ITEM 1. BUSINESS.
OVERVIEW
We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Currently, we are developing two therapies targeting hematologic malignancies. TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a novel, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature B-lymphocytes. We are also developing TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an orally available PI3K delta inhibitor. The delta isoform of PI3K is strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin and is believed to be important in the proliferation and survival of B-lymphocytes. Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, or the combination which is referred to as "U2," are in Phase 3 clinical development for patients with hematologic malignancies, with TG-1101 also in Phase 3 clinical development for patients with multiple sclerosis. Additionally, the Company has recently brought its anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody into Phase 1 development and aims to bring additional pipeline assets into the clinic in the future.
We also actively evaluate complementary products, technologies and companies for in-licensing, partnership, acquisition and/or investment opportunities. To date, we have not received approval for the sale of any of our drug candidates in any market and, therefore, have not generated any product sales from our drug candidates.
CORPORATE INFORMATION
We were incorporated in Delaware in 1993. Our executive offices are located at 2 Gansevoort St., 9th Floor, New York, New York 10014. Our telephone number is 212-554-4484, and our e-mail address is info@tgtxinc.com.
We maintain a website with the address www.tgtherapeutics.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. We are not including the information on our website as a part of, nor incorporating it by reference into, this report. You may read and copy any such reports and amendments thereto at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549 on official business days during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information on the Public Reference Room. Additionally, the SEC maintains a website that contains annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other information that issuers (including us) file electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s website address is http://www.sec.gov.
In addition, we intend to use our media and investor relations website, SEC filings press releases, public conference calls and webcasts as well as social media to communicate with our subscribers and the public about the Company, its services and other issues. It is possible that the information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information. Therefore, in light of the SEC’s guidance, we encourage investors, the media and others interested in the Company to review the information we post on the U.S. social media channels listed on our website.
PRODUCTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TG-1101 (ublituximab)
Overview
TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a chimeric, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on the surface of B-lymphocytes developed to aid in the depletion of circulating B-cells. We hold exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize TG-1101 for all indications, except for the territories of France and Belgium which have been retained by LFB Biotechnologies (“LFB”), and South Korea and Southeast Asia which were licensed by us to Ildong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“Ildong”) in November 2012.
Generally, anti-CD20 antibodies are believed to exert their B-cell depleting effects through three primary mechanisms: antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (“ADCC”), complement dependent cytotoxicity (“CDC”), and direct or programmed cell death (“DCD” or “PCD”). TG-1101 has been specifically glycoengineered to enhance ADCC activity, which should enhance its ability to deplete B-cells and may improve its anti-cancer effects when compared to Rituxan®, the leading anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, which had worldwide sales in 2016 of more than $7 billion.
Two single-agent, dose-escalation, Phase I studies were undertaken with TG-1101 to establish an optimal dose in patients with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (“CLL”). A two part first-in-human Phase I clinical trial was first completed in France in which TG-1101 was evaluated in relapsed or refractory CLL. Subsequently, a single-agent Phase I study was undertaken in the US enrolling patients with both NHL and CLL. In both studies, single agent therapy with TG-1101 was deemed well tolerated by treating investigators and displayed promising clinical activity in relapsed and refractory patients.
In oncology settings, anti-CD20 therapy is generally used in combination with other anti-cancer agents where it demonstrates maximum activity as opposed to single agent usage. As a result, subsequent clinical development for TG-1101 has focused on combination therapy. Currently, our priority combination trials for TG-1101 are:
●
The GENUINE Trial - a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial evaluating TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib, for previously treated CLL patients with high risk cytogenetics;
●
The UNITY-CLL Trial - a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial under Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) evaluating TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202, the Company’s development stage PI3K delta inhibitor, for patients with front line and previously treated CLL;
●
The UNITY-NHL Trial - registration-directed Phase 2b clinical study evaluating TGR-1202 alone and in combination with TG-1101 with or without bendamustine, in patients with previously treated Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL); and
●
TG-1101 + TGR-1202 + Pembrolizumab for patients with CLL.
In non-oncology settings, anti-CD20 therapy has generally been used as monotherapy. In addition to the above oncology studies, TG-1101 is being evaluated in a Phase 2 study for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and in an investigator initiated Phase 1 study for the treatment of acute neuromyelitis optica (NMO) relapses, with additional autoimmune related indications planned to be studied. On August 1, 2017, we announced we had reached an agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) on the design of two global Phase 3 clinical trials for TG-1101, referred to as the ULTIMATE I and ULTIMATE II Phase 3 clinical trials, both of which are currently open to enrollment.
Manufacturing of TG-1101 is currently performed by a contract manufacturer based in the US and our partner, LFB Biotechnologies.
Pre-Clinical Data Overview
The mechanism of action of anti-CD20 antibodies, including rituximab and TG-1101 has been elucidated and detailed in numerous academic and clinical studies. Upon conjugation of the antibody to the CD20 surface antigen, rituximab has been found to deplete B-lymphocytes through three primary mechanisms: ADCC, CDC, and DCD or PCD.
Antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or ADCC, is a mechanism that is dependent on interactions between the Fc region of the antibody and the FccR receptors on immune system effector cells, most notably the FccRIIIA (CD16) receptor found on NK cells. These interactions trigger cells to release cytotoxic molecules and proteases resulting in B-cell death. TG-1101 is a third generation, type I chimeric IgG1 monoclonal antibody with a glycoengineered Fc region designed specifically to induce higher ADCC activity in comparison to rituximab, which has been demonstrated in pre-clinical models.
Clinical Data Overview and Recent Developments
Single Agent TG-1101 in Relapsed/Refractory NHL & CLL
Our first US based trial entitled "An Open Label Phase I/II Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of TG-1101 in Patients with B-cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma who have Relapsed or are Refractory After CD20 Directed Antibody Therapy," was launched in the third quarter of 2012. In July 2014, this trial completed enrollment at 35 patients, of which 12 patients were included in the dose escalation component and 23 patients in various expansion cohorts. All enrolled patients were relapsed or refractory to Rituxan® or a Rituxan® containing regimen, and in most cases multiple other lines of therapy. Dr. Owen O'Connor, Professor of Medicine and Director, Center for Lymphoid Malignancies at New York Presbyterian Columbia Medical Center was the Principal Investigator for the multi-center study.
Data from this study was published in full in the British Journal of Haematology in February 2017:
TG-1101 in Combination with TGR-1202 with/without ibrutinib or bendamustine for Relapsed/Refractory NHL & CLL
In November 2013, we initiated a multi-center, Phase I study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of TG-1101 and TGR-1202, the Company's novel, once per day, PI3K delta inhibitor, for patients with relapsed and/or refractory CLL and NHL. Additional cohorts were added to this study to explore the triple therapy combination of TG-1101, TGR-1202, and ibrutinib and the triple therapy of TG-1101, TGR-1202 and bendamustine.
The MD Anderson Cancer Center is the lead center for the trial with Nathan Fowler, MD, Assistant Professor and Co-Director of Clinical Research in the Department of Lymphoma, as the Study Chair for the NHL patient group and Susan O’Brien, MD, Professor and Medical Director for Cancer Clinical Trials and Research at UC Irvine as the Study Chair for the CLL patient group. The data from this study supports the current Phase 3 UNITY-CLL study of U2 in CLL and the registration-directed UNITY-NHL Phase 2b clinical study of U2 + bendamustine in DLBCL.
Updated data from this study was most recently presented at the 22nd European Hematology Association (EHA) Annual Congress in Madrid, Spain in June 2017.
Both triplet combinations demonstrated acceptable levels of tolerability with promising activity. Enrollment in both cohorts is now closed and patients continued to be followed for safety and efficacy.
TG-1101 in Combination with Ibrutinib for Relapsed/Refractory MCL & CLL
In December 2013, we initiated a multi-center Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of TG-1101 and ibrutinib for patients with CLL and MCL. Jeff Sharman, MD, Medical Director for Hematology Research, US Oncology Network, was the Study Chair. This trial has completed enrollment.
Final data from the MCL cohort of this study was presented at the 57th Annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting held in December 2015, with data from the CLL cohort published in full in the British Journal of Haematology in December 2016.
Overall, in both CLL and MCL, aside from day 1 Infusion related reactions (IRR), the addition of TG-1101 did not appear to alter the safety profile seen historically with single agent ibrutinib. Of the 60 patients treated, 41 CLL and 15 MCL patients were evaluable for response. The combination displayed marked clinical activity, reporting an 88% (35/41) response rate in patients with CLL, a 95% (19/21) response rate in those CLL patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and an 87% (13/15) response rate in patients with MCL. The data from the CLL cohort of this study supported the Phase 3 GENUINE study of the combination in CLL patients with high-risk cytogenetics.
TG-1101 + Ibrutinib Phase 3 Study Program - The GENUINE Trial
The GENUINE trial is a randomized controlled clinical trial in patients with previously treated CLL with specific high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, with patients randomized to receive either TG-1101 plus ibrutinib or ibrutinib alone. In October 2016, we announced revisions to the design of the GENUINE study to accelerate its completion. Initially the study was being conducted pursuant to a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and was designed to enroll approximately 330 patients, with a two-part analysis of both overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The trial was amended in October 2016 to enroll approximately 120 patients, with the PFS analysis component removed. Following the revisions, the sole primary endpoint of the study is ORR, and the SPA is no longer in effect.
In June 2017, the positive results from our Phase 3 GENUINE trial were presented by Dr. Jeff Sharman, Medical Director, Hematology Research, US Oncology in an oral session during the 53rd American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL.
This presentation included data from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial, a multicenter, randomized trial, which assessed the efficacy and safety of TG-1101 plus ibrutinib versus ibrutinib alone in patients with high risk CLL. For the trial, high-risk was defined as having any one or more of the following centrally confirmed features: 17p deletion, 11q deletion or p53 mutation. The GENUINE study was designed to demonstrate the value of adding TG-1101 to ibrutinib monotherapy in high-risk CLL, and was powered to show a statistically significant improvement in ORR of 30%, with a minimal absolute detectable difference between the two arms of approximately 20%.
The trial met its primary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in Overall Response Rate (ORR), as assessed by blinded independent central radiology and hematology review by iwCLL (Hallek 2008) criteria, compared to ibrutinib alone in both the Intent to Treat (ITT) population (p=0.001) and Treated population (p < 0.001). Per iwCLL guidelines, all responders required confirmation of response for a minimum duration of 2 months. The ITT population included all 126 randomized patients (64 in the TG-1101 plus ibrutinib arm and 62 in the ibrutinib alone arm) while the Treated population includes all ITT patients that received at least one dose of either study drug (59 in the TG-1101 plus ibrutinib arm and 58 in the ibrutinib alone arm).
One hundred and seventeen (117) patients were evaluable for safety (59 patients in the TG-1101 plus ibrutinib arm, and 58 patients in the ibrutinib alone arm). The combination was well tolerated and, apart from infusion related reactions, the addition of TG-1101 did not appear to alter the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy. Neutropenia, occurring in 9% of patients, was the most commonly reported Grade 3/4 Adverse Event (AE) in the combination arm, followed by infusion related reactions and anemia, each reported in 5% of patients. Notably, the majority of infusion related reactions (IRR) were Grade 1 or 2 in severity, with only 5% Grade 3/4 IRR observed. Median follow-up for this study was approximately 11.4 months.
Response Rates
TG-1101 plus Ibrutinib
Ibrutinib
P-value
Treated Population (n)
n=59
n=58
Overall Response Rate (ORR)
78%
45%
P<0.001
Complete Response (CR)
7%
0%
NS
MRD-Negative
19%
(n=53) *
2%
(n=53) *
P<0.01
*Patients evaluable for MRD included those enrolled >4 months prior to data cutoff date of February 15, 2017. MRD analyzed by central lab, 7-color flow cytometry
In October 2017, we announced the outcome of a meeting with the FDA regarding the use of the results from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial to support a Biologics License Application (BLA) filing for approval of TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib. During the meeting, the FDA confirmed that accelerated approval based on ORR would be a review issue. As part of the discussion, the FDA encouraged us to consider future available therapy in its risk/benefit analysis as part of any potential future BLA filing that may impact accelerated approval.
We continue to follow patients in the GENUINE study for safety and efficacy including Overall Response, MRD and Progression Free Survival (PFS). We are currently working on preparing a Biologics License Application for a potential accelerated approval filing for TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib in previously treated CLL patients with high-risk cytogenetics, which filing could occur in 2018.
TG-1101 in Combination with TGR-1202 Phase 3 Study Program - The UNITY-CLL Trial
In September 2015, we reached an agreement with the FDA regarding an SPA on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis approach of a Phase 3 clinical trial for the proprietary combination of TG-1101 plus TGR-1202, for the treatment of CLL. The SPA provides agreement that the Phase 3 trial design adequately addresses objectives that, if met, would support the regulatory submission for drug approval of both TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in combination.
The Phase 3 trial, called the UNITY-CLL trial, is a randomized controlled clinical trial that includes two key objectives: first, to demonstrate contribution of each agent in the TG-1101 + TGR-1202 regimen (the combination sometimes referred to as "U2"), and second, to demonstrate superiority in Progression Free Survival (PFS) over the standard of care to support the submission for full approval of the combination. The study will randomize patients into four treatment arms: TG-1101 + TGR-1202, TG-1101 alone, TGR-1202 alone, and an active control arm of obinutuzumab (GAZYVA®) + chlorambucil. An early interim analysis will assess contribution of each single agent in the TG-1101 + TGR-1202 combination regimen, which, if successful, will allow early termination of both single agent arms. A second interim analysis will be conducted following full enrollment into the study, which, if positive, we plan to utilize for accelerated approval.
In May 2017, we announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) of the UNITY-CLL Phase 3 trial had successfully completed a pre-specified interim analysis to assess the contribution of TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in the combination regimen of TG-1101 plus TGR-1202. In conducting the analysis, the DSMB reviewed efficacy data from approximately 50 patients per arm in the UNITY-CLL study who were eligible for at least one response evaluation. Based on the overall response rate data available, and in accordance with the statistical analysis plan in the study's SPA, the DSMB determined that contribution has been established and recommended we cease enrollment into the single agent arms. Accordingly, in May the study began enrolling in a 1:1 ratio to only the two combination arms: the investigational arm of TG-1101 plus TGR-1202 and the control arm of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil. Additionally, the DSMB reviewed safety data from all patients on study (n > 270) as of the data cut-off date, including patients with both treatment naive and relapsed/refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), and again identified no safety concerns in any treatment group (treatment naive or previously treated) and recommended the continuation of the study without modification.
In September 2017, we announced that target enrollment in the UNITY-CLL trial was met and that we were extending enrollment until October 12, 2017 for any additional identified study patients to be allowed in the trial. We expect top-line ORR data from this study to be reported in 2018.
TG-1101 in Combination with TGR-1202 with or without bendamustine Phase 2b Registration-Directed Program - The UNITY-NHL Trial
In June 2016, we commenced a registration-directed UNITY-DLBCL Phase 2b clinical study evaluating TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202, as well as TGR-1202 alone, in patients with previously treated DLBCL. In mid-2017, this study was expanded to allow enrollment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), as well as to add a cohort evaluating the triplet regimen of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 + bendamustine which has previously been explored in Phase 1. The cohorts of DLBCL, FL/SLL, and MZL are each being enrolled to and evaluated independently.
The updated study, called UNITY-NHL, is entitled "A Phase 2b Randomized Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Ublituximab + TGR-1202 with or without bendamustine and TGR-1202 alone in Patients with Previously Treated Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.” The DLBCL component is being led by Owen A. O'Connor, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine and Experimental Therapeutics, and Director of the Center for Lymphoid Malignancies at Columbia University Medical Center, while the indolent NHL component of the study is being led by Nathan H. Fowler, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The primary objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of TGR-1202 alone, in combination with TG-1101, or in combination with TG-1101 and bendamustine in patients with previously treated NHL as measured by Overall Response Rate (ORR). The study will also provide important information as to the contribution of each agent, TGR-1202 and TG-1101, to the combination regimen of both agents, as well as the contribution of bendamustine to the combination regimen of both agents.
In August 2017, we announced that the study’s Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) had met and, based on pre-set hurdles designed to evaluate ORR, the DSMB recommended continued enrollment in the TGR-1202 + TG-1101 ("U2") arm and no further enrollment into the single agent TGR-1202 arm for the DLBCL cohort. As set forth in the protocol, the single agent TGR-1202 arm was replaced with the triple combination of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 + bendamustine.
Single Agent TG-1101 in Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis
In May 2016, we commenced our first study of TG-1101 in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a chronic demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS).
The study, entitled "A Placebo-Controlled Multi-Center Phase 2 Dose Finding Study of Ublituximab, a Third-Generation Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients with Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis," is being led by Edward Fox, MD, PhD, Director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic of Central Texas and Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Round Rock, TX. The primary objective of the study is to determine the optimal dosing regimen for TG-1101 with a focus on accelerating infusion times. In addition to monitoring for safety and tolerability at each dosing cohort, B-cell depletion and established MS efficacy endpoints will also be evaluated.
Data from this study was most recently presented at the Third Annual ACTRIMS Forum 2018 meeting in San Diego, CA, with additional data presentations expected at upcoming medical conferences.
TG-1101 in relapsing forms of Multiple Sclerosis Phase 3 Study Program - The ULITIMATE I and ULTIMATE II Trial
In August 2017, we reached an agreement with the FDA regarding an SPA on the design of two Phase 3 clinical trials for TG-1101, for the treatment of relapsing forms of Multiple Sclerosis (RMS). The SPA provides agreement that the two Phase 3 trial designs adequately address objectives that, if met, would support the regulatory submission for approval of TG-1101.
The RMS Phase 3 program consists of two trials, called the ULTIMATE I and ULTIMATE II trials. Each trial is a global, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled study comparing TG-1101 (ublituximab) to teriflunomide in subjects with RMS. The primary endpoint for each study is Annualized Relapse Rate (ARR) following 96 weeks of treatment. Each trial is ongoing and will enroll approximately 440 subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio, with approximately 880 patients to be enrolled across both trials.
Updates for the combination of TG-1101 and TGR-1202
In January 2017, we announced that the FDA has granted orphan drug designation covering the combination of TG-1101 and TGR-1202 for the treatment of patients with CLL and DLBCL.
