Item 1. Business
Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including certain statements contained in “Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including statements relating to the progress of SIGA's development programs and timelines for bringing products to market, the enforceability of SIGA's contract (the “BARDA Contract”) with the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”), the appeal of judgment of the Delaware Court of Chancery awarding PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”) expectation damages, and the administration of SIGA's chapter 11 case. The words or phrases “can be,” “expects,” “may affect,” “may depend,” “believes,” “estimate,” “project” and similar words and phrases are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties and SIGA cautions you that any forward-looking information provided by or on behalf of SIGA is not a guarantee of future performance. SIGA’s actual results could differ materially from those anticipated by such forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, some of which are beyond SIGA’s control, including, but not limited to, (i) the risk that potential products that appear promising to SIGA or its collaborators cannot be shown to be efficacious or safe in subsequent pre-clinical or clinical trials, (ii) the risk that SIGA or its collaborators will not obtain appropriate or necessary governmental approvals to market these or other potential products, (iii) the risk that SIGA may not be able to obtain anticipated funding for its development projects or other needed funding, including from anticipated governmental contracts and grants (iv) the risk that SIGA may not complete performance under the BARDA Contract on schedule or in accordance with contractual terms, (v) the risk that SIGA may not be able to secure or enforce sufficient legal rights in its products, including intellectual property protection, (vi) the risk that any challenge to SIGA’s patent and other property rights, if adversely determined, could affect SIGA’s business and, even if determined favorably, could be costly, (vii) the risk that regulatory requirements applicable to SIGA’s products may result in the need for further or additional testing or documentation that will delay or prevent seeking or obtaining needed approvals to market these products, (viii) the risk that one or more protests could be filed and upheld in whole or in part or other governmental action taken, in either case leading to a delay of performance under the BARDA Contract or other governmental contracts, (ix) the risk that the BARDA Contract is modified or canceled at the request or requirement of the U.S. government, (x) the risk that the volatile and competitive nature of the biotechnology industry may hamper SIGA’s efforts to develop or market its products, (xi) the risk that changes in domestic and foreign economic and market conditions may affect SIGA’s ability to advance its research or may affect its products adversely, (xii) the effect of federal, state, and foreign regulation, including drug regulation and international trade regulation, on SIGA’s businesses, (xiii) the risk that SIGA's outstanding indebtedness or chapter 11 case may make it more difficult to obtain additional financing, (xiv) the risk that the U.S. government’s responses (including inaction) to the national and global economic situation may affect SIGA’s business adversely, (xv) the risk that SIGA's internal controls will not be effective in detecting or preventing a misstatement in SIGA's financial statements, (xvi) the risk that some amounts received and recorded as deferred revenue ultimately may not be recognized as revenue, (xvii) the risk that any appeal of the post-remand opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery in our litigation with PharmAthene may not be successful and that such post-remand opinion will be upheld in whole or in part, or that an appeal by SIGA may result in a different, less favorable ruling that could materially and adversely affect SIGA, (xviii) the risk that an appeal may result in extended and expensive litigation, (xix) the risk that continued litigation with PharmAthene may impede SIGA's efforts to continue to grow, and (xx) the cost and expense and other inherent uncertainty attendant to SIGA's chapter 11 case, including if and when a plan of reorganization will be confirmed and consummated and the provisions of any such plan of reorganization. All such forward-looking statements are current only as of the date on which such statements were made. SIGA does not undertake any obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which any such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Overview
SIGA Technologies, Inc. is referred to throughout this report as “SIGA,” “the Company,” “we” or “us.”
We are a company specializing in the development and commercialization of solutions for serious unmet medical needs and biothreats. Our lead product is Tecovirimat, also known as ST-246®, an orally administered antiviral drug that targets orthopoxviruses. While Tecovirimat is not yet licensed as safe or effective by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, it is a novel small-molecule drug that is being delivered to the Strategic National Stockpile under Project BioShield.
BARDA Contract - Tecovirimat also known as ST-246®
On May 13, 2011, SIGA signed a contract with BARDA (the “BARDA Contract”) pursuant to which SIGA agreed to deliver two million courses of Tecovirimat to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile (“Strategic Stockpile”). The BARDA Contract is worth approximately $463 million, including $409.8 million for the manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of
Tecovirimat and $54 million of potential reimbursements related to development and supportive activities (the “Base Contract”). In addition to the Base Contract, the BARDA Contract also contains various options that are exercisable at BARDA’s discretion. The BARDA Contract expires in September 2020.
Under the Base Contract with BARDA, BARDA has agreed to buy from SIGA 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat. Additionally, SIGA expects to contribute to BARDA 300,000 courses of Tecovirimat at no additional cost to BARDA
For courses of Tecovirimat that are physically delivered to the Strategic Stockpile, the Company has replacement obligations, at no cost to BARDA, in the event that the final version of Tecovirimat approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) is different from any course of Tecovirimat that has been delivered to the Strategic Stockpile or if Tecovirimat does not meet any specified label claims, fails release testing or does not meet 38 month expiry period (from time of delivery to the Strategic Stockpile), or if Tecovirimat is recalled or deemed to be recalled for any reason.
The Company is eligible for a $102.5 million hold back payment from BARDA if the FDA approves Tecovirimat, either in the currently delivered form or in a different form. The hold back payment is part of the $409.8 million of payments that can be received by the Company for the manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat. If the approved version of Tecovirimat is different from those delivered to the Strategic Stockpile, then the Company is obligated to replace the previously delivered courses, at no additional cost, to BARDA. If the final approved version of Tecovirimat differs from those delivered, the $102.5 million hold back payment would not be paid until the obligation to replace the previously delivered product at no additional cost is satisfied.
The Base Contract with BARDA includes $409.8 million of payments, inclusive of upfront payments and milestone payments, that can be received by the Company for the manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat that are to be purchased by BARDA and physically delivered to the Strategic Stockpile. The timing and amount of specific payments to the Company are based on sub-payment tranches provided for in the Base Contract. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has received $198.3 million under the Base Contract related to the manufacture and physical delivery of courses of Tecovirimat. Included in this amount are a $41 million advance payment in 2011 for the completion of certain planning and preparatory activities related to the Base Contract, a $12.3 million milestone payment in 2012 for the completion of the product labeling strategy for Tecovirimat, a $8.2 million milestone payment in 2013 for the completion of the commercial validation campaign for Tecovirimat, and $136.8 million of payments following physical deliveries of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat to the Strategic Stockpile.
The Company is eligible to receive an additional $211.5 million under the Base Contract for the manufacture, delivery and purchase by BARDA of courses of Tecovirimat. Included in this amount are: $88.5 million of payments following additional future physical deliveries of Tecovirimat to the Strategic Stockpile; a $20.5 million milestone payment for successful submission to the FDA of a complete application for Tecovirimat regulatory approval; and a $102.5 million hold back payment, which represents a 25% hold back on the $409.8 million of total payments tied to the manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat that are to be purchased by BARDA. The $102.5 million hold back payment would be triggered by FDA approval of Tecovirimat, as long as the Company does not have, as described below, a continuing product replacement obligation to BARDA.
Product deliveries of Tecovirimat subsequent to December 31, 2014 are expected to be at a provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day). This is a change from the provisional dosage that was in effect when product deliveries were made in 2013 and 2014 (600 mg per day). In 2013 and 2014, the provisional dosage of courses delivered to the Strategic Stockpile was 600 mg administered once a day. The change in the provisional dosage is based on FDA guidance received by the Company in 2014, subsequent to the delivery of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat. Based on the current provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day), SIGA currently expects to supplement previously delivered courses of Tecovirimat, at no additional cost to BARDA, with additional dosages so that all of the courses previously delivered to BARDA will be at the new provisional dosage. The Company and BARDA have agreed to an amendment (the “BARDA Amendment”) of the BARDA Contract to reflect the foregoing, which modification is subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court (as defined below). The Company expects to incur significant incremental costs when previously delivered courses are supplemented. The provisional dosage for Tecovirimat may be subject to additional changes in the future based on FDA guidance.
The Base Contract with BARDA includes $54 million of potential reimbursement for development and supportive activities. These activities are reimbursed primarily on a cost-plus basis after each individual activity is authorized by BARDA and after costs are incurred. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has received $8.5 million of reimbursement payments under the Base Contract for development and supportive activities.
The BARDA Contract also separately contains $178.4 million of options that, if exercised by BARDA: would fund development and supportive activities such as work on pediatric and geriatric formulations of the drug as well as use of Tecovirimat
for smallpox prophylaxis; would result in a $50 million payment to the Company for FDA approval for extension to 84-month expiry for Tecovirimat (from 38 month expiry as required in the Base Contract); and/or would fund production-related activities such as warm-base manufacturing. As of December 31, 2014, BARDA has not exercised any options and may not exercise any options in the future. These options are exercisable by BARDA in its sole discretion.
The Company has been actively pursuing FDA approval of Tecovirimat for purposes of receiving the $102.5 million hold back payment (discussed above) as well as for strategic purposes. The Company is pursuing FDA approval under the “animal rule.” As such, the Company has completed multiple monkeypox and variola efficacy studies in non-human primates and is coordinating and conducting rabbitpox efficacy studies in rabbits. In addition to coordinating and conducting efficacy studies in rabbits, the Company is also finalizing the protocol for an expanded clinical human safety trial, in which first patient dosing is expected in the second or third quarter of 2015. The Company believes that the successful completion of an expanded clinical human safety study would represent the last major step prior to the filing of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Tecovirimat with the FDA. SIGA is targeting 18-24 months (from first patient dosing) for completion of testing and analysis of data for the expanded clinical safety trial. This clinical trial is expected to provide essential human safety data in support of an NDA filing. Notwithstanding, there can be no assurance that FDA will approve an NDA for Tecovirimat.
At the point of FDA approval of an NDA for Tecovirimat, the Company would be able to address replacement obligations, if any, relating to courses of Tecovirimat that have been delivered to the Strategic Stockpile.
As discussed in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” the amount of cash SIGA will retain pursuant to the BARDA Contract may be adversely affected by the outcome of PharmAthene’s action against SIGA. Additionally, as discussed below, the Company has filed a Motion to assume the BARDA Contract under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Motion currently is scheduled to be heard by the Bankruptcy Court on March 17, 2015.
Lead Product - Tecovirimat™ also known as St-246®
SIGA believes that Tecovirimat is among the first new small-molecule drugs delivered to the Strategic Stockpile under the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (“Project BioShield”). Tecovirimat is an investigational product that is not currently approved by the FDA as a treatment of smallpox or any other indication. Nevertheless, the FDA has designated Tecovirimat for “fast-track” status, creating a path for expedited FDA review and eventual regulatory approval. Tecovirimat is a novel, patented drug that is easy to store, transport and administer. There could be several uses for an effective smallpox antiviral drug: to reduce mortality and morbidity in those infected with the smallpox virus, to protect the non-immune who risk developing smallpox following virus exposure, and as an adjunct to the smallpox vaccine in order to reduce the frequency of serious adverse events due to the live virus used for vaccination.
Tecovirimat’s regulatory path, and SIGA’s development activities related to Tecovirimat, are materially guided by the results of an FDA Advisory Committee meeting that was convened in December 2011 (the “Advisory Committee”). The Advisory Committee was convened to consider proposals for using a surrogate orthopoxvirus model and to determine what elements of the “animal rule” constitute “enough” evidence for approval of a drug for the treatment of smallpox. The Advisory Committee’s recommendation confirmed that the monkeypox, rabbitpox and ectromelia models, especially in combination, could suitably provide appropriate evidence of efficacy for treatment of smallpox. Subsequent to the Advisory Committee, SIGA has had substantive meetings and communications with the FDA regarding the regulatory path of Tecovirimat. Development activities for Tecovirimat are based on the Advisory Committee’s recommendation, and take into account meetings and communications with the FDA.
Tecovirimat has Orphan Drug designation for both the treatment and prevention of smallpox, and in late 2010, Tecovirimat received Orphan Drug designation for the broader indication of treatment of orthopoxvirus infections (vaccinia, variola, monkeypox and cowpox). An Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for an intravenous (IV) formulation of Tecovirimat was filed with FDA in September 2012 and SIGA received a safe to proceed letter from FDA in November 2012 along with a letter granting fast-track status.
Chapter 11 Filing
On September 16, 2014 (the “Petition Date”), the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) chapter 11 Case Number 14-12623 (SHL). The Company is continuing to operate its business as a “debtor-in-possession” in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Company commenced the chapter 11 case to preserve and to ensure its ability satisfy its commitments under the BARDA Contract and to preserve its operations, which likely would have been jeopardized by the enforcement of a judgment stemming from the litigation with PharmAthene (see Note 14 to the financial statements). While operating as a debtor-in-possession under chapter 11, the Company is pursuing what it believes is a meritorious appeal of the Delaware Court of Chancery Final Order and Judgment (as defined below), without the necessity of posting a bond.
Administration of Chapter 11 Case
On September 17, 2014, the Company received Bankruptcy Court approval of certain “first-day” motions, which preserved the Company's ability to continue operations without interruption in chapter 11. As part of the “first-day” motions, the Company received approval to pay or otherwise honor certain pre-petition obligations generally designed to support the Company's operations. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Company's authority to pay for goods and services received post-petition in the ordinary course of business.
In October 2014, the U.S Trustee for the southern District of New York (the “U.S. Trustee”) appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors (the “UCC”). The UCC has a right to be heard on any issue in the Company's chapter 11 case. There can be no assurance that the UCC will support the Company's positions on matters to be presented to the Bankruptcy Court in the future or with respect to any plan of reorganization, when proposed.
As part of the chapter 11 case, the Company has retained, pursuant to Bankruptcy Court authorization, legal and other professionals to advise the Company in connection with the administration of its chapter 11 case and its litigation with PharmAthene, and certain other professionals to provide services and advice in the ordinary course business. From time to time, the Company may seek Bankruptcy Court approval to retain additional professionals.
Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated October 28, 2014, the Company was authorized to pay reimbursable pre-petition obligations to certain service providers that are fully reimbursable by BARDA pursuant to the BARDA Contract. Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated January 14, 2015, the Company was authorized to satisfy a fully-secured term loan provided by General Electric Capital Corporation in the approximate amount of $1.8 million. Such amount, and related fees, was paid by the Company on January 16, 2015 and all liens securing the credit facility were released.
On January 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to assume the BARDA Contract, as amended by the BARDA Amendment, under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. If the motion is granted, the parties’ rights and obligations under the BARDA Contract, as so amended, will continue without any impact arising from SIGA’s filing for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Motion currently is scheduled to be considered by the Bankruptcy Court on March 17, 2015.
Plan of Reorganization
The Company has not yet filed a plan of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. The Company has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization through and including May14, 2015, and to solicit votes on such a plan if filed by such date through and including July 13, 2015, subject to the ability of parties in interest to file motions seeking to terminate the Company's exclusive periods, as well as the Company's right to seek further extensions of such periods. The Company has a right to seek further extensions of such exclusive periods, subject to the statutory limit of 18 months from the Petition Date in the case of filing a plan and 20 months in the case of soliciting and obtaining acceptances of such a plan. The implementation of a plan of reorganization is subject to confirmation of the plan by the Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and the occurrence of the effective date under the plan. At this time, there is no certainty as to when or if a plan will be filed, the provisions of a plan (including provisions with respect to the treatment of prepetition claims and equity interests), or whether a plan will be confirmed and become effective.
Other Matters Related to the Chapter 11 Case
On September 16, 2014, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC asserting that, based on the Company’s chapter 11 filing, the Company no longer met the continuing listing requirements necessary to maintain its listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company appealed such assertion. On October 16, 2014, representatives of the Company appeared before the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC’s hearings panel to present the Company’s appeal, asking the panel to exercise its discretion to allow the Company to maintain its listing for up to five additional months (the limit of the panel’s discretion at that time). On October 29, 2014, the Company received the decision of the NASDAQ hearings panel. The NASDAQ hearings panel decided that the Company’s common stock the “ Common Stock”) would remain listed, subject to (i) the Company providing the NASDAQ hearings panel with confidential updates regarding the status of the PharmAthene litigation, public disclosures
relating to such litigation and any possible judgment, and (ii) the Company, on or before March 16, 2015, emerging from chapter 11 and evidencing compliance with all requirements for initial listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The NASDAQ hearings panel also stated that it reserved the right to reconsider its determination based upon any event, condition or circumstance that exists or develops that would, in the opinion of the panel, make continued listing of the Company’s securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market inadvisable or unwarranted. The Company does not expect to emerge from bankruptcy on or before March 16, 2015. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company will meet the conditions required by the NASDAQ hearings panel and maintain the listing of its Common Stock on NASDAQ.
PharmAthene Litigation
On August 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its Remand Opinion and related order in the litigation initiated against the Company in 2006 by PharmAthene. In the Remand Opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined, among other things, that PharmAthene is entitled to a lump sum damages award for its lost profit related to Tecovirimat, with interest and fees, based on United States government purchases of the Company's smallpox drug allegedly anticipated as of December 2006. On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015 (the “Outstanding Judgment”). The Company's pending chapter 11 case prevents PharmAthene from taking any enforcement action at this time and also permits the Company's appeal of the Outstanding Judgment to go forward without the need to post a bond. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the Outstanding Judgment.
Manufacturing
SIGA does not have a manufacturing infrastructure and does not intend to develop one for the manufacture of Tecovirimat. SIGA relies on and uses third parties known as Contract Manufacturing Organizations (“CMOs”) to procure commercial raw materials and supplies, and to manufacture Tecovirimat. SIGA's CMOs apply methods and controls in facilities that are used for manufacturing, processing, packaging, testing, analyzing and holding pharmaceuticals which conform to current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”), the standard set by FDA for manufacture of pharmaceuticals intended for human use.
For the manufacture of Tecovirimat, the Company uses the following CMOs: Albemarle Corporation (“Albemarle”); Powdersize, Inc. (“Powdersize”), and Catalent Pharma Solutions LLC (“Catalent”).
In August, 2011, SIGA entered into an agreement with Albemarle. Albemarle manufactures, tests and supplies active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) for use in Tecovirimat. SIGA agreed that, during the term of the agreement, SIGA will purchase 75% of its internal and external API requirements from Albemarle at a fixed price per kilogram. There is no minimum amount of API kilograms that must be used or acquired by SIGA. The following events are excluded from the “75% API” requirement: (i) if a contract entered into by SIGA for the sale of final drug product (“FDP”) requires that the product used as the API for such FDP be manufactured outside the U.S. and Albemarle is unwilling or unable to subcontract such manufacture to a party or parties that meet the terms of the agreement, (ii) if a contract entered into by SIGA for the sale of FDP in an intravenous formulation requires different specifications than those provided for under the agreement and the parties are not able to reach agreement on the necessary changes to the specifications or on pricing, or (iii)if Albemarle fails to perform any of its obligations under the agreement and does not cure such failure within 30 days of written notice from SIGA. Albemarle may raise or lower the unit price of API due to increases or decreases in raw material costs in February 2014, and upon each 12 month anniversary date thereafter, upon written notice to SIGA no less than 30 days prior to any such date. SIGA is required to pay Albemarle within 45 days of their invoice date. Albemarle is required to deliver API that conforms with specifications outlined in the agreement; the Company is not required to pay for API that does not meet specifications. The Company has 120 days to reject any shipments that do not meet specifications or are damaged. In addition to receiving payments for API deliveries, Albemarle is also paid for related services, such as stability testing. The Company’s agreement with Albemarle continues for an initial term that is the longer of the period ending on December 31, 2014 or the last calendar day of the year in which the Company completes delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat under the BARDA Contract. Thereafter, the parties will have a 90 day period prior to the termination date or anticipated termination date to negotiate a three-year renewal at agreed-upon pricing. If a three-year renewal is not agreed upon, then the existing agreement will continue for one year and then terminate. Parties may terminate the agreement upon 60 days written notice prior to the expiration of the initial term or the renewal term in the event of breach, if such breach is not cured within the 60 days prior written notice.
Powdersize micronizes and tests API for use in Tecovirimat. The Company’s agreement with Powdersize continues for an initial term that is the longer of the period ending on (i) August 15, 2014 or (ii) the date the Company has fulfilled its delivery obligations under the BARDA Contract. Thereafter, this agreement may be renewed as provided for in such agreement.
Catalent granulates, encapsulates, tests and packages Tecovirimat. Catalent sub-contracts the packaging services to Packaging Coordinators, Inc., a CMO that purchased Catalent’s packaging business. In addition, Catalent provides services related to commercial stability testing of drug product and preparation for tabulated stability and trend analysis for each time point. The Company’s agreement with Catalent continues for an initial term that is the longer of the period ending December 15, 2014 or the date the Company has fulfilled its delivery obligations under the BARDA Contract. Thereafter, this agreement may be renewed as provided for in such agreement.
Any manufacturing failures or delays by SIGA’s CMOs could cause delays in delivery of Tecovirimat into the Strategic Stockpile.
Market for Biological Defense Programs
The market for biodefense countermeasures reflects continued awareness of the threat of global terror and biowarfare activity. The U.S. government is the largest source of development and procurement funding for academic institutions and biopharmaceutical companies conducting biodefense research or developing vaccines, anti-infectives and immunotherapies directed at potential agents of bioterror or biowarfare. U.S. government spending on biodefense programs includes development funding awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, BARDA and Department of Defense (“DoD”), and procurement of countermeasures by BARDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and DoD.
Project BioShield, which became law in 2004, authorizes the procurement of countermeasures for biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear attacks for the Strategic Stockpile, which is a national repository of medical assets and countermeasures designed to provide federal, state and local public health agencies with medical supplies needed to treat and protect those affected by terrorist attacks, natural disasters, industrial accidents and other public health emergencies. Project BioShield initially provided appropriations of $5.6 billion to be expended over ten years. The initial $5.6 billion appropriation expired on September 30, 2013. In 2013, Congress reauthorized Project BioShield and in 2014, the Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 provided an annual appropriation of $670 million for activities related to countering biological and other threats to civilian populations, of which $255 million was set aside for the procurement of countermeasures and $415 million was set aside for advanced research and development and administrative expenses of BARDA. The Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus Bill outlines an annual appropriation of $670 million for activities related to countering biological and other threats to civilian populations, of which $255 million has been set aside for procurement and $415 million for advanced development and administrative expenses. An additional $157 million is also included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus bill for BARDA advanced development of Ebola countermeasures.
In addition to the U.S. government, we believe that other potential additional markets for the sale of biodefense countermeasures include:
•
foreign governments, including both defense and public health agencies;
•
state and local governments, which may be interested in these products to protect, among others, emergency responders, such as police, fire and emergency medical personnel;
•
healthcare providers, including hospitals and clinics; and
•
non-governmental organizations and multinational companies, including transportation and security companies.
