, B
and C warrants that resulted in the
following:
|
(i)
|
the
exercise price of 2,093,765 outstanding series A warrants was
reduced from $1.50 to
$1.25;
|
(ii)
|
the
exercise price of 2,140,415 outstanding series B warrants was
reduced from $2.00 to
$1.25;
|
(iii)
|
the
exercise price of 1,521,480 outstanding series C warrants was reduced from
$2.75 to $1.25; and
|
(iv)
|
we
issued an additional 1,884,672 Series C Warrants with an exercise price of
$1.25.
|
|
·
|
On
January 5, 2009 we granted a consultant a common stock purchase warrant to
purchase 100,000 common shares at a price per share of
$1.64. The warrant has a term of 7
years.
|
ITEM
6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
We are
not required to provide the information as to selected financial data as we are
considered a smaller reporting company.
ITEM
7.
|
MANAGEMENT’S
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
Our
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations (MD&A) is provided in addition to the accompanying consolidated
financial statements and notes to assist readers in understanding our results of
operations, financial condition, and cash flows. MD&A is organized as
follows:
•
|
Overview. Discussion
of our business and overall analysis of financial and other highlights
affecting the company in order to provide context for the remainder of
MD&A.
|
•
|
Trends &
Outlook. Discussion of
what we view as the overall trends affecting our business and the strategy
for our operating segments and outlook for
2009.
|
•
|
Critical Accounting
Policies. Accounting
policies that we believe are important to understanding the assumptions
and judgments incorporated in our reported financial results and
forecasts.
|
•
|
Results of
Operations. Analysis of our financial results comparing 2008
to 2007.
|
•
|
Liquidity and Capital
Resources. An analysis of changes in our balance sheets and
cash flows, and discussion of our financial condition including the credit
quality of our investment portfolio and potential sources of
liquidity.
|
24
The
various sections of this MD&A contain a number of forward-looking
statements. Words such as “expects,” “goals,” “plans,” “believes,” “continues,”
“may,” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to
identify such forward-looking statements. In addition, any statements that refer
to projections of our future financial performance, our anticipated growth and
trends in our businesses, and other characterizations of future events or
circumstances are forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on our
current expectations and could be affected by the uncertainties and risk factors
described throughout this filing and particularly in the “Overview” and “Trends
& Outlook” section (see also “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form
10-K). Our actual results may differ materially.
Overview
Neuralstem
is focused on the development and commercialization of treatments based on
transplanting human neural stem cells.
We have
developed and maintain a portfolio of patents and patent applications that form
the proprietary base for our research and development efforts in the area of
neural stem cell research. We own or exclusively license four (4) issued patents
and twelve (12) patent pending applications in the field of regenerative
medicine and related technologies. We believe our technology base, in
combination with our know-how, and collaborative projects with major research
institutions provides a competitive advantage and will facilitate the successful
development and commercialization of products for use in the treatment of a wide
array of neurodegenerative conditions and in regenerative repair of acute
disease.
Regenerative
medicine is a young and emerging field. There can be no assurances that our
intellectual property portfolio will ultimately produce viable commercialized
products and processes. Even if we are able to produce a commercially viable
product, there are strong competitors in this field and our product may not be
able to successfully compete against them.
All of
our research efforts to date are at the pre-clinical stage of development. We
are focused on leveraging our key assets, including our intellectual property,
our scientific team, our facilities and our capital, to accelerate the
advancement of our stem cell technologies. In addition, we are pursuing
strategic collaborations with members of academia. We are headquartered in
Rockville, Maryland.
In
addition to our core tissue based technology we have begun developing a
Small-Molecule compound. The company has performed preliminary in
vitro and in
vivo tests on the compound with regard to neurogenesis. Based
on the results of these tests we have applied for a U.S. patent on the
compound.
Technology
Our
technology is the ability to isolate human neural stem cells from most areas of
the developing human brain and spinal cord and our technology includes the
ability to grow them into physiologically relevant human neurons of all types.
Our two issued core patents entitled: (i) Isolation, Propagation,
and Directed Differentiation of Stem Cell from Embryonic and Adult Central
Nervous System of Mammals ; and (ii) In Vitro Generation of
Differentiated Neurons from Cultures of Mammalian Multi-potential CNS Stem
Cell contain claims which cover the process of deriving the
cells and the cells created from such process.
What
differentiates our stem cell technology from others is that our patented
processes do not require us to “push” the cells towards a certain fate by adding
specific growth factors. Our cells actually “become” the type of cell they are
fated to be. We believe this process and the resulting cells create a technology
platform that allows for the efficient isolation and ability to produce, in
commercially reasonable quantities, neural stem cells from the human brain and
spinal cord.
Our
technology allows for cells to grow in cultured dishes, also known as in vitro growth, without
mutations or other adverse events that would compromise their
usefulness.
Research
We have
devoted substantial resources to our research programs in order to isolate and
develop a series of neural stem cell banks that we believe can serve as a basis
for therapeutic products. Our efforts to date have been directed at methods to
identify, isolate and culture large varieties of stem cells of the human nervous
system, and to develop therapies utilizing these stem cells. This research is
conducted both internally and through the use of third party laboratory
consulting companies under our direct supervision.
Trends
& Outlook
Revenue:
Our revenue was previously derived primarily from grant reimbursements and
licensing fees. As our focus is now on pre-clinical work in anticipation of
entering clinical trials in 2009, we are not concentrated on increasing
revenue.
Long-term,
we anticipate that our revenue will be derived primarily from licensing fees and
the sale of our cell therapy products. At present, we are in our pre-clinical
stage of development and as a result, we cannot accurately predict when or if we
will be able to produce a product for commercialization. Accordingly, we cannot
accurately estimate if our when we will begin generating revenue from such
sources.
Research &
Development Expense: Our research and development expenses consist
primarily of costs associated with pre-clinical research, exclusively in the
field of human neural stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine, related to
our clinical cell therapy candidates. These expenses represent both pre-clinical
development costs and costs associated with non-clinical support activities such
as quality control and regulatory processes. The cost of our research and
development personnel is the most significant category of expense. However, we
also incur expenses with third parties, including license agreements,
third-party contract services, sponsored research programs and consulting
expenses.
25
We do not
segregate research and development costs by project because our research is
focused exclusively on human stem cell therapies as a unitary field of study.
Although we have different areas of focus for our research, these areas are
completely intertwined and have not yet matured to the point where they are
separate and distinct projects. The intellectual property, scientists and other
resources dedicated to these efforts are not separately allocated to individual
projects, but rather are conducting our research on an integrated
basis.
We expect
that research and development expenses will continue to increase in the
foreseeable future as we add personnel, expand our pre-clinical research (animal
surgeries, manufacturing of cells, and in vitro characterization of cells which
includes testing and cell quality control), begin clinical trial activities,
increase our regulatory compliance capabilities, and ultimately begin
manufacturing.
In 2006
we retained Quintiles, Inc. to assist with regulatory compliance, preparation of
our first investigational new drug (IND) application, and patient enrollment for
our first human trial. While recruitment for the trial cannot commence until we
have received an FDA approved protocol, much of the infrastructure required must
be developed and in place well in advance. For instance, we can begin to
identify, contact, and educate prospective patients as well as the treatment
community prior to commencing these trials.
The
amount of monetary increases stemming from increased personnel and expenses as
we move from pre-clinical to clinical state is difficult to predict due to the
uncertainty inherent in the timing and extent of progress in our research
programs, and initiation of clinical trials. In addition, the results from our
basic research and pre-clinical trials, as well as the results of trials of
similar therapeutics underdevelopment by others, will influence the number, size
and duration of planned and unplanned trials. As our research efforts mature, we
will continue to review the direction of our research based on an assessment of
the value of possible commercial applications emerging from these efforts. Based
on this continuing review, we expect to establish discrete research programs and
evaluate the cost and potential for cash inflows from commercializing products,
partnering with others in the biotechnology industry, or licensing the
technologies associated with these programs to third parties.
On
December 18, 2008 we filed our IND with the FDA to begin a clinical trial to
treat ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease. On February 20, 2009, the FDA provided
us with specific comments, questions and recommendations for modification to the
protocol submitted in our IND. The trial is on clinical hold. We are in
the process of analyzing the notice and the FDA’s comments and recommendations.
We believe that it is not possible at this stage to provide a meaningful
estimate of the total cost to complete our ongoing projects, including clinical
trials, and bring any proposed products to market. The use of human stem cells
as a therapy is an emerging area of medicine, and it is not known what clinical
trials will be required by the FDA in order to gain marketing approval. The
costs to complete such clinical trials could vary substantially depending upon
the projects selected for development, the number of clinical trials required
and the number of patients needed for each study. At a minimum, we estimate that
a trial for an individual indication such as ALS will require at least 10 to 12
patients at an estimated cost of $100,000 per patient. It is possible that the
completion of these studies could be delayed for a variety of reasons, including
difficulties in enrolling patients, delays in manufacturing, incomplete or
inconsistent data from the pre-clinical or clinical trials, and difficulties
evaluating the trial results. Any delay in completion of a trial would increase
the cost of that trial, which would harm our operating results. Due to these
uncertainties, we cannot reasonably estimate the size, nature, nor timing of the
costs to complete, or the amount or timing of the net cash inflows from our
current activities. Until we obtain further relevant pre-clinical and clinical
data, we will not be able to estimate our future expenses related to these
programs or when, if ever, and to what extent, we will receive cash inflows from
resulting products.
General and
Administrative Expenses: Our general and administrative (“G&A”)
expenses consist of the general costs, expenses and salaries for the operation
and maintenance of our business. We anticipate that general and administrative
expenses will increase as we progress from pre-clinical to a clinical
phase.
We
anticipate G&A expenses related to our core business will increase at a
slower rate than that of similar companies making such transition due in large
part to our outsourcing model.
Critical Accounting
Policies
Our
financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these
financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses.
Note 1of the Notes to Financial Statements describes the significant
accounting policies used in the preparation of the financial statements. Certain
of these significant accounting policies are considered to be critical
accounting policies, as defined below.
A
critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both material to the
presentation of our financial statements and requires management to make
difficult, subjective or complex judgments that could have a material effect on
our financial condition and results of operations. Specifically, critical
accounting estimates have the following attributes: (1) we are required to
make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the
estimate; and (2) different estimates we could reasonably have used, or
changes in the estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a
material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
26
Estimates
and assumptions about future events and their effects cannot be determined with
certainty. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other
assumptions believed to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances.
These estimates may change as new events occur, as additional information is
obtained and as our operating environment changes. These changes have
historically been minor and have been included in the financial statements as
soon as they became known. Based on a critical assessment of our accounting
policies and the underlying judgments and uncertainties affecting the
application of those policies, management believes that our financial statements
are fairly stated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States, and present a meaningful presentation of our financial
condition and results of operations. We believe the following critical
accounting policies reflect our more significant estimates and assumptions used
in the preparation of our financial statements:
Use of
Estimates—our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and, accordingly,
require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported
amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and
the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
Specifically, our management has estimated the expected economic life and value
of our licensed technology, our net operating loss for tax purposes and our
stock option and warrant expenses related to compensation to employees and
directors, consultants and investment banks. Actual results could differ from
those estimates.
Revenue
Recognition—our revenues, to date, has been derived primarily from
providing treated samples for gene expression data from stem cell experiments
and from providing services as a subcontractor under federal grant programs.
Revenue is recognized when there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement
exists, delivery of goods and services has occurred, the price is fixed and
determinable, and collection is reasonably assured.
Intangible and
Long-Lived Assets—we follow SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for Impairment of Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets," which established a "primary asset" approach to
determine the cash flow estimation period for a group of assets and liabilities
that represents the unit of accounting for a long lived asset to be held and
used. Long-lived assets to be held and used are reviewed for impairment whenever
events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset
may not be recoverable. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset is not
recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to
result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. Long-lived assets to
be disposed of are reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less
cost to sell. During the period ended December 31, 2008 no impairment
losses were recognized.
Research and
Development Costs—Research and development costs consist of expenditures
for the research and development of patents and technology, which are not
capitalizable and charged to operations when incurred. Our research and
development costs consist mainly of payroll and payroll related expenses,
research supplies and costs incurred in connection with specific research
grants.
Stock Based
Compensation—The Company accounts for equity instruments issued to
non-employees in accordance with EITF 96-18, “Accounting for Equity Instruments
that are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with
Selling Goods or Services.” Accordingly, the estimated fair
value of the equity instrument is recorded on the earlier of the performance
commitment date or the date the services required are completed.