TGR-1202
Overview
The phosphoinositide-3-kinases (“PI3Ks”) are a family of enzymes involved in various cellular functions, including cell proliferation and survival, cell differentiation, intracellular trafficking, and immunity. There are four isoforms of PI3K (alpha, beta, delta, and gamma), of which the delta (d) isoform is strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin, and often implicated in B-cell related lymphomas.
TGR-1202 is an orally available PI3K delta inhibitor with nanomolar potency to the delta isoform and high selectivity over the alpha, beta, and gamma isoforms. TGR-1202 has demonstrated activity in several pre-clinical models and primary cells from patients with various hematologic malignancies.
We hold exclusive rights to develop and commercialize TGR-1202 for all indications worldwide, except India which has been retained by Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, SA.
The Company’s Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for TGR-1202 was accepted by the FDA in December 2012 and a first in-human Phase I clinical trial was initiated in January 2013.
Updates for TGR-1202
In August 2016, we announced that TGR-1202 had received orphan drug designation for the treatment of CLL.
In October 2016, a manuscript titled, "Silencing c-Myc Translation as a Therapeutic Strategy through Targeting PI3K Delta and CK1 Epsilon in Hematological Malignancies," was published online in the First Edition section of Blood, the Journal of the American Society of Hematology. The publication presents preclinical data describing the synergy of TGR-1202 with the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib and the unique effects of the combination to silence c-Myc in various preclinical lymphoma and myeloma models. In addition, the manuscript for the first time reports on TGR-1202's unique complimentary mechanism of inhibiting the protein kinase casein kinase-1 (CK1) epsilon, which may contribute to the silencing of c-Myc and explain TGR-1202's clinical activity in aggressive lymphoma, including Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL).
In February 2018, data from the first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of TGR-1202 was published online in The Lancet Oncology. The manuscript was titled, “Umbralisib, a novel PI3K and casein kinase-1 epsilon inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and lymphoma: an open-label, phase 1, dose-escalation, first-in-human study,” The paper includes safety and efficacy information from 90 patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, including patients with CLL and various forms of lymphoma treated with single agent TGR-1202. In this study, the data showed that TGR-1202 was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile distinct from prior generation PI3K delta inhibitors.
Clinical Data Overview and Recent Developments
Initial clinical development of TGR-1202 was focused on establishing preliminary safety and efficacy in a wide variety of hematologic malignancies. Upon identification of safe and active doses of TGR-1202, additional clinical trial programs were opened, exploring TGR-1202 as a single agent and in combination with a variety of agents. In addition to the previously described studies in combination with TG-1101, our current priority clinical trials that are ongoing for TGR-1202 include:
●
TGR-1202 as a single agent in CLL patients who are intolerant to prior BTK inhibitor or PI3K delta inhibitor therapy;
●
TGR-1202 in combination with the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, in patients with previously treated CLL and MCL; and
●
TGR-1202 in combination with the JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib (JAKAFI®), in patients with previously treated Myelofibrosis or Polycythemia Vera.
Single Agent TGR-1202 in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Hematologic Malignancies
In January 2013, the Company initiated a Phase I, open label, multi-center, first-in-human clinical trial of TGR-1202 in patients with hematologic malignancies. The study entitled TGR-1202-101, "A Phase I Dose Escalation Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of TGR-1202 in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic Malignancies," is being run in collaboration with the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, TN with Howard “Skip” Burris, MD, Executive Director, Drug Development as the acting Study Chair. Enrollment is open to patients with relapsed or refractory NHL, CLL, and other select hematologic malignancies. As of February 2016, this study has closed to enrollment.
Data from this ongoing Phase I study was published in full in The Lancet Oncology in February 2018.
TGR-1202 Long-term Follow-up Integrated Analysis in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Hematologic Malignancies
In December 2017, at the 59th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting, the Company presented integrated data with long term follow-up from 347 patients exposed to TGR-1202 across 5 studies, which continued to demonstrate high response rates in CLL, and FL coupled with a favorable safety profile distinct from other PI3K delta inhibitors.
TGR-1202 TKI Intolerance Study
In December 2017, at the 59th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting, the Company presented data from 33 patients with CLL who were intolerant to prior BTK or PI3K delta inhibitor therapy who were then treated with single agent TGR-1202. TGR-1202 appeared to demonstrate a favorable safety profile in patients intolerant to prior ibrutinib (BTK) or idelalisib (PI3K) with only 2 patients (6%) discontinuing due to an adverse event, neither of which was a recurrent adverse event from their prior BTK or PI3K therapy. Enrollment continues in this Phase 2 study.
TGR-1202 Combination Trials
TGR-1202 is being evaluated in combination with the anti-CD30 antibody drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma; in combination with the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, in patients with CLL and MCL; and in combination with the JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib, in patients with Myelofibrosis or Polycythemia Vera. Additional investigator sponsored trials are also underway which are combining TGR-1202 with other approved agents for the treatment of B-cell malignancies.
It is anticipated that results from these studies will be presented or updated at future medical conferences.
TGR-1202 in Solid Tumors
In addition to the exploration of TGR-1202 in various hematologic malignancies, a study was opened in October 2015 to evaluate TGR-1202 as a single agent as well as in combination with various chemotherapies for the treatment of select solid tumors. The study, entitled TGR-1202-102, “A Phase I Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of TGR-1202 Alone and in Combination with either nab-paclitaxel + Gemcitabine or with FOLFOX in Patients with Select Relapsed or Refractory Solid Tumors” is being run in collaboration with the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, TN with Johanna Bendell, MD, Director of GI Oncology Research as the acting study chair. The study is currently closed to enrollment with patients continuing to be followed for safety and efficacy.
Market Opportunity for TG-1101 & TGR-1202
Our lead products under development, TG-1101 and TGR-1202 are for the treatment of B-cell hematologic malignancies. Hematologic malignancies include cancers derived from the bone marrow and lymph tissue. The non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) represent a heterogeneous subset of these malignancies. Underneath the single rubric of lymphoma exist some of the most aggressive growing cancers (Burkitt’s lymphoma, lymphoblastic lymphoma, diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma), as well as some of the most indolent (small lymphocytic lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma). In the United States, NHL represents 4-5% of all new cancer cases, and is the eighth leading cause of cancer death. According to the American Cancer Society, it is estimated in 2018 that there will be 74,680 new cases in the United States, and 19,910 deaths from NHL, despite improvements in treatment. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) affects mainly older adults and accounts for approximately one quarter of all diagnosed cases of leukemia, of which there are estimated to be about 60,300 new cases and about 24,370 deaths (all kinds of leukemia) according to American Cancer Society estimates. Despite improvements in therapy, up to one third of patients with aggressive NHL continue to die from their disease, and indolent lymphomas remain incurable in the absence of allogeneic stem cell transplant. The treatment paradigm for hematologic malignancies is well standardized in front line settings, with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, administered generally in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. While front line therapies are generally efficacious, there are numerous downsides, including a high rate of toxicity associated with exposure to chemotherapeutic agents. While initially responsive, most patients with hematologic malignancies will eventually relapse and require second, third, and sometimes more lines of therapy. As a result, there is a pressing need for new, innovative, targeted therapies for the treatment of this heterogeneous group of diseases.
Anti-CD20 antibodies have been approved and studied in a variety of diseases falling into several therapeutic areas including oncology, autoimmune disorders, and neurologic disease. NHL and CLL are the most common B-cell proliferative diseases for which rituximab, the first anti-CD20 antibody approved by the FDA, is the current gold standard treatment. While the addition of rituximab to chemotherapeutic treatment of NHL has dramatically improved patient outcomes, many patients will relapse or become refractory to rituximab containing regimens.
Rituximab resistance is becoming an increasing concern for clinicians as relapsing patients are exposed to multiple lines of rituximab containing regimens to treat recurrence of disease. It is estimated that over half of patients initially responsive to their first exposure to rituximab do not respond upon retreatment (Davis et al, 2000).
We believe these factors contribute to an immediate and sustained need for an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that is differentiated and potentially therapeutically superior to the gold standard rituximab in order to extend and enhance CD20 therapy as it stands today.
In addition to anti-CD20 therapy, novel targeted agents are now being introduced which target specific signaling pathways and enzymes known to exhibit aberrant activity and overexpression in B-cell malignancies such as Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK), and Phosphoinositide-3-Kinase delta (PI3K delta). The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous pharmaceutical agents, both approved and in development, however only recently has the delta isoform of PI3K been identified as a potential target for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and other B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders. Idelalisib (ZYDELIG®), a PI3K delta specific inhibitor from Gilead Pharmaceuticals, was approved by the FDA in 2014 for patients with CLL and indolent NHL, and copanlisib (ALIQOPA™) was approved by the FDA in 2017 for patients with advanced follicular lymphoma.. Other agents targeting kinases downstream of the B-cell receptor, such as the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, have displayed high rates of response in patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell malignancies and have been recently approved for indications in lymphoma. While these agents have demonstrated high levels of single agent activity in B-cell disorders, their clinical activity has been shown to be greatly enhanced when utilized in combination with anti-CD20 agents.
As novel targeted agents gain FDA approval for the treatment of relapsed and refractory disease, it is anticipated that the size of this market will expand greatly as branded drugs enter use in multiple lines of therapy. Given the nature of the disease state for patients with hematologic malignancies, characterized by indolent disease progression and chronic relapses, the Company anticipates a great and growing need for novel agents that can be used alone or in combination with approved agents, and those currently under development to enhance the quality of life and extend the length of survival for patients suffering from hematologic malignancies.
IRAK4
Interleukin-1 Receptor Associated Kinase 4, referred to as IRAK4, is a key signaling kinase that becomes inappropriately activated in tumors that carry certain oncogenic mutations of MYD88, which can be found in most patients with Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia, a rare B-cell cancer, as well as in a sub-set of patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Additionally, IRAK4 is a key component of signaling pathways which regulate immune and inflammatory processes suggesting that inhibition of IRAK4 may also be useful in the treatment of autoimmune related disorders. We hold global rights to develop and commercialize the IRAK4 program, which was licensed from Ligand Pharmaceuticals. Our IRAK4 program is currently in pre-clinical development. In April 2015, we presented pre-clinical data on the IRAK4 compounds at the 2015 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting held in Philadelphia, PA.
PD-L1 and GITR
In March 2015, we entered into a global collaboration agreement for the development and commercialization of anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR antibody research programs in the field of hematological malignancies. Our anti-PD-L1 recently entered the clinic and our anti-GITR program is currently in pre-clinical development, with pre-clinical data most recently presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting in March 2017.
In October 2017, we announced that the first patient has been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of our anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, enrolling patients across sites in Australia and New Zealand.
BET
In May 2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant Biosys (“Jubilant”), an India-based biotechnology company, we entered into a sub-license agreement (“JBET Agreement”) with Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”), a subsidiary of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“FBIO”), for the development and commercialization of Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program in the field of hematological malignancies. The BET inhibitor program is the subject of a family of patents covering compounds that inhibit BRD4, a member of the BET (Bromodomain and Extra Terminal) domain for cancer treatment. Our BET inhibitor program is currently in pre-clinical development. Our Executive Chairman and CEO, is also Executive Vice Chairman of FBIO.
BTK
In January 2018, we entered into a global exclusive license agreement with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., or Jiangsu (“BTK Agreement”), pursuant to which we obtained worldwide rights, excluding Asia but including Japan, for the development of Hengrui's Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor program, including lead candidate TG-1701 (known in China as SHR-1459), as monotherapy and in combination with TG-1101 and TGR-1202. In addition to TG-1701, the global license agreement covers TG-1702 (SHR-1266), another BTK inhibitor in pre-clinical development. Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an essential component of the B-cell receptor signaling pathways that regulate the survival, activation, proliferation, and differentiation of B lymphocytes. Targeting BTK with small molecule inhibitors has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment option for B-cell lymphomas and autoimmune diseases.
COSTS AND TIME TO COMPLETE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
The information below provides estimates regarding the costs associated with the completion of the current development phase and our current estimated range of the time that will be necessary to complete that development phase for our key pipeline products. We also direct your attention to the risk factors which could significantly affect our ability to meet these cost and time estimates found in this report in Item 1A
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.
You should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties. If any of the following occurs, our business, financial condition or operating results could be materially harmed. An investment in our securities is speculative in nature, involves a high degree of risk, and should not be made by an investor who cannot bear the economic risk of its investment for an indefinite period of time and who cannot afford the loss of its entire investment. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and the other information contained elsewhere in this Annual Report before making an investment in our securities.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Because we have in-licensed our product candidates from third parties, any dispute with or non-performance by our licensors will adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidates.
Because we license our foundational intellectual property from third parties and we expect to continue to in-license additional intellectual property rights, if there is any dispute between us and our licensor regarding our rights under a license agreement, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected. Disputes may arise with the third parties from whom we license our intellectual property rights from for a variety of reasons, including:
●
the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
●
the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
●
the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships and obligations associated with sublicensing;
●
our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
●
the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and
●
the priority of invention of patented technology.
In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations, or may conflict in such a way that puts us in breach of one or more agreements, which would make us susceptible to lengthy and expensive disputes with one or more of our licensing partners. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.
We do not have full internal development capabilities, and are thus reliant upon our partners and third parties to generate clinical, preclinical and quality data necessary to support the regulatory applications needed to conduct clinical trials and file for marketing approval.
In order to submit and maintain an IND, Biologics License Application (“BLA”), or New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the FDA, it is necessary to submit all information on the clinical, non-clinical, chemistry, manufacturing, controls and quality aspects of the product candidate. We rely on our third party contractors and our licensing partners to provide a significant portion of this data. If we are unable to obtain this data, or the data is not sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements, we may experience significant delays in our development programs. Additionally, an IND must be active in each division in which we intend to conduct clinical trials. Currently we do not have an active IND for any of the IRAK4, BTK, or BET inhibitors, nor for our anti-GITR antibody. Additionally, there can be no assurance given that any of the molecules under development in our IRAK4, BTK, or BET inhibitor program or in our anti-GITR antibody research program will demonstrate sufficient pharmacologic properties during pre-clinical evaluation to advance to IND enabling studies, or that such IND enabling studies, if any are conducted, will provide data sufficient to support the filing of an IND, or that such IND, if filed, would be accepted by any FDA division under which we would seek to develop any product candidate. While we maintain an active IND for TG-1101 and TGR-1202 enabling the conduct of studies in the FDA’s Division of Hematology and Oncology, and an active IND for TG-1101 under the FDA’s Division of Neurology, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining an active IND for these drugs in any other division under whose supervision we may seek to develop our product candidates, or that the FDA will allow us to continue the development of our product candidates in those divisions where we maintain an active IND.
We are highly dependent on the success of our product candidates and cannot give any assurance that these or any future product candidates will be successfully commercialized.
We are a development-stage biopharmaceutical company, and do not currently have any commercial products that generate revenues or any other sources of revenue. We may never be able to successfully develop marketable products. Our pharmaceutical development methods are unproven and may not lead to commercially viable products for any of several reasons.
If we are unable to develop, or receive regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we will not be able to generate product revenues. Even if we are able to develop or receive regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we may not be able to gain market acceptance for our product candidates and future products and may never become profitable.
Because the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive regulatory approval.
Pharmaceutical development has inherent risk. We will be required to demonstrate through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are effective with a favorable benefit-risk profile for use in diverse populations for their target indications before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that later clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical testing. Companies frequently suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after earlier clinical trials have shown promising results. In addition, there is typically an extremely high rate of failure of pharmaceutical candidates proceeding through clinical trials.
We plan on conducting additional Phase I, II and III clinical trials for TG-1101 and TGR-1202. Early clinical results seen with TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in a small number of patients may not be reproduced in expanded or larger clinical trials. Additionally, individually reported outcomes of patients treated in clinical trials may not be representative of the entire population of treated patients in such studies. Further, larger scale Phase III studies, which are often conducted internationally, are inherently subject to increased operational risks compared to earlier stage studies, including the risk that the results could vary on a region to region, or country to country basis which could materially adversely affect the study’s outcome or the opinion of the validity of the study results by applicable regulatory agencies. Early clinical trial results from interim analysis or from the review of a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) or similar safety committee may not be reflective of the results of the entire study, when completed. Additionally, many of the results reported in our early clinical trials rely on local investigator assessed safety and efficacy outcomes which may differ from results assessed in a blinded, independent, centrally reviewed manner, often required of adequate and well controlled registration directed clinical trials which may be undertaken at a later date. If the results from expansion cohorts or later trials are different from those found in the earlier studies of TG-1101 and TGR-1202, we may need to terminate or revise our clinical development plan, which could extend the time for conducting our development program and could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our IRAK4, BTK, BET, and anti-GITR programs are all in pre-clinical development and no assurance can be given that they will advance into clinical development. If the results from additional pre-clinical studies or early clinical trials differ from those found in earlier studies, our clinical development plans and timelines for this program could be adversely affected which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Many drugs fail in the early stages of clinical development for safety and tolerability issues, accordingly if our pre-clinical assets advance into clinical development, no assurance can be made that a safe and efficacious dose can be found.
If we are unable to successfully complete our clinical trial programs, or if such clinical trials take longer to complete than we project, our ability to execute our current business strategy will be adversely affected.
Whether or not and how quickly we complete clinical trials is dependent in part upon the rate at which we are able to engage clinical trial sites and, thereafter, the rate of enrollment of patients, and the rate we collect, clean, lock and analyze the clinical trial database. Patient enrollment is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the study, the existence of competitive clinical trials, and whether existing or new drugs are approved for the indication we are studying. We are aware that other companies are currently conducting or planning clinical trials that seek to enroll patients with the same diseases that we are studying. Certain clinical trials are designed to continue until a pre-determined number of events have occurred in the patients enrolled. Trials such as this are subject to delays stemming from patient withdrawal and from lower than expected event rates. They may also incur additional costs if enrollment is increased in order to achieve the desired number of events. If we experience delays in identifying and contracting with sites and/or in patient enrollment in our clinical trial programs, we may incur additional costs and delays in our development programs, and may not be able to complete our clinical trials in a cost-effective or timely manner. In addition, conducting multi-national studies adds another level of complexity and risk. We are subject to events affecting countries outside the U.S. Negative or inconclusive results from the clinical trials we conduct or unanticipated adverse medical events could cause us to have to repeat or terminate the clinical trials.
