TG THERAPEUTICS, INC. - Quarter Report: 2017 September (Form 10-Q)
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
____________________________
FORM 10-Q
☒ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE
|
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017
|
OR
|
☐ 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 000-30929
___________________
TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization)
|
36-3898269
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
|
2 Gansevoort Street, 9th
Floor
New York, New York 10014
(Address
including zip code of principal executive offices)
(212) 554-4484
(Registrant's
telephone number, including area code)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the registrant was required to file such
reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days.
Yes
☒ No ☐
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically
and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive
Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405
of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such files).
☒
Yes ☐ No
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer,
an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting
company, or an emerging growth company. See definition of
“large accelerated filer,” “accelerated
filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and
“emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act.
Large
accelerated filer ☐
|
Accelerated
filer ☒
|
Non-accelerated
filer ☐ (Do not check if smaller reporting
company)
|
Smaller
reporting company ☐
|
|
Emerging
growth company ☐
|
If an
emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant
has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying
with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided
pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate
by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined
in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes
☐ No ☒
There
were 70,652,267 shares of the registrant’s common stock,
$0.001 par value, outstanding as of November 1, 2017.
TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.
FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL
CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
PART I
|
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
4
|
|
|
|
Item
1
|
Financial
Statements:
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2017 (unaudited)
and December 31, 2016
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 (unaudited)
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity for the nine
months ended September 30, 2017 (unaudited)
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended
September 30, 2017 and 2016 (unaudited)
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(unaudited)
|
8
|
|
|
|
Item
2
|
Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
18
|
|
|
|
Item
3
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
28
|
|
|
|
Item
4
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
29
|
|
|
|
PART II
|
OTHER INFORMATION
|
29
|
|
|
|
Item
1
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
29
|
|
|
|
Item
1A
|
Risk
Factors
|
29
|
|
|
|
Item
6
|
Exhibits
|
48
|
|
|
2
SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
Certain
matters discussed in this report, including matters discussed under
the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” may
constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other
factors that may cause our actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from the future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. The words "anticipate," "believe,"
"estimate," "may," "expect," “plan,”
“intend” and similar expressions are generally intended
to identify forward-looking statements. Our actual results may
differ materially from the results anticipated in these
forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including,
without limitation, those discussed under the captions “Risk
Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and
elsewhere in this report, as well as other factors which may be
identified from time to time in our other filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, or in the documents
where such forward-looking statements appear. All written or oral
forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly
qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements. Such
forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to,
statements about our
●
expectations for
increases or decreases in expenses;
●
expectations for
the clinical and pre-clinical development, manufacturing,
regulatory approval, and commercialization of our pharmaceutical
product candidates or any other products we may acquire or
in-license;
●
use of
clinical research centers and other contractors;
●
expectations as to
the timing of commencing or completing pre-clinical and clinical
trials and the expected outcomes of those trials;
●
expectations for
incurring capital expenditures to expand our research and
development and manufacturing capabilities;
●
expectations for
generating revenue or becoming profitable on a sustained
basis;
●
expectations or
ability to enter into marketing and other partnership
agreements;
●
expectations or
ability to enter into product acquisition and in-licensing
transactions;
●
expectations or
ability to build our own commercial infrastructure to manufacture,
market and sell our drug candidates;
●
expectations for
the acceptance of our products by doctors, patients or
payors;
●
ability
to compete against other companies and research
institutions;
●
ability
to secure adequate protection for our intellectual
property;
●
ability
to attract and retain key personnel;
●
ability
to obtain reimbursement for our products;
●
estimates of the
sufficiency of our existing cash and cash equivalents and
investments to finance our operating requirements, including
expectations regarding the value and liquidity of our
investments;
●
stock
price volatility; and
●
expectations for
future capital requirements.
The
forward-looking statements contained in this report reflect our
views and assumptions only as of the date this report is signed.
Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating
any forward-looking statements.
We
qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary
statements. In addition, with respect to all of our forward-looking
statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for
forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
3
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
September 30, 2017
|
December 31, 2016
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
(Note
1)
|
Assets
|
|
|
Current
assets:
|
|
|
Cash and cash
equivalents
|
$91,842,167
|
$25,031,280
|
Short-term
investment securities
|
--
|
19,853,860
|
Interest
receivable
|
--
|
83,852
|
Prepaid research
and development
|
5,022,846
|
5,678,755
|
Other current
assets
|
796,283
|
216,397
|
Total current
assets
|
97,661,296
|
50,864,144
|
Restricted
cash
|
586,259
|
583,208
|
Leasehold interest,
net
|
2,466,202
|
2,042,281
|
Equipment,
net
|
268,366
|
328,148
|
Goodwill
|
799,391
|
799,391
|
Other
assets
|
--
|
164,375
|
Total
assets
|
$101,781,514
|
$54,781,547
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
and stockholders’ equity
|
|
|
Current
liabilities:
|
|
|
Accounts payable
and accrued expenses
|
$18,179,772
|
$15,267,668
|
Accrued
compensation
|
1,275,305
|
1,389,516
|
Current portion of
deferred revenue
|
152,381
|
152,381
|
Notes
payable
|
182,156
|
68,875
|
Total current
liabilities
|
19,789,614
|
16,878,440
|
Deferred
rent
|
1,341,372
|
816,257
|
Deferred revenue,
net of current portion
|
1,104,762
|
1,219,048
|
Total
liabilities
|
22,235,748
|
18,913,745
|
Commitments and
contingencies
|
|
|
Stockholders’
equity:
|
|
|
Preferred stock,
$0.001 par value per share (10,000,000 shares authorized, none
issued and outstanding as of September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016)
|
--
|
--
|
Common stock,
$0.001 par value per share (150,000,000 shares authorized,
70,693,576 and 56,820,422 shares issued; 70,652,267 and 56,779,113
shares outstanding at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively)
|
70,694
|
56,820
|
Additional paid-in
capital
|
403,712,474
|
272,432,139
|
Treasury stock, at
cost, 41,309 shares at September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016
|
(234,337)
|
(234,337)
|
Accumulated
deficit
|
(324,003,065)
|
(236,386,820)
|
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
79,545,766
|
35,867,802
|
Total liabilities
and stockholders’ equity
|
$101,781,514
|
$54,781,547
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
4
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(Unaudited)
|
Three months ended September 30,
|
Nine months ended September 30,
|
||
|
2017
|
2016
|
2017
|
2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
revenue
|
$38,096
|
$38,096
|
$114,286
|
$114,286
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
Research and
development:
|
|
|
|
|
Noncash
compensation
|
1,814,288
|
919,648
|
5,386,709
|
1,873,730
|
Other research and
development
|
25,334,762
|
20,878,108
|
71,150,033
|
45,075,097
|
Total research and
development
|
27,149,050
|
21,797,756
|
76,536,742
|
46,948,827
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and
administrative:
|
|
|
|
|
Noncash
compensation
|
3,075,835
|
1,914,390
|
6,988,597
|
4,307,670
|
Other general and
administrative
|
1,398,438
|
1,251,421
|
4,265,967
|
3,798,859
|
Total general and
administrative
|
4,474,273
|
3,165,811
|
11,254,564
|
8,106,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and
expenses
|
31,623,323
|
24,963,567
|
87,791,306
|
55,055,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
loss
|
(31,585,227)
|
(24,925,471)
|
(87,677,020)
|
(54,941,070)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income)
expense:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
income
|
(79,163)
|
(87,965)
|
(174,056)
|
(265,456)
|
Other
|
29,588
|
(6,479)
|
113,281
|
(96,863)
|
Total other
(income) expense, net
|
(49,575)
|
(94,444)
|
(60,775)
|
(362,319)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
loss
|
$(31,535,652)
|
$(24,831,027)
|
$(87,616,245)
|
$(54,578,751)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted
net loss per common share
|
$(0.48)
|
$(0.50)
|
$(1.45)
|
$(1.11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average
shares used in computing basic and diluted net loss per common
share
|
65,079,128
|
49,203,277
|
60,552,084
|
48,961,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
5
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity
(Unaudited)
|
Common Stock
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
||
|
Shares
|
Amount
|
Additional
paid-in capital
|
Shares
|
Amount
|
Accumulated
Deficit
|
Total
|
Balance at January 1,
2017
|
56,820,422
|
$56,820
|
$272,432,139
|
41,309
|
$(234,337)
|
$(236,386,820)
|
$35,867,802
|
Issuance of common stock in
connection with exercise of warrants
|
887,585
|
888
|
2,142,197
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
2,143,085
|
Issuance of restricted
stock
|
1,112,131
|
1,112
|
(1,112)
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
Forfeiture of restricted
stock
|
(26,625)
|
(27)
|
27
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
Issuance of common stock in public
offering (net of offering costs of $3.6
million)
|
5,897,436
|
5,898
|
53,634,115
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
53,640,013
|
Issuance of common stock in
At-the-Market offerings (net of offering costs of $1.1
million)
|
6,002,627
|
6,003
|
63,129,802
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
63,135,805
|
Compensation in respect of
restricted stock granted to employees, directors and
consultants
|
--
|
--
|
12,375,306
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
12,375,306
|
Net loss
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
(87,616,245)
|
(87,616,245)
|
Balance at September 30,
2017
|
70,693,576
|
$70,694
|
$403,712,474
|
41,309
|
$(234,337)
|
$(324,003,065)
|
$79,545,766
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
6
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Unaudited)
|
Nine months ended September 30,
|
|
|
2017
|
2016
|
CASH FLOWS FROM
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
Net
loss
|
$(87,616,245)
|
$(54,578,751)
|
Adjustments to
reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|
|
Gain on sale of
long-term securities
|
--
|
(33,042)
|
Noncash stock
compensation expense
|
12,375,306
|
6,181,400
|
Depreciation
|
62,009
|
42,464
|
Amortization of
premium on investment securities
|
53,860
|
367,673
|
Change in fair
value of notes payable
|
113,281
|
(63,822)
|
Changes in assets
and liabilities:
|
|
|
Increase in
restricted cash
|
(3,051)
|
(3,041)
|
Decrease (increase)
in other current assets
|
147,826
|
(1,162,310)
|
Decrease (increase)
in leasehold interest
|
88,179
|
(2,517,771)
|
Decrease in accrued
interest receivable
|
83,852
|
77,563
|
Decrease (increase)
in other assets
|
161,730
|
(3,523)
|
Increase in
accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
2,666,164
|
6,447,215
|
Increase in
deferred rent
|
72,942
|
793,968
|
Decrease in
deferred revenue
|
(114,286)
|
(114,286)
|
Net cash used in
operating activities
|
(71,908,433)
|
(44,566,263)
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM
INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
Purchases of
property, plant and equipment
|
(2,227)
|
(323,015)
|
Investment in
held-to-maturity securities
|
--
|
(15,199,922)
|
Proceeds from the
sale of long-term securities
|
--
|
18,000,000
|
Proceeds from
maturity of short-term securities
|
19,800,000
|
12,589,219
|
Net cash provided
by investing activities
|
19,797,773
|
15,066,282
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
Proceeds from the
exercise of warrants
|
2,143,085
|
100,896
|
Proceeds from sale
of common stock, net
|
116,778,462
|
3,504,261
|
Financing
costs
|
--
|
(9,984)
|
Net cash provided
by financing activities
|
118,921,547
|
3,595,173
|
|
|
|
NET INCREASE
(DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
66,810,887
|
(25,904,808)
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH
EQUIVALENTS AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD
|
25,031,280
|
55,061,329
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH
EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD
|
$91,842,167
|
$29,156,521
|
|
|
|
NONCASH
TRANSACTIONS
|
|
|
Reclassification of
deferred financing costs to additional paid-in
capital
|
$(2,645)
|
$(56,988)
|
Conversion of
convertible notes payable to common stock
|
$--
|
$30,601
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
7
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(unaudited)
Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to
“TG,” the “Company,” “we,”
“us” and “our” refer to TG Therapeutics,
Inc. (formerly known as Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or
Manhattan) and our subsidiaries.
NOTE 1 – ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING
POLICIES
Description of Business
We are
a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development
and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies
and autoimmune diseases. Currently, we are developing two therapies
targeting hematologic malignancies. TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a
novel, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a specific
and unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature
B-lymphocytes. We are also developing TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an
orally available PI3K delta inhibitor. The delta isoform of PI3K is
strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin and is believed
to be important in the proliferation and survival of B-lymphocytes.
Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, or the combination of which is referred
to as "U2," are in Phase 3 clinical development for patients with
hematologic malignancies, with TG-1101 also in Phase 3 clinical
development for Multiple Sclerosis. Additionally, the Company has
recently brought its anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody into Phase 1
development and aims to bring additional pipeline assets into the
clinic in the future.
We also
actively evaluate complementary products, technologies and
companies for in-licensing, partnership, acquisition and/or
investment opportunities. To date, we have not received approval
for the sale of any of our drug candidates in any market and,
therefore, have not generated any product sales from our drug
candidates.
The
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles, or GAAP, for interim financial information and with the
instructions to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and Article 10 of
Regulation S-X of the Exchange Act. Accordingly, they may not
include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for
complete financial statements. All adjustments that are, in the
opinion of management, of a normal recurring nature and are
necessary for a fair presentation of the condensed consolidated
financial statements have been included. Nevertheless, these
condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements
contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2016. The accompanying condensed December 31, 2016
balance sheet has been derived from these statements. The results
of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be
expected for the entire fiscal year or any other interim
period.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We have
incurred operating losses since our inception and expect to
continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future and,
may never become profitable. As of September 30, 2017, we have an
accumulated deficit of approximately $324.0 million.
Our
major sources of cash have been proceeds from the private placement
and public offering of equity securities. We have not yet
commercialized any of our drug candidates and cannot be sure if we
will ever be able to do so. Even if we commercialize one or more of
our drug candidates, we may not become profitable. Our ability to
achieve profitability depends on many factors, including our
ability to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates;
successfully completing any post-approval regulatory obligations;
and successfully commercializing our drug candidates alone or in
partnership. We may continue to incur substantial operating losses
even if we begin to generate revenues from our drug
candidates.
As of
September 30, 2017, we had approximately $91.8 million in cash and
cash equivalents. The Company believes its cash and cash
equivalents on hand as of September 30, 2017 will be sufficient to
fund the Company’s planned operations through 2018. The
actual amount of cash that we will need to operate is subject to
many factors, including, but not limited to, the timing, design and
conduct of clinical trials for our drug candidates. We are
dependent upon significant future financing to execute our current
strategic plan, including the commercialization of any of our drug
candidates (see Note 5 for further details).
Our
common stock is listed on the Nasdaq
Capital Market and trades under the symbol
“TGTX.”
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In
May 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued
Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-09,
“Scope of Modification Accounting” (“ASU
2017-09”). ASU 2017-09 provides guidance about which changes
to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require
an entity to apply modification accounting. An entity should
account for the effects of a modification unless all the following
are met:
●
The
fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an
alternative measurement method is used) of the modified award is
the same as the fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value,
if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the original
award immediately before the original award is modified. If the
modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation
technique that the entity uses to value the award, the entity is
not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the
modification.
●
The
vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the
vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the
original award is modified.
●
The
classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a
liability instrument is the same as the classification of the
original award immediately before the original award is
modified.
8
ASU
2017-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or
after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for public
business entities for reporting periods for which financial
statements have not yet been issued, and all other entities for
reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been
made available for issuance. The amendments should be applied
prospectively to an award modified on or after the adoption date.
The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-09 to have a
material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated
financial statements.
In
January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Simplifying
the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU
2017-04”). ASU 2017-04 removes the requirement to compare the
implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of
step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, under ASU
2017-04, an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill
impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit
with its carrying amount and should recognize an impairment charge
for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting
unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not
exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting
unit. In addition, ASU 2017-04:
●
Clarifies the
requirements for excluding and allocating foreign currency
translation adjustments to reporting units in connection with an
entity’s testing of reporting units for goodwill
impairment.
●
Clarifies
that an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax
deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit
when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if
applicable.
●
Makes minor changes
to the overview and background sections of certain Accounting
Standards Codification (“ASC” or
“Codification”) subtopics and topics as part of the
Board’s initiative to unify and improve those sections
throughout the Codification.
ASU
2017-04 is effective prospectively for annual and interim periods
beginning on or after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is
permitted on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company does
not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-04 to have a material impact on
the Company’s condensed consolidated financial
statements.
In
January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, “FASB
Clarifies the Definition of a Business” (“ASU
2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 clarifies the definition of a business
in ASC 805. The amendments in ASU 2017-01 are intended to make
application of the guidance more consistent and cost-efficient. The
amendments in ASU 2017-01:
●
Provide
a screen to determine when a set of assets and activities is not a
business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the
fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is
concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar
identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces
the number of transactions that need to be further
evaluated.
●
Provide
that if the screen is not met, (1) to be considered a business, a
set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process
that together significantly contribute to the ability to create
output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market
participant could replace missing elements. The amendments provide
a framework to assist entities in evaluating whether both an input
and a substantive process are present. The framework includes two
sets of criteria to consider that depend on whether a set has
outputs. Although outputs are not required for a set to be a
business, outputs generally are a key element of a business;
therefore, the Board has developed more stringent criteria for sets
without outputs.
●
Narrow
the definition of the term output so that the term is consistent
with how outputs are described in Topic 606.
ASU
2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted for transactions
that occurred before the issuance date or effective date of the
standard if the transactions were not reported in financial
statements that have been issued or made available for issuance.
The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-01 to have a
material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated
financial statements.
In
May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from
Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”),
which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements,
including most industry-specific guidance. ASU 2014-09 provides a
single set of criteria for revenue recognition among all
industries. The new standard requires a company to recognize
revenue when it transfers goods or services to customers in an
amount that reflects the consideration that the Company expects to
receive for those goods or services.
ASU
2014-09 includes guidance for determining whether a license
transfers to a customer at a point in time or over time based on
the nature of the entity’s promise to the customer. To
determine whether the entity’s promise is to provide a right
to access its intellectual property or a right to use its
intellectual property, the entity should consider the nature of the
intellectual property to which the customer will have
rights.
ASU
2014-09 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2017. The standard allows for two transition
methods - full retrospective, in which the standard is applied to
each prior reporting period presented, or modified retrospective,
in which the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard
is recognized at the date of initial adoption. The Company expects
to elect the modified retrospective approach and is continuing to
assess the impact of the new guidance on its accounting policies
and procedures and is evaluating the new requirements. The Company
does not expect the adoption of ASU 2014-09 to have a material
impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial
statements.
Other
pronouncements issued by the FASB or other authoritative accounting
standards with future effective dates are either not applicable or
not significant to our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
9
Use of Estimates
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP
requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during
the applicable reporting period. Actual results could differ from
those estimates. Such differences could be material to the
condensed
consolidated financial statements.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
We treat liquid
investments with original maturities of three months or less when
purchased as cash and cash equivalents.