Beginning
in 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123R “Share Based Payment” which
superseded APB Opinion No. 25. SFAS No. 123R requires compensation costs related
to share-based payment transactions to be recognized in the financial
statements. We recognized $4,632,847 and $1,575,120 in Stock-based
compensation expense for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
Results
of Operations
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.
Revenue
Revenue
totaled $0 in 2008 and $306,057 in 2007.
Change in
|
|||||||||||||||
2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Versus 2007
|
|||||||||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
$
|
%
|
||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
306,057
|
$
|
(306,057
|
)
|
(100]
|
)%
|
The
decrease in revenue in 2008 as compared to 2007 was attributable to us having
completed all work on our grants. We do not anticipate any revenues
for 2009.
27
Operating
Expenses
Operating
expense totaled $11,831,973 in 2008 and $6,673,629 in 2007.
Change in
|
||||||||||||||||
2008
|
||||||||||||||||
Versus 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
$
|
%
|
|||||||||||||
Operating
Expenses
|
||||||||||||||||
Research &
development
|
$
|
6,513,349
|
$
|
3,440,129
|
$
|
3,073,220
|
89
|
%
|
||||||||
General,
selling & administrative expense
|
5,252,863
|
3,201,443
|
2,051,420
|
64
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
65,761
|
32,057
|
33,704
|
105
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Total
expense
|
$
|
11,831,973
|
$
|
6,673,629
|
$
|
5,158,344
|
77
|
%
|
Research
and Development Expenses
Research
and development expenses totaled $6,513,349 in 2008, as compared to $3,440,129
in 2007. The increase of $3,073,220, or 89%, from 2007 to 2008 was
primarily attributable to an increase in stock-based compensation expense. The
remainder of the increase in 2008 was due to the costs of completing the
application to the FDA to move our tissue based products into clinical trials
and other operating expenses.
General
and Administrative Expenses
G&A
expenses totaled $5,252,863 in 2008, compared with $3,201,443 in
2007. The increase of approximately $2,051,420, or 64%, from 2007 to
2008 was primarily attributable to increased litigation expenses and a $1.2
million increase in stock-based compensation expense.
Depreciation
and Amortization
Depreciation
and amortization expenses totaled $65,761 in 2008, compared with $32,057 in
2007. The increase of $33,706 or 105% from 2007 to 2008 was primarily
attributed to additional capital expenditures in R&D and
G&A.
Other
Income (Expense)
Other income (expense) totaled
$39,806 in 2008, compared with $193,451 in
2007.
Change in
|
||||||||||||||||
2008
|
||||||||||||||||
Versus 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
$
|
%
|
|||||||||||||
Nonoperating
income (expense):
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
|
$
|
39,806
|
$
|
194,753
|
$
|
(154,947
|
)
|
(80
|
)%
|
|||||||
Interest
expense
|
—
|
(1,302
|
)
|
1,302
|
(100
|
)%
|
||||||||||
Warrant
modification expense
|
(38,631
|
)
|
—
|
(38,631
|
)
|
100
|
%
|
|||||||||
Total
nonoperating income
|
$
|
1,175
|
$
|
193,451
|
$
|
(192,276
|
)
|
Interest
Income
Interest
income totaled $39,806 in 2008 compared to $194,753 in 2007. The decrease in
2008 as compared to 2007 of 154,947 was as a result of lower cash balances and
interest rates.
Interest
Expense
Interest
expense was $0 in 2008 and $1,302 in 2007. The decrease in 2008 as compared to
2007 was attributable to the pay off of a loan balance in 2007.
Warrant
Modification Expense
The
Company had a warrant modification expense of $38,631 in
2008. Details of the transaction are in Note 2 to the financial
statements.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Since our
inception, we have financed our operations through the private placement of our
securities, the exercise of investor warrants, and to a lesser degree from
grants. Our currently monthly cash burn rate is $500,000. In the next several
months we expect the monthly burn rate to drop below $400,000. We anticipate
that our available cash and expected income will be sufficient to finance most
of our current activities for at least the next 12 months from December 31,
2008, although certain activities and related personnel may need to be
reduced.
28
On
December 18, 2008, we filed our first IND with the FDA. In the event
the FDA approves our IND, we expect additional costs related to the trial this
year of about $350,000. Assuming approval of the IND, we estimate
that we will have sufficient cash and cash equivalents to finance our current
operations, pre-clinical and clinical work for at least 12 months from
December 31, 2008. We cannot assure you that public or private financing or
grants will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Several factors will
affect our ability to raise additional funding, including, but not limited to,
the volatility of our common shares and general market
conditions.
Change
in
|
||||||||||||||
2008
|
||||||||||||||
Versus 2007
|
||||||||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
$
|
%
|
|||||||||||
At
December 31:
|
||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
4,903,279
|
$
|
7,403,737
|
$
|
(2,500,458
|
)
|
(34
|
)%
|
|||||
Year
ended December 31:
|
||||||||||||||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
$
|
(6,860,039
|
)
|
$
|
(4,001,368
|
)
|
$
|
2,858,671
|
71
|
%
|
||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(193,630
|
)
|
(229,627
|
)
|
(35,998
|
)
|
16
|
%
|
||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
4,553,211
|
9,827,691
|
(5,274,480
|
)
|
(54
|
)%
|
Total
cash and cash equivalents was $4,903,279 at December 31, 2008, compared
with $7,403,737 at December 31, 2007. The decrease in our cash
and cash equivalents of $2,500,458 or 34%, from December 31, 2007 to
December 31, 2008 was a consequence of the ramp-up of our operations
activity to complete our IND applications
Net
Cash Used in Operating Activities
In our
operating activities we used $6,860,039 in cash in 2008 and $4,001,368 in cash
in 2007. The increase of $2,858,671 in cash used in operating activities in 2008
as compared to 2007 was primarily attributable to a consequence of the ramp-up
of our operations activity to complete our IND applications.
Net
Cash Used in Investing Activities
In our
investment activities we used $193,630 in cash in 2008 and $229,627 in cash
in 2007. The decrease from 2007 to 2008 of $35,997 for net cash used
in investing activities was due to a decrease in our investment in property and
equipment.
Net
Cash Provided by Financing Activities
Net cash
provided by financing activities was $4,553,211 in 2008 as compared to
$9,827,691 in 2007.
Listed
below are key financing transactions entered into by us in the last two
years. Also, please refer to the section of this Annual Report
entitled “Recent Sale of
Unregistered Securities” for a further description of the following
transactions:
•
|
In
March of 2007 we completed the private placement of $6,135,000 of our
units consisting of: (i) one share of common stock; and (ii) one half
class C warrant. The units were priced at
$2.50.
|
•
|
In
October of 2007 warrant holders holding approximately 1,227,000 of our
class C warrants exercised their warrants. As an inducement for
the exercise, we issued those warrant holders who exercised their warrants
a replacement class C warrant.
|
•
|
In
February of 2008, we sold a strategic purchaser $2,500,000 of our common
stock.
|
•
|
On
December 18, 2008, we sold $2,000,000 of common stock pursuant to our
shelf registration statement on Form
S-3.
|
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
revenue 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 the proceeds from the offering of our securities, exercise of
outstanding warrants and grants to fund our operations.
29
We intend
to pursue opportunities to obtain additional financing in the future through the
sale of our securities and grants. We have a shelf registration statement which
was declared effective on September 29, 2008 and covers up to approximately
$25,000,000 of our securities that could be available for financings. On
December 18, 2008, we filed a Prospectus Supplement announcing that we
entered into a securities purchase agreement under which we sold $2,000,000 of
common shares pursuant to such shelf registration. Accordingly, we
may issue an additional $23,000,000 pursuant to the shelf registration
statement.
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, among other things, 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.
ITEM 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET
RISK
|
We are
not required to provide the information as to selected financial data as we are
considered a smaller reporting company.
ITEM
8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
INDEX
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page
|
||
Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
F-1
|
|
Balance Sheets
|
F-2
|
|
Statements of Operations
|
F-3
|
|
Statements of Cash Flows
|
F-4
|
|
Statements of Stockholders’
Equity
|
F-5
|
|
Notes to Financial Statements
|
F-6
|
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Neuralstem,
Inc.
Rockville,
Maryland
We have
audited the accompanying balance sheets of Neuralstem, Inc. as of December 31,
2008 and 2007, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity
and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2008 and
2007. Neuralstem, Inc.’s management is responsible for these
financial statements. 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. Neuralstem, Inc. is not required to have, nor were we
engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting.
Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as
a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of Neuralstem, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, 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 financial position of Neuralstem, Inc. as of December 31,
2008 and 2007, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/
Stegman & Company
Baltimore,
Maryland
March 30,
2009
F-1
Neuralstem,
Inc.
Balance
Sheets
December 31,
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||
CURRENT
ASSETS
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 4,903,279 | $ | 7,403,737 | ||||
Prepaid
expenses
|
136,287 | 130,719 | ||||||
Total
current assets
|
5,039,566 | 7,534,456 | ||||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
163,930 | 136,920 | ||||||
Intangible
assets, net
|
212,265 | 111,406 | ||||||
Other
assets
|
52,972 | 43,271 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 5,468,733 | $ | 7,826,053 | ||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
||||||||
CURRENT
LIABILITIES
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable and accrued expenses
|
$ | 1,265,488 | $ | 1,016,699 | ||||
LONG-TERM
LIABILITIES -
|
— | — | ||||||
Total
liabilities
|
1,265,488 | 1,016,699 | ||||||
STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
||||||||
Common
stock, $0.01 par value, 150 million shares authorized, 33,751,300 and
31,410,566 shares outstanding in 2008 and 2007
|
337,513 | 314,106 | ||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
61,352,527 | 52,151,245 | ||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(57,486,795 | ) | (45,655,997 | ) | ||||
Total
stockholders' equity
|
4,203,245 | 6,809,354 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$ | 5,468,733 | $ | 7,826,053 |
See notes
to financial statements.
F-2
Neuralstem,
Inc.
Statements
of Operations
Years
Ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Revenues
|
$ | — | $ | 306,057 | ||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||
Research
and development
|
6,513,349 | 3,440,129 | ||||||
General,
selling and administrative expenses
|
5,252,863 | 3,201,443 | ||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
65,761 | 32,057 | ||||||
11,831,973 | 6,673,629 | |||||||
Operating
loss
|
(11,831,973 | ) | (6,367,572 | ) | ||||
Nonoperating
income (expense):
|
||||||||
Interest
income
|
39,806 | 194,753 | ||||||
Interest
expense
|
- | (1,302 | ) | |||||
Warrant
modification expense
|
(38,631 | ) | — | |||||
Non-operating
income
|
1,175 | 193,451 | ||||||
Net
loss
|
(11,830,798 | ) | (6,174,121 | ) | ||||
Deemed
dividend – Repriced Warrants
|
— | (889,151 | ) | |||||
Net
loss attributable to common shareholders
|
$ | (11,830,798 | ) | $ | (7,063,272 | ) | ||
Net
loss per share, basic and diluted
|
$ | (0.37 | ) | $ | (0.24 | ) | ||
Average
number of shares of common stock outstanding
|
32,114,365 | 29,012,858 |
See notes
to financial statements.
F-3
Neuralstem,
Inc.
Statements
of Cash Flows
Years ended December 31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Cash
Flows From Operating Activities:
|
||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (11,830,798 | ) | $ | (6,174,121 | ) | ||
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
65,761 | 32,055 | ||||||
Stock
and warrant based compensation
|
4,632,847 | 1,575,120 | ||||||
Warrant
Modification Expense
|
38,631 | — | ||||||
Changes
in operating assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||
Prepaid
expenses
|
(5,568 | ) | (97,871 | ) | ||||
Other
assets
|
(9,701 | ) | (1,288 | ) | ||||
Accounts
payable and accrued expenses
|
248,789 | 664,737 | ||||||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
(6,860,039 | ) | (4,001,368 | ) | ||||
Cash
Flows From Investing Activities:
|
||||||||
Capital
outlay for intangible assets
|
(116,921 | ) | (95,721 | ) | ||||
Purchase
of property and equipment
|
(76,709 | ) | (133,906 | ) | ||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(193,630 | ) | (229,627 | ) | ||||
Cash
Flows From Financing Activities:
|
||||||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
4,553,211 | 9,856,036 | ||||||
Payments
on notes payable
|
(28,345 | ) | ||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
4,553,211 | 9,827,691 | ||||||
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash
equivalents
|
(2,500,458 | ) | 5,596,696 | |||||
Cash
and cash equivalent, beginning of period
|
7,403,737 | 1,807,041 | ||||||
Cash
and cash equivalent, end of period
|
$ | 4,903,279 | $ | 7,403,737 | ||||
Supplemental
disclosure of cash flow information:
|
||||||||
Cash
paid for interest
|
$ | — | $ | 1,302 | ||||
Supplemental
schedule of non cash investing and financing activities:
|
||||||||
Issuance
shares of common stock to satisfy common stock payable
commitment
|
||||||||
conversion
of 6,254,402 shares of preferred stock to 14,182,399 shares of common
stock
|
- | 150,000 |
See notes
to financial statements.