In September 2015 we announced a Phase 3 clinical trial for the combination of TG-1101 + TGR-1202 for patients with CLL, which is being conducted pursuant to an SPA with the FDA and in August 2017 we announced an SPA for our registration program for TG-1101 in relapsing forms of MS. Many companies which have been granted SPAs and/or the right to utilize the FDA’s Fast Track or accelerated approval process have ultimately failed to obtain final approval to market their drugs. Since we are seeking approvals under SPAs for some of our product registration strategies, based on protocol designs negotiated with the FDA, we may be subject to enhanced scrutiny. Further, any changes or amendments to a protocol that is being conducted under SPA will have to be reviewed and approved by the FDA to verify that the SPA agreement is still valid. Even if the primary endpoint in a Phase 3 clinical trial is achieved, a SPA does not guarantee approval. The FDA may raise issues of safety, study conduct, bias, deviation from the protocol, statistical power, patient completion rates, changes in scientific or medical parameters or internal inconsistencies in the data prior to making its final decision. The FDA may also seek the guidance of an outside advisory committee prior to making its final decision.
The sufficiency of our GENUINE trial results for approval are subject to FDA’s discretion.
Obtaining accelerated approval for an agent requires demonstration of meaningful benefit over available therapies. While we believe we have an understanding of what is considered available therapy today, ultimately the determination of what constitutes available therapy is wholly up to the FDA and is subject to change. In October 2017, we announced the outcome of a meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the use of the results from the GENUINE Phase 3 trial to support a Biologics License Application (BLA) filing for accelerated approval of TG-1101 in combination with ibrutinib. As part of the discussion, the FDA also guided that if one or more agents obtained full approval before we could obtain accelerated approval, those agents could be considered available therapy, and we would need to show meaningful benefit over those agents as well. No assurance can be given that other agents will not receive full approval prior to our potential receipt of accelerated approval. If that were to occur, no assurance can be given that we would be successful in proving meaningful benefit over those later approved drugs. If we were unable to prove meaningful benefit over any such agents, we would be effectively blocked from receiving accelerated approval.
While we wait to see if any drugs receive full approval and can evaluate the data associated with any such agents, we are continuing to make preparations for a BLA filing for accelerated approval. Whether or not we ultimately file such application will be subject to multiple factors and no assurance can be given that a filing will be made. If a filing is made, the FDA acceptance of such a filing will depend on the FDA’s views on the adequacy of the filing, and further even if the filing is accepted, approval of such a filing is a question wholly within the FDA’s discretion to determine. In addition, if we were to receive accelerated approval, we would be required to conduct a post-market confirmatory study, which we may not complete, or if completed, may prove unsuccessful. In such instance, the FDA can remove the product from the market.
The GENUINE study in its final form was not powered for progression-free survival (PFS). There can be no assurance given that we will reach agreement with the FDA on an acceptable use of PFS data from GENUINE to support approval of TG-1101, or even if an agreement is reached, that the PFS results of TG-1101 will be positive and/or sufficient to support a regulatory approval of TG-1101.
Any product candidates we may advance through clinical development are subject to extensive regulation, which can be costly and time consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the required approvals or “fast track” or “priority review” status to commercialize our product candidates.
The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates or any future product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and by comparable health authorities worldwide or in foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to market our product candidates until we receive approval of a BLA or NDA from the FDA. The process of obtaining BLA and NDA approval is expensive, often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products involved. Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA has substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Even with “fast track” or “priority review” status which we intend to seek for our product candidates, where possible, including with regard to TG-1101, such designations do not necessarily mean a faster development process or regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may require post-approval clinical trials or studies which also may be costly. The FDA approval for a limited indication or approval with required warning language, such as a boxed warning, could significantly impact our ability to successfully market our product candidates. Finally, the FDA may require adoption of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) requiring prescriber training, post-market registries, or otherwise restricting the marketing and dissemination of these products. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. Assuming successful clinical development, we intend to seek product approvals in countries outside the United States. As a result, we would be subject to regulation by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), as well as the other regulatory agencies in many of these countries, and other regulatory agencies around the world.
Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. As in the United States, the regulatory approval process in Europe and in other countries is a lengthy and challenging process. The FDA, and any other regulatory body around the world can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:
●
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
●
we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for any indication;
●
the FDA may not accept clinical data from trials which are conducted by individual investigators or in countries where the standard of care is potentially different from the United States;
●
the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;
●
we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate's clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;
●
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;
●
the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of a BLA, NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;
●
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we or our collaborators contract for clinical and commercial supplies; or
●
the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
In addition, recent events raising questions about the safety of certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Regulatory approvals for our product candidates may not be obtained without lengthy delays, if at all. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.
Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may cause unacceptable adverse events or have other properties that may delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or limit their commercial potential.
Unacceptable adverse events caused by any of our product candidates that we take into clinical trials could cause either us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, modify or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications. This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing the affected product candidate and generating revenues from its sale.
We have not completed testing of any of our product candidates for the treatment of the indications for which we intend to seek product approval in humans, and we currently do not know the extent that adverse events, if any, will be observed in patients who receive any of our product candidates. To date, clinical trials using TG-1101 and TGR-1202 have demonstrated a toxicity profile that was deemed acceptable by the investigators performing such studies. Such interpretation may not be shared by future investigators or by the FDA and in the case of TG-1101 and TGR-1202, even if deemed acceptable for oncology applications, it may not be acceptable for diseases outside the oncology setting, and likewise for any other product candidates we may develop. Additionally, the severity, duration and incidence of adverse events may increase in larger study populations. With respect to both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, the toxicity when manufactured under different conditions and in different formulations is not known, and it is possible that additional and/or different adverse events may appear upon the human use of those formulations and those adverse events may arise with greater frequency, intensity and duration than in the current formulation. Should the Company not be able to adequately demonstrate analytical comparability between drug product manufactured under different conditions, the introduction of such new drug product into ongoing trials also has the potential to confound the interpretation of the results or complicate the statistical analysis of such trial. Further, with respect to TGR-1202, although approximately one thousand patients have been dosed amongst all ongoing TGR-1202 studies, the full adverse effect profile of TGR-1202 is not known. It is also unknown as additional patients are exposed for longer durations to TGR-1202, whether greater frequency and/or severity of adverse events are likely to occur. Common toxicities of other drugs in the same class as TGR-1202 include high levels of liver toxicity, infections and colitis, the latter of which notably has presented with later onset, with incidence increasing with duration of exposure. To date, the incidence of these events has been limited for TGR-1202, however no assurance can be given that this safety and tolerability profile will continue to be demonstrated in the future as higher doses, longer durations of exposure, and multiple drug combinations are explored. If any of our product candidates cause unacceptable adverse events in clinical trials, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval and generate revenues from its sale, or even if approved for sale may lack differentiation from competitive products, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and operations.
Additionally, in combination clinical development, there is an inherent risk of drug-drug interactions between combination agents which may affect each component’s individual pharmacologic properties and the overall efficacy and safety of the combination regimen. Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202 are being evaluated in combination together, as well as with a variety of other active anti-cancer agents, which may cause unforeseen toxicity, or impact the severity, duration, and incidence of adverse events observed compared to those seen in the single agent studies of these agents. Further, with multi-drug combinations, it is often difficult to interpret or properly assign attribution of an adverse event to any one particular agent, introducing the risk that toxicity caused by a component of a combination regimen could have a material adverse impact on the development of our product candidates. There can be no assurances given that the combination regimens being studied will display tolerability or efficacy suitable to warrant further testing or produce data that is sufficient to obtain marketing approval.
If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later identify unacceptable adverse events caused by the product, a number of significant negative consequences could result, including:
●
regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the affected product;
●
regulatory authorities may require a more significant clinical benefit for approval to offset the risk;
●
regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements that could diminish the usage of the product or otherwise limit the commercial success of the affected product;
●
we may be required to change the way the product is administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the product;
●
we may choose to discontinue sale of the product;
●
we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients;
●
we may not be able to enter into collaboration agreements on acceptable terms and execute on our business model; and
●
our reputation may suffer.
Any one or a combination of these events could prevent us from obtaining or maintaining regulatory approval and achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the affected product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating any revenues from the sale of the affected product.
We may experience delays in the commencement of our clinical trials or in the receipt of data from preclinical and clinical trials conducted by third parties, which could result in increased costs and delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval.
Delays in the commencement of clinical trials and delays in the receipt of data from preclinical or clinical trials conducted by third parties could significantly impact our product development costs. Before we can initiate clinical trials in the United States for our product candidates, we need to submit the results of preclinical testing, usually in animals, to the FDA as part of an IND, along with other information including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and its proposed clinical trial protocol for our product candidates.
We plan to rely on preclinical and clinical trial data from third parties, if any, for the IND submissions for our product candidates. If receipt of that data is delayed for any reason, including reasons outside of our control, it will delay our plans for IND filings, and clinical trial plans. This, in turn, will delay our ability to make subsequent regulatory filings and ultimately, to commercialize our products if regulatory approval is obtained. If those third parties do not make this data available to us, we will likely, on our own, have to develop all the necessary preclinical and clinical data which will lead to additional delays and increase the costs of our development of our product candidates.
Before we can test any product candidate in human clinical trials the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in-vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices (“GLP”).
We must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the IND on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, we must work with the FDA to resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trials can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trial.
The FDA may require that we conduct additional preclinical testing for any product candidate before it allows us to initiate the clinical testing under any IND, which may lead to additional delays and increase the costs of our preclinical development.
Even assuming an active IND for a product candidate, we do not know whether our planned clinical trials for any such product candidate will begin on time, or at all. The commencement of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:
●
obtaining regulatory clearance to commence a clinical trial;
●
identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators;
●
reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations (“CROs”) and trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation, may be subject to modification from time to time and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
●
obtaining sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical trials;
●
obtaining institutional review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site;
●
identifying, recruiting and enrolling patients to participate in a clinical trial;
●
retaining patients who have initiated a clinical trial but may withdraw due to adverse events from the therapy, insufficient efficacy, fatigue with the clinical trial process or personal issues; and
●
unexpected safety findings.
Any delays in the commencement of our clinical trials will delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.
Delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs and delay our ability to generate product revenues.
Once a clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be slower than we anticipate. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an ethics committee or a Data Safety and Monitoring Committee overseeing the clinical trial, any of our clinical trial sites with respect to that site or the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:
●
failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols;
●
inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold;
●
unforeseen safety issues or any determination that the clinical trial presents unacceptable health risks; and
●
lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.
Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance also may occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing and successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or if we must terminate, any clinical trial of any product candidate that we advance into clinical trials, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate will be delayed and the commercial prospects, if any, for the product candidate may be harmed. In addition, many of these factors may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. Even if we ultimately commercialize any of our product candidates, other therapies for the same indications may have been introduced to the market during the period we have been delayed and such therapies may have established a competitive advantage over our product candidates.
We intend to rely on third parties to help conduct our planned clinical trials. If these third parties do not meet their deadlines or otherwise conduct the trials as required, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates when expected or at all.
We intend to use CROs to assist in the conduct of our planned clinical trials and will rely upon medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols. Our future CROs, investigators and other third parties may play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data from the clinical trials.
There is no guarantee that any CROs, investigators and other third parties will devote adequate time and resources to our clinical trials or perform as contractually required. If any third parties upon whom we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to adhere to its clinical protocols or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates.
If any of our clinical trial sites terminate for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials unless we are able to transfer the care of those patients to another qualified clinical trial site. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be jeopardized.
As all of our product candidates are still under development, manufacturing and process improvements implemented in the production of those product candidates may affect their ultimate activity or function.
Our product candidates are in the initial stages of development and are currently manufactured in small batches for use in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Process improvements implemented to date have changed, and process improvements in the future may change, the activity profile of the product candidates, which may affect the safety and efficacy of the products. No assurance can be given that the material manufactured from any of the optimized processes will perform comparably to the product candidates as manufactured to date and used in currently available pre-clinical data and or in early clinical trials reported in this or any previous filing. Additionally, future clinical trial results will be subject to the same level of uncertainty if, following such trials, additional process improvements are made. In addition, we have engaged a secondary manufacturer for TG-1101 to meet our current clinical and future commercial needs and anticipate engaging additional manufacturing sources for TGR-1202 to meet expanded clinical trial and commercial needs. While material produced from this secondary manufacturer for TG-1101 has to date demonstrated acceptable comparability to enable introduction into our clinical trials, no assurance can be given that any additional manufacturers will be successful or that material manufactured by the additional manufacturers will perform comparably to TG-1101 or TGR-1202 as manufactured to date and used in currently available pre-clinical data and or in early clinical trials reported in this or any previous filing, or that the relevant regulatory agencies will agree with our interpretation of comparability. If a secondary manufacturer is not successful in replicating the product or experiences delays, or if regulatory authorities impose unforeseen requirements with respect to product comparability from multiple manufacturing sources, we may experience delays in clinical development.
If we fail to adequately understand and comply with the local laws and customs as we expand into new international markets, these operations may incur losses or otherwise adversely affect our business and results of operations.
We expect to operate a portion of our business in certain countries through subsidiaries or through supply and marketing arrangements. In those countries, where we have limited experience in operating subsidiaries and in reviewing equity investees, we will be subject to additional risks related to complying with a wide variety of national and local laws, including restrictions on the import and export of certain intermediates, drugs, technologies and multiple and possibly overlapping tax structures. In addition, we may face competition in certain countries from companies that may have more experience with operations in such countries or with international operations generally. We may also face difficulties integrating new facilities in different countries into our existing operations, as well as integrating employees hired in different countries into our existing corporate culture. If we do not effectively manage our operations in these subsidiaries and review equity investees effectively, or if we fail to manage our alliances, we may lose money in these countries and it may adversely affect our business and results of our operations. In all interactions with foreign regulatory authorities, the Company is exposed to liability risks under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or similar anti-bribery laws.
If our competitors develop treatments for the target indications for which any of our product candidates may be approved, and they are approved more quickly, marketed more effectively or demonstrated to be more effective than our product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.
We operate in a highly competitive segment of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical market. We face competition from numerous sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. Additionally, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in cancer research, some in direct competition with us. We may also compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
The cancer indications for which we are developing our products have a number of established therapies with which we will compete. Most major pharmaceutical companies and many biotechnology companies are aggressively pursuing new cancer development programs for the treatment of NHL, CLL, and other B-cell proliferative malignancies, including both therapies with traditional, as well as novel, mechanisms of action. Additionally, numerous established therapies exist for the autoimmune disorders for which we are developing TG-1101, including and in particular, multiple sclerosis (MS).
If approved, we expect TG-1101 to compete directly with Roche Group’s Rituxan® (rituximab) and Gazyva® (obinutuzumab or GA-101), and Novartis’ Arzerra® (ofatumumab) among others, each of which is currently approved for the treatment of various diseases including NHL and CLL. In addition, a number of pharmaceutical companies are developing antibodies targeting CD20, CD19, and other B-cell associated targets, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy, and other B-cell ablative therapy which, if approved, would potentially compete with TG-1101 both in oncology settings as well as in autoimmune disorders. In 2017, the Roche Group’s anti-CD20 antibody ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of MS. Genmab and GSK’s (ofatumumab) is also under clinical development for patients with MS. New developments, including the development of other pharmaceutical technologies and methods of treating disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries at a rapid pace.
With respect to TGR-1202, there are several PI3K delta targeted compounds both approved, such as Gilead’s Zydelig® (idelalisib) and Bayer’s Aliqopa™ (copanlisib), and in development, including, but not limited to, Verastem’s duvelisib which if approved we would expect to compete directly with TGR-1202. In addition, there are numerous other novel therapies targeting similar pathways to TGR-1202 both approved and in development, which could also compete with TGR-1202 in similar indications, such as the BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib (FDA approved for MCL, CLL, Marginal Zone Lymphoma and WM and marketed by AbbVie and Janssen), the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib (FDA approved for MCL and marketed by AstraZeneca), or the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (FDA approved for CLL and marketed by AbbVie and Roche).
These developments may render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:
●
research and development resources, including personnel and technology;
●
regulatory experience;
●
pharmaceutical development, clinical trial and pharmaceutical commercialization experience;
●
experience and expertise in exploitation of intellectual property rights; and
●
capital resources.
As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than us or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop products for the treatment of lymphoma, CLL, or other B-cell and autoimmune related disorders that are more effective, better tolerated, more useful and less costly than ours and may also be more successful in manufacturing and marketing their products. Our competitors may succeed in obtaining approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for their product candidates sooner than we do for our products.
We will also face competition from these third parties in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling patients for clinical trials and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.
We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies and we intend to rely on third parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidate, and our commercialization of any of our product candidates could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to obtain approval of the FDA, fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of pharmaceutical product or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.
The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted only after we submit a BLA or NDA to the FDA, if at all. We do not control the manufacturing process of our product candidates and are completely dependent on our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the FDA’s requirements for manufacture of finished pharmaceutical products (good manufacturing practices, GMP). If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our target product specifications, patent specifications, and/or the FDA’s strict regulatory requirements of safety, purity and potency, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain FDA approval for our product candidates. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If our contract manufacturers cannot meet FDA standards, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates. No assurance can be given that a long-term, scalable manufacturer can be identified or that they can make clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates that meets the product specifications of previously manufactured batches, or is of a sufficient quality, or at an appropriate scale and cost to make it commercially feasible. If they are unable to do so, it could have a material adverse impact on our business.
In addition, we do not have the capability to package finished products for distribution to hospitals and other customers. Prior to commercial launch, we intend to enter into agreements with one or more alternate fill/finish pharmaceutical product suppliers so that we can ensure proper supply chain management once we are authorized to make commercial sales of our product candidates. If we receive marketing approval from the FDA, we intend to sell pharmaceutical product finished and packaged by such suppliers. We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current contract manufacturers or with any fill/finish suppliers, and though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch of our product candidates in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of finished product, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business.
In most cases, our manufacturing partners are single source suppliers. It is expected that our manufacturing partners will be sole source suppliers from single site locations for the foreseeable future. Given this, any disruption of supply from these partners could have a material, long-term impact on our ability to supply products for clinical trials or commercial sale. If our suppliers do not deliver sufficient quantities of our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all, and in accordance with applicable specifications, there could be a significant interruption of our supply, which would adversely affect clinical development and commercialization of our products. In addition, if our current or future supply of any or our product candidates should fail to meet specifications during its stability program there could be a significant interruption of our supply of drug, which would adversely affect the clinical development and commercialization of the product.