Restricted Cash
We record cash
pledged or held in trust as restricted cash. As of September 30,
2017 and December 31, 2016, we have approximately $0.6 million of
restricted cash pledged to secure a
line of credit as a security deposit for an Office Agreement
(see Note 8).
Investment Securities
Investment
securities at December 31, 2016 consist of short-term government
securities. We classify these securities as held-to-maturity.
Held-to-maturity securities are those securities in which we have
the ability and intent to hold the security until maturity.
Held-to-maturity securities are recorded at amortized cost,
adjusted for the amortization or accretion of premiums or
discounts. Premiums and discounts are amortized or accreted over
the life of the related held-to-maturity security as an adjustment
to yield using the effective interest method.
A
decline in the market value of any investment security below cost,
that is deemed to be other than temporary, results in a reduction
in the carrying amount to fair value. The impairment is charged to
operations and a new cost basis for the security is established.
Other-than-temporary impairment charges would be included in
interest and other (income) expense, net. Dividend and interest
income are recognized when earned.
Credit Risk
Financial
instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations
of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents and
short-term investments. The Company maintains its cash and cash
equivalents and short-term investments with high-credit quality
financial institutions. At times, such amounts may exceed
federally-insured limits.
Revenue Recognition
We
recognize license revenue in accordance with the revenue
recognition guidance of the Codification. We analyze each element
of our licensing agreement to determine the appropriate revenue
recognition. The terms of the license agreement may include
payments to us of non-refundable up-front license fees, milestone
payments if specified objectives are achieved, and/or royalties on
product sales. We recognize revenue from upfront payments over the
period of significant involvement under the related agreements
unless the fee is in exchange for products delivered or services
rendered that represent the culmination of a separate earnings
process and no further performance obligation exists under the
contract. We recognize milestone payments as revenue upon the
achievement of specified milestones only if (1) the milestone
payment is non-refundable, (2) substantive effort is involved in
achieving the milestone, (3) the amount of the milestone is
reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the risk
associated with achievement of the milestone, and (4) the milestone
is at risk for both parties. If any of these conditions are not
met, we defer the milestone payment and recognize it as revenue
over the estimated period of performance under the
contract.
Research and Development Costs
Generally, research
and development costs are expensed as incurred. Non-refundable
advance payments for goods or services that will be used or
rendered for future research and development activities are
deferred and amortized over the period that the goods are delivered
or the related services are performed, subject to an assessment of
recoverability. We make estimates of costs incurred in relation to
external clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical
site costs. We analyze the progress of clinical trials, including
levels of patient enrollment, invoices received and contracted
costs when evaluating the adequacy of the amount expensed and the
related prepaid asset and accrued liability. Significant judgments
and estimates must be made and used in determining the accrued
liability balance and expense in any accounting period. We review
and accrue CRO expenses and clinical trial study expenses based on
work performed and rely upon estimates of those costs applicable to
the stage of completion of a study. Accrued CRO costs are subject
to revisions as such trials progress to completion. Revisions are
charged to expense in the period in which the facts that give rise
to the revision become known. With respect to clinical site costs,
the financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation
and vary from contract to contract. Payments under these contracts
may be uneven, and depend on factors such as the achievement of
certain events, the successful recruitment of patients, the
completion of portions of the clinical trial or similar conditions.
The objective of our policy is to match the recording of expenses
in our financial statements to the actual services received and
efforts expended. As such, expense accruals related to clinical
site costs are recognized based on our estimate of the degree of
completion of the event or events specified in the specific
clinical study or trial contract.
Prepaid
research and development in our consolidated balance sheets
includes, among other things, costs related to agreements with
CROs, certain costs to third party service providers related to
development and manufacturing services as well as clinical
development. These agreements often require payments in advance of
services performed or goods received. Accordingly, as of September
30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we recorded approximately $5.0
million and $5.7 million, respectively, in prepaid research and
development related to such advance agreements.
10
Income Taxes
Income
taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future
tax consequences attributable to temporary differences between the
financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and
liabilities and their respective tax bases, operating losses and
tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are
measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable
income in the years in which those temporary differences are
expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax
assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in
operations in the period that includes the enactment date. If the
likelihood of realizing the deferred tax assets or liability is
less than “more likely than not,” a valuation allowance
is then created.
We, and
our subsidiaries, file income tax returns in the U.S. Federal
jurisdiction and in various states. We have tax net operating loss
carryforwards that are subject to examination for a number of years
beyond the year in which they were generated for tax purposes.
Since a portion of these net operating loss carryforwards may be
utilized in the future, many of these net operating loss
carryforwards will remain subject to examination. We recognize
interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain income tax
positions in income tax expense.
Stock-Based Compensation
We
recognize all share-based payments to employees and non-employee
directors (as compensation for service) as noncash compensation
expense in the condensed consolidated financial statements based on
the fair values of such payments. Stock-based compensation expense
recognized each period is based on the value of the portion of
share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest
during the period. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant
and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual
forfeitures differ from those estimates.
For
share-based payments to consultants and other third-parties
(including related parties), noncash compensation expense is
determined at the “measurement date.” The expense is
recognized over the vesting period of the award. Until the
measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation
expense remains uncertain. We record compensation expense based on
the fair value of the award at the reporting date. The awards to
consultants and other third-parties (including related parties) are
then revalued, or the total compensation is recalculated based on
the then current fair value, at each subsequent reporting
date.
In
addition, because some of the restricted stock issued to employees,
consultants and other third-parties vest upon achievement of
certain milestones, the total expense is uncertain. Compensation
expense for such awards that vest upon the achievement of
milestones is recognized when the achievement of such milestones
becomes probable.
Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Common Share
Basic
net loss per share of our common stock is calculated by dividing
net loss applicable to the common stock by the weighted-average
number of our common stock outstanding for the period. Diluted net
loss per share of common stock is the same as basic net loss per
share of common stock since potentially dilutive securities from
stock options, stock warrants and convertible preferred stock would
have an antidilutive effect either because we incurred a net loss
during the period presented or because such potentially dilutive
securities were out of the money and the Company realized net
income during the period presented. The amounts of potentially
dilutive securities excluded from the calculation were 4,157,052
and 6,664,591 for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2017 and 2016, respectively. The
following outstanding shares of common stock equivalents were
excluded from the computation of net loss per share attributable to
common stockholders for the periods presented because including
them would have been antidilutive:
|
Three and Nine Months Ended September
30,
|
|
|
2017
|
2016
|
Unvested restricted
shares
|
4,141,680
|
5,507,250
|
Shares issuable
upon note conversion
|
15,372
|
1,142,208
|
Warrants
|
--
|
15,133
|
Total
|
4,157,052
|
6,664,591
|
Long-Lived Assets and Goodwill
Long-lived assets
are reviewed for potential impairment when circumstances indicate
that the carrying value of long-lived tangible and intangible
assets with finite lives may not be recoverable. Management’s
policy in determining whether an impairment indicator exists, a
triggering event, comprises measurable operating performance
criteria as well as qualitative measures. If an analysis is
necessitated by the occurrence of a triggering event, we make
certain assumptions in determining the impairment amount. If the
carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated future cash
flows, an impairment charge is recognized.
Goodwill is
reviewed for impairment annually, or earlier when events arise that
could indicate that an impairment exists. We test for goodwill
impairment using a two-step process. The first step compares the
fair value of the reporting unit with the unit's carrying value,
including goodwill. When the carrying value of the reporting unit
is greater than fair value, the unit’s goodwill may be
impaired, and the second step must be completed to measure the
amount of the goodwill impairment charge, if any. In the second
step, the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill
is compared with the carrying amount of the unit’s goodwill.
If the carrying amount is greater than the implied fair value, the
carrying value of the goodwill must be written down to its implied
fair value. We will continue to perform impairment tests annually,
at December 31, and whenever events or changes in circumstances
suggest that the carrying value of an asset may not be
recoverable.
11
Rent Expense and Deferred Rent
Rent
expense and lease incentives, including landlord construction
allowances, are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease
term, commencing generally on the date the Company takes possession
of the leased property. The Company records lease incentives as
deferred rent and recognizes the lease incentives as reductions of
rental expense. The unamortized portion of deferred rent is
included in deferred rent in the condensed consolidated balance
sheets.
NOTE 2 – CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
The
following tables summarize our cash and cash equivalents at
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016:
|
September 30, 2017
|
December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
Money market
funds
|
$29,055,021
|
$20,978,947
|
Checking and bank
deposits
|
62,787,146
|
4,052,333
|
Total
|
$91,842,167
|
$25,031,280
|
NOTE 3 – INVESTMENT SECURITIES
Our
investments as of December 31, 2016 are classified as
held-to-maturity. Held-to-maturity investments are recorded at
amortized cost.
The
following table summarizes our investment securities at December
31, 2016:
|
Amortized cost, as adjusted
|
Gross unrealized holding gains
|
Gross unrealized holding losses
|
Estimated fair value
|
Short-term
investments:
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations of
domestic governmental agencies (maturing between February 2017 and
September 2017) (held-to-maturity)
|
$19,853,860
|
$3,270
|
$2,492
|
$19,854,638
|
Total short-term
investment securities
|
$19,853,860
|
$3,270
|
$2,492
|
$19,854,638
|
NOTE 4 – FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
We
measure certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value on a
recurring basis in the condensed consolidated financial statements.
The fair value hierarchy ranks the quality and reliability of
inputs, or assumptions, used in the determination of fair value and
requires financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value to
be classified and disclosed in one of the following three
categories:
●
Level 1 – quoted prices in active markets for identical
assets and liabilities;
●
Level 2 – inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are
directly or indirectly observable; and
●
Level 3 – unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by
market data.
12
As of
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the fair values of cash
and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts payable, and notes
and interest payable, current portion approximate their carrying
value.
At the time of our merger (we were then known as Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Manhattan”)) with Ariston
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Ariston”) in March 2010,
Ariston issued $15.5 million of five-year 5% notes payable (the
“5% Notes”) in satisfaction of several note payable
issuances. The 5% Notes and accrued and unpaid interest thereon are
convertible at the option of the holder into common stock at the
conversion price of $1,125 per share. Ariston agreed to make
quarterly payments on the 5% Notes equal to 50% of the net product
cash flow received from the exploitation or commercialization of
Ariston’s product candidates, AST-726 and AST-915. We have no
obligations under the 5% Notes aside from (a) 50% of the net
product cash flows from Ariston’s product candidates, if any,
payable to noteholders; and (b) the conversion feature, discussed
above.
The cumulative
liability including accrued and unpaid interest of the 5% Notes was
approximately $17.3 million at September 30, 2017 and $16.7 million
at December 31, 2016. No payments have been made on the 5%
Notes as of September 30, 2017.
In
December 2011, we elected the fair value option for valuing the 5%
Notes. The fair value option was elected in order to reflect in our
financial statements the assumptions that market participants use
in evaluating these financial instruments.
As of
December 31, 2013, as a result of expiring intellectual property
rights and other factors, it was determined that net product cash
flows from AST-726 were unlikely. As we have no other obligations
under the 5% Notes aside from the net product cash flows and the
conversion feature, the conversion feature was used to estimate the
5% Notes’ fair value as of September 30, 2017 and December
31, 2016. The assumptions, assessments and projections of future
revenues are subject to uncertainties, difficult to predict, and
require significant judgment. The use of different assumptions,
applying different judgment to inherently subjective matters and
changes in future market conditions could result in significantly
different estimates of fair value and the differences could be
material to our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
The
following tables provide the fair value measurements of applicable
financial liabilities as of September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016:
|
Financial liabilities at fair value as of September 30,
2017
|
|||
|
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
5%
Notes
|
$--
|
$--
|
$182,156
|
$182,156
|
Total
|
$--
|
$--
|
$182,156
|
$182,156
|
|
Financial liabilities at fair value as of December 31,
2016
|
|||
|
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
5%
Notes
|
$--
|
$--
|
$68,875
|
$68,875
|
Total
|
$--
|
$--
|
$68,875
|
$68,875
|
The
Level 3 amounts above represent the fair value of the 5% Notes and
related accrued interest.
13
The
following table summarizes the changes in Level 3 instruments
during the nine months ended September 30, 2017:
Fair value at
December 31, 2016
|
$68,875
|
Interest accrued on
face value of 5% Notes
|
630,003
|
Conversion of 5%
notes
|
--
|
Change in fair
value of Level 3 liabilities
|
(516,722)
|
Fair value at
September 30, 2017
|
$182,156
|
|
|
The
change in the fair value of the Level 3 liabilities is reported in
other (income) expense in the accompanying condensed consolidated
statements of operations.
NOTE 5 - STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Preferred Stock
Our
amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes the
issuance of up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par
value, with rights senior to those of our common stock,
issuable in
one or more series. Upon issuance, we can determine the rights,
preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof. These rights,
preferences and privileges could include dividend rights,
conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption, liquidation
preferences, sinking fund terms and the number of shares
constituting any series or the designation of such series, any or
all of which may be greater than the rights of common
stock.
Common Stock
Our
amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes the
issuance of up to 150,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value common
stock.
In
December 2014, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3
(the "2015 S-3"), which was declared effective in January 2015.
Under the 2015 S-3, the Company may sell up to a total of $250
million of its securities. In connection with the 2015 S-3, we
amended our 2013 At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement with MLV
& Co. LLC (the "2015 ATM") such that we may issue and sell
additional shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering
price of up to $175.0 million, from time to time through MLV &
Co. LLC ("MLV") and FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBR", each of
MLV and FBR individually an "Agent" and collectively the "Agents"),
acting as the sales agents. Under the 2015 ATM we pay the Agents a
commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale
of any shares of common stock sold through the Agents.
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we sold a total of
3,104,253 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for total gross
proceeds of approximately $31.6 million at an average selling price
of $10.18 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately
$31.0 million after deducting commissions and other transaction
costs.
In
March 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering of
5,128,206 shares of our common stock (plus a 30-day underwriter
overallotment option to purchase up to an additional 769,230 shares
of common stock, which was exercised) at a price of $9.75 per
share. Net proceeds from this offering, including the overallotment
option, were approximately $54 million, net of underwriting
discounts and offering expenses of approximately $3.6
million.
In May
2017, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (the
"2017 S-3"), which was declared effective in June 2017, replacing
the 2015 S-3. Under the 2017 S-3, the Company may sell up to a
total of $300 million of its securities. In connection with the
2017 S-3, we entered into an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement
(the "2017 ATM") with Jefferies LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.,
FBR Capital Markets & Co., SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.,
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
Inc. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (each a "2017 Agent" and
collectively, the "2017 Agents"), relating to the sale of shares of
our common stock. Under the 2017 ATM we pay the 2017 Agents a
commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale
of any shares of common stock.
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we sold a total of
2,898,374 shares of common stock under the 2017 ATM for aggregate
total gross proceeds of approximately $32.7 million at an average
selling price of $11.30 per share, resulting in net proceeds of
approximately $32.2 million after deducting commissions and other
transactions costs.
The
2017 S-3 is currently our only active shelf registration statement.
After deducting shares already sold there is approximately $267.3
million of common stock that remains available for sale under the
2017 S-3. We may offer the securities under the 2017 S-3 from time
to time in response to market conditions or other circumstances if
we believe such a plan of financing is in the best interests of our
stockholders. We believe that the 2017 S-3 provides us with the
flexibility to raise additional capital to finance our operations
as needed.
14
Equity Incentive Plans
The TG
Therapeutics, Inc. Amended and Restated 2012 Incentive Plan
(“2012 Incentive Plan”) was approved by stockholders in
June 2015. As of September 30, 2017, no options were outstanding
and up to an additional 1,201,258 shares may be issued under the
2012 Incentive Plan.
Effective as of
January 1, 2017, we entered into an amendment (the
“Amendment”) to the employment agreement entered into
as of December 15, 2011 (together with the Amendment, the
“Employment Agreement”) with Michael S. Weiss, our
Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and President. Under
the Amendment, Mr. Weiss will remain as Chief Executive Officer and
President, removing the interim status. Simultaneously, we entered
into a Strategic Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory
Agreement”) with Caribe BioAdvisors, LLC (the
“Advisor”) owned by Mr. Weiss to provide the services
of Mr. Weiss as Chairman of the Board and as Executive Chairman. As
part of the Amendment, Mr. Weiss also agreed to forfeit 3,381,866
restricted shares previously granted under the Employment Agreement
that were predominantly subject to time-based vesting over the next
three years. Simultaneously, (i) Mr. Weiss was issued 418,371
restricted shares under the Employment Agreement that vest in 2018
and 2019 and (ii) the Advisor was issued 2,960,000 restricted
shares under the Advisory Agreement that vested on market
capitalization thresholds ranging from $375 million to $750
million. In accordance with GAAP, there was no incremental stock
compensation expense recognition as a result of the
modification.
Restricted Stock
Certain employees, directors and consultants have
been awarded restricted stock. The restricted stock vesting
consists of milestone and time-based vesting. The following
table summarizes restricted share activity for the nine months
ended September 30, 2017:
|
Number of Shares
|
Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
|
Outstanding at
December 31, 2016
|
8,642,055
|
$7.20
|
Granted
|
1,112,131
|
6.10
|
Vested
|
(4,085,881)
|
5.23
|
Forfeited
|
(26,625)
|
6.72
|
Outstanding at
September 30, 2017
|
5,641,680
|
$7.06
|
Total
expense associated with restricted stock grants was approximately
$4.9 million and $2.8 million during the three months ended
September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $12.4 million, and
$6.2 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and
2016, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, there was
approximately $14.9 million of total unrecognized compensation cost
related to unvested time-based restricted stock, which is expected
to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 0.9 years. The
unrecognized compensation amount does not include, as of September
30, 2017, 180,000 shares of restricted stock outstanding which are
milestone-based and vest upon certain corporate milestones; and
2,289,917 shares of restricted stock outstanding issued to
non-employees, the expense for which is determined each reporting
period at the measurement date. The expense for non-employee awards
is recognized over the vesting period of the award. Until the
measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation
expense remains uncertain. We record compensation expense based on
the fair value of the award at the reporting date.
Warrants
The
following table summarizes warrant activity for the nine months
ended September 30, 2017:
|
Warrants
|
Weighted-average exercise price
|
Aggregate Intrinsic Value
|
Outstanding at
December 31, 2016
|
913,381
|
$2.41
|
$1,961,403
|
Issued
|
--
|
--
|
|
Exercised
|
(887,585)
|
2.41
|
|
Expired
|
(25,796)
|
--
|
|
Outstanding at
September 30, 2017
|
--
|
$--
|
$--
|
Stock-Based Compensation
We did
not grant any stock options during the nine months ended September
30, 2017 and 2016.