Product Candidate
Dengue fever, an acute febrile disease characterized by a sudden onset of fever and an abnormally high internal body temperature, is caused by one of four serotypes of dengue virus of the genus Flavivirus. Dengue fever can be classified as classical dengue fever, severe dengue (which includes the life threatening dengue hemorrhagic fever syndrome), or dengue shock syndrome. Dengue virus may be transmitted via the bite of an infected Aedes aegypti mosquito, which is found in tropical and sub-tropical regions around the world.
Each year, regional epidemics of dengue fever cause significant morbidity and mortality. Regional epidemics also cause social disruption and substantial economic burden in affected areas, in part due to increased hospitalization rates and necessary mosquito control. The World Health Organization estimates that forty percent of the world's population is at risk with an estimated 50-100 million people infected with the virus each year. There is currently no approved antiviral or vaccine for the treatment or prevention of dengue-mediated disease. We have identified a lead pre-clinical drug candidate with activity against all four serotypes of virus and which has shown efficacy in a murine model of disease.
We are seeking partners for our Dengue Antiviral drug candidate to support further development activity.
Research Agreements
We obtain funding in the form of grants or contracts from various agencies of the U.S. government to support our research and development activities. Currently, in addition to the BARDA Contract, we have one contract and one grant with varying expiration dates through February 2018 that provide for potential future aggregate research and development funding for specific projects of approximately $9.2 million. This amount includes, among other things, options that may or may not be exercised at the U.S. government’s discretion. Because of the Optimization Program (see Note 13 to the financial statements), we may not utilize all available funds under the grant covering the pre-clinical drug candidate. Moreover, the contracts and grants contain customary terms and conditions and include the U.S. government’s right to terminate or restructure a grant for convenience at any time. We have entered into the following collaborative research arrangements and contracts:
Smallpox Antiviral Drug Development
In 2006, we were awarded a contract from the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) totaling approximately $21 million for the continued development of ST-246, now also known as Tecovirimat. In 2008, we were awarded a $55.1 million contract from NIH to support the development of additional formulations and orthopox-related indications for ST-246. In 2008, NIH increased an existing $16.5 million contract to $20.0 million. In August 2011, these contracts were restructured and transferred to BARDA so that $14.0 million was eligible to cover performance through February 2013. Subsequently, the period of performance for a portion of the remaining funds available under the contract was extended to February 2018. As of December 31, 2014, $6.6 million remains available to us under the restructured contract.
In September 2009, we received a three-year, $3.0 million Phase II grant from NIH to fund the continued development of ST-246 for the treatment of smallpox vaccine-related adverse events. This grant concluded in February 2013.
Dengue Antiviral Drug Development
In May 2011, we received a 5-year grant of $6.5 million from NIH to continue funding for the development of antiviral drugs for dengue. As of December 31, 2014, there is $2.6 million available under this grant. As described in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in connection with the Optimization Program, we have restricted our early-stage drug discovery efforts and thus may not utilize material amounts of available funds under this grant.
Anti-arenavirus Drug Development
In August 2011, we received a 5-year grant of $7.7 million from NIH to continue funding for the development of antiviral drugs for Lassa fever virus. In connection with the Optimization Program, in August 2014, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement to sell and transfer its pre-clinical Anti-arenavirus assets and research and development to Kineta Four, LLC, an unrelated party (see Note 3 to the financial statements).
We receive cash payments from NIH and BARDA on a monthly basis, as services are performed or goods are purchased. Our current contract and grant, other than the BARDA Contract, do not include milestone payments. Amounts under contract and grant agreements are not guaranteed and can be canceled at any time for reasons such as non-performance or convenience of the U.S. government and, if canceled, we will not receive funds for additional work under the agreements.
For a discussion of research and development expenses, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly evolving technology and intense competition. Our competitors include most of the major pharmaceutical companies, each of which has financial, technical and marketing resources significantly greater than ours. Biotechnology and other pharmaceutical competitors in the biodefense space include, but are not limited to, Bavarian Nordic AS, Chimerix Inc., PharmAthene, Inc., and Emergent BioSolutions. Academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are also conducting research activities and seeking patent protection and may commercialize products on their own or through joint ventures.
Tecovirimat faces significant competition for U.S. government funding for both development and procurement of medical countermeasures for biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear threats, diagnostic testing systems, and other emergency preparedness countermeasures.
Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. In addition, we may not be able to compete effectively if our product candidates do not satisfy governmental procurement requirements, particularly requirements of the U.S. government with respect to biodefense products.
Human Resources and Research Facilities
As of February 16, 2015, we had 34 full-time employees. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our employee relations to be good. Our research and development facilities are located in Corvallis, Oregon, where we lease approximately 32,800 square feet under a lease agreement signed in January 2007, as amended in May 2011, and which expires in December 2017.
Intellectual Property and Proprietary Rights
SIGA’s commercial success will depend in part on its ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for its proprietary technologies, drug targets, and potential products and to preserve its trade secrets. Because of the substantial length of time and expense associated with bringing potential products through the development and regulatory clearance processes to reach the marketplace, the pharmaceutical industry places considerable importance on obtaining patent and trade secret protection. The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents has emerged to date. Accordingly, SIGA cannot predict the type and extent of claims allowed in these patents.
SIGA also relies upon trade secret protection for its confidential and proprietary information. No assurance can be given that other companies will not independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to SIGA’s trade secrets or that SIGA can meaningfully protect its trade secrets.
SIGA exclusively owns its key patent portfolio, which relates to its leading drug candidate ST-246 (Tecovirimat). SIGA's key patent portfolio currently consists of seven U.S. utility patents, eight issued foreign patents, three U.S. utility patent applications, two international PCT patent applications and 48 foreign patent applications.
The principal and material issued patents covering Tecovirimat are described in the table below.
The principal and material patent applications covering Tecovirimat include patent filings in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and other commercially significant markets. We hold 53 patent applications currently pending with respect to various compositions of Tecovirimat, methods of manufacturing, methods of treatment, and dosage forms. Expiration dates for pending patents, if granted, will fall between 2024 and 2034.
Tecovirimat is currently SIGA’s sole clinical-stage drug candidate. In addition to the Tecovirimat patent portfolio, SIGA also has patents covering pre-clinical drug candidates. Substantially all of the pre-clinical patent portfolio is for Dengue Antiviral drug candidate. SIGA is currently seeking partners for its Dengue Antiviral drug candidate to support further development activity.
FDA regulations require that patented drugs be sold under brand names that comply with various regulations. SIGA must develop and make efforts to protect these brand names for each of its products in order to avoid product piracy and to secure exclusive rights to these brand names. SIGA may expend substantial funds in developing and securing rights to adequate brand names for our products. SIGA currently have proprietary trademark rights in SIGA®, Tecovirimat, ST-246® and other brands used by us in the United States and certain foreign countries, but we may have to develop additional trademark rights in order to comply with regulatory requirements. SIGA consider securing adequate trademark rights to be important to its business.
Government Regulation
Regulatory Approval Process
Regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries is a significant factor in the production and marketing of any biopharmaceutical product that we may develop. The nature and the extent to which such regulations may apply to us will vary depending on the nature of any such product. Virtually all of our potential biopharmaceutical products will require regulatory approval by governmental agencies prior to non-governmental commercialization. In particular, human therapeutic products are subject to rigorous pre-clinical and clinical testing and other approval procedures by FDA and similar health authorities in foreign countries. Various federal statutes and regulations also govern or influence the manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, record keeping and marketing of such products. The process of obtaining these approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial resources.
In order to test clinically, and to produce and market products for diagnostic or therapeutic use, a company must comply with mandatory procedures and safety standards established by FDA and comparable agencies in foreign countries. Before beginning human clinical testing of a potential new drug in the United States, a company must file an IND application and receive clearance from FDA. An IND application is a summary of the pre-clinical studies that were conducted to characterize the drug, including toxicity and safety studies, information on the drug’s composition and the manufacturing and quality control procedures used to produce the drug, as well as a discussion of the human clinical studies that are being proposed.
The pre-marketing clinical program required for approval by FDA for a new drug typically involves a time-consuming and costly three-phase process. In Phase I, trials are conducted with a small number of healthy subjects to determine the early safety profile, the pattern of drug distribution, metabolism and elimination. In Phase II, trials are conducted with small groups of patients afflicted with a target disease in order to determine preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and expanded evidence of safety. In Phase III, large scale, multi-center comparative trials, which may include both controlled and uncontrolled studies, are conducted with patients afflicted with a target disease in order to provide enough data for statistical proof of efficacy and safety required by FDA and other authorities.
FDA closely monitors the progress of each of the three phases of clinical testing and may, in its discretion, reevaluate, alter, suspend or terminate the testing based on the data that has been accumulated to that point and its assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to the patients involved in the testing. Estimates of the total time typically required for carrying out such clinical testing vary between two and ten years. Upon completion of such clinical testing, a company typically submits an NDA to FDA that summarizes the results and observations of the drug during the clinical testing. Based on its review of the NDA, FDA will decide whether to approve the drug. This review process can be quite lengthy, and approval for the production and marketing of a new pharmaceutical product can require a number of years and substantial funding. There can be no assurance that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
FDA amended its regulations, effective June 30, 2002, to include the “animal rule” in circumstances that would permit the typical clinical testing regime to approve certain new drug and biological products used to reduce or prevent the toxicity of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents not otherwise naturally present for use in humans based on evidence of safety in healthy subjects and evidence of effectiveness derived only from appropriate animal studies and any additional supporting data. FDA has indicated that approval for therapeutic use of Tecovirimat will be determined under the “animal rule.”
Once the product is approved for sale, FDA regulations govern the production process and marketing activities, and a post-marketing testing and surveillance program may be required to monitor a product’s usage and effects. Product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained. Many other countries in which products developed by us may be marketed impose similar regulatory processes.
FDA regulations also make available an alternative regulatory mechanism that may lead to use of the product under limited circumstances. The Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) authority allows the FDA Commissioner to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear agents that may be used to attack the American people or the U.S. armed forces. Under this authority, the FDA Commissioner may allow medical countermeasures to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by such agents when appropriate findings are made concerning the nature of the emergency, the availability of adequate and approved alternatives, and the quality of available data concerning the drug candidate under consideration for emergency use. We have provided data to FDA to support an EUA for Tecovirimat in the event of a smallpox attack. In November 2012, CDC filed an IND application for use of Tecovirimat in emergency situations until an EUA is in place. In December 2012, CDC received a “safe to proceed” letter from FDA for this IND. In August 2013, CDC filed a pre-EUA request for which FDA currently holds an open file.
Legislation and Regulation Related to Bioterrorism Counteragents and Pandemic Preparedness
Because some of our drug candidates are intended for the treatment of diseases that may result from acts of bioterrorism or biowarfare or for pandemic preparedness, they may be subject to the specific legislation and regulation described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Project BioShield
Project BioShield and related 2006 federal legislation provide procedures for biodefense-related procurement and awarding of research grants, making it easier for HHS to commit funds to countermeasure projects. Project BioShield provides alternative procedures under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the general rubric for acquisition of goods and services by the U.S. government, for procuring property or services used in performing, administering or supporting biomedical countermeasure research and development. In addition, if the Secretary of HHS deems that there is a pressing need, Project BioShield authorizes the Secretary of HHS to use an expedited award process, rather than the normal peer review process, for grants, contracts and cooperative agreements related to biomedical countermeasure research and development activity.
Under Project BioShield, the Secretary of HHS, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and upon the approval of the President, can contract to purchase unapproved countermeasures for the Strategic Stockpile in specified circumstances. Congress is notified of a recommendation for a Strategic Stockpile purchase after Presidential approval. Project BioShield specifies that a company supplying the countermeasure to the Strategic Stockpile is paid on delivery of a substantial portion of the countermeasure. To be eligible for purchase under these provisions, the Secretary of HHS must determine that there are sufficient and satisfactory clinical results or research data, including data, if available, from pre-clinical and clinical trials, to support a reasonable conclusion that the countermeasure will qualify for approval or licensing within eight years. Project BioShield also allows the Secretary of HHS to authorize the emergency use of medical products that have not yet been approved by FDA. To exercise this authority, the Secretary of HHS must conclude that:
•
the agent for which the countermeasure is designed can cause serious or life-threatening disease;
•
the product may reasonably be believed to be effective in detecting, diagnosing, treating or preventing the disease;
•
the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh its known and potential risks; and
•
there is no adequate alternative to a product that is approved and available.
Although this provision permits the Secretary of HHS to circumvent FDA approval (entirely, or in part) for marketing, its use in this manner would likely be limited to rare circumstances. Prior to the award of the BARDA Contract in May 2011, the Secretary of HHS concluded that ST-246 would qualify within eight years for approval by the FDA for therapeutic use against smallpox.
Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, provides immunity for manufacturers from claims under state or federal law for “loss” arising out of the administration or use of a “covered countermeasure.” However, injured persons may still bring a suit for “willful misconduct” against the manufacturer under some circumstances. “Covered countermeasures” include security countermeasures and “qualified pandemic or epidemic products”, including products intended to diagnose or treat pandemic or epidemic disease, as well as treatments intended to address conditions caused by such products. For these immunities to apply, the Secretary of HHS must issue a declaration in cases of public health emergency or “credible risk” of a future public health emergency. Since 2007, the Secretary of HHS has issued 8 declarations under the PREP Act to protect from liability countermeasures that are necessary to prepare the nation for potential pandemics or epidemics, including a declaration on October 10, 2008 that provides immunity from tort liability as it relates to smallpox countermeasures.
Foreign Regulation
As noted above, in addition to regulations in the United States, we might be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we may have to obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The actual time required to obtain clearance to market a product in a particular foreign jurisdiction varies substantially, based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the
pharmaceutical drug candidate, the specific requirements of that jurisdiction, and in some countries whether FDA has previously approved the drug for marketing. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, marketing authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Certain foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, have adopted biodefense-specific regulation akin to that available in the United States such as a procedure similar to the “animal rule” promulgated by FDA.
Regulations Regarding Government Contracting
The status of an organization as a government contractor in the United States and elsewhere means that the organization is also subject to various statutes and regulations, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which governs the procurement of goods and services by agencies of the United States. These governing statutes and regulations can impose stricter penalties than those normally applicable to commercial contracts, such as criminal and civil damages liability and suspension and debarment from future government contracting. In addition, pursuant to various statutes and regulations, government contracts can be subject to unilateral termination or modification by the government for convenience in the United States and elsewhere, detailed auditing requirements, statutorily controlled pricing, sourcing and subcontracting restrictions and statutorily mandated processes for adjudicating contract disputes.
Availability of Reports and Other Information
We file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The public may read and copy any material that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at (800) SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including us, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any document that we file with or furnish to the SEC at www.sec.gov.
In addition, our website can be found on the internet at www.siga.com. The website contains information about us and our operations. Copies of each of our filings with the SEC on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, and Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, can be viewed and downloaded free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports and amendments are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. To view the reports, access www.siga.com, click on “Investor Relations” and “Financial Information.”
The following corporate governance related documents are also available on our website:
•
Audit Committee Charter;
•
Compensation Committee Charter;
•
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter;
•
Code of Ethics and Business Conduct;
•
Procedure for Sending Communications to the Board of Directors;
•
Procedures for Security Holder Submission of Nominating Recommendations;
•
Policy on Confidentiality of Information and Securities Trading; and
•
Conflict of Interest Policy.
To review these documents, access www.siga.com and click on “Investor Relations” and “Corporate Governance.”
Any of the above documents can also be obtained in print by any shareholder upon request to the Secretary, SIGA Technologies, Inc., 660 Madison Avenue, Suite 1700, New York, New York 10065.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
This report contains forward-looking statements and other prospective information relating to future events. These forward-looking statements and other information are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from our historical results or currently anticipated results including the following:
Risks Related to Our Chapter 11 Filing
Risks and uncertainties associated with our restructuring process under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, may lead to potential adverse effects on our liquidity, results of operations or business prospects.
We are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties associated with the filing of a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which may lead to potential adverse effects on our liquidity, results of operations or business prospects. We cannot assure you of the outcome of our chapter 11 case. Risks associated with the chapter 11 filing may include an adverse impact on the following:
•
the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern;
•
our ability to obtain Bankruptcy Court approval with respect to motions we file in the chapter 11 case and the impact of Bankruptcy Court rulings on the case in general;
•
the length of time we will operate in chapter 11 and our ability to successfully emerge from chapter 11;
•
our ability to consummate and implement a plan of reorganization with respect to our chapter 11 case;
•
risks associated with third party motions and other relief sought in the chapter 11 case, and their potential impact on our operations and ability to emerge from chapter 11;
•
the ability to maintain sufficient liquidity throughout the chapter 11 case;
•
increased costs related to the chapter 11 filing and other litigation;
•
our ability to manage contracts that are critical to our operations and, to obtain and maintain appropriate terms with customers, suppliers and service providers;
•
the resolution of all pre-petition claims against us; and
•
our ability to maintain existing customers, vendor relationships and expand sales to new customers.
A plan of reorganization and related disclosure statement have not been filed, and the terms and provisions of a plan of reorganization are uncertain.
A plan of reorganization or related disclosure statement has not been filed with the Bankruptcy Court and may not be filed for some time. All outstanding prepetition claims against us will likely be subject to compromise in a plan of reorganization. At this stage of our chapter 11 case, we are not in a position to predict the terms and provisions of a plan, including how outstanding prepetition claims and equity interests will be treated under a plan of reorganization or how our chapter 11 case or how a plan of reorganization will impact our common stock. The treatment of claims and equity interests under a plan of reorganization will be dependent on a number of factors including the amount of claims allowed in our chapter 11 case, the value of our assets, business results, negotiations with creditors, the outcome of the litigation with PharmAthene and other factors. It is possible that implementation of a plan of reorganization could substantially dilute our existing common stock or result in the cancellation of such stock. The Company has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization through and including May 14, 2015. The Company expects to seek court approval for further extension of that period of exclusivity.
Our common stock could be delisted by NASDAQ, and if such delisting occurs it could limit the liquidity of our common stock, increase its volatility and hinder our ability to raise capital.
On September 16, 2014, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC asserting that, based on the Company’s chapter 11 filing, the Company no longer met the continuing listing requirements necessary to maintain its listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company appealed such assertion. On October 16, 2014, representatives of the Company appeared before the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC’s hearings panel to present the Company’s appeal, asking the panel to exercise its discretion to allow the Company to maintain its listing for up to five additional months (the limit of the panel’s discretion at this time). On October 29, 2014, the Company received the decision of the NASDAQ hearings panel. The NASDAQ hearings panel decided that the Company’s Common Stock would remain listed, subject to: (a) the Company providing the NASDAQ hearings panel with confidential updates regarding the status of the PharmAthene litigation, public disclosures relating to such litigation and to any possible judgment, and (b) the Company, on or before March 16, 2015, emerging from chapter 11 and evidencing compliance with all requirements for initial listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The NASDAQ hearings panel also stated that it reserves the right to reconsider its determination based upon any event, condition or circumstance that exists or develops that
would, in the opinion of the panel, make continued listing of the Company’s securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market inadvisable or unwarranted. There can be no assurance that the Company will meet the conditions required by the NASDAQ hearings panel and maintain the listing of its Common Stock on NASDAQ.
Risks Related to Our Dependence on U.S. Government Contracts and Grants
We currently expect to derive substantially all of our foreseeable future revenue from sales of Tecovirimat under the BARDA Contracts in addition to contracts and grants from various agencies of the U.S. government. If BARDA demand for Tecovirimat is reduced, our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially harmed.
Our BARDA Contract does not necessarily increase the likelihood that we will secure future comparable contracts with the U.S. government. The success of our business and our operating results for the foreseeable future are substantially dependent on the terms of the Tecovirimat sales to the U.S. government, including price per course, the number and size of doses in a course and the timing of deliveries.
Furthermore, substantially all of our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, were derived from contracts and grants other than the BARDA Contract. Our current revenue is primarily derived from contract work being performed for NIH under grants and one BARDA development contract scheduled to substantially conclude in February 2018. There can be no assurance that we will recognize the revenue from the BARDA Contract in the time periods we anticipate or at all, or that we will be able to secure future contracts or grants. Failure to recognize such revenue or secure such contracts or grants could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
The pricing under our fixed-price government contracts and grants is based on estimates of the time, resources and expenses required to perform these contracts and grants. If our estimates are not accurate, we may not be able to earn an adequate return or may incur a loss under these arrangements.
Our existing contract with BARDA for Tecovirimat includes fixed-price components. We expect that our future contracts and grants with the U.S. government for Tecovirimat as well as contracts and grants for biodefense product candidates that we successfully develop also may be fixed-price arrangements. Under a fixed-price contract or grant, we are required to deliver our products at a fixed price regardless of the actual costs we incur and to absorb any cost in excess of the fixed price. Estimating costs that are related to performance in accordance with contract or grant specifications is difficult, particularly where the period of performance is over several years. Our failure to anticipate technical problems, estimate costs accurately or control costs during performance of a fixed-price contract or grant could reduce the profitability of a fixed-price contract or grant or cause a loss, which could in turn harm our operating results.
Product deliveries of Tecovirimat subsequent to December 31, 2014 are expected to be at a provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day). This is a change from the provisional dosage that was in effect when product deliveries were made in 2013 and 2014 (600 mg per day). In 2013 and 2014, the provisional dosage of courses delivered to the Strategic Stockpile was 600 mg administered once per day. The change in the provisional dosage is based on FDA guidance received by the Company in 2014, subsequent to the deliveries of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat. Based on the provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day, SIGA currently expects to supplement previously delivered courses of Tecovirimat, at no additional cost to BARDA, with additional capsules so that all of the courses previously delivered to BARDA will be at the new provisional dosage. The Company expects to incur significant incremental costs when previously delivered courses are supplemented. The provisional dosage for Tecovirimat may be subject to additional changes in the future based on FDA guidance.
Our U.S. government contracts and grants require ongoing funding decisions by the government. Reduced or discontinued funding of these contracts and grants could cause our financial condition and operating results to suffer materially.