Our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. We may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any replacement manufacturers.
Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.
We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of any future product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.
We currently have no marketing and sales organization and no experience in marketing pharmaceutical products. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or fail to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell any products we may develop, we may not be able to effectively market and sell our products and generate product revenue.
We do not currently have the infrastructure for the sales, marketing and distribution of our biotechnology products, and we must build this infrastructure or make arrangements with third parties to perform these functions in order to commercialize our products. We plan to either develop internally or enter into collaborations or other commercial arrangements to develop further, promote and sell all or a portion of our product candidates.
The establishment and development of a sales force, either by us or jointly with a development partner, or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any products we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch, and we cannot be certain that we or our development partners would be able to successfully develop this capability. If we or our development partners are unable to establish sales and marketing capability or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to commercialize any products we may develop, we will need to contract with third parties to market and sell such products. We currently possess limited resources and may not be successful in establishing our own internal sales force or in establishing arrangements with third parties on acceptable terms, if at all.
We may seek to establish additional collaborations and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.
Any future product candidate development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For any current or future product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.
We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for any additional collaborations will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for any future product candidate. The terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.
We may not be able to negotiate additional collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. If we are unable to negotiate and enter into new collaborations, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or reduce or delay any other future development programs.
If conflicts arise between us and our future collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.
If conflicts arise between our future corporate or academic collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Future collaborators or strategic partners, may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for any future product candidates. Our current or future collaborators or strategic partners may preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely, or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Any of these developments could harm any future product development efforts.
We will need to obtain FDA approval of any proposed product brand names, and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely impact our business.
A pharmaceutical product candidate cannot be marketed in the United States or other countries until we have completed a rigorous and extensive regulatory review processes, including approval of a brand name. Any brand names we intend to use for TG-1101, TGR-1202 or any future product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product brand names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product brand name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product brand names, we may be required to adopt an alternative brand name for TG-1101, TGR-1202 or any future product candidates. If we adopt an alternative brand name, we would lose the benefit of our existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product brand name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to commercialize TG-1101, TGR-1202, or any future product candidates.
If any product candidate that we successfully develop does not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and the medical community, the revenues that we generate from its sales will be limited.
Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates by third-party payors, including government payors, generally is also necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved products will depend on a number of factors, including:
●
the efficacy and safety as demonstrated in clinical trials;
●
the clinical indications for which the product is approved;
●
acceptance by physicians, major operators of cancer clinics and patients of the product as a safe and effective treatment;
●
the potential and perceived advantages of product candidates over alternative treatments;
●
the safety of product candidates seen in a broader patient group, including its use outside the approved indications;
●
the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;
●
the availability of adequate reimbursement and pricing by third parties and government authorities;
●
relative convenience and ease of administration;
●
the prevalence and severity of adverse events; and
●
the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts.
If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products and we may not become or remain profitable.
If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, even assuming approval of a drug candidate, our business may suffer.
Our projections of both the number of people who are affected by disease within our target indications, as well as the subset of these people who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, healthcare utilization databases and market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.
If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.
We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and will face an even greater risk if we sell our product candidates commercially. Although we are not aware of any historical or anticipated product liability claims against us, if we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to cease clinical trials of our drug candidates or limit commercialization of any approved products. An individual may bring a liability claim against us if one of our product candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, an injury. If we cannot successfully defend our self against product liability claims, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
●
decreased demand for our product candidates;
●
impairment to our business reputation;
●
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
●
costs of related litigation;
●
distraction of management’s attention from our primary business;
●
substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
●
the inability to commercialize our product candidates; and
●
loss of revenues.
We believe that we have obtained sufficient product liability insurance coverage for our clinical trials. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if marketing approval is obtained for any of our product candidates. However, we may be unable to obtain this product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms and with insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action or individual lawsuits relating to marketed pharmaceuticals. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our business.
Reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably.
We intend to seek approval to market our future products in both the United States and in countries and territories outside the United States. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign countries, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those countries relating to our product. In some foreign countries, particularly in the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for any of our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.
Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which pharmaceuticals they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:
●
a covered benefit under its health plan;
●
safe, effective and medically necessary;
●
appropriate for the specific patient;
●
cost-effective; and
●
neither experimental nor investigational.
Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require that we provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement of our future products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Additionally, while we may seek approval of our products in combination with each other, there can be no guarantee that we will obtain coverage and reimbursement for any of our products together, or that such reimbursement will incentivize the use of our products in combination with each other as opposed to in combination with other agents which may be priced more favorably to the medical community.
In both the United States and certain foreign countries, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 revised the payment methodology for many products reimbursed by Medicare, resulting in lower rates of reimbursement for many types of drugs, and added a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program that involves commercial plans negotiating drug prices for their members. Since 2003, there have been a number of other legislative and regulatory changes to the coverage and reimbursement landscape for pharmaceuticals.
Most recently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the “ACA,” was enacted. The ACA and any revisions or replacements of that Act, any substitute legislation, and other changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are:
●
an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;
●
an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13.0% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively;
●
expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the federal False Claims Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for non-compliance;
●
a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;
●
extension of a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
●
expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;
●
expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Pricing Program;
●
the new requirements under the federal Open Payments program and its implementing regulations;
●
a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;
●
a new regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilar biological products, all of which will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs; and
●
a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.
The Supreme Court upheld the ACA in the main challenge to the constitutionality of the law in 2012. The Supreme Court also upheld federal subsidies for purchasers of insurance through federally facilitated exchanges in a decision released in June 2015. Any remaining legal challenges to the ACA are viewed generally as not significantly impacting the implementation of the law if the plaintiffs prevail.
President Trump ran for office on a platform that supported the repeal of the ACA, and one of his first actions after his inauguration was to sign an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to waive or delay requirements of the ACA that impose economic or regulatory burdens on states, families, the health-care industry and others. Modifications to or repeal of all or certain provisions of the ACA have been attempted in Congress as a result of the outcome of the recent presidential and congressional elections, consistent with statements made by the incoming administration and members of Congress during the presidential and congressional campaigns and following the election. In January 2017, Congress voted to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, or the Budget Resolution, that authorizes the implementation of legislation that would repeal portions of the ACA. The Budget Resolution is not a law. However, it is widely viewed as the first step toward the passage of legislation that would repeal certain aspects of the ACA. In March 2017, following the passage of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation known as the American Health Care Act of 2017, which, if enacted, would amend or repeal significant portions of the ACA. Attempts in the Senate in 2017 to pass ACA repeal legislation, including the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, so far have been unsuccessful.
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare products and services. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:
●
the demand for any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval;
●
our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products;
●
our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability;
●
the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and
●
the availability of capital.
In addition, governments may impose price controls, which may adversely affect our future profitability.
We will need to increase the size of our organization and the scope of our outside vendor relationships, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.
As of March 1, 2018, we had 75 full and part time employees. Over time, we will need to expand our managerial, operational, financial and other resources in order to manage and fund our operations and clinical trials, continue research and development activities, and commercialize our product candidates. Our management and scientific personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support our future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth, and various projects requires that we:
●
manage our clinical trials effectively;
●
manage our internal development efforts effectively while carrying out our contractual obligations to licensors, contractors and other third parties;
●
continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls and reporting systems and procedures; and
●
attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees.
We may utilize the services of outside vendors or consultants to perform tasks including clinical trial management, statistics and analysis, regulatory affairs, formulation development, chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and other pharmaceutical development functions. Our growth strategy may also entail expanding our group of contractors or consultants to implement these tasks going forward. Because we rely on a substantial number of consultants, effectively outsourcing many key functions of our business, we will need to be able to effectively manage these consultants to ensure that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and meet expected deadlines. However, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or otherwise advance its business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may be unable to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates and may fail to capitalize on programs or product candidates that may present a greater commercial opportunity or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
The success of our business depends upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize product candidates based on our programs. If we do not successfully develop and eventually commercialize products, we will face difficulty in obtaining product revenue in future periods, resulting in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affecting our share price. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources.
Additionally, because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our estimates regarding the potential market for a product candidate could be inaccurate, and our spending on current and future research and development programs may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Alternatively, we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a partnering arrangement.
If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon or delay our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate or fail to develop a potentially successful product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If we fail to attract and keep key management and clinical development personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.
We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts for our product candidates and future product candidates. We are highly dependent on the development, regulatory, commercial and financial expertise of the members of our senior management. The loss of the services of any of our senior management could delay or prevent the further development and potential commercialization of our product candidates and, if we are not successful in finding suitable replacements, could harm our business. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals. We will need to hire additional personnel as we continue to expand our manufacturing, research and development activities.
Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel and we may not be able to do so in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will impede significantly the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital, and our ability to implement our business strategy.
If we fail to comply with healthcare regulations, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.
In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical and biotechnology products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, as well as consulting or other service agreements with physicians or other potential referral sources and regulate the use and disclosure of identifiable patient information. These laws include anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or, in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering, recommending or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally-financed healthcare programs, and knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and any practices we adopt may not, in all cases, meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines and imprisonment. Any challenge to its business practices under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Finally, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, their respective implementing regulations and similar state laws and regulations, impose obligations on covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their business associates that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. In the event our operations result in our receiving such information, we could become subject to the requirements of these laws and regulations, including potential civil and criminal penalties.
Our employees, consultants, or third party partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees, consultants, or third party partners could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee, consultant, or third party misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.
We use biological and hazardous materials, and any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming or costly.
We use hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological agents and compounds, which could be dangerous to human health and safety or the environment. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and wastes. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our pharmaceutical development efforts.
In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. If one of our employees was accidentally injured from the use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials or wastes, the medical costs related to his or her treatment would be covered by our workers’ compensation insurance policy. However, we do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our property and casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, or operations otherwise affected.
All product candidate development timelines and projections in this report are based on the assumption of further financing.
The timelines and projections in this report are predicated upon the assumption that we will raise additional financing in the future to continue the development of our product candidates. In the event we do not successfully raise subsequent financing, our product development activities will necessarily be curtailed commensurate with the magnitude of the shortfall. If our product development activities are slowed or stopped, we would be unable to meet the timelines and projections outlined in this filing. Failure to progress our product candidates as anticipated will have a negative effect on our business, future prospects, and ability to obtain further financing on acceptable terms (if at all), and the value of the enterprise.
We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives.
As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the rules of any stock exchange on which we may become listed. These rules impose various requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and appropriate corporate governance practices. Our team has devoted and will continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees or as executive officers.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. As a result, we are required to periodically perform an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of those controls, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Additionally, our independent auditors are required to perform a similar evaluation and report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. These efforts to comply with Section 404 will require the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. While we anticipate maintaining the integrity of our internal control over financial reporting and all other aspects of Section 404, we cannot be certain that a material weakness will not be identified when we test the effectiveness of our control systems in the future. If a material weakness is identified, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources, costly litigation or a loss of public confidence in our internal controls, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock.
Risks Relating to Acquisitions
Acquisitions, investments and strategic alliances that we may make in the future may use significant resources, result in disruptions to our business or distractions of our management, may not proceed as planned, and could expose us to unforeseen liabilities.
We may seek to expand our business through the acquisition of, investments in and strategic alliances with companies, technologies, products, and services. Acquisitions, investments and strategic alliances involve a number of special problems and risks, including, but not limited to:
●
difficulty integrating acquired technologies, products, services, operations and personnel with the existing businesses;
●
diversion of management’s attention in connection with both negotiating the acquisitions and integrating the businesses;
●
strain on managerial and operational resources as management tries to oversee larger operations;
●
difficulty implementing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting at businesses that we acquire, particularly if they are not located near our existing operations;
●
exposure to unforeseen liabilities of acquired companies;
●
potential costly and time-consuming litigation, including stockholder lawsuits;
●
potential issuance of securities to equity holders of the company being acquired with rights that are superior to the rights of holders of our common stock or which may have a dilutive effect on our stockholders;
●
risk of loss of invested capital;
●
the need to incur additional debt or use cash; and
●
the requirement to record potentially significant additional future operating costs for the amortization of intangible assets.
As a result of these or other problems and risks, businesses we acquire may not produce the revenues, earnings, or business synergies that we anticipated, and acquired products, services, or technologies might not perform as we expected. As a result, we may incur higher costs and realize lower revenues than we had anticipated. We may not be able to successfully address these problems and we cannot assure you that the acquisitions will be successfully identified and completed or that, if acquisitions are completed, the acquired businesses, products, services, or technologies will generate sufficient revenue to offset the associated costs or other negative effects on our business.
Any of these risks can be greater if an acquisition is large relative to our size. Failure to effectively manage our growth through acquisitions could adversely affect our growth prospects, business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property
Our success depends upon our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technologies, and the intellectual property protection for our product candidates depends significantly on third parties.
Our commercial success depends on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection in the US and other countries with respect to our product candidates or any future product candidate that we may license or acquire, their formulations and uses and the methods we use to manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates, and by maintenance of our trade secrets through proper procedures. We will only be able to protect our technologies from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them in the market they are being used or developed. If any of our licensors or partners fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for these product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize these product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to these product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Currently, the composition of matter patent and several method of use patents for TG-1101 and TGR-1202 in various indications and settings have been applied for but have not yet been issued, or have been issued in certain territories but not under all jurisdictions in which such applications have been filed. While composition of matter patents have been granted in the US for TG-1101 and TGR-1202, no patents to date have been issued for our IRAK4 inhibitor, BET inhibitor, BTK inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR programs. There can be no guarantee that any of these patents for which an application has already been filed, nor any patents filed in the future for our product candidates will be granted in any or all jurisdictions in which there were filed, or that all claims initially included in such patent applications will be allowed in the final patent that is issued. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our partners will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents.
These risks and uncertainties include the following:
●
the patent applications that we or our partners file may not result in any patents being issued;
●
patents that may be issued or in-licensed may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked or circumvented, or otherwise may not provide any competitive advantage;
●
as of March 16, 2013, the U.S. converted from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system. If we do not win the filing race, we will not be entitled to inventive priority;
●
our competitors, many of which have substantially greater resources than we do, and many of which have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek, or may already have obtained, patents that will limit, interfere with, or eliminate its ability to make, use, and sell our potential products either in the United States or in international markets;
●
there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and other international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and
●
countries other than the United States may have less restrictive patent laws than those upheld by United States courts, allowing foreign competitors the ability to exploit these laws to create, develop, and market competing products.
If patents are not issued that protect our product candidates, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify any patentable aspects of our research and development output and methodology, and, even if we do, an opportunity to obtain patent protection may have passed. Given the uncertain and time-consuming process of filing patent applications and prosecuting them, it is possible that our product(s) or process(es) originally covered by the scope of the patent application may have changed or been modified, leaving our product(s) or process(es) without patent protection. If our licensors or we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for one or more product candidates or any future product candidate we may license or acquire, third parties may be able to leverage our proprietary information and products without risk of infringement, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability. Moreover, should we enter into other collaborations we may be required to consult with or cede control to collaborators regarding the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of licensed patents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.
The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents has emerged to date in the US. The patent situation outside the US is even more uncertain. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the US, and we may fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than US law does. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the US and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the federal courts of the US have taken an increasingly dim view of the patent eligibility of certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences, amino acid sequences and certain methods of utilizing same, which include their detection in a biological sample and diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection. Such subject matter, which had long been a staple of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now considered, with few exceptions, ineligible in the first instance for protection under the patent laws of the US. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in those licensed from a third-party.
Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include changes to transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system and to the way issued patents are challenged. The formation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board now provides a quicker and less expensive process for challenging issued patents. The PTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first inventor-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the PTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our efforts to establish priority of invention would be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our US patent position. An adverse determination in any such submission, patent office trial, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, render unenforceable, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.
Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.
The issuance of a patent does not foreclose challenges to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Therefore, our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
In addition to patents, we and our partners also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position, particularly where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or we may be unable to protect its rights. If any of these events occurs, or we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.
Patent protection and other intellectual property protection are crucial to the success of our business and prospects, and there is a substantial risk that such protections will prove inadequate.
If we or our partners are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our commercial success also depends upon our ability and the ability of any of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products, some of which may be directed at claims that overlap with the subject matter of our intellectual property. For example, Roche has the Cabilly patents in the U.S. that block the commercialization of antibody products derived from a single cell line, like TG-1101. Also, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Genentech hold patents for the use of anti-CD20 antibodies utilized in the treatment of CLL in the U.S. While these patents have been challenged, to the best of our knowledge, those matters were settled in a way that permitted additional anti-CD20 antibodies to be marketed for CLL. If those patents are still enforced at the time we are intending to launch TG-1101, then we will need to either prevail in a litigation to challenge those patents or negotiate a settlement agreement with the patent holders. If we are unable to do so we may be forced to delay the launch of TG-1101 or launch at the risk of litigation for patent infringement, which may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe. Similarly, there may be issued patents relevant to our product candidates of which we are not aware. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the US and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after a first filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in patents or pending patent applications that we own or licensed, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.
There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we or any collaborators of ours infringe their intellectual property rights, we may have to:
●
obtain licenses, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all;
●
abandon an infringing product candidate or redesign its products or processes to avoid infringement;
●
pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, which we may have to pay if a court decides that the product or proprietary technology at issue infringes on or violates the third party’s rights;
●
pay substantial royalties, fees and/or grant cross licenses to our technology; and/or
●
defend litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial diversion of our financial and management resources.
No assurance can be given that patents issued to third parties do not exist, have not been filed, or could not be filed or issued, which contain claims covering its products, technology or methods that may encompass all or a portion of our products and methods. Given the number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our technical areas or fields, we believe there is a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our products or methods.
Other product candidates that we may in-license or acquire could be subject to similar risks and uncertainties.
We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.
A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development and commercialization of our products. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties, whom may or may not be interested in granting such a license, on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which typically are very expensive, time-consuming and disruptive of day-to-day business operations. Any claims we assert against accused infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents; or provoke those parties to petition the PTO to institute inter parties review against the asserted patents, which may lead to a finding that all or some of the claims of the patent are invalid. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, adverse results on US patents may affect related patents in our global portfolio. The adverse result could also put related patent applications at risk of not issuing.
Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our collaborators or licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.
Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
We may be subject to claims that our consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers to it.
As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants were previously employed at, may have previously been, or are currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these consultants or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or their former or current customers. Even if frivolous or unsubstantiated in nature, litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management, day-to-day business operations, and the implicated employee(s).
