0001636050false2021FYP3Y0.1250.1250.125505033.3333.3300016360502020-04-012021-03-31iso4217:USD00016360502020-09-30xbrli:shares00016360502021-06-0700016360502021-03-3100016360502020-03-31iso4217:USDxbrli:shares0001636050us-gaap:ResearchAndDevelopmentExpenseMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:ResearchAndDevelopmentExpenseMember2019-04-012020-03-3100016360502019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-03-310001636050us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2019-03-310001636050us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2019-03-3100016360502019-03-310001636050us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:PublicStockOfferingMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-03-310001636050us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-03-310001636050us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2020-03-310001636050us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:PublicStockOfferingMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2021-03-31siox:segmentsiox:bank0001636050us-gaap:CreditConcentrationRiskMember2021-03-310001636050srt:MinimumMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050srt:MaximumMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:EmployeeStockOptionandWarrantMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:StockOptionsandRSUsMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Member2020-04-01xbrli:pure00016360502019-05-082020-03-310001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2018-12-070001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2019-02-280001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2019-10-310001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:TheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalSchoolMember2018-12-072018-12-070001636050siox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Member2018-06-0500016360502019-04-302019-04-300001636050srt:MinimumMembersiox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Member2018-06-050001636050siox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Membersrt:MaximumMember2018-06-050001636050siox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Member2018-06-052018-06-050001636050siox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Member2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:OxfordBioMedicaUKLtd.Member2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:BenitecBiopharmaLimitedMembersiox:OtherThanResearchandDevelopmentExpenseMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:BenitecBiopharmaLimitedMember2019-04-012020-03-3100016360502019-02-13iso4217:EURxbrli:shares0001636050siox:LongtermInvesteeMember2019-02-1300016360502019-02-252019-02-2500016360502019-02-132019-02-130001636050siox:ArvelleTherapeuticsMember2020-05-012020-05-310001636050siox:ArvelleTherapeuticsMember2021-02-012021-02-280001636050siox:ArvelleTherapeuticsMember2021-03-310001636050siox:ArvelleTherapeuticsMember2021-03-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201602Member2021-03-310001636050siox:OfficeLeaseFacilityInNewYorkNewYorkMember2020-08-310001636050us-gaap:SecuredDebtMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2017-02-020001636050us-gaap:SecuredDebtMemberus-gaap:PrimeRateMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2017-02-022017-02-020001636050srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:SecuredDebtMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2017-02-020001636050us-gaap:SecuredDebtMemberus-gaap:PrimeRateMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2019-11-272019-11-270001636050srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:SecuredDebtMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2019-11-270001636050us-gaap:SecuredDebtMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2019-11-272019-11-270001636050us-gaap:SecuredDebtMembersiox:LoanandSecurityAgreementwithHerculesCapitalInc.Member2020-04-012020-04-3000016360502020-04-300001636050us-gaap:SubsidiaryOfCommonParentMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:SubsidiaryOfCommonParentMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:PublicStockOfferingMember2020-02-012020-02-290001636050siox:PublicStockOfferingMember2020-02-290001636050us-gaap:OverAllotmentOptionMember2020-02-012020-02-290001636050siox:PublicStockOfferingMembersiox:RoivantSciencesLtd.Member2020-02-012020-02-2900016360502020-11-120001636050us-gaap:MajorityShareholderMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:MajorityShareholderMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:PrivatePlacementMember2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:PrivatePlacementMembersiox:SVBLeerinkLLCMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:PrivatePlacementMemberus-gaap:SubsequentEventMembersiox:SVBLeerinkLLCMember2021-04-012021-06-0900016360502019-05-082019-05-080001636050siox:Plan2015Member2019-03-310001636050siox:Plan2015Member2019-04-300001636050siox:Plan2015Member2020-04-300001636050siox:Plan2015Member2021-03-310001636050siox:TimeBasedEmployeeStockOptionsMember2020-04-012021-03-31siox:installment0001636050siox:MarketBasedPerformanceEmployeeStockOptionMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:MarketBasedPerformanceEmployeeStockOptionMember2021-03-310001636050siox:TimeBasedEmployeeStockOptionsMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050srt:MinimumMembersiox:MarketBasedPerformanceEmployeeStockOptionMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:MarketBasedPerformanceEmployeeStockOptionMembersrt:MaximumMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:MarketBasedPerformanceEmployeeStockOptionMember2020-04-012021-03-3100016360502018-04-012019-03-310001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-09-012019-09-300001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-03-310001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-03-310001636050us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2021-03-310001636050siox:GrantsToDirectorsAndEmployeesMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:GrantsToDirectorsAndEmployeesMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:GrantsToDirectorsAndEmployeesMember2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:MajorityShareholderMembersiox:EmployeesMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050us-gaap:MajorityShareholderMembersiox:EmployeesMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050us-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheOneMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-09-012019-09-300001636050us-gaap:ShareBasedCompensationAwardTrancheTwoMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-09-012019-09-300001636050country:US2020-04-012021-03-310001636050country:US2019-04-012020-03-310001636050country:CH2020-04-012021-03-310001636050country:CH2019-04-012020-03-310001636050country:BM2020-04-012021-03-310001636050country:BM2019-04-012020-03-310001636050siox:OtherGeographicalAreaMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:OtherGeographicalAreaMember2019-04-012020-03-310001636050country:US2021-03-310001636050country:CH2021-03-310001636050country:GB2021-03-310001636050country:IE2021-03-310001636050us-gaap:ResearchMember2021-03-310001636050srt:MinimumMembersiox:ThirdPartiesForPharmaceuticalManufacturingAndResearchActivitiesMember2020-04-012021-03-310001636050siox:ThirdPartiesForPharmaceuticalManufacturingAndResearchActivitiesMembersrt:MaximumMember2020-04-012021-03-3100016360502020-04-012020-06-3000016360502020-07-012020-09-3000016360502020-10-012020-12-3100016360502021-01-012021-03-3100016360502019-04-012019-06-3000016360502019-07-012019-09-3000016360502019-10-012019-12-3100016360502020-01-012020-03-31
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
☒
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2021
or
☐
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from
to
Commission file number 001-37418
Sio Gene Therapies Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
85-3863315 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
130 West 42nd St.,
26th Floor
New York,
New York
|
|
10036 |
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
(Zip Code) |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(877)
746-4891
Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd.
Suite 1, 3rd Floor
11-12 St. James's Square
London SW1Y 4LB, United Kingdom
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed
since last report)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title of each Class |
|
Trading Symbol |
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
Common Stock, par value $0.00001 per share |
|
SIOX |
|
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is not required to
file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.
Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit such
files). Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a
smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the
definitions of "large accelerated filer", "accelerated filer",
"smaller reporting company" and "emerging growth company" in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer |
☐
|
Accelerated filer |
☐
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accelerated filer |
ý |
Smaller reporting company |
ý |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emerging growth company |
☐
|
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the
registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period
for complying with any new or revised financial accounting
standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities
Act.
☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on
and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness
of its internal control over financial reporting under Section
404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the
registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit
report.
☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of voting shares of common stock held by
non-affiliates of the registrant at the end of the registrant's
most recently completed second fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2020 was approximately $131,913,331 based on the last reported sale
price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select
Market on September 30, 2020 of $4.62 per share.
The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s common stock,
$0.00001 par value per share, on June 7, 2021, was
69,558,434.
SIO GENE THERAPIES INC.
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our
Business
Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that
you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks
include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Our
business, operations and clinical development plans and timelines
could continue to be adversely impacted by the effects of health
epidemics, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic, on the
manufacturing, clinical trial and other business activities
performed by us or by third parties with whom we conduct business,
including our contract manufacturers, contract research
organizations, or CROs, shippers and others.
•We
have a limited operating history and have never generated any
product revenues.
•We
are heavily dependent on the success of our gene therapy product
candidates, which are still in early stages of clinical or
preclinical development. If we are unable to successfully develop
and commercialize any of our product candidates, our business will
be harmed.
•We
may be required to make significant payments to third parties under
the agreements pursuant to which we acquired our gene therapy
product candidates.
•Gene
therapies are novel, complex, difficult and expensive to
manufacture. We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and
will rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial
supplies of our product candidates. Delays in manufacturing
processes, including recently at Oxford, may result in delays in
our planned clinical trials that would otherwise harm our business
and prospects.
•Our
business plan may lead to the initiation of one or more gene
therapy development programs, the discontinuation of one or more
development programs, or the execution of one or more transactions
that you do not agree with or that you do not perceive as favorable
to your investment.
•Clinical
trials are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and
implement and involve an uncertain outcome.
•If
we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will
not be able to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates,
and our ability to generate revenue will be materially
impaired.
•The
intended tax effects of our corporate structure prior to and
following the Domestication (as defined below) and our corporate
reorganization to align our corporate structure with current and
future business activity (the "Reorganization"), and intercompany
arrangements prior to the Domestication and Reorganization, depend
on the application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and on
how we operate our business.
•We
expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and
may never achieve or maintain profitability.
•We
will require additional capital to fund our operations, and if we
fail to obtain necessary financing, we may not be able to complete
the development and commercialization of our product
candidates.
•Interim
"top-line" and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we
announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient
data become available and are subject to audit and verification
procedures that could result in material changes in the final
data.
