Item 1. Business
Overview
We are a clinical-stage company focused on developing innovative gene therapies for neurological diseases. We are developing a pipeline of innovative product candidates for the treatment of these debilitating diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, GM1 gangliosidosis, and GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). We are dedicated to realizing the potential of gene therapies to offer transformative patient outcomes in areas of high unmet medical need. We have assembled a portfolio of gene therapies in partnership with leading scientific institutions and have built a team with extensive experience in the gene therapy space. We will continue to build integrated internal development capabilities from product development through commercialization, with a focus on accelerating the pace of product development in the clinic. As part of our ongoing business strategy we continue to explore potential opportunities to acquire or license new product candidates as well as opportunities for partnership or collaboration on our existing products in development. Our vision is to build the world's leading gene therapy company for the treatment of neurological diseases by progressing our current programs and identifying, developing and commercializing other novel gene therapy treatments for neurological diseases.
Our Product Pipeline
The following table summarizes the status of our gene therapy development programs. Our wholly owned subsidiary, Axovant Sciences GmbH ("ASG"), holds global commercial rights to each of the following programs:
Gene Therapy Program
Clinical Indication
Development Stage
AXO-LENTI-PD
Parkinson's disease
Clinical
AXO-AAV-GM1
GM1 gangliosidosis
Clinical
AXO-AAV-GM2
GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease
Clinical
and Sandhoff disease)
In June 2019, we notified Benitec Biopharma Limited ("Benitec") of our intention to terminate the license and collaboration agreement, dated July 8, 2018, by and between ASG and Benitec (the "Benitec Agreement") in its entirety. The termination of the Benitec Agreement will be effective on September 3, 2019. We decided to terminate the Benitec Agreement following our decision to no longer pursue development of AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy candidates.
AXO-LENTI-PD Program
Overview
AXO-LENTI-PD is an in vivo lentiviral gene therapy investigational product candidate currently being developed as a potential one-time treatment of Parkinson’s disease. We licensed the worldwide development and commercialization rights to AXO-LENTI-PD (and its first-generation product candidate ProSavin®), from Oxford BioMedica (UK) Ltd. ("Oxford BioMedica"), under an exclusive license agreement (the "Oxford BioMedica Agreement") entered into in June 2018.
AXO-LENTI-PD delivers a construct of three genes that encode the critical enzymes required for the biochemical synthesis of dopamine from endogenous tyrosine. The three enzymes are: Tyrosine Hydroxylase ("TH"), the enzyme that converts tyrosine to levodopa ("L-dopa"), Cyclohydrolase 1 ("CH1"), the rate-limiting enzyme for synthesis of Tetrahydrobiopterin ("BH4"), a critical cofactor for production of L-dopa, and Aromatic L-Amino Acid Decarboxylase ("AADC"), the enzyme that converts L-dopa to dopamine. AXO-LENTI-PD is delivered by a one-time stereotactic guided infusion into the putamen. We believe that delivery of all three of these genes will enable the continuous, tonic, endogenous synthesis of dopamine in this region of the brain that is suffering from loss of dopaminergic innervation.
Dopamine deficiency plays a central role in Parkinson’s disease and we believe that restoring the ability to synthesize dopamine in patients will offer lasting improvement in the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Oxford BioMedica previously conducted a Phase 1/2 clinical study with ProSavin (also known as OXB-101), an earlier generation of our AXO-LENTI-PD product candidate. In this clinical trial, ProSavin was observed to have a favorable long-term safety profile and demonstrated effects on motor function for over six years, supporting proof-of-concept. AXO-LENTI-PD delivers a re-engineered transgene construct relative to ProSavin and has been demonstrated to increase dopamine production in nonclinical studies.
Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s disease is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder that primarily results in progressive and debilitating motor symptoms. It is estimated that up to 1,000,000 people in the United States and 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 people worldwide suffer from Parkinson’s disease. It typically develops between the ages of 55 and 65 years and affects approximately 1% of people 60 years of age. The underlying factors that result in the development of Parkinson’s disease are largely unknown. However, Parkinson’s disease is a neurodegenerative disease that results in reduced levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the striatum, a region in the brain responsible for motor control. Dopamine is essential for movement, and low levels of dopamine in patients with Parkinson’s disease are believed to result in the typical motor symptoms of the disease, including hypo- and bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability.
The treatment of Parkinson’s disease is currently limited to symptomatic treatments, as no therapies have proven effective in altering the course of the disease or addressing the underlying pathophysiological processes. The mainstay of treatment typically involves the daily administration of oral L-dopa, the precursor to dopamine. While L-dopa is effective in controlling motor symptoms early in the disease, progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons and chronic L-dopa therapy are believed to contribute to the "wearing off" of L-dopa’s efficacy in the more advanced stages of the disease. Patients become increasingly less responsive to oral L-dopa therapy and require higher doses to manage their symptoms. More advanced Parkinson’s disease patients often begin to experience "on-off" motor fluctuations, characterized by unpredictable "OFF periods" of reduced mobility and increased rigidity and tremor. In addition, abnormal and involuntary movements known as dyskinesias may occur at higher L-dopa blood levels. Approximately 10% of patients per year develop "on-off" motor fluctuations after starting L-dopa therapy.
As Parkinson’s disease progresses, other therapies can be used in combination with L-dopa and include dopamine receptor agonists and inhibitors of enzymes related to dopamine metabolism, such as monoamine oxidase B ("MAO-B") and catechol O-methyl transferase ("COMT"). These therapies aim to further improve overall dopaminergic function. Patient-friendly treatment options for motor fluctuations in advanced Parkinson’s disease are limited. Subcutaneous injections of the dopamine agonist apomorphine are used for the acute treatment of OFF periods. Duopa/Duodopa is an enteral suspension of L-dopa and the peripheral AADC inhibitor carbidopa that is continuously administered over the course of the day through a surgically-placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal ("PEG-J") tube to reduce fluctuations in L-dopa blood levels. Deep-Brain Stimulation ("DBS"), a procedure in which electrodes are surgically placed in the basal ganglia, either in the subthalamic nucleus or internal globus pallidus, is another option in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Through an impulse generator, electrical stimuli are delivered to the brain to modulate neural signals within these target regions. It remains unclear exactly how DBS improves the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Both Duopa/Duodopa and DBS require indwelling hardware - a PEG-J tube, or electrodes, leads, and impulse generator - respectively.
First-Generation Product Candidate: ProSavin (OXB-101)
ProSavin, the first-generation gene therapy candidate to AXO-LENTI-PD, delivered the same three genes (AADC, TH, and CH1) as AXO-LENTI-PD in the same lentiviral vector, but in a less optimized payload configuration. AXO-LENTI-PD was the result of multifactorial experimentation to optimize the payload configuration to improve endogenous dopamine production. The initial Phase 1/2 clinical trial of ProSavin was completed in 2012 and long-term follow-up is ongoing.
Nonclinical Studies for ProSavin
In nonclinical studies in non-human primate models of Parkinson's disease, ProSavin was shown to be well-tolerated, restored striatal dopamine production to approximately 50% of normal levels and corrected motor deficits without associated dyskinesias (p-value<0.05). ProSavin was observed to improve Parkinson's disease symptoms and clinical disease severity in the same non-human primate model, with a durable response seen up to 12 months (p-value<0.05 at all time points beyond week 4). One of the ProSavin treated non-human primates was continued on the study and exhibited a sustained motor improvement until the study was concluded at 44 months. Also, in non-human primate models, treatment with ProSavin plus oral levodopa significantly reduced dyskinesias (p<0.05) compared to an empty vector plus oral levodopa, with effects sustained out to eight weeks. Nonclinical study data did not reveal adverse reactions nor findings with potential impact on patient safety and provided pertinent data on the optimal method of delivery in the clinic. ProSavin was also observed to be well tolerated when co-administered with L-dopa and apomorphine, indicating that it can be used in conjunction with these commonly used Parkinson's disease medications.
In summary, these experiments were determined to demonstrate the long-term safety of therapeutic doses of ProSavin as well as significant efficacy to improve measures of movement and reduce dyskinesias in animal models. These results supported the initiation of clinical trials for ProSavin.
Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial of ProSavin
ProSavin was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a Phase 1/2 study in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease by Oxford BioMedica. In this study, ProSavin was observed to be well-tolerated with sustained improvements on motor function as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale ("UPDRS") Part III (motor) score in the state "OFF" levodopa medication, which we refer to as UPDRS Part III "OFF." The Phase 1/2 clinical trial was conducted at sites in the United Kingdom and France on a total of 15 patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. Three dose levels of ProSavin were assessed in four patient cohorts: Low Dose: 1.9 × 107 transducing units ("TU") in Cohort 1 (n=3); Medium Dose: 4.0 × 107 TU in Cohorts 2a (n=3) and 2b (n=3); High Dose: 1.0 × 108 TU in Cohort 3 (n=6). Cohorts 2b and 3 underwent a modified delivery method to increase the rate of delivery of the viral vector. The primary endpoints were the number and severity of adverse events as well as the UPDRS Part III "OFF" scores at six months after gene therapy administration. No serious adverse events related to ProSavin or the surgical procedure were reported. Reported adverse events were generally mild and related to either Parkinson's disease progression or L-dopa-induced dyskinesias that were ameliorated with reduction of L-dopa administration. The most common adverse events in the first 12 months were dyskinesia (n=11 subjects), "on-off" motor fluctuations (n=9), headache (n=4), and akinesia (n=3).
Across all patients, mean UPDRS Part III "OFF" scores were significantly improved at six months (33% reduction, p-value=0.0001) and 12 months (31% reduction, p-value=0.0001) compared to baseline. In a long term follow up safety study being performed by Oxford BioMedica for the patients from the Phase 1/2 study, ProSavin has been observed to show a favorable long-term safety profile and demonstrated effects on motor function for over six years. Sustained improvement was seen through six years of follow-up and the long-term follow-up study is still ongoing (10 years exposure in the earliest subject). Clinical data from this study were published in The Lancet in 2014 and long-term follow-up data from this study were published in Human Gene Therapy Clinical Development in 2018.
Second-Generation Product Candidate: AXO-LENTI-PD
AXO-LENTI-PD is a re-engineered gene therapy product candidate that was selected following multifactorial experimentation to optimize the payload configuration of ProSavin to improve endogenous dopamine production. The modifications included a different ordering of the genes, the fusion of TH and CH1 with a flexible linker, and the removal of a genetic control element between TH and AADC. We believe these changes lead to more balanced stoichiometry of gene expression and colocalization of enzymatic activity. The targeted net result is improved dopamine production in transduced cells.
Nonclinical Studies for AXO-LENTI-PD
In vitro experiments with AXO-LENTI-PD showed up to 10-fold increases in dopamine + L-dopa production over ProSavin. In vivo experiments in non-human primate models showed increased AADC activity in the brain with AXO-LENTI-PD compared to ProSavin as measured by PET scans. Functionally, in non-human primate models at approximately 1/5th of the dose, AXO-LENTI-PD demonstrated a similar level of improvement in spontaneous locomotor activity compared to ProSavin. We believe these data provide evidence that AXO-LENTI-PD may have greater potency compared to ProSavin in terms of dopamine production, enzymatic activity and functional improvement in animal models of Parkinson's disease.
SUNRISE-PD Phase 2 Clinical Trial of AXO-LENTI-PD
In the fourth quarter of 2018, we initiated the Phase 2 clinical trial of AXO-LENTI-PD, referred to as the SUNRISE-PD study, in the United Kingdom. The SUNRISE-PD study is currently enrolling patients in the United Kingdom, and we plan to file an investigational new drug application (“IND”) with the FDA in the second half of 2019 to support enrollment of patients in the United States.
The design of the SUNRISE-PD study consists of two parts, including a single arm dose-escalation portion studying multiple potential dose levels and a sham-controlled portion with patients randomized either to an active group receiving the optimal dose as determined in the first portion, or a control group receiving an imitation "sham" surgical procedure.
The SUNRISE-PD study is evaluating the safety and tolerability of AXO-LENTI-PD as well as assessing efficacy using clinical measures of motor function, patient diaries and biomarkers. We expect the primary endpoint of the double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled portion of the SUNRISE-PD study will be assessed at 12 months and may include data from Hauser patient diaries and the UPDRS Part III "OFF" scores and other measures being assessed in the study.
In March 2019, we reported three-month data from the first dose cohort in the open-label, dose-escalation portion of the SUNRISE-PD study. Cohort 1 consisted of two patients with advanced Parkinson's disease who received a one-time administration of the lowest dose of AXO-LENTI-PD (4.2 × 106 TU). AXO-LENTI-PD was observed to be generally well-tolerated in Cohort 1, with no serious adverse events reported at three months after administration.
Patients in Cohort 1 experienced an average improvement from baseline in UPDRS, Part III (motor) score, in the state "OFF" levodopa therapy, of 25 points at three months after administration of AXO-LENTI-PD, representing an average improvement of 42% from baseline. Individual patient improvements from baseline at three months of 14 points and 36 points were observed (from 58 to 44 and from 60 to 24, respectively). The UPDRS Part III "OFF" score is a physician-rated scale assessing motor function, ranging from zero to 108, with lower scores indicating improvement. The "OFF" score is assessed after patients are washed out of their oral levodopa therapy, thereby capturing the benefit of therapy without the potentially confounding effect of background medical treatment. The patients experienced an average improvement of 22 points from baseline on the UPDRS Part II (activities of daily living) "OFF" score, and an average improvement of 7 points from baseline on the UPDRS Part IV (complications of therapy) "OFF" score.
Additionally, patient recorded Hauser diaries were collected from the two patients in Cohort 1. Patient diaries are collected over two consecutive days prior to the study visit. The patient is required to complete the diary every 30 minutes which is normalized to a 16 hour wake time. At month three, on average, the patients experienced an improvement from baseline of ON time without dyskinesia of 2.1 hours, a reduction of 2.2 hours in ON time with non-troublesome dyskinesias, a reduction of ON time with troublesome dyskinesias of 1.3 hours, and an increase in OFF time of 1.6 hours. At month three, the average levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was decreased by 208 mg representing an average reduction of 19% from baseline. At month three, the average Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (“PDQ-39”) Summary Index score for the patients in Cohort 1 improved to an average score of 31 points (a reduction of 19 points from baseline), which represents an approximate 37% improvement from baseline.
In June 2019, we reported six-month data from Cohort 1 in the open-label, dose-escalation portion of the SUNRISE-PD Phase 2 study. AXO-LENTI-PD was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events related to the product candidate or the procedure. At month six, the patients experienced an average improvement from baseline in UPDRS III (motor) score, in the state “OFF” levodopa therapy, of 17 points, representing an average improvement of 29% from baseline. Individual patient improvements from baseline at six months of 14 points and 20 points were observed (from 58 to 44 and from 60 to 40, respectively). The patients experienced an average improvement of approximately 20 points from baseline on the UPDRS Part II (activities of daily living) "OFF" score, and an average improvement of 3 points from baseline on the UPDRS Part IV (complications of therapy) "OFF" score.
In addition, at month six the patient recorded Hauser diaries showed, on average, the patients experienced an improvement from baseline of ON time without dyskinesia of 2.7 hours, a reduction of 2.4 hours in ON time with non-troublesome dyskinesias, a reduction of ON time with troublesome dyskinesias of 1.5 hours, and an increase in OFF time of 0.9 hours. At month six, the average LEDD was decreased by 233 mg for patients in Cohort 1. This represents an average reduction of 21% from baseline. At month six, the average PDQ-39 Summary Index score for the patients in Cohort 1 improved to 18 points (a reduction of 32 points from baseline), which represents an approximate 65% improvement from baseline.
We dosed the first patient in the second dose cohort of the SUNRISE-PD clinical study in April 2019 and expect to continue enrollment of patients through the third quarter of 2019. The dose being tested in Cohort 2 is 1.4×107 TU, which is three times higher than the dose used in Cohort 1. We plan to dose a total of up to six patients in Cohort 2, and we expect initial three-month data from Cohort 2 in the fourth quarter of 2019.
AXO-AAV Programs
Overview
We are developing two investigational gene therapy product candidates in our AXO-AAV program, AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2. AXO-AAV-GM1 is being developed as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for GM1 gangliosidosis and AXO-AAV-GM2 is being developed as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease).
GM1 Gangliosidosis, Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff Diseases
GM1 gangliosidosis is a rare, inherited neurodegenerative lysosomal storage disorder characterized by the accumulation of GM1 ganglioside. This accumulation occurs due to a defect in the GLB1 gene. The GLB1 gene codes for the β-gal enzyme which catalyzes the hydrolysis of GM1 gangliosides. Impaired β-gal activity results in the toxic accumulation of GM1 gangliosides, causing the progressive destruction of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord and early death. GM1 gangliosidosis is uniformly fatal, and there are no disease-modifying treatment options. The estimated incidence for GM1 gangliosidosis is approximately one in 100,000 live births worldwide.
Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases are a set of rare, inherited neurodegenerative lysosomal storage disorders characterized by buildup of GM2 ganglioside in lysosomes. Defects in the HEXA gene (leading to Tay-Sachs disease) and HEXB gene (leading to Sandhoff disease) cause deficiencies in Hex A enzyme activity. Hex A enzyme deficiency leads to progressive accumulation of GM2 gangliosides in the CNS with ensuing neurodegeneration. Both Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease are characterized by progressive nervous system dysfunction, resulting in marked cognitive and physical impairment. Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases result in approximately 50% mortality by three and a half years of age and 75% mortality by five years of age. Currently there are no disease-modifying treatment options for Tay-Sachs disease or Sandhoff disease and management is limited to symptomatic treatment. The estimated incidence for Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases is approximately one in 180,000 live births.
We estimate that there are between approximately 600 and 800 patients with GM1 gangliosidosis, Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases in the United States and European Union combined. These diseases, in the severe form, reduce life expectancy to two to four years. The estimated incidence for the combination of GM1 gangliosidosis, Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases is approximately one in 65,000 live births worldwide.
AXO-AAV-GM1
AXO-AAV-GM1 is an investigational gene therapy currently being developed as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for GM1 gangliosidosis. The program utilizes an adeno-associated virus ("AAV") vector to deliver a functional copy of the galactosidase beta 1 ("GLB1") gene with the goals of restoring β-galactosidase ("β-gal") enzyme activity in the central nervous system ("CNS") and reducing GM1 ganglioside accumulation, to ultimately improve neurological function and extend survival. The therapy is administered intravenously and utilizes the AAV9 capsid, which has been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier. Intravenous administration has the potential to broadly transduce the CNS and peripheral tissues, as well as treat peripheral manifestations of the disease. We licensed exclusive worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of AXO-AAV-GM1 from UMMS in December 2018.
Preclinical studies in GM1 murine and feline models have supported AXO-AAV-GM1's ability to improve β-gal enzyme activity, reduce GM1 ganglioside accumulation, improve neuromuscular function, and extend survival. Magnetic resonance imaging of GM1 feline models treated with other GM1 gene therapy demonstrated substantially normal brain architecture through at least two years of age, as compared with untreated GM1 feline models.
AXO-AAV-GM1 is currently being evaluated with the first patient having been dosed in May 2019 under an IND overseen by the National Institutes of Health ("NIH"). We expect initial data from this clinical program in the second half of 2019 and expect continued enrollment of patients in this clinical program throughout 2019.
AXO-AAV-GM2
AXO-AAV-GM2 is an investigational gene therapy that we are developing as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). The AXO-AAV-GM2 program utilizes AAV vectors to deliver functional copies of both the hexosaminidase subunit alpha ("HEXA") gene and the hexosaminidase subunit beta ("HEXB") gene, with the goal of restoring normal beta-hexosaminidase A ("Hex A") enzyme function in the CNS. AXO-AAV-GM2 is administered directly to the brain and utilizes the neurotropic AAVrh.8 capsid. The HEXA and HEXB genes will be delivered in a 1:1 ratio using separate AAvrh.8 vectors. As part of the AXO AAV-GM2 program, we are also exploring a next-generation gene therapy that would utilize a bicistronic vector to deliver both the HEXA and HEXB genes in a single vector using the AAV9 capsid for systemic intravenous administration. We licensed exclusive worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of AXO-AAV-GM2 from the University of Massachusetts Medical School ("UMMS") in December 2018.
Administration of AXO-AAV-GM2 in the Sandhoff mouse model showed increases in Hex A enzyme, reductions of GM2 ganglioside in the brain, and improvements in motor coordination. Extension of survival was also observed in the Sandhoff mouse model, with increases in survival in a dose-dependent manner. The AXO-AAV-GM2 program utilizes AAV vectors to deliver functional copies of both the HEXA gene and the HEXB gene, with the goal of restoring normal Hex A enzyme function in the central nervous system. Patients with infantile Tay-Sachs disease, late-infantile or juvenile disease, and adult disease have been shown to have less than 0.1%, approximately 0.5%, and between 2% and 4% of normal Hex A activity, respectively. In addition, patients with infantile Tay-Sachs disease, late-infantile or juvenile disease, and adult disease have a median survival of three to four, 10 to 15, and over 18 years respectively. Hex A activity of between 5% and 10% or more of normal is believed to be compatible with a disease-free life. Restoration of Hex A activity to 0.5% of normal activity could represent a clinically meaningful effect.
AXO-AAV-GM2 is currently being evaluated with the first patient having been dosed in November 2018 under an investigator-initiated IND overseen by UMMS. In March 2019, we reported three-month data from the first patient, a 30-month-old with advanced infantile Tay-Sachs disease, who received a total dose of 1.0 × 1014 vg of AXO-AAV-GM2 administered into the cisterna magna (75% of vector) and lumbar spinal canal (25% of vector) only. Due to the patient's advanced disease, a co-delivered intrathalamic injection of AXO-AAV-GM2 was not administered. Future patients in the program, who are expected to be treated earlier in their disease course, will receive AXO-AAV-GM2 co-delivered into the thalamus bilaterally as well as into the cisterna magna and spinal canal.
Hex A activity was determined using the 4MUGS assay, the standard assay for assessing activity of the enzyme. At baseline, the patient's enzyme activity in the cerebrospinal fluid ("CSF") was 0.46% of normal. At three months, there was an apparent increase in enzyme activity in the CSF to 1.44% of normal, an increase surpassing the 0.5% threshold that could represent a clinically important effect. Serum Hex A enzyme activity was also increased from baseline (0.21% of normal) at all time points measured (0.45% of normal at three months) following administration of AXO-AAV-GM2. Additional independent assays and samplings demonstrated a reduction of approximately 25% in GM2 ganglioside from baseline in the cerebral spinal fluid ("CSF"). This suggests that the approximately 3-fold increase from baseline in β-Hexosaminidase A enzyme activity in the CSF is associated with a decrease in GM2 ganglioside, which accumulates in Tay-Sachs disease patients and is believed to cause disease progression.
AXO-AAV-GM2 was observed to be generally well-tolerated with no serious adverse events reported as of the three-month visit. No clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities were observed following treatment. The patient's clinical condition was stable from baseline to month three without clinical deterioration observed on neurological exam. In addition, there was no significant deterioration in the condition observed from pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") of the brain at baseline to post-treatment MRI at month three.
We expect to enroll patients in a multi-subject clinical trial in the second half of 2019.
Our Key Agreements
Oxford BioMedica License Agreement
In June 2018, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, pursuant to which we received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Oxford BioMedica to develop and commercialize AXO-LENTI-PD and related gene therapy products for all diseases and conditions. In June 2018, as partial consideration for the license, we made an upfront payment to Oxford BioMedica of $30.0 million, $5.0 million of which was applied as a credit against the process development work and clinical supply that Oxford BioMedica is obligated to provide to us over the term of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. Under the terms of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, we could be obligated to make payments to Oxford BioMedica totaling up to $55.0 million upon the achievement of specified development milestones and $757.5 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory and sales milestones. We will also be obligated to pay Oxford BioMedica a tiered royalty from 7% to 10%, based on yearly aggregate net sales of the underlying gene therapy products, subject to specified reductions upon the occurrence of certain events as set forth in the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. These royalties are required to be paid, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest to occur of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such product in such country, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.
We are solely responsible, at our expense, for all activities related to the development and commercialization of the gene therapy products. Pursuant to the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval of, and commercialize a gene therapy product in the United States and at least one major market country in Europe. In addition, we are required to meet certain diligence milestones and to include at least one U.S.-based clinical trial site in a pivotal study of a gene therapy product. If we fail to meet any of these specified development milestones, we may cure such failure by paying Oxford BioMedica certain fees, which range from $0.5 million to $1.0 million. Pursuant to the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, Oxford BioMedica will be our cGMP manufacturer for AXO-LENTI-PD, subject to a separate clinical and commercial supply agreement to be negotiated between the parties.
Benitec Biopharma License and Collaboration Agreement
In July 2018, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into the Benitec Agreement, pursuant to which we received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Benitec to develop and commercialize investigational gene therapy AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy products (collectively, the "AXO-AAV-OPMD Program") for all diseases and conditions.
Under the Benitec Agreement, we also collaborated with Benitec on five additional research plans ("Collaboration Programs") for other genetic neurological or neuromuscular disorders using Benitec technologies. We received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Benitec to develop and commercialize products arising from each Collaboration Program.
Under the terms of the Benitec Agreement, we made an upfront payment of $10.0 million. In addition, we would have been obligated to make payments to Benitec totaling up to (i) for the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, $67.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $120.0 million upon the achievement of specified sales milestones, and (ii) for each Collaboration Program, $33.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $60.0 million upon the achievement of specified sales milestones. Benitec would have received 30% of net profits of our world-wide sales of products from the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, subject to an agreed minimum amount for such payments. This profit-sharing payment was to be made for so long as we or our affiliates or sublicensees commercialize such products. We would have also paid Benitec a tiered royalty based on yearly aggregate net sales of products arising from each Collaboration Program, subject to specified reductions upon the occurrence of certain events as set forth in the Benitec Agreement. These royalties would have been required to be paid, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest to occur of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such product in such country, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country, or ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.
Under the Benitec Agreement, Benitec performed certain research activities for each Collaboration Program and development and manufacturing activities for the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, and we reimburse Benitec for its costs incurred, in accordance with an agreed-upon research and development plan and budget. We were solely responsible, at our expense, for all other activities related to the research, development and commercialization of products from the Collaboration Programs and the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program. The $10.0 million upfront nonrefundable payment paid to Benitec was recorded as research and development expense in our consolidated statements of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. Additionally, we incurred $4.6 million of AXO-AAV-OPMD program-specific costs within research and development expenses in our consolidated statement of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. During the year ended March 31, 2019, we paid a total of $12.1 million to Benitec, including the upfront nonrefundable payment.
In June 2019, we notified Benitec of our intention to terminate the Benitec Agreement in its entirety. The termination of the Benitec Agreement will be effective on September 3, 2019, the 90th day following the date of our notice of termination. Upon the effective date of the termination of the Benitec Agreement, all rights and licenses granted to us thereunder will cease, including our rights to AXO-AAV-OPMD, which was in preclinical development for the treatment of oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, and all other early-stage research collaboration programs. No termination penalties are to be incurred by us in connection with the termination of the Benitec Agreement.