Risks Relating to Our Finances and Capital Requirements
We will need to raise additional capital to continue to operate our business.
As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately $84.8 million in cash and cash equivalents, which in addition to the capital raised during the first quarter of 2018, we believe will be sufficient to fund the Company’s planned operations into the second quarter of 2019. As a result, we will need additional capital to continue our operations beyond that time. Required additional sources of financing to continue our operations in the future might not be available on favorable terms, if at all. If we do not succeed in raising additional funds on acceptable terms, we might be unable to complete planned preclinical and clinical trials or obtain approval of any of our product candidates from the FDA or any foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we could be forced to discontinue product development, reduce or forego sales and marketing efforts and forego attractive business opportunities. Any additional sources of financing will likely involve the issuance of our equity securities, which would have a dilutive effect to stockholders.
Currently, none of our product candidates have been approved by the FDA or any foreign regulatory authority for sale. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, we will have to fund all of our operations and capital expenditures from cash on hand and amounts raised in future offerings or financings.
We have a history of operating losses, expect to continue to incur losses, and are unable to predict the extent of future losses or when we will become profitable, if ever.
We have not yet applied for or demonstrated an ability to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize a product candidate. Our short operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business prospects and consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical or biotechnology products. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of operations and the competitive environment in which we operate.
We have never been profitable and, as of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $354.9 million. We have generated operating losses in all periods since we were incorporated. We expect to make substantial expenditures resulting in increased operating costs in the future and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly as we expand development and clinical trial efforts for our product candidates. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if ever. Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on an ongoing basis.
We have not generated any revenue from our product candidates and may never become profitable.
Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate significant continuing revenues. To obtain significant continuing revenues, we must succeed, either alone or with others, in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for and manufacturing and marketing our product candidates (or utilize early access programs to generate such revenue). To date, our product candidates have not generated any revenues, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:
●
successful completion of preclinical studies of our product candidates;
●
successful commencement and completion of clinical trials of our product candidates and any future product candidates we advance into clinical trials;
●
achievement of regulatory approval for our product candidates and any future product candidates we advance into clinical trials (unless we successfully utilize early access programs which allow for revenue generation prior to approval);
●
manufacturing commercial quantities of our products at acceptable cost levels if regulatory approvals are obtained;
●
successful sales, distribution and marketing of our future products, if any; and
●
our entry into collaborative arrangements or co-promotion agreements to market and sell our products.
If we are unable to generate significant continuing revenues, we will not become profitable and we may be unable to continue our operations without continued funding.
We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our development programs or commercialization efforts.
We expect to spend substantial amounts on development, including significant amounts on conducting clinical trials for our product candidates, manufacturing clinical supplies and expanding our pharmaceutical development programs. We expect that our monthly cash used by operations will continue to increase for the next several years. We anticipate that we will continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future.
We will require substantial additional funds to support our continued research and development activities, as well as the anticipated costs of preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory approvals, and eventual commercialization. We anticipate that we will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. We have based these estimates, however, on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could expend our available financial resources much faster than we currently expect. Further, we will need to raise additional capital to fund our operations and continue to conduct clinical trials to support potential regulatory approval of marketing applications. Future capital requirements will also depend on the extent to which we acquire or in-license additional product candidates. We currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions.
The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
●
the progress of our clinical trials, including expenses to support the trials and milestone payments that may become payable under our license agreements;
●
the costs and timing of regulatory approvals;
●
the costs and timing of clinical and commercial manufacturing supply arrangements for each product candidate;
●
the costs of establishing sales or distribution capabilities;
●
the success of the commercialization of our products;
●
our ability to establish and maintain strategic collaborations, including licensing and other arrangements;
●
the costs involved in enforcing or defending patent claims or other intellectual property rights; and
●
the extent to which we in-license or invest in other indications or product candidates.
Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as through interest income earned on cash balances. If we were to be unable to raise additional capital, we would have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue one or more of our pharmaceutical development programs. We also may be required to relinquish, license or otherwise dispose of rights to product candidates or products that it would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize itself on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available.
Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.
We may raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. Any future debt financing we enter into may involve covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions, among other restrictions.
In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate funds are not available, our ability to achieve profitability or to respond to competitive pressures would be significantly limited and we may be required to delay, significantly curtail or eliminate the development of one or more of our product candidates.
Our tax position could be affected by recent changes in U.S. federal income tax laws.
On December 22, 2017, legislation commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” was signed into law and is generally effective after December 31, 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes significant changes to the U.S. federal income tax rules for taxation of individuals and business entities. Most of the changes applicable to individuals are temporary and apply only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. For corporations, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduces the top corporate income tax rate to 21% and repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax, limits the deduction for net interest expense, limits the deduction for net operating losses and eliminates net operating loss carrybacks, modifies or repeals many business deductions and credits, shifts the United States toward a more territorial tax system, and imposes new taxes to combat erosion of the U.S. federal income tax base. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes numerous other large and small changes to the federal income tax rules that may affect potential investors and may directly or indirectly affect us. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. However, the effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on us and our affiliates, whether adverse or favorable, is uncertain, and may not become evident for some period of time. This document does not discuss such legislation or the manner in which it might affect us or purchasers of our common stock. Prospective investors are urged to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and any other regulatory or administrative developments and proposals, and their potential effects on them based on their unique circumstances.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
We are controlled by current officers, directors and principal stockholders.
Our directors, executive officers, their affiliates, and our principal stockholders beneficially own approximately 39% of our outstanding voting stock, including shares underlying outstanding options and warrants. Our directors, officers and principal stockholders, taken as a whole, have the ability to exert substantial influence over the election of our Board of Directors and the outcome of issues submitted to our stockholders.
Our stock price is, and we expect it to remain, volatile, which could limit investors’ ability to sell stock at a profit.
The trading price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in price in response to various factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:
●
publicity regarding actual or potential clinical results relating to products under development by our competitors or us;
●
delay or failure in initiating, completing or analyzing nonclinical or clinical trials or the unsatisfactory design or results of these trials;
●
achievement or rejection of regulatory approvals by our competitors or us;
●
announcements of technological innovations or new commercial products by our competitors or us;
●
developments concerning proprietary rights, including patents;
●
developments concerning our collaborations;
●
regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;
●
economic or other crises and other external factors;
●
period-to-period fluctuations in our revenues and other results of operations;
●
changes in financial estimates by securities analysts; and
●
sales of our common stock.
We will not be able to control many of these factors, and we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our financial results will not necessarily be indicative of our future performance.
In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that may have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of individual companies. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.
We have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends in the future, and any return on investment may be limited to the value of your stock.
We have never paid dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any dividends for the foreseeable future. You should not rely on an investment in our stock if you require dividend income. Further, you will only realize income on an investment in our stock in the event you sell or otherwise dispose of your shares at a price higher than the price you paid for your shares. Such a gain would result only from an increase in the market price of our common stock, which is uncertain and unpredictable.
Certain anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law could make a third-party acquisition of us difficult. This could limit the price investors might be willing to pay in the future for our common stock.
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire, or of discouraging a third party from attempting to acquire, or control us. These factors could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation allows us to issue preferred stock without the approval of our stockholders. The issuance of preferred stock could decrease the amount of earnings and assets available for distribution to the holders of our common stock or could adversely affect the rights and powers, including voting rights, of such holders. In certain circumstances, such issuance could have the effect of decreasing the market price of our common stock. Our restated bylaws eliminate the right of stockholders to call a special meeting of stockholders, which could make it more difficult for stockholders to effect certain corporate actions. Any of these provisions could also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control.
On July 18, 2014, the Board of Directors declared a distribution of one right for each outstanding share of common stock. The rights may have certain anti-takeover effects. The rights will cause substantial dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire us on terms not approved by the Board of Directors unless the offer is conditioned on a substantial number of rights being acquired. However, the rights should not interfere with any merger, statutory share exchange or other business combination approved by the Board of Directors since the rights may be terminated by us upon resolution of the Board of Directors. Thus, the rights are intended to encourage persons who may seek to acquire control of the Company to initiate such an acquisition through negotiations with the Board of Directors. However, the effect of the rights may be to discourage a third party from making a partial tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain a substantial equity position in the equity securities of, or seeking to obtain control of, the Company. To the extent any potential acquirers are deterred by the rights, the rights may have the effect of preserving incumbent management in office.
We may become involved in securities class action litigation that could divert management’s attention and harm our business.
The stock markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the common stock of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our stock to decline. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. We may become involved in this type of litigation in the future. Litigation often is expensive and diverts management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect our business.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.
Our corporate and executive office is located in New York, New York. Our New York facility consists of leased office space at 2 Gansevoort Street, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10014. We are also currently leasing small office spaces in Cary, North Carolina and Kingsport, Tennessee to accommodate our clinical operations groups. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current requirements. We do not own any real property.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
On January 6, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 (the “Class Period”). The case was captioned John Lyon v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period various statements made by the Company regarding its GENUINE Phase 3 trial were materially false or misleading when made in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 24, 2017, a second purported class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016. The case was captioned Kenneth C. Wyzgoski v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00508-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The claims and allegations in the Wyzgoski complaint were substantially identical to those in the Lyon case. By order dated March 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Lyon and Wyzgoski cases into one action, captioned In re TG Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.), appointed lead plaintiffs in the case, and approved lead plaintiffs’ selection of lead counsel. On April 5, 2017 the Court so ordered a stipulation pursuant to which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated action in its entirety without prejudice. The Company denies the allegations and claims made in the above-referenced actions and no consideration was given by the Company in connection with lead plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of the consolidated action.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
None.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.
Market Information
Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and trades under the symbol “TGTX”.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing sale prices of our common stock for the periods indicated.
Holders
The number of record holders of our common stock as of March 1, 2018 was 271.
Dividends
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides information as of December 31, 2017, regarding the securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plan, the TG Therapeutics, Inc. Amended and Restated 2012 Incentive Plan.
For information about all of our equity compensation plans see Note 5 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.
COMMON STOCK PERFORMANCE GRAPH
The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock for the period from December 31, 2011(1) through December 31, 2017, with the cumulative total return over such period on (i) the U.S. Index of The Nasdaq Stock Market and (ii) the Biotechnology Index of The Nasdaq Stock Market. The graph assumes an investment of $100 on December 31, 2011, in our common stock (at the adjusted closing market price) and in each of the indices listed above, and assumes the reinvestment of all dividends. Measurement points are December 31 of each year.
(1) In connection with the Company having entered into and consummated an exchange transaction agreement (the “Exchange Transaction”) with Opus Point Partners, LLC (“Opus”) and TG Biologics, Inc. (formerly known as TG Therapeutics, Inc.) (“TG Bio”), we used the start date of December 31, 2011 to be in agreement with this transaction.
* $100 invested on 12/31/11 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal Years ending December 31.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following Statement of Operations Data for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013, and Balance Sheet Data as of December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013, as set forth below are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. This financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.
The following discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements about our plans and expectations of what may happen in the future. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions and estimates that are inherently subject to significant risks and uncertainties, and our results could differ materially from the results anticipated by our forward-looking statements as a result of many known or unknown factors, including, but not limited to, those factors discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” See also the “Special Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” set forth at the beginning of this report.
You should read the following discussion and analysis in conjunction with “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” and our consolidated financial statements beginning on page of this report.
Overview
We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Currently, the Company is developing two therapies targeting hematological malignancies. TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a novel, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature B-lymphocytes. We are also developing TGR-1202, an orally available PI3K delta inhibitor. The delta isoform of PI3K is strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin and is believed to be important in the proliferation and survival of B-lymphocytes. Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202 are in clinical development for patients with hematologic malignancies. We also have pre-clinical programs seeking to develop IRAK4 (interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4) inhibitors, BET (Bromodomain and Extra Terminal) inhibitors, and anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR antibodies.
.
We also actively evaluate complementary products, technologies and companies for in-licensing, partnership, acquisition and/or investment opportunities. To date, we have not received approval for the sale of any of our drug candidates in any market and, therefore, have not generated any product sales from our drug candidates.
Our license revenues currently consist of license fees arising from our agreement with Ildong. We recognize upfront license fee revenues ratably over the estimated period in which we will have certain significant ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense agreement, with unamortized amounts recorded as deferred revenue.
We have not earned any revenues from the commercial sale of any of our drug candidates.
Our research and development expenses consist primarily of expenses related to in-licensing of new product candidates, fees paid to consultants and outside service providers for clinical and laboratory development, facilities-related and other expenses relating to the design, development, manufacture, testing and enhancement of our drug candidates and technologies. We expense our research and development costs as they are incurred. Research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were approximately $96.9 million, $66.5 million and $43.4 million, respectively, excluding non-cash compensation expenses related to research and development.
The following table sets forth the research and development expenses per project, exclusive of non-cash compensation expenses, for the periods presented.
Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related expenses for executive, finance and other administrative personnel, recruitment expenses, professional fees and other corporate expenses, including investor relations, legal activities and facilities-related expenses such as rent expense and amortization of leasehold interest.
Our results of operations include non-cash compensation expenses as a result of the grants of stock options and restricted stock. Compensation expense for awards of options and restricted stock granted to employees and directors represents the fair value of the award recorded over the respective vesting periods of the individual awards. The expense is included in the respective categories of expense in the consolidated statements of operations. We expect to continue to incur significant non-cash compensation expenses.
For awards of options and restricted stock to consultants and other third-parties, compensation expense is determined at the “measurement date.” The expense is recognized over the vesting period of the award. Until the measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We record compensation expense based on the fair value of the award at the reporting date. The awards to consultants and other third-parties are then revalued, or the total compensation is recalculated based on the then current fair value, at each subsequent reporting date. This results in a change to the amount previously recorded in respect of the equity award grant, and additional expense or a reversal of expense may be recorded in subsequent periods based on changes in the assumptions used to calculate fair value, such as changes in market price, until the measurement date is reached and the compensation expense is finalized.
In addition, certain restricted stock issued to employees vests upon the achievement of certain milestones; therefore, the total expense is uncertain until the milestone is probable.
Our clinical trials will be lengthy and expensive. Even if these trials show that our drug candidates are effective in treating certain indications, there is no guarantee that we will be able to record commercial sales of any of our drug candidates in the near future. In addition, we expect losses to continue as we continue to fund in-licensing and development of new drug candidates. As we continue our development efforts, we may enter into additional third-party collaborative agreements and may incur additional expenses, such as licensing fees and milestone payments. In addition, we may need to establish the commercial infrastructure required to manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates following approval, if any, by the FDA, which would result in us incurring additional expenses. As a result, our quarterly results may fluctuate and a quarter-by-quarter comparison of our operating results may not be a meaningful indication of our future performance.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015
Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016
License Revenue. License revenue was approximately $152,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. License revenue is related to the amortization of an upfront payment of $2.0 million associated with our license agreement with Ildong. The upfront payment from Ildong will be recognized as license revenue on a straight-line basis through December 2025, which represents the estimated period over which the Company will have certain ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense agreement.
Noncash Compensation Expense (Research and Development). Noncash compensation expense (research and development) related to equity incentive grants totaled $5.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $2.7 million during the comparable period in 2016. The increase in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to milestone-based vesting of restricted stock grants to personnel and an increase in the measurement date fair value of certain consultant restricted stock during the year ended December 31, 2017.
Other Research and Development Expenses. Other research and development expenses increased by $30.4 million from $66.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 to $96.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase in other research and development expenses was due primarily to new and ongoing clinical development programs and related manufacturing costs for TG-1101 and TGR-1202 during the year ended December 31, 2017. We expect our other research and development costs to remain relatively consistent during 2018 as our UNITY-CLL program winds down and our MS Phase 3 program ramps up.
Noncash Compensation Expense (General and Administrative). Noncash compensation expense (general and administrative) related to equity incentive grants increased by $5.5 million from $4.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 to $10.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to greater compensation expense during the year ended December 31, 2017 related to restricted stock granted to executive personnel.
Other General and Administrative Expenses. Other general and administrative expenses increased by $0.9 million from $5.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 to $6.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase was due primarily to rent related expenses of our office space, as well as increased personnel and other general and administrative costs. We expect our other general and administrative expenses to increase modestly during 2018.
Other Expense (Income), Net. Other income decreased by $0.5 million from $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 to $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. The decrease is mainly due a decrease in interest income during 2017, as well as to the receipt of a New York City biotechnology tax credit of approximately $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015
License Revenue. License revenue was approximately $152,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. License revenue is related to the amortization of an upfront payment of $2.0 million associated with our license agreement with Ildong. The upfront payment from Ildong will be recognized as license revenue on a straight-line basis through December 2025, which represents the estimated period over which the Company will have certain ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense agreement.
Noncash Compensation Expense (Research and Development). Noncash compensation expense (research and development) related to equity incentive grants totaled $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $4.3 million during the comparable period in 2015. The decrease in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to milestone-based vesting of restricted stock grants to non-executive personnel during the year ended December 31, 2015, and a decrease in the measurement date fair value of certain consultant restricted stock during the year ended December 31, 2016.
Other Research and Development Expenses. Other research and development expenses increased by $23.1 million from $43.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 to $66.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in other research and development expenses was due primarily to a $1.0 million licensing fee for the Jubilant sub-license agreement, as well as the ongoing clinical development programs and related manufacturing costs for TG-1101 and TGR-1202 during the year ended December 31, 2016. We expect our other research and development costs to increase modestly during 2017 as enrollment of additional patients in our Phase 3 clinical trials increases and we prepare for a commercial launch.
Noncash Compensation Expense (General and Administrative). Noncash compensation expense (general and administrative) related to equity incentive grants decreased by $6.6 million from $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 to $4.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease in noncash compensation expense was primarily related to greater measurement date fair values of certain consultant restricted stock during the year ended December 31, 2015.
Other General and Administrative Expenses. Other general and administrative expenses increased by $0.9 million from $4.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 to $5.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was due primarily to the straight-line rent expense of our new office space, as well as increased personnel and other general and administrative costs. We expect our other general and administrative expenses to increase modestly during 2017.