•Our
gene therapy product candidates may cause adverse effects or have
other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory
approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market
acceptance.
•Enrollment
and retention of patients in clinical trials is an expensive and
time-consuming process and could be made more difficult or rendered
impossible by multiple factors outside our control.
•If
we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution
capabilities either on our own or in collaboration with third
parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product
candidates, even if approved.
•If
the market opportunities for any product candidates we may develop
are smaller than we believe they are, our revenues, if any, may be
adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the target
patient populations for many of the product candidates we may
develop are small, we must be able to successfully identify
patients and achieve a significant market share to achieve and
maintain profitability and growth.
•We
face significant competition from other biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, and there is a possibility that our
competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop
therapies that are safer or more advanced or effective than ours
and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete
effectively.
•We
may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights
throughout the world, which could impair our business.
•Third-party
claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other
proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other
proprietary rights may delay or prevent the development and
commercialization of our product candidates.
•The
market price of our common stock has been and is likely to continue
to be highly volatile, and you may lose some or all of your
investment.
The summary risk factors described above should be read together
with the text of the full risk factors below, in the section titled
“Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A. and the other information set
forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our
consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as
in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The risks summarized above or described in full below
are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and
uncertainties not precisely known to us, or that we currently deem
to be immaterial may also harm our business, financial condition,
results of operations and future growth prospects.
PART I.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains "forward-looking
statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"). These statements are often identified by
the use of words such as "anticipate," "believe," "continue,"
"could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "project,"
"will," "would" or the negative or plural of these words or similar
expressions or variations, although not all forward-looking
statements contain these identifying words. We cannot assure
you that the events and circumstances reflected in the
forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur and actual
results could differ materially from those projected in the
forward-looking statements.
The forward-looking statements appearing in a number of places
throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not
limited to, statements regarding our intentions, beliefs,
projections, outlook, analyses or current expectations concerning,
among other things:
•the
success and timing of our ongoing development and potential
commercialization of our product candidates;
•our
relationships under our license agreements;
•the
success of our interactions with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") and international regulatory
authorities;
•the
anticipated start dates, durations and completion dates of our
ongoing and future nonclinical studies and clinical trials, as well
as subsequent portions or cohorts of our ongoing clinical
trials;
•the
receipt of approvals or endorsements by data monitoring or other
committees necessary for commencement or continuation of clinical
trials;
•the
anticipated designs of our future clinical
studies;
•anticipated
future regulatory submissions and the timing of, and our ability
to, obtain and maintain regulatory approval for our product
candidates;
•the
rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of any
approved product candidate;
•our
ability to identify and in-license or acquire additional product
candidates;
•our
commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and
strategy;
•continued
service of our executive officers or other key scientific or
management personnel;
•our
ability to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property
rights for our product candidates;
•our
anticipated future cash position;
•our
estimates regarding our results of operations, financial condition,
liquidity, capital requirements, prospects, growth and
strategies;
•our
ability to maintain and operate our business in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic;
•the
success of competing therapies that are or may become
available; and
•our
stated objective of building the world's leading gene therapy
company for the treatment of neurological diseases.
We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our
current expectations and projections about future events, including
the responses we expect from the FDA and other regulatory
authorities and financial trends that we believe may affect our
financial condition, results of operations, business strategy,
nonclinical studies and clinical trials and financial needs. Such
forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks,
uncertainties, assumptions and other factors known and unknown that
could cause actual results and the timing of certain events to
differ materially from future results expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or
contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to,
those identified herein, and those discussed in the section titled
"Risk Factors" set forth in Part I, Item 1A of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). These risks
are not exhaustive. You should not rely upon forward-looking
statements as predictions of future events. Furthermore, such
forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this
report. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is
not possible for our management to predict all risk factors, nor
can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the
extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause
actual results to differ materially from those contained in any
forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we undertake
no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect
events or circumstances after the date of such
statements.
In addition, statements that "we believe" and similar statements
reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These
statements are based upon information available to us as of the
date of this report, and while we believe such information
forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information
may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read
to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or
review of, all potentially available relevant information. These
statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not
to unduly rely upon these statements as predictions of future
events.
In November 2020, Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. changed its
jurisdiction of incorporation from Bermuda to Delaware and changed
its corporate name to Sio Gene Therapies Inc., which we refer to
collectively as the Domestication. Unless the context requires
otherwise, references in this report to "Sio", the "Company," "we,"
"us," and "our" refer to (i) Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. and its
subsidiaries prior to the Domestication and (ii) Sio Gene Therapies
Inc. and its subsidiaries after the Domestication. In addition, all
references to “common stock” before the Domestication refer to the
common shares of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd., and all such
references after the Domestication refer to the common stock of
Sio.
Item
1. Business
Overview
We are a clinical-stage company focused on developing gene
therapies to radically transform the lives of patients with
neurodegenerative diseases. We currently have three clinical-stage
programs: (i) the AXO-AAV-GM1 program for the treatment of GM1
gangliosidosis in which five patients have been dosed in the
late-infantile/juvenile (Type II) low-dose cohort of stage 1, and
we have dosed two late-infantile/juvenile (Type II) patients in the
higher dose cohort of the study and expect to continue to dose Type
II patients and initiate the low-dose infantile (Type I) patients
in calendar year 2021; (ii) the AXO-AAV-GM2 program for the
treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff
diseases) for which we received clearance for the IND from the FDA
in November 2020, and in which we dosed the first infantile patient
in January 2021; and (iii) the AXO-Lenti-PD program for the
treatment of Parkinson's disease, comprised of the ProSavin Phase
1/2 study in which 15 patients were previously dosed and the
AXO-Lenti-PD SUNRISE-PD study in which we have dosed two patients
in Cohort 1 of the dose-escalation study and four patients in
Cohort 2.
We are dedicated to realizing the potential of gene therapies to
offer transformative patient outcomes in areas of high unmet
medical need and extending the reach of gene therapies to highly
prevalent neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease. We
have assembled a portfolio of gene therapies in partnership with
leading scientific institutions and have built a team with
extensive experience in the gene therapy space. Our team pursues
new innovations in vector design and delivery to optimize our
investigational gene therapy products for safety, potency,
durability, and immunologic response. We will continue to build
integrated internal development capabilities from product
development through commercialization and focus on accelerating the
pace of product development in the clinic. As part of our ongoing
business strategy, we continue to explore potential opportunities
to acquire or license new product candidates as well as
opportunities for partnership or collaboration on our existing
products in development. Our vision is to build the world's leading
gene therapy company for the treatment of neurodegenerative
diseases by progressing our current programs and identifying,
developing and commercializing other novel gene therapy treatments
for neurodegenerative diseases.
The Domestication
We have substantially completed our previously disclosed corporate
transformation to align corporate structure and governance with
current and future business activity, including significantly
reducing the number of our subsidiaries. On November 12, 2020,
Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. ("AGT") discontinued as a Bermuda
exempted company pursuant to Section 132G of the Companies Act 1981
of Bermuda, and pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), continued its existence
under the DGCL as a corporation named Sio Gene Therapies Inc.
("Sio") organized in the State of Delaware. The Domestication
effected a change in our jurisdiction of incorporation, and other
changes of a legal nature, including changes in our organizational
documents. Our consolidated business, operations, assets and
liabilities did not change upon effectiveness of the Domestication.
However, following the Domestication, the principal executive
offices and registered offices of Sio are located at 130 West 42nd
St, 26th Floor, New York, New York 10036, and the telephone number
for Sio at its principal executive offices is 1 (877) 746-4891. The
fiscal year end of Sio Gene Therapies Inc. following the
Domestication remains at March 31. In addition, our directors and
executive officers immediately after the Domestication were the
same individuals who were directors and executive officers,
respectively, immediately prior to the Domestication.
In the Domestication, each of our currently issued and outstanding
common shares automatically converted by operation of law, on a
one-for-one basis, into shares of Sio common stock. Consequently,
upon the effectiveness of the Domestication, each holder of an AGT
common share instead holds a share of Sio common stock representing
the same proportional equity interest in Sio as that shareholder
held in AGT and representing the same class of shares. The number
of shares of Sio common stock outstanding immediately after the
Domestication is the same as the number of common shares of AGT.
outstanding immediately prior to the Domestication. In connection
with the Domestication, we adopted a new certificate of
incorporation, bylaws and form of common stock certificate, copies
of which were filed as Exhibits 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1, respectively, to
our Report on Form 8-K12G3 filed with the SEC on November 13,
2020.
Our Product Pipeline
The following table summarizes the status of our gene therapy
development programs, for which we hold global commercial rights to
each:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gene Therapy Program |
Clinical Indication |
Clinical Development Stage |
|
|
|
AXO-AAV-GM1 |
GM1 gangliosidosis |
Phase 1/2 |
|
|
|
AXO-AAV-GM2 |
GM2 gangliosidosis (including |
Phase 1/2 |
|
Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases) |
|
|
|
|
AXO-Lenti-PD |
Parkinson's disease |
Phase 2 |
|
|
|
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 Programs
Overview
We are developing AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 as potential one-time
disease-modifying treatments for GM1 and GM2 gangliosidosis
(including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease),
respectively.