The
following table summarizes stock-based compensation expense
information about restricted stock for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2017 and 2016:
|
Three months ended September 30,
|
Nine months ended September 30,
|
||
|
2017
|
2016
|
2017
|
2016
|
Stock-based
compensation expense associated with restricted stock
|
$4,890,123
|
$2,834,038
|
$12,375,306
|
$6,181,400
|
Total
|
$4,890,123
|
$2,834,038
|
$12,375,306
|
$6,181,400
|
15
NOTE 6 – NOTES PAYABLE
The
following is a summary of notes payable:
|
September 30, 2017
|
December 31, 2016
|
||||
|
Current portion, net
|
Non-current portion, net
|
Total
|
Current portion, net
|
Non-current portion, net
|
Total
|
Convertible 5%
Notes Payable
|
$182,156
|
$-
|
$182,156
|
$68,875
|
$-
|
$68,875
|
Total
|
$182,156
|
$-
|
$182,156
|
$68,875
|
$-
|
$68,875
|
Convertible 5% Notes Payable
The 5%
Notes and accrued and unpaid interest thereon are convertible at
the option of the holder into common stock at the conversion price
of $1,125 per share. We have no obligation under the 5% Notes aside
from (a) 50% of the net product cash flows from Ariston’s
product candidates, if any, payable to noteholders; and (b) the
conversion feature, discussed above. Interest accrues monthly, is
added to principal on an annual basis, every March 8, and is
payable at maturity, which was March 8, 2015 (see Note 4 for
further details).
The
cumulative liability including accrued and unpaid interest of these
notes was approximately $17.3 million at September 30, 2017 and
$16.7 million at December 31, 2016. No payments have been made on
the 5% Notes as of September 30, 2017.
In
December 2011, we elected the fair value option for valuing the 5%
Notes. The fair value option was elected in order to reflect in our
financial statements the assumptions that market participants use
in evaluating these financial instruments (see Note 4 for further
details).
NOTE 7 – LICENSE AGREEMENTS
BET
In May
2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant Biosys
(“Jubilant”), an India-based biotechnology company, we
entered into a sub-license agreement (“JBET Agreement”)
with Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”) (see
Note 8) for the development and commercialization of
Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program in the field of
hematological malignancies.
Under
the terms of the JBET agreement, we paid Checkpoint an up-front
licensing fee of $1.0 million and will make additional payments
contingent on certain preclinical, clinical, and regulatory
milestones, including commercial milestones totaling up to
approximately $177 million and a single-digit royalty on net sales.
TG will also provide funding to support certain targeted research
efforts at Jubilant.
TG-1101
In
November 2012, we entered into an exclusive (within the territory)
sublicense agreement with Ildong relating to the development and
commercialization of TG-1101 in South Korea and Southeast Asia.
Under the terms of the sublicense agreement, Ildong has been
granted a royalty bearing, exclusive right, including the right to
grant sublicenses, to develop and commercialize TG-1101 in South
Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Philippines, Vietnam, and Myanmar.
An
upfront payment of $2.0 million, which was received in December
2012, net
of $0.3 million of income tax withholdings, is being
recognized as license revenue on a straight-line basis over the
life of the agreement, which is through the expiration of the last
licensed patent right or 15 years after the first commercial sale
of a product in such country, unless the agreement is earlier
terminated, and represents the estimated period over which we will
have certain ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense
agreement. We recorded license revenue of approximately $38,000 for
each of the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, and
$114,000 for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and
2016 and, at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, have
deferred revenue of approximately $1.3 million and $1.4 million,
respectively, associated with this $2.0 million payment
(approximately $0.2 million of which has been classified in current
liabilities at September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016).
We may
receive up to an additional $5.0 million in payments upon the
achievement of pre-specified milestones. In addition, upon
commercialization, Ildong will make royalty payments to us on net
sales of TG-1101 in the sublicense territory.
16
NOTE 8 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
LFB Biotechnologies
On
January 30, 2012, we entered into an exclusive license agreement
with LFB Biotechnologies, GTC Biotherapeutics and LFB/GTC LLC, all
wholly-owned subsidiaries of LFB Group, relating to the development
of ublituximab (the “LFB License Agreement”). In
connection with the LFB License Agreement, we nominated Dr. Yann
Echelard to our Board of Directors as LFB Group’s nominee.
LFB Group maintains the right to nominate a board member until such
time as LFB Group owns less than 10% of the outstanding common
stock.
Under
the terms of the LFB License Agreement, we utilize LFB Group for
certain development and manufacturing services. We incurred
expenses of $1.8 million and $1.9 million during the three months
ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $2.3 million
and $4.3 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017
and 2016, respectively, which have been included in other research
and development expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated
statements of operations. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, we had approximately $0 and $0.4 million, respectively,
recorded in accounts payable related to the LFB License Agreement.
In conjunction with the development and manufacturing services
discussed above, certain agreements between us and LFB Group
require payments in advance of services performed or goods
delivered. Accordingly, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, we recorded approximately $0 and $1.3 million, respectively,
in prepaid research and development for such advance
payments.
Other Parties
In
March 2014, we entered into a shared services agreement (the
“Opus Shared Services Agreement”) with Opus Point
Partners Management, LLC (“Opus”) in which the parties
agreed to share the costs of a rented facility and certain other
services. Our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a
Managing Member of Opus. During the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2017, we incurred no expenses related to this
agreement, as compared to expenses incurred of approximately $0.02
million and $0.1 million during the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2016, respectively. The Opus Shared Services
Agreement is no longer in effect as we began occupying new office
space in April 2016.
In October 2014, we entered into an agreement (the “Office
Agreement”) with Fortress Biotech, Inc.
(“Fortress”), to occupy approximately 45% of the 24,000
square feet of New York City office space leased by Fortress, which
is now our corporate headquarters. The Office Agreement requires us
to pay our respective share of the average annual rent and other
costs of the 15-year lease. We approximate an average annual rental
obligation of $1.1 million under the Office Agreement. We began to
occupy this new space in April 2016, with rental payments beginning
in the third quarter of 2016. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2017, we recorded rent expense of approximately $0.9
million and at September 30, 2017, have deferred rent of
approximately $1.3 million. Mr. Weiss is also Executive Vice
Chairman of Fortress.
Under the Office Agreement, we agreed to pay Fortress our portion
of the build out costs, which have been allocated to us at the 45%
rate mentioned above. The allocated build-out costs have been
recorded in Leasehold Interest and will be amortized over the
15-year term of the Office Agreement. After an initial commitment
of the 45% rate for a period of three (3) years, we and Fortress
will determine actual office space utilization annually and if our
utilization differs from the amount we have been billed, we will
either receive credits or be assessed incremental utilization
charges. As of September 30, 2017, we had approximately $131,000
recorded in accounts payable related to Fortress of which
approximately $30,000 related to rent and build-out
costs.
In July 2015, we
entered into a Shared Services Agreement (the “Shared
Services Agreement”) with Fortress to share the cost of
certain services such as facilities use, personnel costs and other
overhead and administrative costs. This Shared Services Agreement
requires us to pay our respective share of services utilized. In
connection with the Shared Services Agreement, we incurred
expenses of approximately $1.0
million and $0.5 million in shared services for the nine months
ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and expenses of
approximately $0.3 million for each of the three months ended
September 30, 2017 and 2016, primarily related to shared
personnel.
In May
2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant, an India-based
biotechnology company, we entered into the JBET Agreement with
Checkpoint, a subsidiary of Fortress, for the development and
commercialization of Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program
in the field of hematological malignancies. We paid Checkpoint an
up-front licensing fee of $1.0 million in July 2016 and incurred
expenses of $0.2 million in March 2017 for the first milestone
achievement as part of the JBET Agreement recorded in other
research and development. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, we had approximately $0.2 million and $0.8 million,
respectively, recorded in accounts payable, related mostly to the
JBET Agreement. Mr. Weiss is also the Executive Chairman of
Checkpoint.
17
NOTE 9 – LITIGATION
On
January 6, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of
its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics
common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 (the
“Class Period”). The case was captioned John Lyon v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S.
Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No.
1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleged that, throughout
the Class Period various statements made by the Company regarding
its GENUINE Phase 3 trial were materially false or misleading when
made in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 24, 2017, a second
purported class action complaint was filed in New York federal
court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or
consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September
15, 2014 and October 12, 2016. The case was captioned Kenneth C. Wyzgoski v. TG Therapeutics,
Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00508-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The claims and allegations in the
Wyzgoski complaint were substantially identical to those in the
Lyon case. By order dated March 23, 2017, the court consolidated
the Lyon and Wyzgoski cases into one action, captioned In re TG Therapeutics Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.), appointed
lead plaintiffs in the case, and approved lead plaintiffs’
selection of lead counsel. On April 5, 2017 the Court so ordered a
stipulation pursuant to which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the consolidated action in its entirety without prejudice. The
Company denies the allegations and claims made in the
above-referenced actions and no consideration was given by the
Company in connection with lead plaintiffs’ voluntary
dismissal of the consolidated action.
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The
following discussion and analysis contains forward-looking
statements about our plans and expectations of what may happen in
the future. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of
assumptions and estimates that are inherently subject to
significant risks and uncertainties, and our results could differ
materially from the results anticipated by our forward-looking
statements as a result of many known or unknown factors, including,
but not limited to, those factors discussed in “Risk
Factors.” See also the “Special Cautionary Notice
Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” set forth at the
beginning of this report.
You
should read the following discussion and analysis in conjunction
with the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, and
the related footnotes thereto, appearing elsewhere in this report,
and in conjunction with management’s discussion and analysis
and the audited consolidated financial statements included in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2016.
OVERVIEW
We are
a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development
and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies
and autoimmune diseases. Currently, we are developing two therapies
targeting hematologic malignancies. TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a
novel, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a specific
and unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature
B-lymphocytes. We are also developing TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an
orally available PI3K delta inhibitor. The delta isoform of PI3K is
strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin and is believed
to be important in the proliferation and survival of B-lymphocytes.
Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, or the combination of which is referred
to as "U2," are in Phase 3 clinical development for patients with
hematologic malignancies, with TG-1101 also in Phase 3 clinical
development for Multiple Sclerosis. Additionally, the Company has
recently brought its anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody into Phase 1
development and aims to bring additional pipeline assets into the
clinic in the future.
We also
actively evaluate complementary products, technologies and
companies for in-licensing, partnership, acquisition and/or
investment opportunities. To date, we have not received approval
for the sale of any of our drug candidates in any market and,
therefore, have not generated any product sales from our drug
candidates.
TG-1101 (ublituximab)
Overview
TG-1101
(ublituximab) is a chimeric, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody
that targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on the
surface of B-lymphocytes developed to aid in the depletion of
circulating B-cells. We hold exclusive worldwide rights to develop
and commercialize TG-1101 for all indications, except for the
territories of France and Belgium which have been retained by LFB
Biotechnologies, and South Korea and Southeast Asia which were
licensed by us to Ildong in November 2012.
Generally,
anti-CD20 antibodies are believed to exert their B-cell depleting
effects through three primary mechanisms: antibody dependent
cell-mediated cytotoxicity (“ADCC”), complement
dependent cytotoxicity (“CDC”), and direct or
programmed cell death (“DCD” or “PCD”).
TG-1101 has been specifically glycoengineered to enhance ADCC
activity, which should enhance its ability to deplete B-cells and
may improve its anti-cancer effects when compared to Rituxan®,
the leading anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, which had worldwide
sales in 2016 of more than $7 billion.
18
Clinical Trials Overview and Recent Developments
Two
single-agent, dose-escalation, Phase I studies were undertaken with
TG-1101 to establish an optimal dose in patients with
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”) and Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukemia (“CLL”). A two part first-in-human
Phase I clinical trial was first completed in France in which
TG-1101 was evaluated in relapsed or refractory CLL. Subsequently,
a single-agent Phase I study was undertaken in the US enrolling
patients with both NHL and CLL. In both studies, single agent
therapy with TG-1101 was deemed well tolerated by treating
investigators and displayed promising clinical activity in relapsed
and refractory patients.
In
oncology settings, anti-CD20 therapy is generally used in
combination with other anti-cancer agents where it demonstrates
maximum activity as opposed to single agent usage. As a result,
subsequent clinical development for TG-1101 has focused on
combination therapy. Currently, our priority combination trials for
TG-1101 are:
●
The
GENUINE Trial – a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial
evaluating TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib, for previously
treated CLL patients with high risk cytogenetics;
●
The
UNITY-CLL Trial – a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial
evaluating TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202, the
Company’s development stage PI3K delta inhibitor, for
patients with front line and previously treated CLL;
●
The
UNITY-NHL Trial – registration-directed UNITY-NHL Phase 2b
clinical study evaluating TG-1101, in combination with TGR-1202
with or without Bendamustine, as well as TGR-1202 alone, in
patients with previously treated Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
(NHL); and
●
TG-1101
+ TGR-1202 + Pembrolizumab for patients with CLL.
In
non-oncology settings, anti-CD20 therapy has generally been used as
monotherapy. In addition to the above oncology studies, TG-1101 is
being evaluated in a Phase 2 study for the treatment of Multiple
Sclerosis (MS) and in an investigator initiated Phase 1 study for
the treatment of acute neuromyelitis optica (NMO) relapses, with
additional autoimmune related indications planned to be studied. On
August 1, 2017, we announced we had reached an agreement with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding a Special
Protocol Assessment (SPA) on the design of two global Phase 3
clinical trials for TG-1101, referred to as the ULTIMATE I and
ULTIMATE II Phase 3 clinical trials.
Manufacturing of
TG-1101 is performed by both our partner, LFB Biotechnologies, and
a contract manufacturer based in the US.
Further
details on our priority ongoing trials for TG-1101 are as
follows:
TG-1101 + Ibrutinib Phase 3 Study Program – The GENUINE
Trial
The
GENUINE trial is a randomized controlled clinical trial in patients
with previously treated CLL with specific high-risk cytogenetic
abnormalities, with patients randomized to receive either TG-1101
plus ibrutinib or ibrutinib alone. In October 2016, we announced
revisions to the design of the GENUINE study to accelerate its
completion. Initially the study was being conducted pursuant to a
Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and was designed to enroll approximately 330
patients, with a two-part analysis of both overall response rate
(ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The trial was amended in
October 2016 to enroll approximately 120 patients, with the PFS
analysis component removed. Following the revisions, the sole
primary endpoint of the study is ORR, and the SPA is no longer in
effect.
In June
2017, the positive results from our Phase 3 GENUINE trial were
presented by Dr. Jeff Sharman, Medical Director, Hematology
Research, US Oncology in an oral session during the 53rd American
Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago,
IL.
This
presentation included data from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial, a
multicenter, randomized trial, which assessed the efficacy and
safety of TG-1101 plus ibrutinib versus ibrutinib alone in patients
with high risk CLL. For the trial, high-risk was defined as having
any one or more of the following centrally confirmed features: 17p
deletion, 11q deletion or p53 mutation. The GENUINE study was
designed to demonstrate the value of adding TG-1101 to ibrutinib
monotherapy in high-risk CLL, and was powered to show a
statistically significant improvement in ORR of 30%, with a minimal
absolute detectable difference between the two arms of
approximately 20%.
The
trial met its primary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically
significant improvement in Overall Response Rate (ORR), as assessed
by blinded independent central radiology and hematology review by
iwCLL (Hallek 2008) criteria, compared to ibrutinib alone in both
the Intent to Treat (ITT) population (p=0.001) and Treated
population (p < 0.001). Per iwCLL guidelines, all responders
required confirmation of response for a minimum duration of 2
months. The ITT population included all 126 randomized patients (64
in the TG-1101 plus ibrutinib arm and 62 in the ibrutinib alone
arm) while the Treated population includes all ITT patients that
received at least one dose of either study drug (59 in the TG-1101
plus ibrutinib arm and 58 in the ibrutinib alone arm).
One
hundred and seventeen (117) patients were evaluable for safety (59
patients in the TG-1101 plus ibrutinib arm, and 58 patients in the
ibrutinib alone arm). The combination was well tolerated and, apart
from infusion related reactions, the addition of TG-1101 did not
appear to alter the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy.
Neutropenia, occurring in 9% of patients, was the most commonly
reported Grade 3/4 Adverse Event (AE) in the combination arm,
followed by infusion related reactions and anemia, each reported in
5% of patients. Notably, the majority of infusion related reactions
(IRR) were Grade 1 or 2 in severity, with only 5% Grade 3/4 IRR
observed. Median follow-up for this study was approximately 11.4
months.
19
Response Rates
|
TG-1101 plus
Ibrutinib
|
Ibrutinib
|
P-value
|
Treated Population
(n)
|
n=59
|
n=58
|
|
Overall Response
Rate (ORR)
|
78%
|
45%
|
P<0.001
|
Complete Response
(CR)
|
7%
|
0%
|
NS
|
MRD-Negative
|
19%
(n=53) *
|
2%
(n=53) *
|
P<0.01
|
*Patients evaluable for MRD included those enrolled >4 months
prior to data cutoff date of February 15, 2017. MRD analyzed by
central lab, 7-color flow cytometry
In
October 2017, we announced the outcome of a meeting with the FDA
regarding the use of the results from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial to
support a Biologics License Application (BLA) filing for approval
of TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib. During the meeting, the
FDA confirmed that accelerated approval based on ORR would be a
review issue. As part of the discussion, the FDA encouraged us to
consider future available therapy in its risk/benefit analysis as
part of any potential future BLA filing that may impact accelerated
approval.
The
potential use of Progression Free Survival (PFS) results from the
GENUINE trial to support the full approval of TG-1101 was also
discussed. We plan to have a follow-up meeting with the FDA to
discuss the use of the PFS endpoint in more detail before the end
of the year and also plan to monitor the regulatory landscape for
new approvals of agents for previously treated high-risk CLL while
continuing to make preparations for a BLA filing as early as
2Q18.
TG-1101 in Combination with TGR-1202 Phase 3 Study Program –
The UNITY-CLL Trial
In
September 2015, we reached an agreement with the FDA regarding a
SPA on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis approach of a
Phase 3 clinical trial for the proprietary combination of TG-1101
plus TGR-1202, for the treatment of CLL. The SPA provides agreement
that the Phase 3 trial design adequately addresses objectives that,
if met, would support the regulatory submission for drug approval
of both TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in combination.
The
Phase 3 trial, called the UNITY-CLL trial, is a randomized
controlled clinical trial that includes two key objectives: first,
to demonstrate contribution of each agent in the TG-1101 + TGR-1202
regimen (the combination sometimes referred to as "1303"), and
second, to demonstrate superiority in Progression Free Survival
(PFS) over the standard of care to support the submission for full
approval of the combination. The study will randomize patients into
four treatment arms: TG-1101 + TGR-1202, TG-1101 alone, TGR-1202
alone, and an active control arm of obinutuzumab (GAZYVA®) +
chlorambucil. An early interim analysis will assess contribution of
each single agent in the TG-1101 + TGR-1202 combination regimen,
which, if successful, will allow early termination of both single
agent arms. A second interim analysis will be conducted following
full enrollment into the study, which, if positive, we plan to
utilize for accelerated approval. Assuming early termination of the
TG-1101 and TGR-1202 single agent arms, the study will enroll
approximately 450 patients to be utilized for the interim analysis
and primary analysis data sets, not accounting for over enrollment
anticipated in the single agent arms while the interim analysis
data set is obtained.