The University of Massachusetts Medical School Exclusive License Agreement
In December 2018, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into an exclusive license agreement (the "UMMS Agreement") with UMMS pursuant to which we received a worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patent applications and any patents issuing therefrom, biological materials and know-how controlled by UMMS to develop and commercialize gene therapy product candidates, including AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). This license is exclusive with respect to patents and biological materials and non-exclusive with respect to know-how and is subject to UMMS' retained rights for academic research, teaching and non-commercial patient care purposes, as well as to certain pre-existing rights of the U.S. government.
Under the UMMS Agreement, we are solely responsible, at our expense, for the research, development and commercialization of the licensed product candidates. We will reimburse UMMS for payments made by UMMS for the manufacture of clinical trial materials for us, up to a specified amount. We are obligated to use diligent efforts to develop and commercialize the licensed product candidates and are required to achieve certain development and commercial milestones in accordance with the timeline set forth in the agreement.
Under the terms of the UMMS Agreement, we made an upfront payment of $10.0 million. In addition, we could be obligated to make payments to UMMS totaling up to $24.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $39.8 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. We are also obligated to pay UMMS tiered mid-single digit royalties based on yearly net sales of the licensed products, subject to a specified annual minimum amount. Additionally, we will pay UMMS a percent of any revenues we receive from any third-party sublicenses to licensed products at rates ranging in the mid-single digits to mid-teens.
The UMMS Agreement will expire upon the expiration of our obligations to make royalty payments to UMMS, which continues until the later of the expiration of licensed patents and any applicable orphan designation exclusivity and 10 years after the first commercial sale of the licensed products. Upon such expiration, the licenses granted to us by UMMS will automatically convert to perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide royalty-free licenses. We have the right to terminate the UMMS Agreement at any time upon 90 days' advance written notice to UMMS. Either party may terminate the UMMS Agreement for the other party's uncured material breach upon 60 days' advance written notice, including in the event that UMMS reasonably determines we have not fulfilled our diligence obligations.
Services Agreements with Roivant Sciences, Inc. and Roivant Sciences GmbH
In October 2014, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, Axovant Sciences, Inc. ("ASI"), entered into a services agreement with Roivant Sciences, Inc. ("RSI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of RSL, pursuant to which RSI provides us with services in relation to the identification of potential product candidates and project management of clinical trials, as well as other services related to our development, administrative and financial functions. In February 2017, in connection with the contribution and assignment of all of our intellectual property rights to ASG, we amended and restated this services agreement effective as of December 13, 2016, as a result of which ASG was added as a recipient of services from RSI. In addition, ASG also entered into a separate services agreement with Roivant Sciences GmbH ("RSG"), a wholly owned subsidiary of RSL, effective as of December 13, 2016, for the provision of services by RSG to ASG in relation to the identification of potential product candidates and project management of clinical trials, as well as other services related to development, administrative and financial activities. Both services agreements were further amended and restated in June 2019. Under the terms of both services agreements, we are obligated to pay or reimburse RSI and RSG for the costs they, or third parties acting on their behalf, incur in providing services to us or ASG, including administrative and support services as well as research and development services. In addition, we are obligated to pay RSI and RSG for their services at a predetermined mark-up on the costs incurred directly by RSI and RSG in connection with any general and administrative and research and development services provided directly by RSI and RSG. Under the services agreement, RSI and RSG, respectively, as service providers, have agreed to indemnify us and each of our officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the provision of services (or the failure to provide services) under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify RSI and RSG, respectively, and their respective affiliates and officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the receipt of services under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. Such indemnification obligations will not exceed the payments made by us under the applicable services agreement for the specific service that allegedly caused or was related to the losses during the period in which such alleged losses were incurred. The term of each of the services agreements will continue until terminated upon 90 days’ written notice by any party with respect to the services such party provides or receives thereunder.
Under the services agreements, we incurred expenses of $5.1 million and $8.5 million and for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, inclusive of the mark-up, which includes a portion of the expenses incurred by RSI and RSL on behalf of us that have been treated as capital contributions.
Manufacturing
We currently do not own or operate facilities for product manufacturing but work with third parties and our license partners to manufacture our program materials. We have hired experienced personnel and continue to build a team with gene therapy product formulation and manufacturing expertise.
For the AXO-LENTI-PD program, we rely on inventory transferred to us under the Oxford Biomedica Agreement to support our ongoing Phase 2 study. We anticipate that future clinical and commercial supply for the AXO-LENTI-PD program will be manufactured by Oxford BioMedica in accordance with separate clinical and commercial supply agreements. As set forth in the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, such clinical and commercial supply agreements will contain certain key provisions, including the pricing structure and our ability to transfer the technology to another manufacturer at any time following the completion of formal process characterization, process validation or BLA submission.
The UMMS Agreement provides that UMMS will supply material manufactured at Nationwide Children's Hospital to support the AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 Phase 1/2 clinical studies. We will evaluate manufacturers for the supply of material to support our remaining clinical studies and potential commercialization.
Manufacturing of any product candidate is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, which govern recordkeeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance, among others.
Competition
We consider our most direct competitor with respect to AXO-LENTI-PD to be Voyager Therapeutics, which is developing VY-AADC, a gene therapy product candidate for the treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease. VY-AADC delivers the AADC gene, one of the three genes contained in AXO-LENTI-PD, via an adeno-associated virus (an "AAV virus-based vector"). Voyager began a Phase 2 study in June 2018. Agilis Biotherapeutics, which was acquired by PTC Therapeutics, is developing AGIL-AADC, another AAV virus-based vector gene therapy that delivers the AADC gene, for the treatment of AADC deficiency, a rare disorder that involves loss of AADC gene function. In addition, DBS is approved for treating Parkinson’s disease and is marketed by multiple device manufacturers, including Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific. DBS treatment involves permanent placement of hardware in the brain via stereotactic neurosurgery and may require follow-up adjustments or even invasive device replacements. Another surgical approach is Abbvie’s Duopa which is delivered via a port implanted in the abdominal wall. Further efforts are also underway to develop and commercialize new improved formulations of L-dopa, including Acorda’s Inbrija, for which an NDA was approved by the FDA in December 2018, and Mitsubishi Tanabe’s ND0612. Adjunct therapies are also being developed or have recently been approved to supplement L-dopa therapy, including Sunovion’s sublingual apopmorphine and Adamas Pharmaceuticals’ GoCovri. Several companies are also trying to develop other disease modifying therapies that could prevent the progression of Parkinson’s disease. Examples of these early stage efforts include Denali Therapeutics’ LRRK2 inhibitors and anti-alpha synuclein antibodies from Prothena/Roche and Biogen, as well as Prevail Therapeutics’ pipeline of AAV-based therapeutics targeting lysosomal dysfunction.
We are unaware of any directly competing commercialized product or clinical-stage product candidate with respect to either AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2 other than LYS-GM101, a gene therapy product candidate being developed by Lysogene S.A., as well as a preclinical gene therapy program being developed by Passage Bio, each for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis.
Drug development is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. Our ability to compete will depend upon our ability to complete necessary clinical trials and regulatory approval processes, and effectively market any product that we may successfully develop. Our current and potential future competitors include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and government agencies. The primary competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of any product candidate for which we may receive marketing approval include efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, dosing convenience, price, coverage and reimbursement. Many of our existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have significantly more experience commercializing products that have been approved for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.
Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and in achieving widespread market acceptance of their products. It is also possible that the development of a cure or more effective treatment method for Parkinson's disease, GM1 and GM2 by a competitor could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete or reduce the demand for our product candidates before we can recover our development and commercialization expenses.
Intellectual Property
Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our current gene therapy product candidates, any of our future product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies and other know-how. Our commercial success also depends on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and our ability to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing and acquisition opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.
While we seek broad coverage under our existing patent applications, there is always a risk that an alteration to the process of obtaining patents or changes to the patent law in the United States or elsewhere may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to challenge or avoid infringement of our patents. In addition, patents, if granted, expire and we cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending applications or any future applications or that any future issued patents will adequately protect our intellectual property or cover our product candidates.
Individual patents are valid for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal patent term in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from regularly filed applications in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent's term can be extended via Patent Term Adjustment ("PTA") to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (the "USPTO") delay in issuing the patent as well as via Patent Term Extension ("PTE") to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the PTE period can be applied to only one patent per approved product, cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the PTE period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval of an NDA or BLA. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product by product basis, on a claim by claim basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. The patent term of a European patent is 20 years from its filing date; however, unlike in the United States, a European patent is not granted PTA for delays at the European Patent Office. However, the European Union does have a compensation program similar to the U.S.’s PTE called Supplementary Patent Certificate ("SPC") that would effectively extend patent protection for up to five years on one patent and the total patent term including the SPC must not exceed 15 years following the EMA granting of marketing authorization. Other major markets, including Japan, have similar patent term extension provisions and, if eligible, we intend to seek patent term extensions in those countries that have such programs.
In June 2018, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into the Oxford BioMedica Agreement with Oxford BioMedica. Pursuant to the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, we received from Oxford BioMedica a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Oxford BioMedica to develop and commercialize certain lentiviral-based gene therapy products for all diseases and conditions. Oxford BioMedica is prohibited from granting licenses to third parties to develop, commercialize, or distribute such lentiviral-based gene therapy products. The licensed IP includes issued U.S. and foreign patents and pending U.S. and foreign patent applications that cover compositions of matter as well as methods of making and using AXO-LENTI-PD in major markets, including the United States, Japan, China, India, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These patents and applications, if issued, include patent families that expired starting at the end of 2018, with the projected last to expire in October of 2032 (not taking into account any PTA or PTE, which may potentially be obtained in the future). New patent application filings would provide patent coverage out to at least 2040, if a patent issues. A U.S. composition of matter patent relevant to AXO-LENTI-PD naturally expires in 2023 inclusive of PTA, and we expect an allowed application to issue as a patent that will expire in 2032 (not taking into account any PTA or PTE, which may potentially be obtained in the future). Depending on certain factors, the term of a patent covering an approved product may be extended by up to five years with PTE.
In December 2018, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into the UMMS Agreement with UMMS. Pursuant to the UMMS Agreement, we received from UMMS a worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patent applications and any patents issuing therefrom, and other intellectual property controlled by UMMS to develop and commercialize gene therapy product candidates, including AXO-AAV-GM1 for treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis and AXO-AAV-GM2 for treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). This license is exclusive with respect to patents and biological materials and non-exclusive with respect to know-how, and is subject to UMMS’ retained rights for academic research, teaching and non-commercial patient care purposes, as well as to certain pre-existing rights of the U.S. government. The licensed IP includes pending U.S. and foreign patent applications directed to compositions of matter as well as methods of using AXO-AAV-GM1 and/or AXO-AAV-GM2.
Furthermore, we rely upon trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part by using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with selected partners and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by our employees or through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or our product candidate(s) or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our gene therapy product candidate(s) may have an adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we believe we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority and/or inventorship of an invention.
Government Regulation
In the United States, pharmaceutical and biological products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), and the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA"). The FDCA, PHSA, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending BLAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.
We cannot market a biological product, including gene therapy product candidates which are regulated as biologics, in the United States until the product candidate has received FDA approval. The steps required before a new biologic may be marketed in the United States generally include the following:
•
completion of extensive nonclinical laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies in accordance with the FDA's Good Laboratory Practice ("GLP") regulations;
•
submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with Good Clinical Practice ("GCP") requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication;
•
submission to the FDA of a BLA, in the case of biological product candidates including gene therapy product candidates, after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;
•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of sites involved in our clinical trials;
•
satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") and finished product are produced and tested to assess compliance with cGMPs; and
•
FDA review and approval of the BLA prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the product in the United States.
Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.
Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of nonclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term nonclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.
A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. If the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trial, such as whether human research subjects will be exposed to an unreasonable health risk, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new biologic to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in compliance with federal regulations, including GCP requirements, as well as under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board ("IRB") for approval at each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB's requirements, or may impose other conditions.
U.S. Biological Products Development Process
Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.
Where a gene therapy study is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving funding from the NIH for recombinant DNA research, the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules ("NIH Guidelines") are mandatory, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. An institutional biosafety committee ("IBC"), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution, assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. Annual reporting of clinical trial data including safety information also is required.
The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical 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. Some nonclinical testing typically continues after the IND is submitted. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA requests certain changes to a protocol before the study can begin, or the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. 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 studies.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic (or both) nucleic acid molecules performed at or sponsored by an institution that receives any NIH funding for such research also must be reviewed by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
•
Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. Guidelines on clinical trials with gene therapy products issued by the FDA's Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies state that the FDA has determined that the benefit-risk ratio of these products does not warrant their evaluation in healthy human subjects.
•
Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.
•
Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of trial subjects.
During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics, regulated as biologics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval. The NIH and the FDA have a publicly accessible database, the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System which includes information on gene transfer studies and serves as an electronic tool to facilitate the reporting and analysis of adverse events on these studies.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA, must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act ("PREA"), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended ("PDUFA"), each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for product candidates designated as orphan drugs, unless the product candidate also includes a non-orphan indication.
Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The application also needs to be published and submitted in an electronic format that can be processed through the FDA’s electronic systems. If the electronic submission is not compatible with FDA’s systems, the BLA can be refused to file. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS"), is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.
Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. As a condition for approval, the FDA may also require additional nonclinical testing as a Phase 4 commitment.
One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA is to review standard BLAs in 10 months from filing and priority BLAs in six months from filing, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.
Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Following approval, the manufacturing facilities are subject to biennial inspections by the FDA’s biologics team and such inspections may result in an issuance of FDA Form 483 deficiency observations or a warning letter, which can lead to plant shutdown and other more serious penalties and fines. Prior to the institution of any manufacturing changes, a determination needs to be made whether FDA approval is required in advance. If not done in accordance with FDA expectations, the FDA may restrict supply and may take further action. Annual product reports are required to be submitted annually. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. Systems need to be put in place to record and evaluate adverse events reported by health care providers and patients and to assess product complaints. An increase in severity or new adverse events can result in labeling changes or product recall. Defects in manufacturing of commercial products can result in product recalls.
We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as "off-label use"), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval or license revocation, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.
Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.
Market and Data Exclusivity
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Additional guidance is expected to be finalized by FDA in the near term.
Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is "biosimilar to" or "interchangeable with" a previously approved biological product or "reference product." In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the FDA must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.
Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. The BPCIA also requires a 180-day notice of commercial marketing. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own nonclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed "interchangeable" by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.
Foreign Regulation
In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign countries and jurisdictions. Although many of the issues discussed above with respect to the United States apply similarly in the context of the European Union, the approval process varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.
To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biological product under European Union ("EU") regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product.
The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization ("MAA") granted by the European Commission that is valid across the EEA (i.e., the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated orphan medicines and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used in certain other cases. Therefore, the centralized procedure would be mandatory for the products we are developing.
The Committee for Advanced Therapies ("CAT") is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CAT is primarily responsible for the scientific evaluation of ATMPs and prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of each ATMP for which a marketing authorization application is submitted. The CAT’s opinion is then taken into account by the CHMP when giving its final recommendation regarding the authorization of a product in view of the balance of benefits and risks identified. Although the CAT’s draft opinion is submitted to the CHMP for final approval, the CHMP may depart from the draft opinion, if it provides detailed scientific justification. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs and have published numerous guidelines, including specific guidelines on gene therapies and cell therapies. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a marketing authorization application; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long-term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs. Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates.
Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days. This excludes so-called clock stops, during which additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. At the end of the review period, the CHMP provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this is opinion favorable, the Commission may then adopt a decision to grant an MA. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of an MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). This is usually when the product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation.
EU Data and Marketing Exclusivity
The European Union also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Marketing authorization applications for generic medicinal products do not need to include the results of preclinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data included in the marketing authorization of a reference product for which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. In the European Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The two-year period may be extended to three years if during the first eight years a new therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over existing therapies is approved. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.
There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing processes. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided, and guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product. There are no such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the European Union. However, guidance from the EMA states that they will be considered in the future in light of the scientific knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the time.
EU Orphan Medicinal Products
Products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive ten years of market exclusivity. During the ten-year market exclusivity period, the EMA cannot accept another application for a marketing authorization or grant a marketing authorization or accept an application to extend an existing marketing authorization, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar medicinal product. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.
The criteria for designating an "orphan medicinal product" in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the MAA. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, an MAA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:
•
the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior;
•
the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or
•
the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.
EU Pediatric Investigation Plan
In the EMA, MAAs for new medicinal products not authorized have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan ("PIP") agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee ("PDCO"). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which an MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU Member States and trial results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-months supplementary protection certificate extension.
EU Post-Approval Controls
The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports ("PSURs").
All new MAAs must include a risk management plan ("RMP") describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions.
All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the European Union. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each EU Member State and can differ from one country to another.
EU Pricing and Reimbursement
Governments influence the price of medicinal products in the European Union through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.
Other Healthcare Laws
Although we currently do not have any products on the market, our current and future business operations may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting and physician sunshine laws. Some of our pre-commercial activities are subject to some of these laws.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term "remuneration" has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced-price items and services. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute's intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, and can also result in criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs.
Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Affordable Care Act, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.
The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to "cause" the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, certain of our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes.
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud statutes under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act ("HITECH") and their implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA's security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. At present, it is unclear if we would be considered a business associate subject to HIPAA based on our business activities and service offerings upon the commercialization of a product. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney's fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state and foreign laws, regulations, standards and regulatory guidance govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties.
The Affordable Care Act, through the enactment of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, imposes, among other things, new annual reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties.
Many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures as well as state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Additionally, to the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.
Because we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we will continue to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal control and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of violating these laws, and the subsequent investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
We are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended ("FCPA"). The FCPA prohibits U.S. companies and their representatives from processing, offering, or making payments of money or anything of value to foreign officials with the intent to obtain or retain business or seek a business advantage. In certain countries, the health care professionals we regularly interact with may meet the definition of a foreign government official for the purposes of the FCPA. Our international activities create the risk of unauthorized payments or offers of payments by our employees, consultants and agents, even though they may not always be subject to our control. We discourage these practices by our employees, consultants, and agents. However, our existing safeguards may prove to be less than effective, and our employees, consultants, and agents may engage in conduct for which we might be held responsible. Recently, there has been a substantial increase in anti-bribery law enforcement activity by U.S. regulators, with more frequent and aggressive investigations and enforcement activity by both the Department of Justice and the SEC. A determination that our operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with U.S. or foreign laws or regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines, interruptions of business, loss of suppliers, vendor or other third-party relationships, termination of necessary licenses or permits, and legal or equitable sanctions. Other internal or governmental investigations or legal or regulatory proceedings, including lawsuits brought by private litigants, may also follow as a consequence.
Other Applicable Laws
We are subject to a variety of financial disclosure and securities trading regulations, both in the United States and in other jurisdictions in which we operate, as a public company in the U.S., including laws relating to the oversight activities of the SEC and the regulations of the Nasdaq Global Select Market, on which our common shares are traded.
We are also subject to various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including those related to safe working conditions, and the storage, transportation, or discharge of items that may be considered hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or environmental contaminants.
In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.
We are also subject to or affected by federal, state and foreign privacy, security and data protection laws, regulations, standards and regulatory guidance that govern the collection, use, disclosure, retention, security and transfer of personal data. Our operations extend to countries around the world, and many of these jurisdictions have established privacy legal frameworks with which we, our customers or our vendors must comply.
Healthcare Reform
In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. There have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs.
In particular, the Affordable Care Act has had, and is expected to continue to have, a significant impact on the healthcare industry. The Affordable Care Act was designed to expand coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the Affordable Care Act revises the definition of "average manufacturer price" ("AMP") for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices and imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import certain branded prescription drug products. In January 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, effective April 1, 2016, that, among other things, revises the manner in which the AMP is to be calculated by manufacturers participating in the program and implements certain amendments to the Medicaid rebate statute created under the Affordable Care Act. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance have also been enacted, which may require us to modify our business practices with healthcare providers and entities, and a significant number of provisions are not yet, or have only recently become, effective.
Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by the current administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, since January 2017, the President has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act were signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." Additionally, on January 22, 2018, the President signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain Affordable Care Act -mandated fees, including the so-called "Cadillac" tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the "donut hole," and increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in the Medicare Part D program. There may be additional challenges and amendments to the Affordable Care Act in the future. The Affordable Care Act is likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.
Further, there has been heightened government scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed pharmaceutical products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, on May 11, 2018, the President of the United States laid out his administration’s "Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs" to reduce the cost of prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The Department of Health and Human Services has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same time, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. Although some of these and other proposals will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the U.S. presidential administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
It is uncertain whether and how future legislation, whether domestic or foreign, could affect prospects for our product candidates or what actions foreign, federal, state, or private payors for health care treatment and services may take in response to any such health care reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of price controls and other cost-containment measures and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures reforms may prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.
Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, among others, related to product tracking and tracing, which is being phased in over several years beginning in 2015. Among the requirements of this new legislation, manufacturers will be required to provide certain information regarding the drug product to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, label drug product with a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding the drug product. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers will eventually be required to be done electronically. Manufacturers will also be required to verify that purchasers of the manufacturers' products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this new legislation, manufacturers will have drug product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Sales of our products, if and when approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government healthcare programs, private health insurers and managed care organizations. Third-party payors generally decide which drugs they will cover and establish certain reimbursement levels for such drugs. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government (through the Medicare or Medicaid programs) provides reimbursement for such treatments. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Sales of our product candidates, and those of any future product candidate, will therefore depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates, and those of any future product candidate, will be paid by third-party payors. Additionally, the market for our product candidates, and those of any future product candidate, will depend significantly on access to third-party payors' formularies without prior authorization, step therapy, or other limitations such as approved lists of treatments for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for therapeutic products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor's decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will likely be a time-consuming process.
Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs and challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs (including drug prices) has become a priority of federal and state governments. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution by generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products once approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our products once approved or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our products could reduce or eliminate utilization of our products and have an adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, state and federal healthcare reform measures have been and will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products once approved or additional pricing pressures.
Employees
As of May 31, 2019, we had 57 full-time employees. Our and ASI's employees are not represented by any collective bargaining unit, and we believe our relations with our employees are good.
Corporate Information
We are an exempted limited company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda on October 31, 2014 under the name Roivant Neurosciences Ltd. We changed our name to Axovant Sciences Ltd. in March 2015 and to Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. ("AGT") in March 2019. We have seven wholly owned subsidiaries. Axovant Holdings Limited, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AGT, was incorporated in England and Wales in August 2016; Axovant Sciences, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Holdings Limited, was incorporated in Delaware in February 2015; Axovant Sciences GmbH, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Holdings Limited, was organized in Switzerland in August 2016; Axovant Sciences America, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Holdings Limited, was incorporated in Delaware in July 2017; Axovant Treasury Holdings, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd., was incorporated in Delaware in March 2018; Axovant Treasury, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Treasury Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in March 2018; and Axovant Sciences Europe Limited, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Axovant Holdings Limited, was incorporated in Ireland in December 2018. Our principal executive office is located at Suite 1, 3rd Floor, 11-12 St. James's Square, London, United Kingdom SW1Y 4LB, and our telephone number is +44 203 997 8931. We also have business operations in Basel, Switzerland and New York, New York. Our common shares are currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “AXGT.”
Available Information
Our website is www.axovant.com. The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our website address is included in this document as an inactive textual reference only. We make our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this report titled "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this report occurs, our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed and the trading price of our common shares could decline. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this report. See the section of this report titled "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements".
Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Position and Capital Requirements
We have a limited operating history and have never generated any product revenues.
We are a clinical-stage gene-therapy company with a limited operating history. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, acquiring product candidates and advancing our product candidates into clinical development. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete a registration-enabling pivotal clinical trial, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.
In addition, the failure of our clinical trials for, and the discontinuation of development of, intepirdine and nelotanserin has required us to reevaluate our business and led to dramatic shifts in our strategy and business plan. Our new strategy and business plan have not yet been proven and we may never be successful in developing or commercializing any of our gene therapy product candidates, including our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates, which remain in early stages of clinical development.
Our ability to generate revenue and become profitable depends upon our ability to successfully complete the development of our product candidates and to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for their commercialization. We have never been profitable, have not generated any revenue from product sales, and have no products approved for commercial sale.
Even if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, we do not know when those candidates will generate revenue, if at all. Our ability to generate product revenue depends on a number of factors, including our ability to:
•
successfully commence and complete clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for the marketing of our gene therapy product candidates;
•
establish effective sales, marketing and distribution systems for our gene therapy product candidates;
•
add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our clinical, manufacturing and planned future commercialization efforts and operations as a public company;
•
initiate and continue relationships with third-party suppliers and manufacturers, including Oxford BioMedica (UK) Ltd. ("Oxford BioMedica"), Nationwide Children's Hospital and other third-party cGMP manufacturers, and have clinical and commercial quantities of our gene therapy product candidates manufactured at acceptable cost and quality levels;
•
attract and retain an experienced management and advisory team;
•
raise additional funds when needed and on terms acceptable to us;
•
achieve broad market acceptance of our products in the medical community and with third-party payors and consumers;
•
launch commercial sales of our products, whether alone or in collaboration with others;
•
compete effectively with other biotechnology and gene therapy companies targeting neurological diseases; and
•
obtain, maintain, expand and protect necessary intellectual property rights.
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, European Medicines Agency ("EMA") Japan’s Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency ("PMDA") or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with their commercial launch. If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed, and your investment will be adversely affected.
We are in the process of implementing a business plan that may continue to evolve as we integrate our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates. Our business plan may lead to the initiation of one or more development programs, the discontinuation of one or more development programs, or the execution of one or more transactions that you do not agree with or that you do not perceive as favorable to your investment.
Throughout 2018, we undertook a process of reviewing our strategic alternatives following the discontinuation of further development of our former product candidates, including identifying potential business development opportunities. In June 2018, we announced that we received from Oxford BioMedica a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize AXO-LENTI-PD and its predecessor product candidate ProSavin and related gene therapy products. In July 2018, we announced that we received from Benitec a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize investigational gene therapy AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy products. In December 2018, we announced that we had received from UMMS a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize gene therapy product candidates AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2. We initially plan to pursue a strategy to leverage our clinical experience and expertise to pursue the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates. As part of our ongoing business strategy, we continue to explore potential opportunities to acquire or license new product candidates and to collaborate on our existing products in development.