GM1 Gangliosidosis and GM2 Gangliosidosis (Including Tay-Sachs and
Sandhoff Diseases)
GM1 gangliosidosis is a rare, inherited neurodegenerative lysosomal
storage disorder characterized by the accumulation of GM1
ganglioside. This accumulation occurs due to a defect in the
galactosidase beta 1 ("GLB1")
gene. The
GLB1
gene codes for the β-galactosidase ("β-gal") enzyme which catalyzes
the hydrolysis of GM1 gangliosides. Impaired β-gal activity results
in the toxic accumulation of GM1 gangliosides, causing the
progressive destruction of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord
and early death. GM1 gangliosidosis is uniformly fatal, and there
are no disease-modifying treatment options. The estimated incidence
for GM1 gangliosidosis is approximately one in 100,000 live births
worldwide. In 2019, we collaborated with the National Institutes of
Health (“NIH”) to publish a comprehensive retrospective study
characterizing the natural history of Type I GM1 gangliosidosis
in
Molecular Genetics and Metabolism
(Lang et.al., 2019). This paper describes a rapidly progressive
clinical course of Type I GM1 gangliosidosis, in which almost all
patients experience significant multi-organ system dysfunction and
neurodevelopmental regression between six and 18 months of
age.
GM2 gangliosidosis, also known as Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff diseases,
is a rare, inherited neurodegenerative lysosomal storage disorder
characterized by buildup of GM2 ganglioside in lysosomes. Defects
in the hexosaminidase subunit alpha ("HEXA")
gene (leading to Tay-Sachs disease) and hexosaminidase subunit beta
("HEXB")
gene (leading to Sandhoff disease) cause deficiencies in
beta-hexosaminidase A ("Hex A") enzyme activity. Hex A enzyme
deficiency leads to progressive accumulation of GM2 gangliosides in
the central nervous system ("CNS") with ensuing neurodegeneration.
Both Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease are characterized by
progressive nervous system dysfunction, resulting in marked
cognitive and physical impairment. Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases
result in approximately 50% mortality by three and a half years of
age and 75% mortality by five years of age. Currently there are no
disease-modifying treatment options for either Tay-Sachs disease or
Sandhoff disease, and management is limited to symptomatic
treatment. The estimated incidence for Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff
diseases is approximately one in 150,000 live births
worldwide.
The estimated incidence for the combination of GM1 gangliosidosis,
Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases is approximately one in 60,000 live
births worldwide. We estimate that there are between approximately
600 and 1,000 patients with GM1 gangliosidosis, Tay-Sachs and
Sandhoff diseases in the United States and European Union combined.
These diseases, in the severe form, reduce life expectancy to two
to four years.
AXO-AAV-GM1
AXO-AAV-GM1 is an investigational gene therapy currently being
developed as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for
GM1 gangliosidosis. The program utilizes an adeno-associated virus
("AAV") vector to deliver a functional copy of the
GLB1
gene with the goals of restoring β-gal enzyme activity both
systematically and in the CNS, reducing GM1 ganglioside
accumulation to ultimately improve neurological function and
peripheral manifestations, such as cardiac and skeletal
abnormalities, and thereby extend survival. The therapy is
administered intravenously and utilizes the AAV9 capsid, which has
been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier. Intravenous
administration has the potential to broadly transduce the CNS and
peripheral tissues, as well as treat peripheral manifestations of
the disease. We licensed exclusive worldwide rights for the
development and commercialization of AXO-AAV-GM1 from UMMS in
December 2018. In November 2019, we announced that the FDA had
granted orphan drug designation for AXO-AAV-GM1.
Preclinical studies in GM1 murine and feline models have
demonstrated that AXO-AAV-GM1 increases β-gal enzyme activity,
reduces GM1 ganglioside accumulation, improves neuromuscular
function, and extends survival. Magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI")
of GM1 feline models treated with other GM1 gene therapy
demonstrated substantially normal brain architecture through at
least two years of age, as compared with untreated GM1 feline
models.
AXO-AAV-GM1 is currently being evaluated in an IND filed by the
NIH. We presented an update from the first child dosed with
AXO-AAV-GM1 in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2019, who was
observed to have clinically significant improvements from baseline
gene transfer to six month follow-up based on neurological exam,
the Vineland-3 scale, Clinical Global Impression assessments, and
nutritional status. The Vineland-3 scale is an individually
administered measure of adaptive behavior that is widely used to
assess individuals with intellectual, developmental, and other
disabilities. In addition, AXO-AAV-GM1 was observed to be generally
well tolerated with four treatment emergent adverse events, of
which two were considered possibly related (increased Fibrin D
dimer and increased aspartate aminotransferase ("AST"), both of
which resolved with no clinical sequelae), and no reports of
serious adverse events related to the investigational gene therapy
or intravenous administration of the vector.
We have completed the enrollment and dosing of the five Type II
(late-infantile/juvenile) patients in the low-dose cohort in Stage
1 of the registrational study of both Type I and Type II GM1
patients and announced initial data on the first cohort in December
2020. A total of five Type II patients were included in the initial
data announced in December 2020. All patients had documented
deficiency of β-gal enzyme activity with a genetic and clinical
diagnosis of GM1 gangliosidosis. All five patients exhibited
impairment of fine motor skills and change in walking pattern on
clinical history at baseline. AXO-AAV-GM1 was generally
well-tolerated at the low dose (1.5×1013
vg/kg) delivered intravenously, with no serious adverse events
("SAE" or "SAEs") reported as related to gene therapy. One SAE was
described, whereby a single patient was diagnosed with bacterial
sepsis resulting from an infection of the line used for drug
product administration, which was considered to be unrelated to the
investigational drug product, and which resolved within a few days
following line removal and administration of antibiotics. The most
common adverse events were considered mild to moderate. Transient
and mild AST elevations were observed in four subjects, none of
which required clinical intervention or had associated clinical
consequences. There were no other adverse events indicative of
impaired liver function. No clinically relevant changes were
observed in platelet count.
We believe the favorable tolerability in the low-dose cohort
supports continued enrollment of patients in the high-dose cohort
(4.5×1013
vg/kg), in which two Type II patients have now been dosed without
complications. At month six, serum enzyme activity increased by an
average of 71% from baseline (range: 33%-127%) across the five
patients in the first cohort. On average, serum β-gal enzyme
activity was restored to 38% of normal reference levels at month
six, with individual patients ranging from 23-57% of normal
reference levels. The reference level was defined by the lowest
level of enzyme activity in serum from 30 healthy adult volunteers
using the same validated assay of β-gal enzyme activity as was used
to assess the patients in the study. Cerebrospinal fluid ("CSF")
samples were collected from all patients through lumbar puncture.
Development and validation of biomarker assays for CSF β-gal enzyme
is currently ongoing.
Patients were assessed by multiple measures of neurodevelopment
including (i) the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales 3rd Edition
("VABS-3"), (ii) upright and floor mobility score, and (iii)
Clinical Global Impression ("CGI"), a clinician's assessment of
change in disease severity from baseline. VABS-3 is a standardized
measure of adaptive behavior that is widely used to evaluate
communication, daily living, social skills, and motor function.
VABS-3 scores have a predictable relationship to ability, allowing
for comparative assessments with increasing age. In GM1
gangliosidosis, predictable functional decline in abilities has
been well documented in natural history studies, showing an
age-related statistically significant decline in all sub-domains of
the VABS-3 scale and in floor and upright mobility scores compared
with unaffected children. All five patients demonstrated disease
stability at six months post-treatment as assessed by VABS-3 growth
scale value scores, upright and floor mobility score, and CGI
relative to baseline values. Subdomain growth scale value scores in
the VABS-3 remained stable or improved in four out of five
patients. In May 2021, we presented new biomarker data at the
American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) conference
demonstrating that, in addition to the six-month clinical data
previously reported, the accumulated substrate GM1 ganglioside in
the CSF was reduced from baseline by 18% to 49% in four out of five
patients in the low-dose cohort. One patient, whose disease was the
most advanced at baseline and who worsened on certain clinical
parameters, exhibited an increase in CSF GM1 ganglioside of 19%
from baseline at six months. Management believes these data
represent the first direct evidence that intravenously administered
AXO-AAV-GM1 exerts a measurable biochemical effect on reducing the
toxic GM1 ganglioside that has accumulated in the CNS. Additional
data will be collected at the 12-month evaluation including several
measures of the systemic manifestations of GM1 gangliosidosis. We
expect 12-month followup data on the first cohort to be available
during the second half of calendar year 2021. In calendar year
2021, we plan to complete dosing in the high-dose cohort of Type II
patients and the low-dose cohort of Type I patients in Stage 1 of
the AXO-AAV-GM1 clinical program. In October 2020, the FDA granted
Rare Pediatric Disease designation to AXO-AAV-GM1.