In May
2017, we announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring
Board (DSMB) of the UNITY-CLL Phase 3 trial had successfully
completed a pre-specified interim analysis to assess the
contribution of TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in the combination regimen of
TG-1101 plus TGR-1202. In conducting the analysis, the DSMB
reviewed efficacy data from approximately 50 patients per arm in
the UNITY-CLL study who were eligible for at least one response
evaluation. Based on the overall response rate data available, and
in accordance with the statistical analysis plan in the study's
SPA, the DSMB determined that contribution has been established and
recommended we cease enrollment into the single agent arms.
Accordingly, in May the study began enrolling in a 1:1 ratio to
only the two combination arms: the investigational arm of TG-1101
plus TGR-1202 and the control arm of obinutuzumab plus
chlorambucil. Additionally, the DSMB reviewed safety data from all
patients on study (n > 270) as of the data cut-off date,
including patients with both treatment naive and
relapsed/refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), and again
identified no safety concerns in any treatment group (treatment
naive or previously treated) and recommended the continuation of
the study without modification.
In
September 2017, we announced that target enrollment in the
UNITY-CLL trial was met and that we were extending enrollment until
October 12, 2017 for any additional identified study patients to be
allowed in the trial.
20
TG-1101 in Combination with TGR-1202 with or without bendamustine
Phase 2b Registration-Directed Program – The UNITY-NHL
Trial
In June
2016, we commenced a registration-directed UNITY-DLBCL Phase 2b
clinical study evaluating TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202, as
well as TGR-1202 alone, in patients with previously treated DLBCL.
In mid-2017, this study was expanded to allow enrollment of
patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), small lymphocytic lymphoma
(SLL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), as well as to add a cohort
evaluating the triplet regimen of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 + bendamustine
which has previously been explored in Phase 1. The cohorts of
DLBCL, FL/SLL, and MZL are each being enrolled to and evaluated
independently.
The
updated study is entitled "A Phase 2b Randomized Study to Assess
the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Ublituximab +
TGR-1202 with or without Bendamustine and TGR-1202 alone in
Patients with Previously Treated Non-Hodgkin’s
Lymphoma.” The DLBCL component is being led by Owen A.
O'Connor, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine and Experimental
Therapeutics, and Director of the Center for Lymphoid Malignancies
at Columbia University Medical Center, while the indolent NHL
component of the study is being led by Nathan H. Fowler, MD,
Associate Professor, Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, The University
of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The primary objective of the
study is to assess the efficacy of TGR-1202 alone, in combination
with TG-1101, or in combination with TG-1101 and bendamustine in
patients with previously treated NHL as measured by Overall
Response Rate (ORR). The study will also provide important
information as to the contribution of each agent, TGR-1202 and
TG-1101, to the combination regimen of both agents, as well as the
contribution of bendamustine to the combination regimen of both
agents.
In
August 2017, we announced that the study’s Data Safety
Monitoring Board (DSMB) had met and based on pre-set hurdles
designed to evaluate ORR, the DSMB recommended continued enrollment
in the TGR-1202 + TG-1101 ("U2") arm and no further enrollment into
the single agent TGR-1202 arm for the DLBCL cohort. As set forth in
the protocol, the single agent TGR-1202 arm was replaced with the
triple combination of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 +
bendamustine.
Single Agent TG-1101 in Relapsing Forms of Multiple
Sclerosis
In May
2016, we commenced our first study of TG-1101 in patients with
relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a chronic
demyelinating disease of the central nervous system
(CNS).
The
study, entitled "A Placebo-Controlled Multi-Center Phase 2 Dose
Finding Study of Ublituximab, a Third-Generation Anti-CD20
Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients with Relapsing Forms of Multiple
Sclerosis," is being led by Edward Fox, MD, PhD, Director of the
Multiple Sclerosis Clinic of Central Texas and Clinical Assistant
Professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Round Rock,
TX. The primary objective of the study is to determine the optimal
dosing regimen for TG-1101 with a focus on accelerating infusion
times. In addition to monitoring for safety and tolerability at
each dosing cohort, B-cell depletion and established MS efficacy
endpoints will also be evaluated.
Updated
data from this study was most recently presented at the 7th Joint
ECTRIMS - ACTRIMS meeting in Paris, France, with additional data
presentations expected at upcoming medical
conferences.
TG-1101 in relapsing forms of Multiple Sclerosis Phase 3 Study
Program – The ULITIMATE I and ULTIMATE II Trial
In
August 2017, we reached an agreement with the FDA regarding an SPA
on the design of two Phase 3 clinical trials for TG-1101, for the
treatment of relapsing forms of Multiple Sclerosis (RMS). The SPA
provides agreement that the two Phase 3 trial designs adequately
address objectives that, if met, would support the regulatory
submission for approval of TG-1101.
The RMS
Phase 3 program consists of two trials, called the ULTIMATE I and
ULTIMATE II trials. Each trial is a global, randomized,
multi-center, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled study
comparing TG-1101 (ublituximab) to teriflunomide in subjects with
RMS. The primary endpoint for each study is Annualized Relapse Rate
(ARR) following 96 weeks of treatment. Each trial will enroll
approximately 440 subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio, with
approximately 880 patients to be enrolled across both
trials.
Updates for the combination of TG-1101 and TGR-1202
In
January 2017, we announced that the FDA has granted orphan drug
designation covering the combination of TG-1101 and TGR-1202 for
the treatment of patients with CLL and DLBCL.
21
TGR-1202
Overview
The
phosphoinositide-3-kinases (“PI3Ks”) are a family of
enzymes involved in various cellular functions, including cell
proliferation and survival, cell differentiation, intracellular
trafficking, and immunity. There are four isoforms of PI3K (alpha,
beta, delta, and gamma), of which the delta isoform is strongly
expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin, and often implicated in
B-cell related lymphomas.
TGR-1202 is an
orally available PI3K delta inhibitor with nanomolar potency to the
delta isoform and high selectivity over the alpha, beta, and gamma
isoforms. TGR-1202 has demonstrated activity in several
pre-clinical models and primary cells from patients with
hematologic malignancies.
We hold
exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize TGR-1202
for all indications worldwide, except for India which has been
retained by Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S A.
Clinical Trials Overview and Recent Developments
Initial
clinical development of TGR-1202 was focused on establishing
preliminary safety and efficacy in a wide variety of hematologic
malignancies. Upon identification of safe and active doses of
TGR-1202, a combination clinical trial program was opened,
exploring TGR-1202 in combination with a variety of agents. In
addition to the previously described study in combination with
TG-1101 with or without the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, our current
combination clinical trials for TGR-1202 include:
●
TGR-1202 in combination with the
BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, in patients with previously treated CLL
and MCL, as well as in patients with DLBCL;
●
TGR-1202 in
combination with the JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib (JAKAFI®), in
patients with previously treated Myelofibrosis or Polycythemia
Vera; and
●
TGR-1202
monotherapy in patients with CLL who were previously intolerant to
prior BTK or PI3K inhibitor therapy.
Single Agent TGR-1202 in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory
Hematologic Malignancies
In
January 2013, the Company initiated a Phase I, open label,
multi-center, first-in-human clinical trial of TGR-1202 in patients
with hematologic malignancies. The study entitled TGR-1202-101, "A
Phase I Dose Escalation Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of
TGR-1202 in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic
Malignancies," is being run in collaboration with the Sarah Cannon
Research Institute in Nashville, TN with Howard “Skip”
Burris, MD, Executive Director, Drug Development as the acting
Study Chair. Enrollment is open to patients with relapsed or
refractory NHL, CLL, and other select hematologic malignancies. As
of February 2016, this study has closed to enrollment.
Data
from this ongoing Phase I study was presented at the 57th Annual American Society of Hematology (ASH)
meeting held in December 2015, with updated data presented as part
of an integrated analysis as described below.
TGR-1202 Long-term Follow-up Integrated Analysis in Patients with
Relapsed/Refractory Hematologic Malignancies
In June
2016, at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and at the 21st Congress of the European
Hematology Association (EHA), the Company presented integrated data
with long term follow-up from 165 patients exposed to TGR-1202
monotherapy or the combination of TGR-1202 plus TG-1101, which
continued to demonstrate high response rates in CLL, NHL, and DLBCL
coupled with a favorable safety profile.
TGR-1202 Combination Trials
TGR-1202 has been
evaluated in combination with the anti-CD30 antibody drug
conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, in patients with relapsed or
refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma; in combination with the
anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab with chlorambucil in patients with
CLL; in combination with the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, in patients
with CLL and MCL; and in combination with the JAK inhibitor,
ruxolitinib, in patients with Myelofibrosis or Polycythemia Vera.
Additional investigator sponsored trials are also underway which
are combining TGR-1202 with other approved agents for the treatment
of B-cell malignancies.
Preliminary data
from studies evaluating TGR-1202 + brentuximab vedotin and TGR-1202
+ ibrutinib were presented at the 58th Annual American Society of
Hematology (ASH) meeting held in December 2016. Both combinations
appeared well tolerated. In particular, the combination of TGR-1202
+ ibrutinib resulted in an 88% (15 of 17) Overall Response Rate
(ORR) (including Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), and
Partial Response with lymphocytosis (PR-L)) in patients with CLL,
with 1 patient achieving a bone marrow confirmed CR and 5 patients
with a > 80% nodal reduction, nearing radiographic
CR.
In
November 2017, we announced that 6 abstracts for TGR-1202 (3
clinical and 3 pre-clinical) were accepted for poster presentation
at the upcoming 59th American Society of
Hematology Annual Meeting, being held in Atlanta, GA from December
9 – 12, 2017.
It is
anticipated that results from these and additional combination
studies will be presented or updated at future medical
conferences.
22
IRAK4
We
hold global rights to develop and commercialize the IRAK4 program,
which was licensed from Ligand Pharmaceuticals. Our IRAK4 program
is currently in pre-clinical development.
PD-L1 and GITR
In
March 2015, we entered into a global collaboration agreement for
the development and commercialization of anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR
antibody research programs in the field of hematological
malignancies. Our anti-PD-L1 recently entered the clinic and our
anti-GITR program is currently in pre-clinical development, with
pre-clinical data most recently presented at the American
Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting in March
2017.
In
October 2017, we announced that the first patient has been dosed in
a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of
our anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, enrolling patients across sites
in Australia and New Zealand.
BET
In
May 2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant Biosys
(“Jubilant”), an India-based biotechnology company, we
entered into a sub-license agreement (“JBET Agreement”)
with Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”), a
subsidiary of Fortress, for the development and commercialization
of Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program in the field of
hematological malignancies. The BET inhibitor program is the
subject of a family of patents covering compounds that inhibit
BRD4, a member of the BET (Bromodomain and Extra Terminal) domain
for cancer treatment. Our BET inhibitor program is currently in
pre-clinical development.
GENERAL CORPORATE
Our
license revenues currently consist of license fees arising from our
agreement with Ildong. We recognize upfront license fee revenues
ratably over the estimated period in which we will have certain
significant ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense
agreement, with unamortized amounts recorded as deferred
revenue.
We have
not earned any revenues from the commercial sale of any of our drug
candidates.
Our
research and development expenses consist primarily of expenses
related to in-licensing of new product candidates, fees paid to
consultants and outside service providers for clinical and
laboratory development, facilities-related and other expenses
relating to the design, development, manufacture, testing and
enhancement of our drug candidates and technologies. We expense our
research and development costs as they are incurred.
Our
general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries
and related expenses for executive, finance and other
administrative personnel, recruitment expenses, professional fees
and other corporate expenses, including investor relations, legal
activities and facilities-related expenses.
Our
results of operations include non-cash compensation expenses as a
result of the grants of stock options and restricted stock.
Compensation expense for awards of options and restricted stock
granted to employees and directors represents the fair value of the
award recorded over the respective vesting periods of the
individual awards. The expense is included in the respective
categories of expense in the condensed consolidated statements of
operations. We expect to continue to incur significant non-cash
compensation expenses.
23
For
awards of options and restricted stock to consultants and other
third-parties, compensation expense is determined at the
“measurement date.” The expense is recognized over the
vesting period of the award. Until the measurement date is reached,
the total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We
record compensation expense based on the fair value of the award at
the reporting date. The awards to consultants and other
third-parties are then revalued, or the total compensation is
recalculated based on the then current fair value, at each
subsequent reporting date. This results in a change to the amount
previously recorded in respect of the equity award grant, and
additional expense or a reversal of expense may be recorded in
subsequent periods based on changes in the assumptions used to
calculate fair value, such as changes in market price, until the
measurement date is reached and the compensation expense is
finalized.
In
addition, certain restricted stock issued to employees vest upon
the achievement of certain milestones; therefore, the total expense
is uncertain until the milestone is probable.
Our
clinical trials will be lengthy and expensive. Even if these trials
show that our drug candidates are effective in treating certain
indications, there is no guarantee that we will be able to record
commercial sales of any of our drug candidates in the near future.
In addition, we expect losses to continue as we fund in-licensing
and development of new drug candidates. As we further our
development efforts, we may enter into additional third-party
collaborative agreements and incur additional expenses, such as
licensing fees and milestone payments. In addition, we may need to
establish a commercial infrastructure required to manufacture,
market and sell our drug candidates following approval, if any, by
the FDA or a foreign health authority, which would result in
incurring additional expenses. As a result, our quarterly results
may fluctuate and a quarter-by-quarter comparison of our operating
results may not be a meaningful indication of our future
performance.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016
License Revenue. License revenue was
approximately $38,000 for each of the three months ended September
30, 2017 and 2016. License revenue is related to the amortization
of an upfront payment of $2.0 million received in 2012 associated
with our license agreement with Ildong. The upfront payment from
Ildong will be recognized as license revenue on a straight-line
basis through December 2025, which represents the estimated period
over which the Company will have certain ongoing responsibilities
under the sublicense agreement.
Noncash Compensation Expense (Research and
Development). Noncash compensation expense (research and
development) related to equity incentive grants totaled $1.8
million for the three months ended September 30, 2017, as compared
to $0.9 million during the comparable period in 2016. The increase
in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to
milestone-based vesting of restricted stock grants to personnel and
an increase in the measurement date fair value of certain
consultant restricted stock during the current 2017
period.
Other Research and Development
Expenses. Other research and development expenses increased
by $4.4 million to $25.3 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2017, as compared to $20.9 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2016. The increase was mainly due to new
and ongoing clinical development programs and related manufacturing
costs for TG-1101 and TGR-1202 during the three months ended
September 30, 2017. We expect our other research and development
costs to remain relatively consistent for the remainder of
2017.
Noncash Compensation Expense (General and
Administrative). Noncash
compensation expense (general and administrative) related to equity
incentive grants increased by $1.2 million to $3.1 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2017, as compared to $1.9 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2016. The increase in noncash compensation
expense was primarily due to greater compensation expense during
the three months ended September 30, 2017 related to restricted
stock granted to executive personnel.
Other General and Administrative
Expenses. Other general and
administrative expenses increased by $0.1 million to $1.4
million for the three months ended September 30, 2017, as compared to $1.3 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2016. We
expect our other general and administrative expenses to remain at a
comparable level for the remainder of 2017.
Other (Income) Expense. Other income
decreased by approximately $45,000 to approximately $50,000 for the
three months ended September 30, 2017,
as compared to $0.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2016. The decrease is mainly due to a decrease in
interest income for the three months ended September 30,
2017.
24
Nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016
License Revenue. License revenue was
approximately $114,000 for each of the nine months ended September
30, 2017 and 2016. License revenue for the nine months ended
September 30, 2017 and 2016 was related to the amortization of an
upfront payment of $2.0 million received in 2012 associated with
our license agreement with Ildong.
Noncash Compensation Expense (Research and
Development). Noncash compensation expense (research and
development) related to equity incentive grants totaled $5.4
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017, as compared
to $1.9 million during the comparable period in 2016. The increase
in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to
milestone-based vesting of restricted stock grants to personnel and
an increase in the measurement date fair value of certain
consultant restricted stock during the period ended September 30,
2017.
Other Research and Development
Expenses. Other research and development expenses increased
by $26.1 million to $71.2 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2017, as compared to $45.1 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2016. The increase in other research and
development expenses was due primarily to new and ongoing clinical
development programs and related manufacturing costs for TG-1101
and TGR-1202 during the nine months ended September 30, 2017. We
expect our other research and development costs to increase
modestly for the remainder of 2017 as the enrollment of additional
patients in our Phase 3 clinical trials increases and we prepare
for potential commercialization.
Noncash Compensation Expense (General and
Administrative). Noncash
compensation expense (general and administrative) related to equity
incentive grants increased by $2.7 million to $7.0 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2017, as compared to
$4.3 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2016. The increase in noncash
compensation expense was primarily related to greater compensation
expense during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 related to
restricted stock granted to executive personnel.
Other General and Administrative
Expenses. Other general and
administrative expenses increased by $0.5 million to $4.3
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017, as compared
to $3.8 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2016. The increase was due primarily
to rent related expenses of our new office space. We expect our
other general and administrative expenses to remain at a comparable
level for the remainder of 2017.
Other (Income) Expense. Other income
decreased by $0.3 million to approximately $61,000 for the nine
months ended September 30, 2017, as
compared to $0.4 million for the nine months ended September
30, 2016. The decrease is mainly due to a decrease in interest
income and a decrease in the change in fair value of notes payable
for the nine months ended September 30, 2017.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Our
primary sources of cash have been from the sale of equity
securities, warrant and option exercises, and the upfront payment
from our Sublicense Agreement with Ildong. We have not
commercialized any of our drug candidates and cannot be sure if we
will ever be able to do so. Even if we commercialize one or more of
our drug candidates, we may not become profitable. Our ability to
achieve profitability depends on a number of factors, including our
ability to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates,
successfully complete any post-approval regulatory obligations and
successfully commercialize our drug candidates alone or in
partnership. We may continue to incur substantial operating losses
even if we begin to generate revenues from our drug
candidates.
As of
September 30, 2017, we had approximately $91.8 million in cash and
cash equivalents. The Company believes its cash and cash
equivalents on hand as of September 30, 2017 will be sufficient to
fund the Company’s planned operations through 2018. The
actual amount of cash that we will need to operate is subject to
many factors, including, but not limited to, the timing, design and
conduct of clinical trials for our drug candidates. We are
dependent upon significant financing to provide the cash necessary
to execute our current operations, including the commercialization
of any of our drug candidates.