F-4
Neuralstem,
Inc.
Statements
of
Shareholders' Equity
For
the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007
NEURALSTEM,
INC.
STATEMENTS
OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
For
the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008
Common
Stock
|
Common
Stock
|
Common
Stock
|
Additional
Paid-In
|
Accumulated
|
Total
Stockholders’
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Payable
|
Capital
|
Deficit
|
Equity
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at January 1, 2007
|
26,011,605 | $ | 260,116 | $ | 150,000 | $ | 39,734,878 | $ | (38,592,725 | ) | $ | 1,552,269 | ||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock for satisfaction of common stock
payable
|
300,000 | 3,000 | (150,000 | ) | 147,000 | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock related to exercise of warrants, between $0.05-$0.50
exercise price per share
|
169,000 | 1,690 | 51,760 | 53,450 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock related to exercise of warrants related to Private
Placement Offering, between $0.05 and $3.00 exercise price per
share
|
2,475,961 | 24,760 | 4,161,597 | - | 4,186,356 | |||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock related to Private Placement Offering, net of $520,400 in
offering related expenses, $2.50 per share
|
2,454,000 | 24,540 | 5,590,060 | 5,614,600 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Vesting
of officer/directors stock options
|
- | - | 1,530,576 | 1,530,576 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Vesting
of warrants for 19,789 shares of common stock, $2.33 fair value per
share
|
- | - | 46,224 | 46,224 | ||||||||||||||||||||
On
October 26, 2007, the Company agreed to reduce the exercise price of the
warrants issued in connection with the Company’s March 2007 offering by
$.25 per share. As a result of the discounted exercise price we recorded a
deemed dividend charge of $889,151 for the warrants that were so
exercised.
|
- | 889,151 | (889,151 | ) | - | |||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
- | - | - | (6,174,121 | ) | (6,174,121 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
31,410,566 | $ | 314,106 | - | $ | 52,151,245 | $ | (45,655,997 | ) | 6,809,354 | ||||||||||||||
Exercise
of Warrants to purchase Common Stock ($1.50 to $2.00 per share), net of
offering costs of $20,889
|
125,425 | 1,254 | 209,957 | 211,211 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock though private placement
($4.06
per share).
|
615,309 | 6,153 | 2,493,847 | 2,500,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock though private
placement
($1.25 per share) , net of offering costs of $158,000
|
1,600,000 | 16,000 | 1,826,000 | 1,842,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Share
Based Payment – Employee Compensation
|
4,632,847 | 4,632,847 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Warrant
Modification Expense
|
38,631 | 38,631 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss for 2008
|
(11,830,798 | ) | (11,830,798 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
33,751,300 | $ | 337,513 | - | $ | 61,352,527 | $ | (57,486,795 | ) | $ | 4,203,245 |
See notes
to financial statements.
F-5
NEURALSTEM,
INC.
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 1. Nature of Business and Significant
Accounting Policies
Nature of
business:
Neuralstem,
Inc. (“Company”) is a biopharmaceuticals company that is utilizing its
proprietary human neural stem cell technology to create a comprehensive platform
for the treatment of central nervous system diseases. The Company will
commercialize this technology as a tool for use in the next generation of
small-molecule drug discovery and to create cell therapy biotherapeutics to
treat central nervous system diseases for which there are no cures. The Company
was founded in 1997 and currently occupies lab and office space in Rockville,
Maryland.
Inherent
in the Company’s business are various risks and uncertainties, including its
limited operating history, the fact that Neuralstem’s technologies are new and
may not allow the Company or its customers to develop commercial products,
regulatory requirements associated with drug development efforts and the intense
competition in the genomics industry. The Company’s success depends, in part,
upon successfully raising additional capital, prospective product development
efforts, the acceptance of the Company’s solutions by the marketplace, and
approval of the Company’s solutions by various governmental
agencies.
A summary of the Company’s
significant accounting policies is as follows:
Basis of
Presentation
These
financial statements have been prepared on the basis that the Company will
continue as a going concern. Such assertion contemplates the
significant losses recognized to date and the challenges we anticipate with
respect to obtaining near-term funding under prevailing and forecasted economic
conditions. The Company continues to be fully committed and has the
capacity to continue to provide necessary capital and liquidity to fund
continuing operations. The Company plans to accomplish this through
the reduction of expenditures in the near-term.
Estimates
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses
during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
For the
Statements of Cash Flows, all highly liquid investments with maturity of three
months or less are considered to be cash equivalents.
Property and
Equipment
Property
and equipment is stated at cost and depreciated on a straight-line basis over
the estimated useful lives ranging from three to eight years. Expenditures for
maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred.
Recoverability of Long-Lived
Assets and Identifiable Intangible Assets
Long-lived
assets and certain identifiable intangible assets to be held and used are
reviewed for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that
the carrying amount of such assets may not be recoverable. Determination of
recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows
resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event
that such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the carrying
amount of the assets, the assets are written down to their estimated fair
values. Long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangible assets to be
disposed of are reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less cost
to sell.
Fair Value of Financial
Instruments
The fair
values of financial instruments are estimated based on market rates based upon
certain market assumptions and information available to management. The
respective carrying value of certain on-balance-sheet financial instruments
approximated their fair values. These financial instruments include cash,
accounts payable and notes payable. Fair values were assumed to approximate
carrying values for cash and payables due to the short-term nature or that they
are payable on demand.
F-6
Revenue
Recognition
To date,
revenue has been derived primarily from providing treated samples for gene
expression data from stem cell experiments and from providing services under a
federal grant program approximating $306,057 in 2007. Revenue is recognized when
there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists, delivery of goods and
services has occurred, the price is fixed and determinable, and collection is
reasonably assured.
Research and
Development
Research
and development costs are charged to operations when incurred.
Income
taxes
Income
taxes are provided for using the liability method of accounting in accordance
with SFAS No. 109“Accounting
for Income Taxes.” A deferred tax asset or liability is recorded for all
temporary differences between financial and tax reporting. Temporary differences
are the differences between the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
their tax basis. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance when,
in the opinion of management, it is more likely than not that some portion or
all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are adjusted for the effect of changes in tax laws and rates on the
date of enactment.
Significant New Accounting
Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) 157, “Fair Value Measurements.”
SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in
generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair
value measurements. SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those
years. The implementation of SFAS 157 did not have a material impact on our
financial statements.
In June
2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes” (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 clarifies when tax benefits should be
recorded in financial statements, requires certain disclosure of uncertain tax
matters and indicates how any tax reserves should be classified in a balance
sheet. On January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FIN 48. We have determined that
adoption of FIN 48 did not have any impact on our financial condition or results
of operations. It is our policy to recognize interest and penalties related to
unrecognized tax liabilities within income tax expense in the statements of
operations.
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Liabilities.” SFAS 159 permits entities to measure many
financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. The objective is to
improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to
mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and
liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting
provisions. This pronouncement is effective as of the beginning of an entity’s
first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2007. The
implementation of SFAS 159 did not have a material impact on our financial
position or results of operations.
In June
2007, the FASB ratified a consensus opinion reached by the Emerging Issue Task
Force (“EITF”) on EITF Issue 07-3, “Accounting for Nonrefundable
Advance Payments for Goods or Services Received for Use in Future Research and
Development Activities.” The guidance in EITF Issue 07-3 requires use to
defer and capitalize nonrefundable advance payments made for goods or services
to be use in research and developments activities until the goods have been
delivered or the related services have been performed. If the goods are no
longer expected to be delivered nor the services expected to be performed, we
would be required to expense the related capitalized advance payments. The
consensus in EITF Issue 07-3 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods
within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2007 and is to be
applied prospectively to new contracts entered into on or after December 15,
2007. Early adoption is not permitted. Retrospective application of EITF Issue
07-3 is also not permitted. The impact of applying this consensus did not have
material effect on our research and development contractual arrangements entered
into on or after December 15, 2007.
In
December 2007, the FASB ratified a consensus reached by the EITF on Issue 07-1,
“Accounting for Collaborative
Arrangements.” The EITF concluded on the definition of a collaborative
arrangement and that revenues and costs incurred with third parties in
connection with collaborative arrangements would be presented gross or net based
on the criteria in EITF 99-19 and other accounting literature. Based on the
nature of the arrangement, payments to or from collaborators would be evaluated
and its terms, the nature of the entity’s business, and whether those payments
are within the scope of other accounting literature would be presented.
Companies are also required to disclose the nature and purpose of collaborative
arrangements along with the accounting policies and the classification and
amounts of significant financial-statement amounts related to the arrangements.
Activities in the arrangement conducted in a separate legal entity should be
accounted for under other accounting literature; however required disclosure
under EITF 07-1 applies to the entire collaborative agreement. EITF 07-1 is
effective for us January 1, 2008 and is to be applied retrospectively to all
periods presented for all collaborative arrangements existing as of the
effective date. The adoption of EITF 07-1 did not have a material
impact on our financial statements.
F-7
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 141, Revised 2007 (SFAS 141R), “Business Combinations.” SFAS
141R’s objective is to improve the relevance, representational faithfulness, and
comparability of the information that a reporting entity provides in its
financial reports about a business combination and its effects. SFAS 141R
applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is
on or after December 15, 2008. We do not expect the implementation of SFAS 141R
to have a material impact on our financial statements.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements.” SFAS 160’s objective is to improve
the relevance, comparability, and transparency of the financial information that
a reporting entity provides in its consolidated financial statements by
establishing accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest
in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. SFAS 160 shall be
effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years,
beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We do not expect the implementation of
SFAS 160 to have a material impact on our financial statements.
In March
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “ Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities - an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133
.” This Statement amends and expands the disclosure requirements of SFAS
No. 133, “ Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities .” The Statement requires
qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives,
quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on
derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent
features in derivative agreements. This Statement is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November
15, 2008. The Company does not expect that the adoption of this Statement will
have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In May
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, “The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted
Principles .” This statement identifies the sources of accounting
principles and the framework for selecting the principles used in the
preparation of financial statements of nongovernmental entities that are
presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”)
in the United States. The Statement is directed to entities rather than auditors
because entities are responsible for the selection of accounting principles for
financial statements that are presented in conformity with GAAP. This Statement
is effective 60 days following the SEC’s approval of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board amendments to AU Section 411, “The Meaning of Present Fairly in
Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles .” The Company
does not expect that the adoption of this Statement will have a material impact
on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In June
2008, the FASB ratified the consensus reached on EITF Issue No. 07-5, "Determining Whether an Instrument
(or an Embedded Feature) is Indexed to an Entity's Own Stock" (Issue
07-5). This Issue provides guidance for determining whether an equity-linked
financial instrument (or embedded feature) is indexed to an entity's own stock.
Issue 07-5 applies to any freestanding financial instrument or embedded feature
that has all the characteristics of a derivative under paragraphs 6-9 of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities," (SFAS 133) for purposes of
determining whether that instrument or embedded feature qualifies for the first
part of the scope exception under paragraph 11(a) of SFAS 133. Issue 07-5 also
applies to any freestanding financial instrument that is potentially settled in
an entity's own stock, regardless of whether the instrument has all the
characteristics of a derivative under paragraphs 6-9 of SFAS 133, for purposes
of determining whether the instrument is within the scope of EITF Issue 00-19,
"Accounting for Derivative
Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own
Stock," (Issue 00-19) which provides accounting guidance for instruments
that are indexed to, and potentially settled in, the issuer's own stock. Issue
07-5 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. Early
application is not permitted by entities that have previously adopted an
alternative accounting policy. We are currently evaluating the requirements of
Issue 07-5 and have not yet determined its effect, if any, on our financial
statements.
Stock - Based
Compensation
We have
granted stock-based compensation awards to employees and board members.
Awards may consist of common stock, or stock options. Our stock
options and warrants have lives of five to ten years.. The stock options
or warrants vest either upon the grant date or over varying periods of time. The
stock options we grant provide for option exercise prices equal to or greater
than the fair market value of the common stock at the date of the
grant.