Our planned Stage 1 dose ranging study activities, Stage 2 efficacy
and safety study activities and key study endpoints for our
AXO-AAV-GM1 clinical program are summarized as
follows:
AXO-AAV-GM2
AXO-AAV-GM2 is an investigational gene therapy that we are
developing as a potential one-time disease modifying treatment for
GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff
disease). The AXO-AAV-GM2 program utilizes dual AAV vectors to
deliver functional copies of both the
HEXA
gene and the
HEXB
gene, with the goal of restoring normal Hex A enzyme function in
the CNS. AXO-AAV-GM2 is administered directly to the brain and CNS
and utilizes the neurotropic AAVrh.8 capsid. The
HEXA
and
HEXB
genes will be delivered in a 1:1 ratio using separate AAvrh.8
vectors. As part of the AXO-AAV-GM2 program, we are also exploring
a next-generation gene therapy that would utilize a bicistronic
vector to deliver both the
HEXA
and
HEXB
genes in a single vector using the AAV9 capsid for systemic
intravenous administration. We licensed exclusive worldwide rights
for the development and commercialization of AXO-AAV-GM2 from UMMS
in December 2018.
Administration of AXO-AAV-GM2 in the Sandhoff mouse model showed
increases in Hex A enzyme, reductions of GM2 ganglioside in the
brain, and improvements in motor coordination. Extension of
survival was also observed in the Sandhoff mouse model, with
increases in survival in a dose-dependent manner. Patients with
infantile Tay-Sachs disease, late-infantile or juvenile disease,
and adult disease have been shown to have less than 0.1%,
approximately 0.5%, and between 2% and 4% of normal Hex A activity,
respectively. In addition, patients with infantile Tay-Sachs
disease, late-infantile or juvenile disease, and adult disease have
a median survival time from birth of three to four, 10 to 15, and
over 18 years, respectively. Hex A activity of between 5% and
10% or more of normal is believed to be compatible with a
disease-free life. We believe that the restoration of Hex A
activity to 0.5% of normal activity could represent a clinically
meaningful effect.
In October 2020, the FDA granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation
to AXO-AAV-GM2. In November 2020, the FDA cleared an IND to support
the initiation of our registrational clinical trial in patients
with GM2 gangliosidosis. We have dosed the first infantile patient
in the clinical trial under this IND in January 2021. The patient
received 1.42×1014
vg divided into bilateral intra-thalamic and intra-thecal
dosing.
Our planned Stage 1 dose ranging study activities, Stage 2 efficacy
and safety study activities and key study endpoints for our
AXO-AAV-GM2 clinical program are summarized as
follows:
AXO-Lenti-PD Program
Overview
AXO-Lenti-PD is an
in vivo
lentiviral gene therapy investigational product candidate currently
being developed as a potential one-time treatment of Parkinson’s
disease. We licensed the worldwide development and
commercialization rights to AXO-Lenti-PD and ProSavin from Oxford
Biomedica (UK) Ltd. ("Oxford"), under an exclusive license
agreement entered into in June 2018 (the "Oxford Agreement").
Currently, we have six years of data on 15 patients dosed in a
Phase 1/2 clinical trial of ProSavin and 24-month data on two
patients dosed in Cohort 1 of the Phase 2 clinical trial of the
SUNRISE-PD study. We reported six-month data from the four patients
dosed in Cohort 2 of the SUNRISE-PD study in October
2020.
AXO-Lenti-PD delivers a construct of three genes that encode the
critical enzymes required for the biochemical synthesis of dopamine
from endogenous tyrosine. The three enzymes are: Tyrosine
Hydroxylase ("TH"), the enzyme that converts tyrosine to levodopa
("L-dopa"), Cyclohydrolase 1 ("CH1"), the rate-limiting enzyme for
synthesis of Tetrahydrobiopterin ("BH4"), a critical cofactor for
production of L-dopa, and Aromatic L-Amino Acid Decarboxylase
("AADC"), the enzyme that converts L-dopa to dopamine. AXO-Lenti-PD
is delivered by a one-time stereotactic guided infusion into the
putamen. We believe that delivery of all three of these genes will
enable the continuous, tonic, endogenous synthesis of dopamine in
this region of the brain that is deficient in dopamine, with a goal
of improving motor function, reducing the burden of oral therapy
and mitigating dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's
disease.
Dopamine deficiency plays a central role in Parkinson’s disease and
we believe that restoring the ability to synthesize dopamine in
patients will offer lasting improvement in the symptoms of
Parkinson’s disease. Oxford previously conducted a Phase 1/2
clinical study with ProSavin. In this clinical trial, ProSavin was
observed to have a favorable long-term safety profile and
demonstrated effects on motor function for six years, supporting
proof-of-concept. AXO-Lenti-PD delivers a re-engineered construct
relative to ProSavin that has been demonstrated to increase
dopamine production in nonclinical studies.
Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s disease is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder that
primarily results in progressive and debilitating motor symptoms.
It is estimated that up to 1,000,000 people in the United States
and 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 people worldwide suffer from
Parkinson’s disease. It typically develops between the ages of 55
and 65 years and affects approximately 1% of people 60 years of
age. The underlying factors that result in the development of
Parkinson’s disease are largely unknown. However, Parkinson’s
disease is a neurodegenerative disease that results in reduced
levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the striatum, a region
in the brain responsible for motor control. Dopamine is essential
for movement, and low levels of dopamine in patients with
Parkinson’s disease are believed to result in the typical motor
symptoms of the disease, including hypo- and bradykinesia,
rigidity, tremor, and postural instability.
The treatment of Parkinson’s disease is currently limited to
symptomatic treatments, as no therapies have proven effective in
altering the course of the disease or addressing the underlying
pathophysiological processes. The mainstay of treatment typically
involves the daily administration of oral L-dopa, the precursor to
dopamine. While L-dopa is effective in controlling motor symptoms
early in the disease, progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons and
chronic L-dopa therapy are believed to contribute to the
"wearing
off"
of L-dopa’s efficacy in the more advanced stages of the disease.
Patients become increasingly less responsive to oral L-dopa therapy
and require higher doses to manage their symptoms. More advanced
Parkinson’s disease patients often begin to experience
"on-off"
motor fluctuations, characterized by unpredictable "OFF periods" of
reduced mobility and increased rigidity and tremor. In addition,
abnormal and involuntary movements known as dyskinesias may occur
at higher L-dopa blood levels. Approximately 10% of patients per
year develop "on-off"
motor fluctuations after starting L-dopa therapy.
As Parkinson’s disease progresses, other therapies can be used in
combination with L-dopa and include dopamine receptor agonists and
inhibitors of enzymes related to dopamine metabolism, such as
monoamine oxidase B ("MAO-B") and catechol O-methyl transferase
("COMT"). These therapies aim to further improve overall
dopaminergic function. Patient-friendly treatment options for motor
fluctuations in advanced Parkinson’s disease are limited.
Subcutaneous injections of the dopamine agonist apomorphine are
used for the acute treatment of OFF periods. Duopa/Duodopa is an
enteral suspension of L-dopa and the peripheral AADC inhibitor
carbidopa that is continuously administered over the course of the
day through a surgically-placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
with jejunal ("PEG-J") tube to reduce fluctuations in L-dopa blood
levels. Deep-Brain Stimulation ("DBS"), a procedure in which
electrodes are surgically placed in the basal ganglia, either in
the subthalamic nucleus or internal globus pallidus, is another
option for advanced Parkinson’s disease. Through an impulse
generator, electrical stimuli are delivered to the brain to
modulate neural signals within these target regions. It remains
unclear exactly how DBS improves the symptoms of Parkinson’s
disease. Both Duopa/Duodopa and DBS require indwelling hardware - a
PEG-J tube, or electrodes, leads, and impulse generator -
respectively.
Earlier-Generation Product Candidate: ProSavin
(OXB-101)
ProSavin, the earlier-generation gene therapy candidate to
AXO-Lenti-PD, delivered the same three genes (AADC, TH, and CH1) as
AXO-Lenti-PD in the same lentiviral vector with a different payload
configuration that demonstrated less activity. AXO-Lenti-PD was the
result of multifactorial experimentation to optimize the payload
configuration to increase endogenous dopamine production over that
produced by ProSavin. The initial Phase 1/2 clinical trial of
ProSavin was completed in 2012 and long-term follow-up is
ongoing.
Nonclinical Studies for ProSavin
In nonclinical studies in non-human primate models of Parkinson's
disease, ProSavin was shown to be well-tolerated, restored striatal
dopamine production to approximately 50% of normal levels and
improved motor function without associated dyskinesias
(p-value<0.05). ProSavin was observed to improve Parkinson's
disease symptoms and clinical disease severity in the same
non-human primate model, with a durable response seen up to 12
months (p-value<0.05 at all time points beyond week 4). One of
the ProSavin treated non-human primates was continued on the study
and exhibited a sustained motor improvement until the study was
concluded at 44 months. Also, in non-human primate models,
treatment with ProSavin plus oral levodopa significantly reduced
dyskinesias (p<0.05) compared to an empty vector plus oral
levodopa, with effects sustained out to eight weeks. Nonclinical
study data did not reveal adverse reactions nor findings with
potential impact on patient safety and provided pertinent data on
the optimal method of delivery in the clinic. ProSavin was also
observed to be well tolerated when co-administered with L-dopa and
apomorphine, indicating that it may possibly be used in conjunction
with these commonly prescribed Parkinson's disease
medications.
In summary, these experiments were determined to demonstrate the
long-term safety of therapeutic doses of ProSavin as well as
significant efficacy to improve measures of movement and reduce
dyskinesias in animal models. These results supported the
initiation of clinical trials for ProSavin.
Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial of ProSavin
ProSavin was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a Phase 1/2 study
in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease by Oxford. In this
study, ProSavin was observed to be well-tolerated with sustained
improvements on motor function as measured by the UPDRS Part III
(motor) score in the state "OFF" levodopa medication, which we
refer to as UPDRS Part III "OFF." The Phase 1/2 clinical trial was
conducted at sites in the United Kingdom ("U.K.") and France on a
total of 15 patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. Three
target dose levels of ProSavin were assessed in four patient
cohorts: Low Dose: 1.9 × 107
transducing units ("TU") in Cohort 1 (n=3); Mid Dose: 4.0 ×
107
TU in Cohorts 2a (n=3) and 2b (n=3); High Dose: 1.0 ×
108
TU in Cohort 3 (n=6). Cohorts 2b and 3 underwent a modified
delivery method to increase the rate of delivery of the viral
vector. The primary endpoints were the number and severity of
adverse events as well as the UPDRS Part III "OFF" scores at six
months after gene therapy administration. No serious adverse events
related to ProSavin or the surgical procedure were reported.
Reported treatment emergent adverse events were generally mild and
related to either Parkinson's disease progression or L-dopa-induced
dyskinesias that were ameliorated with reduction of L-dopa
administration. The most common adverse events in the first 12
months were dyskinesia (n=11 subjects), "on-off"
motor fluctuations (n=9), headache (n=4), and akinesia
(n=3).
Across all patients, mean UPDRS Part III "OFF" scores were
significantly improved at six months (33% reduction,
p-value=0.0001) and 12 months (31% reduction, p-value=0.0001)
compared to baseline. In a long term follow up safety study for the
patients from the Phase 1/2 study, ProSavin has been observed to
show a favorable long-term safety profile and demonstrated positive
effects on motor function for over six years. Sustained improvement
was seen through six years of follow-up and the long-term follow-up
study is still ongoing (10 years exposure in the earliest subject).
Clinical data from this study were published in The Lancet in 2014
and long-term follow-up data from this study were published in
Human Gene Therapy Clinical Development in 2018.
Next-Generation Product Candidate: AXO-Lenti-PD
AXO-Lenti-PD is a re-engineered gene therapy product candidate that
was selected following experimentation to optimize the payload
configuration of ProSavin to increase endogenous dopamine
production. The modifications included a different ordering of the
genes, the fusion of TH and CH1 with a flexible linker, and the
removal of a genetic control element between TH and AADC. Both
ProSavin and AXO-Lenti-PD utilize the same exact fourth generation
lentiviral vector. We believe these changes lead to more balanced
stoichiometry of gene expression and colocalization of enzymatic
activity. The targeted net result is increased dopamine production
in transduced cells.
Nonclinical Studies for AXO-Lenti-PD
In vitro experiments in a human neuron model with AXO-Lenti-PD
showed up to 10-fold increases in dopamine + L-dopa production over
ProSavin.
In vivo
experiments in non-human primate models showed increased AADC
activity in the brain with AXO-Lenti-PD compared to ProSavin as
measured by positron emission tomography ("PET") scans.
Functionally, in non-human primate models at approximately 1/5th of
the dose, AXO-Lenti-PD demonstrated a similar level of improvement
in spontaneous locomotor activity compared to ProSavin. A recent
placebo-controlled study in a non-human primate model of
Parkinson’s disease published in
Molecular Therapy: Methods and Clinical Development
compared two doses of AXO-Lenti-PD against control-group animals
receiving a placebo. The study demonstrated statistically
significant differences in Parkinson's disease clinical response
scores at six months in this diseased-animal model (p<0.0002 for
AXO-Lenti-PD compared to control), dose-dependent increases in PET
signaling using a 6-[(18)F]fluoro-m-tyrosine radiotracer
(p<0.001 for AXO-Lenti-PD compared to control), and
dose-dependent increases in gene expression for AADC, TH, and CH1
in transduced striatal tissue. We believe these data provide
evidence that AXO-Lenti-PD may have greater potency compared to
ProSavin in terms of dopamine production, enzymatic activity and
functional improvement in animal models of Parkinson's
disease.
In May 2021, we presented data from a non-human primate study of
AXO-Lenti-PD designed to evaluate the impact of (i) changes to
suspension-based manufacturing process material, (ii) increased
volume and flow rate during simultaneous bilateral infusions, and
(iii) use of a new stereotactic frame. This study found no evidence
for neuropathology changes associated with the new administration
procedure. Biodistribution was limited to the area of infusion with
no expression detected in distal brain regions or peripheral organs
or shedding matrices. Furthermore, no differences in immunological
profile were observed using the early-stage suspension
process-produced AXO-Lenti-PD material versus adherent
process-produced material. These toxicology results support the
planned clinical development plan for ongoing dose, procedure, and
administration systems evaluations.
SUNRISE-PD Phase 2 Clinical Trial of AXO-Lenti-PD
In the fourth quarter of calendar year 2018, we initiated the
Phase 2 clinical trial of the SUNRISE-PD study in the U.K. The
SUNRISE-PD study is currently enrolling patients in the U.K., and
we plan to file an investigational medicinal product dossier
application to support the enrollment of additional patients using
the suspension-based manufacturing process. Additionally, we have
filed a Clinical Trial Application to support local enrollment in
France.
The design of the SUNRISE-PD study is an open label dose-escalation
portion studying multiple dose levels. Once the optimal dose has
been determined in the dose-escalation study, a sham-controlled
study will be conducted with patients randomized either to an
active group receiving the optimal dose as determined in the
SUNRISE-PD study, or a control group undergoing an imitation "sham"
surgical procedure. We are working closely with our manufacturing
partner for AXO-Lenti-PD, Oxford Biomedica, to develop a reliable
suspension-based manufacturing process. Manufacturing of several
GMP batches using a revised suspension-based process has been
ongoing at Oxford Biomedica with a goal of generating material for
use in future clinical trials. We expect a batch to be released
that can be used for dosing of further patients in the SUNRISE-PD
study in the fourth calendar quarter of 2021, pending an updated
filing with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
(the "MHRA") in the UK. Once the MHRA accepts the filing, we plan
on dosing two additional patients at the mid-dose (1.4 ×
107
TU) to evaluate a revised surgical procedure before proceeding to
dosing patients at the next higher dose (4.2 ×
107
TU).
The sham-controlled study will evaluate the safety and tolerability
of AXO-Lenti-PD as well as assessing efficacy using clinical
measures of motor function, patient diaries and biomarkers. We
expect the primary endpoint of the double-blind, randomized,
sham-controlled study to be assessed at a regulatory appropriate
timepoint and, in addition to the safety assessment, efficacy
evaluations may include data from Hauser patient diaries, the UPDRS
Part III and Part II "OFF" scores and other efficacy measures
being assessed in the study.
In January 2020, we reported 12-month data from Cohort 1 in the
open-label, dose-escalation SUNRISE-PD Phase 2 study. AXO-Lenti-PD
was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no serious
adverse events attributable to the gene therapy. At month 12, the
patients experienced an average improvement from baseline in UPDRS
III (motor) score, in the state "OFF" levodopa therapy, of 22
points, representing an average improvement of 37% from baseline.
Individual patient improvements from baseline at 12 months of 20
points and 24 points were observed (from 58 to 38 and from 60 to
36, respectively). Previously, at six months post-dosing, these
patients demonstrated an average 17-point change from baseline, or
29% improvement, on the same scale. Only one of two patients in
Cohort 1 was able to record a Hauser diary. Improvements were
observed across various diary measures from baseline to 12 months
for the single patient. The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39
score index, a well-validated quality of life measure in
Parkinson’s disease, demonstrated an average 15-point change from
baseline for the patients in Cohort 1, or 30% improvement from
baseline to 12 months. In addition, the patients experienced an
average improvement of approximately 13 points from baseline on the
UPDRS Part II (activities of daily living) "OFF" score at 12 months
post-dosing, representing an average improvement of 44% from
baseline, and an average improvement of 3 points from baseline on
the UPDRS Part IV (complications of therapy) "OFF" score at six
months post-dosing. The 12-month timepoint is considered an
important timeframe for assessment of therapeutic response,
differentiation from sham/placebo effect, and durability of gene
therapy in Parkinson’s disease.
We dosed the first patient in Cohort 2 of the SUNRISE-PD clinical
study in April 2019 and the last (fourth) patient in February 2020.
The target dose being tested in Cohort 2 is
1.4×107
TU, which is three times higher than the dose used in Cohort 1. In
October 2020, we reported that all of the four patients in the
cohort were able to complete the evaluations that do not require an
inpatient visit (Hauser diary, Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose), and
only two of the four were able to complete the UPDRS Part II and
III evaluations – one patient refused this evaluation and the other
was not able to be seen in the clinic since it was closed due to
COVID-19 response measures. AXO-Lenti-PD was observed to be
generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events
attributable to the gene therapy. At month 6, the patients
experienced an average improvement from baseline in UPDRS Part III
(motor) score, in the state "OFF" levodopa therapy, of 21 points,
representing an average improvement of 40% from baseline.
Individual patient improvements from baseline at 6 months of 22 and
19 points were observed. Similarly, at six months, the patients
experienced an improvement in the UPDRS Part II (quality of life)
of 14 points, which represents a 71% improvement. Individual
patients’ improvement from baseline were 12 and 15 points. The
Hauser diary was completed by all four patients and demonstrated an
improvement from baseline of 2.3 hours in OFF time and 2.2 hours in
good ON time.