Our principal customer for Tecovirimat at the present time is the U.S. government. We anticipate that the U.S. government will also be the principal customer for any other biodefense product that we successfully develop. A U.S. government program, such as Project BioShield, may be implemented through the award of many different individual grants, contracts and subcontracts. The funding of government programs is subject to Congressional appropriations, generally made on a fiscal year basis even though a program may continue for several years. Our government customers are subject to political considerations and stringent budgetary constraints. Our government customers are also subject to uncertainties as to continued funding of their budgets. Additionally, government-funded development grants and contracts typically consist of a base period of performance followed by successive option periods for performance of certain future activities. The value of the goods and services provided during such option periods, which are exercisable in the sole discretion of the government, may constitute the majority of the total value of the underlying contract. If levels of government expenditures and authorizations for biodefense decrease or shift to programs in areas where we do not offer products or are not developing product candidates, our business, revenues and operating results may suffer.
Our future business may be harmed as a result of the government contracting process, which can be a competitive bidding process that may involve risks not present in the commercial contracting process.
We expect that a significant portion of the business that we will seek in the near future will be under government grants, contracts or subcontracts, which may be awarded through competitive bidding. Competitive bidding for government contracts and grants presents a number of risks that are not typically present in the commercial contracting process, which may include:
•
the need to devote substantial time and attention of management and key employees to the preparation of bids and proposals for contracts and grants that may not be awarded to us;
•
the need to estimate the resources and cost structure that will be required to perform any contract or grant that we might be awarded;
•
the risk that the government will issue a request for proposal to which we would not be eligible to respond;
•
the risk that third parties may submit protests to our responses to requests for proposal that could result in delays or withdrawals of those requests for proposal; and
•
the expenses that we might incur and the delays that we might suffer if our competitors protest or challenge contract awards made to us pursuant to competitive bidding, and the risk that any such protest or challenge could result in the resubmission of bids based on modified specifications, or in termination, reduction or modification of the awarded contract or grant.
The U.S. government may choose to award future contracts and grants for the supply of smallpox antivirus and other biodefense product candidates that we are developing to our competitors instead of to us. If we are unable to win particular contracts and grants, we may not be able to operate in the market for products that are provided under those contracts and grants for a number of years. If we are unable to obtain new contracts and grants over an extended period, or if we fail to anticipate all of the costs and resources that will be required to secure such contracts and grants, our growth strategy and our business, financial condition, and operating results could be materially adversely affected.
The success of our business with the U.S. government depends on our compliance with regulations and obligations under our U.S. government contracts and grants and various federal statutes and regulations.
Our business with the U.S. government is subject to specific procurement regulations and a variety of other legal compliance obligations. These laws and rules include those related to:
•
procurement integrity;
•
export control;
•
government security regulations;
•
employment practices;
•
protection of the environment;
•
accuracy of records and the recording of costs; and
•
foreign corrupt practices.
In addition, before awarding us any contract or grant, the U.S. government could require that we respond satisfactorily to a request to substantiate our commercial viability and industrial capabilities. Compliance with these obligations increases our performance and compliance costs. Failure to comply with these regulations and requirements could lead to suspension or debarment, for cause, from government contracting or subcontracting for a period of time. The termination of a government contract or grant or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of these obligations would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure other government contracts or grants in the future.
Unfavorable provisions in government contracts and grants, some of which may be customary, may harm our future business, financial condition and potential operating results.
Government contracts and grants customarily contain provisions that give the government substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including (but not limited to) provisions that allow the government to:
•
terminate existing contracts or grants, in whole or in part, for any reason or no reason;
•
unilaterally reduce or modify grants, contracts or subcontracts, including through the use of equitable price adjustments;
•
cancel multi-year contracts or grants and related orders if funds for performance for any subsequent year become unavailable;
•
decline to exercise an option to renew a contract or grant;
•
exercise an option to purchase only the minimum amount specified in a contract or grant;
•
decline to exercise an option to purchase the maximum amount specified in a contract or grant;
•
claim rights to products, including intellectual property, developed under a contract or grant;
•
take actions that result in a longer development timeline than expected;
•
direct the course of a development program in a manner not chosen by the government contractor;
•
suspend or debar the contractor from doing business with the government or a specific government agency;
•
pursue criminal or civil remedies under the False Claims Act and False Statements Act; and
•
control or prohibit the export of products.
Generally, government contracts and grants contain provisions permitting unilateral termination or modification, in whole or in part, at the government’s convenience. Under general principles of government contracting law, if the government terminates a contract or grant for convenience, the terminated company may recover only its incurred or committed costs, settlement expenses and profit on work completed prior to the termination.
If the government terminates a contract or grant for default, the defaulting company is entitled to recover costs incurred and associated profits on accepted items only and may be liable for excess costs incurred by the government in procuring undelivered items from another source. Our government contracts and grants, including the BARDA Contract, could be terminated under these circumstances. Some government contracts and grants permit the government the right to use, for or on behalf of the U.S. government, any technologies developed by the contractor under a government contract or grant. If we were to develop technology under a contract or grant with such a provision, we might not be able to prohibit third parties, including our competitors, from using that technology in providing products and services to the government.
Political or social factors, including related litigation, may delay or impair our ability to market Tecovirimat and our biodefense product candidates and may require us to spend time and money to address these issues.
Products developed to treat diseases caused by or to combat the threat of bioterrorism or biowarfare will be subject to changing political and social environments. The political and social responses to bioterrorism and biowarfare have been highly charged and unpredictable. Political or social pressures or changes in the perception of the risk that military personnel or civilians could be exposed to biological agents as weapons of bioterrorism or biowarfare may delay or cause resistance to bringing our products to market or limit pricing or purchases of our products, any of which would harm our business.
In addition, substantial delays or cancellations of purchases could result from protests or challenges from third parties. Furthermore, lawsuits brought against us by third parties such as activists, even if not successful, require us to spend time and money defending the related litigation. The need to address political and social issues may divert our management’s time and attention from other business concerns.
Additional lawsuits, publicity campaigns or other negative publicity may adversely affect the degree of market acceptance of, and thereby limit the demand for, Tecovirimat and our biodefense product candidates. In such event, our ability to market and sell such products may be hindered and the commercial success of Tecovirimat and other products we develop will be harmed, thereby reducing our revenues.
Risks Related to Product Development
Our business depends significantly on our success in completing development and commercialization of drug candidates that are still under development. If we are unable to commercialize these drug candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.
We have invested a substantial majority of our efforts and financial resources in the development of our drug candidates. Our ability to generate near-term cash-flows is primarily dependent on the success of our smallpox antiviral drug candidate Tecovirimat. The commercial success of our drug candidates will depend on many factors, including:
•
successful development, formulation and cGMP scale-up of drug manufacturing that meets FDA requirements;
•
successful development of animal models;
•
successful completion of non-clinical development, including studies in approved animal models;
•
our ability to pay the expense of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patent claims and other intellectual property rights;
•
successful completion of clinical trials;
•
receipt of marketing approvals from FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities;
•
establishing commercial manufacturing processes of our own or arrangements on reasonable terms with contract manufacturers;
•
manufacturing stable commercial supplies of drug candidates, including availability of raw materials;
•
launching commercial sales of the product, whether alone or in collaboration with others; and
•
acceptance of the product by potential government customers, physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community.
We expect to rely on FDA regulations known as the “animal rule” to obtain approval for certain of our biodefense drug candidates. The animal rule permits the use of animal efficacy studies together with human clinical safety trials to support an application for marketing approval. These regulations are relatively new, and both we and the government have limited experience in the application of these rules to the drug candidates that we are developing. It is possible that results from these animal efficacy studies may not be predictive of the actual efficacy of our drug candidates in humans. If we are not successful in completing the development and commercialization of our drug candidates, whether due to our efforts or due to concerns raised by our governmental regulators or customers, our business could be harmed.
We will not be able to commercialize our drug candidates if our pre-clinical development efforts are not successful, our clinical trials do not demonstrate safety or our clinical trials or animal studies do not demonstrate efficacy.
Before obtaining regulatory approval for the sale of our drug candidates, we must conduct extensive pre-clinical development, trials to demonstrate the safety of our drug candidates and clinical or animal trials to demonstrate the efficacy of our drug candidates. Pre-clinical and clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. Success in pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials or animal efficacy studies will be successful, and interim results of a clinical trial or animal efficacy study do not necessarily predict final results.
A failure of one or more of our clinical trials or animal efficacy studies can occur at any stage of testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, pre-clinical testing and the clinical trial or animal efficacy study process that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including:
•
regulators or institutional review boards may not authorize us to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
•
we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional pre-clinical testing or clinical trials, or we may abandon projects that we expect to be promising, if our pre-clinical tests, clinical trials or animal efficacy studies produce negative or inconclusive results;
•
we might have to suspend or terminate our clinical trials if the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
•
regulators or institutional review boards may require that we hold, suspend or terminate clinical development for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements;
•
the cost of our clinical trials could escalate and become cost prohibitive;
•
our governmental regulators may impose requirements on clinical trials, pre-clinical trials or animal efficacy studies that we cannot meet or that may prohibit or limit our ability to perform or complete the necessary testing in order to obtain regulatory approval;
•
any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the product not commercially viable;
•
we may not be successful in recruiting a sufficient number of qualifying subjects for our clinical trials; and
•
the effects of our drug candidates may not be the desired effects or may include undesirable side effects or the drug candidates may have other unexpected characteristics.
We are in various stages of product development and there can be no assurance of successful commercialization.
In general, our research and development programs are at an early stage of development. To obtain FDA approval for our biodefense products, we will be required to obtain adequate proof of efficacy from at least one animal model and provide animal and human safety data. Our other products will be subject to the usual FDA regulatory requirements, which include a number of phases of testing in humans.
FDA has not approved any of our biopharmaceutical product candidates. Any drug candidate we develop will require significant additional research and development efforts, including extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing and regulatory approval, prior to commercial sale. We cannot be sure our approach to drug discovery will be effective or will result in the successful commercialization of any drug. We cannot predict with certainty whether any drug resulting from our research and development efforts will be commercially available within the next several years, or if they will be available at all.
Even if we receive initially positive pre-clinical or clinical results, such results do not mean that similar results will be obtained in later stages of drug development, such as additional pre-clinical testing or human clinical trials. All of our potential drug candidates are prone to the risks of failure inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that none of our drug candidates will or can:
•
be safe, non-toxic and effective;
•
otherwise meet applicable regulatory standards;
•
receive the necessary regulatory approvals;
•
develop into commercially viable drugs;
•
be manufactured or produced economically and on a large scale;
•
be successfully marketed;
•
be paid for by governmental procurers or be reimbursed by governmental or private insurers; and
•
achieve customer acceptance.
In addition, third parties may preclude us from marketing our drugs through enforcement of their proprietary rights that we are not aware of, or third parties may succeed in marketing equivalent or superior drug products. Our failure to develop safe, commercially viable drugs would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Risks Related to Commercialization
Our ability to grow our business depends significantly on our ability to achieve sales of Tecovirimat to customers other than the U.S. government.
An element of our business strategy is to sell Tecovirimat to customers other than the U.S. government. These potential customers include foreign governments and state and local governments, as well as non-governmental organizations focused on global health like the World Health Organization, health care institutions like hospitals (domestic and foreign) and certain large business organizations interested in protecting their employees against global threats.
The market for sales of Tecovirimat to customers other than the U.S. government is undeveloped, and we may not be successful in generating meaningful sales of Tecovirimat, if any, to these potential customers.
Governmental regulations may make it difficult for us to achieve significant sales of Tecovirimat to customers other than the U.S. government. For example, federal and foreign regulations usually require approval of the drug under generally applicable food and drug laws or waivers of such approval before these customers may procure the drug. Additionally, federal laws place various restrictions on the export of drugs that are not FDA-approved or that have potential biodefense-related uses. These restrictions are subject to change as global conditions change. These restrictions and other regulations on drug sales could limit our sales of Tecovirimat to foreign governments and other foreign customers. In addition, U.S. government demand for Tecovirimat may limit supplies of Tecovirimat available for sale to non-U.S. government customers.
If we fail to increase our sales of Tecovirimat to customers other than the U.S. government, our business and opportunities for growth could be materially limited.
Because we must obtain regulatory clearance or otherwise operate under strict legal requirements in order to test and market our products in the U.S., we cannot predict whether or when we will be permitted to commercialize our products other than through the BARDA Contract.
Except with respect to sales to BARDA under Project BioShield, pharmaceutical products cannot generally be marketed in the U.S. until they have has completed rigorous pre-clinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory clearance process implemented by FDA. Pharmaceutical products typically take many years to satisfy regulatory requirements and require the expenditure of substantial resources depending on the type, complexity and novelty of the product and its intended use.
Before commencing clinical trials in humans, we must submit and receive clearance from FDA through a process begun by an IND application. Institutional review boards and FDA oversee clinical trials. Such trials:
•
must be conducted in conformance with FDA regulations;
•
must meet requirements for institutional review board oversight;
•
must meet requirements for informed consent;
•
must meet requirements for good clinical and manufacturing practices;
•
are subject to continuing FDA oversight;
•
may require large numbers of test subjects; and
•
may be suspended by us or FDA at any time if it is believed that the subjects participating in these trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or if FDA finds deficiencies in our IND application or the conduct of these trials.
Before receiving FDA clearance to market a product in the absence of a medical or public health emergency, we must demonstrate that the product is safe and effective on the patient population that will be treated. Data we obtain from pre-clinical and clinical activities and from animal models are susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory clearances. Additionally, we have limited experience in conducting and managing the pre-clinical and clinical trials and animal efficacy studies and manufacturing processes necessary to obtain regulatory clearance.
If full regulatory clearance of a product is granted, this clearance will be limited only to those conditions for which the product is demonstrated through clinical trials to be safe and efficacious. We cannot ensure that any compound developed by us, alone or with others, will prove to be safe and efficacious in pre-clinical or clinical trials or animal efficacy studies and will meet all of the applicable regulatory requirements needed to receive full marketing clearance.
The biopharmaceutical market in which we compete and will compete is highly competitive.
The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid and significant technological change. Our success will depend on our ability to develop and apply our technologies in the design and development of our product candidates and to establish and maintain a market for our product candidates. In addition, there are many companies, both public and private, including major pharmaceutical and chemical companies, specialized biotechnology firms, universities and other research institutions engaged in developing pharmaceutical and biotechnology products. Many of these companies have substantially greater financial, technical, research and development resources, and human resources than us. Competitors may develop products or other technologies that are more effective than any that are being developed by us or may obtain FDA approval for products more rapidly than us. If we commence commercial sales of products, we still must compete in the manufacturing and marketing of such products, areas in which we have no experience. Many of these companies also have manufacturing facilities and established marketing capabilities that would enable such companies to market competing products through existing channels of distribution.
Our potential products may not be acceptable in the market or eligible for third-party reimbursement resulting in a negative impact on our future financial results.
Any product we develop may not achieve market acceptance. The degree of market acceptance of any of our products will depend on a number of factors, including:
•
the establishment and demonstration in the medical community of the efficacy and safety of such products;
•
the potential advantage of such products over existing approaches to combating the problem intended to be addressed;
•
the cost of our products relative to their perceived benefits; and
•
payment or reimbursement policies of government and third-party payors.
Physicians, patients or the medical community in general may not accept or utilize any product we may develop. Our ability to generate revenues and income with respect to drugs, if any, developed through the use of our technology will depend, in part, upon the extent to which payment or reimbursement for the cost of such drugs will be available from third-party payors, such as governmental suppliers like BARDA, CDC or DoD, governmental health administration authorities, private healthcare insurers, health maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefits management companies and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly disputing the prices charged for pharmaceutical products. If third-party payment or reimbursement was not available or sufficient to allow profitable price levels to be maintained for drugs we develop, it could adversely affect our business.
Product liability lawsuits could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and require us to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.
We face an inherent business risk related to the sale of Tecovirimat and any other products that we successfully develop and the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials.
Tecovirimat is currently identified as a covered countermeasure under a PREP Act declaration issued in October 2008, which provides us with substantial immunity with respect to the manufacture, administration or use of Tecovirimat. Under our BARDA Contract, the U.S. government should indemnify us against claims by third parties for death, personal injury and other
damages related to Tecovirimat, including reasonable litigation and settlement costs, to the extent that the claim or loss results from specified risks not covered by insurance or caused by our grossly negligent or criminal behavior. The collection process can be lengthy and complicated, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to recover these amounts from the U.S. government.
If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against future claims that our product or product candidates caused injuries and we are not entitled to or able to obtain indemnity by the U.S. government with respect to such claims, or if the U.S. government does not honor its indemnification obligations, we may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
•
decreased demand for any product candidate or product that we may develop;
•
injury to our reputation;
•
withdrawal of a product from the market;
•
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
•
costs to defend the related litigation;
•
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
•
loss of revenue; and
•
the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.
We currently have product liability insurance with coverage up to a $10 million annual aggregate limit and up to $10 million per occurrence. The amount of insurance that we currently hold may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that may occur. Product liability insurance is difficult to obtain and increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost and we may not be able to maintain or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.
Additionally, a successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to fall and could decrease our financial resources and materially and adversely affect our business.
We may be required to perform additional clinical trials or change the labeling of our products if we or others identify side effects after our products are on the market, which could harm sales of the affected products.
If we or others identify side effects after any of our products are on the market, or if manufacturing problems occur:
•
regulatory approval may be withdrawn;
•
reformulation of our products, additional clinical trials or other testing or changes in labeling of our products may be required;
•
changes to or re-approvals of our manufacturing facilities may be required;
•
sales of the affected products may drop significantly;
•
our reputation in the marketplace may suffer; and
•
lawsuits, including class action suits, may be brought against us.
Any of the above occurrences could harm or prevent sales of the affected products or could increase the costs and expenses of commercializing and marketing these products.
Healthcare reform and controls on healthcare spending may limit the price we charge for our products and the amounts that we can sell.
There have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals in the United States to change the health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. One enacted proposal, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Healthcare Reform Act”), substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and will have a substantial effect on the pharmaceutical industry. The Healthcare Reform Act contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs like Medicare, reimbursement changes and rules protecting against fraud and abuse, that will change existing healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. We anticipate that, if we obtain marketing approval for our products, some of our revenue may be derived from governmental healthcare programs, including Medicare. Furthermore, beginning in 2011, the Healthcare Reform Act imposed a non-deductible excise tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs,” which includes innovator drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs or generics) to U.S. government programs. The Healthcare Reform Act and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future could have an adverse effect on our industry generally and potential future sales and profitability of our products specifically.
In addition to the Healthcare Reform Act, we expect that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators, and third-party payors to keep healthcare costs down while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for any product that is approved or the amounts of reimbursement available for these products from governmental agencies or other third-party payors or may increase the taxes imposed on life sciences companies such as ours. While it is too early to predict what effect the Healthcare Reform Act or any future legislation or regulation will have on us, such laws could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Laws and regulations governing international operations may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain product candidates outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.
As we expand our operations outside of the United States, we must comply with numerous laws and regulations relating to our business operations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The creation and implementation of international business practices compliance programs is costly and such programs are difficult to enforce, particularly where reliance on third parties is required.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced primarily by the U.S. Department of Justice. The SEC is involved with enforcement of the books and records provisions of the FCPA.
Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical studies and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. In addition, biodefense companies like SIGA often sell their products directly to foreign governments.
Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. Our expanding presence outside of the United States will require us to dedicate additional resources to compliance with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.
The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial penalties, including suspension or debarment from government contracting. Violation of the FCPA can result in significant civil and criminal penalties.
Indictment alone under the FCPA can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the U.S. government until the pending claims are resolved. Conviction of a violation of the FCPA can result in long-term disqualification as a government contractor. The termination of a government contract or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of our obligations under laws governing international business practices would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure government contracts. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on United States exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.
Other countries have laws similar to the FCPA which may be applicable to our operations.
If we are unable to expand our internal sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties, we may be unable to generate cash flows from product sales to customers other than the U.S. government.
To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we may need to enhance our own sales and marketing capabilities, enter into collaborations with third parties able to perform these services or outsource these functions to third parties.
We currently market and sell Tecovirimat through a small, targeted sales and marketing group. We plan to continue to do so and expect that we will use a similar approach for sales to the U.S. government of any other biodefense product candidates that we successfully develop. If we are unable to do this, we may be unable to expand our sales of Tecovirimat, which could have an adverse effect on our growth.
Risks Related to Manufacturing and Manufacturing Facilities
Problems related to large-scale commercial manufacturing could cause us to delay product launches or experience shortages of products.
Manufacturing drug products, especially in large quantities, is complex. Our drug candidates require several manufacturing steps, and may involve complex techniques to assure quality and sufficient quantity, especially as the manufacturing scale increases. Our products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. Accordingly, it is essential to be able to validate and control the manufacturing process to assure that it is reproducible. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including obtaining materials, filling, labeling, packaging, storage, shipping, quality control and testing, some of which all pharmaceutical companies, including SIGA, experience from time to time, may result in lot failures, delay in the release of lots, product recalls or spoilage. Success rates can vary dramatically at different stages of the manufacturing process, which can lower yields and increase costs. We may experience deviations in the manufacturing process that may take significant time and resources to resolve and, if unresolved, may affect manufacturing output and/or cause us to fail to satisfy customer orders or contractual commitments, lead to delays in our clinical trials or result in litigation or regulatory action.
If third parties do not manufacture our drug candidates or products in sufficient quantities and at an acceptable cost or in compliance with regulatory requirements and specifications, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates could be delayed, prevented or impaired.
We currently rely on third parties to manufacture drug candidates that we require for pre-clinical and clinical development, including Tecovirimat. Any significant delay in obtaining adequate supplies of our drug candidates could adversely affect our ability to develop or commercialize these drug candidates. We expect that we will rely on third parties for a portion of the manufacturing process for commercial supplies of drug candidates that we successfully develop. If our contract manufacturers are unable to scale-up production to generate enough materials for commercial launch, the success of those products may be jeopardized. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our drug candidates may adversely affect our ability to develop drug candidates and commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis. If our third party manufacturers' production processes malfunction or contaminate our drug supplies during manufacturing, we may incur significant inventory loss.
We currently rely on third parties to demonstrate regulatory compliance and for quality assurance with respect to the drug candidates manufactured for us. We intend to continue to rely on these third parties for these purposes with respect to production of commercial supplies of drugs that we successfully develop. Manufacturers are subject to ongoing, periodic, unannounced inspection by FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies or their designees to ensure strict compliance with applicable regulations.
We cannot be certain that our present or future manufacturers will be able to comply with these regulations and other FDA regulatory requirements or similar regulatory requirements outside the U.S. While our contracts and grants call for compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, we do not control compliance by these manufacturers with these regulations and
standards. If we or these third parties fail to comply with applicable regulations, sanctions could be imposed on us, which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our drug candidates.