During
the year ended December 31, 2008 we granted 5,600,000 options. In the year
ended December 31, 2007 we granted 718,333 options. We accrue related
compensation expenses as our options vest in accordance with SFAS123(R), Share-Based Payment.
We recognized $4,632,847 and $1,575,120 stock-based compensation expense during
the year ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, from the vesting of
stock options.
A summary
of stock option activity during the year ended December 31, 2008 and related
information is included in financial statements footnote 2.
Comprehensive
Loss
Statement
of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 130“Reporting Comprehensive
Income,” requires the presentation of comprehensive income or loss and
its components as part of the financial statements. For the years ended December
31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s net loss reflects comprehensive loss and,
accordingly, no additional disclosure is required.
F-8
Note
2. Stockholders’ Equity
Preferred and Common
Stock
The
authorized stock of the Company consists of 7,000,000 shares of preferred stock
with a par value of $0.01 and 150,000,000 shares of common stock with par value
of $0.01. The preferred stock is divided into A, B, and C
Series. None of these shares have been issued.
During
the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company sold 2,454,000 shares of common
stock for a total consideration of $5,614,600 (net of offering expenses of
$511,300) through a Limited Offering Memorandum. Each Unit sold consisted of one
share of common stock, ½ Warrant to Purchase A share of Common Stock at $3.00
per share. In addition we gave the underwriter, T.R. Winston & Co 294,280
$3.00 warrants. These warrants have a life of 5 years.
During
the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company also converted 2,644,961 warrants
into common shares raising $4,245,436 net of $327,202 in expenses. In
conjunction with one large conversion we issued and additional 1,227,000 $2.75
warrants with a five year life.
During
the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company sold 2,215,309 shares of common
stock for a total consideration of $4,342,000 (net of offering expenses of
$158,000). During the year ended December 31, 2008 the Company also converted
125,425 warrants to purchase Common Stock into common shares, raising $211,211
net of $20,889 in expenses.
Stock
Options
In 1997,
the Company adopted a stock incentive plan (the Plan) to provide for the
granting of stock awards, such as stock options and restricted common stock to
employees, directors and other individuals as determined by the Board of
Directors. The Company reserved 2.7 million shares of common stock for issuance
under the Plan. At December 31, 2002, 816,084 options were outstanding with
216,040 options exercisable. During 2003, the Company reduced operations and
terminated employment with all employees. The Plan was discontinued, terminating
all options outstanding.
·
|
On
April 12, 2007, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of the independent directors options to purchase 20,000
common shares. The options were issued pursuant to our
2005 Stock Plan. The exercise price per share is $3.30. The
options expire on April 12, 2014.
|
·
|
On
April 1, 2007, we granted an officer options to purchase 100,000 common
shares. The options vest as follows: (i) 25,000 vest immediately; and
(iii) 75,000 vest quarterly over the year. The options have an exercise
price of $3.15 and expire on April 1, 2015. These options have a value of
$118,284.
|
·
|
On
May 16, 2007, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of the independent directors options to purchase 15,000
shares of our common stock (5,000 shares per each committee on which they
serve). The options were issued pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The
exercise price per share is $3.83 and the options vest quarterly over
the year. The options expire on May 16,
2014.
|
·
|
On
September 20, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted Karl Johe, our
Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, options to purchase an aggregate of
333.333 shares of our common stock at a price per share of $3.01 pursuant
to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options expire 5 years from the date when they
become exercisable. Additionally, the options will become immediately
exercisable upon an event which would result in an acceleration of Mr.
Johe’s stock options granted under his employment agreement. The options
vest on October 31, 2010. The Options have a value of
$570,478.
|
·
|
On
November 15, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted an employee options
to purchase an aggregate of 14,000 shares of our common stock at a price
per share of $2.71 pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options expire 10
years from the grant date. The options are fully vested and have a value
of $11,509.
|
·
|
On
December 15, 2007, our Compensation Committee granted a consultant options
to purchase an aggregate of 50,000 shares of our common stock at a price
per share of $2.00 pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options expire in
2015. The options are fully vested and have a value of
$54,898.
|
·
|
On
January 21, 2008, we granted the following options pursuant to our 2007
Stock Plan:
|
Karl Johe, Chairman and Chief
Science Officer - options to purchase 2.1 million common shares at a
price of $3.66 per share. The options vest over 3.5 years with the vesting
period commencing on January 1, 2008 with 700,000 options vesting on each of
February 28, 2009, April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The options expire on
January 1, 2018. Additionally, the options will become immediately exercisable
upon an event which would result in an acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options
granted under his employment agreement.
F-9
Richard Garr, Chief Executive
Officer and General Council - options to purchase 2.1 million common
shares at a price of $3.66 per share. The options vest over 3.5 years with the
vesting period commencing on January 1, 2008 with 700,000 options vesting on
each of February 28, 2009, April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The options expire
on January 1, 2018. Additionally, the options will become immediately
exercisable upon an event which would result in an acceleration of Mr. Garr’s
stock options granted under his employment agreement.
·
|
On
April 1, 2008, we granted an officer compensatory options to purchase an
aggregate of 1,050,000 common shares at an exercise price of $2.60. The
options vest as follows: (i) 50,000 vest immediately; and (ii) 1,000,000
vest annually over the next three years so that 100% of the options will
be vested on April 1, 2011. The options were issued pursuant to our two
stock plans as follows: (x) the option to purchase 1,000,000 common shares
was issued pursuant to our 2007 Stock Plan; and (y) option to purchase
50,000 common shares was issued pursuant to our 2005 Stock
Plan.
|
·
|
On
May 28, 2008, we granted independent directors options to
purchase an aggregate of 120,000 common shares at an exercise price of
$1.32. The grant was made pursuant to our 2007 Stock Plan and in
compliance with our non-executive compensation arrangement. The grant
consists of: (i) an option purchase 90,000 common shares as compensation
for serving on the board of directors; (ii) an option to purchase 10,000
common shares as compensation for serving on our Audit Committee; (iii) an
option to purchase 10,000 common shares as compensation for serving on our
Compensation Committee; and (iv) an option to purchase 10,000 common
shares as compensation for serving on our Governance and Nominating
Committee. The options vest quarterly over the grant year and expire 7
years from the date of grant.
|
·
|
On
August 14, 2008, we granted options to purchase an aggregate of 30,000
common shares at an exercise price of $1.88 to two employees (15,000
each). The grants were made pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The options
vest as follows: (i) 15,000 on the granted date; and (ii) 15,000 on August
14, 2009. The options expire on August 18,
2018.
|
·
|
On
August 14, 2008, we granted one of our employees options to purchase
200,000. The grant is effective as of August 11, 2008, the employee’s
start date. The options vest as follows: (i) 40,000 on the effective date;
and (ii) 40,000 on each of August 11, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The grant
was made pursuant to the 2005 Stock Plan. The options have an exercise
price of $1.89 and expire on August 14,
2018.
|
During
the twelve months ended December 31, 2008, we granted 5,600,000 options and in
the similar period ended December 31, 2007, we granted 718,333 options. We
recorded related compensation expenses as our options vest in accordance with
the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) 123(R), “Share-Based
Payment.” We recognized $4,632,847 and $1,575,120 in
share-based compensation expense during the twelve months ended December 31,
2008 and 2007, respectively, from the vesting of stock options or
warrants.
A
summary of stock option activity during the
twelve
months ended December 31, 2008 and
related
information is included in the table
below:
|
Number
of
Options
|
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life
(in years)
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
|
|||||||
Outstanding
at January 1, 2007
|
2,432,326
|
0.66
|
7.5
|
||||||||
Granted
|
718,333
|
3.04
|
|||||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Forfeited
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
at January 1, 2008
|
3,150,659
|
$
|
1.19
|
6.8
|
$
|
||||||
Granted
|
5,600,000
|
3.34
|
9.3
|
||||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||
Forfeited
|
-
|
- | - | ||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2008
|
8,750,659
|
$
|
2.55
|
8.2
|
$
|
2,799,600
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||
Exercisable
at December 31, 2008
|
2,322,326
|
$
|
1.11
|
6.7
|
$
|
2,070,000
|
F-10
Range of
Exercise
Price
|
Outstanding
Options
|
Expiration Dates
|
||||||
$0.5
- 2.00
|
2,800,000 | 2015 - 2018 | ||||||
$
2.01 - 3.00
|
1,065,000 | 2017 - 2018 | ||||||
$3.01
- 4.00
|
4,818,275 | 2012 - 2018 | ||||||
$4..01
- 8.00
|
62,042 | 2011 - 2015 | ||||||
$8.01
- higher
|
5,342 | 2010 - 2011 | ||||||
8,750,659 |
Share-based
compensation included in the statements of operations for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was as follows:
Twelve Months Ended December 30,
|
||||||||
|
2008
|
2007
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Research
and development costs
|
$ | 3,024,537 | $ | 1,167,172 | ||||
General,
selling and administrative expenses
|
1,608,310 | 407,948 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 4,632,847 | $ | 1,575,120 |
Stock
Warrants
During
the year ended December 31, 2007 the company issued the following
warrants:
·
|
On
March 15, 2007, we completed a private placement through T.R. Winston
& Company, LLC of 2,054,000 units to 15 institutional investors. The
units were priced at $2.50 each and resulted in gross proceeds to the
Company of $5,135,000.00. The units consist
of:
|
1 common stock; and
½ common stock purchase
warrant.
An
aggregate of 2,054,000 common shares and warrants to purchase an additional
1,027,000 common shares were issued. The units were priced at $2.50 each and
resulted in gross proceeds to the Company of $5,135,000.00. The investors also
received certain registration rights with regard to the underlying securities.
The exercise price of the warrants is $3.00.
·
|
On
March 15, 2007, in connection with the private placement of the same date,
the Company paid fees and expenses totaling $431,000.00 and issued a
warrant to purchase 246,480 common shares at $3.00 to our placement
agent.
|
·
|
On
March 27, 2007, we sold an additional 400,000 warrants to purchase an
additional 200,000 common shares were issued for $1,000,000 pursuant to
our March 15, 2007 private placement. In connection with the sale of such
additional units, we paid fees and expenses totaling $80,300 and issued a
warrant to purchase an additional 48,000 common shares at $3.00 to our
placement agent.
|
·
|
On
April 1, 2007, we issued warrants for 100,000 shares of our common stock
to a consultant as payment for services rendered. The warrants have an
exercise price of $3.20 and vest over 18 months. The warrants are valued
$124,525.
|
·
|
On
June 5, 2007, in exchange for: (i) the acquisition of certain residual
rights; and (ii) the cancellation of the Hi Med Technologies, Inc.
licensing agreement, we issued Karl Johe, our Chairman and Chief
Scientific Officer, warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,000,000 shares
of our common stock at a price per share of $3.01. The warrants expire 5
years from the date when they become exercisable. Additionally, the
warrants will become immediately exercisable upon an event which would
result in an acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options granted under his
employment agreement. The warrants vest as
follows:
|
i.
|
1,000,000
warrants vest on October 31, 2010;
and
|
ii.
|
2,000,000
warrants vest on October 31,
2011.
|
F-11
·
|
On
October 31, 2007, the Company issued warrants to purchase 1,227,000 shares
of common stock at a per share price of $2.75 to investors who
participated in the Company’s March 2007 offering which was previously
disclosed on the current report filed on Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007. The warrants have a term of 5 years
and are substantially identical to those warrants previously issued in the
March 2007 offering. The Company agreed to include the common shares
underlying the warrants in the Company’s next registration statement. The
warrants were granted as an inducement for the investors to exercise their
prior warrants as well as the waiver of certain anti-dilutive and
participation rights provisions contained March 2007 stock purchase
agreement and warrants. The Company hereby incorporates by reference the
stock purchase agreement and form of warrant contained in the Company’s
current report filed on Form 8-K on March 16, 2007. The Company relied on
the exception from registration provided for in section 4(2) of the
Securities Act.
|
·
|
On
November 14, 2008, we granted a consultant common stock purchase warrants
to purchase 50,000 common shares at a price per share of $2.75. The
warrant was issued as partial compensation for services rendered.
The warrant expires on November 13,
2013.
|
·
|
On
December 18, 2008, we completed a registered offering of our shares at a
price per share of $1,25. As a result of this transaction we
issued:
|
|
o
|
112,000
placement agent warrants to purchase common stock at a price per share of
$2.52. The warrants expire December 16,
2013.
|
|
o
|
1,884,672
Series C Warrants to purchase common stock at a price per share of
$1.25. The warrants expire October 31,
2012.
|
Warrants
to purchase common stock were issued to certain officers, stockholders and
consultants.