Other Expense (Income), Net. Other income increased by $0.5 million from $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 to $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase is mainly due to the receipt of a New York City biotechnology tax credit of approximately $0.3 million and an increase in interest income for the year ended December 31, 2016.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Our primary sources of cash have been from the sale of equity securities, the upfront payment from our Sublicense Agreement with Ildong, and warrant and option exercises. We have not yet commercialized any of our drug candidates and cannot be sure if we will ever be able to do so. Even if we commercialize one or more of our drug candidates, we may not become profitable. Our ability to achieve profitability depends on a number of factors, including our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates, successfully complete any post-approval regulatory obligations and successfully commercialize our drug candidates alone or in partnership. We may continue to incur substantial operating losses even if we begin to generate revenues from our drug candidates.
As of December 31, 2017, we had $84.8 million in cash and cash equivalents, investment securities, and interest receivable. Subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2017, we sold a total of approximately 2.9 million shares of common stock under the 2017 At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the “2017 ATM”) for aggregate net proceeds of approximately $35.3 million.
We anticipate that our cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2017 combined with the additional capital raised in the first quarter of 2018 will be sufficient to fund the Company’s planned operations into the second quarter of 2019. The actual amount of cash that we will need to operate is subject to many factors, including, but not limited to, the timing, design and conduct of clinical trials for our drug candidates. We are dependent upon significant financing to provide the cash necessary to execute our current operations, including the commercialization of any of our drug candidates.
Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $93.8 million as compared to $61.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in cash used in operating activities was due primarily to increased expenditures associated with our clinical development programs for TG-1101 and TGR-1202.
For the year ended December 31, 2017, net cash used in investing activities was $8.2 million as compared to cash provided by investing activities of $26.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease in net cash provided by investing activities was primarily due to investments in short-term securities during the year ended December 31, 2017.
For the year ended December 31, 2017, net cash provided by financing activities of $133.7 million related to proceeds from our March 2017 offering and our program under an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the “ATM Program”), as well as proceeds from the exercise of warrants. For the year ended December 31, 2016, net cash provided by financing activities of $5.0 million related to our program under the ATM Program”), as well as proceeds from the exercise of warrants.
ATM Program
On June 21, 2013, we entered into an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the ”2013 ATM”) with MLV & Co. LLC (“MLV”) under which we could issue and sell shares of our common stock, having aggregate offering proceeds of up to $50.0 million, from time to time through MLV, acting as the sales agent. Under the agreement we would pay MLV a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock sold through MLV.
During the year ended December 31, 2014, we sold a total of 4,850,055 shares of common stock under this arrangement for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $50.0 million at an average selling price of $10.31 per share. Net proceeds were approximately $48.8 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs. We have fully utilized the capacity under the 2013 ATM and, accordingly, no further sales can be made under the 2013 ATM.
In December 2014, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (the "2015 S-3"), which was declared effective in January 2015. Under the 2015 S-3, the Company may sell up to a total of $250 million of its securities. In connection with the 2015 S-3, we amended our 2013 At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement with MLV (the "2015 ATM") such that we may issue and sell additional shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering price of up to $175.0 million, from time to time through MLV and FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBR", each of MLV and FBR individually an "Agent" and collectively the "Agents"), acting as the sales agents. Under the 2015 ATM we pay the Agents a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock sold through the Agents.
During the year ended December 31, 2015, we sold a total of 4,094,498 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $68.2 million at an average selling price of $16.66 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $67.0 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, we sold a total of 570,366 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $4.5 million at an average selling price of $7.88 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $4.4 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we sold a total of 3,104,253 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $31.6 million at an average selling price of $10.18 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $31.0 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs.
In May 2017, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (the "2017 S-3"), which was declared effective in June 2017, replacing the 2015 S-3. Under the 2017 S-3, the Company may sell up to a total of $300 million of its securities. In connection with the 2017 S-3, we entered into an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the "2017 ATM") with Jefferies LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., FBR Capital Markets & Co., SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (each a "2017 Agent" and collectively, the "2017 Agents"), relating to the sale of shares of our common stock. Under the 2017 ATM we pay the 2017 Agents a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we sold a total of 4,689,418 shares of common stock under the 2017 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $47.7 million at an average selling price of $10.18 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $46.9 million after deducting commissions and other transactions costs.
Subsequent to December 31, 2017, we sold an aggregate of 2,889,344 shares of common stock pursuant to the 2017 ATM for total gross proceeds of approximately $35.9 million at an average selling price of $12.42 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $35.3 million after deducting commissions and other transactions costs.
Equity Financings
In March 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering of 5,128,206 shares of our common stock (plus a 30-day underwriter overallotment option to purchase up to an additional 769,230 shares of common stock, which was exercised) at a price of $9.75 per share. Net proceeds from this offering, including the overallotment option, were approximately $54 million, net of underwriting discounts and offering expenses of approximately $3.6 million.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
We have not entered into any transactions with unconsolidated entities whereby we have financial guarantees, subordinated retained interests, derivative instruments or other contingent arrangements that expose us to material continuing risks, contingent liabilities, or any other obligations under a variable interest in an unconsolidated entity that provides us with financing, liquidity, market risk or credit risk support.
OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS
As of December 31, 2017, we have known contractual obligations, commitments and contingencies of $15.6 million related to our operating lease obligations.
Leases
In October 2014, we entered into an agreement (the “Office Agreement”) with FBIO, to occupy approximately 45% of the 24,000 square feet of New York City office space leased by FBIO, which is now our corporate headquarters. The Office Agreement requires us to pay our respective share of the average annual rent and other costs of the 15-year lease. We approximate an average annual rental obligation of $1.1 million under the Office Agreement. We began to occupy this new space in April 2016, with rental payments beginning in the third quarter of 2016. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded rent expense of approximately $1.2 million and $1.4 million, respectively, and at December 31, 2017, have deferred rent of approximately $1.4 million. Mr. Weiss, our Executive Chairman and CEO, is also Executive Vice Chairman of FBIO.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we agreed to pay FBIO $2.8 million for our portion of the build out costs, which have been allocated to us at the 45% rate mentioned above. The allocated build-out costs have been recorded in leasehold interest and will be amortized over the 15-year term of the Office Agreement. After an initial commitment period of the 45% rate for a period of three (3) years, we and FBIO will determine actual office space utilization annually and if our utilization differs from the amount we have been billed, we will either receive credits or be assessed incremental utilization charges. Also in connection with this lease, in October 2014 we pledged $0.6 million to secure a line of credit as a security deposit for the Office Agreement, which has been recorded as restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
Total rental expense was approximately $1.4 million, $1.6 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Future minimum lease commitments as of December 31, 2017 total, in the aggregate, approximately $15.6 million through December 31, 2031. The preceding table shows future minimum lease commitments, which include our office leases in New York, North Carolina and Tennessee, by period as of December 31, 2017.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of our financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the applicable period. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
We define critical accounting policies as those that are reflective of significant judgments and uncertainties and which may potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. In applying these critical accounting policies, our management uses its judgment to determine the appropriate assumptions to be used in making certain estimates. These estimates are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Our critical accounting policies include the following:
Revenue Recognition. We recognize license revenue in accordance with the revenue recognition guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”), or Codification. We analyze each element of our licensing agreement to determine the appropriate revenue recognition. The terms of the license agreement may include payments to us of non-refundable up-front license fees, milestone payments if specified objectives are achieved, and/or royalties on product sales. We recognize revenue from upfront payments over the period of significant involvement under the related agreements unless the fee is in exchange for products delivered or services rendered that represent the culmination of a separate earnings process and no further performance obligation exists under the contract. We recognize milestone payments as revenue upon the achievement of specified milestones only if (1) the milestone payment is non-refundable, (2) substantive effort is involved in achieving the milestone, (3) the amount of the milestone is reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the risk associated with achievement of the milestone, and (4) the milestone is at risk for both parties. If any of these conditions are not met, we defer the milestone payment and recognize it as revenue over the estimated period of performance under the contract.
Stock Compensation. We have granted stock options and restricted stock to employees, directors and consultants, as well as warrants to other third parties. For employee and director grants, the value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes model takes into account volatility in the price of our stock, the risk-free interest rate, the estimated life of the option, the closing market price of our stock and the exercise price. We base our estimates of our stock price volatility on the historical volatility of our common stock and our assessment of future volatility; however, these estimates are neither predictive nor indicative of the future performance of our stock. For purposes of the calculation, we assumed that no dividends would be paid during the life of the options and warrants. The estimates utilized in the Black-Scholes calculation involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management judgment. In addition, we are required to estimate the expected forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those equity awards expected to vest. As a result, if other assumptions had been used, our recorded stock-based compensation expense could have been materially different from that reported. In addition, because some of the options, restricted stock and warrants issued to employees, consultants and other third-parties vest upon the achievement of certain milestones, the total expense is uncertain. Compensation expense for such awards that vest upon the achievement of milestones is recognized when the achievement of such milestone becomes probable.
Total compensation expense for options and restricted stock issued to consultants is determined at the “measurement date.” The expense is recognized over the vesting period for the options and restricted stock. Until the measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We record stock-based compensation expense based on the fair value of the equity awards at the reporting date. These equity awards are then revalued, or the total compensation is recalculated based on the then current fair value, at each subsequent reporting date. This results in a change to the amount previously recorded in respect of the equity award grant, and additional expense or a reversal of expense may be recorded in subsequent periods based on changes in the assumptions used to calculate fair value, such as changes in market price, until the measurement date is reached and the compensation expense is finalized.
In-process Research and Development. All acquired research and development projects are recorded at their fair value as of the date acquisition. The fair values are assessed as of the balance sheet date to ascertain if there has been any impairment of the recorded value. If there is an impairment the asset is written down to its current fair value by the recording of an expense.
Accruals for Clinical Research Organization and Clinical Site Costs. We make estimates of costs incurred in relation to external clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical site costs. We analyze the progress of clinical trials, including levels of patient enrollment, invoices received and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of the amount expensed and the related prepaid asset and accrued liability. Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in determining the accrued balance and expense in any accounting period. We review and accrue CRO expenses and clinical trial study expenses based on work performed and rely upon estimates of those costs applicable to the stage of completion of a study. Accrued CRO costs are subject to revisions as such trials progress to completion. Revisions are charged to expense in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known. With respect to clinical site costs, the financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation and vary from contract to contract. Payments under these contracts may be uneven, and depend on factors such as the achievement of certain events, the successful recruitment of patients, the completion of portions of the clinical trial or similar conditions. The objective of our policy is to match the recording of expenses in our financial statements to the actual services received and efforts expended. As such, expense accruals related to clinical site costs are recognized based on our estimate of the degree of completion of the event or events specified in the specific clinical study or trial contract.
Accounting Related to Goodwill. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, there was $799,391 of goodwill on our consolidated balance sheets. Goodwill is reviewed for impairment annually, or when events arise that could indicate that an impairment exists. We test for goodwill impairment using a two-step process. The first step compares the fair value of the reporting unit with the unit's carrying value, including goodwill. When the carrying value of the reporting unit is greater than fair value, the unit’s goodwill may be impaired, and the second step must be completed to measure the amount of the goodwill impairment charge, if any. In the second step, the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is compared with the carrying amount of the unit’s goodwill. If the carrying amount is greater than the implied fair value, the carrying value of the goodwill must be written down to its implied fair value.
We are required to perform impairment tests annually, at December 31, and whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. For all of our acquisitions, various analyses, assumptions and estimates were made at the time of each acquisition that were used to determine the valuation of goodwill and intangibles. In future years, the possibility exists that changes in forecasts and estimates from those used at the acquisition date could result in impairment indicators.
Accounting For Income Taxes. In preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. This process involves management estimation of our actual current tax exposure and assessment of temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities. We must then assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income and, to the extent we believe that recovery is not likely, we must establish a valuation allowance. To the extent we establish a valuation allowance or increase this allowance in a period, we must include an expense within the tax provision in the consolidated statements of operations. Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax assets. We have fully offset our deferred tax assets with a valuation allowance. Our lack of earnings history and the uncertainty surrounding our ability to generate taxable income prior to the reversal or expiration of such deferred tax assets were the primary factors considered by management in maintaining the valuation allowance.
Fair Value of 5% Notes Payable. We measure certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis in the financial statements. The hierarchy ranks the quality and reliability of inputs, or assumptions, used in the determination of fair value and requires financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value to be classified and disclosed in one of three categories.
We elected the fair value option for valuing the 5% Notes. We elected the fair value option in order to reflect in our financial statements the assumptions that market participants use in evaluating these financial instruments.
RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
In May 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-09, “Scope of Modification Accounting” (“ASU 2017-09”). ASU 2017-09 provides guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting. An entity should account for the effects of a modification unless all the following are met:
●
The fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the modified award is the same as the fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the original award immediately before the original award is modified. If the modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation technique that the entity uses to value the award, the entity is not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the modification.
●
The vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the original award is modified.
●
The classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the classification of the original award immediately before the original award is modified.
ASU 2017-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for public business entities for reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been issued, and all other entities for reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been made available for issuance. The amendments should be applied prospectively to an award modified on or after the adoption date. adopted ASU 2017-09 on January 1, 2018. The adoption of ASU 2017-09 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU 2017-04”). ASU 2017-04 removes the requirement to compare the implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, under ASU 2017-04, an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount and should recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. In addition, ASU 2017-04:
●
Clarifies the requirements for excluding and allocating foreign currency translation adjustments to reporting units in connection with an entity’s testing of reporting units for goodwill impairment.
●
Clarifies that an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable.
●
Makes minor changes to the overview and background sections of certain Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”) subtopics and topics as part of the Board’s initiative to unify and improve those sections throughout the Codification.
ASU 2017-04 is effective prospectively for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-04 to have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, “FASB Clarifies the Definition of a Business” (“ASU 2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 clarifies the definition of a business in ASC 805. The amendments in ASU 2017-01 are intended to make application of the guidance more consistent and cost-efficient. The amendments in ASU 2017-01:
●
Provide a screen to determine when a set of assets and activities is not a business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces the number of transactions that need to be further evaluated.
●
Provide that if the screen is not met, (1) to be considered a business, a set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace missing elements. The amendments provide a framework to assist entities in evaluating whether both an input and a substantive process are present. The framework includes two sets of criteria to consider that depend on whether a set has outputs. Although outputs are not required for a set to be a business, outputs generally are a key element of a business; therefore, the Board has developed more stringent criteria for sets without outputs.
●
Narrow the definition of the term output so that the term is consistent with how outputs are described in Topic 606.
ASU 2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted for transactions that occurred before the issuance date or effective date of the standard if the transactions were not reported in financial statements that have been issued or made available for issuance. The Company adopted ASU 2017-01 on January 1, 2018. The adoption of ASU 2017-01 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers" (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements, including most industry-specific guidance. ASU 2014-09 provides a single set of criteria for revenue recognition among all industries. The new standard requires a company to recognize revenue when it transfers goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that the Company expects to receive for those goods or services.
ASU 2014-09 includes guidance for determining whether a license transfers to a customer at a point in time or over time based on the nature of the entity’s promise to the customer. To determine whether the entity’s promise is to provide a right to access its intellectual property or a right to use its intellectual property, the entity should consider the nature of the intellectual property to which the customer will have rights.
ASU 2014-09 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The standard allows for two transition methods - full retrospective, in which the standard is applied to each prior reporting period presented, or modified retrospective, in which the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard is recognized at the date of initial adoption. The Company adopted ASU 2014-09 on January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective approach. The adoption of ASU 2014-09 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
Other pronouncements issued by the FASB or other authoritative accounting standards group with future effective dates are either not applicable or not significant to our consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 7A.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK.
The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while maximizing our income from investments and minimizing our market risk. We currently invest in government and investment-grade corporate debt in accordance with our investment policy, which we may change from time to time. The securities in which we invest have market risk. This means that a change in prevailing interest rates, and/or credit risk, may cause the fair value of the investment to fluctuate. For example, if we hold a security that was issued with a fixed interest rate at the then-prevailing rate and the prevailing interest rate later rises, the fair value of our investment will probably decline. As of December 31, 2017, our portfolio of financial instruments consists of cash equivalents and short-term interest bearing securities, including government debt and money market funds. The average duration of all of our held-to-maturity investments held as of December 31, 2017, was less than 12 months. Due to the relative short-term nature of these financial instruments, we believe there is no material exposure to interest rate risk, and/or credit risk, arising from our portfolio of financial instruments.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.
Our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, included in Part IV, Item 15(a), part 1, are incorporated by reference into this Item 8.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
Not applicable.
ITEM 9A.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. As of December 31, 2017, management carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)). Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.
Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or Rule 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or COSO Framework. Our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on these criteria.
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017 was audited by CohnReznick LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report appearing below, which expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls. Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our Company have been detected.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have audited TG Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United Stated) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of the Company and our report dated March 15, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion.
Basis for Opinion
The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control 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 audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting
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 (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the 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/ CohnReznick LLP
New York, New York
March 15, 2018
ITEM 9B.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION.
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
PART IV
ITEM 15.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS and FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
1. Consolidated Financial Statements
The following consolidated financial statements of TG Therapeutics, Inc. are filed as part of this report.
2. Consolidated Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules are omitted as the information required is inapplicable or the information is presented in the consolidated financial statements or the related notes.
3. Exhibits
#
Filed Herewith.
†
Indicates management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
*
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to omitted portions of this exhibit.
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Consolidated Financial Statements
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017, and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated March 15, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion.
Basis for Opinion
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
/s/ CohnReznick LLP
We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2003.
New York, New York
March 15, 2018
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “TG,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to TG Therapeutics, Inc. and our subsidiaries.
NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Currently, we are developing two therapies targeting hematologic malignancies. TG-1101 (ublituximab) is a novel, glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature B-lymphocytes. We are also developing TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an orally available PI3K delta inhibitor. The delta isoform of PI3K is strongly expressed in cells of hematopoietic origin and is believed to be important in the proliferation and survival of B-lymphocytes. Both TG-1101 and TGR-1202, or the combination of which is referred to as "U2," are in Phase 3 clinical development for patients with hematologic malignancies, with TG-1101 also in Phase 3 clinical development for Multiple Sclerosis. Additionally, the Company has recently brought its anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody into Phase 1 development and aims to bring additional pipeline assets into the clinic in the future.
We also actively evaluate complementary products, technologies and companies for in-licensing, partnership, acquisition and/or investment opportunities. To date, we have not received approval for the sale of any of our drug candidates in any market and, therefore, have not generated any product sales from our drug candidates.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
We have incurred operating losses since our inception, and expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. As of December 31, 2017, we have an accumulated deficit of $354.9 million.