We cannot be certain that our newly licensed product candidates will be successfully developed, or that the early clinical trial results of these product candidates will be predictive of future clinical trial results. For example, in June 2019, we decided to terminate the Benitec Agreement following our decision to no longer pursue development of AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy product candidates. In addition, we have limited data from small, uncontrolled clinical trials, performed by or on behalf of Oxford BioMedica, regarding the safety and tolerability of ProSavin, as the predecessor product candidate to AXO-LENTI-PD, in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, as well as nonclinical in vitro experiments with AXO-LENTI-PD. Prior ProSavin trials were not powered to demonstrate the efficacy of the therapy with statistical significance. Given the information above, these trials could be underpowered to demonstrate a potential clinical benefit for AXO-LENTI-PD in these indications.
This business plan requires us to be successful in a number of challenging, uncertain and risky activities, including pursuing development of our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates in indications for which we have limited or no human clinical data, designing and executing a nonclinical and/or clinical development program for our newly licensed product candidates, building internal or outsourced gene therapy capabilities, converting early stage gene therapy research efforts into clinical development opportunities, identifying additional promising new assets for development that are available for acquisition or in-license and that fit our strategic focus and identifying potential partners to collaborate on our products. We may not be successful at one or more of the activities required for us to execute this business plan. In addition, we are also continuing to consider other strategic alternatives, such as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, partnerships and collaborations. We cannot be sure when or if any type of transaction will result. Even if we pursue a transaction, such transaction may not be consistent with our shareholders’ expectations or may not ultimately be favorable for our shareholders, either in the shorter or longer term.
Our growth prospects and the future value of our company are primarily dependent on the progress of our ongoing and planned clinical development programs for our product candidates as well as the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities, together with the amount of our remaining available cash. The development of our product candidates and the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities are highly uncertain.
We expect to continue to reassess and make changes to our existing development programs and pipeline expansion strategy. Our plans for our development programs may be affected by the results of competitors’ clinical trials of product candidates addressing our current target indications, and our business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities may also be affected by the results of competitors' ongoing research and development efforts. We may modify, expand or terminate some or all of our development programs, clinical trials or collaborative research programs at any time as a result of new competitive information or as the result of changes to our product pipeline or business development strategy.
We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability. Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
Investment in pharmaceutical and biological product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We have never generated any revenues, and we cannot estimate with precision the extent of our future losses. We do not currently have any products that are available for commercial sale and we may never generate revenue from selling products or achieve profitability. We expect to continue to incur substantial and increasing losses through the projected commercialization of our product candidates. Our product candidates have not been approved for marketing in the United States or any other jurisdiction, and we may never receive any such approvals. We are uncertain when or if we will achieve profitability and, if so, whether we will be able to sustain it. Our ability to produce revenue and achieve profitability is dependent on our ability to complete the development of our newly licensed product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory approvals, and have our product candidates manufactured and successfully marketed and commercialized. We cannot assure you that we will be profitable even if we successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we do successfully obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of competitors in such markets, the accepted price for our product candidates and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, even if approved. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common shares and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.
We expect our research and development expenses to be significant as we develop our gene therapy product candidates. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur increased sales and marketing expenses. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future. These losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our financial position and working capital.
Our independent registered public accounting firm has issued a going concern opinion on our consolidated financial statements for the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2019 were issued, which have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern. We have not made any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the possible inability of us to continue as a going concern. We will need to raise additional capital when needed, or adjust our operational plans to continue as a going concern. We continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete our currently planned development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and acquire additional gene therapy product candidates, or to enter into collaborations or strategic alliances for the development and commercialization of any such future product candidates.
Part of our strategy involves the business development activities of identifying and acquiring novel product candidates. The process by which we identify product candidates may fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including those discussed in these risk factors and also:
•
pre-clinical and early clinical results of any product candidates we acquire may not be predictive of future clinical results;
•
potential product candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance; or
•
potential product candidates may not be effective in treating their targeted diseases.
In addition, the process of identifying and acquiring product candidates is highly competitive, and our ability to compete successfully is impacted by the fact that many of the companies with which we compete for these candidates have significantly greater experience, development and commercialization capabilities, name recognition and financial and human resources than we do. Further, our business development efforts are led by our senior executive officers and other management team members and would be significantly impaired if we were to lose the services of any of these executives. The time and resources spent on business development activities may also distract management's attention from our other development and business activities. Even if we are successful in identifying and acquiring additional product candidates, we may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. If we are unable to identify and acquire suitable product candidates for clinical development, this could adversely impact our business strategy, our financial position and share price.
We may also decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical companies for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates in the United States or other countries or territories of the world. We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors.
We are heavily dependent on the success of our gene therapy product candidates, which are still in early stages of clinical or preclinical development. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize any of our product candidates, our business will be harmed.
We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures over the next few years will be devoted to the development of our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates, all of which are in the early stages of clinical development. Accordingly, our business currently depends heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of these product candidates. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are and will remain subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA and other comparable regulatory authorities that each have differing regulations. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in any foreign countries until they receive the requisite approvals from the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. We have not submitted marketing applications to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities and do not expect to be in a position to do so for the foreseeable future. Obtaining marketing approval is a lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including:
•
we may not be able to demonstrate that a product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for our targeted indications to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authorities;
•
our BLA or other key regulatory filings may be delayed or rejected due to issues, including those related to product quality and manufacturing, timing of results from supporting studies, database lock and data transfer;
•
the regulatory authorities may require additional nonclinical studies or clinical studies of the product candidate in Parkinson’s disease or other indications, which would increase our costs and prolong our development;
•
the results of our clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical or clinical significance required for marketing approval;
•
the regulatory authorities may disagree with the number, design, size, conduct or implementation of our clinical trials;
•
the contract research organizations ("CROs") that we retain to conduct clinical trials may take actions outside of our control, or otherwise commit errors or breaches of protocols, that adversely impact our clinical trials;
•
the regulatory authorities may not find the data from nonclinical studies and clinical trials sufficient to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of the product candidate outweigh its safety risks;
•
the regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from our nonclinical studies and clinical trials or may require that we conduct additional studies;
•
the regulatory authorities may not accept data generated at our clinical trial sites;
•
the regulatory authorities may require, as a condition of approval, limitations on approved labeling or distribution and use restrictions;
•
the FDA may require development of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ("REMS") as a condition of approval;
•
the regulatory authorities may identify deficiencies in the manufacturing processes or facilities of our third-party manufacturers; or
•
the regulatory authorities may change their approval policies or adopt new regulations.
The terms of our credit facility place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility.
In February 2017, we and our subsidiaries entered into a loan and security agreement, as amended in May and September 2017 (the "Loan Agreement"), with Hercules Capital, Inc. ("Hercules"). The Loan Agreement is secured by substantially all of our property and that of our subsidiaries that are parties to the Loan Agreement, other than intellectual property.
The Loan Agreement subjects us and our subsidiaries to various affirmative and restrictive covenants, including a covenant to maintain a minimum cash balance currently equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement, a covenant against the occurrence of a "change in control," financial reporting obligations, and certain limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, liens (including a negative pledge on intellectual property and other assets), investments, distributions (including dividends), collateral, transfers, mergers or acquisitions, taxes, corporate changes, and deposit accounts. Compliance with these covenants may limit our flexibility in operating our business and our ability to take actions that might be advantageous to us and our shareholders. For example, if we fail to meet our minimum cash covenant and we are unable to raise additional funds or obtain a waiver or other amendment to the Loan Agreement, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate certain of our clinical development efforts.
Additionally, we may be required to repay the entire amount of outstanding indebtedness under the Loan Agreement in cash if we fail to stay in compliance with our covenants or suffer some other event of default under the Loan Agreement. Under the Loan Agreement, an event of default will occur if, among other things: we fail to make payments under the Loan Agreement; we breach any of our covenants under the Loan Agreement, subject to specified cure periods with respect to certain breaches; there occurs an event that has a material adverse effect on (i) our business, operations, properties, assets or financial condition, (ii) our ability to perform or satisfy our obligations under the Loan Agreement as they become due or Hercules’s ability to enforce its rights or remedies with respect to our obligations under the Loan Agreement, or (iii) the collateral or liens securing our obligations under the Loan Agreement; we or our assets become subject to certain legal proceedings, such as bankruptcy proceedings; we are unable to pay our debts as they become due; or we default on contracts with third parties which would permit Hercules to accelerate the maturity of such indebtedness or that could have a material adverse effect on us. We may not have enough available cash or be able to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings to repay such indebtedness at the time any such event of default occurs. In that case, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our clinical development efforts or grant to others rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Hercules could also exercise its rights as collateral agent to take possession and dispose of the collateral securing the loan for its benefit, which collateral includes all of our property other than our intellectual property. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed as a result of any of these events.
We will require additional capital to fund our operations, and if we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may not be able to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
We are currently in the clinical stage of operations and have not yet achieved profitability. We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash flows, for the foreseeable future as we continue to develop our gene therapy product candidates and prepare for potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our products. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for at least one of our gene therapy product candidates. Our current cash and cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete all necessary development activities and commercially launch our products.
We expect to spend substantial amounts to complete the development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:
•
the progress, timing, costs and results of our clinical trials of our product candidates;
•
the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA, the EMA, or the PMDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities;
•
the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercialization milestones that give rise to milestone and royalty payments to licensors;
•
the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent claims and other intellectual property rights;
•
the cost of obtaining necessary intellectual property and defending potential intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions brought by third parties against us or our product candidates or any future product candidates;
•
the effect of competing technological and market developments;
•
the cost and timing of completion of commercial-scale manufacturing activities;
•
the cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for our product candidates in regions where we choose to commercialize our products on our own; and
•
the initiation, progress, timing and results of our commercialization of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale.
As of March 31, 2019, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $107.0 million and our accumulated deficit was $686.0 million. For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, we incurred net losses of $129.1 million and $221.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2019, we had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $44.2 million, of which $21.2 million was due within one year. We also had $22.3 million of other non-interest-bearing current liabilities due within one year. Our Loan Agreement with Hercules requires that we maintain a minimum cash balance currently equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement. We anticipate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance will not be sufficient to maintain compliance with the minimum liquidity financial covenant under the Loan Agreement beyond the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements were issued if the Loan Agreement is not amended or an additional financing is not completed. Failure to meet this minimum covenant would be considered an event of default under the Loan Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our existing indebtedness.
To continue as a going concern, we will need, among other things, to raise additional capital resources. We continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete our currently planned development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and due to these uncertainties, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as going concern.
Raising additional funds by issuing securities may cause dilution to existing shareholders, raising additional funds through debt financings may involve additional restrictive covenants, and raising funds through lending and licensing arrangements may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.
We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, strategic alliances and license and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, including pursuant to our "shelf" registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), our existing shareholders’ ownership may experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common shareholder. Additional debt financing or preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants further limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.
If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise develop and market ourselves.
We may be required to make significant payments to third parties under the agreements pursuant to which we acquired our gene therapy product candidates.
Under our agreements with Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, we are subject to significant obligations, including payment obligations upon achievement of specified milestones and payments based on product sales, as well as other material obligations. Some of these milestones require us to make payments prior to generating any product sales. We may not have sufficient funds available to meet our obligations at such time as any of these payments become due, in which case our development efforts would be harmed. Further, failure to make these payments or to meet our other material obligations may result in our counterparties pursuing various remedies under those agreements that could harm our operations.
We currently rely in part on services provided by Roivant Sciences, Inc. and Roivant Sciences GmbH.
We previously entered into Services Agreements with RSI and RSG, wholly owned subsidiaries of RSL, pursuant to which RSI and RSG provide certain services to us. The RSI or RSG personnel and support staff who provide services to us under these Services Agreements are not required to treat management and administration of our business as their primary responsibility or act exclusively for us, and we do not expect them to do so. Under the Services Agreements, RSI and RSG have the discretion to determine who, among their employees, will perform services for us. RSI and RSG have limited resources. If either RSI or RSG fails to perform its obligations in accordance with the terms of the Services Agreements or to effectively manage services provided to us, the operations of our business may be adversely affected. We have replaced most of the services previously provided by RSI and RSG with our own internally developed capabilities or external professional service providers. Consequently, the level of support we receive from RSI and RSG has decreased substantially and is expected to continue to decrease as we further assume activities from RSL. If we are unable to fully integrate the internal capabilities or further develop capabilities to replace the services currently provided by RSI or RSG or fail to do so in a timely and effective manner, the operations of our business would be adversely affected.
We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel. In addition, if we are unable to effectively transition and integrate our new executive officers, our business and financial performance could be adversely affected.
We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and commercial, scientific and clinical personnel due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.
Several members of our senior management team are relatively new to us. Our financial performance will depend in significant part on our senior management team and key employees, including new members of management with expertise in the gene therapy development field. In addition, recent corporate restructurings may have impacted employee morale and led, and may continue to lead, to higher rates of voluntary attrition compared to prior years. We are highly dependent on the skills and leadership of our management team. Our senior management and key employees may terminate their position with us at any time.
If we lose one or more members of our senior management team or key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategy could be seriously harmed. Replacing these individuals may be difficult, cause disruption, and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate additional key personnel. We do not maintain "key person" insurance for any of our executives or other employees.
We will need to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.
We expect to hire additional employees for our managerial, clinical, scientific and engineering, operational, sales and marketing teams. We may have operational difficulties in connection with identifying, hiring and integrating new personnel. Future growth would impose significant additional responsibilities on our management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities, including development of product candidates, and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations across our entities, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.
Many of the other biopharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited.
Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other vendors, or those of our affiliates, may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
Our employees and contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, manufacturers, service providers and other vendors, or those of our affiliates, may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations, including those of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing, bribery, corruption, antitrust violations, and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, the creation of fraudulent data in nonclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government agency could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers or other vendors, or those of our affiliates, are alleged or found to be in violation of any such regulatory standards or requirements, or become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment of our operations, it could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, suspension or delay in clinical trials, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.
Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures, security breaches or cyber-attacks.
Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on which we rely, or may rely on in the future, including RSL and its affiliates, our CROs and other contractors, consultants, and law and accounting firms, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We have experienced phishing attacks in the past, which have not had a material impact on our operations, however, we may in the future experience material system failures or security breaches that could cause interruptions in our operations or result in a material disruption of our development programs. For example, the loss of nonclinical or clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.
Operation of our business internationally exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business in various jurisdictions globally.
Our business strategy includes establishing and maintaining operations and certain key third party arrangements in various jurisdictions around the world. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:
•
multiple, conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as tax laws, export and import restrictions, employment laws, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, regulatory requirements and other governmental approvals, permits and licenses;
•
failure by us or our distributors to obtain appropriate licenses or regulatory approvals for the sale or use of our product candidates, if approved, in various countries;
•
difficulties in managing foreign operations;
•
unexpected changes in tariffs or trade barriers;
•
complexities associated with managing multiple payor-reimbursement regimes or self-pay systems;
•
financial risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty enforcing contracts and collecting accounts receivable and exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations;
•
reduced protection for intellectual property rights;
•
reduced protection of contractual rights in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of the other contracting party;
•
natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism and political unrest, outbreak of disease, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions;
•
failure to comply with foreign laws, regulations, standards and regulatory guidance governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, security and transfer of personal data, including the European Union General Data Privacy Regulation ("GDPR"); and
•
failure to comply with the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 ("UK Bribery Act") and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including its books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions, including by failing to maintain accurate information and control over sales and distributors’ activities.
Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our current or future international operations and, consequently, negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Legal, political, and economic uncertainty surrounding the planned exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union are a source of instability and uncertainty.
The United Kingdom held a referendum on June 23, 2016 to determine whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, or remain as a member state, the outcome of which was in favor of leaving the European Union, which is commonly referred to as Brexit. Under Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, the United Kingdom will cease to be a member state when a withdrawal agreement is entered into (such agreement will also require parliamentary approval) or, failing that, two years following the notification of an intention to leave under Article 50, unless the European Council (together with the United Kingdom) unanimously decides to extend this period. On March 29, 2017, the United Kingdom formally notified the European Council of its intention to leave the European Union. In April 2019, the European Council and the United Kingdom agreed to extend the deadline by which they must agree to a withdrawal agreement to October 31, 2019. It is unclear whether they will successfully reach an agreement prior to that date, and it currently appears likely that Brexit will continue to involve a process of lengthy negotiations between the United Kingdom and EU members states to determine the future terms of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU.
Lack of clarity about future U.K. laws and regulations as the United Kingdom determines which EU rules and regulations to replace or replicate in the event of a withdrawal, including financial laws and regulations, tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, immigration laws and employment laws, could decrease foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom, increase costs, depress economic activity and restrict access to capital. In addition, if the United Kingdom and the European Union are unable to negotiate acceptable withdrawal terms or if other EU member states pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access between the United Kingdom and other EU member states or among the European Economic Area overall could be diminished or eliminated. The long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements (or lack thereof) between the United Kingdom and the European Union and, in particular, any arrangements for the United Kingdom to retain access to European Union markets either during a transitional period or more permanently.
Such a withdrawal from the European Union is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the United Kingdom’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the European Union, or the European single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our U.K. operations. We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations and development programs. Even prior to any change to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, the announcement of Brexit has created economic uncertainty surrounding the terms of Brexit, and its consequences could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The results of the United Kingdom’s referendum on withdrawal from the EU may have a negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business.
In June 2016, the United Kingdom ("UK") held a referendum in which voters approved an exit from the EU, commonly referred to as “Brexit.” This referendum has created political and economic uncertainty, particularly in the UK and the EU, and this uncertainty may persist for years. A withdrawal could, among other outcomes, disrupt the free movement of goods, services and people between the UK and the EU, and result in increased legal and regulatory complexities, as well as potential higher costs of conducting business in Europe. This is particularly the case if the UK and the EU do not reach agreement on how the UK will exit the EU, commonly referred to as a “hard Brexit.” The UK’s vote to exit the EU could also result in similar referendums or votes in other European countries in which we do business. Given the lack of comparable precedent, it is unclear what financial, trade and legal implications the withdrawal of the UK from the EU would have and how such withdrawal would affect us.
Brexit could result in the UK or the EU significantly altering its regulations affecting the clearance or approval of our product candidates that are manufactured or developed in the UK. For example, we anticipate that Oxford Biomedica, which is based in the UK, will continue to provide clinical and commercial supply for our AXO-Lenti-PD program. Brexit could affect the clearance or timing of the release of our clinical trial materials out of the UK. Any such delays could result in our clinical study sites outside of the UK not having sufficient clinical trial materials and could adversely affect the timing and completion of our clinical trials.
Any new regulations could add time and expense to the conduct of our business, as well as the process by which our products receive regulatory approval in the UK, the EU and elsewhere. In addition, the announcement of Brexit and the withdrawal of the UK from the EU have had and may continue to have, particularly in the case of a hard Brexit, a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and may significantly reduce global market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. Any of these effects of Brexit, among others, could adversely affect our business, our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.
Use of social media platforms presents new risks.
We believe that our potential patient population is active on social media. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations. In addition, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us or our product candidates on any social networking website. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.
The failure to successfully implement a new enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system, or maintain our current system, could adversely impact our business and results of operations.
As RSL decreases and decentralizes the services it provides to its affiliated companies, we expect to adapt the current ERP system or implement a new ERP system to upgrade certain existing business, operational, and financial processes, upon which we rely. Until such time, we will be reliant on financial systems supported by RSI and RSG. ERP implementations are complex and time-consuming projects that require transformations of business and financial processes in order to reap the benefits of the ERP system; any such transformation involves risk inherent in the conversion to a new computer system, including loss of information and potential disruption to normal operations. Additionally, if the ERP system is not effectively implemented as planned, or the system does not operate as intended, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could be adversely affected or our ability to assess those controls adequately could be delayed. Significant delays in documenting, reviewing and testing our internal control could cause us to fail to comply with our SEC reporting obligations related to our management's assessment of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, if we experience interruptions in service or operational difficulties and are unable to effectively manage our business during or following the implementation of the ERP system, our business and results of operations could be harmed.
Potential product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.
The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. On occasion, large monetary judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. If we are not successful in defending ourselves against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
•
impairment of our business reputation and significant negative media attention;
•
withdrawal of participants from our clinical trials;
•
significant costs to defend related litigation;
•
distraction of management’s attention from our primary business;
•
substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
•
inability to commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidate;
•
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
•
decreased demand for our product candidates or any future product candidate, if approved for commercial sale; and
•
loss of revenue.
The product liability insurance we currently carry, and any additional product liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future, may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our share price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the commercialization of any product candidates we develop.
Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would harm our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could harm our business.
If we fail to comply with applicable U.S. and foreign privacy and data protection laws and regulations, we may be subject to liabilities that adversely affect our business, operations and financial performance.
We are subject to laws and regulations requiring that we take measures to protect the privacy and security of certain information we gather and use in our business. For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and its implementing regulations impose, among other requirements, certain regulatory and contractual requirements regarding the privacy and security of personal health information. In addition to HIPAA, numerous other federal and state laws, including, without limitation, state security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, and storage of personal information. In addition, in June 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) which takes effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and HIPAA protected health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. The CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state privacy legislation that, if passed, could increase our potential liability, increase our compliance costs and adversely affect our business.
We may also be subject to or affected by foreign laws and regulation, including regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, security, transfer and storage of personal data, such as information that we collect about patients and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials and our other operations in the U.S. and abroad. The global legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. For example, the EU has adopted the GDPR, which introduces strict requirements for processing personal data. The GDPR is likely to increase the compliance burden on us, including by mandating potentially burdensome documentation requirements and granting certain rights to individuals to control how we collect, use, disclose, retain and leverage information about them. The processing of sensitive personal data, such as physical health conditions, may impose heightened compliance burdens under the GDPR and is a topic of active interest among foreign regulators. In addition, the GDPR provides for breach reporting requirements, more robust regulatory enforcement and fines of up to 20 million euros or up to 4% of annual global revenue. While the GDPR affords some flexibility in determining how to comply with the various requirements, significant effort and expense has been, and will continue to be, invested to ensure continuing compliance. Moreover, the requirements under the GDPR may change periodically or may be modified by European Union national law and could have an effect on our business operations if compliance becomes substantially more costly than under current requirements.
It is possible that each of these privacy laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. Further, Brexit has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK. In particular, it is unclear whether, post Brexit, the UK will enact data protection legislation equivalent to the GDPR and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. In many jurisdictions, enforcement actions and consequences for noncompliance are rising. As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations that may affect how we conduct business.
Risks Related to Clinical Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization
Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement and involve an uncertain outcome.
Our gene therapy product candidates are still in development and will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to submit an application for marketing approval to regulatory authorities. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit any such application for regulatory approval for our product candidates or whether any such application will be approved by the applicable regulatory authority in our target markets. Human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. For instance, regulatory authorities may not agree with our proposed endpoints for any clinical trials of our gene therapy product candidates, which may delay the commencement of our clinical trials. The clinical trial process is also time-consuming. We estimate that clinical trials of our product candidates will take at least several years to complete. Furthermore, failure can occur at any stage of the trials, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials, and the results of smaller nonclinical or early clinical trials therefore may not be predictive of the results of large scale or later-stage clinical programs. For example, in January 2018, we announced that intepirdine did not meet its primary efficacy endpoints in the Phase 2b HEADWAY and pilot Phase 2 Gait and Balance studies. In light of the data from these studies, as well as data from the September 2017 MINDSET readout, we discontinued our intepirdine program. Further, in December 2018, we announced that nelotanserin did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint in its Phase 2 clinical study, and we discontinued further clinical development of nelotanserin. Likewise, there can be no assurance that the results of studies conducted by collaborators or other third parties will be viewed favorably or are indicative of our own future study results. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry, and especially in the neurology field, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and in the regulatory approval process. For example, in August 2017, Acorda Therapeutics received a refusal to file letter from the FDA regarding its NDA for INBRIJA, an investigational treatment for symptoms of OFF episodes in patients with Parkinson’s disease taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen.
All of our gene therapy product candidates are in early stages of development. The outcome of nonclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results and results from one completed clinical trial may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar study design. The clinical trials conducted to date for our gene therapy product candidates have involved a small number of patients, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results that we observed in such trials will be repeated in larger and more advanced clinical trials.
The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed by several factors, including:
•
failure to obtain regulatory approval to commence a trial;
•
unforeseen safety issues;
•
determination of dosing issues;
•
lack of effectiveness during clinical trials;
•
inability to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites;
•
slower than expected rates of patient recruitment or failure to recruit suitable patients to participate in a trial;
•
changes in or modifications to clinical trial design;
•
failure to manufacture or obtain supply of sufficient quantities of a gene therapy product candidate or placebo or failure to obtain sufficient quantities of concomitant medication for use in clinical trials;
•
inability to monitor patients adequately during or after treatment;
•
inability or unwillingness of medical investigators to follow our clinical and other applicable protocols;
•
failure to establish sufficient number of clinical trial sites; or
•
clinical sites or others deviating from trial protocol, inappropriately unblinding results, or dropping out of a trial.
Further, by way of example, we, a regulatory agency or an institutional review board ("IRB") at a clinical trial site may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical Practice ("cGCP") regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our IND submissions or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of clinical trials. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our gene therapy product candidates could be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues may be delayed. In addition, any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, cause a drop in our share price, slow down the approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the applicable regulatory agency, which may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The applicable regulatory agency may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the applicable regulatory agency and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our gene therapy product candidates.
In addition, we acquired worldwide rights to our gene therapy product candidates and were not involved in their development prior to such acquisitions. Any difficulties we experience in transitioning and integrating such gene therapy product candidates into our operations may result in delays in clinical trials as well as problems in our development efforts and regulatory filings, particularly if we do not receive all of the necessary materials, information, reports and data from third parties in a timely manner. More particularly, we have had no involvement with or control over the nonclinical and clinical development of our gene therapy product candidates prior to acquiring the rights to them. We are dependent on our predecessors including Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, having conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocols, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials and other research conducted prior to our acquisition of the gene therapy product candidates, having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials and other research and having supplied us with complete information, data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the results reported through the date of our acquisition of these assets. In addition, we have limited data regarding the safety, tolerability and efficacy of our gene therapy product candidates and their potential indications, and we have not previously conducted development activities for a biological product candidate. Problems related to our predecessors, including UMMS and Oxford BioMedica, and our limited available data for our gene therapy product candidates could result in increased costs and delays in the development of our gene therapy product candidates, which could adversely affect our ability to generate future revenues.
Interim “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.
From time to time, we may publish interim “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “top-line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.
Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical trials is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control.
We may encounter delays in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical trials, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the effectiveness of our patient recruitment efforts, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study candidate, the perceived risks and benefits of gene therapy approaches for the treatment of neurological diseases, the number and nature of competing existing treatments for our target indications, the number and nature of ongoing trials for other product candidates in development for our target indications, perceived risk of the delivery procedure, patients with pre-existing conditions that preclude their participation in any trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the study. Furthermore, the negative results we have reported in clinical trials to date and any other negative results we may report in clinical trials of any of our gene therapy product candidates in the future may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of those gene therapy product candidates. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their product candidates may negatively affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop our gene therapy product candidates or could render further development impossible. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to control their actual performance.