Improvement in the UPDRS Part III “OFF” score in Cohort 1 and
Cohort 2 exhibited evidence of dose response when compared to the
low (n="3"), medium (n="6"), and high (n="6") dose cohorts of
ProSavin that were previously evaluated in a separate Phase 1/2
study at six months, as follows:
1Palfi,
et al. The Lancet. 2014;383(9923):1138-1146. Note: Error bars are
calculated as (Mean +/- SEM)
*UPDRS data is only available for two patients at six months
post-dosing.
Our Key Agreements
The University of Massachusetts Medical School Exclusive License
Agreement
In December 2018, we entered into an exclusive license
agreement (the "UMMS Agreement") with UMMS pursuant to which we
received a worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under
certain patent applications and any patents issuing therefrom,
biological materials and know-how controlled by UMMS to develop and
commercialize gene therapy product candidates, including
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, for the treatment of
GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis (including
Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease). This license is exclusive
with respect to patents and biological materials and non-exclusive
with respect to know-how and is subject to UMMS' retained rights
for academic research, teaching and non-commercial patient care
purposes, as well as to certain pre-existing rights of the U.S.
government.
Under the UMMS Agreement, we are solely responsible, at our
expense, for the research, development and commercialization of the
licensed product candidates. We will reimburse UMMS for payments
made by UMMS for the manufacture of clinical trial materials for
us, up to a specified amount. UMMS is a clinical trial site for our
AXO-AAV-GM2 program. We are obligated to use diligent efforts to
develop and commercialize the licensed product candidates and are
required to achieve certain development and commercial milestones
in accordance with the timeline set forth in the
agreement.
Under the terms of the UMMS Agreement, we made an upfront payment
of $10.0 million. In addition, we could be obligated to make
payments to UMMS totaling up to $24.5 million upon the achievement
of specified development and regulatory milestones and $39.8
million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. In
February 2019, certain development and regulatory milestones were
achieved resulting in a $1.0 million payment to UMMS, and in
October 2019, further development and regulatory milestones were
achieved resulting in an additional $1.0 million payment due to
UMMS. We are also obligated to pay UMMS tiered mid-single digit
royalties based on yearly net sales of the licensed products,
subject to a specified annual minimum amount. Additionally, we will
pay UMMS a percentage of any revenues we receive from any
third-party sublicenses to licensed products at rates ranging in
the mid-single digits to mid-teens.
The UMMS Agreement expires upon the expiration of our obligations
to make royalty payments to UMMS, which continues until the later
of the expiration of licensed patents and any applicable orphan
designation exclusivity and 10 years after the first commercial
sale of the licensed products. Upon such expiration, the licenses
granted to us by UMMS will automatically convert to perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide royalty-free licenses. We have the right to
terminate the UMMS Agreement at any time upon 90 days' advance
written notice to UMMS. Either party may terminate the UMMS
Agreement for the other party's uncured material breach upon
60 days' advance written notice, including in the event that
UMMS reasonably determines we have not fulfilled our diligence
obligations.
Oxford Biomedica License Agreement
In June 2018, we entered into the Oxford Agreement, pursuant to
which we received a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing,
sub-licensable license under certain patents and other intellectual
property controlled by Oxford to develop and commercialize
AXO-Lenti-PD and related gene therapy products for all diseases and
conditions. In June 2018, as partial consideration for the license,
we made an upfront payment to Oxford of $30.0 million, $5.0 million
of which was applied as a credit against the process development
work and clinical supply that Oxford is obligated to provide to us
over the term of the Oxford Agreement. Under the terms of the
Oxford Agreement, we could be obligated to make payments to Oxford
totaling up to $55.0 million upon the achievement of specified
development milestones and $757.5 million upon the achievement of
specified regulatory and sales milestones. In April 2019, certain
development milestones were achieved resulting in a $13.0 million
net payment due to Oxford. We will also be obligated to pay Oxford
a tiered royalty from 7% to 10%, based on yearly aggregate net
sales of the underlying gene therapy products, subject to specified
reductions upon the occurrence of certain events as set forth in
the Oxford Agreement. These royalties are required to be paid, on a
product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest
to occur of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of a
licensed patent covering such product in such country, the
expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such
country, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of such
product in such country.
We are solely responsible, at our expense, for all activities
related to the development and commercialization of the gene
therapy products. Pursuant to the Oxford Agreement, we are required
to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain
regulatory approval of, and commercialize a gene therapy product in
the United States and at least one major market country in Europe.
In addition, we are required to meet certain diligence milestones
and to include at least one U.S.-based clinical trial site in a
pivotal study of a gene therapy product. If we fail to meet any of
these specified development milestones, we may cure such failure by
paying Oxford certain fees, which range from $0.5 million to $1.0
million. In July 2020, we entered into a three-year clinical supply
agreement with Oxford for the manufacturing and supply of cGMP
batches to support the ongoing and future clinical development of
AXO-Lenti-PD. If Oxford completes the development of a
suspension-based manufacturing process, and successfully produces
clinical supplies for our studies, we anticipate that future
commercial supply for the AXO-Lenti-PD program will be manufactured
by Oxford in accordance with a separate cGMP commercial supply
agreement to be negotiated between the parties. We have the right
to terminate the Oxford Agreement at any time upon two months'
advance written notice prior to the first commercial sale of a
product, or for a specified period of advance written notice after
the first commercial sale of a product. Either party may terminate
the Oxford Agreement for the other party's uncured material breach
or with respect to a failure to make a required
payment.
Manufacturing
We currently do not own or operate facilities for product
manufacturing but work with third parties and our license partners
to manufacture our program materials. We have hired experienced
personnel and continue to build a team with gene therapy product
formulation and manufacturing expertise.
For the AXO-Lenti-PD program, we rely on inventory transferred to
us under the Oxford Agreement to support our ongoing Phase 2 study.
In July 2020, we entered into a three-year clinical supply
agreement with Oxford for the manufacturing and supply of cGMP
batches to support the ongoing and future clinical development of
AXO-Lenti-PD. We are working closely with our manufacturing partner
for AXO-Lenti-PD, Oxford Biomedica, to develop a reliable
suspension-based manufacturing process. Manufacturing of several
GMP batches using a revised suspension-based process has been
ongoing at Oxford Biomedica with a goal of generating material for
use in future clinical trials. We expect a batch to be released in
the fourth calendar quarter of 2021 that can be used for dosing of
further patients in the SUNRISE-PD study, pending an updated filing
with the MHRA in the UK.
If Oxford completes the development of a suspension-based
manufacturing process, and successfully produces clinical supplies
for our studies, we anticipate that future commercial supply for
the AXO-Lenti-PD program will be manufactured by Oxford in
accordance with a separate cGMP commercial supply agreement to be
negotiated between the parties. As set forth in the Oxford
Agreement, such clinical and commercial supply agreements will
contain certain key provisions, including the pricing structure and
our ability to transfer the technology to another manufacturer at
any time following the completion of formal process
characterization, process validation or BLA submission. We have the
right to terminate the Oxford Agreement at any time upon two
months' advance written notice prior to the first commercial sale
of a product, or for a specified period of advance written notice
after the first commercial sale of a product. Either party may
terminate the Oxford Agreement for the other party's uncured
material breach or with respect to a failure to make a required
payment.
Manufacturing of any product candidate is subject to extensive
regulations that impose various procedural and documentation
requirements, which govern recordkeeping, manufacturing processes
and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance,
among others.
Competition
We consider our direct competitors for AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2
to be LYS-GM101, a gene therapy product candidate being developed
by Lysogene S.A., as well as PBGM01, a gene therapy program being
developed by Passage Bio which recently received IND clearance,
each for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, and TSHA-101, a gene
therapy product candidate being developed by Taysha Gene Therapies
for the treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis.
We consider our most direct competitor with respect to AXO-Lenti-PD
to be Voyager Therapeutics, which was previously advancing VY-AADC,
a gene therapy product candidate for the treatment of advanced
Parkinson’s disease. VY-AADC delivers the AADC gene, one of the
three genes contained in AXO-Lenti-PD, via an adeno-associated
virus (an "AAV virus-based vector"). In May 2021, Voyager
Therapeutics announced that it will not advance the VY-AADC program
on its own following the termination of that portion of the
collaboration agreement with Neurocrine Biosciences. Agilis
Biotherapeutics, which was acquired by PTC Therapeutics, is
developing AGIL-AADC, another AAV virus-based vector gene therapy
that delivers the AADC gene, for the treatment of AADC deficiency,
a rare disorder that involves loss of AADC gene function. In
addition, DBS is approved for treating Parkinson’s disease and is
marketed by multiple device manufacturers, including Medtronic,
Abbott and Boston Scientific. DBS treatment involves permanent
placement of hardware in the brain via stereotactic neurosurgery
and may require follow-up adjustments or even invasive device
replacements. Another surgical approach is Abbvie’s Duopa which is
delivered via a port implanted in the abdominal wall. Further
efforts are also underway to develop and commercialize new improved
formulations of L-dopa, including Acorda’s Inbrija, for which an
NDA was approved by the FDA in December 2018, and Mitsubishi
Tanabe’s ND0612. Adjunct therapies are also being developed or have
recently been approved to supplement L-dopa therapy, including
Sunovion’s sublingual apomorphine and Adamas Pharmaceuticals’
GoCovri. Several companies are also trying to develop other disease
modifying therapies that could prevent the progression of
Parkinson’s disease. MeiraGTx is developing AAV-GAD, a gene therapy
product designed to deliver the GAD gene to increase production of
the neurotransmitter GABA to normalize motor circuits. Examples of
early stage efforts include Denali Therapeutics’ LRRK2 inhibitors
and anti-alpha synuclein antibodies from Prothena/Roche and Biogen,
as well as Prevail Therapeutics’ (acquired by Eli Lilly in 2020)
pipeline of AAV-based therapeutics targeting lysosomal dysfunction.