Our activities may involve hazardous materials, use of which may subject us to environmental regulatory liabilities.
Our biopharmaceutical research and development sometimes involves the use of hazardous and radioactive materials and generation of biological waste. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and certain waste products. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages, and this liability could exceed our resources. We use, for example, small amounts of radioactive isotopes commonly used in pharmaceutical research, which are stored, used and disposed of in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Our general liability policy provides coverage up to annual aggregate limits of $2 million and coverage of $2 million per occurrence.
We believe that we are in compliance in all material respects with applicable environmental laws and regulations and currently do not expect to make material additional capital expenditures for environmental control facilities in the near term. However, we may have to incur significant costs to comply with current or future environmental laws and regulations.
Risks Related to Sales of Biodefense Products to the U.S. Government
Our business could be adversely affected by a negative audit by the U.S. government.
U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (the “DCAA”), routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts and grants, cost structure, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards.
The DCAA also reviews the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and management information systems. Any cost found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed, while such costs already reimbursed must be refunded. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including:
•
termination of contracts;
•
forfeiture of profits;
•
suspension of payments;
•
fines; and
•
suspension or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. government.
Laws and regulations affecting government contracts and grants might make it more costly and difficult for us to conduct our business.
We must comply with numerous laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of government contracts and grants, which can make it more difficult for us to retain our rights under these contracts. These laws and regulations affect how we do business with federal, state and local governmental agencies. Among the most significant government contracting regulations that affect our business are:
•
the Federal Acquisition Regulation and other agency-specific regulations supplemental to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which comprehensively regulate the procurement, formation, administration and performance of government contracts;
•
the business ethics and public integrity obligations, which govern conflicts of interest and the hiring of former government employees, restrict the granting of gratuities and funding of lobbying activities and incorporate other requirements such as the Anti-Kickback Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;
•
export and import control laws and regulations; and
•
laws, regulations and executive orders restricting the use and dissemination of information classified for national security purposes and the exportation of certain products and technical data.
Risks Related to Regulatory Approvals
If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our drug candidates in the United States other than through sales to BARDA, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.
Our drug candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for a drug candidate will prevent us from commercializing the drug candidate in the United States other than through sales to BARDA under Project BioShield. We have limited experience in preparing, filing and prosecuting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third-party contract research organizations and consultants to assist us in this process. Securing FDA approval requires the submission to FDA of extensive pre-clinical and clinical data and, potentially, animal efficacy studies, information about product manufacturing processes and inspection of facilities and supporting information in order to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. Our future products may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have significant side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining regulatory approval or prevent or limit commercial use.
Failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions could prevent us from marketing our products abroad.
We intend to have our products marketed outside the United States. To market our products in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we may need to obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval.
The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or jurisdictions or by FDA. We and our potential future collaborators may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.
The Fast Track designation for Tecovirimat may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.
We have obtained a “Fast Track” designation from FDA for Tecovirimat. However, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. FDA may withdraw our Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Our Fast Track designation does not guarantee that we will qualify for or be able to take advantage of FDA’s expedited review procedures or that any application that we may submit to FDA for regulatory approval will be accepted for filing or ultimately approved.
Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties
If third parties on whom we rely for clinical trials or certain animal trials do not perform as contractually required or as we expect, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug candidates and our business may suffer.
We do not have the ability independently to conduct the clinical trials, and certain animal trials, required to obtain regulatory approval for our products. We depend on independent investigators, contract research organizations and other third-party service providers to conduct trials of our drug candidates and expect to continue to do so. We rely heavily on these third parties for successful execution of our trials, but do not exercise day-to-day control over their activities. We are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, for conducting and recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Similarly, animal trials may have to comply with Good Laboratory Practices.
We also currently rely on third-party manufacturers and service providers to produce Tecovirimat. Under the BARDA Contract, we are responsible for the performance of these third-party contracts, and our contracts with these third parties give us certain supervisory and quality control rights, but we do not exercise complete day-to-day control over their activities.
Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of the responsibilities and requirements imposed by the BARDA Contract. Third parties may not complete activities on schedule, or may not conduct our trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols. The failure of these third parties to carry out their obligations could delay or prevent the development, approval and commercialization of our drug candidates.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
Our ability to compete may decrease if we do not adequately protect our intellectual property rights.
Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our proprietary technologies, drug targets and potential products and to preserve our trade secrets and trademark rights. Because of the substantial length of time and expense associated with bringing potential products through the development and regulatory clearance processes to reach the marketplace, the pharmaceutical industry places considerable importance on obtaining patent and trade secret protection. The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents has emerged to date. Accordingly, we cannot predict the type and breadth of claims allowed in these patents.
As of December 31, 2014, we exclusively own seven U.S. utility patents, two U.S. provisional patent applications, three U.S. utility patent applications, eight issued foreign patents, two international PCT patent applications and 48 foreign patent applications. We included a summary of our patent position as of December 31, 2014 in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and licensing opportunities. In an effort to maintain the confidentiality and ownership of trade secrets and proprietary information, we require our employees, consultants and some collaborators to execute confidentiality and invention assignment agreements upon commencement of a relationship with us. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, confidential information or inventions in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of such information, and adequate remedies may not exist in the event of such unauthorized use or disclosure.
If our technologies are alleged or found to infringe the patents or proprietary rights of others, we may be sued, we may have to pay damages or be barred from pursuing a technology, or we may have to license those rights to or from others on unfavorable terms. Even if we prevail, such litigation may be costly.
Our commercial success will depend significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents or proprietary rights of third parties. Our technologies, or the technologies of third parties on which we may depend, may infringe the patents or proprietary rights of others. If there is an adverse outcome in any dispute concerning rights to these technologies, then we could be subject to significant liability, required to license disputed rights from or to other parties and/or required to cease using a technology necessary to carry out our research, development and commercialization activities.
The costs to establish or defend against claims of infringement or interference with patents or other proprietary rights can be expensive and time-consuming, even if the outcome is favorable. An outcome of any patent or proprietary rights administrative proceeding or litigation that is unfavorable to us may have a material adverse effect on us. We could incur substantial costs if we are required to defend ourselves in suits brought by third parties or if we initiate such suits. We may not have sufficient funds or resources in the event of litigation. Additionally, we may not prevail in any such action.
Any dispute resulting from claims based on patents and proprietary rights could result in a significant reduction in the coverage of the patents or proprietary rights owned, optioned by or licensed to us and limit our ability to obtain meaningful protection for our rights. If patents are issued to third parties that contain competitive or conflicting claims, we may be legally prohibited from researching, developing or commercializing potential products or be required to obtain licenses to these patents or to develop or obtain alternative technology. We may be legally prohibited from using technology owned by others, may not be able to obtain any license to the patents or technologies of third parties on acceptable terms, if at all, or may not be able to obtain or develop alternative technologies.
In December 2006, PharmAthene filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court” or “Court of Chancery”) captioned PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2627-VCP. In its amended complaint,
PharmAthene asked the Court to order us to enter into a license agreement with PharmAthene with respect to ST-246, also known as Tecovirimat, to declare that we are obliged to execute such a license agreement, and to award damages resulting from our alleged breach of that obligation. PharmAthene also alleges that we breached an obligation to negotiate such a license agreement in good faith, and sought damages for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment based on information, capital, and assistance that PharmAthene allegedly provided to us during the negotiation process. The Court tried the case in January 2011.
In September 2011, the Court of Chancery issued its post-trial opinion. The Court denied PharmAthene’s requests for specific performance and expectation damages measured by present value of estimated future profits. Nevertheless, the Court held that we breached our duty to negotiate in good faith and were liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court consequently awarded to PharmAthene what the Court described as an equitable payment stream or equitable lien consisting of fifty percent of the net profits that we achieve from sales of ST-246 after we secure $40 million in net profits, for ten years following the first commercial sale. In addition, the Court awarded PharmAthene one-third of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness expenses.
In May 2012, the Court entered its final order and judgment in this matter, implementing its post-trial opinion. Among other things, the final order and judgment provided that (a) net profits would be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied consistently with how they are applied in the preparation of our financial statements, (b) the net profits calculation would take into account expenses relating to ST-246 commencing with our acquisition of ST-246 in August 2004, and (c) PharmAthene could recover $2.4 million of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
In June 2012, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware the final order and judgment and certain earlier rulings of the Court of Chancery. Shortly thereafter, PharmAthene filed its cross-appeal. The Company obtained a stay of enforcement of the fee and expense portion of the judgment by filing a surety bond for the amount of the judgment plus post-judgment interest. We posted $1.3 million of cash as approximately 50% collateral for a $2.7 million surety bond. The $1.3 million of cash collateral is recorded in other assets as of December 31, 2014.
On January 10, 2013, the parties briefed the issues, and argued before the Delaware Supreme Court, en banc.
On May 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued its decision, affirming the Delaware Court of Chancery’s judgment in part, reversing it in part, and remanding to Vice Chancellor Parsons. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court determination that the Company had breached its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith; reversed the promissory estoppel holding; and, reversed the Vice Chancellor’s equitable damages award. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge may award expectation damages for breach of the contractual duty to negotiate in good faith if such damages are proven with reasonable certainty, and remanded to the Chancery Court for consideration of damages consistent with that holding. The Supreme Court also reversed the Chancery Court’s award of attorney fees and expert witness fees because they were predicated in part on a now-reversed finding of liability on PharmAthene’s promissory estoppel claim. The Supreme Court held that the Chancery Court could reevaluate on remand an alternative award, if any, of attorneys’ fees and expert testimony expenses consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Finally, the Supreme Court declined to consider all claims raised in PharmAthene’s cross appeal because it affirmed the Chancery Court’s finding that the Company was liable for breaching its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith. On June 11, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its mandate to the Court of Chancery with the decision described above.
On June 26, 2013, the parties appeared before Vice Chancellor Parsons to discuss the remand, at which time PharmAthene declared its desire to supplement the record with further evidence. Following briefing and argument on August 15, 2013, the Chancery Court granted PharmAthene’s motion to supplement the record and also allowed the Company to submit responsive evidence. On December 18-19, 2013, the Court held an evidentiary hearing with respect to that evidence. On January 15, 2014, after briefing on relevant issues, the parties appeared for oral argument regarding what remedy, if any, the Chancery Court should impose in light of the remand by the Supreme Court of Delaware.
On August 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery issued its memorandum opinion and order (the “Remand Opinion”). In its Remand Opinion, the Court of Chancery reversed its earlier conclusions and held that PharmAthene had carried its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to lump sum expectation damages for lost profits related to Tecovirimat by a preponderance of the evidence. It also stated that in order to calculate PharmAthene’s lost profits, several modifications to the valuation model presented at trial (which the Court of Chancery had rejected as too speculative, among other things, in its post-trial opinion) were required, which modifications the Court of Chancery set forth in the Remand Opinion. The Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene is entitled to the value of the revised calculations plus pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate with prejudgment interest to accrue from December 20, 2006. The Court of Chancery also denied and dismissed with prejudice PharmAthene’s claims that it is entitled to specific performance or an equitable payment stream, on the grounds that PharmAthene is limited to a contractual remedy and has an adequate remedy at law. Finally, the Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene was entitled to (i) forty percent
of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred through post-trial argument, (ii) one-third of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred in the remand proceedings, (iii) sixty percent of expert witness fees it incurred in the pretrial and trial phases, and (iv) and one-tenth of the expert witness fees it incurred in the remand proceedings.
The Remand Opinion instructed the parties to perform damages calculations using the Court's newly modified but previously rejected model. PharmAthene was instructed to provide SIGA with a lump sum damages calculation within 10 business days, following which SIGA would respond within 10 business days with its own calculation, or agreement with PharmAthene. Additionally, the Remand Opinion specified that the competing calculations would be submitted to the Court of Chancery within 30 days from the date on which PharmAthene provided its lump sum damages calculation to SIGA, if there is continuing disagreement on the narrow issue of performing the court's required calculations.
On September 16, 2014, as a consequence of SIGA’s chapter 11 filing, the legal proceedings with PharmAthene were stayed (see Note 1 to the financial statements). On October 8, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved a stipulation (the “Stipulation”) between the Company and PharmAthene partially lifting the stay to permit the litigation before the Delaware Chancery Court to proceed, including all appeals. The Stipulation, however, provides that the stay shall remain in effect with respect to the enforcement of any judgment that may be entered.
On October 17, the Company and PharmAthene separately submitted competing damages calculations to the Court of Chancery. PharmAthene’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $233 million as of September 30, 2014. The Company’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $173 million as of August 8, 2014 (the date of the Remand Opinion). The separate calculations submitted by PharmAthene and the Company are based on each parties’ interpretation of the adjusted valuation methodology the Court of Chancery directed the parties to utilize in the Remand Opinion.In its submission, the Company stated that SIGA intends to argue on appeal that PharmAthene has no entitlement to any award of expectation damages, but, rather, should be limited to a recovery of its reliance interest of approximately $200,000. Accordingly, the ultimate loss to be incurred from this litigation is highly uncertain and may be significantly different from the range of calculations set forth in the October 17 submission to the Court of Chancery.
As part of the October 17 submissions, PharmAthene calculated SIGA’s liability for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, expert witness costs and other costs as $3.2 million.
On January 7, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a letter opinion, directing PharmAthene to submit a revised proposed final order and judgment reflecting certain rulings in that opinion, including an award to PharmAthene of $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus interest. On January 9, 2015, PharmAthene submitted a revised proposed final order and judgment. On January 12, 2015, SIGA submitted limited objections to PharmAthene's proposed final order and judgment, to which PharmAthene responded on January 14, 2015.
On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment, awarding to PharmAthene $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015, and certain permitted legal fees, costs, and expenses, for a Judgment of $194,649,042. Pursuant to the January 15 Final Order and Judgment, SIGA also is liable to PharmAthene for post-judgment interest, in the amount of $30,663.89, per diem, which per diem amount shall periodically be adjusted.
Both parties were free to appeal from the portions of the trial court rulings on remand that were unfavorable to them within 30 days of entry of the Delaware Court of Chancery's Final Order and Judgment. On January 16, 2015, SIGA appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery's rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. On January 29, 2015, PharmAthene cross-appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery's rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. There is no assurance that either appeal will be successful.
The ultimate loss to be incurred in the future from the PharmAthene litigation is highly uncertain and may differ significantly from the Outstanding Judgment. However, SIGA believes that an ultimate loss of some amount is probable. Because the future outcome of SIGA's appeal of the Final Order and Judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware is highly uncertain, the Company has based its loss accrual on the January 7, 2015 Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, and the subsequent judgment entered by the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2015. Based on the Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, SIGA has recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 million as of December 31, 2014. This amount is classified as a liability subject to compromise. Included in loss accrual, the company accrued pre-judgment interest through September 16, 2014, SIGA's chapter 11 filing date, because it is currently uncertain whether interest accrued subsequent to the chapter 11 filing date will be part of any allowed claim.
In addition to the damages loss accrual, SIGA has separately accrued $3.2 million for PharmAthene’s attorneys’ fees and expert expenses, related to the case.
From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.
In addition, like many biopharmaceutical companies, we may from time to time hire scientific personnel formerly employed by other companies involved in one or more areas similar to the activities conducted by us. It is possible that we and/or these individuals may be subject to allegations of trade secret misappropriation or other similar claims as a result of their prior affiliations.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We have incurred operating losses since our inception and expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future.
We incurred net operating losses of approximately $209.7 million and $23.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. As of December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, our accumulated deficit was approximately $422.0 million, $156.5 million and $139.4 million, respectively. We expect to continue to have significant operating expenses and will need to generate significant revenues to achieve and maintain profitability.
Our ability to fund operations is substantially dependent on cash flows from delivery of Tecovirimat. If we do not achieve positive cash flows, we cannot guarantee that we can sustain or enhance our current level of operations. We expect that cash flows will fluctuate significantly and could be delayed from one quarter to another based on several factors. If cash flows grow slower than we anticipate, or if operating expenses or expenses resulting from the appeal of the Outstanding Judgment in the litigation commenced by PharmAthene exceed our expectations or cannot be adjusted accordingly, then our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows will be materially and adversely affected.
Future acquisitions, strategic investments, partnerships or alliances could be difficult to identify and integrate, divert the attention of management, disrupt our business, dilute stockholder value and adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.
We may in the future seek to acquire or invest in businesses, products or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our services, enhance our technical capabilities or otherwise offer growth opportunities, though we do not expect to seek such acquisitions or investments during the pendency of our restructuring process under chapter 11. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various expenses in identifying, investigating and pursuing businesses, we may not be able to integrate successfully the acquired personnel, operations and technologies, or effectively manage the combined business following the acquisitions. We may not be able to find and identify desirable acquisition targets or be successful in entering into an agreement with any particulate target. Acquisitions could also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities or the issuance of debt, which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our operating results, business and financial condition may suffer.
We may need additional funding, which may not be available to us, and which may force us to delay, reduce or eliminate any of our product development programs or commercialization efforts.
While we have raised substantial funds through credit facilities and the issuance of new equity or the exercise of options or warrants in the past, there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in raising such funds. If we are unable to raise additional funds, we could be forced to discontinue, cease or limit certain operations. Our cash flows may fall short of our projections or be delayed, or our expenses may increase, which could result in our capital being consumed significantly faster than anticipated. Our annual operating needs vary from year to year depending upon the amount of cash generated through the BARDA Contract, contracts, grants, licenses, the amount of projects we undertake, and the amount of resources we expend in connection with acquisitions, all of which may materially differ from year to year and may adversely affect our business.
We may require additional financing and we may not be able to raise additional funds. If we are able to obtain additional financing through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, such sales may contain terms, such as liquidation and other preferences that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Debt financing arrangements, if available, may require us to pledge certain assets or enter into covenants that would restrict our business activities or our ability to incur further indebtedness and may be at interest rates and contain other terms that are not favorable to our shareholders.
The possibility of potential substantial loss from the PharmAthene litigation, combined with the cost attendant to the administration of the Company’s chapter 11 case, have led our independent registered public accounting firm to express substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
The possibility of potential substantial loss from PharmAthene litigation, combined with the costs attendant to the administration of the Company’s chapter 11 case, have led our independent registered public accounting firm to express substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern in its report to our financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014. If we are forced to liquidate or are otherwise unable to continue as a going concern, investors will likely lose all of their investment in our Company.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
Our stock price is, and we expect it to remain, volatile, which could limit investors’ ability to sell stock at a profit.
The volatile price of our stock makes it difficult for investors to predict the value of their investments, to sell shares at a profit at any given time, or to plan purchases and sales in advance. A variety of factors may affect the market price of our common stock. These include, but are not limited to:
•
publicity regarding actual or potential clinical or animal test results relating to products under development by our competitors or us;
•
initiating, completing or analyzing, or a delay or failure in initiating, completing or analyzing, pre-clinical or clinical trials or animal trials or the design or results of these trials;
•
achievement or rejection of regulatory approvals by our competitors or us;
•
announcements of technological innovations or new commercial products by our competitors or us;
•
developments concerning proprietary rights, including patents and rights to Tecovirimat or a portion of the net profits associated therewith as asserted by PharmAthene;
•
developments concerning our collaborations;
•
regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;
•
economic or other crises and other external factors;
•
period-to-period fluctuations in our revenues and other results of operations;
•
changes in financial estimates by securities analysts;
•
publicity or activity involving possible future acquisitions, strategic investments, partnerships or alliances;
•
the status of the listing of our common stock on NASDAQ; and
•
matters relating to our chapter 11 proceedings.
Additionally, because the volume of trading in our stock fluctuates significantly at times, any information about us in the media may result in significant volatility in our stock price.
We will not be able to control many of these factors, and we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our financial results will not necessarily be indicative of our future performance.
In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that may have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of individual companies. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.
A future issuance of preferred stock may adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock.
Our certificate of incorporation allows our Board of Directors to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock and to fix the voting powers, designations, preferences, rights and qualifications, limitations or restrictions of these shares without any further vote or action by the stockholders. The rights of the holders of common stock will be subject to, and could be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any preferred stock that we may issue in the future. The issuance of preferred stock, while providing desirable flexibility in connection with our future activities, could also have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock, thereby delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control.
Concentration of ownership of our capital stock could delay or prevent a change of control.
Our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders beneficially own a significant percentage of our common stock. They also have, through the exercise or conversion of certain securities, the right to acquire additional common stock. As a result, these stockholders, if acting together, have the ability to influence the outcome of corporate actions requiring shareholder approval. Additionally, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of SIGA. As of the most recent available information, directors, executive officers and principal stockholders beneficially owned approximately 30% of our outstanding stock.
Risks Related to Our Business
The loss of key personnel or our ability to recruit or retain qualified personnel could adversely affect our results of operations.
We rely upon the ability, expertise, judgment, discretion, integrity and good faith of our senior management team. Our success is dependent upon our personnel and our ability to recruit and train high quality employees. We must continue to recruit, retain and motivate management and other employees sufficient to maintain our current business and support our projected growth. The loss of services of any of our key management could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our future success depends on our ability to retain our chief executive officer and other key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel. The loss of the services of any key executive might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. Replacing key employees may be difficult and time-consuming because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the skills and experiences required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates successfully. We generally do not maintain key person life insurance to cover the loss of any of our employees. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific personnel, clinical personnel and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms, if at all, given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from other companies, universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development, regulatory and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.
We may have difficulty managing our growth.
Potential future growth could place a significant strain on our management and operations. Our ability to manage any future growth will depend upon our ability to broaden our management team and our ability to attract, hire and retain skilled employees. Our success will also depend on the ability of our officers and key employees to continue to implement and improve our operational and other systems and to hire, train and manage our employees.
Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards may be limited.
As of December 31, 2014, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of $87.4 million to offset future taxable income. In 2012 previously available NOLs of approximately $1.2 million were expired. The remaining NOLs expire in various years between 2021 and 2034, if not utilized. Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, substantial changes in our ownership, in certain circumstances, will limit the amount of NOLs that can be utilized annually in the future to offset taxable income. In particular, section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes on a company's ability to use NOLs if a company experiences a more-than-50% ownership change over a three-year period. If we are limited in our ability to use our NOLs in future years in which we have taxable income, we will pay more taxes than if we were able to utilize our NOLs fully. For example, as a result of a previous change in stock ownership, the annual utilization of the net operating carryforwards generated in tax years prior to 2004 may be subject to limitation.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties
Our headquarters are located in New York, NY and our research and development facilities are located in Corvallis, Oregon. In January 2013, we entered into a sublease with an affiliate to sublet expanded office space in a New York, NY location to serve as our corporate headquarters. The sublease commenced in April 2013 and expires in 2020.