Cash
used in operating activities for the nine months ended September
30, 2017 was $71.9 million as compared to $44.6 million for the
nine months ended September 30, 2016. The increase in cash used in
operating activities was due primarily to increased expenditures
associated with our clinical development programs for TG-1101 and
TGR-1202.
For the
nine months ended September 30, 2017, net cash provided by
investing activities was $19.8 million as compared to $15.1 million
for the nine months ended September 30, 2016. The increase in net
cash provided by investing activities was primarily due to greater
proceeds from maturity of investments during the nine months ended
September 30, 2017.
For the
nine months ended September 30, 2017, net cash provided by
financing activities of $118.9 million related to proceeds from the
issuance of common stock as part of our underwritten public
offering in March 2017 and our ATM program, as well as proceeds
from the exercise of warrants.
25
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
We have
not entered into any transactions with unconsolidated entities
whereby we have financial guarantees, subordinated retained
interests, derivative instruments or other contingent arrangements
that expose us to material continuing risks, contingent
liabilities, or any other obligations under a variable interest in
an unconsolidated entity that provides us with financing,
liquidity, market risk or credit risk support.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The
discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of
operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements,
which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. The preparation of these consolidated
financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments
that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and
related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date
of our financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the applicable period. Actual results may
differ from these estimates under different assumptions or
conditions.
We
define critical accounting policies as those that are reflective of
significant judgments and uncertainties and which may potentially
result in materially different results under different assumptions
and conditions. In applying these critical accounting policies, our
management uses its judgment to determine the appropriate
assumptions to be used in making certain estimates. These estimates
are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Our critical
accounting policies include the following:
Revenue Recognition. We recognize
license revenue in accordance with the revenue recognition guidance
of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, or Codification. We
analyze each element of our licensing agreement to determine the
appropriate revenue recognition. The terms of the license agreement
may include payments to us of non-refundable up-front license fees,
milestone payments if specified objectives are achieved, and/or
royalties on product sales. We recognize revenue from upfront
payments over the period of significant involvement under the
related agreements unless the fee is in exchange for products
delivered or services rendered that represent the culmination of a
separate earnings process and no further performance obligation
exists under the contract. We recognize milestone payments as
revenue upon the achievement of specified milestones only if (1)
the milestone payment is non-refundable, (2) substantive effort is
involved in achieving the milestone, (3) the amount of the
milestone is reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the
risk associated with achievement of the milestone, and (4) the
milestone is at risk for both parties. If any of these conditions
are not met, we defer the milestone payment and recognize it as
revenue over the estimated period of performance under the
contract.
Stock-Based Compensation. We have
granted stock options and restricted stock to employees, directors
and consultants, as well as warrants to other third parties. For
employee and director grants, the value of each option award is
estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes model takes into account
volatility in the price of our stock, the risk-free interest rate,
the estimated life of the option, the closing market price of our
stock and the exercise price. We base our estimates of our stock
price volatility on the historical volatility of our common stock
and our assessment of future volatility; however, these estimates
are neither predictive nor indicative of the future performance of
our stock. For purposes of the calculation, we assumed that no
dividends would be paid during the life of the options and
warrants. The estimates utilized in the Black-Scholes calculation
involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management
judgment. In addition, we are required to estimate the expected
forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those equity awards
expected to vest. As a result, if other assumptions had been used,
our recorded stock-based compensation expense could have been
materially different from that reported. In addition, because some
of the options and warrants issued to employees, consultants and
other third-parties vest upon the achievement of certain
milestones, the total expense is uncertain.
Total
compensation expense for options and restricted stock issued to
consultants is determined at the “measurement date.”
The expense is recognized over the vesting period for the options
and restricted stock. Until the measurement date is reached, the
total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We record
stock-based compensation expense based on the fair value of the
equity awards at the reporting date. These equity awards are then
revalued, or the total compensation is recalculated based on the
then current fair value, at each subsequent reporting date. This
results in a change to the amount previously recorded in respect of
the equity award grant, and additional expense or a reversal of
expense may be recorded in subsequent periods based on changes in
the assumptions used to calculate fair value, such as changes in
market price, until the measurement date is reached and the
compensation expense is finalized.
26
Accruals for Clinical Research Organization
and Clinical Site Costs. We make estimates of costs incurred
in relation to external clinical research organizations, or CROs,
and clinical site costs. We analyze the progress of clinical
trials, including levels of patient enrollment, invoices received
and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of the amount
expensed and the related prepaid asset and accrued liability.
Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in
determining the accrued balance and expense in any accounting
period. We review and accrue CRO expenses and clinical trial study
expenses based on work performed and rely upon estimates of those
costs applicable to the stage of completion of a study. Accrued CRO
costs are subject to revisions as such trials progress to
completion. Revisions are charged to expense in the period in which
the facts that give rise to the revision become known. With respect
to clinical site costs, the financial terms of these agreements are
subject to negotiation and vary from contract to contract. Payments
under these contracts may be uneven, and depend on factors such as
the achievement of certain events, the successful recruitment of
patients, the completion of portions of the clinical trial or
similar conditions. The objective of our policy is to match the
recording of expenses in our financial statements to the actual
services received and efforts expended. As such, expense accruals
related to clinical site costs are recognized based on our estimate
of the degree of completion of the event or events specified in the
specific clinical study or trial contract.
Accounting For Income Taxes. In
preparing our condensed consolidated financial statements, we are
required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions
in which we operate. This process involves management estimation of
our actual current tax exposure and assessment of temporary
differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and
accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax
assets and liabilities. We must then assess the likelihood that our
deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income
and, to the extent we believe that recovery is not likely, we must
establish a valuation allowance. To the extent we establish a
valuation allowance or increase this allowance in a period, we must
include an expense within the tax provision in the consolidated
statements of operations. Significant management judgment is
required in determining our provision for income taxes, our
deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance
recorded against our net deferred tax assets. We have fully offset
our deferred tax assets with a valuation allowance. Our lack of
earnings history and the uncertainty surrounding our ability to
generate taxable income prior to the reversal or expiration of such
deferred tax assets were the primary factors considered by
management in maintaining the valuation allowance.
RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
In
May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09, “Scope of
Modification Accounting” (“ASU 2017-09”). ASU
2017-09 provides guidance about which changes to the terms or
conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to
apply modification accounting. An entity should account for the
effects of a modification unless all the following are
met:
●
The
fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an
alternative measurement method is used) of the modified award is
the same as the fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value,
if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the original
award immediately before the original award is modified. If the
modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation
technique that the entity uses to value the award, the entity is
not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the
modification.
●
The
vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the
vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the
original award is modified.
●
The
classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a
liability instrument is the same as the classification of the
original award immediately before the original award is
modified.
ASU
2017-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or
after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for public
business entities for reporting periods for which financial
statements have not yet been issued, and all other entities for
reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been
made available for issuance. The amendments should be applied
prospectively to an award modified on or after the adoption date.
The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-09 to have a
material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated
financial statements.
In
January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Simplifying
the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU
2017-04”). ASU 2017-04 removes the requirement to compare the
implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of
step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, under ASU
2017-04, an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill
impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit
with its carrying amount and should recognize an impairment charge
for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting
unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not
exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting
unit. In addition, ASU 2017-04:
●
Clarifies the
requirements for excluding and allocating foreign currency
translation adjustments to reporting units in connection with an
entity’s testing of reporting units for goodwill
impairment.
●
Clarifies
that an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax
deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit
when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if
applicable.
●
Makes minor changes
to the overview and background sections of certain Accounting
Standards Codification (“ASC” or
“Codification”) subtopics and topics as part of the
Board’s initiative to unify and improve those sections
throughout the Codification.
ASU
2017-04 is effective prospectively for annual and interim periods
beginning on or after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is
permitted on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU
2017-04 to have a material impact on the Company’s condensed
consolidated financial statements.
27
In
January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, “FASB
Clarifies the Definition of a Business” (“ASU
2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 clarifies the definition of a business
in ASC 805. The amendments in ASU 2017-01 are intended to make
application of the guidance more consistent and cost-efficient. The
amendments in ASU 2017-01:
●
Provide
a screen to determine when a set of assets and activities is not a
business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the
fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is
concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar
identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces
the number of transactions that need to be further
evaluated.
●
Provide
that if the screen is not met, (1) to be considered a business, a
set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process
that together significantly contribute to the ability to create
output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market
participant could replace missing elements. The amendments provide
a framework to assist entities in evaluating whether both an input
and a substantive process are present. The framework includes two
sets of criteria to consider that depend on whether a set has
outputs. Although outputs are not required for a set to be a
business, outputs generally are a key element of a business;
therefore, the Board has developed more stringent criteria for sets
without outputs.
●
Narrow
the definition of the term output so that the term is consistent
with how outputs are described in Topic 606.
ASU
2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted for transactions
that occurred before the issuance date or effective date of the
standard if the transactions were not reported in financial
statements that have been issued or made available for issuance.
The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-01 to have a
material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated
financial statements.
In
May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from
Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”),
which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements,
including most industry-specific guidance. ASU 2014-09 provides a
single set of criteria for revenue recognition among all
industries. The new standard requires a company to recognize
revenue when it transfers goods or services to customers in an
amount that reflects the consideration that the Company expects to
receive for those goods or services.
ASU
2014-09 includes guidance for determining whether a license
transfers to a customer at a point in time or over time based on
the nature of the entity’s promise to the customer. To
determine whether the entity’s promise is to provide a right
to access its intellectual property or a right to use its
intellectual property, the entity should consider the nature of the
intellectual property to which the customer will have
rights.
ASU
2014-09 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2017. The standard allows for two transition
methods - full retrospective, in which the standard is applied to
each prior reporting period presented, or modified retrospective,
in which the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard
is recognized at the date of initial adoption. The Company expects
to elect the modified retrospective approach and is continuing to
assess the impact of the new guidance on its accounting policies
and procedures and is evaluating the new requirements. The Company
does not expect the adoption of ASU 2014-09 to have a material
impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial
statements.
Other
pronouncements issued by the FASB or other authoritative accounting
standards with future effective dates are either not applicable or
not significant to our condensed
consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET
RISK
The
primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve
principal while maximizing our income from investments and
minimizing our market risk. We invest in government and
investment-grade corporate debt in accordance with our investment
policy. Some of the securities in which we invest have market risk.
This means that a change in prevailing interest rates, and/or
credit risk, may cause the fair value of the investment to
fluctuate. For example, if we hold a security that was issued with
a fixed interest rate at the then-prevailing rate and the
prevailing interest rate later rises, the fair value of our
investment will probably decline. As of September 30, 2017, our
portfolio of financial instruments consists of cash equivalents,
including bank deposits. Due to the short-term nature of our
investments, we believe there is no material exposure to interest
rate risk, and/or credit risk, arising from our
investments.
28
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of
September 30, 2017, management carried out, under the supervision
and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design
and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act). Our
disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide
reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose
in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified in applicable rules and forms. Based upon that
evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
concluded that, as of September 30, 2017, our disclosure controls
and procedures were effective.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There
were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting
during the quarter ended September 30, 2017 that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We, and
our subsidiaries, are not a party to, and our property is not the
subject of, any material pending legal proceedings.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
You
should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties. If
any of the following occurs, our business, financial condition or
operating results could be materially harmed. These factors could
cause the trading price of our common stock to decline, and you
could lose all or part of your investment.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Because we have in-licensed our product candidates from third
parties, any dispute with or non-performance by our licensors will
adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize the
applicable product candidates.
Our
product candidates have been in-licensed from third parties. Under
the terms of our license agreements, the licensors generally will
have the right to terminate such agreement in the event of a
material breach by us. The licensors will also have the right to
terminate the agreement in the event we fail to use diligent and
reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the product
candidate worldwide.
If
there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of
non-performance between us and our licensing partners regarding our
rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any
such conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to
satisfy payment obligations under such agreement, our ability to
develop and commercialize the affected product candidate and our
ability to enter into collaboration or marketing agreements for the
affected product candidate may be adversely affected. Any loss of
our rights under these license agreements would delay or completely
terminate its product development efforts for the affected product
candidate.
We do not have full internal development capabilities, and are thus
reliant upon our partners and third parties to generate clinical,
preclinical and quality data necessary to support the regulatory
applications needed to conduct clinical trials and file for
marketing approval.
In
order to submit and maintain an IND, Biologics License Application
(“BLA”), or New Drug Application (“NDA”) to
the FDA, it is necessary to submit all information on the clinical,
non-clinical, chemistry, manufacturing, controls and quality
aspects of the product candidate. We rely on our third party
contractors and our licensing partners to provide a significant
portion of this data. If we are unable to obtain this data, or the
data is not sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements, we may
experience significant delays in our development programs.
Additionally, an IND must be active in each division in which we
intend to conduct clinical trials. Currently we do not have an
active IND for any of the IRAK4 or BET inhibitors, nor for our
anti-GITR antibody. Additionally, there can be no assurance given
that any of the molecules under development in our IRAK4 or BET
inhibitor program or in our anti-GITR antibody research program
will demonstrate sufficient pharmacologic properties during
pre-clinical evaluation to advance to IND enabling studies, or that
such IND enabling studies, if any are conducted, will provide data
sufficient to support the filing of an IND, or that such IND, if
filed, would be accepted by any FDA division under which we would
seek to develop any product candidate. While we maintain an active
IND for TG-1101, TGR-1202 and
our anti-PD-L1 antibody enabling the conduct of studies in the
FDA’s Division of Hematology and Oncology, and an active IND
for TG-1101 under the FDA’s Division of Neurology, there can
be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining an active
IND for these drugs in any
other division under whose supervision we may seek to develop our
product candidates, or that the FDA will allow us to continue the
development of our product candidates in those divisions where we
maintain an active IND.
29
We are highly dependent on the success of our product candidates
and cannot give any assurance that these or any future product
candidates will be successfully commercialized.
We are
a development-stage biopharmaceutical company, and do not currently
have any commercial products that generate revenues or any other
sources of revenue. We may never be able to successfully develop
marketable products. Our pharmaceutical development methods are
unproven and may not lead to commercially viable products for any
of several reasons.
If we
are unable to develop, or receive regulatory approval for or
successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we will
not be able to generate product revenues. Even if we are able to
develop or receive regulatory approval for or successfully
commercialize any of our product candidates, we may not be able to
gain market acceptance for our product candidates and future
products and may never become profitable.
Because the results of preclinical studies and early clinical
trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any
product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have
favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive
regulatory approval.
Pharmaceutical
development has inherent risk. We will be required to demonstrate
through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our
product candidates are effective with a favorable benefit-risk
profile for use in diverse populations for their target indications
before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale.
Success in early clinical trials does not mean that later clinical
trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage
clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or
efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical
testing. Companies frequently suffer significant setbacks in
advanced clinical trials, even after earlier clinical trials have
shown promising results. In addition, there is typically an
extremely high rate of failure of pharmaceutical candidates
proceeding through clinical trials.
We plan
on conducting additional Phase I, II and III clinical trials for
TG-1101 and TGR-1202. Early
clinical results seen with TG-1101 and
TGR-1202 in a small number of patients may not be reproduced
in expanded or larger clinical trials. Additionally, individually
reported outcomes of patients treated in clinical trials may not be
representative of the entire population of treated patients in such
studies. Further, larger scale Phase III studies, which are often
conducted internationally, are inherently subject to increased
operational risks compared to earlier stage studies, including the
risk that the results could vary on a region to region, or country
to country basis which could materially adversely affect the
study’s outcome or the opinion of the validity of the study
results by applicable regulatory agencies. Early clinical trial
results from interim analysis or from the review of a Data Safety
Monitoring Board (DSMB) or similar safety committee may not be
reflective of the results of the entire study, when completed.
Additionally, many of the results reported in our early clinical
trials rely on local investigator assessed safety and efficacy
outcomes which may differ from results assessed in a blinded,
independent, centrally reviewed manner, often required of adequate
and well controlled registration directed clinical trials which may
be undertaken at a later date. If the results from expansion
cohorts or later trials are different from those found in the
earlier studies of TG-1101 and
TGR-1202, we may need to terminate or revise our clinical
development plan, which could extend the time for conducting our
development program and could have a material adverse effect on our
business. Our IRAK4, BET, and anti-GITR programs are all in
pre-clinical development and no assurance can be given that they
will advance into clinical development. If the results from
additional pre-clinical studies or early clinical trials differ
from those found in earlier studies, our clinical development plans
and timelines for this program could be adversely affected which
could have a material adverse effect on our business. Many drugs
fail in the early stages of clinical development for safety and
tolerability issues, accordingly if our pre-clinical assets advance
into clinical development, no assurance can be made that a safe and
efficacious dose can be found.
If we are unable to successfully complete our clinical trial
programs, or if such clinical trials take longer to complete than
we project, our ability to execute our current business strategy
will be adversely affected.
Whether
or not and how quickly we complete clinical trials is dependent in
part upon the rate at which we are able to engage clinical trial
sites and, thereafter, the rate of enrollment of patients, and the
rate we collect, clean, lock and analyze the clinical trial
database. Patient enrollment is a function of many factors,
including the size of the patient population, the proximity of
patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the study,
the existence of competitive clinical trials, and whether existing
or new drugs are approved for the indication we are studying. We
are aware that other companies are currently conducting or planning
clinical trials that seek to enroll patients with the same diseases
that we are studying. Certain clinical trials are designed to
continue until a pre-determined number of events have occurred in
the patients enrolled. Trials such as this are subject to delays
stemming from patient withdrawal and from lower than expected event
rates. They may also incur additional costs if enrollment is
increased in order to achieve the desired number of events. If we
experience delays in identifying and contracting with sites and/or
in patient enrollment in our clinical trial programs, we may incur
additional costs and delays in our development programs, and may
not be able to complete our clinical trials in a cost-effective or
timely manner. In addition, conducting multi-national studies adds
another level of complexity and risk. We are subject to events
affecting countries outside the U.S. Negative or inconclusive
results from the clinical trials we conduct or unanticipated
adverse medical events could cause us to have to repeat or
terminate the clinical trials.
30
In
September 2015 we announced a Phase 3 clinical trial for the
combination of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 for patients with CLL, which is
being conducted pursuant to an SPA with the FDA and in August 2017
we announced an SPA for our registration program for TG-1101 in
relapsing forms of MS. Many companies which have been granted SPAs
and/or the right to utilize the FDA’s Fast Track or
accelerated approval process have ultimately failed to obtain final
approval to market their drugs. Since we are seeking approvals
under SPAs for some of our product registration strategies, based
on protocol designs negotiated with the FDA, we may be subject to
enhanced scrutiny. Further, any changes or amendments to a protocol
that is being conducted under SPA will have to be reviewed and
approved by the FDA to verify that the SPA agreement is still
valid. Even if the primary endpoint in a Phase 3 clinical trial is
achieved, a SPA does not guarantee approval. The FDA may raise
issues of safety, study conduct, bias, deviation from the protocol,
statistical power, patient completion rates, changes in scientific
or medical parameters or internal inconsistencies in the data prior
to making its final decision. The FDA may also seek the guidance of
an outside advisory committee prior to making its final
decision.