Weighted-
|
||||||||
Average
|
||||||||
Number of
|
Exercise
|
|||||||
Warrants
|
Price
|
|||||||
Outstanding
at January 1, 2007
|
8,148,602 | $ | 1.90 | |||||
Issued
|
5,752,480 | $ | 2.95 | |||||
Exercised
|
(2,692,567 | ) | $ | (1.61 | ) | |||
Forfeited
|
– | |||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
11,208,515 | $ | 2.44 | |||||
Issued
|
2,046,672 | $ | 1.30 | |||||
Exercised
|
(125,425 | ) | $ | 1.68 | ||||
Forfeited
|
- | |||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2008
|
13,129,762 | $ | 2.27 | |||||
Exercisable
at December 31, 2008
|
10,129,762 | $ | 2.05 |
F-12
The
following table summarizes information about stock warrants at December 31, 2008
of which 10,129,762 are currently exercisable:
Exercise
|
Outstanding
|
Expiration
|
|||
Price
|
Warrants
|
Date
|
|||
$0.50
|
320,000 |
2010
|
|||
$1.10
|
782,005 |
2011
|
|||
$1.25
|
3,111,672 |
2012
|
|||
$1.25
|
294,480 |
2012
|
|||
$1.50
|
2,131,265 |
2011
|
|||
$1.50
|
112,000 |
2013
|
|||
$2.00
|
2,228,340 |
2011
|
|||
$2.00
|
100,000 |
2016
|
|||
$2.75
|
50,000 |
2013
|
|||
$3.01
|
1,000,000 |
2015
|
|||
$3.01
|
2,000,000 |
2016
|
|||
$5.00
|
1,000,000 |
2016
|
|||
13,129,762 |
Warrant Modification
Expense
In
November 2008 we extended the lives of warrants for 320,000 shares of common
stock with a strike price of $.50 for two years. The warrants had been issued
earlier in the decade in exchange for extinguishment of debt. The warrants were
due to expire in November 2008. As a result of the term change we
recorded a Warrant Modification Expense charge of $38,631 for the warrants that
were modified.
F-13
Valuation
and Expense Information Under SFAS 123R
On
January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS 123R, which requires the measurement and
recognition of compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to
employees service providers, and directors, including employee stock options and
warrant awards.
The
following table summarizes the stock-based compensation expense related to
share-based payment awards under SFAS 123R for the year ended December 31, 2008
and 2007 which was allocated as follows:
Year
Ended
|
Year
Ended
|
|||||||
December 31, 2008
|
December 31, 2007
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Research
and development
|
$
|
3,024,537 |
$
|
1,167,172 | ||||
General
and administrative
|
1,608,310 | 407,948 | ||||||
Stock-based
compensation expense included in operating expenses
|
$
|
4,632,847 |
$
|
1,575,120 |
The fair
value of options granted in fiscal years 2008 and 2007 reported above have been
estimated at the date of grant using the Black Scholes option-pricing model with
the following assumptions:
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Dividend
yield
|
0 | % | 0 | % | ||||
Expected
volatility range
|
46%
to 82
|
% |
47%
to 82
|
% | ||||
Risk-free
interest rate range
|
1.22
to 4.96
|
% |
3.09%
to 4.96
|
% | ||||
Expected
life
|
2
to 6.5 yrs
|
2
to 6.5 yrs
|
We have
not used the historical volatility of our stock since we began public trading in
December 2006 and consequently do not have sufficient trading history to
forecast volatility for the expected life of our options. Instead to estimate
expected volatility we use a market capitalization weighted average of the
historical trading of other companies in our industry. The expected term of
options is two years beyond the vesting date. This is an estimate based on
management‘s judgment and corresponds with its experience with Equity Warrants.
The risk-free interest rate is based on the Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates as
published by the US Treasury for the expected term in effect on the date of
grant. We grant options under our equity plans to employees, non-employee
directors, and consultants for whom the vesting period is between
immediate and 4.5 years.
As
stock-based compensation expense recognized in the statements of operations for
the years ended December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 is based on awards
ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for estimated forfeitures but
at a minimum, reflects the grant-date fair value of those awards that actually
vested in the period. SFAS 123R requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time
of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures
differ from those estimates. Forfeitures were estimated based management
judgment.
Based on
the Black Scholes option-pricing model, the weighted average estimated fair
value of employee stock options granted during the year ended December 31, 2008
was $3.34 per share.
Earnings Per
Share
Net loss
per share is calculated in accordance with SFAS No. 128, “Earnings Per Share.” The
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during each period is used
to compute basic loss per share. Diluted loss per share is computed using the
weighted average number of shares and dilutive potential common shares
outstanding. Dilutive potential common shares are additional common shares
assumed to be exercised. All stock options have been excluded from the
calculation because the effect would be anti-dilutive.
Common stock payable for
300,000 unissued shares of common stock at December 31, 2006
During
the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company received $150,000 related to
exercise of warrants for 300,000 shares of common stock at $0.50 per share. As
of December 31, 2006, the Company had not issued any of the 300,000 shares of
common stock. However, the 300,000 shares of common stock have been included in
the net loss per share computation in the accompanying statements of operations.
The Company issued these shares in February 2007.
Note
3. Property and Equipment
The major
classes of property and equipment consist of the
following:
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Furniture
and Fixtures
|
$ | 14,400 | $ | 5,289 | ||||
Computers
and office equipment
|
43,273 | 39,181 | ||||||
Lab
equipment
|
196,036 | 132,530 | ||||||
$ | 253,709 | $ | 177,000 | |||||
Less
accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
(89,779 | ) | (40,080 | ) | ||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
$ | 163,930 | $ | 136,920 |
F-14
Depreciation
expense for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $49,699 and $32,057,
respectively. In 2007 we retired $1,139,411 of fully depreciated equipment that
was no longer being used by the company.
Note
4. Intangible Assets
The
Company holds patents related to its stem cell research. Patent filing costs
were capitalized and are being amortized over the life of the patents. The
company has determined that the intangibles purchased have a seventeen year
useful life. The provisions of SFAS No. 144 “Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” are followed in determining if there is
any impairment. The Company determined that no impairment to the assigned values
had occurred. The Company’s intangible assets and accumulated amortization
consisted of the following at December 31, 2008 and 2007:
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||||||||||
Accumulated
|
Accumulated
|
|||||||||||||||
Gross
|
Amortization
|
Gross
|
Amortization
|
|||||||||||||
Patent
filing fees
|
$ | 243,004 | $ | (30,739 | ) | $ | 126,083 | $ | (14,677 | ) |
Amortization
expense for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $16,062 and $8,120,
respectively.
Note
5. Income Taxes
We did
not provide any current or deferred U.S. federal income tax provision or benefit
for any of the periods presented because we have experienced operating losses
since inception. We provided a full valuation allowance on the net deferred tax
asset, consisting of net operating loss carryforwards, because management has
determined that it is more likely than not that we will not earn income
sufficient to realize the deferred tax assets during the carryforward
period.
The tax
effects of significant temporary differences representing deferred tax
assets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007:
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Net
operating loss carry-forwards
|
$ | 15,563,878 | $ | 12,795,157 | ||||
Valuation
allowance
|
(15,563,878 | ) | (12,795,157 | ) | ||||
Net
deferred tax asset
|
$ | - | $ | - |
At
December 31, 2008, the Company has net operating loss carryforwards of
approximately $38.9 million. The Company has also reported certain other tax
credits, the benefit of which has been deferred. The Company’s NOL carryforwards
and credits will begin to expire in the tax year 2012. The timing and manner in
which these net operating loss carryforwards and credits may be utilized in any
year by the Company will be limited to the Company’s ability to generate future
earnings and also may be limited by certain provision of the U.S. tax
code.
Note
6. Commitments and Contingencies
We
currently lease three facilities. Our executive offices and primary research
facilities are located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville MD, 20850. We
lease these facilities consisting of approximately 2,500 square feet for $8,220
per month. The term of our lease expires on January 31, 2010
We
entered into a lease in 2007 to secure approximately 900 square feet of research
space in San Diego, California at a monthly lease rate of $3,278 . The
lease expires in August of 2009.
We
entered into a lease in February 2008 to secure an additional two rooms for
research purposes in San Diego, California at a monthly lease rate of
$6,000. The lease expired in February of 2009. The Company
then extended the lease an additional year for one room at $4,000 per
month. That lease expires in February of 2010.
The
Company recognized $180,356 and $251,997 in rent expense for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
On
November 1, 2005, the Company amended and extended its employment agreements
dated January 1, 1997 with Richard Garr and Karl Johe for an additional seven
(7) years which includes a base salary of $240,000 per year for each officer. On
July 28, 2005, the Company granted both Mr. Garr and Mr. Johe stock options for
1,200,000 shares of the Company’s common stock each vesting annually over a four
year period with an exercise price of $0.50 per share. Termination prior to full
term on the contracts would cost the Company $240,000 per year unserved, or as
much as $1,230,000 per contract, and immediate vesting of all outstanding
options.
F-15
On July 28, 2006, StemCells, Inc.,
filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the U.S. District Court in Maryland,
alleging that Neuralstem has been infringing, contributing to the infringement
of, and or inducing the infringement of four patents owned by or exclusively
licensed to StemCells relating to stem cell culture compositions, genetically
modified stem cell cultures, and methods of using such
cultures.
In
October 2006, Neuralstem filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for
summary judgment, arguing that its preclinical research activities are covered
under the “safe harbor” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) (the ‘“safe harbor”
defense’). The parties agreed to stay substantive discovery in the case pending
resolution of Neuralstem’s motion to dismiss based on the “safe harbor” defense.
While limited discovery was on-going on the “safe harbor” defense, in response
to submissions from Neuralstem, the Patent Office ordered reexamination of all
four of the patents-in-suit owned by StemCells. In view of the reexamination
proceedings, both parties agreed that a stay of the entire lawsuit was
warranted. On June 25, 2007, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. entered an order
staying the entire litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination
proceedings. It is not known when nor on what basis this matter will be
concluded.
In May of
2008, the Company filed a complaint against StemCells Inc., alleging that U.S.
Patent No. 7,361,505 (the “‘505 patent”), allegedly exclusively licensed to
StemCells, Inc., is invalid, not infringed and unenforceable. On the same day,
StemCells, Inc. filed a complaint alleging that we had infringed, contributed to
the infringement of, and or induced the infringement of two patents owned by or
exclusively licensed to StemCells relating to stem cell culture compositions. At
present, the litigation is in its initial stages and we are unable to predict
any likely outcome.
ITEM
9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE
|
Not
applicable.
ITEM
9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Based on
management’s evaluation (with the participation of our CEO and Chief Financial
Officer (CFO)), as of the end of the period covered by this report, our CEO and
CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act)), are effective to provide reasonable assurance that
information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit
under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within
the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and is accumulated and
communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There
were no changes to our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during
the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
Management
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management
of Neuralstem, Inc. is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate
internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f)
and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Internal control over
financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
Company’s principal executive and principal financial officers to provide
reasonable assurance to the Company’s management and board of directors
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Internal control over financial reporting includes 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 Company’s assets that
could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
|
Because
of inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness
to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
policies or procedures may deteriorate. A control system, no matter how well
designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, but not absolute, assurance
that the control system’s objectives will be met. The design of a control system
must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of
controls must be considered relative to their costs.
Management
assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2008. In making this assessment, management
used the criteria set forth in
Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) as a guide. 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. Based on the above evaluation, the Company’s chief executive
officer and chief financial officer have concluded that as of December 31,
2008, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting were
effective.
30
This
annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s
independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over
financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to
attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm
pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that
permit the Company to provide only the management’s report in this annual
report.
Inherent
Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls
Our
management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure
controls or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect
all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and
operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control
system’s objectives will be met. The design of a control system must reflect the
fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be
considered relative to their costs. Further, because of the inherent limitations
in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance
that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control
issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. These inherent
limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be
faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake.
Controls can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The
design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about
the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design
will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Projections of any evaluation of controls effectiveness to future
periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with
policies or procedures.
PART III
ITEM
10.
|
DIRECTORS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE
|
Directors
Our board
of directors consists of four members. Our bylaws provide for a staggered board
consisting of 3 groups. The following sets forth our current directors,
information concerning their ages and background, and information concerning
their respective groups.
Class
III Directors
The
following directors are Class III directors and will serve until our 2011 annual
meeting:
Name
|
Principal Occupation
|
Age
|
Director
Since
|
||||
I.