In Corvallis, we lease approximately 32,700 square feet under an amended lease agreement signed in January 2007, which was amended and extended on June 1, 2011. The Company formerly occupied 5,700 square feet under a sublease agreement signed in January 2010 which expired in September 2011. The facilities leased in Corvallis includes space existing under the prior lease terms and newly constructed space in the same building under the most recent lease amendment.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
In December 2006, PharmAthene filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2627-VCP. In its amended complaint, PharmAthene asked the Court to order us to enter into a license agreement with PharmAthene with respect to ST-246, also known as Tecovirimat, to declare that we are obliged to execute such a license agreement, and to award damages resulting from our alleged breach of that obligation. PharmAthene also alleges that we breached an obligation to negotiate such a license agreement in good faith, and sought damages for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment based on information, capital, and assistance that PharmAthene allegedly provided to us during the negotiation process. The Court tried the case in January 2011.
In September 2011, the Court of Chancery issued its post-trial opinion. The Court denied PharmAthene’s requests for specific performance and expectation damages measured by present value of estimated future profits. Nevertheless, the Court held that we breached our duty to negotiate in good faith and were liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court consequently awarded to PharmAthene what the Court described as an equitable payment stream or equitable lien consisting of fifty percent of the net profits that we achieve from sales of ST-246 after we secure $40 million in net profits, for ten years following the first commercial sale. In addition, the Court awarded PharmAthene one-third of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness expenses.
In May 2012, the Court entered its final order and judgment in this matter, implementing its post-trial opinion. Among other things, the final order and judgment provided that (a) net profits would be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied consistently with how they are applied in the preparation of our financial statements, (b) the net profits calculation would take into account expenses relating to ST-246 commencing with our acquisition of ST-246 in August 2004, and (c) PharmAthene could recover $2.4 million of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
In June 2012, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware the final order and judgment and certain earlier rulings of the Court of Chancery. Shortly thereafter, PharmAthene filed its cross-appeal. The Company obtained a stay of enforcement of the fee and expense portion of the judgment by filing a surety bond for the amount of the judgment plus post-judgment interest. We posted $1.3 million of cash as approximately 50% collateral for a $2.7 million surety bond. The $1.3 million of cash collateral is recorded in other assets as of December 31, 2014.
On January 10, 2013, the parties briefed the issues, and argued before the Delaware Supreme Court, en banc.
On May 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued its decision, affirming the Delaware Court of Chancery’s judgment in part, reversing it in part, and remanding to Vice Chancellor Parsons. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court determination that the Company had breached its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith; reversed the promissory estoppel holding; and, reversed the Vice Chancellor’s equitable damages award. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge may award expectation damages for breach of the contractual duty to negotiate in good faith if such damages are proven with reasonable certainty, and remanded to the Chancery Court for consideration of damages consistent with that holding. The Supreme Court also reversed the Chancery Court’s award of attorney fees and expert witness fees because they were predicated in part on a now-reversed finding of liability on PharmAthene’s promissory estoppel claim. The Supreme Court held that the Chancery Court could reevaluate on remand an alternative award, if any, of attorneys’ fees and expert testimony expenses consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Finally, the Supreme Court declined to consider all claims raised in PharmAthene’s cross appeal because it
affirmed the Chancery Court’s finding that the Company was liable for breaching its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith. On June 11, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its mandate to the Court of Chancery with the decision described above.
On June 26, 2013, the parties appeared before Vice Chancellor Parsons to discuss the remand, at which time PharmAthene declared its desire to supplement the record with further evidence. Following briefing and argument on August 15, 2013, the Chancery Court granted PharmAthene’s motion to supplement the record and also allowed the Company to submit responsive evidence. On December 18-19, 2013, the Court held an evidentiary hearing with respect to that evidence. On January 15, 2014, after briefing on relevant issues, the parties appeared for oral argument regarding what remedy, if any, the Chancery Court should impose in light of the remand by the Supreme Court of Delaware.
On August 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery issued its Remand Opinion. In its Remand Opinion, the Court of Chancery reversed its earlier conclusions and held that PharmAthene had carried its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to lump sum expectation damages for lost profits related to Tecovirimat by a preponderance of the evidence. It also stated that in order to calculate PharmAthene’s lost profits, several modifications to the valuation model presented at trial (which the Court of Chancery had rejected as too speculative, among other things, in its post-trial opinion) were required, which modifications the Court of Chancery set forth in the Remand Opinion. The Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene is entitled to the value of the revised calculations plus pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate with prejudgment interest to accrue from December 20, 2006. The Court of Chancery also denied and dismissed with prejudice PharmAthene’s claims that it is entitled to specific performance or an equitable payment stream, on the grounds that PharmAthene is limited to a contractual remedy and has an adequate remedy at law. Finally, the Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene was entitled to (i) forty percent of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred through post-trial argument, (ii) one-third of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred in the remand proceedings, (iii) sixty percent of expert witness fees it incurred in the pretrial and trial phases, and (iv) and one-tenth of the expert witness fees it incurred in the remand proceedings.
The Remand Opinion instructed the parties to perform damages calculations using the Court's newly modified but previously rejected model. PharmAthene was instructed to provide SIGA with a lump sum damages calculation within 10 business days, following which SIGA would respond within 10 business days with its own calculation, or agreement with PharmAthene. Additionally, the Remand Opinion specified that the competing calculations would be submitted to the Court of Chancery within 30 days from the date on which PharmAthene provided its lump sum damages calculation to SIGA, if there is continuing disagreement on the narrow issue of performing the court's required calculations.
On September 16, 2014, as a consequence of SIGA’s chapter 11 filing, the legal proceedings with PharmAthene were stayed (see Note 1 to the financial statements). On October 8, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Stipulation between the Company and PharmAthene partially lifting the stay to permit the litigation before the Delaware Chancery Court to proceed, including all appeals. The Stipulation, however, provides that the stay shall remain in effect with respect to the enforcement of any judgment that may be entered.
On October 17, the Company and PharmAthene separately submitted competing damages calculations to the Court of Chancery. PharmAthene’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $233 million as of September 30, 2014. The Company’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $173 million as of August 8, 2014 (the date of the Remand Opinion). The separate calculations submitted by PharmAthene and the Company are based on each parties’ interpretation of the adjusted valuation methodology the Court of Chancery directed the parties to utilize in the Remand Opinion.. In its submission, the Company stated that SIGA intends to argue on appeal that PharmAthene has no entitlement to any award of expectation damages, but, rather, should be limited to a recovery of its reliance interest of approximately $200,000. Accordingly, the ultimate loss to be incurred from this litigation is highly uncertain and may be significantly different from the range of calculations set forth in the October 17 submission to the Court of Chancery.
As part of the October 17 submissions, PharmAthene calculated SIGA’s liability for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, expert witness costs and other costs as $3.2 million.
On January 7, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a letter opinion, directing PharmAthene to submit a revised proposed final order and judgment reflecting certain rulings in that opinion, including an award to PharmAthene of $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus interest. On January 9, 2015, PharmAthene submitted a revised proposed final order and judgment. On January 12, 2015, SIGA submitted limited objections to PharmAthene’s proposed final order and judgment, to which PharmAthene responded on January 14, 2015.
On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment, awarding to PharmAthene $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015, and certain permitted legal fees, costs, and expenses, for a judgment of $194,649,042. Pursuant to the Final Order and Judgment, SIGA also is liable to PharmAthene for post-judgment interest, in the amount of $30,663.89, per diem, which per diem amount shall periodically be adjusted.
Both parties were free to appeal from the portions of the trial court rulings on remand that were unfavorable to them within 30 days of entry of the Final Order and Judgment. On January 16, 2015, SIGA appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery's rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. On January 29, 2015, PharmAthene cross-appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. There is no assurance that either appeal will be successful.
The ultimate loss to be incurred in the future from the PharmAthene litigation is highly uncertain and may differ significantly from the Outstanding Judgment. However, SIGA believes that an ultimate loss of some amount is probable. Because the future outcome of SIGA’s appeal of the Final Order and Judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware is highly uncertain, the Company has based its loss accrual on the January 7, 2015 Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, and the subsequent judgment entered by the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2015. Based on the Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, SIGA has recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 million as of December 31, 2014. This amount is classified as a liability subject to compromise. Included in the loss accrual, the Company accrued pre-judgment interest through September 16, 2014, SIGA’s chapter 11 filing date, because it is currently uncertain whether interest accrued subsequent to the chapter 11 filing date will be part of any allowed claim.
In addition to the damages loss accrual, SIGA has separately accrued $3.2 million for PharmAthene’s attorneys’ fees and expert expenses, related to the case.
See “Chapter 11 Filing,” in Item 1, “ Business” for information relating to the Company’s ongoing chapter 11 proceedings.
From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that there is no dispute or litigation pending, except as discussed above, that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
No disclosure is required pursuant to this item.
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Price Range of Common Stock
Our common stock trades under the symbol “SIGA.” Our common stock has been traded on the Nasdaq Global Market since September 3, 2009 and, prior to such date, had been traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market since September 9, 1997. Prior to that time there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices for the common stock, as reported on the Nasdaq Global Market:
As of February 17, 2015, the closing sale price of our common stock was $2.05 per share. There were 31 holders of record as of February 17, 2015. We believe that the number of beneficial owners of our common stock is substantially greater than the number of record holders, because a large portion of common stock is held in broker “street names.”
We have paid no dividends on our common stock and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We are not under any restriction as to our present or future ability to pay dividends. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the growth and development of our business. See “ Other Matters Related to the Chapter 11 Case,” in Item 1, “ Business” for information relating to the status of our listing on the Nasdaq Global Market.
Performance Graph
The following line graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return through December 31, 2014, assuming reinvestment of dividends, by an investor who invested $100 on December 31, 2009 in each of (i) our common stock; (ii) the Nasdaq National Market-US; and (iii) the Nasdaq Pharmaceutical Index.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The information required by this item concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans is set forth in Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.”
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 have been derived from applicable audited consolidated financial statements not included in this annual report. The following table should be read in conjunction with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes to those statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes to those statements and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical information, the following discussion and other parts of this Annual Report contain forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties.
Overview
We are a company specializing in the development and commercialization of solutions for serious unmet medical needs and biothreats. Our lead product is Tecovirimat, also known as ST-246, an orally administered antiviral drug that targets orthopoxviruses, including smallpox. While Tecovirimat is not yet licensed as safe or effective by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, it is a novel small-molecule drug that is being delivered to the Strategic National Stockpile under Project Bioshield.
Chapter 11 Filing
On September 16, 2014, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court, chapter 11 Case Number 14-12623 (SHL). The Company is continuing to operate its business as a “debtor-in-possession” in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company commenced the chapter 11 case to preserve and to ensure its ability to satisfy its commitments under the BARDA Contract and to preserve its operations, which likely would have been jeopardized by the enforcement of a judgment stemming from the litigation with PharmAthene (see Note 14 to the financial statements). While operating as a debtor-in-possession under chapter 11, the Company is pursuing what it believes is a meritorious appeal of the Delaware Court of Chancery Final Order and Judgment, without the necessity of posting a bond.
PharmAthene Litigation
On August 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its Remand Opinion and related order in the litigation initiated against the Company in 2006 by PharmAthene. In the Remand Opinion, the Court of Chancery determined, among other things, that PharmAthene is entitled to a lump sum damages award for its lost profit related to Tecovirimat, with interest and fees, based on United States government purchases of the Company's smallpox drug allegedly anticipated as of December 2006. On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015 . The Company's pending chapter 11 case prevents PharmAthene from taking any enforcement action at this time and also permits the Company's appeal of the Outstanding Judgment to go forward without the need to post a bond. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the Outstanding Judgment.
Administration of Chapter 11 Case
On September 17, 2014, the Company received Bankruptcy Court approval of certain “first-day” motions, which preserved the Company's ability to continue operations without interruption in chapter 11. As part of the “first-day” motions, the Company received approval to pay or otherwise honor certain pre-petition obligations generally designed to support the Company's operations. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Company's authority to pay for goods and services received post-petition in the ordinary course of business.
In October, the U.S. Trustee appointed the UCC, an official committee of unsecured creditors. The UCC has a right to be heard on any issue in the Company’s chapter 11 case. There can be no assurance that the UCC will support the Company’s positions on matters to be presented to the Bankruptcy Court in the future or with respect to any plan of reorganization, when proposed.
As part of the chapter 11 case, the Company has retained, pursuant to Bankruptcy Court authorization, legal and other professionals to advise the Company in connection with the administration of its chapter 11 case and its litigation with PharmAthene, and certain other professionals to provide services and advice in the ordinary course of business. From time to time, the Company may seek Bankruptcy Court approval to retain additional professionals.
Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated October 28, 2014, the Company was authorized to pay reimbursable pre-petition obligations to certain service providers that are fully reimbursable by BARDA pursuant to the BARDA Contract. Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated January 14, 2015, the Company was authorized to satisfy a fully-secured term loan provided by General Electric Capital Corporation in the approximate amount of $1.8 million. Such amount, and related fees, was paid by the Company on January 16, 2015 and all liens securing the credit facility were released.
On January 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to assume the BARDA Contract, as amended by the BARDA Amendment, under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. If the motion is granted, the parties’ rights and obligations under the BARDA Contract, as so amended, will continue without any impact arising from SIGA’s filing for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Motion currently is scheduled to be considered by the Bankruptcy Court on March 17, 2015.
Plan Reorganization
The Company has not yet filed a plan of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. The Company has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization through and including May14, 2015, and to solicit votes on such a plan if filed by such date through and including July 13, 2015, subject to the ability of parties in interest to file motions seeking to terminate the Company's exclusive periods, as well as the Company's right to seek further extensions of such periods. The Company has a right to seek further extensions of such exclusive periods, subject to the statutory limit of 18 months from the Petition Date in the case of filing a plan and 20 months in the case of soliciting and obtaining acceptances of such a plan. The implementation of a plan of reorganization is subject to confirmation of the plan by the Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and the occurrence of the effective date under the plan. At this time, there is no certainty as to when or if a plan will be filed, the provisions of a plan (including provisions with respect to the treatment of prepetition claims and equity interests), or whether a plan will be confirmed and become effective.
Other Matters Related to the Chapter 11 Case
On September 16, 2014, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC asserting that, based on the Company’s chapter 11 filing, the Company no longer met the continuing listing requirements necessary to maintain its listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company appealed such assertion. On October 16, 2014, representatives of the Company appeared before the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC’s hearings panel to present the Company’s appeal, asking the panel to exercise its discretion to allow the Company to maintain its listing for up to five additional months (the limit of the panel’s discretion at that time). On October 29, 2014, the Company received the decision of the NASDAQ hearings panel. The NASDAQ hearings panel decided that the Company’s Common Stock would remain listed, subject to: (a) the Company providing the NASDAQ hearings panel with confidential updates regarding the status of the PharmAthene litigation, public disclosures relating to such litigation and to any possible judgment, and (b) the Company, on or before March 16, 2015, emerging from chapter 11 and evidencing compliance with all requirements for initial listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The NASDAQ hearings panel also stated that it reserved the right to reconsider its determination based upon any event, condition or circumstance that exists or develops that would, in the opinion of the panel, make continued listing of the Company’s securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market inadvisable or unwarranted. The Company does not expect to emerge from bankruptcy on or before March 16, 2015. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company will meet the conditions required by the NASDAQ hearings panel and maintain the listing of its Common Stock on NASDAQ.
Optimization Program
In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company began an optimization program to increase efficiencies within its operations (the “Optimization Program”). This program, which included a reduction in employee headcount, was intended to align the Company's resources, staff and efforts with the most promising growth opportunities. A substantial portion of the Optimization Program was implemented as of December 31, 2013.
Lead Product - Tecovirimat
On May 13, 2011, we signed the BARDA Contract pursuant to which we agreed to deliver two million courses of Tecovirimat to the Strategic Stockpile. The BARDA Contract is worth approximately $463 million, including $409.8 million for manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat and $54 million of potential reimbursements related to development and supportive activities. In addition to the Base Contract, the BARDA Contract also contains various options that are exercisable at BARDA’s discretion and would fund development and supportive activities such as work on pediatric and geriatric formulations of the drug as well as use of Tecovirimat for smallpox prophylaxis; would result in $50 million payment to the Company for FDA approval for extension to 84-month expiry for Tecovirimat (from 38 month expiry as required in the Base Contract); and/or would fund production-related activities such as warm-base manufacturing. As of December 31, 2014, BARDA has not exercised any options. The BARDA Contract expires in September 2020.
Under the Base Contract , BARDA has agreed to buy from SIGA 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat. Additionally, SIGA expects to contribute to BARDA 300,000 courses at no additional cost to BARDA.
As discussed in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” the amount of profits we will retain pursuant to the BARDA Contract may be adversely affected by the outcome of PharmAthene’s action against SIGA.
We believe Tecovirimat is among the first new small-molecule drugs delivered to the Strategic Stockpile under Project BioShield. Tecovirimat is an investigational product that is not currently approved by FDA as a treatment of smallpox or any other indication. FDA has designated Tecovirimat for “fast-track” status, creating a path for expedited FDA review and eventual regulatory approval.
Critical Accounting Estimates
The methods, estimates and judgments we use in applying our accounting policies have a significant impact on the results we report in our consolidated financial statements, which we discuss under the heading “Results of Operations” following this section of our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Some of our accounting policies require us to make difficult and subjective judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates of matters that are inherently uncertain. Our most critical accounting estimates include the valuation of stock-based awards including options, revenue recognition,income taxes and contingencies. For a detailed discussion of the application of these and other accounting policies, see Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements.
Going Concern
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern and contemplate the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is expected to be impacted by the outcome of the Company’s appeal of post-remand judgment by the Delaware Court of Chancery (as described in Note 14 to the financial statements), as well as the resolution of its chapter 11 case. The Delaware Court of Chancery, acting on remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, entered its Final Judgment and Order awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including prejudgment interest up to January 15, 2015. Additionally, in response to the potential impact of the Outstanding Judgment, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and is operating its business as a “debtor-in-possession”in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. As a result of the chapter 11 filing and the Outstanding Judgment, the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities are subject to uncertainties. Any reorganization plan could materially change the amounts and classifications of assets and liabilities reported in the consolidated financial statements. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments related to the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities or any other adjustments that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as going concern.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the fee is fixed and determinable, collectability is reasonably assured, title and risk of loss have been transferred to the customer and there are no further contractual obligations.
Certain arrangements may provide for multiple deliverables, in which there may be a combination of: up-front licenses; research, development, regulatory or other services; and delivery of product. Multiple deliverable arrangements can be divided into separate units of accounting if the deliverables in the arrangement meet the following criteria: (i) the delivered item(s) have value to the customer on a standalone basis and (ii) in circumstances in which an arrangement includes a general right of return with respect to delivered items, then performance of the remaining deliverables must be considered probable and substantially in control of the Company. If multiple deliverables cannot be divided into separate units of accounting then the deliverables must be combined into a single unit of accounting.
Total consideration in a multiple deliverable arrangement is allocated to units of accounting on a relative fair value of selling price basis. Consideration allocated to a delivered item or unit of accounting is limited to the amount that is not contingent upon delivery of additional items.
The BARDA Contract is a multiple deliverable arrangement comprising delivery of courses and covered research and development activities. The BARDA Contract contains certain product replacement rights with respect to delivered courses. For this reason, recognition of revenue that might otherwise occur upon delivery of courses is expected to be deferred until our obligations related to potential replacement of delivered courses are satisfied. Accordingly we have deferred revenue for all amounts received to date under the BARDA Contract except for revenue recognized for amounts received with respect to BARDA’s obligation to reimburse the cost of covered research and development services.
Subject to the above, payments for development activities are recognized as revenue when earned, over the period of effort. Funding for the acquisition of capital assets under cost-plus-fee contracts and grants is evaluated for appropriate recognition
as a reduction to the cost of the acquired asset, a financing arrangement, or revenue, based on the specific terms of the related grant or contract.
Share-based Compensation
We account for our stock-based compensation using the fair value recognition provisions prescribed by the authoritative guidance, which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors including employee stock options based on estimated fair values.
Stock-based compensation expense for 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $2.4 million, $2.3 million and $1.8 million, respectively. The fair value of share-based awards is determined on the grant date. For options awards, fair value is generally estimated using the Black-Scholes model and for stock appreciation rights, fair value is estimated using a Monte Carlo method. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recorded as expense over the requisite periods in our consolidated statement of operations. Determining the fair value of stock-based awards at the grant date requires judgment, including estimating the expected term over which stock awards will be outstanding before they are exercised, the expected volatility of our stock, and the number of stock-based awards that are expected to be forfeited. It is reasonably likely that future assumptions may change, in which case the fair value of future option awards may exceed or fall short of historical calculated fair values. In addition, for stock options with performance conditions, we estimate, on a quarterly basis, the most probable outcome of the performance conditions in order to determine the amount of compensation costs to be recorded over the remaining vesting period.
Income Taxes
Determining the consolidated provision for income tax expense, deferred tax assets and liabilities and related valuation allowance, if any, involves judgment. The recognition of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes requires management to make estimates and judgments about our future profitability which are inherently uncertain. On an on-going basis, we evaluate whether a valuation allowance is needed to reduce our deferred income tax assets to an amount that is more likely than not to be realized. The evaluation process includes assessing historical and current results in addition to future expected results.
Our assessment of whether our deferred tax assets will be realized is based on estimates of future taxable income arising from the BARDA Contract. If the current estimates of future taxable income change, then our assessment regarding the realization of deferred tax assets could change. Based on the Outstanding Judgment , SIGA has recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 million related to the PharmAthene litigation. On September 16, 2014, SIGA filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1 to the financial statements). Because of the PharmAthene litigation and chapter 11 filing, there is substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. As such, the Company has concluded that it is not more likely than not that it will realize its deferred tax assets on a more likely than not basis and recorded a non-cash charge of approximately $53.5 million to establish a valuation allowance against its net deferred tax assets. The amount of deferred tax asset considered realizable, however, could be adjusted if estimates of future taxable income during the carryforward period are increased or reduced or if objective negative evidence is no longer present. Future changes in the estimated amount of deferred taxes expected to be realized will be reflected in our financial statements in the period the estimate is changed with a corresponding adjustment to operating results.