In
October 2017, we announced the outcome of a meeting with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the use of the results
from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial to support a Biologics License
Application (BLA) filing for accelerated approval of TG-1101 in
combination with ibrutinib. As part of the discussion,
the FDA guided that if one or more agents obtained full approval
before we could obtain accelerated approval, we would need to show
meaningful benefit over those agents as well. No assurance can be
given that other agents will not receive full approval prior to our
potential receipt of accelerated approval. If that were to occur,
no assurance can be given that we would be successful in proving
meaningful benefit over those later approved drugs. If we were
unable to prove meaningful benefit over any such agents, we would
be effectively blocked from receiving accelerated
approval.
While
we wait to see if any drugs receive full approval and can evaluate
the data associated with any such agents, we are continuing to make
preparations for a BLA filing for accelerated approval. Whether or
not we ultimately file such application will be subject to multiple
factors and no assurance can be given that a filing will be made.
If a filing is made, the FDA acceptance of such a filing will
depend on the FDA’s views on the adequacy of the filing, and
further even if the filing is accepted, approval of such a filing
is a question wholly within the FDA’s discretion to
determine. In addition, if we were to receive accelerated
approval, we would be required to conduct a post-market
confirmatory study, which we may not complete, or if completed, may
prove unsuccessful. In such instance, the FDA can remove the
product from the market.
The
Company plans to have a follow-up meeting with the FDA to discuss
the use of the Progression-Free Survival Endpoint (PFS) endpoint
from the GENUINE study for possible full approval. There can
be no assurance given that we will reach agreement with the FDA on
an acceptable use of PFS data from GENUINE to support approval of
TG-1101, or even if an agreement is reached, that the PFS results
of TG-1101 will be positive and/or sufficient to support a
regulatory approval of TG-1101.
Any product candidates we may advance through clinical development
are subject to extensive regulation, which can be costly and time
consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the
required approvals or “fast track” or “priority
review” status to commercialize our product
candidates.
The
clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage,
record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing
and distribution of our product candidates or any future product
candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the
United States and by comparable health authorities worldwide or in
foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to
market our product candidates until we receive approval of a BLA or
NDA from the FDA. The process of obtaining BLA and NDA approval is
expensive, often takes many years and can vary substantially based
upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products involved.
Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA has
substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process,
including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product
candidate for many reasons. Even with “fast track” or
“priority review” status which we intend to seek for
our product candidates, where possible, including with regard to
TG-1101, such designations do not necessarily mean a faster
development process or regulatory review process or necessarily
confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to
conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may require
post-approval clinical trials or studies which also may be costly.
The FDA approval for a limited indication or approval with required
warning language, such as a boxed warning, could significantly
impact our ability to successfully market our product candidates.
Finally, the FDA may require adoption of a Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) requiring prescriber
training, post-market registries, or otherwise restricting the
marketing and dissemination of these products. Despite the time and
expense invested in clinical development of product candidates,
regulatory approval is never guaranteed. Assuming successful
clinical development, we intend to seek product approvals in
countries outside the United States. As a result, we would be
subject to regulation by the European Medicines Agency
(“EMA”), as well as the other regulatory agencies in
many of these countries, and other regulatory agencies around the
world.
31
Approval procedures
vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and
additional administrative review periods. The time required to
obtain approval in other countries might differ from that required
to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not
ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in
obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact
the regulatory process in others. As in the United States, the
regulatory approval process in Europe and in other countries is a
lengthy and challenging process. The FDA, and any other regulatory
body around the world can delay, limit or deny approval of a
product candidate for many reasons, including:
●
the FDA or comparable foreign
regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or
implementation of our clinical trials;
●
we may
be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or
comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate
is safe and effective for any indication;
●
the FDA
may not accept clinical data from trials which are conducted by
individual investigators or in countries where the standard of care
is potentially different from the United States;
●
the
results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical
significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory
authorities for approval;
●
we may
be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate's clinical and
other benefits outweigh its safety risks;
●
the FDA
or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our
interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical
trials;
●
the
data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may
not be sufficient to support the submission of a BLA, NDA or other
submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or
elsewhere;
●
the FDA
or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve
the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party
manufacturers with which we or our collaborators contract for
clinical and commercial supplies; or
●
the
approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign
regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner
rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
In
addition, recent events raising questions about the safety of
certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased
cautiousness by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in
reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other
regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in
obtaining regulatory approvals. Regulatory approvals for our
product candidates may not be obtained without lengthy delays, if
at all. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable
regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our
product candidates.
Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may cause
unacceptable adverse events or have other properties that may delay
or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or limit
their commercial potential.
Unacceptable
adverse events caused by any of our product candidates that we take
into clinical trials could cause either us or regulatory
authorities to interrupt, delay, modify or halt clinical trials and
could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or
other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications.
This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing the affected
product candidate and generating revenues from its
sale.
We have
not completed testing of any of our product candidates for the
treatment of the indications for which we intend to seek product
approval in humans, and we currently do not know the extent that
adverse events, if any, will be observed in patients who receive
any of our product candidates. To date, clinical trials using
TG-1101 and TGR-1202 have
demonstrated a toxicity profile that was deemed acceptable by the
investigators performing such studies. Such interpretation may not
be shared by future investigators or by the FDA and in the case of
TG-1101 and TGR-1202, even if
deemed acceptable for oncology applications, it may not be
acceptable for diseases outside the oncology setting, and likewise
for any other product candidates we may develop. Additionally, the
severity, duration and incidence of adverse events may increase in
larger study populations. With respect to both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, the toxicity when
manufactured under different conditions and in different
formulations is not known, and it is possible that additional
and/or different adverse events may appear upon the human use of
those formulations and those adverse events may arise with greater
frequency, intensity and duration than in the current formulation.
Should the Company not be able to adequately demonstrate analytical
comparability between drug product manufactured under different
conditions, the introduction of such new drug product into ongoing
trials also has the potential to confound the interpretation of the
results or complicate the statistical analysis of such trial.
Further, with respect to TGR-1202, although several hundred
patients have been dosed amongst all ongoing TGR-1202 studies, the
full adverse effect profile of TGR-1202 is not known. It is also
unknown as additional patients are exposed for longer durations to
TGR-1202, whether greater frequency and/or severity of adverse
events are likely to occur. Common toxicities of other drugs in the
same class as TGR-1202 include high levels of liver toxicity,
infections and colitis, the latter of which notably has presented
with later onset, with incidence increasing with duration of
exposure. To date, the incidence of these events has been limited
for TGR-1202, however no assurance can be given that this safety
and tolerability profile will continue to be demonstrated in the
future as higher doses, longer durations of exposure, and multiple
drug combinations are explored. If any of our product candidates
cause unacceptable adverse events in clinical trials, we may not be
able to obtain marketing approval and generate revenues from its
sale, or even if approved for sale may lack differentiation from
competitive products, which could have a material adverse impact on
our business and operations.
32
Additionally, in
combination clinical development, there is an inherent risk of
drug-drug interactions between combination agents which may affect
each component’s individual pharmacologic properties and the
overall efficacy and safety of the combination regimen. Both
TG-1101 and TGR-1202 are being evaluated in combination together,
as well as with a variety of other active anti-cancer agents, which
may cause unforeseen toxicity, or impact the severity, duration,
and incidence of adverse events observed compared to those seen in
the single agent studies of these agents. Further, with multi-drug
combinations, it is often difficult to interpret or properly assign
attribution of an adverse event to any one particular agent,
introducing the risk that toxicity caused by a component of a
combination regimen could have a material adverse impact on the
development of our product candidates. There can be no assurances
given that the combination regimens being studied will display
tolerability or efficacy suitable to warrant further testing or
produce data that is sufficient to obtain marketing
approval.
If any
of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or
others, later identify unacceptable adverse events caused by the
product, a number of significant negative consequences could
result, including:
●
regulatory
authorities may withdraw their approval of the affected
product;
●
regulatory
authorities may require a more significant clinical benefit for
approval to offset the risk;
●
regulatory
authorities may require the addition of labeling statements that
could diminish the usage of the product or otherwise limit the
commercial success of the affected product;
●
we may
be required to change the way the product is administered, conduct
additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the
product;
●
we may
choose to discontinue sale of the product;
●
we
could be sued and held liable for harm caused to
patients;
●
we may
not be able to enter into collaboration agreements on acceptable
terms and execute on our business model; and
●
our reputation may
suffer.
Any one
or a combination of these events could prevent us from obtaining or
maintaining regulatory approval and achieving or maintaining market
acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase
the costs and expenses of commercializing the affected product,
which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating any
revenues from the sale of the affected product.
We may experience delays in the commencement of our clinical trials
or in the receipt of data from preclinical and clinical trials
conducted by third parties, which could result in increased costs
and delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval.
Delays
in the commencement of clinical trials and delays in the receipt of
data from preclinical or clinical trials conducted by third parties
could significantly impact our product development costs. Before we
can initiate clinical trials in the United States for our product
candidates, we need to submit the results of preclinical testing,
usually in animals, to the FDA as part of an IND, along with other
information including information about product chemistry,
manufacturing and controls and its proposed clinical trial protocol
for our product candidates.
We plan
to rely on preclinical and clinical trial data from third parties,
if any, for the IND submissions for our product candidates. If
receipt of that data is delayed for any reason, including reasons
outside of our control, it will delay our plans for IND filings,
and clinical trial plans. This, in turn, will delay our ability to
make subsequent regulatory filings and ultimately, to commercialize
our products if regulatory approval is obtained. If those third
parties do not make this data available to us, we will likely, on
our own, have to develop all the necessary preclinical and clinical
data which will lead to additional delays and increase the costs of
our development of our product candidates.
Before
we can test any product candidate in human clinical trials the
product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical
tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity
and formulation, as well as in-vitro and animal studies to assess
the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product
candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with
federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory
practices (“GLP”).
We must
submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with
manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical
data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as
part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days
after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the IND on a
clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, we
must work with the FDA to resolve any outstanding concerns before
the clinical trials can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical
holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical
trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we
cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA
allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will
not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical
trial.
33
The FDA
may require that we conduct additional preclinical testing for any
product candidate before it allows us to initiate the clinical
testing under any IND, which may lead to additional delays and
increase the costs of our preclinical development.
Even
assuming an active IND for a product candidate, we do not know
whether our planned clinical trials for any such product candidate
will begin on time, or at all. The commencement of clinical trials
can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays
in:
●
obtaining
regulatory clearance to commence a clinical trial;
●
identifying,
recruiting and training suitable clinical
investigators;
●
reaching agreement
on acceptable terms with prospective contract research
organizations (“CROs”) and trial sites, the terms of
which can be subject to extensive negotiation, may be subject to
modification from time to time and may vary significantly among
different CROs and trial sites;
●
obtaining
sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical
trials;
●
obtaining
institutional review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee
approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective
site;
●
identifying,
recruiting and enrolling patients to participate in a clinical
trial;
●
retaining patients
who have initiated a clinical trial but may withdraw due to adverse
events from the therapy, insufficient efficacy, fatigue with the
clinical trial process or personal issues; and
●
unexpected safety
findings.
Any
delays in the commencement of our clinical trials will delay our
ability to pursue regulatory approval for our product candidates.
In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in
the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the
denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.
Delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in
increased costs and delay our ability to generate product
revenues.
Once a
clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be
slower than we anticipate. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a
result of ambiguous or negative interim results. Further, a
clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an
ethics committee or a Data Safety and Monitoring Committee
overseeing the clinical trial, any of our clinical trial sites with
respect to that site or the FDA or other regulatory authorities due
to a number of factors, including:
●
failure
to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory
requirements or our clinical protocols;
●
inspection of the
clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA or
other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a
clinical hold;
●
unforeseen safety
issues or any determination that the clinical trial presents
unacceptable health risks; and
●
lack of
adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.
Changes
in regulatory requirements and guidance also may occur and we may
need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes.
Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols
to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing and
successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays
in the completion of, or if we must terminate, any clinical trial
of any product candidate that we advance into clinical trials, our
ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate
will be delayed and the commercial prospects, if any, for the
product candidate may be harmed. In addition, many of these factors
may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a
product candidate. Even if we ultimately commercialize any of our
product candidates, other therapies for the same indications may
have been introduced to the market during the period we have been
delayed and such therapies may have established a competitive
advantage over our product candidates.
We intend to rely on third parties to help conduct our planned
clinical trials. If these third parties do not meet their deadlines
or otherwise conduct the trials as required, we may not be able to
obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product
candidates when expected or at all.
We
intend to use CROs to assist in the conduct of our planned clinical
trials and will rely upon medical institutions, clinical
investigators and contract laboratories to conduct our trials in
accordance with our clinical protocols. Our future CROs,
investigators and other third parties may play a significant role
in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and
analysis of data from the clinical trials.
34
There
is no guarantee that any CROs, investigators and other third
parties will devote adequate time and resources to our clinical
trials or perform as contractually required. If any third parties
upon whom we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical
trials fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to adhere to its
clinical protocols or otherwise perform in a substandard manner,
our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we
may not be able to commercialize our product
candidates.
If any
of our clinical trial sites terminate for any reason, we may
experience the loss of follow-up information on patients enrolled
in our ongoing clinical trials unless we are able to transfer the
care of those patients to another qualified clinical trial site. In
addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve
as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and
receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such
services. If these relationships and any related compensation
result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity
of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be
jeopardized.
As all of our product candidates are still under development,
manufacturing and process improvements implemented in the
production of those product candidates may affect their ultimate
activity or function.
Our
product candidates are in the initial stages of development and are
currently manufactured in small batches for use in pre-clinical and
clinical studies. Process improvements implemented to date have
changed, and process improvements in the future may change, the
activity profile of the product candidates, which may affect the
safety and efficacy of the products. No assurance can be given that
the material manufactured from any of the optimized processes will
perform comparably to the product candidates as manufactured to
date and used in currently available pre-clinical data and or in
early clinical trials reported in this or any previous filing.
Additionally, future clinical trial results will be subject to the
same level of uncertainty if, following such trials, additional
process improvements are made. In addition, we have engaged a
secondary manufacturer for TG-1101 to meet our current clinical and
future commercial needs and anticipate engaging additional
manufacturing sources for TGR-1202 to meet expanded clinical trial
and commercial needs. While material produced from this secondary
manufacturer for TG-1101 has to date demonstrated acceptable
comparability, no assurance can be given that any additional
manufacturers will be successful or that material manufactured by
the additional manufacturers will perform comparably to TG-1101 or
TGR-1202 as manufactured to date and used in currently available
pre-clinical data and or in early clinical trials reported in this
or any previous filing, or that the relevant regulatory agencies
will agree with our interpretation of comparability. If a secondary
manufacturer is not successful in replicating the product or
experiences delays, or if regulatory authorities impose unforeseen
requirements with respect to product comparability from multiple
manufacturing sources, we may experience delays in clinical
development.
If we fail to adequately understand and comply with the local laws
and customs as we expand into new international markets, these
operations may incur losses or otherwise adversely affect our
business and results of operations.
We
expect to operate a portion of our business in certain countries
through subsidiaries or through supply and marketing arrangements.
In those countries, where we have limited experience in operating
subsidiaries and in reviewing equity investees, we will be subject
to additional risks related to complying with a wide variety of
national and local laws, including restrictions on the import and
export of certain intermediates, drugs, technologies and multiple
and possibly overlapping tax structures. In addition, we may face
competition in certain countries from companies that may have more
experience with operations in such countries or with international
operations generally. We may also face difficulties integrating new
facilities in different countries into our existing operations, as
well as integrating employees hired in different countries into our
existing corporate culture. If we do not effectively manage our
operations in these subsidiaries and review equity investees
effectively, or if we fail to manage our alliances, we may lose
money in these countries and it may adversely affect our business
and results of our operations. In all interactions with foreign
regulatory authorities, the Company is exposed to liability risks
under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or similar anti-bribery
laws.
If our competitors develop treatments for the target indications
for which any of our product candidates may be approved, and they
are approved more quickly, marketed more effectively or
demonstrated to be more effective than our product candidates, our
commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.
We
operate in a highly competitive segment of the biotechnology and
biopharmaceutical market. We face competition from numerous
sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology
enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and
private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors
have significantly greater financial, product development,
manufacturing and marketing resources. Large pharmaceutical
companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and
obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. Additionally, many
universities and private and public research institutes are active
in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We may also
compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical
development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also
prove to be significant competitors, particularly through
collaborative arrangements with large and established
companies.
The
cancer indications for which we are developing our products have a
number of established therapies with which we will compete. Most
major pharmaceutical companies and many biotechnology companies are
aggressively pursuing new cancer development programs for the
treatment of NHL, CLL, and other B-cell proliferative malignancies,
including both therapies with traditional, as well as novel,
mechanisms of action. Additionally, numerous established therapies
exist for the autoimmune disorders for which we are developing
TG-1101, including and in particular, multiple sclerosis
(MS).
35
If approved, we
expect TG-1101 to compete directly with Roche Group’s
Rituxan® (rituximab) and Gazyva® (obinutuzumab or
GA-101), and Novartis’ Arzerra® (ofatumumab) among
others, each of which is currently approved for the treatment of
various diseases including NHL and CLL. In addition, a number of
pharmaceutical companies are developing antibodies targeting CD20,
CD19, and other B-cell associated targets, chimeric antigen
receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy, and other B-cell ablative
therapy which, if approved, would potentially compete with TG-1101
both in oncology settings as well as in autoimmune disorders.
Earlier this year, the Roche Group’s anti-CD20 antibody
ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of MS. Genmab and
GSK’s (ofatumumab) is also under clinical development for
patients with MS. New developments, including the development of
other pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease,
occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid
pace.
With
respect to TGR-1202, there are several PI3K delta targeted
compounds both approved, such as Gilead’s Zydelig™
(idelalisib) and Bayer’s Aliqopa® (copanlisib),
and in development, including, but not limited to, Verastem’s
duvelisib which if approved we would expect to compete directly
with TGR-1202. In addition, there are numerous other novel
therapies targeting similar pathways to TGR-1202 both approved and
in development, which could also compete with TGR-1202 in similar
indications, such as the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib (FDA approved for
MCL, CLL, Marginal Zone Lymphoma and WM and marketed by AbbVie and
Janssen), the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib (FDA approved for MCL and
marketed by AstraZeneca), or the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (FDA
approved for CLL and marketed by AbbVie and Roche).