Our major sources of cash have been proceeds from the private placement and public offering of equity securities. We have not yet commercialized any of our drug candidates and cannot be sure if we will ever be able to do so. Even if we commercialize one or more of our drug candidates, we may not become profitable. Our ability to achieve profitability depends on many factors, including our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates; successfully complete any post-approval regulatory obligations; and successfully commercialize our drug candidates alone or in partnership. We may continue to incur substantial operating losses even if we begin to generate revenues from our drug candidates.
As of December 31, 2017, we had $84.8 million in cash and cash equivalents, investment securities, and interest receivable. The Company believes its cash, cash equivalents, investment securities, and interest receivable on hand as of December 31, 2017 combined with the additional capital raised in the first quarter of 2018 (see Note 13) will be sufficient to fund the Company’s planned operations into the second quarter of 2019. The actual amount of cash that we will need to operate is subject to many factors, including, but not limited to, the timing, design and conduct of clinical trials for our drug candidates. We are dependent upon significant future financing to provide the cash necessary to execute our current operations, including the commercialization of any of our drug candidates.
Our common stock is quoted on the Nasdaq Capital Market and trades under the symbol “TGTX.”
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
In May 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-09, “Scope of Modification Accounting” (“ASU 2017-09”). ASU 2017-09 provides guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting. An entity should account for the effects of a modification unless all the following are met:
●
The fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the modified award is the same as the fair value (or calculated value or intrinsic value, if such an alternative measurement method is used) of the original award immediately before the original award is modified. If the modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation technique that the entity uses to value the award, the entity is not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the modification.
●
The vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the original award is modified.
●
The classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the classification of the original award immediately before the original award is modified.
ASU 2017-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for public business entities for reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been issued, and all other entities for reporting periods for which financial statements have not yet been made available for issuance. The amendments should be applied prospectively to an award modified on or after the adoption date. The Company adopted ASU 2017-09 on January 1, 2018. The adoption of ASU 2017-09 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU 2017-04”). ASU 2017-04 removes the requirement to compare the implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, under ASU 2017-04, an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount and should recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. In addition, ASU 2017-04:
●
Clarifies the requirements for excluding and allocating foreign currency translation adjustments to reporting units in connection with an entity’s testing of reporting units for goodwill impairment.
●
Clarifies that an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable.
●
Makes minor changes to the overview and background sections of certain Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”) subtopics and topics as part of the Board’s initiative to unify and improve those sections throughout the Codification.
ASU 2017-04 is effective prospectively for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2017-04 to have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, “FASB Clarifies the Definition of a Business” (“ASU 2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 clarifies the definition of a business in ASC 805. The amendments in ASU 2017-01 are intended to make application of the guidance more consistent and cost-efficient. The amendments in ASU 2017-01:
●
Provide a screen to determine when a set of assets and activities is not a business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces the number of transactions that need to be further evaluated.
●
Provide that if the screen is not met, (1) to be considered a business, a set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace missing elements. The amendments provide a framework to assist entities in evaluating whether both an input and a substantive process are present. The framework includes two sets of criteria to consider that depend on whether a set has outputs. Although outputs are not required for a set to be a business, outputs generally are a key element of a business; therefore, the Board has developed more stringent criteria for sets without outputs.
●
Narrow the definition of the term output so that the term is consistent with how outputs are described in Topic 606.
ASU 2017-01 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted for transactions that occurred before the issuance date or effective date of the standard if the transactions were not reported in financial statements that have been issued or made available for issuance. The Company adopted ASU 2017-01 on January 1, 2018. The adoption of ASU 2017-01 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers" (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements, including most industry-specific guidance. ASU 2014-09 provides a single set of criteria for revenue recognition among all industries. The new standard requires a company to recognize revenue when it transfers goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that the Company expects to receive for those goods or services.
ASU 2014-09 includes guidance for determining whether a license transfers to a customer at a point in time or over time based on the nature of the entity’s promise to the customer. To determine whether the entity’s promise is to provide a right to access its intellectual property or a right to use its intellectual property, the entity should consider the nature of the intellectual property to which the customer will have rights.
ASU 2014-09 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The standard allows for two transition methods - full retrospective, in which the standard is applied to each prior reporting period presented, or modified retrospective, in which the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard is recognized at the date of initial adoption. The Company adopted ASU 2014-09 on January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective approach. The adoption of ASU 2014-09 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017.
Other pronouncements issued by the FASB or other authoritative accounting standards with future effective dates are either not applicable or not significant to our condensed consolidated financial statements.
USE OF ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the applicable reporting period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Such differences could be material to the financial statements.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
We treat liquid investments with original maturities of less than three months when purchased as cash and cash equivalents.
RESTRICTED CASH
We record cash pledged or held in trust as restricted cash. As of December 31, 2017, we have approximately $0.6 million of restricted cash pledged to secure a line of credit as a security deposit for an Office Agreement (see Note 9).
INVESTMENT SECURITIES
Investment securities at both December 31, 2017 and 2016 consist of short-term government securities. We classify these securities as held-to-maturity. Held-to-maturity securities are those securities in which we have the ability and intent to hold the security until maturity. Held-to-maturity securities are recorded at amortized cost, adjusted for the amortization or accretion of premiums or discounts. Premiums and discounts are amortized or accreted over the life of the related held-to-maturity security as an adjustment to yield using the effective interest method.
A decline in the market value of any investment security below cost, that is deemed to be other than temporary, results in a reduction in the carrying amount to fair value. The impairment is charged to operations and a new cost basis for the security is established. Other-than-temporary impairment charges are included in interest and other income (expense), net. Unrealized gains, if determined to be temporary, are included in accumulated other comprehensive income in equity. Dividend and interest income are recognized when earned.
CREDIT RISK
Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments. The Company maintains its cash and cash equivalents with high-credit quality financial institutions. At times, such amounts may exceed federally-insured limits.
REVENUE RECOGNITION
We recognize license revenue in accordance with the revenue recognition guidance of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, or Codification. We analyze each element of our licensing agreement to determine the appropriate revenue recognition. The terms of the license agreement may include payments to us of non-refundable up-front license fees, milestone payments if specified objectives are achieved, and/or royalties on product sales. We recognize revenue from upfront payments over the period of significant involvement under the related agreements unless the fee is in exchange for products delivered or services rendered that represent the culmination of a separate earnings process and no further performance obligation exists under the contract. We recognize milestone payments as revenue upon the achievement of specified milestones only if (1) the milestone payment is non-refundable, (2) substantive effort is involved in achieving the milestone, (3) the amount of the milestone is reasonable in relation to the effort expended or the risk associated with achievement of the milestone, and (4) the milestone is at risk for both parties. If any of these conditions are not met, we defer the milestone payment and recognize it as revenue over the estimated period of performance under the contract.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Generally, research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods or services that will be used or rendered for future research and development activities are deferred and amortized over the period that the goods are delivered or the related services are performed, subject to an assessment of recoverability. We make estimates of costs incurred in relation to external clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical site costs. We analyze the progress of clinical trials, including levels of patient enrollment, invoices received and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of the amount expensed and the related prepaid asset and accrued liability. Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in determining the accrued balance and expense in any accounting period. We review and accrue CRO expenses and clinical trial study expenses based on work performed and rely upon estimates of those costs applicable to the stage of completion of a study. Accrued CRO costs are subject to revisions as such trials progress to completion. Revisions are charged to expense in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known. With respect to clinical site costs, the financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation and vary from contract to contract. Payments under these contracts may be uneven, and depend on factors such as the achievement of certain events, the successful recruitment of patients, the completion of portions of the clinical trial or similar conditions. The objective of our policy is to match the recording of expenses in our financial statements to the actual services received and efforts expended. As such, expense accruals related to clinical site costs are recognized based on our estimate of the degree of completion of the event or events specified in the specific clinical study or trial contract.
Prepaid research and development in our consolidated balance sheets includes, among other things, certain fees related to development and manufacturing services. These development and manufacturing agreements often require payments in advance of services performed or goods received. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded approximately $8.1 million and $5.7 million, respectively, in prepaid research and development related to such advance agreements.
INCOME TAXES
Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases, operating losses and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in operations in the period that includes the enactment date. If the likelihood of realizing the deferred tax assets or liability is less than “more likely than not,” a valuation allowance is then created.
We, and our subsidiaries, file income tax returns in the U.S. Federal jurisdiction and in various states. We have tax net operating loss carryforwards that are subject to examination for a number of years beyond the year in which they were generated for tax purposes. Since a portion of these net operating loss carryforwards may be utilized in the future, many of these net operating loss carryforwards will remain subject to examination. We recognize interest and penalties related to uncertain income tax positions in income tax expense. Refer to Note 7 for further information for impact of tax reform.
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
We recognize all share-based payments to employees and non-employee directors (as compensation for service) as noncash compensation expense in the consolidated financial statements based on the fair values of such payments. Stock-based compensation expense recognized each period is based on the value of the portion of share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
For share-based payments to consultants and other third-parties (including related parties), noncash compensation expense is determined at the “measurement date.” The expense is recognized over the vesting period of the award. Until the measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We record compensation expense based on the fair value of the award at the reporting date. The awards to consultants and other third-parties (including related parties) are then revalued, or the total compensation is recalculated based on the then current fair value, at each subsequent reporting date.
In addition, because some of the options, restricted stock and warrants issued to employees, consultants and other third-parties vest upon achievement of certain milestones, the total expense is uncertain. Compensation expense for such awards that vest upon the achievement of milestones is recognized when the achievement of such milestone becomes probable.
BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
Basic net loss per common share is calculated by dividing net loss applicable to common shares by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net loss per common share is the same as basic net loss per common share, since potentially dilutive securities from stock options, stock warrants and convertible notes would have an antidilutive effect either because the Company incurred a net loss during the period presented or because such potentially dilutive securities were out of the money and the Company realized net income during the period presented. The amounts of potentially dilutive securities excluded from the calculation were 4,835,706, 8,033,779 and 7,064,396 at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 the Company incurred a net loss, therefore, all of the securities are antidilutive and excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share.
LONG-LIVED ASSETS AND GOODWILL
Long-lived assets are reviewed for an impairment loss when circumstances indicate that the carrying value of long-lived tangible and intangible assets with finite lives may not be recoverable. Management’s policy in determining whether an impairment indicator, a triggering event, exists comprises measurable operating performance criteria as well as qualitative measures. If an analysis is necessitated by the occurrence of a triggering event, we make certain assumptions in determining the impairment amount. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized.
Goodwill is reviewed for impairment annually, or when events arise that could indicate that an impairment exists. We test for goodwill impairment using a two-step process. The first step compares the fair value of the reporting unit with the unit's carrying value, including goodwill. When the carrying value of the reporting unit is greater than fair value, the unit’s goodwill may be impaired, and the second step must be completed to measure the amount of the goodwill impairment charge, if any. In the second step, the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is compared with the carrying amount of the unit’s goodwill. If the carrying amount is greater than the implied fair value, the carrying value of the goodwill must be written down to its implied fair value. We will continue to perform impairment tests annually, at December 31, and whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 2 - CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
The following tables summarize our cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2017 and 2016:
NOTE 3 - INVESTMENT SECURITIES
Our investments as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 are classified as held-to-maturity. Held-to-maturity investments are recorded at amortized cost. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we liquidated our long-term investment securities with a net carrying amount of approximately $12.6 million, realizing a gain of approximately $33,000 on the sale. The decision to sell our long-term securities was made due to market rate conditions on long-term securities coupled with the recognized gain we were able to yield on the sale of the securities.
The following tables summarize our investment securities at December 31, 2017 and 2016:
NOTE 4 - FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
We measure certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis in the financial statements. The fair value hierarchy ranks the quality and reliability of inputs, or assumptions, used in the determination of fair value and requires financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value to be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
●
Level 1 - quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities;
●
Level 2 - inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are directly or indirectly observable; and
●
Level 3 - unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the fair values of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, and notes and interest payable approximate their carrying value.
At the time of our merger (we were then known as Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Manhattan”)) with Ariston Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Ariston”) in March 2010, Ariston issued $15.5 million of five-year 5% notes payable (the “5% Notes”) in satisfaction of several note payable issuances. The 5% Notes and accrued and unpaid interest thereon are convertible at the option of the holder into common stock at the conversion price of $1,125 per share. Ariston agreed to make quarterly payments on the 5% Notes equal to 50% of the net product cash flow received from the exploitation or commercialization of Ariston’s product candidates, AST-726 and AST-915. We have no obligations under the 5% Notes aside from a) 50% of the net product cash flows from Ariston’s product candidates, if any, payable to noteholders; and b) the conversion feature, discussed above.
The cumulative liability including accrued and unpaid interest of the 5% Notes was approximately $17.5 million at December 31, 2017 and $16.7 million at December 31, 2016. No payments have been made on the 5% Notes as of December 31, 2017.
In December 2011, we elected the fair value option for valuing the 5% Notes. The fair value option was elected in order to reflect in our financial statements the assumptions that market participants use in evaluating these financial instruments.
As of December 31, 2013, as a result of expiring intellectual property rights and other factors, it was determined that net product cash flows from AST-726 were unlikely. As we have no other obligations under the 5% Notes aside from the net product cash flows and the conversion feature, the conversion feature was used to estimate the 5% Notes’ fair value as of December 31, 2017 and 2016. The assumptions, assessments and projections of future revenues are subject to uncertainties, difficult to predict, and require significant judgment. The use of different assumptions, applying different judgment to inherently subjective matters and changes in future market conditions could result in significantly different estimates of fair value and the differences could be material to our consolidated financial statements.
The following tables provide the fair value measurements of applicable financial liabilities as of December 31, 2017 and 2016:
The Level 3 amounts above represent the fair value of the 5% Notes and related accrued interest.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
The following table summarizes the changes in Level 3 instruments for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017:
The change in the fair value of the Level 3 liabilities is reported in other (income) expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
NOTE 5 - STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Preferred Stock
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes the issuance of up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par value, with rights senior to those of our common stock, issuable in one or more series. Upon issuance, the Company can determine the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof. These rights, preferences and privileges could include dividend rights, conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption, liquidation preferences, sinking fund terms and the number of shares constituting any series or the designation of such series, any or all of which may be greater than the rights of common stock.
Stockholder Rights Plan
On July 18, 2014, we adopted a stockholder rights plan. The stockholder rights plan is embodied in the Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement dated as of July 18, 2014 (the "Rights Agreement"), between us and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as rights agent (the "Rights Agent").
Accordingly, the Board of Directors declared a distribution of one right (a “Right”) for each outstanding share of common stock, to stockholders of record at the close of business on July 28, 2014, for each share of common stock issued (including shares distributed from treasury) by us thereafter and prior to the Separation Time (as defined in the Rights Agreement), and for certain shares of common stock issued after the Separation Time. Following the Separation Time, each Right entitles the registered holder to purchase from us one one-thousandth (1/1,000) of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Preferred Stock"), at a purchase price of $100.00 (the "Exercise Price"), subject to adjustment. The description and terms of the Rights are set forth in the Rights Agreement. Each one one-thousandth of a share of Preferred Stock has substantially the same rights as one share of common stock. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement, Rights become exercisable ten days after the public announcement that a “Person” has become an “Acquiring Person” (as each such term is defined in the Rights Agreement). Any Rights held by an Acquiring Person are void and may not be exercised.
If a Person becomes an Acquiring Person, all holders of Rights, except the Acquiring Person, may purchase at the Right’s then-current exercise price, common stock having a market value equal to twice the exercise price. Moreover, at any time after a Person becomes an Acquiring Person (unless such Person acquires 50 percent or more of our common stock then outstanding, as more fully described in the Rights Agreement), the Board of Directors may exchange all (but not less than all) of the then outstanding Rights (other than rights owned by such Person, which would have become void) for shares of common stock at an exchange ratio of one share of common stock per Right, appropriately adjusted in order to protect the interests of holders of Rights.
The Rights Agreement was approved by our Board of Directors on July 18, 2014. The Rights will expire at the close of business on its ten year anniversary, unless earlier exchanged or terminated by us.
Common Stock
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes the issuance of up to 150,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value common stock.
On June 21, 2013, we entered into an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the "2013 ATM") with MLV & Co. LLC ("MLV") under which we could issue and sell shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering price of up to $50.0 million, from time to time through MLV, acting as the sales agent. Under the agreement we would pay MLV a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock sold through MLV.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
During the year ended December 31, 2014, we sold a total of 4,850,055 shares of common stock under the 2013 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $50.0 million at an average selling price of $10.31 per share. Net proceeds were approximately $48.9 million after deducting commissions and other transactions costs.
In December 2014, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (the "2015 S-3"), which was declared effective in January 2015. Under the 2015 S-3, the Company may sell up to a total of $250 million of its securities. In connection with the 2015 S-3, we amended our 2013 At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement with MLV (the "2015 ATM") such that we may issue and sell additional shares of our common stock, having an aggregate offering price of up to $175.0 million, from time to time through MLV and FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBR", each of MLV and FBR individually an "Agent" and collectively the "Agents"), acting as the sales agents. Under the 2015 ATM we pay the Agents a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock sold through the Agents.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we sold a total of 3,104,253 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $31.6 million at an average selling price of $10.18 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $31.0 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we sold a total of 570,366 shares of common stock under the 2015 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $4.5 million at an average selling price of $7.88 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $4.4 million after deducting commissions and other transaction costs.
In March 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering of 5,128,206 shares of our common stock (plus a 30-day underwriter overallotment option to purchase up to an additional 769,230 shares of common stock, which was exercised) at a price of $9.75 per share. Net proceeds from this offering, including the overallotment option, were approximately $54 million, net of underwriting discounts and offering expenses of approximately $3.6 million.
In May 2017, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (the "2017 S-3"), which was declared effective in June 2017, replacing the 2015 S-3. Under the 2017 S-3, the Company may sell up to a total of $300 million of its securities. In connection with the 2017 S-3, we entered into an At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the "2017 ATM") with Jefferies LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., FBR Capital Markets & Co., SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (each a "2017 Agent" and collectively, the "2017 Agents"), relating to the sale of shares of our common stock. Under the 2017 ATM we pay the 2017 Agents a commission rate of up to 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we sold a total of 4,689,418 shares of common stock under the 2017 ATM for aggregate total gross proceeds of approximately $47.7 million at an average selling price of $10.18 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $46.9 million after deducting commissions and other transactions costs.