Contingencies
We are currently involved in a litigation with PharmAthene, Inc.(see Note 14 to the financial statements). If the potential loss from any claim, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Accruals are based on our best estimates based on available information. Based on the Outstanding Judgment, SIGA believes an amount of loss is probable and has recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 million related to the PharmAthene litigation. Additionally, SIGA has accrued a $3.2 million liability for reimbursement of attorney's fees and other costs related to the PharmAthene litigation. On a periodic basis, as additional information becomes available, or based on specific events such as the outcome of litigation or settlement of claims, we may reassess the potential liability, if any, related to these matters and may revise this estimate, which could result in a material adjustment to our operating results.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40) Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This ASU requires management to assess whether there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and, if so, disclose that fact. Management will also be required to evaluate and disclose whether its plans alleviate that doubt. This ASU states that, when making this assessment, management should consider relevant conditions or events that are known or reasonably knowable on the date the financial statements are issued or available to be issued. This ASU is effective
for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016 and interim periods thereafter, and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). ASU No. 2014-09 supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific revenue recognition guidance throughout the Industry Topics of the Accounting Standards Codification. Additionally, this update supersedes some cost guidance included in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition-Construction-Type and Production-Type Contracts. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. It is effective for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.
In April 2014, FASB issued ASU No. 2014-08, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of Entity, which changes the criteria for reporting discontinued operations while enhancing disclosure requirements. This ASU addresses sources of confusion and inconsistent application related to financial reporting of discontinued operations guidance in U.S. GAAP. Under this guidance, a discontinued operation is defined as a disposal of a component or group of components that is disposed of or is classified as held for sale and represents a strategic shift that has a major effect on an entity’s operations and financial results. This ASU is effective prospectively for fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2014. This ASU is effective for us prospectively on January 1, 2015. We do not anticipate that the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on our financial statements.
In July 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued new guidance on the financial statement presentation of unrecognized tax benefit when a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward exists. The Company’s adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2014 did not have a material effect on our financial statements.
Results of Operations for the Years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012
Revenues from research and development contracts and grants for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, were $3.1 million and $5.5 million, respectively. The decrease in revenue of $2.4 million, or 43%, reflects a $0.6 million decrease in revenues from our federal contracts supporting the development of Tecovirimat and a $1.8 million decrease in grant revenues related to dengue fever and Lassa fever, of which $1.2 million relates to the Lassa fever program. In connection with the Optimization Program, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement in August 2014 to sell and transfer its pre-clinical Lassa fever assets to Kineta Four, LLC.
Revenues from research and development contracts and grants for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, were $5.5 million and $9.0 million, respectively. The decrease of $3.5 million, or 39%, includes the impact of a $3.0 million decrease in revenues from our federal contracts supporting the development of Tecovirimat and a $455,000 decrease in grant revenues related to Lassa fever.
Selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 were $12.5 million and $13.0 million, respectively, reflecting a decrease of approximately $0.5 million or 4%. The net decrease primarily relates to: a decrease of $0.5 million in employee compensation which is mostly due to a reduction in accrued employee bonuses and a decrease of $0.7 million in professional service fees in connection with general corporate activities and litigation. The net decrease was partially offset by an increase of $0.7 million of professional services fees in connection with business development and strategic initiatives.
SG&A for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $13.0 million and $11.0 million, respectively, reflecting an increase of approximately $2.0 million or 18%. The increase primarily relates to a $920,000 increase in employee compensation, which is related to an increase in corporate headcount and an increase in non-cash stock compensation expense, and an increase of $413,000 in facilities expenses.
Research and development (“R&D”) expenses were $10.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, a decrease of approximately $3.1 million or 22% from the $13.9 million incurred during the year ended December 31, 2013. The decrease is primarily attributable to a decline of approximately $2.7 million in employee compensation, due to the Optimization Program, and a $0.7 million decrease in direct vendor-related expenses supporting the development of Tecovirimat and the Company's pre-clinical programs. The decreases in employee compensation and vendor expenses were partially offset by a net inventory write-off of $0.8 million.
R&D expenses were $13.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, a decrease of approximately $4.4 million or 24% from the $18.2 million incurred during the year ended December 31, 2012. $2.4 million of the decrease relates to lower direct vendor-related expenses supporting the development of Tecovirimat, dengue antivirals, broad-spectrum antivirals and high-throughput screening. An additional $1.2 million of the decrease is attributable to $775,000 reduction in employee compensation and a $468,000 inventory write-off in 2012.
During the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, we incurred direct costs of $3.6 million, $4.0 million and $7.4 million, respectively, on the development of Tecovirimat. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we spent $415,000 on internal human resources dedicated to the drug's development and $3.1 million mainly on manufacturing and clinical testing. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we spent $597,000 on internal human resources dedicated to the drug’s development and $3.4 million mainly on manufacturing and clinical testing. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we spent $1.3 million on internal human resources dedicated to the drug’s development and $6.0 million mainly on manufacturing and clinical testing. From inception of the ST-246 development program to-date, we invested a total of $60.2 million in the program, of which $10.7 million supported internal human resources, and $49.6 million was used mainly for manufacturing, clinical and pre-clinical work. These resources reflect research and development expenses directly related to the program. They exclude additional expenditures such as patent costs, allocation of indirect expenses, and other services provided by NIH and DoD.
Patent expenses for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were $1.0 million, $1.4 million and $1.9 million, respectively. These expenses reflect our ongoing efforts to protect our lead drug candidates in varied geographic territories.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded approximately $188.5 million of loss accrual in connection with the PharmAthene litigation. See Note 14 to the financial statements for additional information.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company incurred restructuring expenses of $513,000. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company began an Optimization Program to increase efficiencies within its operations. The program, which included a reduction in employee headcount, was intended to align the Company's resources, staff and efforts with the most promising growth opportunities. A substantial portion of the Optimization Program was implemented as of December 31, 2013.
Changes in the fair value of liability classified warrants to acquire common stock are recorded as gains or losses. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, we recorded a gain of $313,000, a loss of $74,000 and a gain of $805,000, respectively, reflecting changes in fair market value of liability classified warrants outstanding during respective periods. The warrants and rights to purchase our common stock were recorded at fair market value and classified as liabilities. As December 31, 2014, there were no liability classified warrants outstanding.
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $0.5 million consisting of interest on outstanding debt. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $1.2 million consisting of interest on outstanding debt and certain vendor payable arrangements. The decrease in interest expense is due to lower outstanding debt due to monthly principal payments and there was no interest on vendor payable in 2014.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company incurred approximately $2.1 million in reorganization expenses in connection with the chapter 11 filing. See Note 1 to the financial statements for additional information.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, we incurred a tax provision of $53.5 million on pre-tax net losses of $211.9 million. The tax provision primarily relates to the Company’s conclusion that it could no longer realize its deferred tax assets on a more likely than not basis because of the PharmAthene litigation, the chapter 11 filing and the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern (see Note 12 to the financial statements). The effective tax rate as of December 31, 2014 was 25.3%. Our effective tax rate was impacted by recurring items such as state and local taxes, valuation of deferred tax assets, non-deductible expenses and changes in tax laws.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we incurred net losses of $24.8 million for tax purposes and a corresponding tax benefit of $7.6 million. The effective tax rate as of December 31, 2013 was 30.7%. Our tax rate was impacted by recurring items such as state and local taxes, non-deductible expenses and changes in tax laws. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we incurred net losses for tax purposes and recognized an income tax benefit of $7.8 million.
The recognition of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes requires management to make estimates and judgments about our future profitability which are inherently uncertain. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance when, in the opinion of management, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. If the current estimates of future taxable income are reduced or not realized, for example, based on the outcome in the PharmAthene litigation described in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” the Company’s assessment regarding the realization of deferred tax assets
could change. Future changes in the estimated amount of deferred taxes expected to be realized will be reflected in the Company’s financial statements in the period the estimate is changed with a corresponding adjustment to operating results. Changes in estimates may occur often and can have a significant favorable or unfavorable impact on the Company’s operating results from period to period.
In 2012, previously available NOLs of approximately $1.2 expired.The remaining NOLs of $87.4 million will expire in various years between 2021 and 2034, if not utilized.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of December 31, 2014, we had $99.7 million in cash and cash equivalents compared with $91.3 million at December 31, 2013. Additionally, as of December 31, 2014, the Company had $4.0 million in restricted cash as collateral for obligation under the General Electric Corporation term loan (“GE term loan”). In January 2015, the Company paid the GE term loan in full.
There can be no assurance that cash on hand, cash generated through operations by future delivery of courses to BARDA, cash generated from asset sales, and other available funds will be sufficient to satisfy the ultimate resolution of the PharmAthene litigation. The possibility of potential substantial loss from the PharmAthene litigation, combined with the costs attendant to the administration of the Company's chapter 11 case, raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustment relating to the recoverability of the carrying amount of recorded assets and liabilities that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties. We believe that the funds received from the BARDA Contract (see Note 3 to the financial statements) together with our existing capital resources and continuing government contracts and grants will be sufficient to support our operations beyond the next twelve months; however, depending on the outcome of the Company's appeal of the PharmAthene litigation, the Outstanding Judgment may ultimately have a significant impact on the Company.
Litigation
On January 7, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery, acting on remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, entered its Final Judgment and Order awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015, based on United States government purchases of the Company's smallpox drug allegedly anticipated as of December 2006. The Company's pending chapter 11 case prevents PharmAthene from taking any enforcement action at this time and also permits the Company's appeal of the Outstanding Judgment to go forward without the need to post a bond. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the Outstanding Judgment (see Note 14 to the financial statements).
Change in Provisional Dosage of Tecovirimat
On December 24, 2014, the Company announced that based on discussions with representatives of the FDA and BARDA, product deliveries of Tecovirimat subsequent to December 31, 2014 are expected to be at a provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day). This is a change from the provisional dosage that was in effect when product deliveries were made in 2013 and 2014 (600 mg per day). In 2013 and 2014, the provisional dosage of courses delivered to the Strategic Stockpile was 600 mg administered once per day. The change in the provisional dosage is based on FDA guidance received by the Company in 2014, subsequent to the delivery of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat. Based on the current provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day), SIGA currently expects to supplement previously delivered courses of Tecovirimat, at no additional cost to BARDA, with additional dosages so that all of the courses previously delivered to BARDA will be at the new provisional dosage. The Company and BARDA have agreed to an amendment of (the “BARDA Amendment”) of the BARDA Contract to reflect the foregoing, which modification is subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The Company expects to incur significant incremental costs with the production of additional dosage. The provisional dosage for Tecovirimat may be subject to additional changes in the future based on FDA guidance.
Prior Year Activity
In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company initiated the Optimization Program which included a reduction in employee headcount. A substantial portion of the Optimization Program was implemented as of December 31, 2013.
In December 2012, we entered into a loan agreement with a lender to provide the Company a term loan of $5.0 million with a fixed interest rate of 9.85% per annum and a revolving line of credit of $7.0 million with a variable interest rate. Borrowings under the revolving line of credit are based on eligible outstanding accounts receivable and will bear interest at a rate per annum equal to 5.25% plus the higher of: (a) 1.50%, and (b) three-month LIBOR divided by a defined factor. The term of the loan is three years. As of December 31, 2014, approximately $2.0 million of the term loan was outstanding and no amounts were outstanding against the revolving line of credit. In connection with the chapter 11 case, the revolving line of credit was terminated and the term loan is considered fully secured and is not reported as liabilities subject to compromise. The Company has set aside, in a
separate account, $4.0 million as collateral for obligations under the loan agreement. In January 2015, the Company paid the term loan in full.
Operating Activities
Net cash provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $14.2 million; net cash provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $58.4 million and net cash used in operations during the year ended December 31, 2012 was $20.2 million. In 2014, the Company received approximately $43.8 million from BARDA, partially offset by $7.8million of cash payments to CMOs for the manufacture of Tecovirimat.
In 2013, the Company received approximately $109.7 million from BARDA, partially offset by $27.0 million of cash payments to CMOs for the manufacture, development and supportive activities for Tecovirimat. These cash uses relate to the performance of the BARDA contract.
On December 31, 2014 and 2013, our accounts receivable balance was approximately $500,000 and $1.0 million, respectively. Our account receivable balances primarily reflect work performed during December 2014 and 2013 in connection with Tecovirimat and dengue fever antiviral development contracts. this decrease is primarily attributed to lower grant activity in 2014.
Our accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities balance were $5.5 million and $9.9 million on December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. This decrease is mainly due to certain amounts being classified as liabilities subject to compromise in 2014. As of December 31, 2014, approximately $4.3 million of accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities were subject to compromise.
Investing Activities
Net cash used by investing activities for years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 was approximately $3.5 million, $857,300, and $2.0 million, respectively. Capital expenditures during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 were approximately $28,000, $857,300 and $588,200, respectively, reflecting purchases of fixed assets in the ordinary course of business.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company set aside, in a separate account, $4.0 million as collateral for obligations under the GE term loan and classified this amount as restricted cash on its balance sheet, offset by $569,600 gross proceeds from the sale of certain laboratory equipment during the second quarter of 2014.
Financing Activities
Net cash used by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $2.3 million; and net cash provided by financing activities was $1.7 million and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we repaid $2.0 million of the GE term loan in accordance with the loan repayment schedule and repurchased $415,938 of common stock to meet minimum statutory tax withholding requirements. The cash outlay was offset by proceeds of $102,035 from exercises of options and warrants to purchase common stock.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we received $2.9 million from exercises of options and warrants to purchase common stock which was offset by a net $1.0 million repayment of the GE term loan in accordance with the loan repayment schedule.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we received proceeds of $10,000 from exercises of options and warrants to purchase common stock and received $4.9 million from the GE term loan.
Contractual Obligations, Commercial Commitments and Purchase Obligations
Future contractual obligations and commercial commitments as of December 31, 2014 are expected to be as follows:
(1)
Consists of $2.0 million of outstanding debt under our GE term loan with a fixed interest rate of 9.85%. The amounts in the table above reflect the payments made by the Company to fully satisfy the debt obligation.
(2)
Includes facilities and office space under two operating leases expiring in 2017 and 2020, respectively. These obligations assume non-termination of agreements and represent expected payments, which are subject to change.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
The Company does not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Our investment portfolio includes cash and cash equivalents. Our main investment objectives are the preservation of investment capital and the maximization of after-tax returns on our investment portfolio. We believe that our investment policy is conservative, both in the duration of our investments and the credit quality of the investments we hold. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments, derivative commodity instruments or other market risk sensitive instruments, positions or transactions to manage exposure to interest rate changes. Accordingly, we believe that, while the securities we hold are subject to changes in the financial standing of the issuer of such securities and our interest income is sensitive to changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, we are not subject to any material risks arising from changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, equity prices or other market changes that affect market risk sensitive instruments.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Index to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of SIGA Technologies, Inc.:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income(loss), of changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit) and of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of SIGA Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
The accompanying financial statements have prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As more fully discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has a net capital deficiency and on September 16, 2014, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
New York, New York
March 6, 2015
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
As of
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME(LOSS)
For the Years Ended December 31
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)
For the Years Ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Years Ended December 31
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Organization and Basis of Presentation
Description of Business
SIGA Technologies, Inc. (“SIGA” or the “Company”) is a company specializing in the development and commercialization of solutions for serious unmet medical needs and biothreats. The Company's lead product is Tecovirimat, also known as ST-246®, an orally administered antiviral drug that targets orthopoxviruses. While Tecovirimat is not yet licensed as safe or effective by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, it is a novel small-molecule drug that is being delivered to the Strategic National Stockpile under Project Bioshield.
Chapter 11 Filing
On September 16, 2014 (the “Petition Date”), the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) chapter 11 Case Number 14-12623 (SHL). The Company is continuing to operate its business as a “debtor-in-possession” in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Company commenced the chapter 11 case to preserve and to ensure its ability to satisfy its commitments under the BARDA Contract (as defined in Note 3 ) and to preserve its operations, which likely would have been jeopardized by the enforcement of a judgment stemming from the litigation with PharmAthene (see Note 14). While operating as a debtor-in-possession under chapter 11, the company is pursuing what it believes is a meritorious appeal of the Delaware Court of Chancery Final Order and Judgment (as defined below), without the necessity of posting a bond.
PharmAthene Litigation
On August 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its Remand Opinion and related order in the litigation initiated against the Company in 2006 by PharmAthene. In the Remand Opinion, the Court of Chancery determined, among other things, that PharmAthene is entitled to a lump sum damages award for its lost profits related to Tecovirimat, with interest and fees, based on United States government purchases of the Company's smallpox drug allegedly anticipated as of December 2006. On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015 (the “Outstanding Judgment”). The Company's pending chapter 11 case prevents PharmAthene from taking any enforcement action at this time and also permits the Company's appeal of the Outstanding Judgment to go forward without the need to post a bond. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the Outstanding Judgment.
Administration of Chapter 11 Case
On September 17, 2014, the Company received Bankruptcy Court approval of certain “first-day” motions, which preserved the Company's ability to continue operations without interruption in chapter 11. As part of the “first-day” motions, the Company received approval to pay or otherwise honor certain pre-petition obligations generally designed to support the Company's operations. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Company's authority to pay for goods and services received post-petition in the ordinary course of business.
In October, the U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Trustee”) appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors (the “UCC”). The UCC has a right to be heard on any issue in the Company’s chapter 11 case. There can be no assurance that the UCC will support the Company’s positions on matters to be presented to the Bankruptcy Court in the future or with respect to any plan of reorganization, when proposed.
As part of the chapter 11 case, the Company has retained, pursuant to Bankruptcy Court authorization, legal and other professionals to advise the Company in connection with the administration of its chapter 11 case and its litigation with PharmAthene, and certain other professionals to provide services and advice in the ordinary course of business. From time to time, the Company may seek Bankruptcy Court approval to retain additional professionals.
Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated October 28, 2014, the Company was authorized to pay reimbursable pre-petition obligations to certain service providers that are fully reimbursable by the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (the “BARDA”) pursuant to the BARDA Contract (as defined in Note 3). Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated January 14, 2015, the Company was authorized to satisfy a fully-secured term loan provided by General
Electric Capital Corporation in the approximate amount of $1.8 million. Such amount, and related fees, was paid by the Company on January 16, 2015 and all liens securing the credit facility were released.
On January 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to assume the BARDA Contract, as amended by the BARDA Amendment (as defined in Note 3), under the provisions of Bankruptcy Code. If the motion is granted, the parties' rights and obligations under the BARDA Contract, as so amended, will continue without any impact arising from SIGA's filing for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy code. The Motion currently is scheduled to be considered by the Bankruptcy Court on March 17, 2015.
Plan of Reorganization
The Company has not yet filed a plan of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. The Company has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization through and including May14, 2015, and to solicit votes on such a plan if filed by such date through and including July 13, 2015, subject to the ability of parties in interest to file motions seeking to terminate the Company's exclusive periods, as well as the Company's right to seek further extensions of such periods. The Company has a right to seek further extensions of such exclusive periods, subject to the statutory limit of 18 months from the Petition Date in the case of filing a plan and 20 months in the case of soliciting and obtaining acceptances of such a plan. The implementation of a plan of reorganization is subject to confirmation of the plan by the Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and the occurrence of the effective date under the plan. At this time, there is no certainty as to when or if a plan will be filed, the provisions of a plan (including provisions with respect to the treatment of prepetition claims and equity interests), or whether a plan will be confirmed and become effective.
Pre-Petition Claims
As a result of the chapter 11 filing, the payment of pre-petition liabilities is generally subject to compromise pursuant to a plan of reorganization. Generally, under the Bankruptcy Code, actions to enforce or otherwise effect payment of pre-bankruptcy filing liabilities are stayed. Although payment of pre-petition claims generally is not permitted, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company authority to pay certain pre-petition claims in designated categories and subject to certain terms and conditions. Among other things, the Bankruptcy Court has authorized the Company to pay certain pre-petition claims relating to employees, critical vendors, a fully-secured pre-petition term loan, and services for which the Company receives reimbursement from the government.
On October 30, 2014, the Company filed schedules of assets and liabilities and statement of financial affairs (the “Schedules”) with the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court has entered an order setting March 30, 2015 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim (the “Bar Date”). The Bar Date is the date by which claims against the Company relating to the period prior to the commencement of the Company's chapter 11 case must be filed if such claims are not listed in liquidated, non-contingent and undisputed amounts in the Schedules, or if the claimant disagrees with the amount, characterization or classification of its claim as reflected in the Schedules. Claims that are subject to the Bar Date and which are not filed on or prior to the Bar Date, may be barred from participating in any distribution that may be made under a plan of reorganization in the Company's chapter 11 case.
Financial Reporting in Reorganization
The Company applied Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 852, Reorganizations effective on September 16, 2014, which is applicable to companies under bankruptcy protection, and requires amendments to the presentation of key financial statement line items. It requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the chapter 11 filing distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business. Revenues, expenses, realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses that can be directly associated with the reorganization and restructuring of the business must be reported separately as reorganization items in the consolidated statements of operations. The balance sheet must distinguish pre-petition liabilities subject to compromise from both those pre-petition liabilities that are not subject to compromise and from post-petition liabilities. Liabilities that may be subject to a plan of reorganization must be reported at the amounts expected to be allowed in the Company’s chapter 11 case, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts as a result of the plan of reorganization or negotiations with creditors. In addition, cash used by reorganization items are disclosed separately in the consolidated statements of cash flow.
Other Matters Related to the Chapter 11 Case
On September 16, 2014, the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC asserting that, based on the Company’s chapter 11 filing, the Company no longer met the continuing listing requirements necessary to maintain its listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company appealed such assertion. On October 16, 2014, representatives of the Company appeared before the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC’s hearings panel to present the Company’s appeal, asking the panel to exercise its discretion to allow the Company to maintain its listing for up to five additional months (the limit of the panel’s discretion at that time). On October 29, 2014, the Company received the decision of the NASDAQ hearings panel. The NASDAQ hearings panel decided that the Company’s Common Stock would remain listed, subject to: (a) the Company providing the NASDAQ hearings panel with confidential updates regarding the status of the PharmAthene litigation, public disclosures relating to such
litigation and to any possible judgment, and (b) the Company, on or before March 16, 2015, emerging from chapter 11 and evidencing compliance with all requirements for initial listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The NASDAQ hearings panel also stated that it reserved the right to reconsider its determination based upon any event, condition or circumstance that exists or develops that would, in the opinion of the panel, make continued listing of the Company’s securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market inadvisable or unwarranted. The Company does not expect to emerge from bankruptcy on or before March 16, 2015. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company will meet the conditions required by the NASDAQ hearings panel and maintain the listing of its Common Stock on NASDAQ.
Basis of presentation
The consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“US GAAP”) and reflect the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for all periods presented.