These
developments may render our product candidates obsolete or
noncompetitive. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors
have substantially greater:
●
research and
development resources, including personnel and
technology;
●
regulatory
experience;
●
pharmaceutical
development, clinical trial and pharmaceutical commercialization
experience;
●
experience and
expertise in exploitation of intellectual property rights;
and
●
capital
resources.
As a
result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory
approval of their products more rapidly than us or may obtain
patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit
our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our
competitors may also develop products for the treatment of
lymphoma, CLL, or other B-cell and autoimmune related disorders
that are more effective, better tolerated, more useful and less
costly than ours and may also be more successful in manufacturing
and marketing their products. Our competitors may succeed in
obtaining approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities
for their product candidates sooner than we do for our
products.
We will
also face competition from these third parties in recruiting and
retaining qualified personnel, establishing clinical trial sites
and enrolling patients for clinical trials and in identifying and
in-licensing new product candidates.
We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our preclinical
and clinical pharmaceutical supplies and we intend to rely on third
parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved product
candidate, and our commercialization of any of our product
candidates could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if
those third parties fail to obtain approval of the FDA, fail to
provide us with sufficient quantities of pharmaceutical product or
fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.
The
facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our
product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to
inspections that will be conducted only after we submit a BLA or
NDA to the FDA, if at all. We do not control the manufacturing
process of our product candidates and are completely dependent on
our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the
FDA’s requirements for manufacture of finished pharmaceutical
products (good manufacturing practices, GMP). If our contract
manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that
conforms to our target product specifications, patent
specifications, and/or the FDA’s strict regulatory
requirements of safety, purity and potency, we will not be able to
secure and/or maintain FDA approval for our product candidates. In
addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract
manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality
assurance and qualified personnel. If our contract manufacturers
cannot meet FDA standards, we may need to find alternative
manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our
ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our
product candidates. No assurance can be given that a long-term,
scalable manufacturer can be identified or that they can make
clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates that
meets the product specifications of previously manufactured
batches, or is of a sufficient quality, or at an appropriate scale
and cost to make it commercially feasible. If they are unable to do
so, it could have a material adverse impact on our
business.
In
addition, we do not have the capability to package finished
products for distribution to hospitals and other customers. Prior
to commercial launch, we intend to enter into agreements with one
or more alternate fill/finish pharmaceutical product suppliers so
that we can ensure proper supply chain management once we are
authorized to make commercial sales of our product candidates. If
we receive marketing approval from the FDA, we intend to sell
pharmaceutical product finished and packaged by such suppliers. We
have not entered into long-term agreements with our current
contract manufacturers or with any fill/finish suppliers, and
though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch of our product
candidates in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of
finished product, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement
or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a
material adverse impact upon our business.
36
In most
cases, our manufacturing partners are single source suppliers. It
is expected that our manufacturing partners will be sole source
suppliers from single site locations for the foreseeable future.
Given this, any disruption of supply from these partners could have
a material, long-term impact on our ability to supply products for
clinical trials or commercial sale. If our suppliers do not deliver
sufficient quantities of our product candidates on a timely basis,
or at all, and in accordance with applicable specifications, there
could be a significant interruption of our supply, which would
adversely affect clinical development and commercialization of our
products. In addition, if our current or future supply of any or
our product candidates should fail to meet specifications during
its stability program there could be a significant interruption of
our supply of drug, which would adversely affect the clinical
development and commercialization of the product.
We currently have no marketing and sales organization and no
experience in marketing pharmaceutical products. If we are unable
to establish sales and marketing capabilities or fail to enter into
agreements with third parties to market and sell any products we
may develop, we may not be able to effectively market and sell our
products and generate product revenue.
We do
not currently have the infrastructure for the sales, marketing and
distribution of our biotechnology products, and we must build this
infrastructure or make arrangements with third parties to perform
these functions in order to commercialize our products. We plan to
either develop internally or enter into collaborations or other
commercial arrangements to develop further, promote and sell all or
a portion of our product candidates.
The
establishment and development of a sales force, either by us or
jointly with a development partner, or the establishment of a
contract sales force to market any products we may develop will be
expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch,
and we cannot be certain that we or our development partners would
be able to successfully develop this capability. If we or our
development partners are unable to establish sales and marketing
capability or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to
commercialize any products we may develop, we will need to contract
with third parties to market and sell such products. We currently
possess limited resources and may not be successful in establishing
our own internal sales force or in establishing arrangements with
third parties on acceptable terms, if at all.
If any product candidate that we successfully develop does not
achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients,
healthcare payors, and the medical community, the revenues that we
generate from its sales will be limited.
Even if
our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not
gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare
payors, and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of
our product candidates by third-party payors, including government
payors, generally is also necessary for commercial success. The
degree of market acceptance of any of our approved products will
depend on a number of factors, including:
●
the
efficacy and safety as demonstrated in clinical
trials;
●
the
clinical indications for which the product is
approved;
●
acceptance by
physicians, major operators of cancer clinics and patients of the
product as a safe and effective treatment;
●
the
potential and perceived advantages of product candidates over
alternative treatments;
●
the
safety of product candidates seen in a broader patient group,
including its use outside the approved indications;
●
the
cost of treatment in relation to alternative
treatments;
●
the
availability of adequate reimbursement and pricing by third parties
and government authorities;
●
relative
convenience and ease of administration;
●
the
prevalence and severity of adverse events; and
●
the
effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts.
If any
product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate
level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and
patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these
products and we may not become or remain profitable.
37
If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur
substantial liabilities and may be required to limit
commercialization of our product candidates.
We face
an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the
testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and
will face an even greater risk if we sell our product candidates
commercially. Although we are not aware of any historical or
anticipated product liability claims against us, if we cannot
successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we
may incur substantial liabilities or be required to cease clinical
trials of our drug candidates or limit commercialization of any
approved products. An individual may bring a liability claim
against us if one of our product candidates causes, or merely
appears to have caused, an injury. If we cannot successfully defend
our self against product liability claims, we will incur
substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome,
liability claims may result in:
●
decreased demand
for our product candidates;
●
impairment to our
business reputation;
●
withdrawal of
clinical trial participants;
●
costs
of related litigation;
●
distraction of
management’s attention from our primary
business;
●
substantial
monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
●
the
inability to commercialize our product candidates; and
●
loss of
revenues.
We
believe that we have obtained sufficient product liability
insurance coverage for our clinical trials. We intend to expand our
insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if
marketing approval is obtained for any of our product candidates.
However, we may be unable to obtain this product liability
insurance on commercially reasonable terms and with insurance
coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may
arise. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class
action or individual lawsuits relating to marketed pharmaceuticals.
A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought
against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments
exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and
adversely affect our business.
Reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market
segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult
for us to sell our products profitably.
We
intend to seek approval to market our future products in both the
United States and in countries and territories outside the United
States. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign countries, we
will be subject to rules and regulations in those countries
relating to our product. In some foreign countries, particularly in
the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and
biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries,
pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take
considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a
product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our
product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of
adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for any
of our product candidates and may be affected by existing and
future healthcare reform measures.
Government
authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers
and health maintenance organizations, decide which pharmaceuticals
they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement
by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors,
including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a
product is:
●
a
covered benefit under its health plan;
●
safe,
effective and medically necessary;
●
appropriate for the
specific patient;
●
cost-effective;
and
●
neither
experimental nor investigational.
38
Obtaining coverage
and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other
third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could
require that we provide supporting scientific, clinical and
cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor.
We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance
with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement of our
future products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if
pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to
achieve or sustain profitability. Additionally, while we may seek
approval of our products in combination with each other, there can
be no guarantee that we will obtain coverage and reimbursement for
any of our products together, or that such reimbursement will
incentivize the use of our products in combination with each other
as opposed to in combination with other agents which may be priced
more favorably to the medical community.
In both
the United States and certain foreign countries, there have been a
number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare
system that could impact our ability to sell our products
profitably. In particular, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003
revised the payment methodology for many products reimbursed by
Medicare, resulting in lower rates of reimbursement for many types
of drugs, and added a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare
program that involves commercial plans negotiating drug prices for
their members. Since 2003, there have been a number of other
legislative and regulatory changes to the coverage and
reimbursement landscape for pharmaceuticals.
Most
recently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as
amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010, collectively, the “ACA,” was enacted. The ACA and
any revisions or replacements of that Act, any substitute
legislation, and other changes in the law or regulatory framework
could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Among
the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product
candidates are:
●
an
annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or
imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents,
apportioned among these entities according to their market share in
certain government healthcare programs;
●
an
increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay
under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13.0% of the
average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs,
respectively;
●
expansion of
healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the federal False Claims
Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government
investigative powers and enhanced penalties for
non-compliance;
●
a new
Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which
manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off
negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible
beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for
a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under
Medicare Part D;
●
extension of a
manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs
dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care
organizations;
●
expansion of
eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things,
allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional
individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for
certain individuals with income at or below 138% of the federal
poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a
manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;
●
expansion of the
entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Pricing
Program;
●
the new
requirements under the federal Open Payments program and its
implementing regulations;
●
a new
requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and
distributors provide to physicians;
●
a new
regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilar biological
products, all of which will impact existing government healthcare
programs and will result in the development of new programs;
and
●
a new
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify
priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness
research, along with funding for such research.
The
Supreme Court upheld the ACA in the main challenge to the
constitutionality of the law in 2012. The Supreme Court also upheld
federal subsidies for purchasers of insurance through federally
facilitated exchanges in a decision released in June 2015. Any
remaining legal challenges to the ACA are viewed generally as not
significantly impacting the implementation of the law if the
plaintiffs prevail.
President Trump ran
for office on a platform that supported the repeal of the ACA, and
one of his first actions after his inauguration was to sign an
Executive Order instructing federal agencies to waive or delay
requirements of the ACA that impose economic or regulatory burdens
on states, families, the health-care industry and others.
Modifications to or repeal of all or certain provisions of the ACA
have been attempted in Congress as a result of the outcome of the
recent presidential and congressional elections, consistent with
statements made by the incoming administration and members of
Congress during the presidential and congressional campaigns and
following the election. In January 2017, Congress voted to adopt a
budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, or the Budget Resolution,
that authorizes the implementation of legislation that would repeal
portions of the ACA. The Budget Resolution is not a law. However,
it is widely viewed as the first step toward the passage of
legislation that would repeal certain aspects of the ACA. In March
2017, following the passage of the budget resolution for fiscal
year 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation
known as the American Health Care Act of 2017, which, if enacted,
would amend or repeal significant portions of the ACA. Attempts in
the Senate in 2017 to pass ACA repeal legislation, including the
Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, so far have been
unsuccessful.
There
have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and
regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at
broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or
lowering the cost of healthcare products and services. We cannot
predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The
continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed
care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to
contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely
affect:
●
the
demand for any products for which we may obtain regulatory
approval;
●
our
ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our
products;
●
our
ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain
profitability;
●
the
level of taxes that we are required to pay; and
●
the
availability of capital.
In
addition, governments may impose price controls, which may
adversely affect our future profitability.
39
We will need to increase the size of our organization and the scope
of our outside vendor relationships, and we may experience
difficulties in managing this growth.
As of
November 1, 2017, we had 69 full and part time employees. Over
time, we will need to expand our managerial, operational, financial
and other resources in order to manage and fund our operations and
clinical trials, continue research and development activities, and
commercialize our product candidates. Our management and scientific
personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be
adequate to support our future growth. Our need to effectively
manage our operations, growth, and various projects requires that
we:
●
manage
our clinical trials effectively;
●
manage
our internal development efforts effectively while carrying out our
contractual obligations to licensors, contractors and other third
parties;
●
continue to improve
our operational, financial and management controls and reporting
systems and procedures; and
●
attract
and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees.
We may
utilize the services of outside vendors or consultants to perform
tasks including clinical trial management, statistics and analysis,
regulatory affairs, formulation development, chemistry,
manufacturing, controls, and other pharmaceutical development
functions. Our growth strategy may also entail expanding our group
of contractors or consultants to implement these tasks going
forward. Because we rely on a substantial number of consultants,
effectively outsourcing many key functions of our business, we will
need to be able to effectively manage these consultants to ensure
that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and
meet expected deadlines. However, if we are unable to effectively
manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of
the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason,
our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we
may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product
candidates or otherwise advance its business. There can be no
assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants
or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on
economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to
effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and
expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may be
unable to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further
develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly,
may not achieve our research, development and commercialization
goals.
If we fail to attract and keep key management and clinical
development personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or
commercialize our product candidates.
We will
need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational,
financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our
clinical development and commercialization efforts for our product
candidates and future product candidates. We are highly dependent
on the development, regulatory, commercial and financial expertise
of the members of our senior management. The loss of the services
of any of our senior management could delay or prevent the further
development and potential commercialization of our product
candidates and, if we are not successful in finding suitable
replacements, could harm our business. We do not maintain
“key man” insurance policies on the lives of these
individuals. We will need to hire additional personnel as we
continue to expand our manufacturing, research and development
activities.
Our
success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and
motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel and
we may not be able to do so in the future due to the intense
competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and other businesses. Our industry has experienced a
high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If
we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to
accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints
that will impede significantly the achievement of our development
objectives, our ability to raise additional capital, and our
ability to implement our business strategy.
If we fail to comply with healthcare regulations, we could face
substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial
condition could be adversely affected.
In
addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical and
biotechnology products, several other types of state and federal
laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in
the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, as well as
consulting or other service agreements with physicians or other
potential referral sources and regulate the use and disclosure of
identifiable patient information. These laws include anti-kickback
statutes and false claims statutes that prohibit, among other
things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or
receiving remuneration to induce, or, in return for, purchasing,
leasing, ordering, recommending or arranging for the purchase,
lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under
Medicare, Medicaid or other federally-financed healthcare programs,
and knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim
for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or
causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid.
The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to
the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to
items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state
programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.
Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory
safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution,
the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and any
practices we adopt may not, in all cases, meet all of the criteria
for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Sanctions
under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary
penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from
reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines and
imprisonment. Any challenge to its business practices under these
laws could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, and results of operations. Finally, the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by
the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
Act of 2009, or HITECH, their respective implementing regulations
and similar state laws and regulations, impose obligations on
covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare
clearinghouses, as well as their business associates that create,
receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health
information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to
safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually
identifiable health information. In the event our operations result
in our receiving such information, we could become subject to the
requirements of these laws and regulations, including potential
civil and criminal penalties.
40
We use biological and hazardous materials, and any claims relating
to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could
be time consuming or costly.
We use
hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological agents and
compounds, which could be dangerous to human health and safety or
the environment. Our operations also produce hazardous waste
products. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the
use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of
these materials and wastes. Compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or
future environmental laws and regulations may impair our
pharmaceutical development efforts.
In
addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental
injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. If one of
our employees was accidentally injured from the use, storage,
handling or disposal of these materials or wastes, the medical
costs related to his or her treatment would be covered by our
workers’ compensation insurance policy. However, we do not
carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and
our property and casualty and general liability insurance policies
specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from
biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.
Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be
held liable for damages or penalized with fines in an amount
exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory
approvals could be suspended, or operations otherwise
affected.
All product candidate development timelines and projections in this
report are based on the assumption of further
financing.
The
timelines and projections in this report are predicated upon the
assumption that we will raise additional financing in the future to
continue the development of our product candidates. In the event we
do not successfully raise subsequent financing, our product
development activities will necessarily be curtailed commensurate
with the magnitude of the shortfall. If our product development
activities are slowed or stopped, we would be unable to meet the
timelines and projections outlined in this filing. Failure to
progress our product candidates as anticipated will have a negative
effect on our business, future prospects, and ability to obtain
further financing on acceptable terms (if at all), and the value of
the enterprise.
Risks Relating to Acquisitions
Acquisitions, investments and strategic alliances that we may make
in the future may use significant resources, result in disruptions
to our business or distractions of our management, may not proceed
as planned, and could expose us to unforeseen
liabilities.
We may
seek to expand our business through the acquisition of, investments
in and strategic alliances with companies, technologies, products,
and services. Acquisitions, investments and strategic alliances
involve a number of special problems and risks, including, but not
limited to:
●
difficulty
integrating acquired technologies, products, services, operations
and personnel with the existing businesses;
●
diversion of
management’s attention in connection with both negotiating
the acquisitions and integrating the businesses;
●
strain
on managerial and operational resources as management tries to
oversee larger operations;
●
difficulty
implementing and maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting at businesses that we acquire, particularly if
they are not located near our existing operations;
●
exposure to
unforeseen liabilities of acquired companies;
●
potential costly
and time-consuming litigation, including stockholder
lawsuits;
●
potential issuance
of securities to equity holders of the company being acquired with
rights that are superior to the rights of holders of our common
stock or which may have a dilutive effect on our
stockholders;
●
risk of
loss of invested capital;
●
the
need to incur additional debt or use cash; and
●
the
requirement to record potentially significant additional future
operating costs for the amortization of intangible
assets.
As a
result of these or other problems and risks, businesses we acquire
may not produce the revenues, earnings, or business synergies that
we anticipated, and acquired products, services, or technologies
might not perform as we expected. As a result, we may incur higher
costs and realize lower revenues than we had anticipated. We may
not be able to successfully address these problems and we cannot
assure you that the acquisitions will be successfully identified
and completed or that, if acquisitions are completed, the acquired
businesses, products, services, or technologies will generate
sufficient revenue to offset the associated costs or other negative
effects on our business.
Any of
these risks can be greater if an acquisition is large relative to
our size. Failure to effectively manage our growth through
acquisitions could adversely affect our growth prospects, business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.
41
Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property
Our success depends upon our ability to protect our intellectual
property and proprietary technologies, and the intellectual
property protection for our product candidates depends
significantly on third parties.
Our
commercial success depends on obtaining and maintaining patent
protection and trade secret protection in the US and other
countries with respect to our product candidates or any future
product candidate that we may license or acquire, their
formulations and uses and the methods we use to manufacture them,
as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party
challenges. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing
patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our
novel technologies and product candidates, and by maintenance of
our trade secrets through proper procedures. We will only be able
to protect our technologies from unauthorized use by third parties
to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets
cover them in the market they are being used or developed. If any
of our licensors or partners fails to appropriately prosecute and
maintain patent protection for these product candidates, our
ability to develop and commercialize these product candidates may
be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors
from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to
properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to these
product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition and results of operations.
Currently, the
composition of matter patent and several method of use patents for
TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in various
indications and settings have been applied for but have not yet
been issued, or have been issued in certain territories but not
under all jurisdictions in which such applications have been filed.