Richard Garr
|
Chief
Executive Officer, President, General Counsel and Director of Neuralstem,
Inc.
|
56 |
1996
|
||||
Karl
Johe, Ph.D
|
Chief
Scientific Officer, Chairman of the Board and Director of Neuralstem,
Inc.
|
48 |
1996
|
Class
II Directors
The
following directors are Class II directors and will serve until our 2010 annual
meeting:
Name
|
|
Principal Occupation
|
|
Age
|
|
Director
Since
|
William Oldaker(1)
|
Partner
at Oldaker, Belair & Witte, LLP
Director
of Neuralstem, Inc.
|
67
|
2007
|
(1) Mr.
Oldaker qualifies as an independent director within the meaning of the NYSE Amex
rules and regulations.
Class
I Directors
The
following directors are Class I directors and will serve until our 2009 annual
meeting:
Name
|
|
Principal Occupation
|
|
Age
|
|
Director
Since
|
Scott
Ogilvie(1)
|
CEO
and President of Gulf Enterprises International, Ltd.
Director
of Neuralstem, Inc.
|
54
|
2007
|
(1) Mr.
Ogilvie qualifies as an independent director within the meaning of the NYSE Amex
rules and regulations.
31
Mr. I. Richard
Garr, JD, age 56, has been
a director and our Chief Executive Officer since 1996. Mr. Garr was
previously an attorney with Beli, Weil & Jacobs, the B&G Companies, and
Circle Management Companies. Mr. Garr is a graduate of Drew University (1976)
and the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America (1979).
Additionally, he was a founder and current Board member of the First Star
Foundation, a children’s charity focused on abused children’s issues; a founder
of The Starlight Foundation Mid Atlantic chapter, which focuses on helping
seriously ill children; and is a past Honorary Chairman of the Brain Tumor
Society.
Mr. Karl Johe,
Ph.D., age 48, has been a director, Chairman of the Board and our Chief
Scientific Officer since 1996. Dr. Johe has over 15 years of research and
laboratory experience. Dr. Johe is the sole inventor of Neuralstem’s granted
stem cell patents and is responsible for the strategic planning and development
of our therapeutic products. Dr. Johe received his Bachelor of Arts Degree in
Chemistry and a Master’s Degree from the University of Kansas. Dr. Johe received
his doctorate from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva
University. From 1993 to January 1997, Dr. Johe served as a Staff Scientist at
the Laboratory of Molecular Biology of the National Institute of Neurological
Disease and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland. While holding this position, Dr. Johe
conducted research on the isolation of neural stem cells, the elucidation of
mechanisms directing cell type specification of central nervous system stem
cells and the establishment of an in vitro model of mammalian
neurogenesis.
Mr. William
Oldaker, age 67, has served on our board of directors since April 12,
2007. Mr. Oldaker is a founder and partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of
Oldaker, Belair & Witte, LLP. Prior to founding the firm in 1993, Mr.
Oldaker was a partner in the Washington office of the law firm of Manatt, Phelps
and Phillips from 1987 to 1993. In 2004, Mr. Oldaker was a founder of Washington
First Bank in Washington, D.C. and serves as a member of the board of directors.
He previously served as a director of Century National Bank, from 1982 until its
acquisition in 2001. Mr. Oldaker was appointed by President Clinton to serve as
a commissioner on the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, a post he held
until 2001. He is a member of the Colorado, D.C. and Iowa Bar Associations, the
Bar Association for the Court of Appeals, D.C., and the Bar of the United States
Supreme Court. He is also a partner in The National Group, a consulting
firm.
Mr. Scott V.
Ogilvie, age 53, has served on our board of directors since April 12,
2007. Mr. Ogilvie is President and CEO of Gulf Enterprises
International, Ltd, (“Gulf”) a company that brings strategic partners, expertise
and investment capital to the Middle East and North Africa. He has held this
position since August of 2006. Mr. Ogilvie also serves as Chief Operating
Officer of CIC Group, Inc., an investment manager, a position he has held for
the last five years. He began his career as a corporate and securities lawyer
with Hill, Farrer & Burrill, and has extensive public and private corporate
board experience in finance, real estate, and technology companies. Mr. Ogilvie
currently serves on the board of directors of Neuralstem, Inc. (AMEX:CUR),
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:INVC) and Preferred Voice Inc,
(OTCBD:PRFV).
Executive
Officers and Significant Employees
The
following sets forth our current executive officers and information concerning
their age and background:
Name
|
|
Position
|
|
Age
|
|
Position Since
|
I.
Richard Garr
|
Chief
Executive Officer, President, General Counsel
|
56
|
1996
|
|||
Karl
Johe, Ph.D.
|
Chief
Scientific Officer
|
48
|
1996
|
|||
John
Conron
|
Chief
Financial Officer
|
58
|
4/1/2007
|
I. Richard
Garr – See Bio in the “Directors”
section
Karl Johe,
Ph.D. – See Bio in the “Directors”
section
Mr. John
Conron has served as our Chief Financial Officer since April 1, 2007. Mr.
Conron, a Certified Public Accountant, has over 30 years of experience in the
field of corporate finance. Since 2003, Mr. Conron has been consulting early
stage companies by providing critical outsource CFO functions such as
implementation of accounting systems, creation and monitoring of internal
controls, Sarbanes Oxley compliance, audit preparation, financial modeling and
strategic planning. Prior to his work as a consultant, Mr. Conron worked for
Cyberstar, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loral Space & Communications,
Inc., where he held the position of CFO from 2000 to 2003. Mr. Conron joined
Cyberstar from Transworld Telecommunications, Inc., a Qualcom spin-off which
offered telecommunication services in Russia, where he served as
CFO. Mr. Conron also served as CFO and on the board of directors of
Mercury Communications in London. Mercury was the European subsidiary of Cable
& Wireless.
Family
Relationships
There are
no family relationships between any director, executive officer, or person
nominated or chosen by the registrant to become a director or executive
officer.
Compliance
with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act
Section
16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our officers, directors, and stockholders
owning more than ten percent of our common stock, to file reports of ownership
and changes in ownership with the SEC and to furnish us with copies of such
reports. Based solely on our review of Form 3, 4 and 5’s, the following table
provides information regarding any of the reports which were filed late during
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008:
32
Name of Reporting Person
|
Type of Report Filed Late
|
No. of Transactions
Reported Late
|
||
Richard
Garr
|
Form
4 - Statement of Change in Beneficial Ownership
|
1
|
||
Karl
Johe
|
Form
4 - Statement of Change in Beneficial Ownership
|
1
|
||
William
Oldaker
|
Form
4 - Statement of Change in Beneficial Ownership
|
2
|
||
Scott
Ogilvie
|
Form
4 - Statement of Change in Beneficial Ownership
|
2
|
Code
of Ethics
We have
adopted a "Code of Ethics” that applies to our officer, directors and
employees. We have also adopted a “Finance Code of Professional
Conduct” that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial
officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing
similar functions, and any persons who participate in our financial reporting
process. A copy of our codes can be viewed on our website at www.neuralstem.com.
The codes
incorporate our guidelines designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote honest
and ethical conduct and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The
codes also incorporate our expectations of our officers, directors and employees
that enable us to provide accurate and timely disclosure in our filings with the
SEC and other public communications. In addition, the codes incorporate
guidelines pertaining to topics such as complying with applicable laws, rules,
and regulations; reporting violations; and maintaining accountability for
adherence to the codes.
We intend
to disclose future amendments to certain provisions of our codes, or waivers of
such provisions on our web site within four business days following the date of
such amendment or waiver.
Committees
We have
established 3 corporate governance committees comprising of the: (i) Audit
Committee; (ii) Compensation Committee; and (iii) Nomination and Corporate
Governance Committee.
Audit
Committee
We have a
designated audit committee in accordance with section 3(a)(58)(A) of the
Exchange Act. The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker.
The Audit Committee assists our board in fulfilling its responsibility for the
oversight of the quality and integrity of our accounting, auditing, and
reporting practices, and such other duties as directed by the board. The
committee's purpose is to oversee our accounting and financial reporting
processes, the audits of our financial statements, the qualifications of our
public accounting firm engaged by us as our independent auditor to prepare or
issue an audit report on our financial statements, and the performance of our
internal audit function and independent auditor. The committee reviews and
assesses the qualitative aspects of financial reporting to shareholders, our
processes to manage business and financial risk, and compliance with significant
applicable legal, ethical, and regulatory requirements. The committee is
directly responsible for the appointment (subject to shareholder ratification),
compensation, retention, and oversight of our independent auditor.
Our board
of directors has determined that Mr. Ogilvie is an “audit committee financial
expert” within the meaning of SEC rules. An audit committee financial
expert is a person who can demonstrate the following
attributes: (1) an understanding of generally accepted
accounting principles and financial statements; (2) the ability to assess
the general application of such principles in connection with the accounting for
estimates, accruals and reserves; (3) experience preparing, auditing,
analyzing or evaluating financial statements that present a breadth and level of
complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and
complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the
company’s financial statements, or experience actively supervising one or more
persons engaged in such activities; (4) an understanding of internal
controls and procedures for financial reporting; and (5) an understanding
of audit committee functions.
Compensation
Committee
The
Compensation Committee's role is to discharge our boards responsibilities
relating to compensation of our executives and to oversee and advise the board
of directors on the adoption of policies that govern our compensation and
benefit programs. Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker are the members of the Compensation
Committee.
33
Nomination
and Corporate Governance Committee
The
Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee reviews and evaluates the
effectiveness of our executive development and succession planning processes, as
well as provides active leadership and oversight of these processes, and
oversight of our corporate governance policies. The Nomination and Corporate
Governance Committee also evaluates and recommends nominees for membership on
our board of directors and its committees. Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker are the
members of the Nomination Committee.
There has
been no change material change to the procedures by which security holders may
recommend nominees to our board of directors since we last provided such
disclosure in our definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC in connection
with our 2008 annual meeting.
Independent
Directors
Our board
of directors has determined that Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker are each
“independent” as that term is defined by the NYSE Amex. Messrs Ogilvie
and Oldaker are the sole members of our: (i) Audit Committee; (ii) Compensation
Committee; and (iii) Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee. The Company
has determined that both Mr. Ogilvie and Mr. Oldaker are independent
directors.
ITEM
11. EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
Executive
Compensation
Summary
Compensation
The
following table sets forth information for our most recently completed fiscal
year concerning the compensation of (i) the Principal Executive Officer and
(ii) all other executive officers of Neuralstem, Inc. who earned over
$100,000 in salary and bonus during the last most recently completed fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008 (together the “Named Executive Officers”).
Name and
principal
position
(a)
|
Year
(b)
|
Salary
($)
(c)
|
Bonus
($)
(d)
|
Stock
Awards
($)
(e)
|
Option
Award
($)
(f)(2)
|
Nonequity
Incentive
Plan
compensation
($)
(g)
|
Non-qualified
deferred
compensation
earning
($)
(h)
|
All other
Compensation
($)
(i)(1)
|
Total
($)
(j)
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
I.
Richard Garr
Chief
Executive
President,
General Counsel (“PEO”)
|
2008
|
$ | 436,750 | 307,662 | 3,437,056 | 88,523 | $ | 4,269,991 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007
|
$ | 357,000 | 26,750 |
|
|
|
33,384 | $ | 417,134 | |||||||||||||||||
Karl
Johe
Chief Scientific
Officer
|
2008
|
$ | 427,250 | 343,350 | 3,437,056 | 6,000 | $ | 4,213,656 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007
|
$ | 345,000 | (3) | 26,750 | 570,478 | (4) | $ | 636,612 | ||||||||||||||||||
John
Conron
Chief Financial
Officer
|
2008
|
$ | 208,750 | 18,750 | 1,125,581 | 4,500 | $ | 1,357,581 | ||||||||||||||||||
2007
|
$ | 80,000 | 10,000 | 315,000 | — | $ | 405,000 |
(1) Includes
automobile allowance, perquisites and other personal benefits.
(2) For
additional information regarding the valuation of Option Awards, refer to Note 2
of our financial statements in the section captioned “Stock
Options.”
(3) Includes
$321,000 paid pursuant to employment agreement and $24,000 of 1099 income for
certain additional work performed in connection with our grants.
(4) Includes
333,333 options awarded on September 20, 2007. This item does not include
warrants granted in connection with the termination of Hi-Med Licensure
Agreement and assignment of intellectual property residual rights.