Going Concern
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern and contemplate the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is expected to be impacted by the outcome of the Company’s appeal of post-remand judgment by the Delaware Court of Chancery (as defined in Note 14 to the financial statements), as well as the the resolution of its chapter 11 case. The Delaware Court of Chancery, acting on remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, entered its Final Judgment and Order awarding PharmAthene approximately $195 million, including prejudgment interest up to January 15, 2015. Additionally, in response to the potential impact of the Outstanding Judgment, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and is operating its business as a “debtor-in-possession” in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. As a result of the chapter 11 filing and the Outstanding Judgment, the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities are subject to uncertainties. Any reorganization plan could materially change the amounts and classifications of assets and liabilities reported in the consolidated financial statements. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments related to the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities or any other adjustments that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to the current period presentation, primarily related to the legal expert fees accrual in connection with the PharmAthene litigation.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Use of Estimates
The consolidated financial statements and related disclosures are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Management is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenue and expenses during the period reported. The most significant estimates include the variables used in the calculation of fair value of stock-based awards including options and warrants granted or issued by the Company; reported amounts of revenue and expenses; calculation of contingencies including estimating litigation accrual; and the realization of deferred tax assets. Estimates and assumptions are reviewed periodically and the effects of revisions are reflected in the financial statements in the period they are determined to be necessary. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
Cash Equivalents
The Company considers all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents.
Concentration of Credit Risk
The Company has cash in bank accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses on its cash accounts and no allowance has been provided for potential credit losses because management believes that any such losses would be minimal, if any.
As part of its chapter 11 case, on January 29, 2015, the Company established debtor-in-possession bank accounts “DIP Accounts” in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and transferred substantially all its cash into the DIP Accounts in February 2015.
Accounts Receivable
Accounts receivable are recorded net of provisions for doubtful accounts. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, 100% of accounts receivables represented receivables from National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”). An allowance for doubtful accounts is based on specific analysis of the receivables. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company had no allowance for doubtful accounts.
Inventory
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or estimated realizable value. The Company capitalizes inventory costs associated with the Company’s products when, based on management’s judgment, future commercialization is considered probable and the future economic benefit is expected to be realized; otherwise, such costs are expensed as research and development. Inventory is evaluated for impairment periodically to identify inventory that may expire prior to expected sale or has a cost basis in excess of its estimated realizable value. If certain batches or units of product no longer meet quality specifications or become obsolete due to expiration, the Company records a charge to write down such unmarketable inventory to its estimated realizable value.
Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost, net of accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is provided on a straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the various asset classes. The estimated useful lives are as follows: 5 years for laboratory equipment; 3 years for computer equipment; and 7 years for furniture and fixtures. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the estimated useful lives of the assets or the lease term. Maintenance, repairs and minor replacements are charged to expense as incurred.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the fee is fixed or determinable, collectability is reasonably assured, title and risk of loss have been transferred to the customer and there are no further contractual obligations.
Certain arrangements may provide for multiple deliverables, in which there may be a combination of: up-front licenses; research, development, regulatory or other services; and delivery of product. Multiple deliverable arrangements can be divided into separate units of accounting if the deliverables in the arrangement meet the following criteria: (i) the delivered item(s) have value to the customer on a standalone basis and (ii) in circumstances in which an arrangement includes a general right of return with respect to delivered items, then performance of the remaining deliverables must be considered probable and substantially in control of the Company. If multiple deliverables cannot be divided into separate units of accounting then the deliverables must be combined into a single unit of accounting.
Total consideration in a multiple deliverable arrangement is allocated to units of accounting on a relative fair value of selling price basis. Consideration allocated to a delivered item or unit of accounting is limited to the amount that is not contingent upon delivery of additional items.
Direct costs incurred by the Company and associated with the deferral of revenue for a unit of accounting will also be deferred and will be recognized as expenses over the same period that the related deferred revenue is recognized as revenue.
Subject to the above, payments for development activities are recognized as revenue when earned, over the period of effort. Funding for the acquisition of capital assets under cost-plus-fee contracts or grants is evaluated for appropriate recognition as a reduction to the cost of the asset, a financing arrangement, or revenue based on the specific terms of the related grant or contract.
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, revenues from NIH and BARDA were 100% of total revenues recognized by the Company.
Research and Development
Research and development expenses include costs directly and indirectly attributable to the conduct of research and development programs, and performance of the BARDA Contract, including employee related costs, materials, supplies, depreciation on and maintenance of research equipment, the cost of services provided by outside contractors, including services related to the Company’s clinical trials and facility costs, such as rent, utilities, and general support services. All costs associated with research and development are expensed as incurred. Costs related to the acquisition of technology rights, for which development work is still in process, and that have no alternative future uses, are expensed as incurred.
Goodwill
The Company evaluates goodwill for impairment at least annually or as circumstances warrant. The impairment review process compares the fair value of the reporting unit in which goodwill resides to its carrying value. The Company operates as one business and one reporting unit. Therefore, the goodwill impairment analysis is performed on the basis of the Company as a whole, using the market capitalization of the Company as an estimate of its fair value.
Share-based Compensation
Stock-based compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors is determined on the grant date; for options awards, fair value is estimated using the Black-Scholes model and for stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), fair value is estimated using the Monte Carlo method. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recorded as expense over the requisite service periods in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations.
These compensation costs are recognized net of an estimated forfeiture rate over the requisite service periods of the awards. Forfeitures are estimated on the date of the respective grant and revised if actual or expected forfeiture activity differs from original estimates.
Income Taxes
The Company recognizes income taxes utilizing the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred income taxes are recorded for temporary differences between financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities at enacted tax rates expected to be in effect for the years in which the differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is established if it is more likely than not that some or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized. The recognition of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes requires management to make estimates and judgments about the Company’s future profitability which are inherently uncertain.
Net Loss per Share
The objective of basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is to measure the performance of an entity over the reporting period by dividing income (loss) by the weighted average shares outstanding. The objective of diluted EPS is consistent with that of basic EPS, except that it also gives effect to all potentially dilutive common shares outstanding during the period.
The Company incurred losses for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. For all periods presented, all equity instruments are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per share as the effect of such shares is anti-dilutive. The weighted average number of equity instruments excluded consist of:
As discussed in Note 6, the appreciation of each SSAR was capped at a determined maximum value. As a result, the weighted average number shown in the table above for stock-settled stock appreciation rights reflects the weighted average maximum number of shares that could be issued.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximates fair value due to the relatively short maturity of these instruments. Common stock warrants which are classified as liabilities are recorded at their fair market value as of each reporting period.
The measurement of fair value requires the use of techniques based on observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect our market assumptions. The inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:
•
Level 1 - Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.
•
Level 2 - Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations where inputs are observable or where significant value drivers are observable.
•
Level 3 - Instruments where significant value drivers are unobservable to third parties.
The Company uses model-derived valuations where inputs are observable in active markets to determine the fair value of certain common stock warrants on a recurring basis and classify such liability classified warrants in Level 2. The Company utilizes the Black-Scholes model consisting of the following variables: (i) the closing price of SIGA’s common stock; (ii) the expected remaining life of the liability classified warrant; (iii) the expected volatility using a weighted-average of historical volatilities from a combination of SIGA and comparable companies; and (iv) the risk-free market rate. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the fair value of such liability classified warrants was as follows:
At December 31, 2014, there were no liability classified warrants outstanding.
As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company had $2.0 million and $4.0 million outstanding, respectively, from a loan entered into on December 31, 2012 (see Note 7). The fair value of the loan, which is measured using Level 2 inputs, approximates book value at December 31, 2014 and 2013.
For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, SIGA did not hold any Level 3 securities.
There were no transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy during the year ended December 31, 2014.
Legal Contingencies
The Company is subject to certain contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is also currently involved in litigation with PharmAthene, Inc. (see Note 14 ). The Company records accruals for these contingencies to the extent that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. Alternatively, when no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued. The Company expenses legal costs associated with loss contingencies as incurred. We record anticipated recoveries under existing insurance contracts when recovery is assured.
Segment Information
The Company is managed and operated as one business. The entire business is managed by a single management team that reports to the chief executive officer. The Company does not operate separate lines of business or separate business entities with respect to any of its product candidates. Accordingly, the Company does not prepare discrete financial information with respect to separate product areas or by location and only has one reportable segment.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40) Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This ASU requires management to assess whether there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and, if so, disclose that fact. Management will also be required to evaluate and disclose whether its plans alleviate that doubt. This ASU states that, when making this assessment, management should consider relevant conditions or events that are known or reasonably knowable on the date the financial statements are issued or available to be issued. This ASU is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016 and interim periods thereafter, and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). ASU No. 2014-09 supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific revenue recognition guidance throughout the Industry Topics of the Accounting Standards Codification. Additionally, this update supersedes some cost guidance included in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition-Construction-Type and Production-Type Contracts. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or
services. It is effective for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.
In April 2014, FASB issued ASU No. 2014-08, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of Entity, which changes the criteria for reporting discontinued operations while enhancing disclosure requirements. This ASU addresses sources of confusion and inconsistent application related to financial reporting of discontinued operations guidance in U.S. GAAP. Under this guidance, a discontinued operation is defined as a disposal of a component or group of components that is disposed of or is classified as held for sale and represents a strategic shift that has a major effect on an entity’s operations and financial results. This ASU is effective prospectively for fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2014. This ASU is effective for us prospectively on January 1, 2015. We do not anticipate that the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on our financial statements.
In July 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued new guidance on the financial statement presentation of unrecognized tax benefit when a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward exists. The Company’s adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2014 did not have a material effect on our financial statements.
3. Procurement Contract and Research Agreements
Procurement Contract
On May 13, 2011, the Company signed a contract with BARDA (the “BARDA Contract”) pursuant to which SIGA agreed to deliver two million courses of Tecovirimat to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile (“Strategic Stockpile”). The BARDA Contract is worth approximately $463 million, including $409.8 million for manufacture and delivery of 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat and $54 million of potential reimbursements related to development and supportive activities (the “Base Contract”). In addition to the Base Contract, the BARDA Contract also contains various options that are exercisable at BARDA’s discretion and would fund development and supportive activities such as work on pediatric and geriatric formulations of the drug as well as use of Tecovirimat for smallpox prophylaxis; would result in $50 million payment to the Company for FDA approval for extension to 84-month expiry for Tecovirimat (from 38 month expiry as required in the Base Contract); and/or would fund production-related activities such as warm-base manufacturing. As of December 31, 2014, BARDA has not exercised any options. The BARDA Contract expires in September 2020.
Under the Base Contract with BARDA, BARDA has agreed to buy from SIGA 1.7 million courses of Tecovirimat. Additionally, SIGA expects to contribute to BARDA 300,000 courses at no additional cost to BARDA.
As discussed in Note 14 the amount of profits we will retain pursuant to the BARDA Contract may be adversely affected by the outcome of PharmAthene’s action against SIGA.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company has received $198.3 million under the Base Contract related to the manufacture and physical delivery of courses of Tecovirimat. Included in this amount are: a $41 million advance payment in 2011 for the completion of certain planning and preparatory activities related to the Base Contract; a $12.3 million milestone payment in 2012 for the completion of the product labeling strategy for Tecovirimat; an $8.2 million milestone payment in 2013 for the completion of the commercial validation campaign for Tecovirimat; and $136.8 million of payments following physical deliveries of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat to the Strategic Stockpile. Product deliveries of Tecovirimat in 2013 and 2014 were at a provisional dosage of 600 mg administered once daily. Payments following physical delivery of courses were $40.7 million and $96.1 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. Reimbursements related to research and development services and supportive activities were $3.1 million and $5.4 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively, and are $8.5 million since inception of the BARDA Contract.
On December 24, 2014, the Company announced that based on discussions with representatives of the FDA and BARDA, product deliveries of Tecovirimat subsequent to December 31, 2014 are expected to be at a provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day). This is a change from the provisional dosage that was in effect when product deliveries were made in 2013 and 2014 (600 mg per day). In 2013 and 2014, the provisional dosage of courses delivered to the Strategic Stockpile was 600 mg administered once per day. The change in the provisional dosage is based on FDA guidance received by the Company in 2014, subsequent to the delivery of 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat. Based on the current provisional dosage of 600 mg administered twice per day (1,200 mg per day), SIGA currently expects to supplement previously delivered courses of Tecovirimat, at no additional cost to BARDA, with additional dosages so that all of the courses previously delivered to BARDA will be at the new provisional dosage. The Company and BARDA have agreed to an amendment (the “BARDA Amendment”) of the BARDA Contract to reflect the foregoing, which modification is subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court.
The Company expects to incur significant incremental costs with the production of additional dosage. The provisional dosage for Tecovirimat may be subject to additional changes in the future based on FDA guidance.
The BARDA Contract is a multiple deliverable arrangement comprising delivery of courses and covered research and development activities. The BARDA Contract provides certain product replacement rights with respect to delivered courses. For this reason, recognition of revenue that might otherwise occur upon delivery of courses is expected to be deferred until the Company’s obligations related to potential replacement of delivered courses are satisfied. The Company assessed the selling price for each of the aforementioned deliverables - research and development activities and drug product. The selling price of certain reimbursed research and development services was determined by reference to existing and past research and development grants and contracts between the Company and various government agencies. The selling price of drug product was determined by reference to other Companies’ sales of drug products such as antiviral therapeutics, orphan drugs and drugs with potential life-saving impact similar to Tecovirimat, including products delivered to the Strategic Stockpile.
The Company has recognized revenue for reimbursement of certain BARDA Contract research and development services. Cash inflows related to delivery of courses will continue to be recorded as deferred revenue. In addition, direct costs incurred by the Company to fulfill the delivery of courses including the supplementing of courses previously delivered under the BARDA Contract are being deferred and will be recognized as expenses over the same period that the related deferred revenue is recognized as revenue.
As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, deferred direct costs under the BARDA Contract of approximately $32.9 million and $22.6 million, respectively, are included in deferred costs on the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2014, the Company recorded $203.8 million of deferred revenue, of which $203.7 million is included in liabilities subject to compromise. Deferred revenue has been recorded for the delivery of approximately 1.3 million courses of Tecovirimat to the Strategic Stockpile and certain research and development services provided as part of the BARDA Contract. For the year ended December 31, 2014, revenue from reimbursed research and development was $2.1 million.
Research Agreements
The Company obtains funding from the contracts and grants it obtains from various agencies of the U.S. Government to support its research and development activities. Currently, the Company has one contract and one grant with varying expiration dates through February 2018 that provide for potential future aggregate research and development funding for specific projects of approximately $9.2 million. Because of the Optimization Program (see Note 13), we may not utilize material amounts under the grant covering the pre-clinical drug candidates.
The funded amount includes, among other things, options that may or may not be exercised at the U.S. government’s discretion. Moreover, the contract and contract grant contain customary terms and conditions including the U.S. Government’s right to terminate or restructure a grant for convenience at any time.
In connection with the Optimization Program, in August 2014, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement to sell and transfer its pre-clinical Arenavirus assets and research and development grant relating to Lassa fever to Kineta Four, LLC (the “Purchaser”), an unrelated party. In exchange for the transfer of certain assets and intellectual property rights, the Company received profit interest units (“Units”) in Kineta Four, LLC, and the Company is eligible for approximately $5.1 million of later-stage milestone payments and royalties of up to 4% on sales of drugs that use the transferred intellectual property rights. The Units, which have no voting rights, could provide the Company with a participation of approximately 5 - 10% of any cash distribution, if any, by Kineta Four, LLC, depending on future fundraising by Kineta Four, LLC. The assets transferred as part of the asset purchase agreement are the sole operating assets of Kineta Four, LLC. The asset purchase agreement had no impact on the Company's results of operations as the assets and intellectual property transferred to the Purchaser had no book value.
4. Liabilities Subject to Compromise
Pre-petition liabilities that are subject to compromise are required to be reported at the amounts expected to be allowed in the Company’s chapter 11 case, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts. The amounts classified as Liabilities Subject to Compromise as of December 31, 2014 may be subject to future adjustments depending on Bankruptcy Court actions, further developments with respect to disputed claims, determinations of the secured status of certain claims, if any, the value of any collateral securing such claims, or other events. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the value of the claims that will ultimately be allowed in its chapter 11 case until its evaluation, investigation and reconciliation of all filed claims has been completed.
The amount of liabilities subject to compromise represents the Company's estimate, where an estimate is determinable, of known or potential pre-petition claims to be addressed in connection with its chapter 11 case. Such liabilities are reported at the Company's current estimate, where an estimate is determinable, of the allowed claim amount, even though they may be settled for lesser
amounts. These claims remain subject to future adjustments depending on Bankruptcy Court actions, further developments with respect to disputed claims, determinations of the secured status of certain claims, if any, the value of any collateral securing such claims, or other events.
As of December 31, 2014, Liabilities Subject to Compromise consist of the following:
(1) $3.2 million is the total accrual for reimbursement of PharmAthene attorney's fees and expert fees, against which there is a$2.7 million surety bond that has cash collaterization of $1.3 million.
Reorganization Items, net:
5. Stockholders’ Equity
On December 31, 2014, the Company’s authorized share capital consisted of 110,000,000 shares, of which 100,000,000 are designated common shares and 10,000,000 are designated preferred shares. The Company’s Board of Directors is authorized to issue preferred shares in series with rights, privileges and qualifications of each series determined by the Board. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, no preferred shares were outstanding or issued.
At December 31, 2014, there are no liability classified warrants outstanding. At December 31, 2013, the fair market value of outstanding liability classified warrants was $313,425. The Company applied the Black-Scholes model to calculate the fair values of the respective derivative instruments using the contractual term of the warrants. Management estimated the expected volatility using a combination of the Company’s historical volatility and the volatility of a group of comparable companies.
For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded a gain and a (loss) of $313,425 and $(73,756), respectively. The gain and (loss) are result of net decrease and (increase), respectively in fair value of Commitment Warrants (as discussed below) during the respective periods.
In 2006, the Company issued 1,000,000 warrants with an initial exercise price of $4.99 per share (the “2006 Warrants”). The remaining warrants expired in 2013.
On June 19, 2008, SIGA entered into a letter agreement (as amended, the “Letter Agreement”) that expired on June 19, 2010, with MacAndrews & Forbes LLC (“M&F”), a related party, for M&F’s commitment to invest, at SIGA’s discretion or at M&F’s option, up to $8 million in exchange for (i) SIGA common stock and (ii) warrants to purchase 40% of the number of SIGA shares acquired by M&F. In consideration for the commitment of M&F reflected in the Letter Agreement, on June 19, 2008, M&F received warrants to purchase 238,000 shares of SIGA common stock, initially exercisable at $3.06 (the “Commitment Warrants”). The Commitment Warrants were exercisable until June 19, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the Commitment Warrants were amended to extend expiration to June 19, 2014. Due to certain anti-dilution provisions, the Commitment Warrants were recorded as a liability, and consequently the “mark-to-market” adjustment to the fair value from the extended term was accounted immediately upon modification. On June 19, 2014, the Commitment Warrants expired. Through June 19, 2014, the Company recognized a mark-to-market gain of $129,398.
In 2009, SIGA issued to M&F 816,993 shares of common stock and 326,797 warrants (the “2009 Warrants”) to acquire common stock in exchange for total proceeds of $2.5 million. The warrants were exercisable for a term of four years from issuance for an exercise price of $3.519 per share. The 2009 Warrants were not exercised and as a result expired during the year ended December 31, 2013.
On June 18, 2010, M&F notified SIGA of its intention to exercise its right to invest $5.5 million, the remaining amount available under the Letter Agreement following earlier investments and entered into a Deferred Closing and Registration Rights Agreement dated as of June 18, 2010 with the Company. On July 26, 2010, upon satisfaction of certain customary closing conditions, including the expiration of the applicable waiting period pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, M&F funded the $5.5 million purchase price to SIGA in exchange for the issuance of (i) 1,797,386 shares of common stock and (ii) warrants to purchase 718,954 shares of SIGA common stock at an exercise price of $3.519 per share; the warrants are exercisable for a term of four years from issuance. On July 26, 2014, the warrants expired. Through July 26, 2014, the Company recognized a mark-to-market gain of $184,027.
On April 30, 2013, SIGA entered into a Services Agreement with M&F, a related party, for certain professional and administrative services. The Services Agreement has a term of three years. As consideration for the Services Agreement, SIGA issued warrants to M&F to acquire 250,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.29 per share. The warrants are fully vested, immediately exercisable and remain exercisable for two years from issuance date. The grant-date fair value, determined using the Black-Scholes model as previously described, is recorded as an asset with a corresponding increase to equity. The asset is amortized over the contractual term of the warrant. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded an expense of $136,364 and $90,909, respectively.
The number of shares issuable pursuant to the warrants granted under the Letter Agreement, as well as the exercise price of those warrants, may be subject to adjustment as a result of the effect of future equity issuances on certain anti-dilution provisions in the related warrant agreements.
The Company accounted for the warrants in accordance with the authoritative guidance which requires that free-standing derivative financial instruments that require net cash settlement be classified as assets or liabilities at the time of the transaction, and recorded at their fair value. Any changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments are reported in earnings or loss as long as the derivative contracts are classified as assets or liabilities.
6. Stock Compensation Plans
The Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2010 Plan”) was initially adopted in May 2010. The 2010 Plan provided for the issuance of stock options, restricted stock and unrestricted stock with respect to an aggregate of 2,000,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock to employees, consultants and outside directors of the Company. On May 17, 2011, the 2010 Plan was amended to provide for the issuance of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and on February 2, 2012, the 2010 Plan was amended to provide for the issuance of SARs. Effective April 25, 2012, the 2010 Plan was amended to increase the maximum number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance to an aggregate of 4,500,000 shares. The vesting period for awards granted under the 2010 Plan, except those granted to outside directors, is determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee also determines the expiration date of each equity award, however, stock options and SARs may not be exercisable more than ten years after the date of grant as the maximum term of equity awards issued under the 2010 Plan is ten years.
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense, including stock options, SARs, RSUs and certain warrant amortization, of approximately $2.4 million, $2.3 million and $1.8 million, respectively.
Stock Options
Stock option awards provide holders the right to purchase shares of Common Stock at prices determined by the Compensation Committee and must have an exercise price equal to or in excess of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant.