BlueRock Therapeutics (acquired by Bayer in 2019) is developing an
induced pluripotent stem cell-derived (iPSC) dopaminergic neuron
therapy for patients with Parkinson’s and will enter a Phase 1
clinical trial in 2021 to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and
preliminary efficacy in patients with Parkinson's
disease.
Drug development is highly competitive and subject to rapid and
significant technological advancements. Our ability to compete will
depend upon our ability to complete necessary clinical trials and
regulatory approval processes, and effectively market any product
that we may successfully develop. Our current and potential future
competitors include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies,
academic institutions and government agencies. The primary
competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of any
product candidate for which we may receive marketing approval
include efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, dosing
convenience, price, coverage and reimbursement. Many of our
existing or potential competitors have substantially greater
financial, technical and human resources than we do and
significantly greater experience in the discovery and development
of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals
of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign
countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have
significantly more experience commercializing drugs, particularly
gene therapy and other biological products, that have been approved
for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries could result in even more resources being
concentrated among a small number of our competitors.
Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in
obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and in achieving
widespread market acceptance of their products. It is also possible
that the development of a cure or more effective treatment method
for Parkinson’s disease, GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis
(including Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases) by a competitor could
render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete or reduce
the demand for our product candidates before we can recover our
development and commercialization expenses.
Intellectual Property
Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and
maintain proprietary protection for our current gene therapy
product candidates, any of our future product candidates, novel
discoveries, product development technologies and other know-how.
Our commercial success also depends on our ability to operate
without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and our
ability to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights.
Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among
other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patents and patent
applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and
improvements that are important to the development and
implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade
secrets, copyrights, know-how, continuing technological innovation
and potential in-licensing and acquisition opportunities to develop
and maintain our proprietary position.
While we seek broad coverage under our existing patent
applications, there is always a risk that an alteration to the
process of obtaining patents or changes to the patent law in the
United States or elsewhere may provide sufficient basis for a
competitor to challenge or avoid infringement of our patents. In
addition, patents, if granted, expire and we cannot provide any
assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending
applications or any future applications or that any future issued
patents will adequately protect our intellectual property or cover
our product candidates.
Individual patents are valid for varying periods depending on the
date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent
issuance and the legal patent term in the countries in which they
are obtained. Generally, patents issued from regularly filed
applications in the United States are granted a term of 20 years
from the earliest non-provisional filing date. In addition, in
certain instances, a patent's term can be extended via Patent Term
Adjustment ("PTA") to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office's (the "USPTO") delay in issuing the patent as
well as via Patent Term Extension ("PTE") to recapture a portion of
the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review
period. However, as to the FDA component, the PTE period can be
applied to only one patent per approved product, cannot be longer
than five years and the total patent term including the PTE period
must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval of an NDA or BLA.
The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with
provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years
from the earliest non-provisional filing date. The actual
protection afforded by a patent varies on a product by product
basis, on a claim by claim basis, from country to country and
depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope
of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions,
the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the
validity and enforceability of the patent. The patent term of a
European patent is 20 years from its filing date; however, unlike
in the United States, a European patent is not granted PTA for
delays at the European Patent Office. However, the European Union
does have a compensation program similar to the U.S.’s PTE called
Supplementary Patent Certificate ("SPC") that would effectively
extend patent protection for term lost during regulatory delay, if
any, for up to five years on one patent and the total patent term
including the SPC must not exceed 15 years following the EMA
granting of marketing authorization. Other major markets, including
Japan, have similar patent term extension provisions and, if
eligible, we intend to seek patent term extensions in those
countries that have such programs.
In December 2018, we entered into the UMMS Agreement with UMMS.
Pursuant to the UMMS Agreement, we received from UMMS a worldwide,
royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under certain patent
applications and any patents issuing therefrom, and other
intellectual property controlled by UMMS to develop and
commercialize gene therapy product candidates, including
AXO-AAV-GM1 for treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis and AXO-AAV-GM2 for
treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and
Sandhoff disease). This license is exclusive with respect to
patents and biological materials and non-exclusive with respect to
know-how, and is subject to UMMS’ retained rights for academic
research, teaching and non-commercial patient care purposes, as
well as to certain pre-existing rights of the U.S. government. The
licensed IP includes pending U.S. and foreign patent applications
directed to compositions of matter as well as methods of using
AXO-AAV-GM1 and/or AXO-AAV-GM2 (separate or bicistronic vectors) in
major markets, including the United States, the United Kingdom,
Canada, Brazil, Korea, Japan, and China. These applications, if
issued, include patent families that will expire starting in 2036,
with the projected last to expire in 2039 (not taking into account
any PTA or PTE, which may potentially be obtained in the future).
Depending on certain factors, the term of a patent, if issued,
covering an approved product may be extended by up to five years
with PTE.
In June 2018, we entered into the Oxford Agreement with Oxford.
Pursuant to the Oxford Agreement, we received from Oxford a
worldwide, exclusive, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license under
certain patents and other intellectual property controlled by
Oxford to develop and commercialize certain lentiviral-based gene
therapy products for all diseases and conditions. Oxford is
prohibited from granting licenses to third parties to develop,
commercialize, or distribute such lentiviral-based gene therapy
products. The licensed IP includes issued U.S. and foreign patents
and pending U.S. and foreign patent applications that cover
compositions of matter as well as methods of making and using
AXO-Lenti-PD in major markets, including the United States, Japan,
China, India, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These patents and
applications, if issued, include patent families that expired
starting at the end of 2018, with the projected last to expire in
October of 2032 (not taking into account any PTA or PTE, which may
potentially be obtained in the future). In addition, new patent
application filings could provide patent coverage out to at least
2040, if a patent issues. U.S. composition of matter patents
relevant to AXO-Lenti-PD will naturally expire in 2023 and 2035,
each inclusive of PTA, and if further patents issue from the
pending application families they will expire in 2032 or 2040 (not
taking into account any PTA or PTE, which may potentially be
obtained in the future). Depending on certain factors, the term of
a patent covering an approved product may be extended by up to five
years with PTE.
Furthermore, we rely upon trade secrets and know-how and continuing
technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive
position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part
by using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners,
collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment
agreements with our employees. We also have confidentiality
agreements and invention assignment agreements with selected
partners and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect
our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention
assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that
are developed by our employees or through a relationship with a
third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have
adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets
may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by
competitors. To the extent that our partners, collaborators,
employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others
in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in
related or resulting know-how and inventions.
Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing
the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether
the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter
our development or commercial strategies, or our product
candidate(s) or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain
activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to
obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to
develop or commercialize our gene therapy product candidate(s) may
have an adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file
patent applications in the United States that also claim technology
to which we believe we have rights, we may have to participate in
interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine
priority and/or inventorship of an invention.
Government Regulation
In the United States, pharmaceutical and biological products are
subject to extensive regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), and the Public Health Service Act
("PHSA"). The FDCA, PHSA, and other federal and state statutes and
regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development,
testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling,
promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and
reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical
products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may
subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial
sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending BLAs, warning or
untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or
partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions,
fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.
We cannot market a biological product, including gene therapy
product candidates which are regulated as biologics, in the United
States until the product candidate has received FDA approval. The
steps required before a new biologic may be marketed in the United
States generally include the following:
•completion
of extensive nonclinical laboratory tests, animal studies, and
formulation studies in accordance with the FDA's Good Laboratory
Practice ("GLP") regulations;
•submission
to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become
effective before human clinical trials may begin;
•performance
of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance
with Good Clinical Practice ("GCP") requirements to establish the
safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed
indication;
•submission
to the FDA of a BLA, in the case of biological product candidates
including gene therapy product candidates, after completion of all
pivotal clinical trials;
•satisfactory
completion of an FDA inspection of sites involved in our clinical
trials;
•satisfactory
completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility or facilities at which the active pharmaceutical
ingredient ("API") and finished product are produced and tested to
assess compliance with cGMPs; and
•FDA
review and approval of the BLA prior to any commercial marketing or
sale of the product in the United States.
Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically
takes many years and the actual time required may vary
substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the
product or disease.
Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product
chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to
assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the
product. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with
federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations.
The results of nonclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part
of an IND along with other information, including information about
product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed
clinical trial protocol. Long-term nonclinical tests, such as
animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may
continue after the IND is submitted.
A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is
required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans.