Subsequent to December 31, 2017, we sold an aggregate of 2,889,344 shares of common stock pursuant to the 2017 ATM for total gross proceeds of approximately $35.9 million at an average selling price of $12.42 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $35.3 million after deducting commissions and other transactions costs.
The 2017 S-3 is currently our only active shelf registration statement. After deducting shares already sold, there is approximately $252.3 million and $216.4 million of common stock that remains available for sale under the 2017 S-3 at December 31, 2017 and post year-end December 31, 2017, respectively. We may offer the securities under the 2017 S-3 from time to time in response to market conditions or other circumstances if we believe such a plan of financing is in the best interests of our stockholders. We believe that the 2017 S-3 provides us with the flexibility to raise additional capital to finance our operations as needed.
Treasury Stock
As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, 41,309 shares of common stock are being held in Treasury, at a cost of approximately $234,000, representing the fair market value on the date the shares were surrendered to the Company to satisfy employee tax obligations.
Equity Incentive Plans
The TG Therapeutics, Inc. Amended and Restated 2012 Incentive Plan (“2012 Incentive Plan”) was approved by stockholders in June 2015. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, no options were outstanding and up to an additional 504,128 shares may be issued under the 2012 Incentive Plan.
Effective as of January 1, 2017, we entered into an amendment (the “Amendment”) to the employment agreement entered into as of December 15, 2011 (together with the Amendment, the “Employment Agreement”) with Michael S. Weiss, our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and President. Under the Amendment, Mr. Weiss will remain as Chief Executive Officer and President, removing the interim status. Simultaneously, we entered into a Strategic Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with Caribe BioAdvisors, LLC (the “Advisor”) owned by Mr. Weiss to provide the services of Mr. Weiss as Chairman of the Board and as Executive Chairman. As part of the Amendment, Mr. Weiss also agreed to forfeit 3,381,866 restricted shares previously granted under the Employment Agreement that were predominantly subject to time-based vesting over the next three years. Simultaneously, (i) Mr. Weiss was issued 418,371 restricted shares under the Employment Agreement that vest in 2018 and 2019 and (ii) the Advisor was issued 2,960,000 restricted shares under the Advisory Agreement that vested on market capitalization thresholds ranging from $375 million to $750 million. In accordance with GAAP, there was no incremental stock compensation expense recognition as a result of the modification.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Stock Options
The following table summarizes stock option activity for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:
As of December 31, 2017, there are no unvested option awards and no unrecognized compensation cost related to option awards.
Restricted Stock
Certain employees, directors and consultants have been awarded restricted stock. The restricted stock vesting consists of milestone and time-based vesting. The following table summarizes restricted share activity for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Total compensation expense associated with restricted stock grants was $15,945,284, $7,509,999 and $15,697,092 during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, there was approximately $14.8 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested time-based restricted stock, which is expected to be recognized over a weghted-average period of 1.0 year. This amount does not include, as of December 31, 2017, 242,000 shares of restricted stock outstanding which are milestone-based and vest upon certain corporate milestones; and 2,413,917 shares of restricted stock outstanding issued to non-employees. Milestone-based non-cash compensation expense will be measured and recorded if and when a milestone becomes probable. The expense for non-employee shares is determined at the “measurement date.” The expense is recognized over the vesting period of the award. Until the measurement date is reached, the total amount of compensation expense remains uncertain. We record compensation expense based on the fair value of the award at the reporting date.
Warrants
The following table summarizes warrant activity for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 6 - NOTES PAYABLE
The following is a summary of notes payable:
Convertible 5% Notes Payable
The 5% Notes and accrued and unpaid interest thereon are convertible at the option of the holder into common stock at the conversion price of $1,125 per share. We have no obligation under the 5% Notes aside from (a) 50% of the net product cash flows from Ariston’s product candidates, if any, payable to noteholders; and (b) the conversion feature, discussed above. Interest accrues monthly, is added to principal on an annual basis, every March 8, and is payable at maturity, which was March 8, 2015 (see Note 4 for further details).
The cumulative liability including accrued and unpaid interest of these notes was approximately $17.5 million at December 31, 2017 and $16.7 million at December 31, 2016. No payments have been made on the 5% Notes as of December 31, 2017.
In December 2011, we elected the fair value option for valuing the 5% Notes. The fair value option was elected in order to reflect in our financial statements the assumptions that market participants use in evaluating these financial instruments (see Note 4 for further details).
NOTE 7 - INCOME TAXES
We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between the financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized. In determining the need for a valuation allowance, management reviews both positive and negative evidence, including current and historical results of operations, future income projections and the overall prospects of our business. Based upon management's assessment of all available evidence, we believe that it is more-likely-than-not that the deferred tax assets will not be realizable, and therefore, a valuation allowance has been established. The valuation allowance for deferred tax assets was approximately $99,713,000 and $116,172,000 as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
On December 22, 2017, H.R.1, commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) was signed into law. Among other things, the Act reduces our corporate federal tax rate from 34% to 21% effective January 1, 2018. As a result, we are required to re-measure, through income tax expense, our deferred tax assets and liabilities using the enacted rate at which we expect them to be recovered or settled. The re-measurement of our net deferred tax asset would have resulted in additional income tax expense of $51,767,584; however, with full valuation allowance in place, the expense is reversed through a corresponding adjustment to the valuation allowance, resulting in no impact on income tax expense.
As of December 31, 2017, we have U.S. net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) of approximately $375,475,000 and research and development credit carryforwards (“R&D credits”) of approximately $10,491,000. For income tax purposes, these NOLs and R&D credits will expire in various amounts through 2037. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 contains provisions which limit the ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards and R&D credit carryforwards in the case of certain events including significant changes in ownership interests. The Exchange Transaction with TG Bio may have resulted in a “change in ownership” as defined by IRC Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Additionally, stock issuance activities may have resulted in a “change in ownership” as defined by IRC Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Accordingly, a substantial portion of the Company’s NOLs above may be subject to annual limitations in reducing any future year’s taxable income, and a substantial portion of the R&D Credit carryforwards may be subject to annual limitations in reducing any future year’s tax.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
The tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to significant portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities at December 31, 2017 and 2016 are presented below.
There was no current or deferred income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017. Income tax expense differed from amounts computed by applying the US Federal income tax rate of 34% to pretax loss as follows:
We file income tax returns in the U.S Federal and various state and local jurisdictions. With certain exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to U.S. Federal and state income tax examinations by tax authorities for years prior to 2014. However, NOLs and tax credits generated from those prior years could still be adjusted upon audit.
The Company would recognize interest and penalties, if any, to uncertain tax position in income tax expense in the statement of operations. There was no accrual for interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions for 2017. We do not believe that there will be a material change in our unrecognized tax positions over the next twelve months. All of the unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized, would be offset by the valuation allowance.
NOTE 8 - LICENSE AGREEMENTS
BET
In May 2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant Biosys (“Jubilant”), an India-based biotechnology company, we entered into a sub-license agreement (“JBET Agreement”) with Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”) (see Note 9), for the development and commercialization of Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program in the field of hematological malignancies.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Under the terms of the agreement, we paid Checkpoint an up-front licensing fee of $1.0 million and will make additional payments contingent on certain preclinical, clinical, and regulatory milestones, including commercial milestones totaling up to approximately $177 million and a single-digit royalty on net sales. TG will also provide funding to support certain targeted research efforts at Jubilant.
Anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR
On March 3, 2015, we entered into a Global Collaboration Agreement (the “Collaboration”) with Checkpoint, a subsidiary of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“FBIO”), a related party, for the development and commercialization of Checkpoint’s anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR antibody research programs in the field of hematological malignancies. Checkpoint retains the rights to develop and commercialize these antibodies in solid tumors.
Under the terms of the Collaboration, we made an up-front payment of $0.5 million, will make development and sales-based milestone payments up to an aggregate of $164 million, and will pay a tiered single digit royalty on net sales. The royalty term will terminate on a country by country basis upon the later of (i) ten years after the first commercial sale of any applicable licensed product in such country, or (ii) the expiration of the last-to-expire patent held by the Dana Farber Cancer Institute containing a valid claim to any licensed product in such country.
Michael Weiss, our Executive Chairman, CEO and President is also the Executive Vice Chairman of FBIO and the Executive Chairman of Checkpoint (see Note 9).
TGR-1202
On September 22, 2014, we exercised our option to license the global rights to TGR-1202, thereby entering into an exclusive licensing agreement (the “TGR-1202 License”) with Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, SA (“Rhizen”) for the development and commercialization of TGR-1202. Prior to this, we had been jointly developing TGR-1202 in a 50:50 joint venture with Rhizen.
Under the terms of the TGR-1202 License, Rhizen received a $4.0 million cash payment and 371,530 shares of our common stock as an upfront license fee. With respect to TGR-1202, Rhizen will be eligible to receive regulatory filing, approval and sales-based milestone payments in the aggregate of approximately $175 million, a small portion of which will be payable on the first New Drug Application (NDA) filing and the remainder on approval in multiple jurisdictions for up to two oncology indications and one non-oncology indication and attaining certain sales milestones. In addition, if TGR-1202 is co-formulated with another drug to create a new product (a "New Product"), Rhizen will be eligible to receive similar regulatory approval and sales-based milestone payments for such New Product. Additionally, Rhizen will be entitled to tiered royalties on our future net sales of TGR-1202 and any New Product. In lieu of sales milestones and royalties on net sales, Rhizen shall also be eligible to participate in sublicensing revenue, if any, based on a percentage that decreases as a function of the number of patients treated in clinical trials following the exercise of the license option. Rhizen will retain global manufacturing rights to TGR-1202, provided that they are price competitive with alternative manufacturers.
IRAK4
On June 23, 2014, we entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated ("Ligand") for the development and commercialization of Ligand's interleukin-1 receptor associated kinase-4 ("IRAK4") inhibitor technology, which currently is in preclinical development for potential use against certain cancers and autoimmune diseases. IRAK4 is a serine/threonine protein kinase that is a key downstream signaling component of the interleukin-1 receptor and multiple toll-like receptors.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Under the terms of the license agreement, Ligand received 125,000 shares of our common stock as an upfront license fee. Ligand will also be eligible to receive maximum potential milestone payments of approximately $207 million upon the achievement of specific clinical, regulatory and commercial milestone events. Additionally, Ligand will be entitled to royalties on our future net sales of licensed products containing IRAK4 inhibitors. The basic royalty rate for licensed products covered by Ligand's issued patents will be 6% for annual sales of up to $1 billion and 9.5% for annual sales in excess of that threshold.
Additionally, Opus Point Partners, LLC, who identified the opportunity and advised us on the transaction, will also be entitled to receive a 1% royalty for annual sales of up to $1 billion. Michael S. Weiss, our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, is a Managing Member of Opus Point Partners, LLC.
TG-1101
In November 2012, we entered into an exclusive (within the territory) sublicense agreement with Ildong relating to the development and commercialization of TG-1101 in South Korea and Southeast Asia. Under the terms of the sublicense agreement, Ildong has been granted a royalty bearing, exclusive right, including the right to grant sublicenses, to develop and commercialize TG-1101 in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, and Myanmar.
An upfront payment of $2.0 million, which was received in December 2012, net of $0.3 million of income tax withholdings, is being recognized as license revenue on a straight-line basis over the life of the agreement, which is through the expiration of the last licensed patent right or 15 years after the first commercial sale of a product in such country, unless the agreement is earlier terminated, and represents the estimated period over which we will have certain ongoing responsibilities under the sublicense agreement. We recorded license revenue of approximately $152,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, and, at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, have deferred revenue of approximately $1,219,000, $1,371,000 and $1,524,000, respectively, associated with this $2,000,000 payment (approximately $152,000 of which has been classified in current liabilities at December 31, 2017).
We may receive up to an additional $5.0 million in payments upon the achievement of pre-specified milestones. In addition, upon commercialization, Ildong will make royalty payments to us on net sales of TG-1101 in the sublicense territory.
NOTE 9 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
LFB Biotechnologies
On January 30, 2012, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with LFB Biotechnologies, GTC Biotherapeutics and LFB/GTC LLC, all wholly-owned subsidiaries of LFB Group, relating to the development of ublituximab (the “LFB License Agreement”). In connection with the LFB License Agreement, LFB Group was issued 5,000,000 shares of common stock, and a warrant to purchase 2,500,000 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.001 per share. In addition, on November 9, 2012, we nominated Dr. Yann Echelard to our Board of Directors as LFB Group’s nominee. LFB Group maintains the right to nominate a board member until such time as LFB Group owns less than 10% of the outstanding common stock.
In connection with the LFB License Agreement, LFB Group maintained the right to purchase at least $750,000 in additional shares of common stock at a purchase price per share as defined in a November 2012 securities exchange agreement. Accordingly, in February 2015, LFB Group purchased 114,855 shares of our common stock at a price of $6.53 per share for net proceeds of $750,000. In May 2015, LFB Group exercised its warrant to purchase 2,500,000 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.001 per share.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Under the terms of the LFB License Agreement, we utilize LFB Group for certain development and manufacturing services. We incurred approximately $2.3 million, $8.1 million and $9.3 million in expenses for such services during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which have been included in other research and development expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31, 2017, and 2016, we had zero and approximately $0.4 million, respectively, recorded in accounts payable related to the LFB License Agreement. In conjunction with the development and manufacturing services discussed above, certain agreements between us and LFB Group require payments in advance of services performed or goods delivered. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded zero and approximately $1.3 million, respectively, in prepaid research and development for such advance payments.
Other Parties
In March 2014, we entered into a shared services agreement (the “Opus Shared Services Agreement”) with Opus Point Partners Management, LLC (“Opus”) in which the parties agreed to share a rented facility and costs for certain other services. Michael S. Weiss, our Executive Chairman and CEO, is a Managing Member of Opus. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we incurred expenses of zero and approximately $0.3 million, respectively, principally for rent, related to this Opus Shared Services Agreement. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we had zero accounts payable related to this Opus Shared Services Agreement. The Opus Shared Services Agreement is no longer in effect as we began occupying new space in April 2016.
In October 2014, we entered into an agreement (the “Office Agreement”) with FBIO to occupy approximately 45% of the 24,000 square feet of New York City office space leased by FBIO, which is now our corporate headquarters. The Office Agreement requires us to pay our respective share of the average annual rent and other costs of the 15-year lease. We approximate an average annual rental obligation of $1.1 million under the Office Agreement. We began to occupy this new space in April 2016, with rental payments beginning in the third quarter of 2016. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded rent expense of approximately $1.2 million and $1.4 million, and at December 31, 2017, have deferred rent of approximately $1.4 million. Mr. Weiss, our Executive Chairman and CEO, is also Executive Vice Chairman of FBIO.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we agreed to pay FBIO $2.8 million for our portion of the build-out costs, which have been allocated to us at the 45% rate mentioned above. The allocated build-out costs have been recorded in Leasehold Interest on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and will be amortized over the 15-year term of the Office Agreement. After an initial commitment period of the 45% rate for a period of three (3) years, we and FBIO will determine actual office space utilization annually and if our utilization differs from the amount we have been billed, we will either receive credits or be assessed incremental utilization charges. Also in connection with this lease, in October 2014 we pledged $0.6 million to secure a line of credit as a security deposit for the Office Agreement, which has been recorded as restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
In July 2015, we entered into a Shared Services Agreement (the “Shared Services Agreement”) with FBIO to share the cost of certain services such as facilities use, personnel costs and other overhead and administrative costs. This Shared Services Agreement requires us to pay our respective share of services utilized. In connection with the Shared Services Agreement, we incurred expenses of approximately $1.2 million and $0.8 million for shared services for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, primarily related to shared personnel.
In May 2016, as part of a broader agreement with Jubilant, an India-based biotechnology company, we entered into the JBET Agreement with Checkpoint, a subsidiary of FBIO, for the development and commercialization of Jubilant’s novel BET inhibitor program in the field of hematological malignancies. We paid Checkpoint an up-front licensing fee of $1.0 million in July 2016 and incurred expenses of $0.2 million in March 2017 for the first milestone achievement as part of the JBET Agreement recorded in other research and development in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we had approximately $0.3 million and $0.8 million, respectively, recorded in accounts payable, related mostly to the JBET Agreement. Mr. Weiss is also the Executive Chairman of Checkpoint.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 10 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
As of December 31, 2017, we have known contractual obligations, commitments and contingencies of approximately $15.6 million related to our operating lease obligations.
Leases
See Note 9 for a detailed description of our lease arrangement in New York. Total rental expense was approximately $1.4 million, $1.6 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Future minimum lease commitments as of December 31, 2017, in the aggregate total approximately $15.6 million through December 31, 2031. The preceding table shows future minimum lease commitments, which include our office leases in New York, North Carolina and Tennessee, by year as of December 31, 2017.
TG Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 11 - QUARTERLY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
NOTE 12 - LITIGATION
On January 6, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 (the “Class Period”). The case was captioned John Lyon v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period various statements made by the Company regarding its GENUINE Phase 3 trial were materially false or misleading when made in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 24, 2017, a second purported class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016. The case was captioned Kenneth C. Wyzgoski v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00508-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The claims and allegations in the Wyzgoski complaint were substantially identical to those in the Lyon case. By order dated March 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Lyon and Wyzgoski cases into one action, captioned In re TG Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.), appointed lead plaintiffs in the case, and approved lead plaintiffs’ selection of lead counsel. On April 5, 2017 the Court so ordered a stipulation pursuant to which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated action in its entirety without prejudice. The Company denies the allegations and claims made in the above-referenced actions and no consideration was given by the Company in connection with lead plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of the consolidated action.
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.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints each of Michael S. Weiss and Sean A. Power, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any or all amendments to this annual report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the SEC, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent or any of his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this Form 10-K has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant on March 15, 2018, and in the capacities indicated:
Signatures
Title
/s/ Michael S. Weiss
Michael S. Weiss
Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
(principal executive officer)
/s/ Sean A. Power
Sean A. Power
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
/s/ Laurence N. Charney
Laurence N. Charney
Director
/s/ Yann Echelard
Yann Echelard
Director
/s/ Kenneth Hoberman
Kenneth Hoberman
Director
/s/ Daniel Hume
Daniel Hume
Director
/s/ William J. Kennedy
William J. Kennedy
Director
/s/ Mark Schoenebaum, M.D.
Mark Schoenebaum, M.D.
Director
EXHIBIT INDEX