We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.
Drug development, particularly in the gene therapy field, is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. As a significant unmet medical need exists in the neurology field, particularly for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, there are several large and small pharmaceutical companies focused on delivering therapeutics for the treatment of these diseases. Further, it is likely that additional therapies will become available in the future for the treatment of our target indications.
Many of our existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have significantly more experience commercializing drugs, particularly gene therapy and other biological products, that have been approved for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.
We will face competition from other drugs or from other non-drug products currently approved or that will be approved in the future in the neurology field, including for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to:
•
develop and commercialize products that are superior to other products in the market;
•
demonstrate through our clinical trials that our gene therapy product candidates are differentiated from existing and future therapies;
•
attract qualified scientific, product development and commercial personnel;
•
obtain patent or other proprietary protection for our medicines;
•
obtain required regulatory approvals;
•
obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from, and negotiate competitive pricing with, third-party payors; and
•
successfully collaborate with pharmaceutical companies in the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines.
The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any gene therapy product candidate we develop. The inability to compete with existing or subsequently introduced products would have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our gene therapy product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving regulatory and marketing approval for or commercializing therapies before we do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.
If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.
The activities associated with the development and commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, including their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA, the PMDA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for our gene therapy product candidates will prevent us from commercializing them.
We have not received approval from regulatory authorities to market any gene therapy product candidate in any jurisdiction, and we will need to complete pivotal clinical trials successfully for our gene therapy product candidates before we can submit any application for regulatory approval. It is possible that our gene therapy product candidates in the future will never obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product sales.
We expect to rely on third-party CROs and consultants to assist us in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information for our gene therapy product candidates to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish safety and efficacy of the gene therapy product candidate for that indication. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Delays or errors in the submission of applications for marketing approval or issues, including those related to gathering the appropriate data and the inspection process, may ultimately delay or affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval, commercialize our gene therapy product candidates and generate product revenues.
Our gene therapy product candidates may cause adverse effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.
Adverse events caused by our gene therapy product candidates or that of adjuncts could cause us, other reviewing entities, clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval. If an unacceptable frequency or severity of adverse events are reported in our clinical trials for our gene therapy product candidates or any future product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates may be negatively impacted. The laws and regulations governing controlled substances could limit commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, and failure to comply with those laws and regulations could also result in adverse regulatory, legal, and operational consequences.
In particular, there have been several significant adverse side effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia in trials using earlier generation viral vectors. Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration which could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Another traditional safety concern for gene therapies using viral vectors has been the possibility of insertional mutagenesis by the vectors, leading to malignant transformation of transduced cells. Additionally, in previous clinical trials involving AAV vectors for gene therapy, some subjects experienced the development of a positive ELISPOT test associated with T-cell responses, which is of unclear clinical translatability.
There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Possible adverse side effects that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration that could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in larger scale, pivotal clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval.
In addition to side effects that may be caused by gene therapy product candidates, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. For example, integration of AAV DNA into the host cell's genome has been reported to occur. Further, our AAV delivery systems for AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 have not been validated in human clinical trials previously, and if such delivery systems do not meet the safety criteria or cannot provide the desired efficacy results, then we may be forced to suspend or terminate our development of AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2.
If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our gene therapy product candidates has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the gene therapy product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the gene therapy product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked or limited.
Furthermore, if any of our products are approved and then cause serious or unexpected side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:
•
regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product or require a REMS to impose restrictions on its distribution or other risk management measures;
•
regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications;
•
we may be required to change the way the product is administered or to conduct additional clinical trials;
•
we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients;
•
we could elect to discontinue the sale of our product; and
•
our reputation may suffer.
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected gene therapy product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our gene therapy product candidates.
Our AAV-based gene therapy product candidates and our lentiviral-based gene therapy product candidate are based on new gene transfer technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.
The use of gene therapy in the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease) and Parkinson’s disease is new. We may experience problems or delays in developing new gene therapy product candidates and such problems or delays may cause unanticipated costs, and such development problems may not be solvable. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process for our gene therapy product candidates from their current manufacturers, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.
In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. To date, only a limited number of gene therapies have received marketing authorization from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Until August 2017, the FDA had never approved a gene therapy product. Since that time, it has only approved a small number of product candidates, including Kymriah by Novartis International AG, for pediatric and young adult patients with a form of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Yescarta by Kite Pharma, Inc., for adult patients with certain forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Luxturna by Spark Therapeutics, Inc. for patients with an inherited form of vision loss, and Zolgensma by Novartis International AG, for children less than 2 years old with spinal muscular atrophy. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our gene therapy product candidates in either the United States, or other major markets or how long it will take to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates, if any are approved. Approvals by foreign regulatory authorities may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval, and vice versa.
Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ("CBER") to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise the CBER in its review. If we were to engage an NIH-funded institution, to conduct a clinical trial, that institution’s institutional biosafety committee as well as its IRB would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our gene therapy product candidates. Similarly, foreign regulatory authorities may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.
The FDA, NIH and the EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our gene therapy product candidates.
These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our gene therapy product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our gene therapy product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially and adversely affected.
Even if we obtain FDA approval for our gene therapy product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.
In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy. Approval by the FDA in the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including in international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be unrealized.
Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will still face extensive regulatory requirements and our products may face future development and regulatory difficulties.
Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising and promotional activities for such product, among other things, will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping and cGCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including any requirement to implement a REMS. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying labels for such products may limit the approved use of the product, which could limit sales.
Regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The FDA typically advises that patients treated with gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for a 15-year period. The holder of an approved BLA also must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. These authorities closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. We will be subject to stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the FDCA or PHSA in the United States, and other comparable regulations in foreign jurisdictions, relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to enforcement actions and investigations alleging violations of U.S. federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws and comparable laws in foreign jurisdictions.
In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:
•
restrictions on manufacturing such products;
•
restrictions on the labeling or marketing of such products;
•
restrictions on product marketing, distribution or use;
•
requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;
•
warning or untitled letters;
•
withdrawal of the products from the market;
•
recall of products;
•
fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;
•
suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;
•
refusal to permit the import or export of such products;
•
product seizure; or
•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
Government regulations may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted, either of which could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or any future product candidate. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained.
Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.
Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, including due to the novelty of gene therapy products in general. If they do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and become profitable. The degree of market acceptance for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:
•
the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;
•
the effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;
•
the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments;
•
our ability to offer our products for sale at competitive prices;
•
the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;
•
the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
•
the ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy;
•
the strength of marketing and distribution support;
•
the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement;
•
the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and
•
any restrictions on the use of our product together with other medications.
We expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable future. The failure of any of our product candidates, if approved, to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing.
Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.
Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only a limited number of gene therapy products approved to date. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, unethical or immoral, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon the comfort level of physicians to prescribe our product candidates, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing or standard treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available.
More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates. Earlier gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death seen in such trials using earlier generation vectors. For example, a public backlash developed against gene therapy following the death of a patient in 1999 during a gene therapy trial of research subjects with ornithine transcarbamylase ("OTC") deficiency, a rare disorder in which the liver lacks a functional copy of the OTC gene. The death of the trial subject was due to complications of adenovirus vector administration. In addition, there is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Among the risks in any gene therapy product based on viral vectors are the risks of immunogenicity, elevated liver enzymes, and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. If our vectors demonstrate a similar effect we may decide or be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our AAV-based product candidates. Adverse events in our clinical studies, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates (such as the many adverse events that typically arise from the conditioning process), or adverse events in other lentiviral gene therapy trials, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.
Increasing demand for compassionate use or expanded access of our unapproved therapies could negatively affect our reputation and harm our business.
We are developing our product candidates for life-threatening illnesses for which there are currently limited to no available therapeutic options. It is possible for individuals or groups to target companies with disruptive social media campaigns related to a request for access to unapproved drugs for patients with significant unmet medical need. If we experience a similar social media campaign regarding our decision to provide or not provide our product candidates under an expanded access corporate policy, our reputation may be negatively affected and our business may be harmed.
Recent media attention to individual patients’ expanded access requests has resulted in the introduction of legislation at the local and national level referred to as “Right to Try” laws, such as the Right to Try Act, which are intended to give patients access to unapproved therapies. New and emerging legislation regarding expanded access to unapproved drugs for life-threatening illnesses could negatively impact our business in the future.
A possible consequence of both activism and legislation in this area is the need for us to initiate an unanticipated expanded access program or to make our product candidates more widely available sooner than anticipated. We are a small company with limited resources and unanticipated trials or access programs could result in diversion of resources from our primary goals.
In addition, some patients who receive access to unapproved drugs through compassionate use or expanded access programs have life-threatening illnesses and have exhausted all other available therapies. The risk for serious adverse events in this patient population is high which could have a negative impact on the safety profile of our product candidates if we were to provide them to these patients in accordance with our expanded access corporate policy, which could cause significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business. If we were to provide patients with our product candidates under an expanded access program, we may in the future need to restructure or pause ongoing compassionate use and/or expanded access programs in order to perform the controlled clinical trials required for regulatory approval and successful commercialization of our product candidates, which could prompt adverse publicity or other disruptions related to current or potential participants in such programs.
If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, even if approved.
We do not have an infrastructure for the sales, marketing or distribution of our product candidates should they be approved, and the cost of establishing and maintaining such an organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any product that may be approved, we must build our sales, distribution, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services and obtain requisite licenses. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need a sales and marketing organization.
We plan to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union, Japan and other major markets. If our product candidates are approved for marketing, we may build a focused sales, distribution and marketing infrastructure to market them. There are significant expenses and risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, including our ability to hire, retain and appropriately incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and any failure to obtain and maintain the requisite licenses, could delay any product launch, which would adversely impact the commercialization of our product candidates.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:
•
our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel;
•
the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or attain adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any drugs;
•
the inability to negotiate with payors regarding reimbursement for our products; and
•
unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization.
If we are unable to build our own sales force or negotiate a collaborative relationship for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may be forced to delay the potential commercialization of such products or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities for our product candidates. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund commercialization activities ourselves, we will need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we will not be able to bring our product candidates to market or generate product revenue. We could enter into arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be ideal and we may be required to relinquish rights to one or more of our product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have an adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.
If we obtain approval to commercialize any products outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.
If our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them in certain jurisdictions outside the United States. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to international operations or entering into international business relationships, including:
•
different regulatory requirements for drug approvals and rules governing drug commercialization in foreign countries;
•
reduced protection for intellectual property rights;
•
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;
•
economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;
•
compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;
•
foreign reimbursement, pricing and insurance regimes;
•
foreign taxes;
•
foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenues, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;
•
workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;
•
potential noncompliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions;
•
production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and
•
business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires.
Our current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.
Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations.
These laws may regulate the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:
•
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation; in addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;
•
the federal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, impose criminal and civil penalties against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government; in addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;
•
HIPAA imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false or fraudulent statements relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation;
•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information on health plans, health care clearing houses, and most health care providers, known as covered entities, and their business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity;
•
a number of federal, state and foreign laws, regulations, guidance and standards that impose requirements regarding the protection of health or other personal data that are applicable to or affect our operations;
•
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to payments or other "transfers of value" made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to the government ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members; and
•
analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; and state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures or drug pricing, as well as state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Even the mere issuance of a subpoena or the fact of an investigation alone, regardless of the merit, may result in negative publicity, a drop in our share price, and other harm to our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.
Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval.
For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the "Affordable Care Act") was enacted to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The law has continued the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and increased the industry’s regulatory burdens and operating costs. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our product candidates are the following:
•
an annual, nondeductible fee payable by any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents;
•
an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;
•
a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;
•
a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts of 50% prior to January 1, 2019, and 70% thereafter, off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries under their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;
•
extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
•
expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs in certain states;
•
expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;
•
a licensure framework for follow on biologic products;
•
a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; 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.
We cannot predict the full impact of the Affordable Care Act on pharmaceutical companies, as many of the reforms require the promulgation of detailed regulations implementing the statutory provisions, some of which has not yet fully occurred. For example, in January 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued a final rule regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, effective April 1, 2016, that, among other things, revises the manner in which the "average manufacturer price" is to be calculated by manufacturers participating in the program and implements certain amendments to the Medicaid rebate statute created under the Affordable Care Act. Further, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the Affordable Care Act in the future. Since January 2017, the President of the United States has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain fees mandated by the Affordable Care Act, including the so-called "Cadillac" tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amends the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the "donut hole." In addition, citing legal guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that cost-sharing reduction ("CSR") payments to insurance companies required under the Affordable Care Act have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until such appropriations are made. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act. While Congress is considering legislation to appropriate funds for CSR payments, the future of that legislation is uncertain. Moreover, in July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Congress will likely consider other legislation to replace elements of the Affordable Care Act. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the current administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, and other efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business. The Affordable Care Act is likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. We continue to evaluate the effect that the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business. See "Item 1. Business-Government Regulation."
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This included further reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period in which the government may recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical company to make its product candidates available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.
Further, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, on May 11, 2018, the President of the United States laid out his administration’s "Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs" to reduce the cost of prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The Department of Health and Human Services has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same time, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. In September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019, and on January 31, 2019, the HHS Office Inspector General proposed modifications to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute discount safe harbor for the purpose of reducing the cost of drug products to consumers which, among other things, if finalized, will affect discounts paid by manufacturers to Medicare Part D plans, Medicaid managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers working with these organizations. Additionally, CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. Congress and the U.S. presidential administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, which was enacted in 2012 as part of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.
We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably, if approved.
Market acceptance and sales of any approved product candidates that we develop will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities and private health insurers. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors decide which drugs or therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug or therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each plan determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug or therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the drug or therapy, on what tier of its formulary the drug or therapy will be placed, and whether to require step therapy. The position of a drug on a formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.
The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Even if we do obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, products. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for products. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify the coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage or reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates that we develop.
Additionally, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in the United States and in some foreign jurisdictions that could affect our ability to sell any future drugs profitably. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary, that it will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that reimbursement policies and practices in the United States and in foreign countries where our products are sold will not adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidate profitably, if approved for sale.
Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties
We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and will rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates.
We are building teams with drug formulation and manufacturing expertise but do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. In addition to the technical challenges of drug product formulation and scale-up and environmental compliance aspects of chemical and biologics manufacturing, our vendors of manufacturing services will need to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory authority licensure and cGMP quality requirements. These obligations are enforced by periodic inspection and audit by regulatory authorities, and any adverse findings or violations discovered on such inspections could distract our vendors and be costly and time consuming to remediate, potentially impacting their supply of clinical and future commercial products to us.
Under the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, Oxford BioMedica will manufacture and supply the AXO-LENTI-PD in accordance with separate clinical and commercial supply agreements, which will be negotiated between us and Oxford BioMedica. The Oxford BioMedica Agreement contains certain key provisions of the clinical and commercial supply agreements, including pricing structure and our ability to transfer the technology to another manufacturer at any time following the completion of formal process characterization, process validation or BLA submission. The UMMS Agreement provides that UMMS will supply material manufactured at Nationwide Children's Hospital to support the AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 Phase 1/2 clinical studies.
The process for manufacturing gene therapy products is more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a gene therapy product such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. Although we may establish our own manufacturing facility or use that of a third-party contract manufacturer to support a commercial launch of our gene therapy product candidates, if approved, the timeframe for us to obtain approval for such facility or qualify such third-party contract manufacturer and ensure that all processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP requirements is uncertain. In addition, our ability to receive damages from our CROs in connection with such failures is generally contractually limited.
Further, our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including:
•
failure to satisfy their contractual duties or obligations;
•
inability to meet our product specifications and quality requirements consistently;
•
delay or inability to procure or expand sufficient manufacturing capacity;
•
manufacturing and/or product quality issues related to manufacturing development and scale-up;
•
costs and validation of new equipment and facilities required for scale-up;
•
failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, including cGMP and similar foreign standards;
•
deficient or improper record-keeping;
•
contractual restrictions on our ability to engage additional or alternative manufacturers;
•
inability to negotiate manufacturing agreements with third parties under commercially reasonable terms;
•
termination or nonrenewal of manufacturing agreements with third parties in a manner or at a time that is costly or damaging to us;
•
reliance on a limited number of sources, and in some cases, single sources for product components, such that if we are unable to secure a sufficient supply of these product components, we will be unable to manufacture and sell our product candidates or any future product candidate in a timely fashion, in sufficient quantities or under acceptable terms;
•
lack of qualified backup suppliers for those components that are currently purchased from a sole or single source supplier;
•
lack of access or licenses to proprietary manufacturing methods used by third-party manufacturers to make our product candidates;
•
operations of our third-party manufacturers or suppliers could be disrupted by conditions unrelated to our business or operations, including the bankruptcy of the manufacturer or supplier or regulatory sanctions related to the manufacture of our or other company’s products;
•
carrier disruptions or increased costs that are beyond our control; and
•
failure to deliver our products under specified storage conditions and in a timely manner.
Our product candidates are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict government standards for the manufacture and storage of our product candidates, subjects us to manufacturing risks for these product candidates. If supply from a manufacturing facility is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in supply of our product candidates. If we are unable to engage other manufacturers or suppliers, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with them on favorable terms or at all. Use of new third-party manufacturers could increase the risk of delays in production or insufficient supplies of our product candidates as we transfer our manufacturing technology to these manufacturers and as they gain experience manufacturing our product candidates.
Any of these events affecting our product candidates or those of adjuncts could lead to clinical trial delays, cost overruns, delay or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize our products, as well as potential product liability litigation, product recalls or product withdrawals. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure, or total or partial suspension of production.
We intend to rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our nonclinical studies and our clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.
We intend to rely on CROs and nonclinical and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our nonclinical studies and our clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual performance. In addition, pursuant to our agreements with Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, we may rely on their respective employees for certain services in connection with the transition of the respective gene therapy product candidates to us. We do not have complete control over those employees or their execution of services provided to us, and these employees may not perform such services in a timely or satisfactory manner, which could harm our business and development programs.
We intend to rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future nonclinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.
We and our CROs will be required to comply with Good laboratory practices and cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and are also required by the competent authorities of the member states of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in the form of International Council for Harmonization guidelines for any of our product candidates that are in nonclinical and clinical development. The regulatory authorities enforce cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we may rely on CROs to conduct our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and GCP clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or our CROs fail to comply with cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may reject our marketing applications or require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if we or our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or other applicable laws, regulations or standards, or fail to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the relevant regulatory approval process. Failure by our CROs to properly execute study protocols in accordance with applicable law could also create product liability and healthcare regulatory risks for us as sponsors of those studies.
Our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical and nonclinical programs. These CROs may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our competitive position. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our (or their own) clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we develop could be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.
If our relationships with these CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
We may seek to enter into collaborations in the future with other third parties. If we are unable to enter into such collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.
We will seek to enter into additional collaborations in the future, including sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing, and/or broader collaboration agreements. Our likely collaborators include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and medical device manufacturers. However, we may not be able to enter into additional collaborations on favorable terms or at all. Our ability to generate revenues from our collaborations will depend on our and our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to each of us in these arrangements. In addition, our collaborators have the ability to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements. Moreover, an unsuccessful outcome in any clinical trial for which our collaborator is responsible could be harmful to the public perception and prospects of our existing product candidate pipeline.
Our relationship with any future collaborations may pose several risks, including the following:
•
collaborators have significant discretion in determining the amount and timing of the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations;
•
collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected;
•
the nonclinical studies and clinical trials conducted as part of these collaborations may not be successful;
•
collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on nonclinical study or clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;
•
collaborators may delay nonclinical studies and clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for nonclinical studies and clinical trials, stop a nonclinical study or clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new nonclinical studies or clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for nonclinical studies or clinical trials;
•
we may not have access to, or may be restricted from disclosing, certain information regarding product candidates being developed or commercialized under a collaboration and, consequently, may have limited ability to inform our stockholders about the status of such product candidates;
•
collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;
•
product candidates developed in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates;
•
a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of any such product candidate;
•
disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development of any product candidates, may cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of such product candidates, may lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to such product candidates or may result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time consuming and expensive;
•
collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;
•
disputes may arise with respect to the ownership or inventorship of intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaborations;
•
collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability;
•
the terms of our collaboration agreement may restrict us from entering into certain relationships with other third parties, thereby limiting our options; and
•
collaborations may be terminated for the convenience of the collaborator and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates.
We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement with any future collaborators will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of several factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.
We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, collaborators, advisors and other third parties to protect the intellectual property related to our current and future development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries for our current gene therapy product candidates and any future product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our current and future product development programs and product candidates. 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.
The patent applications we have in-licensed or own cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such application(s). Our in-licensed and/or owned patent applications may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or other gene therapy product candidates in the United States or in foreign countries. Our in-licensed and owned patent portfolio alone may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or any future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. We may also inadvertently make statements to regulatory agencies during the regulatory approval process that may be inconsistent with positions that have been taken during prosecution of our in-licensed or owned patents which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. The patents and patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or any future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries.
The patent rights that we own or have licensed relating to our product candidates may be limited in ways that may affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing against us if we obtain regulatory approval to market these product candidates. For our current product candidates or future product candidates for which we do not hold or do not obtain composition of matter patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with the same composition as our products so long as the competitors do not infringe any other patents, such as method patents, that we may hold or obtain rights to. Method patents only protect the product when used or sold for the specified method. However, this type of patent protection does not limit a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product that is labeled for an indication that is outside of the patented method, or for which there is a substantial use in commerce outside the patented method.
There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or be used to invalidate a patent. The patent examination process may require us to narrow our claims, which may limit the scope of patent protection that we may obtain. Even if patents do successfully issue based on our owned or in-licensed applications and even if such patents cover our current or future product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us in the future could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any current or future product candidates, if approved. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.
Our owned or in-licensed pending applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current or future product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates and threaten our ability to commercialize future products. Any such outcome could have an adverse effect on 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, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or whether we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. 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 United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.
Patent reform legislation could increase uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "Leahy-Smith Act") was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to United States patent laws. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop 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 to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act, subsequent rulemaking, and judicial interpretation of the Leahy-Smith Act and regulations 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 and/or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an 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 USPTO, 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. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, 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.
Even if our patent applications that we own or license 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 patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. 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.
The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and 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 freedom to operate 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.
The inventorship and/or ownership rights for patents or patent applications we own or in-license may be challenged by third parties. Such challenges could result in loss of exclusive rights to such patents, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products or require us to obtain a license from such third parties on commercially reasonable terms to secure exclusive rights, or our business could be harmed. If any such challenges to inventorship and/or ownership were asserted, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose to seek a license, such license would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after the first non-provisional filing date. Certain extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic versions of such products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such 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.
If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by extending the patent term and obtain data exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.
Our commercial success will largely depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology, product candidates and our target indications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates begin to be commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents.
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents or patent applications, once issued, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, the total patent term including the period of extension cannot exceed 14 years from the product's approval date. Furthermore, this extension is limited to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved use of the product, or a method of manufacturing the product. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request.
If we are unable to extend the expiration date of our existing patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and nonclinical data to obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.
The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents that cover our biologic product candidates can be challenged by third parties.
For biologics, such as AXO-LENTI-PD, AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA approval to manufacture or sell biosimilar or interchangeable versions of brand name biological products. Due to the large size and complexity of biological products, as compared to small molecules, a biosimilar must be "highly similar" to the reference product with "no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product." The BPCIA provides, among other things, for a formal pre-litigation process which includes the exchange of information between a biosimilar applicant and a reference product sponsor that can include the identification of relevant patents and each parties’ basis for infringement and invalidity. After the exchange of this information (if the exchange is elected), we must then initiate an infringement lawsuit within 30 days for the patents identified in the exchange. If the biosimilar applicant successfully challenges the asserted patent claims it could result in the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or result in a finding of non-infringement.
Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often complex in nature, may be expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our product candidates.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign national or international patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of patent rights include, but are not limited to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent applications based on our international patent application, failure to respond to office actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our current or future product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market sooner, which would have an adverse effect on our business.
We may need to license 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 and trade secrets that are important or necessary to the development of our current or future product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of one or more third parties to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially. If any such patents were to be asserted against us, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose or are required to seek a license, a license to any of these patents would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
It may be necessary to use a patented or proprietary AAV-related technology of one or more third parties to manufacture and commercialize AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2. If we are unable to obtain licenses from such third parties when needed or on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize AXO-AAV-GM1 (if approved) or AXO-AAV-GM2 (if approved), would likely be delayed or impaired.
Third-party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation and administrative law proceedings, inter partes review, and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as oppositions and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk increases that our product candidates or other business activities may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary technology without authorization.
There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to our current or future product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our current or future product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates; any molecules, plasmids, vectors, cell lines, etc. formed during the manufacturing process; any final product itself or the intended method of treatment using the product, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.
A license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual property or proprietary information owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful infringement or other intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our affected products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.
We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or other forms of compensation to third parties.
Third-party patent applications directed to methods for producing recombinant lentiviral vectors or recombinant AAV vectors could adversely affect the potential commercialization of our current gene therapy product candidates, if patents issue from such applications that include claims that would cover the methods of making our current gene therapy product candidates. While we do not believe that such pending third-party claims that would cover the methods of making our current gene therapy product candidates are likely to be patentable, we may be incorrect in this belief.
We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.
We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is or may be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are not published until approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. In addition, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications covering our products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our products.
The scope of a patent claim is determined by multiple factors including an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, and our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.
If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our products that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign products, processes, or services so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.
If we breach any of our license or collaboration agreements, it could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for our product candidates.
We have licensed rights to intellectual property from Oxford Biomedica, UMMS and Benitec in order to commercialize our product candidates, and, in the case of AXO-LENTI-PD, intend to enter into commercial supply and manufacturing agreements with Oxford BioMedica.
Disputes may arise between us and any of these counterparties regarding intellectual property rights that are subject to such agreements, including, but not limited to:
•
the scope of rights granted under the agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
•
whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the agreement;
•
our right to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties;
•
our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
•
the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners;
•
our right to transfer or assign our license; and
•
the effects of termination.
These or other disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed (or will license or acquire in the future) may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on acceptable terms or may impair the value of the arrangement to us. Any such dispute could have an adverse effect on our business.
If we materially breach or fail to perform any provision under these license and collaboration agreements, including failure to make payments to a licensor or collaborator when due for royalties and failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates, such licensors and collaborators have the right to terminate our agreement, and upon the effective date of such termination, our right to practice the licensed patent rights and other intellectual property would end. Any uncured, material breach under the agreements could result in our loss of rights to practice the patent rights and other intellectual property licensed to us under the agreements and to liability for potential damages.
Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology.
Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. 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 or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third-party may also cause the third-party to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable.