There were no stock options granted during year-ended 2014. The fair value of option grants were estimated at the date of grant during the years ended December 31, 2013, and 2012 based upon the following range of assumptions:
Expected volatility has been estimated using a combination of the Company’s historical volatility and the historical volatility of a group of comparable companies, both using historical periods equivalent to the options’ expected lives. The expected dividend yield assumption is based on the Company’s intent not to issue a dividend in the foreseeable future. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon observed interest rates for securities with maturities approximating the options’ expected lives. The expected life was estimated based on historical experience and expectation of employee exercise behavior in the future giving consideration to the contractual terms of the award.
A summary of the Company’s stock option activity is as follows:
As of December 31, 2014, $47,000 of total remaining unrecognized stock-based compensation cost related to stock options is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average remaining requisite service period of 2.2 years. The total fair value of vested stock options was $0.1 million, $0.6 million and $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised was $19,000, $959,000 and $5,000 for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The intrinsic value represents the amount by which the market price of the underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of an option.
The weighted average fair value at the date of grant for stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $2.34 and $1.77.
As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, 500,000 of the Company’s outstanding options, respectively, were subject to specific performance conditions consisting of minimum cash receipts thresholds and regulatory approval of our lead drug candidate. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the performance conditions relating to minimum cash receipts were achieved making 300,000 of the aforementioned options exercisable. The remaining 200,000 options with performance conditions relating to regulatory approval have not been achieved, thus these options are not exercisable at December 31, 2014.
Stock Appreciation Rights
Stock-settled stock appreciation rights (“SSARs”) provide holders the right to purchase shares of Common Stock at prices determined by the Compensation Committee and must have an exercise price equal to or in excess of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant. Upon exercise, the gain, or intrinsic value, is settled by the delivery of SIGA stock to the employee.
There were no SSARs granted during the year ended 2014. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company granted 1.4 million shares of SSARs at a weighted average grant-date fair value of $0.68 per share. The exercise price of a SSAR is equal to the closing market price on the date of grant. The granted SSARs vest in equal annual installments over a period of three years and expire no later than seven years from the date of grant. Moreover, the appreciation of each SSAR was capped at a determined
maximum value. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, due to the cap on value the maximum number of shares that could be issued in the future was 372,000 and 408,000, respectively.
The fair value of granted SSARs has been estimated utilizing a Monte Carlo method. The Monte Carlo method is a statistical simulation technique used to provide the grant-date fair value of an award. As the issued SSARs were capped at maximum values, such attribute was considered in the simulation. The following table presents the weighted-average assumptions utilized in the valuations:
The Company calculates the expected volatility using a combination of SIGA’s historical volatility and the volatility of a group of comparable companies. The expected life from grant date was estimated based on the expectation of exercise behavior in consideration of the maximum value and contractual term of the SSARs. The dividend yield assumption is based on the Company’s intent not to issue a dividend in the foreseeable future. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon observed interest rates appropriate for the expected life of the SSARs.
A summary of the Company’s SSAR activity is as follows:
As of December 31, 2014, $24,000 of total remaining unrecognized stock-based compensation cost related to SSARs is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average remaining requisite service period of 0.09 years. The total fair value of vested SSARs was $267,000, $317,000 and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The total intrinsic value of SSARs exercised was $0, $4,000 and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The intrinsic value represents the amount by which the market price of the underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of a SSAR.
Restricted Stock Awards/Restricted Stock Units
RSUs awarded to employees vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period and RSUs awarded to directors of the Company vest over a one-year period. A summary of the Company’s RSU activity is as follows:
As of December 31, 2014, $2.0 million of total remaining unrecognized stock-based compensation cost related to RSUs is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average remaining requisite service period of 1.42 years. The weighted average fair value at
the date of grant for restricted stock awards granted during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $3.23, $2.98 and $2.82 per share, respectively. The total fair value of restricted stock and restricted stock units vested during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $1.5 million, $0.7 million and $0.0 million.
Warrants
A summary of the Company’s warrant activity is as follows:
Warrants represent the right to purchase shares of Common Stock at contractual exercise prices. As of December 31, 2014, all outstanding warrants are exercisable.
7. Debt
In December 2012, the Company entered into a loan agreement (“Loan Agreement”) with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Capital”) to provide the Company a term loan of $5.0 million with a fixed interest rate of 9.85% per annum and a revolving line of credit of $7.0 million with a variable interest rate. Borrowings under the revolving line of credit was based on eligible outstanding accounts receivable and was set at a rate per annum equal to 5.25% plus the higher of: (a) 1.50%, and (b) three-month LIBOR divided by a defined factor. The term of the loan was three years.
On September 17, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved on an interim basis a Stipulation and Order between the Company and GE Capital, in its capacity as Agent for the lenders under the Loan Agreement, in connection with the chapter 11 case. The Loan Agreement, consisting of a term loan and revolving line of credit, is a fully secured loan facility. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order:
•
The Company could continue to use cash as to which the Agent has a lien;
•
The Company continued to make its regularly scheduled interest (at the non-default rate) and amortization payments on the term loan under the Loan Agreement;
•
The revolving loan commitment under the Loan Agreement, as to which no borrowings are outstanding, was terminated;
•
The Company paid $70,000 to GE in full satisfaction of all amounts payable under the Loan Agreement in connection with the termination of the revolving loan commitment;
•
The Company would maintain a minimum balance of $4.0 million in a specified account as collateral for the obligations under the Loan Agreement; and
•
The Company and GE reserved their respective rights as whether interest at the default rate was payable, and if it was determined that it is payable, such amount, less the $70,000 referred to above, would be added to the amount of the obligations under the Loan Agreement.
The Stipulation and Order was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on a final basis on October 28, 2014. The Company set aside, in a separate account, $4.0 million as collateral for obligations under the Loan Agreement and classified this amount as restricted cash on its balance sheet. As long as the Stipulation and Order is in effect, GE agreed to not seek to take any action to accelerate payment under the Loan Agreement or exercise any remedies. The GE loan is considered fully secured and is not reported as liabilities subject to compromise (see Note 1).
As of December 31, 2014, approximately $2.0 million of the term loan was outstanding.
In January 2015, the Company paid the term loan in full including related fees. The Loan Agreement was terminated with the full payment of the term loan and all collateral was released.
In connection with securing the Loan Agreement, the Company incurred approximately $386,000 of debt issue costs which are recorded as deferred costs and allocated between other current assets and other assets. Furthermore, the Company incurred $90,000 of costs which were accounted for as a debt discount and thus, are recorded as a direct reduction of the face amount of the debt. The debt issue costs and debt discount will be amortized to interest expense over the term of the Loan Agreement.
The aggregate amount of required principal payments at December 31, 2014 were as follows:
8. Related Party Transactions
On December 1, 2009, the Company entered into an Office Services Agreement with an affiliate of M&F to occupy office space for approximately $8,000 per month. An amendment in February 2012 increased the monthly payment to $12,000 to appropriately reflect expanded use of space. The Office Services Agreement was canceled effective March 31, 2013.
In October 2012, the Company funded a letter of credit and deposit to take advantage of a lease for office space secured by an affiliate of M&F from a third party landlord on behalf of the Company. Pursuant to such letter of credit, in January 2013 the Company entered into a sublease in which the Company will pay all costs associated with the lease, including rent. All payments made by the Company pursuant to the sublease will either be directly or indirectly made to the third-party landlord and not retained by M&F or any affiliate. The new sublease replaced the current Office Services Agreement that is described in the previous paragraph, and occupancy commenced on April 1, 2013. The sublease allows for a free rent period of five months beginning April 1, 2013; subsequent to the free rent period, monthly rent payments are $60,000 for the first five years and $63,000 for the next two years. Upon expiration on September 1, 2020, the sublease and lease provides for two consecutive five year renewal options.
The Company has a Services Agreement with M&F and a warrant agreement with M&F (see Note 5).
A member of the Company’s Board of Directors is a member of the Company’s outside counsel. During the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred costs of $822,000, $1.8 million and $2.0 million, respectively, related to services provided by the outside counsel. On December 31, 2014, the Company’s outstanding payables included $60,000 payable to the outside counsel.
During fourth quarter of 2014, an affiliate of M&F provided the Company with research services for a pre-clinical drug candidate. The Company incurred costs of $68,600 related to services provided by the affiliate of M&F.
9. Inventory
During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company delivered approximately 504,000 courses accepted into the Strategic Stockpile; due to the deferral of revenue under the BARDA Contract (see Note 3), amounts that would be otherwise recorded as cost of goods sold for delivered courses are recorded as deferred costs in the balance sheet. The value of inventory represents the costs incurred to manufacture Tecovirimat under the BARDA Contract. Additional costs incurred to complete production of courses of Tecovirimat will be recorded as inventory and reclassified to deferred costs upon delivery to the extent related revenue is deferred.
Inventory consisted of the following at December 31, 2014 and 2013:
The Company has revised the disclosure of the previously reported component of inventory at December 31, 2013.
For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, research and development expense included inventory write-downs of approximately $1.0 million and $0.5 million, respectively.
10. Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following at December 31, 2014 and 2013:
Depreciation and amortization expense on property, plant, and equipment was $351,561, $463,137, and $419,358 for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively.
As a result of the Optimization Plan described in Note 12, in March 2014 the Company engaged a third-party to manage the disposition of certain laboratory equipment. During 2014, certain laboratory equipment with a net book value of $223,949 was sold for gross proceeds of $569,607, which resulted in a gain of $345,658.
11. Accrued Expenses
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities consisted of the following at December 31, 2014 and 2013:
As of December 31, 2014, loss contingency is classified in liabilities subject to compromise.
12. Income Taxes
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company's provision (benefit) for income taxes is comprised of the following:
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities are comprised of the following:
The recognition of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes requires management to make estimates and judgments about the Company’s future profitability which are inherently uncertain. This includes assessing available positive and negative evidence to determine if sufficient future tax income will be generated to utilize existing deferred tax assets. During 2014, the Company recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 million related to the PharmAthene litigation (see Note 14) and filed a voluntary petition for relief under Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1). There is substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as going concern. Based on the weight of available evidence, the Company concluded that it could no longer realize its deferred tax assets on a more likely than not basis and recorded a non-cash charge of $53.5 million to establish a valuation allowance against its net deferred tax assets. The valuation allowance increased by $128.1 million from prior years.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company had $87.4 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards which expire in 2021 to 2034 was available to offset taxable income. As a result of a cumulative change in stock ownership occurring in a prior year, approximately $3.1 million of the federal net operating loss carryforwards are subject to annual limitation under IRC Section 382. In addition, the utilization of approximately $1.6 million of federal net operating losses attributable to excess tax deductions on share-based compensation activity will be realized as a benefit to Additional Paid-in Capital when such deductions reduce income taxes payable. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has approximately $1.6 million of alternative minimum tax
credit which will be carried forward indefinitely.
The Company’s effective tax rate differs from the U.S. Federal Statutory income tax rate of 35% as follows:
For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company’s effective tax rate differs from the statutory rate principally due to the Company’s conclusion that they could no longer realize its deferred tax assets on a more-likely-than-not basis and recorded a non-cash tax charge of $53.5 million. For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s effective tax rate differs principally due to state and local taxes and other permanent differences.
The Company applies the applicable authoritative guidance which prescribes a comprehensive model for the manner in which a company should recognize, measure, present and disclose in its financial statements all material uncertain tax positions that the Company has taken or expects to take on a tax return. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has no uncertain tax positions. There are no uncertain tax positions for which it is reasonably possible that the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease within twelve months from December 31, 2014.
The Company files federal income tax returns and income tax returns in various state and local tax jurisdictions. The open tax years for U.S. federal, state and local tax returns is generally 2011 - 2014; open tax years relating to any of the company’s net operating losses begin in 1998. In the event that the Company concludes that it is subject to interest and/or penalties arising from uncertain tax positions, the Company will present interest and penalties as a component of income taxes. No amounts of interest or penalties were recognized in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014
13. Restructuring
In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company began an optimization program to increase efficiencies within its operations (the “Optimization Program”). This program, which included a reduction in employee headcount, was intended to align the Company's resources, staff and efforts with the most promising growth opportunities. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a restructuring charge of $512,944 which included a non-cash asset impairment for the write-off of certain prepaid assets. A substantial portion of the Optimization Program was implemented as of December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2014, the remaining severance accrual of $3,825 is not subject to compromise. The following table summarizes the activity for the restructuring:
14. Commitments and Contingencies
Operating lease commitments
The Company leases its Corvallis, Oregon, facilities and office space under an operating lease, most recently amended in November 2012, which expires in 2017 and includes a renewal option for an extension of five years. In January 2013, we entered into a sublease with an affiliate of M&F for corporate office space under an operating lease which commenced in April 2013 and expires in 2020 (see Note 8 for further description of the lease arrangement). The respective leases contain annual escalation clauses, renewal provisions and generally require us to pay utilities, insurance, taxes and other operating expenses. Rental expense, including charges for maintenance, utilities, real estate taxes and other operating expenses, totaled $1.6 million, $1.4 million and $1.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2014 are expected to be in the future as follows:
Actual payments in the future could be less than the minimum commitments due to the chapter 11 case.
Legal Proceedings
In December 2006, PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”) filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court” or “Court of Chancery”) captioned PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2627-VCP. In its amended complaint, PharmAthene asked the Court to order us to enter into a license agreement with PharmAthene with respect to ST-246, also known as Tecovirimat, to declare that we are obliged to execute such a license agreement, and to award damages resulting from our alleged breach of that obligation. PharmAthene also alleges that we breached an obligation to negotiate such a license agreement in good faith, and sought damages for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment based on information, capital, and assistance that PharmAthene allegedly provided to us during the negotiation process. The Court tried the case in January 2011.
In September 2011, the Court of Chancery issued its post-trial opinion. The Court denied PharmAthene’s requests for specific performance and expectation damages measured by present value of estimated future profits. Nevertheless, the Court held that we breached our duty to negotiate in good faith and were liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court consequently awarded to PharmAthene what the Court described as an equitable payment stream or equitable lien consisting of fifty percent of the net profits that we achieve from sales of ST-246 after we secure $40 million in net profits, for ten years following the first commercial sale. In addition, the Court awarded PharmAthene one-third of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness expenses.
In May 2012, the Court entered its final order and judgment in this matter, implementing its post-trial opinion. Among other things, the final order and judgment provided that (a) net profits would be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied consistently with how they are applied in the preparation of our financial statements, (b) the net profits calculation would take into account expenses relating to ST-246 commencing with our acquisition of ST-246 in August 2004, and (c) PharmAthene could recover $2.4 million of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
In June 2012, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware the final order and judgment and certain earlier rulings of the Court of Chancery. Shortly thereafter, PharmAthene filed its cross-appeal. The Company obtained a stay of enforcement of the fee and expense portion of the judgment by filing a surety bond for the amount of the judgment plus post-judgment interest. We posted $1.3 million of cash as a 50% collateral for a $2.7 million surety bond. The $1.3 million of cash collateral is recorded in other assets as of December 31, 2014.
On January 10, 2013, the parties briefed the issues, and argued before the Delaware Supreme Court, en banc.
On May 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued its decision, affirming the Delaware Court of Chancery’s judgment in part, reversing it in part, and remanding to Vice Chancellor Parsons. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court determination that the Company had breached its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith; reversed the promissory estoppel holding; and, reversed the Vice Chancellor’s equitable damages award. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge may award expectation damages for breach of the contractual duty to negotiate in good faith if such damages are proven with reasonable certainty, and remanded to the Chancery Court for consideration of damages consistent with that holding. The Supreme Court also reversed the Chancery Court’s award of attorney fees and expert witness fees because they were predicated in part on a now-reversed finding of liability on PharmAthene’s promissory estoppel claim. The Supreme Court held that the Chancery Court could reevaluate on remand an alternative award, if any, of attorneys’ fees and expert testimony expenses consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Finally, the Supreme Court declined to consider all claims raised in PharmAthene’s cross appeal because it affirmed the Chancery Court’s finding that the Company was liable for breaching its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith. On June 11, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its mandate to the Court of Chancery with the decision described above.
On June 26, 2013, the parties appeared before Vice Chancellor Parsons to discuss the remand, at which time PharmAthene declared its desire to supplement the record with further evidence. Following briefing and argument on August 15, 2013, the Chancery Court granted PharmAthene’s motion to supplement the record and also allowed the Company to submit responsive evidence. On December 18-19, 2013, the Court held an evidentiary hearing with respect to that evidence. On January 15, 2014, after briefing on relevant issues, the parties appeared for oral argument regarding what remedy, if any, the Chancery Court should impose in light of the remand by the Supreme Court of Delaware.
On August 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery issued its Remand Opinion. In its Remand Opinion, the Court of Chancery reversed its earlier conclusions and held that PharmAthene had carried its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to lump sum expectation damages for lost profits related to Tecovirimat by a preponderance of the evidence. It also stated that in order to calculate PharmAthene’s lost profits, several modifications to the valuation model presented at trial (which the Court of Chancery had rejected as too speculative, among other things, in its post-trial opinion) were required, which modifications the Court of Chancery set forth in the Remand Opinion. The Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene is entitled to the value of the revised calculations plus pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate with prejudgment interest to accrue from December 20, 2006. The Court of Chancery also denied and dismissed with prejudice PharmAthene’s claims that it is entitled to specific performance or an equitable payment stream, on the grounds that PharmAthene is limited to a contractual remedy and has an adequate remedy at law. Finally, the Court of Chancery ruled that PharmAthene was entitled to (i) forty percent of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred through post-trial argument, (ii) one-third of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred in the remand proceedings, (iii) sixty percent of expert witness fees it incurred in the pretrial and trial phases, and (iv) and one-tenth of the expert witness fees it incurred in the remand proceedings.
The Remand Opinion instructed the parties to perform damages calculations using the Court's newly modified but previously rejected model. PharmAthene was instructed to provide SIGA with a lump sum damages calculation within 10 business days, following which SIGA would respond within 10 business days with its own calculation, or agreement with PharmAthene. Additionally, the Remand Opinion specified that the competing calculations would be submitted to the Court of Chancery within 30 days from the date on which PharmAthene provided its lump sum damages calculation to SIGA, if there is continuing disagreement on the narrow issue of performing the court's required calculations.
On September 16, 2014, as a consequence of SIGA’s chapter 11 filing, the legal proceedings with PharmAthene were stayed (see Note 1). On October 8, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Stipulation between the Company and PharmAthene partially lifting the stay to permit the litigation before the Delaware Chancery Court to proceed, including all appeals. The Stipulation, however, provides that the stay shall remain in effect with respect to the enforcement of any judgment that may be entered.
On October 17, the Company and PharmAthene separately submitted competing damages calculations to the Court of Chancery. PharmAthene’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $233 million as of September 30, 2014. The Company’s submission noted a damages calculation, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, of approximately $173 million as of August 8, 2014 (the date of the Remand Opinion). The separate calculations submitted by PharmAthene and the Company are based on each parties’ interpretation of the adjusted valuation methodology the Court of Chancery directed the parties to utilize in the Remand Opinion. The ultimate loss to be incurred from this litigation is highly uncertain and may be significantly different from the Final Order and Judgment. In its submission, the Company stated that SIGA intends to argue on appeal that PharmAthene has no entitlement to any award of expectation damages, but, rather, should be limited to a recovery of its reliance interest of approximately $200,000. Accordingly, the ultimate loss to be incurred from this litigation is highly uncertain and may be significantly different from the range of calculations set forth in the October 17 submission to the Court of Chancery.
As part of the October 17 submissions, PharmAthene calculated SIGA’s liability for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, expert witness costs and other costs as $3.2 million.
On January 7, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a letter opinion, directing PharmAthene to submit a revised proposed final order and judgment reflecting certain rulings in that opinion, including an award to PharmAthene of $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus interest. On January 9, 2015, PharmAthene submitted a revised proposed final order and judgment. On January 12, 2015, SIGA submitted limited objections to PharmAthene’s proposed final order and judgment, to which PharmAthene responded on January 14, 2015.
On January 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered its Final Order and Judgment, awarding to PharmAthene $113,116,985 in contract expectation damages, plus pre-judgment interest up to January 15, 2015, and certain permitted legal fees, costs, and expenses, for a judgment of $194,649,042. Pursuant to the January 15 Final Order and Judgment, SIGA also is liable to PharmAthene for post-judgment interest, in the amount of $30,663.89, per diem, which per diem amount shall periodically be adjusted.
Both parties were free to appeal from the portions of the trial court rulings on remand that were unfavorable to them within 30 days of entry of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s Final Order and Judgment. On January 16, 2015, SIGA appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery's rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. On January 29, 2015, PharmAthene cross-appealed from certain portions of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s rulings on remand, including but not limited to the Final Order and Judgment, to the Delaware Supreme Court. There is no assurance that either appeal will be successful.
The ultimate loss to be incurred in the future from the PharmAthene litigation is highly uncertain and may differ significantly from the Outstanding Judgment. However, SIGA believes that an ultimate loss of some amount is probable. Because the future outcome of SIGA’s appeal of the Final Order and Judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware is highly uncertain, the Company has based its loss accrual on the January 7, 2015 Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, and the subsequent judgment entered by the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2015. Based on the Delaware Court of Chancery letter opinion, SIGA has recorded a loss accrual for expectation damages of approximately $187.8 as of December 31, 2014. This amount is classified as a liability subject to compromise. Included in the loss accrual, the Company accrued pre-judgment interest through September 16, 2014, SIGA’s chapter 11 filing date, because it is currently uncertain whether interest accrued subsequent to the chapter 11 filing date will be part of any allowed claim.
In addition to the damages loss accrual, SIGA has separately accrued $3.2 million for PharmAthene’s attorneys’ fees and expert expenses, related to the case.
See Note 1 for information relating to the Company's ongoing chapter 11 proceedings.
From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that there is no dispute or litigation pending, except as discussed above, that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
15. Financial Information By Quarter (Unaudited)
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
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2014 in accordance with the framework on Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The term “disclosure controls and procedures” is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Management recognizes that any disclosure controls and procedures no matter how well designed and operated, can only provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.
Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Office and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2014 at a reasonable level of assurance.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2014 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or Rule 15d-15(f) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements prepared for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:
a.
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and disposition of the Company’s assets;
b.
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and the directors of the Company; and
c.
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 using the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this evaluation using the COSO criteria, management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2014.
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears herein.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.
PART III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance
Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table sets forth certain compensation plan information with respect to compensation plans as of December 31, 2014:
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a) (1) and (2). Financial Statements and Financial Statements Schedule.
See Index to Financial Statements under Item 8 in Part II hereof where these documents are listed.
(a) (3). Exhibits.
The following is a list of exhibits:
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.
SIGA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(Registrant)
Date:
March 6, 2015
By:
/s/ Eric A. Rose
Eric A. Rose, M.D.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.