Employment
Agreements and Arrangements and Change-In-Control Arrangements
Employment
Agreement with I. Richard Garr
We have a
written employment agreement with Mr. Garr, our Chief Executive Officer and
General Counsel. Pursuant to the agreement, as in effective, Mr. Garr is
entitled to an annual salary of $407,000 paid monthly of which $30,000 is paid
in connection with Mr. Garr’s duties as general counsel. In
addition, the agreement provides for certain performance bonuses as determined
from time to time by our Compensation Committee. Our Compensation
Committee approved a bonus award of up to 85% of Mr. Garr’s base salary for the
year ending on December 31, 2008 in the event certain objectives are
achieved. On February 4, 2009, our Compensation Committee completed
its annual performance and compensation review and approved the payment of a
performance bonus to Mr. Garr in the amount of $345,950 (85% of his base
compensation for 2008). Mr. Garr has elected to defer his 2008 bonus
until such time as we complete a financing. Mr. Garr’s employment
agreement also provides for a $500 monthly automobile allowance and the
reimbursement of reasonable business expenses. The term of the agreement is
until October 31, 2012.
34
Mr.
Garr’s employment agreement also provides for severance (“Termination
Provisions”) in an amount equal to the greater of: (i) the aggregate
compensation remaining on his contract; or (ii) $1,000,000, in the event Mr.
Garr is terminated for any reason. In the event of termination, the agreement
also provides for the immediate vesting of 100% of stock options granted to Mr.
Garr during his term of employment. These termination provisions apply whether
employee is terminated for “cause” or “without cause.” Additionally, in the
event employee voluntarily terminates his employment following a change in
control and material reassignment of duties, he will also be entitled to the
termination provisions under the contract. In the event of early termination,
the Termination Provisions will require us to make a substantial payment to the
employee. By way of example, such payments would be approximately as
follows:
Termination
Date
|
Amount
of
Payment
(1)
|
|||
October
31, 2009
|
$ | 1,221,000 | ||
October
31, 2010 until the end of Contract
|
$ | 1,000,000 |
(1)
|
Assumes
payment of annual salary of $407,000 and a monthly automobile allowance of
$500.00. Does not include health benefits, bonuses or increase in annual
salary.
|
Mr.
Garr’s agreement contains non-solicitation, and confidentiality and
non-competition covenants. The agreement may be terminated by either party with
or without cause and without prior notice subject to the termination provisions
as discussed.
Employment
Agreement with Karl Johe, Ph.D.
We have a
written employment agreement with Mr. Johe, our Chief Scientific Officer.
Pursuant to the agreement, as in effective, Mr. Johe is entitled to an annual
salary of $422,100 paid monthly. In addition, the agreement provides
for certain performance bonuses as determined from time to time by our
Compensation Committee. Our Compensation Committee approved a bonus
award of up to 85% of Mr. Johe’s base salary for the year ending on December 31,
2008 in the event certain objectives are achieved. On February 4,
2009, our Compensation Committee completed its annual performance and
compensation review and approved the payment of a performance bonus to Mr. Johe
in the amount of $336,600 (85% of his base compensation for 2008 in the amount
of $396,000). Mr. Johe has elected to defer 75% of his 2008 bonus
until such time as we complete a financing. Mr. Johe’s employment
agreement also provides for a $500 monthly automobile allowance and the
reimbursement of reasonable business expenses. The term of the agreement is
until October 31, 2012.
Mr.
Johe’s employment agreement also provides for severance (“Termination
Provisions”) in an amount equal to the greater of: (i) the aggregate
compensation remaining on his contract; or (ii) $1,000,000, in the event Mr.
Johe is terminated for any reason. In the event of termination, the agreement
also provides for the immediate vesting of 100% of stock options granted to Mr.
Johe during his term of employment. These termination provisions apply whether
employee is terminated for “cause” or “without cause.” Additionally, in the
event employee voluntarily terminates his employment following a change in
control and material reassignment of duties, he will also be entitled to the
termination provisions under the contract. In the event of early termination,
the Termination Provisions will require us to make a substantial payment to the
employee. By way of example, such payments would be approximately as
follows:
Termination
Date
|
Amount
of
Payment
(1)
|
|||
October
31, 2009
|
$
|
1,226,300
|
||
October
31, 2010 until the end of Contract
|
$
|
1,000,000
|
(1)
|
Assumes
payment of annual salary of $422,100 and a monthly automobile allowance of
$500.00. Does not include health benefits, bonuses or increase in annual
salary.
|
Mr.
Johe’s agreement contains non-solicitation, and confidentiality and
non-competition covenants. The agreement may be terminated by either party with
or without cause and without prior notice subject to the termination provisions
as discussed.
Employment
Agreement with John Conron.
We have a
written employment agreement with John Conron, our Chief Financial
Officer. Pursuant to the agreement, as in effect, Mr. Conron is
entitled to an annual salary of $225,000. In addition, the agreement
provides for certain performance bonuses as determined from time to time by our
Compensation Committee. Our Compensation Committee approved a bonus
award of up to 35% of Mr. Conron’s base salary for the year ending on December
31, 2008 in the event certain objectives are achieved. On February 4,
2009, our Compensation Committee completed its annual performance and
compensation review and approved the payment of a performance bonus to Mr.
Conron in the amount of $78,750 (35% of his base compensation for
2008). Mr. Conron has elected to defer his 2008 bonus until such time
as we complete a financing. Mr. Conron’s employment agreement also
provides for a $500 monthly automobile allowance.
35
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The
following table provides information concerning unexercised options; stock that
has not vested; equity incentive; and awards for each Named Executive Officer
outstanding as of the end of the last completed fiscal year.
Name
(a)
|
Number of
securities
underlying
unexercised
options
(#)
exercisable
(b)
|
Number of
securities
underlying
unexercised
options
(#)
unexercisable
(c)
|
Equity
incentive
plan
awards:
Number of
securities
underlying
unexercised
unearned
options
(#)
(d)
|
Option
exercise
price
($)
(e)
|
Option
expiration
date
(f)
|
Number
of shares
or units
of stock
that have
not
vested
(#)
(g)
|
Market
value of
shares of
units of
stock that
have not
vested
($)
(h)
|
Equity
incentive
plan
award:
Number
of un-
earned
shares,
units or
other
rights that
have not
vested
(#)
(i)
|
Equity
incentive
plan
awards:
Market or
payout
value of
unearned
shares,
units or
other
rights that
have not
vested
($)
(j)
|
|||||||||||||||
I. Richard Garr
|
(1)
|
900,000 | 300,000 | $ | 0.50 |
7/28/15
|
||||||||||||||||||
(2)
|
2,100,000 | $ | 3.66 |
1/1/18
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Johe
(3)
|
(4)
|
900,000 | 300,000 | $ | 0.50 |
7/28/15
|
||||||||||||||||||
(5)
|
333,333 | $ | 3.01 |
10/31/15
|
||||||||||||||||||||
(6)
|
2,100,000 | $ | 3.66 |
1/1/18
|
||||||||||||||||||||
John
Conron
|
(7)
|
100,000 | $ | 3.15 |
4/1/15
|
|||||||||||||||||||
(8)
|
50,000 | $ | 2.60 |
4/1/18
|
||||||||||||||||||||
(9)
|
1,000,000 | $ | 2.60 |
4/1/18
|
(1)
|
On
July 28, 2005, we granted our CEO an option to purchase 1,200,000 common
shares. The option was granted under our 2005 Stock
Plan. The option vests annually over 4 years at a rate of
300,000 per year. The applicable vesting dates are July 28,
2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. The only vesting condition is Mr.
Garr’s continued employment.
|
(2)
|
On
January 21, 2008, we granted our CEO an option to purchase 2,100,000
common shares. The grant has an effective date of January 1,
2008. The option was granted under our 2007 Stock
Plan. The option vests at a rate of 700,000 per 14 month
period. The applicable vesting dates are February 28, 2009,
April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The only vesting condition
is Mr. Garr’s continued employment.
|
(3)
|
Outstanding
equity awards for Mr. Johe do not include warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 3,000,000 common shares that were issued on June 5,
2007. For a further description of the transaction, please
refer to the section of this report entitled “Transactions with Related
Persons, Promoters and Certain Control
Persons.”
|
(4)
|
On
July 28, 2005, we granted our CSO an option to purchase 1,200,000 common
shares. The option was granted under our 2005 Stock
Plan. The option vests annually over 4 years at a rate of
300,000 per year. The applicable vesting dates are July 28,
2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. The only vesting condition is Mr.
Johe’s continued employment.
|
(5)
|
On
September 20, 2007, we granted our Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer,
an option to purchase an aggregate of 333,333 shares of our common stock
at a price per share of $3.01 pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The option
expires 5 years from the date when they become
exercisable. The option vests on October 31,
2010. The option is immediately exercisable upon an event which
would result in an acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock option grants under
his employment agreement.
|
(6)
|
On
January 21, 2008, we granted our CSO an option to purchase 2,100,000
common shares. The grant has an effective date of January 1,
2008. The option was granted under our 2007 Stock
Plan. The option vests at a rate of 700,000 per 14 month
period. The applicable vesting dates are February 28, 2009,
April 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The only vesting condition
is Mr. Johe’s continued employment.
|
(7)
|
In
April of 2007, we granted our CFO an option to purchase 100,000 common
shares pursuant to his employment contract. The option is fully
vested as of December 31, 2008.
|
36
(8)
|
On
April 1, 2008, we granted our CFO an option to purchase 50,000 common
shares. The grant was made pursuant to Mr. Conron’s employment
agreement. The option was fully vested at the grant
date.
|
(9)
|
On
April 1, 2008, we granted our CFO an option to purchase 1,000,000 common
shares. The option vests at an annual rate of 333,333 per
year. The vesting dates are April 1, 2009, 2010 and
2011. The only vesting condition is Mr. Conron’s continued
employment.
|
Director
Compensation
The
following table summarizes the compensation for our board of directors for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008:
Name
|
Fees Earned
or Paid in
Cash
($)
|
Stock
Awards
($)
|
Option
Awards
($)
|
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)
|
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
($)
|
All Other
Compensation
($)
|
Total
($)
|
|||||||||||
(a)
|
(b)
|
(c)
|
(d)
|
(e)
|
(f)
|
(g)
|
(h)
|
|||||||||||
William
Oldaker
|
||||||||||||||||||
Independent
Director(1)
|
20,000
|
$
|
20,706
|
$
|
40,706
|
|||||||||||||
Audit
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
|||||||||||||
Compensation
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
|||||||||||||
Nomination
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
|||||||||||||
Scott
Ogilvie
|
||||||||||||||||||
Independent
Director(1)
|
20,000
|
$
|
20,706
|
$
|
40,706
|
|||||||||||||
Audit
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
|||||||||||||
Compensation
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
|||||||||||||
Nomination
Committee(2)
|
5,000
|
$
|
2,301
|
$
|
7,301
|
(1)
|
On
May 28, 2008, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker options to purchase 45,000
shares of our common stock. The options were issued pursuant to our
2005 Stock Plan. The exercise price per share is $1.32 and will
expire 7 years from the date of grant. The individual grants vest on
March 31, 2009.
|
(2)
|
On
May 28, 2008, pursuant to our adopted director compensation plan, we
issued to each of Messrs Ogilvie and Oldaker, options to purchase 15.000
shares of our common stock (5,000 shares per each committee on which they
serve). The options were issued pursuant to our 2005 Stock Plan. The
exercise price per share is $1.32 and the options vest on March 31,
2009.
|
Director
Compensation Plan
Our
Compensation Committee has adopted a formal outsider director compensation plan
to assist us in attracting and retaining qualified directors. Under
our plan, each eligible director shall receive:
Option
Grants
First
Year Grant. Upon joining the
board, individual will receive options to purchase 45,000 common shares. The
options shall vest as follows: (i) 25,000 shall vest on the one month
anniversary of joining the Board; and (ii) 20,000 shall vest quarterly over a
one year period commencing on the date such Director joins the Board. For
purpose of the First Year option grant, all current eligible directors will be
considered “First Year” directors and be eligible for such grant;
Annual
Grant. Starting on the
first year anniversary of service, and each subsequent anniversary thereafter,
each eligible director will be granted options to purchase 20,000 shares of
common stock. These Annual Grants will vest quarterly during the year;
and
Committee
Grant. Each Director
will receive options to purchase an additional 5,000 shares for each committee
on which he or she serves. These Committee Grants will vest quarterly during the
year.
The
exercise price for the options to be granted to the independent directors shall
be the market price of the stock on each applicable grant date. The options
shall expire 7 years from the grant date. The option will be granted pursuant to
our 2005 Stock Plan.
Cash
Compensation
Board
Retention Amount. Each director
shall receive a $20,000 annual board retainer. The retainer shall be payable
quarterly commencing on January 1, 2008.