In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, or lack of statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third-party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.
We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.
Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. 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. There could also 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 an adverse effect on the price of our common shares.
Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties.
Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our shareholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution.
Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
The United States has recently enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future.
The United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a "nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license" for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with "march-in rights". March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a "nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license" to a "responsible applicant or applicants." If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. Furthermore, if the U.S. Government has rights related to a product candidate under the Bayh-Dole Act, we may be obligated to substantially manufacture in the U.S. such product if it was invented using government funding. Under certain circumstances, we may be able to obtain a waiver to manufacture outside the U.S., however, such waivers are not guaranteed.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could impair our business.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our current and future product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims, or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.
Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.
Many countries, including European Union countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third-party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.
Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.
Because we expect to rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and we expect to continue to collaborate with third parties on the development of our current and future product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our collaboration or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Further, adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors' intellectual property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be unable to determine the extent of any unauthorized use. Moreover, 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. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor's discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of their former employers or other third parties.
We employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators, and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such parties to assign rights in inventions to us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and if we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.
If we or our licensors fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we and our licensors are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to initiate or continue our clinical trials and internal research programs, or in-license needed technology or other product candidates. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our product candidates, if approved.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.
In addition to seeking patents for our current and future product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, 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.
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.
Any trademarks we have obtained or may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.
We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of our product candidates that are approved for marketing from the products of our competitors. Once we select new trademarks and apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may oppose or attempt to cancel our trademark applications or trademarks, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.
If we attempt to enforce our trademarks and assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.
Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:
•
others may be able to make products that are the same as or similar to our product candidates, but that are not covered by the claims of the patents or other intellectual property rights that we own or that we have exclusively licensed and have the right to enforce;
•
we, our licensor or any collaborators might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or license;
•
we or our licensor might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
•
others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
•
it is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
•
issued patents that we own or license may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable as a result of legal challenges;
•
our competitors might conduct research and development activities in the United States and other countries that provide a safe harbor from patent infringement claims for certain research and development activities, as well as in countries where we do not have patent rights, and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets; and
•
we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable.
Risks Related to Our Common Shares
An active trading market for our common shares may not be sustained.
Although our common shares are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq") we cannot assure you that an active trading market for our common shares will be sustained. In addition, as a result of RSL owning approximately 58.1% of our common shares as of March 31, 2019, trading in our common shares may be less liquid than the shares of companies with broader public ownership. If an active market for our common shares is not sustained, you may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by selling common shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our common shares as consideration.
The market price of our common shares has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile, and you may lose some or all of your investment.
The market price of our common shares has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and may be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:
•
any additional delays in the commencement, enrollment and ultimate completion of our clinical trials;
•
results of clinical trials of our product candidates or those of our competitors;
•
any delay in filing applications for marketing approval of our product candidates, and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to applicable regulatory authorities’ review of those applications;
•
failure to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates;
•
failure to maintain our relationship with Oxford BioMedica or UMMS or comply with the terms of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement or the UMMS Agreement;
•
inability to obtain additional funding;
•
inability to obtain, protect or maintain necessary intellectual property;
•
regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries applicable to our product candidates, including gene therapies;
•
adverse regulatory decisions or statements;
•
changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
•
inability to obtain adequate product supply for our current product candidates or any future product candidate, or the inability to do so at acceptable prices;
•
introduction of new products, services or technologies by our competitors;
•
failure to meet or exceed financial projections we provide to the public;
•
failure to meet or exceed the estimates and projections of the investment community;
•
changes in the market valuations of similar companies;
•
market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, and the issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations;
•
announcements of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors;
•
significant lawsuits, including patent or shareholder litigation, and disputes or other developments relating to our proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;
•
additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;
•
short sales of our common shares;
•
sales of our common shares by us or our shareholders in the future;
•
negative coverage in the media or analyst reports, whether accurate or not;
•
issuance of subpoenas or investigative demands, or the public fact of an investigation by a government agency, whether meritorious or not;
•
trading volume of our common shares;
•
general economic, industry and market conditions; and
•
the other factors described in this "Risk Factors" section.
In addition, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. Broad market and industry factors, as well as general economic, political, regulatory and market conditions, may negatively affect the market price of our common shares, regardless of our actual operating performance.
Volatility in our share price could subject us to securities class action litigation.
In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities and/or the discontinuation of development of a product candidate due to adverse clinical circumstances or results. This risk is especially relevant for us because pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant share price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.
We are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the applicable rules of the Nasdaq and, as a result, qualify for exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. If we rely on these exemptions, you will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.
RSL controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common shares. As a result, we are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, group or another company is a "controlled company" and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirements:
•
that a majority of its board of directors consists of independent directors;
•
for an annual performance evaluation of the nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees;
•
to require director nominees to be selected, or recommended for the board of directors' selection, either by independent directors constituting a majority of the Board's independent directors in a vote in which only independent directors participate or a nominations committee comprised solely of independent directors; and
•
to have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibility.
We have elected to use certain of these exemptions and we may continue to use all or some of these exemptions in the future. As a result, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.
RSL owns a significant percentage of our common shares and is able to exert significant control over matters subject to shareholder approval.
Based on common shares outstanding as of March 31, 2019, RSL beneficially owns approximately 58.1% of the voting power of our outstanding common shares and has the ability to substantially influence us through this ownership position. For example, RSL is able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. RSL’s interests may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders, and RSL may act in a manner with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best interests of our other shareholders. Further, RSL is a privately held company whose ownership and governance structure is not transparent to our other shareholders. There may be changes to the management or ownership of RSL that could impact RSL’s interests in a way that may not coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders. So long as RSL continues to own a significant amount of our equity, RSL will continue to be able to strongly influence or effectively control our decisions.
Our organizational and ownership structure may create significant conflicts of interests.
Our organizational and ownership structure involves a number of relationships that may give rise to certain conflicts of interest between us and minority holders of our common shares, on the one hand, and RSL and its shareholders, on the other hand. Certain of our directors and employees have equity interests in RSL and, accordingly, their interests may be aligned with RSL’s interests, which may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of our other shareholders. Further, our other shareholders may not have visibility into the RSL ownership of any of our directors or officers, which may change at any time through acquisition, disposition, dilution, or otherwise. Any change in our directors’ or officers’ RSL ownership could impact the interests of those holders.
In addition, we are party to certain related party agreements with RSL, RSI and RSG. These entities and their shareholders, including certain of our directors and employees, may have interests which differ from our interests or those of the minority holders of our common shares. For example, we are party to an information sharing and cooperation agreement with RSL pursuant to which RSL has granted us a right of first review on any potential dementia-related product or investment opportunity that RSL may consider pursuing. It is possible that we could fail to pursue a product candidate under this agreement and that product candidate is then successfully developed and commercialized by RSL or one of its other subsidiaries or affiliates. Any material transaction between us and RSL, RSI or RSG is subject to our related party transaction policy, which requires prior approval of such transaction by our Audit Committee. To the extent we fail to appropriately deal with any such conflicts of interests, it could negatively impact our reputation and ability to raise additional funds and the willingness of counterparties to do business with us, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
If securities or industry analysts cease to publish research or reports about our business, or publish negative reports about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common shares depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. If our financial performance fails to meet analyst estimates or one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our common shares or change their opinion of our common shares, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.
Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, would be your sole source of gain.
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common shares. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. We are also subject to Bermuda legal constraints that may affect our ability to pay dividends on our common shares and make other payments. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends is currently restricted by the terms of the Loan Agreement. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common shares would be your sole source of gain on an investment in our common shares for the foreseeable future.
Future sales of our common shares, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress our share price, even if our business is doing well.
As of March 31, 2019, 13,244,047 of our outstanding common shares, representing a majority of our common shares, were held by RSL. If RSL, or any of our executive officers or directors, were to sell our common shares, or if the market perceived that RSL or any of our executive officers or directors intend to sell our common shares, it could negatively affect our share price. Such a decrease in our share price could also in turn impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities.
Further, we have filed registration statements on Form S-8 under the Securities Act to register the common shares that may be issued under our equity incentive plans from time to time. Shares registered under these registration statements are available for sale in the public market subject to vesting arrangements and exercise of options, as well as Rule 144 in the case of our affiliates. Sales of these common shares may negatively impact our share price.
In addition, we have filed a “shelf” registration statement on Form S-3 under the Securities Act, allowing us, from time to time, to offer up to $750 million of any combination of registered common shares, preferred shares, debt securities and warrants. We have also entered into a sales agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC to sell common shares having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program. To the extent we issue new common shares as a result of needing additional capital, such shares could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding common shares and cause dilution our existing shareholders.
We have incurred and will continue to incur substantial costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management has been and will be required to continue to devote substantial time to compliance with our public company responsibilities and corporate governance practices.
As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to compliance with these requirements. Moreover, changing rules and regulations may increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and more costly. If, notwithstanding our efforts to comply with new or changing laws, regulations and standards, we fail to comply, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be harmed.
Further, failure to comply with these laws, regulations and standards may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board of Directors or members of senior management.
If we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of our common shares, may be adversely affected.
Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and to protect from fraudulent, illegal or unauthorized transactions. Effective disclosure controls and procedures enable us to make timely and accurate disclosure of financial and non-financial information that we are required to disclose. If we cannot provide effective controls and reliable financial reports and other disclosures, our business and operating results could be harmed. We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of our internal controls over financial reporting or disclosure controls and procedures that, even if effective, could be improved.
We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year. Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC following the later of the date we are deemed to be a "large accelerated filer," as defined in the Exchange Act, or the date we are no longer an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act.
If material weaknesses or control deficiencies occur or our disclosure controls and procedures are ineffective in the future, we may be unable to report our financial results or make other disclosures accurately on a timely basis, which could cause our reported financial results or other disclosures to be materially misstated and result in the loss of investor confidence and cause the market price of our common shares to decline.
We are an emerging growth company, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common shares less attractive to investors.
We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (1) March 31, 2021, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, (3) the date on which we are deemed to be a "large accelerated filer," which means the market value of our common shares that are held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior September 30, the end of our second fiscal quarter, and (4) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.
In addition, under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.
Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a "smaller reporting company" which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements.
We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.
We are a Bermuda company and it may be difficult for you to enforce judgments against us or our directors and executive officers.
We are a Bermuda exempted company. As a result, the rights of our shareholders are governed by Bermuda law and our memorandum of association and bye-laws. The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law may differ from the rights of shareholders of companies incorporated in another jurisdiction. It may be difficult for investors to enforce in the United States judgments obtained in U.S. courts against us based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws. It is doubtful whether courts in Bermuda will enforce judgments obtained in other jurisdictions, including the United States, against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of those jurisdictions or entertain actions in Bermuda against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of other jurisdictions.
Bermuda law differs from the laws in effect in the United States and may afford less protection to our shareholders.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, our corporate affairs are governed by the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended ("the Companies Act") which differs in some material respects from laws typically applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders, including the provisions relating to interested directors, amalgamations, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. Generally, the duties of directors and officers of a Bermuda company are owed to the company only. Shareholders of Bermuda companies typically do not have rights to take action against directors or officers of the company and may only do so in limited circumstances. Shareholder class actions are not available under Bermuda law. The circumstances in which shareholder derivative actions may be available under Bermuda law are substantially more proscribed and less clear than they would be to shareholders of U.S. corporations. The Bermuda courts, however, would ordinarily be expected to permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of a company to remedy a wrong to the company where the act complained of is alleged to be beyond the corporate power of the company or illegal, or would result in the violation of the company’s memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, consideration would be given by a Bermuda court to acts that are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or, for instance, where an act requires the approval of a greater percentage of the company’s shareholders than those who actually approved it.
When the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some shareholders, one or more shareholders may apply to the Supreme Court of Bermuda, which may make such order as it sees fit, including an order regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs in the future or ordering the purchase of the shares of any shareholders by other shareholders or by the company. Additionally, under our bye-laws and as permitted by Bermuda law, each shareholder has waived any claim or right of action against our directors or officers for any action taken by directors or officers in the performance of their duties, except for actions involving fraud or dishonesty. In addition, the rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under Bermuda law are not as clearly established as under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in jurisdictions in the United States, particularly the State of Delaware. Therefore, our shareholders may have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction within the United States.
There are regulatory limitations on the ownership and transfer of our common shares.
Common shares may be offered or sold in Bermuda only in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the Bermuda Investment Business Act 2003, which regulates the sale of securities in Bermuda. In addition, the Bermuda Monetary Authority must approve all issues and transfers of shares of a Bermuda exempted company. However, the Bermuda Monetary Authority has, pursuant to its statement of June 1, 2005, given its general permission under the Exchange Control Act 1972 and related regulations for the issue and free transfer of our common shares to and among persons who are non-residents of Bermuda for exchange control purposes as long as the shares are listed on an appointed stock exchange, which includes Nasdaq. Additionally, we have sought and obtained specific permission from the Bermuda Monetary Authority for the issue and transfer of our common shares, options, warrants, depositary receipts, rights, loan notes, debt instruments and our other securities to persons resident and non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes while our shares are listed on an appointed stock exchange. The general permission and the specific permission would cease to apply if we were to cease to be listed on Nasdaq or any other appointed stock exchange.
Our second amended and restated bye-laws enable our board of directors to issue preference shares, which may discourage a change of control.
Our second amended and restated bye-laws contain provisions that enable our board of directors to determine the powers, preferences and rights of our preference shares and to issue the preference shares without shareholder approval.
This could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of our company and may prevent our shareholders from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our common shares offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of this provision may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common shares if it is viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.
We may reduce the voting power of your common shares without your consent.
Under our amended and restated bye-laws, in the event that any U.S. person holds, directly, indirectly or constructively, 9.5% or more of the total voting power of our issued share capital, excluding any U.S. person that held, directly, indirectly or constructively, 9.5% or more of the total voting power of issued share capital immediately prior to the closing of our IPO in 2015, the aggregate votes conferred by the common shares held by such person (or by any person through which such U.S. person indirectly or constructively holds shares) will be reduced by our Board of Directors to the extent necessary such that the common shares held, directly, indirectly or constructively, by such U.S. person will constitute less than 9.5% of the voting power of all issued and outstanding shares. RSL, certain of its affiliates, and Vivek Ramaswamy, our founder and former principal executive officer, will not be subject to these provisions. Further, our Board of Directors may determine that shares shall carry different or no voting rights as it reasonably determines, based on the advice of counsel, to be appropriate to (1) avoid the existence of any U.S. person who holds 9.5% or more of the total voting power of our issued share capital or (2) avoid adverse tax, legal or regulatory consequences to us, any subsidiary of ours or any holder of our common shares or its affiliates.
These provisions may discourage potential investors from acquiring a stake or making a significant investment in our company as well as discourage a takeover attempt, which may prevent our shareholders from receiving the benefit of any such transactions as well as adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common shares if viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.
We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities and higher effective tax rates.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, where we are not subject to any income or withholding taxes. We are centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom, and under current U. K. tax law, a company which is centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom is regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes. Accordingly, we expect to be subject to U.K. controlled foreign company rules and U.K. taxation on our income and gains, except where an exemption applies. We may be treated as a dual resident company for U.K. tax purposes. As a result, our right to claim certain reliefs from U.K. tax may be restricted, and changes in law or practice in the United Kingdom could result in the imposition of further restrictions on our right to claim U.K. tax reliefs. We may also become subject to income, withholding or other taxes in certain jurisdictions by reason of our activities and operations, and it is also possible that taxing authorities in any such jurisdictions could assert that we are subject to greater taxation than we currently anticipate. Any such additional tax liability could harm our results of operations.
The intended tax effects of our corporate structure and intercompany arrangements depend on the application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and on how we operate our business.
We and RSL, our majority shareholder, are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. We currently have subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ireland and the United States. If we succeed in growing our business, we expect to conduct increased operations through our subsidiaries in various countries and tax jurisdictions in part through intercompany service agreements between us, our parent company and our subsidiaries. In that case, our corporate structure and intercompany transactions, including the manner in which we develop and use our intellectual property, will be organized so that we can achieve our business objectives in a tax-efficient manner and in compliance with applicable transfer pricing rules and regulations. If two or more affiliated companies are located in different countries or tax jurisdictions, the tax laws and regulations of each country generally will require that transfer prices be the same as those between unrelated companies dealing at arms’ length and that appropriate documentation be maintained to support the transfer prices. While we believe that we operate in compliance with applicable transfer pricing laws and intend to continue to do so, our transfer pricing procedures are not binding on applicable tax authorities. If tax authorities in any of these countries were to successfully challenge our transfer prices as not reflecting arm’s length transactions, they could require us to adjust our transfer prices and thereby reallocate our income to reflect these revised transfer prices, which could result in a higher tax liability to us. In addition, if the country from which the income is reallocated does not agree with the reallocation, both countries could tax the same income, potentially resulting in double taxation. If tax authorities were to allocate income to a higher tax jurisdiction, subject our income to double taxation or assess interest and penalties, it would increase our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Significant judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely impacted by changes in foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting, and other laws, regulations, principles, and interpretations. As we intend to operate in numerous countries and taxing jurisdictions, the application of tax laws can be subject to diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations by tax authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which the arm’s length standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes, or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property. In addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. We continue to assess the impact of such changes in tax laws on our business and may determine that changes to our structure, practice or tax positions are necessary in light of such changes and developments in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could harm our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Changes in our effective tax rate may reduce our net income in future periods.
Our tax position could be adversely impacted by changes in tax rates, tax laws, tax practice, tax treaties or tax regulations or changes in the interpretation thereof by the tax authorities in Europe (including the United Kingdom and Switzerland), the United States, Bermuda and other jurisdictions as well as being affected by certain changes currently proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and their action plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Such changes may become more likely as a result of recent economic trends in the jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly if such trends continue. If such a situation was to arise, it could harm our tax position and our effective tax rate. Failure to manage the risks associated with such changes, or misinterpretation of the laws providing such changes, could result in costly audits, interest, penalties and reputational damage, which could harm our business, results of our operations and our financial condition.
Our actual effective tax rate may vary from our expectation and that variance may be material. A number of factors may increase our future effective tax rates, including: (1) the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; (2) the resolution of issues arising from any future tax audits with various tax authorities; (3) changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities; (4) increases in expenses not deductible for tax purposes, including transaction costs and impairments of goodwill in connection with acquisitions; (5) changes in the taxation of share-based compensation; (6) changes in tax laws or the interpretation of such tax laws, and changes in generally accepted accounting principles; and (7) challenges to the transfer pricing policies related to our structure.
U.S. holders that own 10% or more of the vote or value of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences because we and/or any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are expected to be characterized as a controlled foreign corporation ("CFC") under Section 957(a) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("the Code").
A non-U.S. corporation is considered a CFC if more than 50% of (1) the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of such corporation entitled to vote, or (2) the total value of the stock of such corporation, is owned, or is considered as owned by applying certain constructive ownership rules, by United States shareholders (U.S. persons who own stock representing 10% or more of the vote or, for taxable years of non-U.S. corporations beginning after December 31, 2017, and for taxable years of shareholders with or within which such taxable years of non-U.S. corporations end, 10% or more of the value) on any day during the taxable year of such non-U.S. corporation. Certain United States shareholders of a CFC generally are required to include currently in gross income such shareholders’ share of the CFC’s "Subpart F income", a portion of the CFC’s earnings to the extent the CFC holds certain U.S. property, and a portion of the CFC's "global intangible low-taxed income" (as defined under Section 951A of the Code). Such United States shareholders are subject to current U.S. federal income tax with respect to such items, even if the CFC has not made an actual distribution to such shareholders. "Subpart F income" includes, among other things, certain passive income (such as income from dividends, interests, royalties, rents and annuities or gain from the sale of property that produces such types of income) and certain sales and services income arising in connection with transactions between the CFC and a person related to the CFC. "Global intangible low-taxed income" may include most of the remainder of a CFC’s income over a deemed return on its tangible assets.
We believe that we and our non-U.S. subsidiaries are classified as CFCs in the current taxable year. For U.S. holders who hold 10% or more of the vote or value of our common shares, this may result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, such as current U.S. taxation of Subpart F income and of any such shareholder’s share of our accumulated non-U.S. earnings and profits (regardless of whether we make any distributions), taxation of amounts treated as global intangible low-taxed income under Section 951A of the Code with respect to such shareholder, and being subject to certain reporting requirements with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Any such U.S. holder who is an individual generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a U.S. corporation. If you are a U.S. holder who holds 10% or more of the vote or value of our common shares, you should consult your own tax advisors regarding the U.S. tax consequences of acquiring, owning, or disposing our common shares.
U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company ("PFIC").
Generally, if, for any taxable year, at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. Additionally, a look-through rule generally applies with respect to 25% or more owned subsidiaries. If we are characterized as a PFIC, U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of our common shares treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential tax rate applicable to dividends received on our common shares by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to distributions by us and the proceeds of sales of our common shares.
Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets from time to time. The 50% passive asset test described above is generally based on the fair market value of each asset, with the value of goodwill and going concern value determined in large part by reference to the market value of our common shares, which may be volatile. Our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize the cash proceeds from our IPO and subsequent financings in our business. With respect to the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2019, we believe that we were not a PFIC; however, with respect to foreseeable future taxable years, because the PFIC tests are based upon the value of our assets, including any goodwill and going concern value, and the nature and composition of our income and assets, which cannot be known at this time, we cannot predict whether we will or will not be classified as a PFIC. Because the determination of whether we are a PFIC for any taxable year is a fact-intensive determination made annually after the end of each taxable year, and because certain aspects of the PFIC rules are uncertain, we cannot provide any assurances regarding our PFIC status for the current or future taxable years.
In our taxable year ending March 31, 2019, we implemented structures and arrangements intended to mitigate the possibility that we will be classified as a PFIC. There can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully challenge these structures and arrangements, which may result in an adverse impact on the determination of whether we are classified as a PFIC.
Legislation enacted in Bermuda in response to the European Union's review of harmful tax competition could be harmful to our business.
During 2017, the European Union Economic and Financial Affairs Council ("ECOFIN") released a list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. The stated aim of this list, and accompanying report, was to promote good governance worldwide in order to maximize efforts to prevent tax fraud and tax evasion. In an effort to remain off this list, Bermuda committed to address concerns relating to economic substance by December 31, 2018. In accordance with that commitment, Bermuda has enacted legislation that requires certain entities in Bermuda engaged in "relevant activities" to maintain a substantial economic presence in Bermuda and to satisfy economic substance requirements. The list of "relevant activities" includes carrying on as a business any one or more of: banking, insurance, fund management, financing, leasing, headquarters, shipping, distribution and service center, intellectual property and holding entities. At present, it is unclear what (if anything) the company would be required to do in order to satisfy economic substance requirements in Bermuda, but to the extent we are required to increase our substance in Bermuda to satisfy such requirements, it could result in additional costs that could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. If we were required to satisfy economic substance requirements in Bermuda but failed to do so, we could face automatic disclosure to competent authorities in the EU of the information filed by us with the Bermuda Registrar of Companies in connection with the economic substance requirements and may also face financial penalties, restriction or regulation of our business activities and/or may be struck off as a registered entity in Bermuda.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties
Our principal offices are located at Suite 1, 3rd Floor, 11-12 St. James's Square, London, United Kingdom SW1Y 4LB and our registered office is located at Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda. We also have business operations in Basel, Switzerland and in New York, New York. In June 2017, we entered into a lease for office space in New York, New York, which expires in January 2021. In August 2017, we entered into a lease agreement for office space in Princeton, New Jersey, which expires in August 2020.
We believe that all of our facilities are in good condition and are well maintained and that our current arrangements will be sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future and that any required additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms to meet space requirements if they arise.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any pending or threatened legal proceeding against us that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
PART II.
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information for Common Shares
Our common shares began trading on the NYSE under the symbol "AXON" on June 11, 2015. Prior to that date, there was no public market for our common shares. Effective September 6, 2017, we changed our listing to the Nasdaq Global Select Market and began trading under the symbol "AXON". Effective February 14, 2019, we changed our symbol to "AXGT".
A 1-for-8 reverse share split of our outstanding common stock was effected on May 8, 2019 as approved by our Board of Directors and a majority of our shareholders. The reverse share split reduced the number of common shares issued and outstanding from approximately 182.2 million to 22.8 million as of March 31, 2019. As such, all references to share and per share amounts in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse share split, except for the authorized number of shares of our common stock and the par value per share, which were not affected.
Shareholders
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company is the transfer agent and registrar for our common shares. As of June 7, 2019, we had two holders of record of our common shares. The actual number of shareholders is greater than this number of record holders and includes shareholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include shareholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.
Dividend Policy
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common shares. We anticipate that we will retain all of our future earnings, if any, for use in the expansion and operation of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Payment of future dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends is currently restricted by the terms of the Loan Agreement with Hercules.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Parties
None.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
In the table below, we provide you with our selected consolidated financial data for the periods presented. The information has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements found elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the other reports we have filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act. You should read the following selected consolidated financial data in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and "Item 7
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage company focused on developing innovative gene therapies for neurological diseases. We are developing a pipeline of innovative product candidates for the treatment of these debilitating diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, GM1 gangliosidosis, and GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). We are dedicated to realizing the potential of gene therapies to offer transformative patient outcomes in areas of high unmet medical need. We have assembled a portfolio of gene therapies in partnership with leading scientific institutions and have built a team with extensive experience in the gene therapy space. We will continue to build integrated internal development capabilities from product development through commercialization, with a focus on accelerating the pace of product development in the clinic. As part of our ongoing business strategy we continue to explore potential opportunities to acquire or license new product candidates as well as opportunities for partnership or collaboration on our existing products in development. Our vision is to build the world's leading gene therapy company for the treatment of neurological diseases by progressing our current programs and identifying, developing and commercializing other novel gene therapy treatments for neurological diseases.
See section "Our Key Agreements" within "Item 1 - Business" of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding the our license agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. (the "Oxford BioMedica Agreement" and "Oxford BioMedica", respectively), our license and collaboration agreement with Benitec Biopharma Limited (the "Benitec Agreement" and "Benitec", respectively), and our license agreement with the University of Massachusetts Medical School (the "UMMS Agreement" and "UMMS", respectively).