While composition of matter patents have been granted in the US for
TG-1101 and TGR-1202, no patents to date have been issued for our
IRAK4 inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR programs. There can be
no guarantee that any of these patents for which an application has
already been filed, nor any patents filed in the future for our
product candidates will be granted in any or all jurisdictions in
which there were filed, or that all claims initially included in
such patent applications will be allowed in the final patent that
is issued. The patent application process is subject to numerous
risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or
our partners will be successful in protecting our product
candidates by obtaining and defending patents.
These
risks and uncertainties include the following:
●
the
patent applications that we or our partners file may not result in
any patents being issued;
●
patents
that may be issued or in-licensed may be challenged, invalidated,
modified, revoked or circumvented, or otherwise may not provide any
competitive advantage;
●
as of
March 16, 2013, the U.S. converted from a “first to
invent” to a “first to file” system. If we do not
win the filing race, we will not be entitled to inventive
priority;
●
our
competitors, many of which have substantially greater resources
than we do, and many of which have made significant investments in
competing technologies, may seek, or may already have obtained,
patents that will limit, interfere with, or eliminate its ability
to make, use, and sell our potential products either in the United
States or in international markets;
●
there
may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and other
international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent
protection both inside and outside the United States for disease
treatments that prove successful as a matter of public policy
regarding worldwide health concerns; and
●
countries other
than the United States may have less restrictive patent laws than
those upheld by United States courts, allowing foreign competitors
the ability to exploit these laws to create, develop, and market
competing products.
If
patents are not issued that protect our product candidates, it
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and
results of operations. The patent prosecution process is expensive
and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute
all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost
or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to
identify any patentable aspects of our research and development
output and methodology, and, even if we do, an opportunity to
obtain patent protection may have passed. Given the uncertain and
time-consuming process of filing patent applications and
prosecuting them, it is possible that our product(s) or process(es)
originally covered by the scope of the patent application may have
changed or been modified, leaving our product(s) or process(es)
without patent protection. If our licensors or we fail to obtain or
maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for one or
more product candidates or any future product candidate we may
license or acquire, third parties may be able to leverage our
proprietary information and products without risk of infringement,
which could impair our ability to compete in the market and
adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and achieve
profitability. Moreover, should we enter into other collaborations
we may be required to consult with or cede control to collaborators
regarding the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of licensed
patents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be
prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best
interests of our business.
The
patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies
generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual
questions, and has in recent years been the subject of much
litigation. In addition, no consistent policy regarding the breadth
of claims allowed in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents has
emerged to date in the US. The patent situation outside the US is
even more uncertain. The laws of foreign countries may not protect
our rights to the same extent as the laws of the US, and we may
fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For
example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods
of treatment of the human body more than US law does. Our pending
and future patent applications may not result in patents being
issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in
part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing
competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent
laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the US and other
countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope
of our patent protection. For example, the federal courts of the US
have taken an increasingly dim view of the patent eligibility of
certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid
sequences, amino acid sequences and certain methods of utilizing
same, which include their detection in a biological sample and
diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection. Such subject
matter, which had long been a staple of the biotechnology and
biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now
considered, with few exceptions, ineligible in the first instance
for protection under the patent laws of the US. Accordingly, we
cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or
enforced in our patents or in those licensed from a
third-party.
42
Recent
patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and
costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and
the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16,
2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act,
was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of
significant changes to United States patent law. These include
changes to transition from a “first-to-invent” system
to a “first-to-file” system and to the way issued
patents are challenged. The formation of the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board now provides a quicker and less expensive process for
challenging issued patents. The PTO recently developed new
regulations and procedures to govern administration of the
Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law
associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first
inventor-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16,
2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the
Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business.
However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase
the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our
patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued
patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our
business and financial condition.
Moreover, we may be
subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to
the PTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation,
reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or
interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the
patent rights of others. The costs of these proceedings could be
substantial and it is possible that our efforts to establish
priority of invention would be unsuccessful, resulting in a
material adverse effect on our US patent position. An adverse
determination in any such submission, patent office trial,
proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, render
unenforceable, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third
parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete
directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability
to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing
third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength
of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is
threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us
to license, develop or commercialize current or future product
candidates.
Even if
our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a
form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent
competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any
competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent
our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative
technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.
The
issuance of a patent does not foreclose challenges to its
inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Therefore, our
owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or
patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may
result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed,
invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could
limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing
similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration
of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the
amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory
review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product
candidates might expire before or shortly after such product
candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed
patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to
exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical
to ours.
In
addition to patents, we and our partners also rely on trade secrets
and proprietary know-how, technology and other proprietary
information, to maintain our competitive position, particularly
where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or
obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect.
Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and
unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality
agreements with third parties, and confidential information and
inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors,
third parties may still obtain this information or we may be unable
to protect its rights. If any of these events occurs, or we
otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary
know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and
we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches.
Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or
misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and
time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some
courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or
unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade
secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by
a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to
whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information
to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be
disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our
competitive position would be harmed.
Patent
protection and other intellectual property protection are crucial
to the success of our business and prospects, and there is a
substantial risk that such protections will prove
inadequate.
43
If we or our partners are sued for infringing intellectual property
rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and
an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material
adverse effect on our business.
Our
commercial success also depends upon our ability and the ability of
any of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and
sell our product candidates without infringing the proprietary
rights of third parties. Numerous United States and foreign issued
patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third
parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products,
some of which may be directed at claims that overlap with the
subject matter of our intellectual property. For example, Roche has
the Cabilly patents in the U.S. that block the commercialization of
antibody products derived from a single cell line, like
TG-1101. Also, Roche, Biogen
Idec, and Genentech hold patents for the use of anti-CD20
antibodies utilized in the treatment of CLL in the U.S. While these
patents have been challenged, to the best of our knowledge, those
matters were settled in a way that permitted additional anti-CD20
antibodies to be marketed for CLL. If those patents are still
enforced at the time we are intending to launch TG-1101, then we will need to either
prevail in a litigation to challenge those patents or negotiate a
settlement agreement with the patent holders. If we are unable to
do so we may be forced to delay the launch of TG-1101 or launch at the risk of litigation
for patent infringement, which may have a material adverse effect
on our business and results of operations.
In
addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue,
there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which
may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or
proprietary technologies may infringe. Similarly, there may be
issued patents relevant to our product candidates of which we are
not aware. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature
often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in
the US and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18
months after a first filing, or in some cases not at all.
Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our
licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in patents
or pending patent applications that we own or licensed, or that we
or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of
such inventions.
There
is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other
intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and
biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims
that we or any collaborators of ours infringe their intellectual
property rights, we may have to:
●
obtain
licenses, which may not be available on commercially reasonable
terms, if at all;
●
abandon
an infringing product candidate or redesign its products or
processes to avoid infringement;
●
pay
substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’
fees, which we may have to pay if a court decides that the product
or proprietary technology at issue infringes on or violates the
third party’s rights;
●
pay
substantial royalties, fees and/or grant cross licenses to our
technology; and/or
●
defend
litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly
whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial
diversion of our financial and management resources.
No
assurance can be given that patents issued to third parties do not
exist, have not been filed, or could not be filed or issued, which
contain claims covering its products, technology or methods that
may encompass all or a portion of our products and methods. Given
the number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our
technical areas or fields, we believe there is a risk that third
parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our
products or methods.
Other
product candidates that we may in-license or acquire could be
subject to similar risks and uncertainties.
We may need to license certain intellectual property from third
parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be
available on commercially reasonable terms.
A third
party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that
are important or necessary to the development and commercialization
of our products. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or
proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our
products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license
from these third parties, whom may or may not be interested in
granting such a license, on commercially reasonable terms, or our
business could be harmed, possibly materially.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or
the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time
consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may
infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter
infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file
infringement claims, which typically are very expensive,
time-consuming and disruptive of day-to-day business operations.
Any claims we assert against accused infringers could provoke these
parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we
infringe their patents; or provoke those parties to petition the
PTO to institute inter parties review against the asserted patents,
which may lead to a finding that all or some of the claims of the
patent are invalid. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a
court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not
valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party
from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents
do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any
litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our
patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or
interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, adverse results on US patents
may affect related patents in our global portfolio. The adverse
result could also put related patent applications at risk of not
issuing.
Interference
proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (“PTO”) may be necessary to
determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or
patent applications or those of our collaborators or licensors. An
unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related
technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the
prevailing party. The costs of these proceedings could be
substantial. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity,
enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly
uncertain. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party
does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms.
Litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if
successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our
management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent,
alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets
or confidential information, particularly in countries where the
laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United
States.
44
Furthermore,
because of the substantial amount of discovery required in
connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk
that some of our confidential information could be compromised by
disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could
be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or
other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts
or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a
substantial adverse effect on the price of our common
stock.
We may be subject to claims that our consultants or independent
contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets
of their other clients or former employers to it.
As is
common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we engage
the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our
product candidates. Many of these consultants were previously
employed at, may have previously been, or are currently providing
consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical
companies, including our competitors or potential competitors.
Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be
subject to claims that these consultants or we have inadvertently
or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary
information of their former employers or their former or current
customers. Even if frivolous or unsubstantiated in nature,
litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if
we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation
could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to
management, day-to-day business operations, and the implicated
employee(s).
Risks Relating to Our Finances and Capital
Requirements
We will need to raise additional capital to continue to operate our
business.
As of
September 30, 2017, we had approximately $91.8 million in cash and
cash equivalents, which we believe will be sufficient to fund the
Company’s planned operations through 2018. As a result, we
will need additional capital to continue our operations beyond that
time. Required additional sources of financing to continue our
operations in the future might not be available on favorable terms,
if at all. If we do not succeed in raising additional funds on
acceptable terms, we might be unable to complete planned
preclinical and clinical trials or obtain approval of any of our
product candidates from the FDA or any foreign regulatory
authorities. In addition, we could be forced to discontinue product
development, reduce or forego sales and marketing efforts and
forego attractive business opportunities. Any additional sources of
financing will likely involve the issuance of our equity
securities, which would have a dilutive effect to
stockholders.
Currently, none of
our product candidates have been approved by the FDA or any foreign
regulatory authority for sale. Therefore, for the foreseeable
future, we will have to fund all of our operations and capital
expenditures from cash on hand and amounts raised in future
offerings or financings.
We have a history of operating losses, expect to continue to incur
losses, and are unable to predict the extent of future losses or
when we will become profitable, if ever.
We have
not yet applied for or demonstrated an ability to obtain regulatory
approval for or commercialize a product candidate. Our short
operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business
prospects and consequently, any predictions about our future
performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a
history of successfully developing and commercializing
pharmaceutical or biotechnology products. Our prospects must be
considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses and
difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early
stages of operations and the competitive environment in which we
operate.
We have
never been profitable and, as of September 30, 2017, we had an
accumulated deficit of $324.0 million. We have generated operating
losses in all periods since we were incorporated. We expect to make
substantial expenditures resulting in increased operating costs in
the future and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly
as we expand development and clinical trial efforts for our product
candidates. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to
have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and
stockholders’ equity. Because of the risks and uncertainties
associated with product development, we are unable to predict the
extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if
ever. Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to
sustain or increase profitability on an ongoing basis.
We have not generated any revenue from our product candidates and
may never become profitable.
Our
ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate
significant continuing revenues. To obtain significant continuing
revenues, we must succeed, either alone or with others, in
developing, obtaining regulatory approval for and manufacturing and
marketing our product candidates (or utilize early access programs
to generate such revenue). To date, our product candidates have not
generated any revenues, and we do not know when, or if, we will
generate any revenue. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a
number of factors, including, but not limited to:
●
successful
completion of preclinical studies of our product
candidates;
●
successful
commencement and completion of clinical trials of our product
candidates and any future product candidates we advance into
clinical trials;
●
achievement of
regulatory approval for our product candidates and any future
product candidates we advance into clinical trials (unless we
successfully utilize early access programs which allow for revenue
generation prior to approval);
●
manufacturing
commercial quantities of our products at acceptable cost levels if
regulatory approvals are obtained;
●
successful sales,
distribution and marketing of our future products, if any;
and
●
our
entry into collaborative arrangements or co-promotion agreements to
market and sell our products.
If we
are unable to generate significant continuing revenues, we will not
become profitable and we may be unable to continue our operations
without continued funding.
45
We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to
raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or
eliminate our development programs or commercialization
efforts.
We
expect to spend substantial amounts on development, including
significant amounts on conducting clinical trials for our product
candidates, manufacturing clinical supplies and expanding our
pharmaceutical development programs. We expect that our monthly
cash used by operations will continue to increase for the next
several years. We anticipate that we will continue to incur
operating losses for the foreseeable future.
We will
require substantial additional funds to support our continued
research and development activities, as well as the anticipated
costs of preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory
approvals, and eventual commercialization. We anticipate that we
will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. We have
based these estimates, however, on assumptions that may prove to be
wrong, and we could expend our available financial resources much
faster than we currently expect. Further, we will need to raise
additional capital to fund our operations and continue to conduct
clinical trials to support potential regulatory approval of
marketing applications. Future capital requirements will also
depend on the extent to which we acquire or in-license additional
product candidates. We currently have no commitments or agreements
relating to any of these types of transactions.
The
amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on
many factors, including, but not limited to, the
following:
●
the
progress of our clinical trials, including expenses to support the
trials and milestone payments that may become payable under our
license agreements;
●
the
costs and timing of regulatory approvals;
●
the
costs and timing of clinical and commercial manufacturing supply
arrangements for each product candidate;
●
the
costs of establishing sales or distribution
capabilities;
●
the
success of the commercialization of our products;
●
our
ability to establish and maintain strategic collaborations,
including licensing and other arrangements;
●
the
costs involved in enforcing or defending patent claims or other
intellectual property rights; and
●
the
extent to which we in-license or invest in other indications or
product candidates.
Until
we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve
profitability, we expect to finance future cash needs through
public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate
collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as through
interest income earned on cash balances. If we were to be unable to
raise additional capital, we would have to significantly delay,
scale back or discontinue one or more of our pharmaceutical
development programs. We also may be required to relinquish,
license or otherwise dispose of rights to product candidates or
products that it would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize
itself on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be
available.
Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing
or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing
stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish
proprietary rights.
We may
raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings,
debt financings or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we
raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the share
ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. Any future debt
financing we enter into may involve covenants that restrict our
operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or
additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain
investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset
sale transactions, among other restrictions.
In
addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing
arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially
valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on
terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate funds are not
available, our ability to achieve profitability or to respond to
competitive pressures would be significantly limited and we may be
required to delay, significantly curtail or eliminate the
development of one or more of our product candidates.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
We are controlled by current officers, directors and principal
stockholders.
Our
directors, executive officers, their affiliates, and our principal
stockholders beneficially own approximately 43% of our outstanding
voting stock, including shares underlying outstanding options and
warrants. Our directors, officers and principal stockholders, taken
as a whole, have the ability to exert substantial influence over
the election of our Board of Directors and the outcome of issues
submitted to our stockholders.
46
Our stock price is, and we expect it to remain, volatile, which
could limit investors’ ability to sell stock at a
profit.
The
trading price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile
and subject to wide fluctuations in price in response to various
factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors
include:
●
publicity regarding
actual or potential clinical results relating to products under
development by our competitors or us;
●
delay
or failure in initiating, completing or analyzing nonclinical or
clinical trials or the unsatisfactory design or results of these
trials;
●
achievement or
rejection of regulatory approvals by our competitors or
us;
●
announcements of
technological innovations or new commercial products by our
competitors or us;
●
developments
concerning proprietary rights, including patents;
●
developments
concerning our collaborations;
●
regulatory
developments in the United States and foreign
countries;
●
economic or other
crises and other external factors;
●
period-to-period
fluctuations in our revenues and other results of
operations;
●
changes
in financial estimates by securities analysts; and
●
sales
of our common stock.
We will
not be able to control many of these factors, and we believe that
period-to-period comparisons of our financial results will not
necessarily be indicative of our future performance.
In
addition, the stock market in general, and the market for
biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced extreme
price and volume fluctuations that may have been unrelated or
disproportionate to the operating performance of individual
companies. These broad market and industry factors may seriously
harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our
operating performance.
We have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay
dividends in the future, and any return on investment may be
limited to the value of your stock.
We have
never paid dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate
paying any dividends for the foreseeable future. You should not
rely on an investment in our stock if you require dividend income.
Further, you will only realize income on an investment in our stock
in the event you sell or otherwise dispose of your shares at a
price higher than the price you paid for your shares. Such a gain
would result only from an increase in the market price of our
common stock, which is uncertain and unpredictable.
Certain anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and
Delaware law could make a third-party acquisition of us difficult.
This could limit the price investors might be willing to pay in the
future for our common stock.
Provisions
in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and
restated bylaws could have the effect of making it more difficult
for a third party to acquire, or of discouraging a third party from
attempting to acquire, or control us. These factors could limit the
price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future
for shares of our common stock. Our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation allows us to issue preferred stock
without the approval of our stockholders. The issuance of preferred
stock could decrease the amount of earnings and assets available
for distribution to the holders of our common stock or could
adversely affect the rights and powers, including voting rights, of
such holders. In certain circumstances, such issuance could have
the effect of decreasing the market price of our common stock. Our
restated bylaws eliminate the right of stockholders to call a
special meeting of stockholders, which could make it more difficult
for stockholders to effect certain corporate actions. Any of these
provisions could also have the effect of delaying or preventing a
change in control.
On
July 18, 2014, the Board of Directors declared a distribution of
one right for each outstanding share of common stock. The rights
may have certain anti-takeover effects. The rights will cause
substantial dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire
us on terms not approved by the Board of Directors unless the offer
is conditioned on a substantial number of rights being acquired.
However, the rights should not interfere with any merger, statutory
share exchange or other business combination approved by the Board
of Directors since the rights may be terminated by us upon
resolution of the Board of Directors. Thus, the rights are intended
to encourage persons who may seek to acquire control of the Company
to initiate such an acquisition through negotiations with the Board
of Directors. However, the effect of the rights may be to
discourage a third party from making a partial tender offer or
otherwise attempting to obtain a substantial equity position in the
equity securities of, or seeking to obtain control of, the Company.
To the extent any potential acquirers are deterred by the rights,
the rights may have the effect of preserving incumbent management
in office.
47
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
The
exhibits listed on the Exhibit Index are included with this
report.
|
31.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated November 9, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated November 9, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated November 9, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
32.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated November 9, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
The
following financial information from the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2017,
formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, (ii) the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations, (iii) the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity, (iv) the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, and (v) Notes to
the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (filed
herewith).
|
48
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements 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.
|
|
|
|
TG
THERAPEUTICS, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
Date:
November 9, 2017
|
By:
|
/s/
Sean A. Power
|
|
Sean A.
Power
Chief
Financial Officer
Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer
|
49