37
Committee
Retainer. In addition to
the Board Retention Amount, each director serving on a committee shall receive
an additional $5,000 per committee on which he serves.
ITEM
12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
Securities
Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
Information
regarding shares authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans
approved and not approved by stockholders required by this Item is incorporated
by reference from Item 5 of this Annual Report from the section entitled
“Equity Compensation Plan
Information.”
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The
following table sets forth, as of March 9, 2009, information regarding
beneficial ownership of our capital stock by:
·
|
each
person, or group of affiliated persons, known by us to be the beneficial
owner of 5% or more of any class of our voting
securities;
|
·
|
each
of our current directors and
nominees;
|
·
|
each
of our current named executive officers;
and
|
·
|
all
current directors and named executive officers as a
group.
|
Beneficial
ownership is determined according to the rules of the SEC. Beneficial ownership
means that a person has or shares voting or investment power of a security and
includes any securities that person or group has the right to acquire within 60
days after the measurement date. This table is based on information supplied by
officers, directors and principal stockholders. Except as otherwise indicated,
we believe that each of the beneficial owners of the common stock listed below,
based on the information such beneficial owner has given to us, has sole
investment and voting power with respect to such beneficial owner’s shares,
except where community property laws may apply.
Common Stock
|
|||||||||||
Name and Address of Beneficial
Owner(1)
|
Shares
|
Shares
Underlying
Convertible
Securities(2)
|
Total
|
Percent of
Class(2)
|
|||||||
Directors
and named executive officers
|
|||||||||||
I.
Richard Garr
|
1,224,084
|
1,600,000
|
2,824,084
|
8.37
|
%
|
||||||
Karl
Johe, Ph.D
|
1,769,484
|
1,600,000
|
3,369,484
|
9.98
|
%
|
||||||
Scott
Ogilvie
|
—
|
95,000
|
95,000
|
*
|
%
|
||||||
William
Oldaker
|
68,400
|
95,000
|
163,400
|
*
|
%
|
||||||
John
Conron
|
15,000
|
483,333
|
498,333
|
1.48
|
%
|
||||||
All
directors and executive officers as a group
(5 persons)
|
3,076,968
|
3,873,333
|
6,950,301
|
18.471
|
%
|
||||||
Beneficial
Owners of 5% or more
|
|||||||||||
Merrill
Solomon
|
2,057,097
|
120,000
|
2,177,097
|
6.45
|
%
|
*
|
Less
than one percent.
|
(1)
|
Except
as otherwise indicated, the persons named in this table have sole voting
and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock shown as
beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws where
applicable and to the information contained in the footnotes to this
table. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of the beneficial owner is
c/o Neuralstem, Inc. 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville,
MD.
|
38
(2)
|
Pursuant
to Rules 13d-3 and 13d-5 of the Exchange Act, beneficial ownership
includes any shares as to which a shareholder has sole or shared voting
power or investment power, and also any shares which the shareholder has
the right to acquire within 60 days, including upon exercise of common
shares purchase options or warrant. There are 33,751,300 shares of common
stock issued and outstanding as of March 9,
2009.
|
ITEM
13. CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Transactions
with Related Persons, Promoters and Certain Control Persons
Summarized
below are certain transactions and business relationships between Neuralstem and
persons who are or were an executive officer, director or holder of more than
five percent of any class of our securities since January 1, 2007 or which have
been proposed since December 31, 2008:
·
|
On
June 5, 2007, in exchange for: (i) the acquisition of certain residual
rights; and (ii) the cancellation of the Hi Med Technologies, Inc.
licensing agreement, we issued Karl Johe, our Chairman and Chief
Scientific Officer, warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,000,000 shares
of our common stock at a price per share of $3.01 and expire 5 years from
the date when they become exercisable. Additionally, the warrants will
become immediately exercisable upon an event which would result in an
acceleration of Mr. Johe’s stock options granted under his employment
agreement. The warrants vest as
follows:
|
(i)
|
1,000,000
warrants vest on October 31, 2010;
and
|
(ii)
|
2,000,000
warrants vest on October 31, 2011.
|
In
addition to the issuance of the warrants, we also made a one-time cash payment
to Mr. Johe in the amount of $150,000.
·
|
We
have paid Merrill Solomon, a 5% shareholder and employee, compensation for
2007 and 2008 at follows:
|
(i) 2008 –
Salary of $152,750 and Bonus of $5,875 for total compensation of
$158,625.
(ii) 2007 –
Salary of $141,000, Bonus of $11,750, and Other Compensation of $26,855 for
total compensation of $179,405
Director
Independence
Information
regarding director independence required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from Item. 10 of this Annual Report from the section entitled “Director
Independence.”
ITEM
14. PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
The
following table summarizes the approximate aggregate fees billed to us or
expected to be billed to us by our independent auditors for our 2008 and 2007
fiscal years:
Type of Fees
|
2008
|
2007
|
||||||
Audit
Fees
|
||||||||
Stegman
& Company
|
S | 66,426 | $ | 47,000 | ||||
Dave
Banerjee
|
6,000 | 18,152 | ||||||
Audit
Related Fees
|
- | - | ||||||
Tax
Fees
|
||||||||
Stegman
& Company
|
6,000 | 5,500 | ||||||
Dave
Banerjee
|
- | |||||||
All
Other Fees
|
||||||||
Total
Fee's
|
$ | 78,426 | $ | 70,652 |
39
Pre-Approval
of Independent Auditor Services and Fees
Our audit
committee reviewed and pre-approved all audit and non-audit fees for services
provided by Stegman & Company and has determined that the provision of such
services to us during fiscal 2008 and in connection with the audit of our 2008
fiscal year financials is compatible with and did not impair independence. It is
the practice of the audit committee to consider and approve in advance all
auditing and non-auditing services provided to us by our independent auditors in
accordance with the applicable requirements of the SEC. Stegman & Company
did not provide us with any services, other than those listed
above.
PART IV
ITEM
15. EXHIBITS,
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
1.
|
Financial
Statements: See “Index to Financial Statements” in Part II,
Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
|
|
2.
|
Exhibits:
The exhibits listed in the accompanying index to exhibits are filed or
incorporated by reference as part of this
Form 10-K.
|
Certain
of the agreements filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K contain
representations and warranties by the parties to the agreements that have been
made solely for the benefit of the parties to the agreement. These
representations and warranties:
|
·
|
may
have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other parties in
connection with the negotiation of the agreements, which disclosures are
not necessarily reflected in the
agreements;
|
|
·
|
may
apply standards of materiality that differ from those of a reasonable
investor; and
|
|
·
|
were
made only as of specified dates contained in the agreements and are
subject to later developments.
|
Accordingly,
these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of
affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time, and investors should
not rely on them as statements of fact.
SIGNATURES
In
accordance with 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.
NEURALSTEM,
INC
|
|||
Dated:
March 31, 2009
|
By:
|
/S/ I Richard Garr
|
|
I
Richard Garr
President
and Chief Executive
Officer
|
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
following capacities and on the dates indicated.
Name
|
|
Title
|
Date
|
|
/s/ I. Richard Garr
|
|
President,
Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel and Director
|
March
31, 2009
|
|
I.
Richard Garr
|
(Principal
executive officer)
|
|||
/s/ John Conron
|
|
Chief
Financial Officer (Principal financial and accounting
officer)
|
March
31, 2009
|
|
John
Conron
|
||||
/s/ Karl Johe
|
|
Chairman
of the Board and Director
|
March
31, 2009
|
|
Karl
Johe
|
||||
/s/ William Oldaker
|
|
Director
|
March
31, 2009
|
|
William
Oldaker
|
||||
/s/ Scott Ogilvie
|
|
Director
|
March
31, 2009
|
|
Scott
Ogilvie
|
40
INDEX
TO EXHIBITS
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|||||||||||
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
Filed
Herewith
|
Form
|
Exhibit
No.
|
File No.
|
Filing Date
|
||||||
3.01(i)
|
Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Neuralstem, Inc. filed on
9/29/05
|
*
|
||||||||||
3.02(i)
|
Certificate
of Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation of Neuralstem, Inc. filed on
5/29/08
|
DEF
14A
|
Appendix
I
|
001-33672
|
4/24/08
|
|||||||
3.03(ii)
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws of Neuralstem, Inc. adopted on July 16,
2007
|
10-QSB
|
3.2(i)
|
333-132923
|
8/14/07
|
|||||||
4.01**
|
Amended
and Restated 2005 Stock Plan adopted on June 28, 2007
|
10-QSB
|
4.2(i)
|
333-132923
|
8/14/07
|
|||||||
4.02**
|
Non-qualified
Stock Option Agreement between Neuralstem, Inc. and Richard Garr dated
July 28, 2005
|
SB-2
|
4.4
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.03**
|
Non-qualified
Stock Option Agreement between Neuralstem, Inc. and Karl Johe dated July
28, 2005
|
SB-2
|
4.5
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.04
|
Private
Placement Memorandum for March 2006 offering
|
SB-2
|
4.12
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.05
|
Form
of Placement Agent Warrant issued in connection with the March 2006
offering
|
SB-2
|
4.13
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.06
|
Form
of Series A Warrant ($1.50) issued in connection with the March 2006
offering
|
SB-2
|
4.14
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.07
|
Form
of Series B Warrant ($2.000) issued in connection with the March 2006
offering
|
SB-2
|
4.15
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
4.08
|
Form
of Subscription Agreement for March 2006 offering
|
SB-2
|
4.16
|
333-132923
|
7/26/06
|
|||||||
4.09
|
Form
of Securities Purchase Agreement dated March 15, 2007
|
8-K
|
4.1
|
333-132923
|
3/16/07
|
|||||||
4.10
|
Form
of Common Stock Purchase Warrant dated March 15, 2007 (Series
C)
|
8-K
|
4.2
|
333-132923
|
3/16/07
|
|||||||
4.11
|
Form
of Registration Rights Agreement dated March 15, 2007
|
8-K
|
4.3
|
333-132923
|
3/16/07
|
|||||||
4.12**
|
Neuralstem,
Inc. 2007 Stock Plan
|
10-QSB
|
4.21
|
333-132923
|
8/14/07
|
41
4.13
|
Form
of Common Stock Purchase Warrant Issued to Karl Johe on June 5,
2007
|
10-KSB
|
4.22
|
333-132923
|
3/27/08
|
|||||||
4.14
|
Form
of Registration Rights Agreement entered into on February 19, 2008 between
the Company and CJ CheilJedang Corporation
|
8-K
|
10.20
|
001-33672
|
2/25/08
|
|||||||
4.15
|
Form
of Placement Agent Warrant Issued to Midtown Partners & Company on
December 18, 2008
|
8-K
|
4.1
|
001-33672
|
12/18/08
|
|||||||
4.16
|
Form
of Consultant Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued on January 5,
2009
|
S-3/A
|
10.1
|
333-157079
|
02/3/2009
|
|||||||
10.01**
|
Employment
Agreement with I. Richard Garr dated January 1, 2007 and amended as of
November 1, 2005
|
SB-2
|
10.1
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
10.02**
|
Amended
terms to the Employment Agreement of I Richard Garr dated January 1,
2008
|
*
|
||||||||||
10.03**
|
Employment
Agreement with Karl Johe dated January 1, 2007 and amended as of November
1, 2005
|
SB-2
|
10.1
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
10.04**
|
Amended
terms to the Employment Agreement of Karl Johe dated January 1,
2009
|
*
|
||||||||||
10.05
|
Licensing
Agreement between Neuralstem, Inc. and the Maryland Economic Development
Corporation dated February 1, 2004 and amended on March 14,
2004.
|
SB-2
|
10.5
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
10.06
|
Lease
of Vivarium Room between Neuralstem, Inc. and Perry Scientific dated
February 14, 2006
|
SB-2
|
10.16
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
10.07
|
Form
of Securities Purchase Agreement entered into between the Company and CJ
CheilJedang Corporation on February 19, 2008
|
8-K
|
10.19
|
001-33672
|
2/25/08
|
|||||||
14.01
|
Neuralstem
Code of Ethics
|
SB-2
|
14.1
|
333-132923
|
6/21/06
|
|||||||
14.02
|
Neuralstem
Financial Code of Profession Conduct adopted on May 16,
2007
|
8-K
|
14.2
|
333-132923
|
6/6/07
|
|||||||
23
|
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
*
|
||||||||||
31.1
|
Certification
of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
*
|
42
31.2
|
Certification
of the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
*
|
||||||||||
32.1
|
Certification
of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350
|
*
|
||||||||||
32.2
|
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350
|
*
|
**Management
contracts or compensation plans or arrangements in which directors or executive
officers are eligible to participate.
43