Services Agreements with Roivant Sciences, Inc. and Roivant Sciences GmbH
In October 2014, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, ASI, entered into a services agreement with RSI, a wholly owned subsidiary of RSL, pursuant to which RSI provides us with services in relation to the identification of potential product candidates and project management of clinical trials, as well as other services related to our development, administrative and financial functions. In February 2017, in connection with the contribution and assignment of all of our intellectual property rights to ASG, we amended and restated this services agreement effective as of December 13, 2016, as a result of which ASG was added as a recipient of services from RSI. In addition, ASG also entered into a separate services agreement with RSG, a wholly owned subsidiary of RSL, effective as of December 13, 2016, for the provision of services by RSG to ASG in relation to the identification of potential product candidates and project management of clinical trials, as well as other services related to development, administrative and financial activities. Both services agreements were further amended and restated in June 2019. Under the terms of both services agreements, we are obligated to pay or reimburse RSI and RSG for the costs they, or third parties acting on their behalf, incur in providing services to us or ASG, including administrative and support services as well as research and development services. In addition, we are obligated to pay to RSI and RSG at a predetermined mark-up on the costs incurred directly by RSI and RSG in connection with any general and administrative and research and development services provided directly by RSI and RSG. Under the services agreement, RSI and RSG, respectively, as service providers, have agreed to indemnify us and each of our officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the provision of services (or the failure to provide services) under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify RSI and RSG, respectively, and their respective affiliates and officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the receipt of services under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. Such indemnification obligations will not exceed the payments made by us under the applicable services agreement for the specific service that allegedly caused or was related to the losses during the period in which such alleged losses were incurred. The term of each of the services agreements will continue until terminated upon 90 days’ written notice by any party with respect to the services such party provides or receives thereunder.
For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, we incurred expenses of $5.1 million and $8.5 million, respectively, under the services agreements, inclusive of the mark-up, which includes a portion of the expenses incurred by RSI and RSL on behalf of us that have been treated as capital contributions. We have recorded these charges as research and development expense and general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of operations.
Financial Operations Overview
Revenue
We have not generated any revenue from the sale of any products, and we do not expect to generate any revenue unless and until we obtain regulatory approval of and begin to commercialize one of our gene therapy product candidates in development.
Research and Development Expense
Since our inception, our operations have primarily been focused on organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, and acquiring, preparing for and advancing our product candidates into clinical development. Our research and development expenses include program-specific costs as well as unallocated internal costs.
Program-specific costs include:
•
direct third-party costs, which include expenses incurred under agreements with CROs and contract manufacturing organizations, the cost of consultants who assist with the development of our product candidates on a program-specific basis, investigator grants, sponsored research, manufacturing costs in connection with producing materials for use in conducting nonclinical and clinical studies, and any other third-party expenses directly attributable to the development of our product candidates; and
•
upfront payments for the purchase of in-process research and development, which include costs incurred under our agreements with Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, as well as costs incurred for our discontinued AXO-AAV-OPMD, intepirdine and nelotanserin programs.
Unallocated internal costs include:
•
share-based compensation expense for research and development personnel, including expense related to RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSI and RSG employees;
•
personnel-related expenses, which include employee-related expenses, such as salaries, benefits and travel expenses, for research and development personnel;
•
costs allocated to us under our services agreements with RSI and RSG; and
•
other expenses, which includes the cost of consultants who assist with our research and development but are not allocated to a specific program.
Research and development activities will continue to be central to our business model. We expect our research and development expense to increase as we advance our current gene therapy product candidate programs and additional product candidates we may in-license or acquire as we pursue our updated business plan. For the year ended March 31, 2019, the majority of our research and development expenses have been associated with our gene therapy product candidates. For the year ended March 31, 2018, the majority of our research and development expenses were associated with advancing intepirdine.
Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials.
The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials of our products in development and any other product candidates will depend on a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
the number of trials required for approval;
•
the per patient trial costs;
•
the number of patients who participate in the trials;
•
the number of sites included in the trials;
•
the countries in which the trials are conducted;
•
the length of time required to enroll eligible patients;
•
the dose that patients receive;
•
the drop-out or discontinuation rates of patients;
•
the potential additional safety monitoring or other studies requested by regulatory agencies;
•
the duration of patient follow-up;
•
the timing and receipt of regulatory approvals; and
•
the efficacy and safety profile of the product candidates.
In addition, the probability of success of our gene therapy products in development and any other product candidate will depend on numerous factors, including competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval of our gene therapy product candidates for any indication in any country. As a result of the uncertainties discussed above, we are unable to determine in advance the duration and completion costs of any clinical trial we conduct, or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of our products in development or other product candidates, if at all.
General and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of share-based compensation, legal and accounting fees, consulting services, services received under the services agreements with RSI and RSG and employee-related expenses, such as salaries, benefits and travel expenses, for general and administrative personnel.
We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will decrease, primarily as the result of a reduction in share-based compensation and other employee-related expenses for our general and administrative personnel due to headcount reductions over the past year, as we have changed our focus from small molecules to gene therapies.
Results of Operations for the Years Ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018
The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018 (in thousands):
Research and Development Expenses
For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, our research and development expenses consisted of the following (in thousands):
Research and development expenses were $87.6 million for the year ended March 31, 2019 and consisted primarily of $30.3 million related to AXO-LENTI-PD, $14.6 million related to AXO-AAV-OPMD, $11.2 million related to AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, personnel-related expenses of $10.0 million, $8.1 million related to nelotanserin, share-based compensation of $4.8 million, and other unallocated costs of $5.1 million. The share-based compensation expense was net of a benefit of $(2.8) million related to the RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSI and RSG employees.
Research and development expenses decreased by $53.9 million in the year ended March 31, 2019 compared to the year ended March 31, 2018. Expenses related to intepirdine decreased by $79.0 million due to the discontinuation of our development program for intepirdine, share-based compensation expenses decreased by $11.8 million, net of forfeitures, nelotanserin costs decreased by $10.8 million due to the wind-down of our nelotanserin clinical studies and personnel-related expenses decreased by $5.3 million primarily due to decreased headcount, offset by increases of $30.3 million related to AXO-LENTI-PD, which includes a $25.0 million license fee paid to Oxford BioMedica, $14.6 million related to AXO-AAV-OPMD, which includes a $10.0 million license fee paid to Benitec, and $11.2 million related to AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, which includes a $10.0 million license fee paid to UMMS.
Research and development expenses were $141.4 million for the year ended March 31, 2018, and consisted primarily of $80.2 million related to intepirdine, $18.9 million related to nelotanserin, share-based compensation expense of $16.6 million, personnel-related expenses of $15.4 million and other unallocated costs of $5.1 million. Share-based compensation expense for the year ended March 31, 2018 includes $4.3 million related to the RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSI and RSG employees.
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses were $39.5 million for the year ended March 31, 2019 and consisted of share-based compensation expense of $11.7 million, personnel expenses of $9.5 million, professional fees of $7.7 million, general operating costs of $7.4 million and direct and indirect costs of $2.7 million allocated to us under the services agreements.
General and administrative expenses decreased $32.4 million in the year ended March 31, 2019, compared to the year ended March 31, 2018, as personnel-related expenses decreased by $13.1 million resulting from reduced headcount, employee severance and other personnel benefits, marketing expenses decreased by $8.7 million due to the discontinuation of our intepirdine program, general operating costs decreased by $4.5 million primarily due to a decrease in amortization of leasehold improvements and decreases in consulting fees, travel and conference expenses associated with decreased headcount, share-based compensation expense decreased by $3.6 million and direct and indirect costs allocated to us under the services agreements with RSI and RSG decreased by $3.1 million.
General and administrative expenses were $71.9 million for the year ended March 31, 2018, and consisted of personnel expenses of $22.6 million, share-based compensation expense of $15.3 million, general operating costs of $11.9 million, marketing expenses of $9.3 million, professional fees of $7.0 million and direct and indirect costs of $5.8 million allocated to us under our services agreements.
Interest Expense
Interest expense was $7.5 million for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, which consisted of interest paid and the amortization of debt discount related to the Loan Agreement with Hercules.
Other Income
Other income was $5.6 million and $0.2 million for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The year ended March 31, 2019 included income of $5.9 million associated with convertible preferred stock received as compensation for services provided and certain intangible assets, partially offset by a foreign exchange loss of $0.8 million. All other income for the year ended March 31, 2018 was attributable to foreign exchange gains.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Sources of Liquidity
Since our initial public offering in June 2015, our operations have been financed primarily through sales of common shares and borrowings under our credit facilities. As of March 31, 2019, we had $107.0 million of cash and cash equivalents available to us.
Capital Requirements
We are currently in the clinical stage of operations and have not yet achieved profitability. We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash flows, for the foreseeable future as we continue to develop our gene therapy product candidates and prepares for potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our products. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for at least one of our gene therapy product candidates. Our current cash and cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete all necessary development activities and commercially launch our products.
We expect to spend substantial amounts to complete the development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our gene therapy product candidates. We will require cash to pay principal and interest on our Term Loan with Hercules, of which a $40.2 million aggregate principal amount remains outstanding as of June 11, 2019. We expect to pay $19.2 million in principal and interest under the Term Loan with Hercules during the remainder of the year ended March 31, 2020 and the principal amount outstanding at the end of the 2019 fiscal year will be $24.1 million unless we prepay some or all of the principal amount. In addition, as part of our business development strategy, we generally structure our license agreements and collaboration agreements so that a significant portion of the total license cost is contingent upon the successful achievement of specified development, regulatory or commercial milestones. As a result, we will require cash to make payments upon achievement of these milestones under these agreements. Based on our anticipated timeline for the achievement of development, regulatory and commercial milestones, we expect we will make total milestone payments under our license agreements and collaboration agreements of approximately $17.0 million through March 31, 2020, including $1.0 million that was achieved in February 2019 under the UMMS Agreement and $15.0 million that was achieved in April 2019 under the Oxford BioMedica agreement. To the extent we achieve additional development, regulatory and commercial milestones through March 31, 2020, we may pay additional milestone payments under our license agreements and collaboration agreements.
Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our gene therapy product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:
•
the progress, timing, costs and results of our clinical trials of our gene therapy product candidates;
•
the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA, the EMA, or the PMDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities;
•
the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercialization milestones that give rise to milestone and royalty payments to licensors;
•
the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent claims and other intellectual property rights;
•
the cost of obtaining necessary intellectual property and defending potential intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions brought by third parties against us or our gene therapy product candidates or any future gene therapy product candidates;
•
the effect of competing technological and market developments;
•
the cost and timing of completion of commercial-scale manufacturing activities;
•
the cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for our gene therapy product candidates in regions where we choose to commercialize our products on our own; and
•
the initiation, progress, timing and results of our commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, if approved for commercial sale.
As of March 31, 2019, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $107.0 million and our accumulated deficit was $686.0 million. For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, we incurred net losses of $129.1 million and $221.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2019, we had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $44.2 million, of which $21.2 million was due within one year. We also had $22.3 million of other non-interest-bearing current liabilities due within one year. Our Loan Agreement with Hercules requires that we maintain a minimum cash balance equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement. We anticipate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance will not be sufficient to maintain compliance with the minimum liquidity financial covenant under the Loan Agreement beyond the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements were issued if the Loan Agreement is not amended or an additional financing is not completed. Failure to meet this minimum covenant would be considered an event of default under the Loan Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our existing indebtedness.
Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue from sales of our products in development, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and potential collaboration, license or development agreements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds other than our credit facilities with Hercules. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our shareholders’ rights. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.
In addition, if we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.
To continue as a going concern, we will need, among other things, to raise additional capital resources. We continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete our currently planned development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and due to these uncertainties, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as going concern.
At-the-Market Equity Offering Program
In December 2016, we filed a registration statement with the SEC for the offer and sale from time to time of up to $750.0 million of any combination of registered common shares, preferred shares, debt securities, and warrants.
In June 2018, we entered into a sales agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC ("Cowen") to sell common shares having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program under which Cowen is acting as our agent. Cowen is entitled to compensation for its services in an amount up to 3% of the gross proceeds of any of our common shares sold under the sales agreement. As of March 31, 2019, approximately $74.9 million of our common shares remained available for sale under the sales agreement.
Loan and Security Agreement with Hercules Capital, Inc.
On February 2, 2017, we and our wholly owned subsidiaries, AHL, ASG, and ASI, entered into the Loan Agreement with Hercules as agent and lender, which was amended on May 24 and September 22, 2017. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, we, AHL and ASG, as the borrowers, borrowed an aggregate of $55.0 million. ASI issued a guaranty of the borrowers’ obligations under the Loan Agreement, and at the closing, we paid Hercules a facility charge of $550,000. Subsequently, we added our subsidiary ASA as a borrower in July 2017 and our subsidiaries Axovant Treasury Holdings, Inc. ("ATH") and Axovant Treasury, Inc. ("ATI") as borrowers in April 2018.
The Term Loan bears interest at a variable per annum rate calculated for any day as the greater of either (i) the prime rate plus 6.80%, and (ii) 10.55%. The Term Loan has a scheduled maturity date of March 1, 2021. The borrowers are obligated to make monthly payments of accrued interest under the Loan Agreement until September 1, 2018, followed by monthly installments of principal and interest through March 1, 2021. The borrowers’ obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by a first position lien on substantially all of their and ASI’s respective assets, other than intellectual property. If we prepay the loan prior to March 1, 2021, we will be obligated to pay Hercules a prepayment charge, based on a percentage of the then-outstanding principal balance, equal to 2.0% if the prepayment occurs after 18 months but prior to 36 months following February 2, 2017, and 1.0% if the prepayment occurs thereafter.
The Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and restrictive covenants and representations and warranties, including a minimum cash covenant, a covenant against the occurrence of a "change in control," financial reporting obligations, and certain limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, liens (including a negative pledge on intellectual property and other assets), investments, distributions (including dividends), collateral, transfers, mergers or acquisitions, taxes, corporate changes, and deposit accounts. The Loan Agreement also includes customary events of default, including payment defaults, breaches of covenants following any applicable cure period, the occurrence of certain events that could reasonably be expected to have a "material adverse effect" as set forth in the Loan Agreement, cross acceleration to the debt and certain events relating to bankruptcy or insolvency. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, a default interest rate of an additional 5.0% may be applied to the outstanding principal balance, and Hercules may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Loan Agreement. In addition, for so long as the Term Loan remains outstanding, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to afford Hercules the opportunity to participate in future underwritten equity offerings of our common shares up to a total of $3.0 million.
In connection with the entry into the Loan Agreement, we issued a warrant to Hercules which was exercisable for an aggregate of 34,260 of our common shares at an exercise price of $96.32 per share. In August 2017, Hercules exercised the warrant on a cashless basis and received a net issuance of 16,228 of our common shares.
Cash Flows
The following table sets forth a summary of our cash flows for each of the periods shown (in thousands):
Operating Activities
Cash flows from operating activities consist of net loss adjusted for non-cash items, including depreciation and share-based compensation expense, as well as the effect of changes in working capital and other activities.
For the year ended March 31, 2019, net cash used in operating activities was $134.2 million and was primarily attributable to a net loss of $129.1 million, which includes costs incurred for research and development activities, including upfront license fees, CRO fees, manufacturing, regulatory and other clinical trial costs and our general and administrative expenses, a decrease of $11.2 million in accrued expenses, a realized noncash gain of $5.9 million associated with an investment in convertible preferred stock and an increase of $3.7 million in prepaid assets and other current assets, partially offset by $16.4 million of non-cash share-based compensation expense.
For the year ended March 31, 2018, net cash used in operating activities was $190.3 million and was primarily attributable to a net loss of $221.6 million, partially offset by $31.9 million of non-cash share-based compensation expense.
Investing Activities
For the year ended March 31, 2019, net cash used in investing activities was $0.2 million, consisting of purchases of software and computer equipment.
For the year ended March 31, 2018, net cash used in investing activities was $4.3 million, consisting of leasehold improvements and purchases of furniture and equipment.
Financing Activities
For the year ended March 31, 2019, net cash provided by financing activities was $87.1 million, primarily attributable to the net proceeds of $94.5 million from the issuance and sale of our common shares in two public offerings, a private placement to RSL, and our share sales agreement with Cowen, a capital contribution of $1.9 million from RSI and RSG related to expenses incurred under their respective services agreements and proceeds of $0.3 million from the exercise of stock options, partially offset by $9.7 million of payments made on long-term debt.
For the year ended March 31, 2018, net cash provided by financing activities was $136.4 million, primarily attributable to the net proceeds of $134.5 million received from the sale of 969,188 common shares in a follow-on public offering.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined under the SEC’s rules.
Contractual Obligations
The following table provides information with respect to our outstanding contractual obligations as of March 31, 2019:
In the normal course of business, we enter into services agreements with third parties for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research activities. Our existing manufacturing agreements can be terminated by us with 30 days written notice. These cancelable contracts are not included in the table above.
Milestone and Royalty Payments
In addition to the amounts shown in the above table, we are contractually obligated to make up to $55.0 million in payments to Oxford BioMedica upon the achievement of specified development milestones and $757.5 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory and sales milestones for AXO-LENTI-PD, as well as a tiered royalty from 7% to 10% of the yearly aggregate net sales of the underlying gene therapy products. We could also be obligated to make payments to UMMS totaling up to $24.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $39.8 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones for AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2. We are also obligated to pay UMMS tiered mid-single digit royalties based on yearly net sales of the licensed products, subject to a specified annual minimum amount. Additionally, we will pay UMMS a percent of any revenues we receive from any third-party sublicenses to licensed products at rates ranging in the mid-single digits to mid-teens. On June 5, 2019, we, through our wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, notified Benitec of our intention to terminate the license and collaboration agreement with Benitec in its entirety, which will be effective on September 3, 2019, and therefore we will not be obligated to make milestone or royalty payments under this agreement.
These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events and, given the nature of those events, it is unclear when, if ever, we may be required to make sure payments, and with respect to royalty payments, what the total amount of such payments will be. Further, the timing of any of the foregoing future payments is not reasonably estimable. For those reasons, these contingent payments have not been included in the table above.
Debt Obligations
Debt obligations reflect our obligations to pay interest on the outstanding principal amount of $45.3 million as of March 31, 2019 under the Loan Agreement with Hercules and to make periodic principal repayments. Our debt obligation under the Hercules Loan Agreement bears interest at a variable per annum rate calculated for any day as the greater of either (i) the prime rate plus 6.80%, and (ii) 10.55%. The related interest on the aggregate principal amounts outstanding to Hercules included in the above table was estimated using the interest rate in effect as of March 31, 2019. See Note 6, “Long-term Debt,” in the accompanying consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further discussion of the Loan Agreement with Hercules.
Real Property Leases
In June 2017, we entered into a lease with a third-party for approximately 19,554 square feet of office space in New York, New York. This license agreement was originally set to expire in January 2019 and was extended to January 2021 in August 2018. ASA leases 955 square feet of office space in Princeton, New Jersey under a lease agreement expiring in August 2020. For the year ended March 31, 2019, we incurred $1.7 million in rent expense under these agreements.
During the year ended March 31, 2016, we entered into two subleases with RSI for office space in New York, New York. Under the terms of the subleases, RSI paid rent obligations directly pursuant to a master lease, and then invoiced us based on our proportionate share of the space and overhead expenses, calculated based upon the relative numbers of full-time equivalent employees located on the premises. As a result, our rent obligations were not fixed. We ceased incurring rent expense under this arrangement with RSI after entering into the lease for office space in New York, New York in June 2017. For the year ended March 31, 2018, we incurred $0.9 million in rent expense under this arrangement with RSI.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
For detailed information regarding recently issued accounting pronouncements and the expected impact on our financial statements, refer to Note 2 "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," in the accompanying notes to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates
Our management's discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the dates of the balance sheets and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting periods. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. Significant estimates include assumptions used in the determination of some of our costs incurred under the services agreements with RSI and RSG, which costs are charged to research and development and general and administrative expense, as well as assumptions used to estimate our ability to continue as a going concern and estimate the fair value of our common shares. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
We define our critical accounting policies as those under U.S. GAAP that require us to make subjective estimates and judgments about matters that are uncertain and are likely to have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the specific manner in which we apply those principles.
Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Not all of these significant accounting policies, however, require that we make estimates and assumptions that we believe are "critical accounting estimates." We believe that our estimates relating to share-based compensation, research and development accruals, income taxes and our ability to continue as a going concern have the greatest potential impact on our consolidated financial statements and consider these to be our critical accounting policies and estimates and are "critical accounting estimates."
Share-Based Compensation
We recognize share-based compensation expense related to stock options granted based on the estimated fair value of the awards on the date of grant. We estimate the grant date fair value of stock option awards with only time-based vesting requirements using a Black-Scholes valuation model and use a Monte Carlo Simulation method under the income approach to estimate the grant date fair value of stock option awards with market-based performance conditions. The grant date fair value of the share-based awards is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective awards. Share-based payments to nonemployees issued in exchange for services is based upon the fair value of the equity instruments issued. Compensation expense for stock options issued to nonemployees is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and is recorded over the service performance period. Prior to the adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-07, "Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting" ("ASU No. 2018-07") on April 1, 2019, options subject to vesting were periodically remeasured to income or expense over the service performance period, which was generally the same as the vesting period. After the adoption of ASU No. 2018-07, we measure equity-classified share-based payment awards issued to nonemployees on the grant date, rather than remeasuring the awards and recognizing income or expense through the performance completion date as previously required.
The Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the use of highly subjective assumptions, which are used to determine the fair value of only time-based option awards. These assumptions include:
Expected Term. The expected term represents the period that our time-based option awards are expected to be outstanding and is determined using the simplified method (based on the mid-point between the vesting date and the end of the contractual term).
Expected Volatility. Because we do not have an extended trading history for our common shares, the expected volatility is estimated using weighted average measures of implied volatility and the historical volatility of our peer group of companies for a period equal to the expected life of the stock options. Our peer group of publicly traded biopharmaceutical companies was chosen based on their similar size, stage in the life cycle or area of specialty.
Risk-Free Interest Rate. The risk-free interest rate is based on the interest rates paid on securities issued by the U.S. Treasury with a term approximating the expected life of the only time-based stock options.
Expected Dividend. We have never paid, and do not anticipate paying, cash dividends on our common shares. Therefore, the expected dividend yield was assumed to be zero.
A significant component of total share-based compensation expense relates to the RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSL, RSG and RSI employees. For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, we recorded share-based compensation (benefit) expense of $(2.6) million and $5.4 million, respectively, in relation to the RSL common share awards and RSL stock options issued by RSL to RSL, RSG and RSI employees. Share-based compensation expense is allocated to us by RSL based upon the relative percentage of time utilized by RSL, RSG and RSI employees on our matters. The RSL common share awards and RSL options are fair valued on the date of grant, which is recognized over the requisite service period. The fair value of each RSL option is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes closed-form option-pricing model. Significant judgment and estimates were used to estimate the fair value of these awards and options as RSL is not publicly traded, and as such, these awards and options classified as Level 3 due to their unobservable nature. RSL common share awards and RSL options are subject to specified vesting schedules and requirements (a mix of time-based, performance-based and corporate event-based, including targets for RSL’s post-IPO market capitalization and future financing events).
Research and Development Expense
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Clinical study costs are accrued over the service periods specified in the contracts and adjusted as necessary based upon an ongoing review of the level of effort and costs actually incurred. Payments for a product license prior to regulatory approval of the product and payments for milestones achieved prior to regulatory approval of the product are expensed in the period incurred as research and development. Milestone payments made in connection with regulatory approvals are capitalized and amortized to cost of revenue over the remaining useful life of the asset. Research and development costs are charged to expense when incurred and primarily consist of the intellectual property and research and development materials acquired from UMMS, Benitec, Oxford BioMedica, Arena, Glaxo Group Limited and GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited, as well as certain costs charged by RSI and RSG under their services agreements with us, and expenses from third parties who conduct research and development activities on our behalf. We expense in-process research and development projects acquired as asset acquisitions which have not reached technological feasibility, and which have no alternative future use.
Income Taxes
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and the respective tax bases. 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 income in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is recorded when, after consideration of all positive and negative evidence, it is not more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will be realizable. When uncertain tax positions exist, we recognize the tax benefit of tax positions to the extent that the benefit will more likely than not be realized. The determination as to whether the tax benefit will more likely than not be realized is based upon the technical merits of the tax position as well as consideration of the available facts and circumstances. When and if we were to recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits, they would be reported in tax expense in the consolidated statements of operations.
Going Concern
We assess and determine our ability to continue as a going concern under the provisions of ASC Topic 205-40, "Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern," which requires us to evaluate whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that our annual and interim consolidated financial statements are issued. Certain additional financial statement disclosures are required if such conditions or events are identified. If and when an entity’s liquidation becomes imminent, financial statements should be prepared under the liquidation basis of accounting.
Determining the extent, if any, to which conditions or events raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, or the extent to which mitigating plans sufficiently alleviate any such substantial doubt, as well as whether or not liquidation is imminent, requires significant judgment by us. We have determined that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2019 were issued, which have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern. We have not made any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the possible inability of us to continue as a going concern.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Market risk is the potential loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and market prices such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and changes in the market value of equity instruments. As of March 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents of $107.0 million, with cash consisting of non-interest bearing deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar and Swiss franc, and cash equivalents consisting of interest-bearing money market fund deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar, which are invested in debt securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury and U.S. government securities. We have policies requiring us to invest in high-quality issuers, limit our exposure to any individual issuer, and ensure adequate liquidity. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because our cash equivalent investments are in the form of money market funds and marketable securities and are invested in U.S. Treasury obligations. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 100 basis point change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our portfolio.
We also have debt that bears interest at a prime-based variable rate. A 10% change in this interest rate would have an impact of approximately $0.4 million on our annual interest expense. We do not believe we are currently exposed to any material market risk.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
All financial statements and schedules required to be filed hereunder are listed in the Index to Financial Statements and set forth in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2019, the end of the period covered by this report. The term "disclosure controls and procedures" (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")), means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of March 31, 2019 at the reasonable assurance level.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2019, based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
Based on the results of our evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2019.
Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls
Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. have been detected.
Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm due to an exemption established by the JOBS Act for "emerging growth companies."
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
No changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) occurred during the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information
On June 10, 2019, we, ASI and ASG entered into an Amended and Restated Services Agreement with RSI, and ASG entered into an Amended and Rested Services Agreement with RSG. The terms of these agreements are set forth in "Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Services Agreements with Roivant Sciences, Inc. and Roivant Sciences GmbH."
PART III.
We will file a definitive proxy statement for our 2019 annual meeting of shareholders (the "2019 Proxy Statement") with the SEC, pursuant to Regulation 14A, not later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal year. Accordingly, certain information required by Part III has been omitted under General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K. Only those sections of the 2019 Proxy Statement that specifically address the items set forth herein are incorporated by reference.
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
The information required by this item will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement under the captions "Discussion of Proposals," "Information About Corporate Governance," "Information About Our Executive Officers" and "Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
The information required by this item will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement under the captions "Information About Corporate Governance" and "Executive Compensation" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters
The information required by this item will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement under the captions "Principal Shareholders, "Information About Our Executive Officers" and "Equity Compensation Plan Information" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
The information required by this item will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement under the caption "Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services
The information required by this item will be contained in our 2019 Proxy Statement under the captions "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fees and Other Matters" and "Discussion of Proposals" and is incorporated herein by reference.
PART IV. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules
(a) Documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
(1) Financial Statements. The Consolidated Financial Statements are included as Appendix A hereto and are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Consolidated Financial Statements include:
(2) Exhibits. The exhibits set forth below on the Exhibit Index to this annual report are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This list of exhibits identifies each management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Exhibit Index
† Filed herewith.
+Indicates management contract or compensatory plan.
*Confidential treatment has been granted for portions omitted from this exhibit (indicated by asterisks) and those portions have been separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
** In accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management's Reports on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, these certifications are being furnished solely to accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Pavan Cheruvu and Gregory Weinhoff, jointly and severally, as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd., and any or all amendments (including post-effective amendments) thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his, her or their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd.
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. (the Company) as of March 31, 2019 and 2018, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended March 31, 2019, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "consolidated financial statements"). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at March 31, 2019 and 2018, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended March 31, 2019, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
The Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2(B) to the financial statements, the Company has an accumulated deficit, has incurred recurring losses and used significant cash flows in operations, expects continuing future losses and has stated that substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s evaluation of the events and conditions and management’s plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 2(B). The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2016.
Iselin, New Jersey
June 11, 2019
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
(1) Includes total costs allocated from RSL, RSI and RSG of $(450) and $7,034 for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
(2) Includes total costs allocated from RSL, RSI and RSG of $2,898 and $6,883 for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss
(in thousands)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(in thousands)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
AXOVANT GENE THERAPIES LTD.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Note 1-Description of Business
Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. ("AGT"), together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a clinical-stage company focused on gene therapy for neurological diseases. The Company is developing a pipeline of innovative product candidates for the treatment of these debilitating diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, GM1 gangliosidosis, and GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). The Company is dedicated to realizing the potential of gene therapies to offer transformative patient outcomes in areas of high unmet medical need.
Axovant Sciences Ltd. ("ASL") is an exempted limited company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, which was originally formed under the name Roivant Neurosciences Ltd. in October 2014 and changed its name to ASL in March 2015 and to AGT in March 2019. in March 2019. AGT has seven wholly owned subsidiaries: Axovant Holdings Limited ("AHL"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AGT, was incorporated in England and Wales in August 2016; Axovant Sciences, Inc. ("ASI"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AHL, was incorporated in Delaware in February 2015; Axovant Sciences GmbH ("ASG"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AHL, was organized in Switzerland in August 2016; Axovant Sciences America, Inc. ("ASA"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AHL, was incorporated in Delaware in July 2017; Axovant Treasury Holdings, Inc. ("ATH"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AGT and Axovant Treasury, Inc. ("ATI"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of ATH, were each incorporated in Delaware in March 2018; and Axovant Sciences Europe Limited ("ASEU"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AHL, was incorporated in Ireland in December 2018. As of March 31, 2019, ASG held all of the Company's intellectual property rights and is the principal operating company for conducting the Company’s business.
Since its inception, the Company has devoted substantially all of its efforts to organizing and staffing the Company, raising capital, acquiring product candidates and advancing its product candidates into clinical development. The Company has determined that it has one operating and reporting segment as it allocates resources and assesses financial performance on a consolidated basis. The Company does not expect to generate revenue unless and until it successfully completes development and obtains regulatory approval for one of its product candidates.
Note 2-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
(A) Basis of Presentation:
The Company’s fiscal year ends on March 31, and its fiscal quarters end on June 30, September 30, and December 31.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ("U.S. GAAP"). Any reference in these notes to applicable guidance is meant to refer to the authoritative U.S. GAAP as found in the Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") and Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") of the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"). The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The Company has no unconsolidated subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current period presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on the previously reported results of operations.
A 1-for-8 reverse share split of the Company's outstanding common stock was effected on May 8, 2019 as approved by the Company's Board of Directors and a majority of its shareholders. The reverse share split reduced the number of common shares issued and outstanding from approximately 182.2 million to 22.8 million as of March 31, 2019. As such, all references to share and per share amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse share split, except for the authorized number of shares of the Company's common stock and the par value per share, which were not affected.
(B) Going Concern and Management's Plans:
The Company assesses and determines its ability to continue as a going concern in accordance with the provisions of ASC Topic 205-40, "Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern," which requires the Company to evaluate whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that its annual and interim consolidated financial statements are issued. Certain additional financial statement disclosures are required if such conditions or events are identified. If and when an entity’s liquidation becomes imminent, financial statements should be prepared under the liquidation basis of accounting. Determining the extent, if any, to which conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, or the extent to which mitigating plans sufficiently alleviate any such substantial doubt, as well as whether or not liquidation is imminent, requires significant judgment by management.
The Company has evaluated whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. As of March 31, 2019, the Company’s cash and cash equivalents totaled $107.0 million and its accumulated deficit was $686.0 million. For the fiscal years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company incurred net losses of $129.1 million and $221.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $44.2 million, of which $21.2 million was due within one year. The Company also had $22.3 million of other non-interest-bearing current liabilities due within one year. The Company’s Loan Agreement (as defined in Note 6) with Hercules Capital, Inc. ("Hercules") requires that the Company maintain a minimum cash balance equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement. Failure to meet this minimum covenant would be considered an event of default under the Loan Agreement and could result in the acceleration of the Company’s existing indebtedness. The Company expects to continue to incur significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash flows, for the foreseeable future as it continues to develop its gene therapy product candidates and prepares for potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of its products. The Company has not generated any revenue to date and does not expect to generate product revenue unless and until it successfully completes development and obtains regulatory approval for at least one of its product candidates. The Company anticipates that its current cash and cash equivalents balance will not be sufficient to maintain compliance with the minimum liquidity financial covenant under the Loan Agreement beyond the one-year period following the date that these consolidated financial statements were issued if the Loan Agreement is not amended or an additional financing is not completed. The Company's current cash and cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete all necessary development activities and commercially launch its products.
To continue as a going concern, the Company will need, among other things, to raise additional capital resources. The Company continually assesses multiple options to obtain additional funding to support its operations, including proceeds from offerings of the Company’s equity securities or debt, cash received from the exercise of outstanding common stock options, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete its currently planned development programs. Management can provide no assurances that any sources of a sufficient amount of financing will be available to the Company on favorable terms, if at all. Although the Company has successfully obtained financing in the past, and management believes that it will continue to do so in the future, ASC Subtopic 205-40, "Financial Statement Presentation - Going Concern," does not permit future financing activities that are not probable of being implemented and probable of alleviating the conditions that raise substantial doubt to be included in the Company's assessment of its liquidity.
Due to these uncertainties, there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as going concern. The consolidated financial statements and footnotes have been prepared on the basis that the Company will continue as a going concern, and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the possible inability of the Company to continue as a going concern.
(C) Use of Estimates:
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. The Company regularly evaluates estimates and assumptions related to certain assets, including assumptions used in the determination of some of its costs incurred under the services agreements with Roivant Sciences, Inc. ("RSI") and Roivant Sciences GmbH ("RSG"), which costs are charged to research and development and general and administrative expense, as well as assumptions used to estimate its ability to continue as a going concern and estimate the fair value of its common shares. Specifically, the Company estimates the grant date fair value of stock option awards with only time-based vesting requirements using a Black-Scholes valuation model and uses a Monte Carlo Simulation method under the income approach to estimate the grant date fair value of stock option awards with market-based performance conditions. The Company bases its estimates and assumptions on historical experience and on various other factors that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
(D) Risks and Uncertainties:
The Company is subject to risks common to companies in the pharmaceutical industry including, but not limited to, uncertainties related to commercialization of products, regulatory approvals, dependence on key products, dependence on key customers and suppliers, and protection of intellectual property rights.
(E) Concentrations of Credit Risk:
Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentration of credit risk include cash. At March 31, 2019, substantially all of the cash balances are deposited in 7 banking institutions and are all in excess of insured levels.
(F) Cash and Cash Equivalents:
The Company considers all highly liquid investments purchased with original maturities of 90 days or less at acquisition to be cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents include cash held in banks and amounts held in money market funds.
(G) Property and Equipment:
Property and equipment, consisting of leasehold improvements, furniture and fixtures, computers, software and other office equipment, is recorded at cost. Maintenance and repairs that do not improve or extend the lives of the respective assets are expensed to operations as incurred. Upon disposal, retirement or sale, the related cost and accumulated depreciation is removed from the accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in the results of operations. Depreciation is recorded for property and equipment using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets, generally three to five years, once the asset is installed and placed in service. Amortization of leasehold improvements is recorded over the shorter of the lease term or estimated useful life of the related asset.
The Company reviews the recoverability of all long-lived assets, including the related useful lives, whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a long-lived asset might not be recoverable. Recoverability is measured by comparison of the book values of the assets to future net undiscounted cash flows that the assets are expected to generate. If such assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the book value of the assets exceed their fair value, which is measured based on the projected discounted future net cash flows arising from the assets.
(H) Debt Issuance Costs and Debt Discount:
Debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability are presented on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts, and are amortized to interest expense over the term of the related debt using the effective interest method. Further, debt discounts created as a result of the allocation of proceeds received from a debt issuance to warrants issued in conjunction with the debt issuance are amortized to interest expense under the effective interest method over the life of the recognized debt liability.
(I) Research and Development Expense:
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Clinical study costs are accrued over the service periods specified in the contracts and adjusted as necessary based upon an ongoing review of the level of effort and costs actually incurred. Payments for a product license prior to regulatory approval of the product and payments for milestones achieved prior to regulatory approval of the product are expensed in the period incurred as research and development. Milestone payments made in connection with regulatory approvals are capitalized and amortized to cost of revenue over the remaining useful life of the asset. Research and development costs primarily consist of intellectual property and research and development materials acquired under license and license and collaboration agreements (see Note 3), certain costs charged by RSI and RSG under their services agreements with the Company (see Note 7) and expenses from third parties who conduct research and development activities on behalf of the Company. The Company expenses in-process research and development projects acquired as asset acquisitions which have not reached technological feasibility, and which have no alternative future use.
(J) Income Taxes:
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and the respective tax bases. 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 income in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is recorded when, after consideration of all positive and negative evidence, it is not more likely than not that the Company's deferred tax assets will be realizable. When uncertain tax positions exist, the Company recognizes the tax benefit of tax positions to the extent that the benefit will more likely than not be realized. The determination as to whether the tax benefit will more likely than not be realized is based upon the technical merits of the tax position as well as consideration of the available facts and circumstances. When and if the Company were to recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits, they would be reported in tax expense in the consolidated statement of operations.
(K) Share-Based Compensation:
Share-based awards to employees and directors with only time-based vesting requirements are valued at fair value on the date of grant and that fair value is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the entire award. The Company values such time-based stock options using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Certain assumptions are made with respect to utilizing the Black-Scholes option pricing model, including the expected life of the award, volatility of the underlying shares and the risk-free interest rate. The expected life of such time-based stock options is calculated using the simplified method (based on the mid-point between the vesting date and the end of the contractual term), and the risk-free interest rate is based on the rates paid on securities issued by the U.S. Treasury with a term approximating the expected life of the equity award. The expected share price volatility for such time-based stock option awards was estimated by taking the average historical price volatility for industry peers.
The Company estimates the grant date fair value of stock option awards to employees with market-based performance conditions using a Monte Carlo Simulation method under the income approach. Certain assumptions are made with respect to utilizing the Monte Carlo Simulation method, including the volatility of the underlying shares and the drift rate, or estimated cost of equity. The expected share price volatility for such market-based performance stock option awards was estimated by taking the median historical price volatility for industry peers over the contractual term of the options. The drift rate, or estimated cost of equity, for such market-based performance stock option awards is based on various financial and risk-associated metrics of industry peers, as well as estimated factors specific to us.
The Company accounts for share-based payments to nonemployees issued in exchange for services based upon the fair value of the equity instruments issued. Compensation expense for stock options issued to nonemployees is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and is recorded over the service performance period. Prior to the Company's adoption of ASU No. 2018-07, "Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting" ("ASU No. 2018-07") on April 1, 2019, options subject to vesting were periodically remeasured over the service performance period, which was generally the same as the vesting period. After the adoption of ASU No. 2018-07, the Company measures equity-classified share-based payment awards issued to nonemployees on the grant date, rather than remeasuring the awards through the performance completion date as previously required (see Note 2(N)).
The Company recognizes forfeitures of awards when they occur.
(L) Net Loss per Common Share:
Basic net loss per common share is computed by dividing the net loss applicable to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the year. Diluted net loss per common share is computed by dividing the net loss applicable to common shareholders by the diluted weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the year calculated in accordance with the treasury stock method. Stock options and a warrant to purchase a total of 1.9 million and 1.8 million common shares were not included in the calculation of diluted weighted-average common shares outstanding for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, because they were anti-dilutive given the net loss of the Company.
(M) Financial Instruments and Fair Value Measurement:
The Company utilizes fair value measurement guidance prescribed by accounting standards to value its financial instruments.
The guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy for instruments measured at fair value that distinguishes between assumptions based on market data (observable inputs) and the Company's own assumptions (unobservable inputs). Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the Company's assumptions about the inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability and are developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.
Fair value is defined as the exchange price, or exit price, representing the amount that would be received from the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, the guidance establishes a three-tier fair value hierarchy that distinguishes among the following:
•
Level 1-Valuations are based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access.
•
Level 2-Valuations are based on quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and models for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.
•
Level 3-Valuations are based on inputs that are unobservable (supported by little or no market activity) and significant to the overall fair value measurement.
To the extent the valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised by the Company in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. A financial instrument's level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
The Company's financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and long-term debt. Cash consists of non-interest-bearing deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar and Swiss franc, while cash equivalents consists of interest-bearing money market fund deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar, which are invested in debt securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury and U.S. government securities. Cash and accounts payable are stated at their respective historical carrying amounts, which approximate fair value due to their short-term nature. The carrying value of the Company's money market fund included in cash and cash equivalents of $30.0 million at March 31, 2019 approximates fair value, which is based on quoted prices in active markets for identical securities.
At March 31, 2019, the Company held a long-term investment in nonredeemable convertible preferred stock, which is accounted for in accordance with the provisions of ASC 321, "Investments - Equity Securities" whereby the Company elected to use the measurement alternative therein (see Note 4).
The following table summarizes the fair value of the Company's money market fund included in cash equivalents based on the inputs used at March 31, 2019 in determining such values (in thousands):
The carrying value of the Company’s debt of $44.2 million at March 31, 2019 approximates fair value, which is based on current interest rates for similar types of borrowings and is in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
(N) Recent Accounting Pronouncements:
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)" ("ASU No. 2016-02"), which requires lessees to recognize on the consolidated balance sheets a liability to make lease payments and a right-of-use ("ROU") asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term for both finance and operating leases with lease terms greater than twelve months. ASU No. 2016-02 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted. A modified retrospective transition approach is required, applying the new standard to all leases existing at the date of initial application. ASU No. 2016-02 allows entities to choose to use either (i) the effective date or (ii) the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements as the date of initial application. ASU No. 2016-02 provides a number of optional practical expedients in transition. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 on April 1, 2019 using the effective date as its date of initial application, and elected the “package of practical expedients,” which permits it to not reassess under ASU No. 2016-02 its prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification, and initial direct costs. While the Company continues to assess all the effects of adoption, the Company believes the most significant effects relate to the recognition of ROU assets and corresponding lease liabilities on its consolidated balance sheet, primarily related to existing facility operating leases, and providing new disclosures with regards to the Company’s leasing activities. The Company currently expects that the adoption of ASU No. 2016-02 will result in the recording of ROU assets and corresponding liabilities of approximately $3.0 million and $2.4 million, respectively, in its consolidated balance sheet.
In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16, "Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory" ("ASU No. 2016-16"), which eliminates the prohibition of immediate recognition of current and deferred income tax impact for all intra-entity asset transfers, except for inventory. The Company has adopted ASU No. 2016-16 in the year ended March 31, 2019 and recognized a deferred tax asset of $3.8 million upon adoption with a corresponding valuation allowance of $3.8 million, which was subsequently impaired.
In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18 "Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)" ("ASU 2016-18"). ASU 2016-18 requires that restricted cash be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period amounts shown in the statements of cash flows. ASU 2016-18 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and is required to be adopted using a retrospective approach, if applicable, with early adoption permitted. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU 2016-18 on April 1, 2018, which did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, "Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business" ("ASU No. 2017-01"), which clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2017-01 on April 1, 2018, on a prospective basis. The impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements and disclosures will depend on the facts and circumstances of any specific future transactions. See Note 3 for further information regarding the impact of the adoption of ASU No. 2017-01 on the license agreements executed during the year ended March 31, 2019.
In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-02, "Income Statement-Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income" ("ASU No. 2018-02"). On December 22, 2017, an Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018 (commonly known as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") was enacted in the United States, which introduced a comprehensive set of tax reforms. ASU No. 2018-02 allows companies to reclassify stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, from accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income to retained earnings. ASU No. 2018-02 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and early adoption is permitted. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-02 for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2019 and does not expect it to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.
In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, which requires equity-classified share-based payment awards issued to nonemployees to be measured on the grant date, rather than remeasuring the awards through the performance completion date as previously required. Additionally, for nonemployee awards with performance conditions, compensation cost associated with the award is to be recognized when achievement of the performance condition is probable, rather than upon achievement of the performance condition. Further, the requirement to reassess the liability or equity classification for nonemployee awards upon vesting is eliminated, except for awards in the form of convertible instruments. ASU No. 2018-07 also clarifies that any share-based payment awards issued to customers should be evaluated under ASC 606, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers". ASU No. 2018-07 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that fiscal year, with early adoption permitted after the adoption of ASU No. 2014-09. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-07 for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2019, which did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework-Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement" ("ASU No. 2018-13"). ASU No. 2018-13 removes, modifies, and adds certain recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurement disclosures, including removing disclosures around the amount(s) of and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the policy for timing of transfers between levels, and the valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements, among other things. ASU No. 2018-13 adds disclosure requirements around changes in unrealized gains and losses included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements held at the end of the reporting period, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and a narrative description of measurement uncertainty. The amendments in ASU No. 2018-13 are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The amendments on changes in unrealized gains and losses, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and the narrative description of measurement uncertainty are to be applied prospectively for only the most recent interim or annual period presented in the initial fiscal year of adoption, with all other amendments applied retrospectively to all periods presented. Early adoption is permitted. The Company early adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-13 during the three months ended September 30, 2018, which did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements or disclosures because the Company did not have any Level 3 fair value measurements on a recurring or nonrecurring basis at the adoption date, and also did not have transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
(O) Foreign Currency:
The Company has operations in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland. The results of its non-U.S. dollar based functional currency operations are translated to U.S. dollars at the average exchange rates during the year. The Company’s assets and liabilities are translated using the current exchange rate as of the balance sheet date and shareholders’ equity is translated using historical rates. Adjustments resulting from the translation of the financial statements of the Company’s foreign functional currency subsidiaries into U.S. dollars are excluded from the determination of net loss and are accumulated in a separate component of shareholders’ equity. Foreign exchange transaction gains and losses are included in other (income) expense in the Company’s results of operations.
Note 3-License and Collaboration Agreements
(A) Oxford BioMedica License Agreement:
On June 5, 2018, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into an exclusive license agreement (the "Oxford BioMedica Agreement") with Oxford BioMedica (UK) Ltd. ("Oxford BioMedica"), pursuant to which the Company received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Oxford BioMedica to develop and commercialize AXO-LENTI-PD and related gene therapy products for all diseases and conditions. In June 2018, as consideration for the license, the Company made an upfront nonrefundable payment to Oxford BioMedica of $30.0 million, $5.0 million of which was applied as a credit against the process development work and clinical supply that Oxford BioMedica is obligated to provide to the Company over the term of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. Under the terms of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, the Company could be obligated to make payments to Oxford BioMedica totaling up to $55.0 million upon the achievement of specified development milestones, of which $15.0 million was achieved in April 2019, and $757.5 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory and sales milestones. The Company will also be obligated to pay Oxford BioMedica a tiered royalty from 7% to 10%, based on yearly aggregate net sales of the underlying gene therapy products, subject to specified reductions upon the occurrence of certain events as set forth in the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. These royalties are required to be paid, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest to occur of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such product in such country, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.
The Company is solely responsible, at its expense, for all activities related to the development and commercialization of the gene therapy products underlying the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. Pursuant to the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval of, and commercialize a gene therapy product underlying the Oxford BioMedica Agreement in the United States and at least one major market country in Europe. In addition, the Company is required to meet certain diligence milestones and to include at least one U.S.-based clinical trial site in a pivotal study of a gene therapy product underlying the Oxford BioMedica Agreement. If the Company fails to meet any of these specified development milestones, it may cure such failure by paying Oxford BioMedica certain fees, which range from $0.5 million to $1.0 million.
The Company has evaluated the Oxford BioMedica Agreement and has determined that the acquired set of assets and activities did not meet the definition of a business and thus the transaction was not considered a business combination. The Company determined that the in-process research and development ("IPR&D") had not reached technological feasibility and therefore has no alternative future use. Accordingly, $25.0 million of the $30.0 million upfront nonrefundable payment to Oxford BioMedica under the Oxford BioMedica Agreement was recorded as research and development expense in the Company's consolidated statements of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. As the remaining $5.0 million of the upfront payment under the licensing agreement represents a nonrefundable payment for process development work and clinical supply that Oxford BioMedica is obligated to provide over the term of the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, the Company fully capitalized this portion of the payment upon execution, with $3.2 million remaining capitalized within prepaid expenses and other current assets and $0.3 million remaining capitalized within other non-current assets in its consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2019, which is recorded to research and development expense as the process development work and clinical supply are provided by Oxford BioMedica. Additionally, the Company incurred $5.3 million of AXO-LENTI-PD program-specific costs within research and development expenses in its consolidated statements of operations and paid a total of $31.5 million to Oxford BioMedica, including the upfront nonrefundable payment, during the year ended March 31, 2019.
(B) Benitec Biopharma License and Collaboration Agreement:
In July 2018, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into a license and collaboration agreement (the "Benitec Agreement") with Benitec Biopharma Limited ("Benitec"), pursuant to which the Company received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Benitec to develop and commercialize investigational gene therapy AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy products (collectively, the "AXO-AAV-OPMD Program") for all diseases and conditions. In June 2019, the Company notified Benitec of its intention to terminate the Benitec Agreement in its entirety (see Note 14).
Under the Benitec Agreement, the Company also collaborated with Benitec on five additional research plans ("Collaboration Programs") for other genetic neurological or neuromuscular disorders using Benitec technologies. The Company received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by Benitec to develop and commercialize products arising from each Collaboration Program. Under the Benitec Agreement, Benitec performed certain research activities for each Collaboration Program and development and manufacturing activities for the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, and the Company reimburses Benitec for its costs incurred, in accordance with an agreed-upon research and development plan and budget. The Company was solely responsible, at its expense, for all other activities related to the research, development and commercialization of products from the Collaboration Programs and the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program.
Under the terms of the Benitec Agreement, the Company made an upfront payment of $10.0 million. The Company has evaluated the Benitec Agreement and has determined that the acquired set of assets and activities did not meet the definition of a business and thus the transaction was not considered a business combination. The Company determined that the IPR&D had not reached technological feasibility and therefore has no alternative future use. Accordingly, the $10.0 million upfront nonrefundable payment was recorded as research and development expense in the Company's consolidated statements of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. The Company also incurred $4.6 million of AXO-AAV-OPMD program-specific costs within research and development expenses in its consolidated statement of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. During the year ended March 31, 2019, the Company paid a total of $12.1 million to Benitec, including the upfront nonrefundable payment. In addition, the Company would have been obligated to make payments to Benitec totaling up to (i) for the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, $67.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $120.0 million upon the achievement of specified sales milestones, and (ii) for each Collaboration Program, $33.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones and $60.0 million upon the achievement of specified sales milestones. Benitec would have received 30% of net profits of the Company's world-wide sales of products from the AXO-AAV-OPMD Program, subject to an agreed minimum amount for such payments. This profit-sharing payment was to be made for so long as the Company or its affiliates or sublicensees commercialize such products. The Company would have also paid Benitec a tiered royalty based on yearly aggregate net sales of products arising from each Collaboration Program, subject to specified reductions upon the occurrence of certain events as set forth in the Benitec Agreement. These royalties would have been required to be paid, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest to occur of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such product in such country, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country, or ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.
(C) The University of Massachusetts Medical School Exclusive License Agreement:
On December 7, 2018, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, entered into an exclusive license agreement (the "UMMS Agreement"), with the University of Massachusetts Medical School ("UMMS") pursuant to which the Company received a worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patent applications and any patents issuing therefrom, biological materials and know-how controlled by UMMS to develop and commercialize gene therapy product candidates, including AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease), respectively. This license is exclusive with respect to patents and biological materials and non-exclusive with respect to know-how and is subject to UMMS' retained rights for academic research, teaching and non-commercial patient care purposes, as well as to certain pre-existing rights of the U.S. government.
Under the UMMS Agreement, the Company is solely responsible, at its expense, for the research, development and commercialization of the licensed gene therapy product candidates. The Company will reimburse UMMS for payments made by UMMS for the manufacture of clinical trial materials for the Company, up to a specified amount. The Company is obligated to use diligent efforts to develop and commercialize the licensed gene therapy product candidates and is required to achieve certain development and commercial milestones in accordance with the timeline set forth in the agreement.
The Company has evaluated the UMMS Agreement and has determined that the acquired set of assets and activities did not meet the definition of a business and thus the transaction was not considered a business combination. The Company determined that the IPR&D had not reached technological feasibility and therefore has no alternative future use. Accordingly, the upfront payment of $10.0 million made from the Company to UMMS was recorded as research and development expense in the Company's consolidated statements of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019. In addition, the Company could be obligated to make payments to UMMS totaling up to $24.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, of which $1.0 million was achieved in February 2019, and $39.8 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. The Company is also obligated to pay UMMS tiered mid-single digit royalties based on yearly net sales of the licensed products, subject to a specified annual minimum amount. Additionally, the Company will pay UMMS a percent of any revenues it receives from any third-party sublicenses to licensed products at rates ranging in the mid-single digits to mid-teens.
The UMMS Agreement will expire upon the expiration of the Company's obligations to make royalty payments to UMMS, which continues until the later of the expiration of licensed patents and any applicable orphan designation exclusivity and 10 years after the first commercial sale of the licensed products. Upon such expiration, the licenses granted to the Company by UMMS will automatically convert to perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide royalty-free licenses. The Company has the right to terminate the UMMS Agreement at any time upon 90 days' advance written notice to UMMS. Either party may terminate the UMMS Agreement for the other party's uncured material breach upon 60 days' advance written notice, including in the event that UMMS reasonably determines the Company has not fulfilled its diligence obligations.
During the year ended March 31, 2019, the Company incurred $1.2 million of program-specific costs related to AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 within research and development expenses in its consolidated statements of operations and paid a total of $10.2 million to UMMS, including the upfront payment.
Note 4-Long-term Investment
On February 13, 2019, ASG entered into a share subscription agreement (the "Subscription Agreement") to purchase up to approximately 8.1 million shares of nonredeemable convertible preferred stock of Arvelle Therapeutics B.V. ("Arvelle") in exchange for €0.00001 per share paid in cash, as well as certain goods and services provided by ASG to Arvelle. The first closing under the Subscription Agreement occurred on February 25, 2019 with ASG purchasing approximately 5.9 million nonredeemable convertible preferred shares of Arvelle, which was initially recorded at a fair value of $5.9 million and was capitalized as a long-term investment in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and recorded to other non-operating income in the Company's consolidated statement of operations. ASG also received the right to purchase up to approximately 2.2 million additional nonredeemable convertible preferred shares of Arvelle at a price of €0.00001 per share upon a potential future second closing under the Subscription Agreement. The Company accounts for its investment in Arvelle in accordance with the provisions of ASC 321, "Investments - Equity Securities", and elected to use the measurement alternative therein. The investment will be remeasured upon future observable price change(s) in orderly transaction(s) or upon impairment, if any.
Pursuant to the terms of the Subscription Agreement, the Company billed Arvelle a total of $3.6 million during the year ended March 31, 2019 for third-party costs incurred and paid on behalf of Arvelle, which were primarily recorded as offsets to the general and administrative expenses initially charged. On February 13, 2019, ASI and ASG also entered into a transition services agreement with two wholly owned subsidiaries of Arvelle, whereby ASI and ASG are entitled to receive reimbursement for any expenses they, or third parties acting on their behalf, incur on behalf of Arvelle or its subsidiaries (the "Transition Services Agreement"). For any general and administrative and research and development activities performed by its employees, ASI charges back the employee compensation expense plus a predetermined mark-up, whereby the Company recorded $0.1 million to other income in its consolidated statement of operations during the year ended March 31, 2019 for such costs, inclusive of the mark-up. All other costs are billed back at cost, whereby the Company billed Arvelle a total of $0.2 million during the year ended March 31, 2019 for such charges under the terms of the Transition Services Agreement.
Note 5-Accrued Expenses
As of March 31, 2019 and 2018, accrued expenses consisted of the following (in thousands):
Note 6-Long-term Debt
On February 2, 2017, the Company and its subsidiaries, AHL, ASG and ASI entered into a loan and security agreement (as amended on May 24 and September 22, 2017, the "Loan Agreement") with Hercules, under which the Company, AHL and ASG (the "Borrowers") borrowed an aggregate of $55.0 million (the "Term Loan"). Subsequently, the Company added its subsidiary ASA as a Borrower in July 2017 and its subsidiaries ATH and ATI as Borrowers in April 2018. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, ASI has issued a guaranty of the Borrowers’ obligations under the Loan Agreement. The Term Loan bears interest at a variable per annum rate calculated for any day as the greater of either (i) the prime rate plus 6.80%, and (ii) 10.55%. The Term Loan has a scheduled maturity date of March 1, 2021. The Borrowers were obligated to make monthly payments of accrued interest under the Loan Agreement until September 1, 2018, followed by monthly installments of principal and interest beginning October 1, 2018 through March 1, 2021. In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Borrowers and ASI, as guarantor, granted Hercules a first position lien on substantially all of their respective assets, excluding intellectual property. Prepayment of the Term Loan is subject to penalty. The Loan Agreement with Hercules requires that the Company maintain a minimum cash balance equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement.
The Loan Agreement also includes customary events of default. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, a default interest rate of an additional 5.0% may be applied to the outstanding principal balance, and Hercules may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Loan Agreement. At no time has the Company been in default under the provisions of the Loan Agreement. In addition, for so long as the Term Loan remains outstanding, the Company shall be required to use its commercially reasonable efforts to afford Hercules the opportunity to participate in future underwritten equity offerings of the Company’s common shares up to a total of $3.0 million.
In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company issued a warrant to Hercules, exercisable for an aggregate of 34,260 of the Company’s common shares at an exercise price of $96.32 per share (the "Warrant"). In August 2017, Hercules exercised the Warrant on a cashless basis and received a net issuance of 16,228 of the Company's common shares. The Warrant was accounted for as an equity instrument since it was indexed to the Company’s common shares and met the criteria for classification in shareholders’ equity. The relative fair value of the Warrant on the date of issuance of approximately $2.3 million was estimated using the Black-Scholes model. In addition, at the closing of the Term Loan, the Company paid transaction costs of $1.5 million. These amounts were recorded as a discount on the debt and are amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the life of the Term Loan, which is a period of 48 months.
Outstanding debt obligations were as follows (in thousands):
Annual maturities of debt outstanding as of March 31, 2019 are as follows (in thousands):
Note 7-Related Party Transactions
(A) Services Agreements:
In 2015, the Company and ASI entered into a services agreement with RSI (the "RSI Services Agreement") under which RSI agreed to provide certain administrative and research and development services to the Company. The Company and ASI amended and restated the RSI Services Agreement with RSI on October 13, 2015, effective for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2015. Under the RSI Services Agreement, as amended and restated, the Company pays or reimburses RSI for any expenses it, or third parties acting on its behalf, incurs for the Company. For any general and administrative and research and development activities performed by RSI employees, RSI charges back the employee compensation expense plus a predetermined mark-up. Employee compensation expense, inclusive of base salary and fringe benefits, is determined based upon the relative percentage of time utilized on Company matters. All other costs are billed back at cost. The accompanying consolidated financial statements include third-party expenses that have been paid by RSI and RSL, as well as share-based compensation expense allocated to the Company by RSL (see Note 9(B)(2)).
In February 2017, the Company and ASI amended and restated the RSI Services Agreement, effective as of December 13, 2016, to add ASG as a services recipient. In addition, in February 2017, ASG entered into a separate services agreement with RSG (the "RSG Services Agreement"), a wholly owned subsidiary of RSL, effective as of December 13, 2016, for the provision of services by RSG to ASG in relation to the identification of potential product candidates and project management of clinical trials, as well as other services related to development, administrative and financial activities. In June 2019, both the RSI Services Agreement and the RSG Services Agreement were amended, whereby RSI and RSG, respectively, as service providers, have agreed to indemnify the Company and each of its officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the provision of services (or the failure to provide services) under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify RSI and RSG, respectively, and their respective affiliates and officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with the receipt of services under the applicable services agreement, subject to certain limitations set forth in the applicable services agreement. Such indemnification obligations will not exceed the payments made by the Company under the applicable services agreement for the specific service that allegedly caused or was related to the losses during the period in which such alleged losses were incurred. The term of each of the services agreements will continue until terminated upon 90 days’ written notice by any party with respect to the services such party provides or receives thereunder.
Under the RSI Services Agreement and the RSG Services Agreement, the Company incurred expenses of $5.1 million and $8.5 million for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, inclusive of the mark-up, which includes a portion of the expenses incurred by RSI and RSL on behalf of the Company that have been treated as capital contributions (see Note 8(B)).
(B) Information Sharing and Cooperation Agreement:
In March 2015, the Company entered into an information sharing and cooperation agreement (the "Cooperation Agreement") with RSL. The Cooperation Agreement, among other things, grants the Company a right of first review on any potential dementia-related product or investment opportunity that RSL may consider pursuing and obligates the Company to deliver periodic financial statements and other financial information to RSL and comply with other specified financial reporting requirements.
On June 5, 2018, in connection with the Private Placement, the Company entered into an amended and restated information sharing and cooperation agreement (the "Restated Cooperation Agreement") with RSL, which became effective as of July 9, 2018, the closing date of the Private Placement. The Restated Cooperation Agreement, among other things: (1) obligates the Company to deliver to RSL periodic financial statements and other information upon reasonable request and to comply with other specified financial reporting requirements; (2) requires the Company to supply certain material information to RSL to assist it in preparing any future SEC filings; and (3) requires the Company to implement and observe certain policies and procedures related to applicable laws and regulations. The Company agreed to indemnify RSL and its affiliates and their respective officers, employees and directors against all losses arising out of, due to or in connection with RSL’s status as a shareholder under the Restated Cooperation Agreement and the operations of or services provided by RSL or its affiliates or their respective officers, employees or directors to the Company or any of its subsidiaries, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Restated Cooperation Agreement.
Subject to specified exceptions, the Restated Cooperation Agreement will terminate at such time as RSL is no longer required (a) under U.S. GAAP to consolidate the Company's results of operations and financial position, (b) under U.S. GAAP to account for its investment in the Company under the equity method of accounting, or (c) otherwise to include separate financial statements of the Company in its filings with the SEC pursuant to any SEC rule. In addition, the Cooperation Agreement may be terminated upon mutual written consent of the parties or upon written notice from RSL to the Company in the event of the Company's bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution or winding-up.
(C) Family Relationships:
Geetha Ramaswamy, MD, the former Vice President, Medical and Scientific Strategy of ASI and an employee of RSI, is the mother of Vivek Ramaswamy, the Chief Executive Officer of RSI, former Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors and former Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Shankar Ramaswamy, MD, the Chief Business Officer of ASI and a former employee of RSI, is the brother of Vivek Ramaswamy. Geetha Ramaswamy, MD was no longer employed by ASI beginning in October 2017. The consolidated financial statements include share-based compensation expense associated with family members Geetha Ramaswamy, MD and Shankar Ramaswamy, MD (see Note 9(B)(3)).
Salary expenses were $300,000 and $267,800 for Shankar Ramaswamy for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. Salary expense was $133,900 for Geetha Ramaswamy for the year ended March 31, 2018. There was no salary expense for Geetha Ramaswamy for the year ended March 31, 2019.
(D) RSL Financings:
On July 9, 2018, the Company received $25.0 million of net proceeds from RSL in exchange for the issuance and sale of 1,785,714 of the Company's common shares to RSL at a purchase price of $14.00 per common share, which was the closing price per share of the Company's common shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 5, 2018, the date of the share purchase agreement (see Note 8(B)).
On December 18, 2018, the Company issued and sold 4,145,115 common shares in a follow-on public offering, including 395,115 common shares sold pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares, at an offering price of $8.00 per common share for gross proceeds of $33.2 million, including 1,250,000 shares issued and sold to RSL. The aggregate net proceeds to the Company were approximately $31.6 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses incurred (see Note 8(B)).
In March 2019, the Company issued and sold 3,333,333 common shares at an offering price of $12.00 per common share for gross proceeds of $40.0 million, including 833,333 shares issued and sold to RSL. The aggregate net proceeds to the Company were approximately $37.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses incurred (see Note 8(B)).
Note 8-Shareholders’ Equity
(A) Overview:
The Company’s Memorandum of Association, filed on October 31, 2014 in Bermuda, authorized the issuance of one class of shares. The total number of shares authorized was 1,000,000,000 with a par value per share of $0.00001 at March 31, 2019. A 1-for-8 reverse share split of the Company's outstanding common stock was effected on May 8, 2019 as approved by the Company's Board of Directors and a majority of its shareholders. The reverse share split reduced the number of common shares issued and outstanding from approximately 182.2 million to 22.8 million as of March 31, 2019. As such, all references to share and per share amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse share split, except for the authorized number of shares of the Company's common stock and the par value per share, which were not affected.
(B) Transactions:
In April 2017, the Company issued and sold 969,188 common shares, including 126,415 common shares sold pursuant to the exercise in full of the underwriters' option to purchase additional shares, at an offering price of $148.32 per common share for gross proceeds of $143.7 million. The net proceeds to the Company were $134.5 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses paid by the Company.
For the years ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018, RSI and RSG incurred $1.9 million and RSL incurred $0.3 million, respectively, of expenses on behalf of the Company. These amounts were treated as capital contributions.
On June 5, 2018, the Company entered into a share purchase agreement with RSL, its majority shareholder, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue and sell to RSL 1,785,714 of its common shares at a purchase price of $14.00 per share, which was the closing price per share of the Company's common shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 5, 2018. On July 9, 2018, the Company received $25.0 million of net proceeds from RSL upon the closing of this private placement (see Note 7 (D)).
On June 22, 2018, the Company entered into a sales agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC ("Cowen") to sell the Company's common shares having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program under which Cowen is acting as the Company's agent. Cowen is entitled to compensation for its services in an amount up to 3% of the gross proceeds of any of the Company's common shares sold under the sales agreement. As of March 31, 2019, approximately $74.9 million of the Company's common shares remained available for sale under the sales agreement.
On December 18, 2018, the Company issued and sold 4,145,115 common shares in a follow-on public offering, including 395,115 common shares sold pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares, at an offering price of $8.00 per common share for gross proceeds of $33.2 million. The aggregate net proceeds to the Company were approximately $31.6 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses incurred. See Note 7(D) for information regarding RSL's participation in this offering.
In March 2019, the Company issued and sold 3,333,333 common shares at an offering price of $12.00 per common share for gross proceeds of $40.0 million. The aggregate net proceeds to the Company were approximately $37.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses incurred. See Note 7(D) for information regarding RSL's participation in this offering.
Note 9-Share-Based Compensation
Stock Options:
In March 2015, the Company adopted its 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the "2015 Plan"). A 1-for-8 reverse share split of the Company's outstanding common stock was effected on May 8, 2019 as approved by the Company's Board of Directors and a majority of its shareholders. The reverse share split reduced the number of shares authorized for issuance, the number of shares available for issuance, and the number of options outstanding under the 2015 Plan from approximately 24.8 million to 3.1 million, from approximately 8.4 million to 1.0 million, and from approximately 15.4 million to 1.9 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2019. As such, all references to share and per share amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse share split, except for the authorized number of shares of the Company's common stock and the par value per share, which were not affected.
Stock options granted under the 2015 Plan provide option holders, if approved by the Board of Directors, the right to exercise their options prior to vesting. In the event that an option holder exercises the unvested portion of any option, such unvested portion will be subject to a repurchase option held by the Company at the lower of (1) the fair market value of its common shares on the date of repurchase and (2) the exercise price of the options. Any common shares underlying such unvested portion will continue to vest in accordance with the original vesting schedule of the option.
On March 1, 2018, the Board of Directors approved the repricing of 159,880 stock options previously granted to 52 individuals, including some now employed by RSI. The revised exercise price for these options is $11.92, the closing price for the Company's common shares on March 1, 2018. The Company immediately recorded $0.1 million of additional share-based compensation expenses related to 18,764 vested options and increased unrecognized compensation related to 141,116 non-vested options by $0.5 million, which is recognized over the remaining service period of the non-vested options.
The Company estimated the fair value of each time-based stock option on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes closed-form option-pricing model applying the weighted average assumptions in the following table:
The Company estimated the grant date fair value of each market-based performance stock option granted during the year ended March 31, 2019 using a Monte Carlo Simulation method under the income approach by applying the following assumptions:
The following table presents a summary of option activity and data under the Company's stock incentive plans through March 31, 2019:
At March 31, 2019, there were vested options to purchase 0.9 million common shares outstanding.
(A) Stock Options Granted to Employees and Directors:
During the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company granted to its employees and directors under the 2015 Plan options to purchase a total of 0.5 million and 2.0 million common shares, respectively, with weighted average exercise prices of $18.37 and $76.49, respectively, and recorded related share-based compensation expense of $16.9 million and $21.0 million, respectively. This share-based compensation expense is included in research and development and general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The stock options granted to employees during the year ended March 31, 2019 include options with market-based performance conditions to purchase 0.1 million common shares at a weighted average exercise price of $20.49 per share and a corresponding grant date fair value of $1.5 million, which was estimated using a Monte Carlo Simulation method under the income approach. At March 31, 2019, options with market-based performance conditions to purchase 0.2 million common shares at a weighted average exercise price of $16.24 per share were outstanding. The market-based performance options vest based on the Company's common shares exceeding certain closing prices. At March 31, 2019, options with market-based performance conditions to purchase 40 thousand common shares at a weighted average exercise price of $11.68 per share were vested, all of which vested during the year ended March 31, 2019. At March 31, 2019, total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested options was $14.0 million and is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average service period of 2.42 years.
(B) Share-Based Compensation for Related Parties:
(1) Stock Options Granted to Nonemployees:
During the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company granted stock options to purchase 125,000 and 130,815 shares, respectively, of the Company's common shares to consultants as well as employees and consultants of RSI as compensation for support services provided to the Company. The fair value of the stock options granted to RSI employees and other consultants is accounted for by the Company in accordance with the authoritative guidance for nonemployee equity awards.
Each award is subject to a specified vesting schedule. Compensation expense will be recognized by the Company over the required service period to earn each award. The Company recorded $0.9 million and $4.8 million of share-based compensation expense, respectively, for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018. The share-based compensation expense was recorded within research and development and general and administrative expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The total remaining unrecognized compensation cost related to the non-vested stock options amounted to $0.3 million as of March 31, 2019, which is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average remaining service period of 2.32 years.
(2) Share-Based Compensation Allocated to the Company by RSL:
The Company incurs share-based compensation expense for RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSL, RSG and RSI employees. Share-based compensation expense is allocated to the Company by RSL based upon the relative percentage of time utilized by RSL, RSG and RSI employees on Company matters.
A significant component of total share-based compensation expense relates to the RSL common share awards and RSL options issued by RSL to RSL, RSG and RSI employees. The Company recorded share-based compensation (benefit) expense of $(2.6) million and $5.4 million, respectively, for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, in relation to the RSL common share awards and options issued by RSL to RSL, RSG and RSI employees. The RSL common share awards and RSL options are fair valued on the date of grant, which is recognized over the requisite service period. The fair value of each RSL option is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes closed-form option-pricing model. Significant judgment and estimates were used to estimate the fair value of these awards and options as RSL is not publicly traded, and as such, these awards and options classified as Level 3 due to their unobservable nature. RSL common share awards and RSL options are subject to specified vesting schedules and requirements (a mix of time-based, performance-based and corporate event-based, including targets for RSL’s post-IPO market capitalization and future financing events).
(3) RSL Common Share Awards and Options:
Certain employees of the Company have been granted RSL common share awards and options, which have been valued consistently with those issued to RSL, RSI and RSG employees as detailed above. The Company recorded share-based compensation expense of $1.3 million and $0.7 million for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, related to these awards.
(4) Share-Based Compensation for Family Members:
During the year ended March 31, 2018, the Company granted Geetha Ramaswamy and Shankar Ramaswamy stock options to purchase 4,687 common shares and 73,435 common shares, respectively, as annual stock option grants in their capacities as employees of ASI. Geetha Ramaswamy, MD was no longer employed by ASI beginning in October 2017. The Company recorded aggregate share-based compensation expense of $3.2 million and $4.0 million, respectively, for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 in connection with options vesting for Geetha Ramaswamy, MD and Shankar Ramaswamy, MD.
Shankar Ramaswamy, while previously employed by RSI, was also granted RSL common shares. For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, the Company recorded share-based compensation expense of $0.1 million and $0.5 million related to the RSL common share awards held by Shankar Ramaswamy, which the Company has recorded as research and development expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. At March 31, 2019, all compensation expense related to these RSL common share awards had been recognized.
Note 10-Income Taxes
The loss before income taxes and the related tax expense (benefit) are as follows (in thousands):
A reconciliation of income tax benefit computed at the Bermuda statutory rate to income tax expense reflected in the financial statements is as follows (in thousands):
1 Primarily related to current tax on United States operations including permanent and temporary differences, Swiss net operating losses and United Kingdom taxation of the parent company.
The Company is not subject to taxation under the laws of Bermuda since it was organized as a Bermuda Exempted Limited Company, for which there is no current tax regime. The Company's provision for income taxes is primarily federal, state and local taxes in the United States. The Company's effective tax rates of (0.10)% and (0.42)% , respectively, for the years ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018 differ from the Bermuda federal statutory rate of 0% primarily due to the U.S. permanent unfavorable tax differences, stock compensation deductions and a valuation allowance that effectively eliminates the Company's net deferred tax assets.
On October 24, 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16, which eliminates the prohibition of immediate recognition of current and deferred income tax impact for all intra-entity asset transfers, except for inventory. The Company has adopted ASU No. 2016-16 in the year ended March 31, 2019 and recognized a deferred tax asset of $3.8 million upon adoption with a corresponding valuation allowance of $3.8 million, which was subsequently impaired.
As of March 31, 2019, the Company had an aggregate tax receivable of $1.7 million from various federal, state and local jurisdictions. Deferred taxes reflect the tax effects of the differences between the amounts recorded as assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the comparable amounts recorded for income tax purposes. Significant components of the deferred tax assets (liabilities) at March 31, 2019 and 2018 are as follows (in thousands):
The Company has net operating losses in the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Ireland in the amounts of $22 thousand, $1.01 billion, $6.3 million and $4 thousand, respectively. The United States federal net operating loss can be carried forward indefinitely with utilization limited to 80% of future taxable income. The Switzerland net operating loss will begin to expire as of March 31, 2025. The United Kingdom net operating loss can be carried forward indefinitely with an annual limitation on utilization. As of March 31, 2019, the Company has federal research and development carryforwards of approximately $9.9 million. If not utilized, the research and development credit carryforwards will start to expire in 2038.
The Company assesses the realizability of the deferred tax assets at each balance sheet date based on available positive and negative evidence in order to determine the amount which is more likely than not to be realized and record a valuation allowance as necessary. Due to the Company's cumulative loss position which provides significant negative evidence difficult to overcome, the Company has recorded a full valuation allowance of $171.0 million as of March 31, 2019, representing the portion of the deferred tax asset that is not more likely than not to be realized. The Company will continue to assess the realizability of deferred tax assets at each balance sheet date in order to determine the proper amount, if any, required for a valuation allowance.
There are outside basis differences related to the Company's investment in subsidiaries for which no deferred taxes have been recorded as these would not be subject to tax on repatriation as Bermuda has no tax regime for Bermuda exempted limited companies, and the United Kingdom tax regime relating to company distributions and sales generally provides for exemption from tax for most overseas profits, subject to certain exceptions.
The Company is subject to tax and files income tax returns in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ireland and the United States federal and United States state and local jurisdictions. The Company is subject to tax examinations for tax years ended March 31, 2016 and forward in all applicable income tax jurisdictions. Tax audits and examinations can involve complex issues, interpretations and judgments. The resolution of matters may span multiple years particularly if subject to litigation or negotiation. The Company believes it has appropriately recorded its tax position using reasonable estimates and assumptions, however the potential tax benefits may impact the results of operations or cash flows in the period of resolution, settlement or when the statutes of limitations expire. There are no uncertain tax benefits recorded as of March 31, 2019.
Note 11-Commitments and Contingencies
As of March 31, 2019, the Company had entered into commitments under the Oxford BioMedica Agreement (see Note 3), the UMMS Agreement (see Note 3), the Benitec Agreement (see Note 3), the Loan Agreement (see Note 6), a development, marketing and supply agreement with Arena Pharmaceuticals GmbH, the services agreements with RSI and RSG (see Note 7 (A)), and agreements to rent office space. On June 5, 2019, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, ASG, notified Benitec of its intention to terminate Benitec Agreement in its entirety, which will be effective on September 3, 2019 with no termination penalties to be incurred by the Company (see Note 14). In addition, the Company has entered into services agreements with third parties for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research activities. The manufacturing agreements can be terminated by the Company with 30 days written notice.
License Agreements
During the year ended March 31, 2019, $1.0 million was accrued as research and development expense for a development milestone achieved under the UMMS Agreement. Additionally, $15.0 million was accrued as research and development expense subsequent to the year ended March 31, 2019 for a development milestone achieved in April 2019 under the Oxford BioMedica Agreement (see Note 14).
Real Property Leases
In June 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with a third-party to lease approximately 19,554 square feet of office space in New York, New York. This agreement was originally set to expire in January 2019 and was extended to January 2021 in August 2018. ASA leases 955 square feet of office space in Princeton, New Jersey under a lease agreement expiring in August 2020. For the year ended March 31, 2019, the Company incurred $1.7 million in rent expense under these agreements.
During the year ended March 31, 2016, the Company entered into two subleases with RSI for office space in New York, New York. Under the terms of the subleases, RSI paid rent obligations directly pursuant to a master lease, and then invoiced the Company based on the Company's proportionate share of the space and overhead expenses, calculated based upon the relative numbers of full-time equivalent employees located on the premises. As a result, the Company's rent obligations were not fixed. The Company ceased incurring rent expense under this arrangement with RSI after entering into the June 2017 agreement for office space. For the year ended March 31, 2018, the Company incurred $0.9 million in rent expense under this arrangement with RSI.
The following table sets forth the remaining future minimum lease payments, net of prepayments, outstanding for operating leases as of March 31, 2019 and due within each respective fiscal year ending March 31 (in thousands):
Note 12-Restructuring
In October 2017, the Company initiated and committed to the first of two corporate realignments to focus its efforts and resources on the Company's ongoing and future programs that included a reduction in its workforce and a transfer of certain employees to affiliates. The second realignment was initiated and committed to in February 2018. The Company completed the reduction in headcount from these actions in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018.
During the year ended March 31, 2019, the Company made cash expenditures of approximately $2.5 million for one-time severance and related costs in connection with the corporate realignments completed in the prior fiscal year.
The impacted employees are eligible to receive severance payments in specified amounts, health benefits and outplacement services. The Company has recorded these charges in research and development and general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations based on responsibilities of the impacted employees.
A reconciliation of accrued employee severance and other personnel benefits from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 is as follows (in thousands):
Note 13-Selected Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
The following table presents selected quarterly financial data for the years ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018:
Note 14-Subsequent Events
On April 30, 2019, the Company announced the dosing of the first patient of the second cohort in the SUNRISE-PD Phase 2 trial of AXO-LENTI-PD in Parkinson’s disease patients, which represented the achievement of a development milestone specified in the Oxford BioMedica Agreement and obligated the Company to make a payment of $15.0 million to Oxford BioMedica.
On May 8, 2019, a 1-for-8 reverse share split of the Company's outstanding common stock was effected as approved by the Company's Board of Directors and a majority of its shareholders. The reverse share split reduced the number of common shares issued and outstanding from approximately 182.2 million to 22.8 million as of March 31, 2019. The reverse share split also reduced the number of shares authorized for issuance, the number of shares available for issuance, and the number of options outstanding under the 2015 Plan from approximately 24.8 million to 3.1 million, from approximately 8.4 million to 1.0 million, and from approximately 15.4 million to 1.9 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2019. As such, all references to share and per share amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse share split, except for the authorized number of shares of the Company's common stock and the par value per share, which were not affected.
On June 5, 2019, the Company notified Benitec of its intention to terminate the Benitec Agreement in its entirety. The termination of the Benitec Agreement will be effective on September 3, 2019, the 90th day following the date of the Company's notice of termination. Upon the effective date of the termination of the Benitec Agreement, all rights and licenses granted to the Company thereunder will cease, including its rights to AXO-AAV-OPMD, which was in preclinical development for the treatment of oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, and all other early-stage research collaboration programs. No termination penalties are to be incurred by the Company in connection with the termination of the Benitec Agreement.