If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within
this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may
begin. If the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of
the trial, such as whether human research subjects will be exposed
to an unreasonable health risk, the IND sponsor and the FDA must
resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical
trials can proceed.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational
new biologic to healthy volunteers or patients under the
supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be
conducted in compliance with federal regulations, including GCP
requirements, as well as under protocols detailing the objectives
of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and
the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol and
subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part
of the IND.
The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a
clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it
believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in
accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk
to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed
consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be
submitted to an institutional review board ("IRB") for approval at
each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB may
also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either
temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB's
requirements, or may impose other conditions.
U.S. Biological Products Development Process
Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene
therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the
nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory
evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well
as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of
the product candidate. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must
comply with federal regulations and requirements including
GLPs.
Where a gene therapy study is conducted at, or sponsored by,
institutions receiving funding from the NIH for recombinant DNA
research, the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA
Molecules ("NIH Guidelines") are mandatory, however many companies
and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines
voluntarily follow them. An institutional biosafety committee
("IBC"), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees
research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules
at that institution, assesses the safety of the research and
identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment,
and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a
clinical trial. Annual reporting of clinical trial data including
safety information also is required.
The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the
nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information,
analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a
proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some
nonclinical testing typically continues after the IND is submitted.
An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved
product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an
investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization
to administer an investigational product to humans. The IND
automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA,
unless the FDA requests certain changes to a protocol before the
study can begin, or the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical
hold within that 30-day time period. The FDA may also impose
clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before
or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.
If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence
without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by
the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND
will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that,
once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such
studies.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological
product candidate to healthy volunteers or subjects under the
supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not
employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical trials
are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the
objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject
selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to
monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a
clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should
occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be
submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be
conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations
comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all
research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical
study must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB, at or
servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be
conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights
of study participants and considers such items as whether the risks
to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized
and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB
also approves the form and content of the informed consent that
must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal
representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed.
Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of
qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data
safety monitoring board or committee. Additionally, gene therapy
clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for
recombinant DNA research from the NIH also are potentially subject
to review by a committee within the NIH’s Office of Science Policy
called the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory
Committee, or the NExTRAC. This review group focuses on clinical
trials that cannot be evaluated by standard oversight bodies and
pose unusual risks. With certain gene therapy protocols, FDA review
of or clearance to allow the IND to proceed could be delayed if the
NExTRAC decides that full public review of the protocol is
warranted.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential
phases that may overlap or be combined:
•Phase
1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy
human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products
for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the
product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to
healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in
patients. Guidelines on clinical trials with gene therapy products
issued by the FDA's Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies state
that the FDA has determined that the benefit-risk ratio of these
products does not warrant their evaluation in healthy human
subjects.
•Phase
2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient
population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks,
to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific
targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage
and dosing schedule.
•Phase
3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage,
clinical efficacy, potency and safety in an expanded patient
population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These
clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit
ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product
labeling.
Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4
clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval.
These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from
the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication,
particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA recommends
that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related
delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of
five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual
queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of trial
subjects.
During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies
require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical
activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual
progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must
be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be
promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and
unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests
in laboratory animals or
in vitro
testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any
clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected
adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator
brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15
calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information
qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of
any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction
within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of
the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may
not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at
all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may
suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including
a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed
to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or
terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the
clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s
requirements or if the biological product has been associated with
unexpected serious harm to patients.
Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics,
regulated as biologics. Because this is a relatively new and
expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no
assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of
patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in
order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of
human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these
studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing
approval.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete
additional animal studies and must also develop additional
information about the physical characteristics of the biological
product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product
in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To
help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents
with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance
of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be
precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of
consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate
and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for
testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the
final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must
be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to
demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo
unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product,
FDA approval of a BLA, must be obtained before commercial marketing
of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product
development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies,
information on the manufacture and composition of the product,
proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition,
under the Pediatric Research Equity Act ("PREA"), a BLA or
supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and
effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications
in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and
administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the
product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for
submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise
required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological
product for an indication for which orphan designation has been
granted. The testing and approval processes require substantial
time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will
accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval
will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended ("PDUFA"),
each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. Fee waivers
or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a
waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a
small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for
product candidates designated as orphan drugs, unless the product
candidate also includes a non-orphan indication.
Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA
reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially
complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may
refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly
reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional
information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the
additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject
to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The application
also needs to be published and submitted in an electronic format
that can be processed through the FDA’s electronic systems. If the
electronic submission is not compatible with FDA’s systems, the BLA
can be refused to file. Once the submission is accepted for filing,
the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA
reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the
proposed product is safe, potent, and effective, for its intended
use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product
is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and
preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency
and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological
products or biological products that present difficult questions of
safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that
includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a
recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and
under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations
of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations
carefully when making decisions. During the biological product
approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk
Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS"), is necessary to assure
the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS
is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the
FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if
required.
Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at
which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the
product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and
facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to
assure consistent production of the product within required
specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will
typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure that
the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study
requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP
compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of
time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping,
production, and quality control.
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information,
the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its
regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained
from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may
interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the
agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA
will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of
the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The
deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring
labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional
clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may
include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place
the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response
letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA,
addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or
withdraw the application.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be
significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the
indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict
the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require
that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included
in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and
conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in
the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of
any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing
clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials,
designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and
effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the
safety of approved products that have been commercialized. As a
condition for approval, the FDA may also require additional
nonclinical testing as a Phase 4 commitment.
One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA
is to review standard BLAs in 10 months from filing and priority
BLAs in six months from filing, whereupon a review decision is to
be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for
standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to
change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal
date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA
sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification
regarding information already provided in the submission within the
last three months before the PDUFA goal date.
Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of
substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive
FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval,
particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely, and expect to
continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical
and commercial quantities of any products that we may
commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply
with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including
quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records
and documentation. Following approval, the manufacturing facilities
are subject to biennial inspections by the FDA’s biologics team and
such inspections may result in an issuance of FDA Form 483
deficiency observations or a warning letter, which can lead to
plant shutdown and other more serious penalties and fines. Prior to
the institution of any manufacturing changes, a determination needs
to be made whether FDA approval is required in advance. If not done
in accordance with FDA expectations, the FDA may restrict supply
and may take further action. Annual product reports are required to
be submitted annually. Other post-approval requirements applicable
to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that
may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a
distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of
adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information,
and complying with electronic record and signature requirements.
After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to
official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the
manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of
the product before it is released for distribution. If the product
is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits
samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release
protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot
and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the
lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of
some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots
for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts
laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the
safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.
Systems need to be put in place to record and evaluate adverse
events reported by health care providers and patients and to assess
product complaints. An increase in severity or new adverse events
can result in labeling changes or product recall. Defects in
manufacturing of commercial products can result in product
recalls.
We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion
requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer
advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in
patient populations that are not described in the product’s
approved labeling (known as "off-label use"), industry-sponsored
scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities
involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or
the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements
may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or
withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil
or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S.
requirements at any time during the product development process,
approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or
manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal
sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include
refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval
or license revocation, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters,
product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of
production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of
government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or
communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement
of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial
enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on
us.
Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the
manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are
required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain
state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections
by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and
other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend
time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality
control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a
product after approval may result in restrictions on a product,
manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of
the product from the market. In addition, changes to the
manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA
approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the
approved product, such as adding new indications and additional
labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and
approval.
Market and Data Exclusivity
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended
by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,
collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, included a
subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
of 2009 or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme
authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable
biosimilars. The FDA has issued several guidance documents
outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.
Additional guidance is expected to be finalized by FDA in the near
term.
Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for
licensure of a biologic product that is "biosimilar to" or
"interchangeable with" a previously approved biological product or
"reference product." In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar
product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful
differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar
product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to
approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference
product, the FDA must find that the biosimilar product can be
expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference
product and (for products administered multiple times) that the
biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has
been previously administered without increasing safety risks or
risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the
reference biologic.
Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be
submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of
approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a
biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the
reference product was approved. The BPCIA also requires a 180-day
notice of commercial marketing. Even if a product is considered to
be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company
could market a competing version of that product if the FDA
approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own
nonclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled
clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of
their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods
for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this
juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed "interchangeable"
by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies,
which are governed by state pharmacy law.
Foreign Regulation
In order to market any product outside of the United States, we
would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory
requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding
quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things,
clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and
distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval
for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by
the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can
commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign
countries and jurisdictions. Although many of the issues discussed
above with respect to the United States apply similarly in the
context of the European Union, the approval process varies between
countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product
testing and additional administrative review periods. The time
required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions
might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA
approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does
not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay
in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may
negatively impact the regulatory process in others.
To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biological
product under European Union ("EU") regulatory systems, we must
submit a marketing authorization application. The application used
to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in
the European Union, with the exception of, among other things,
country-specific document requirements. The process for doing this
depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal
product.
The centralized procedure results in a single marketing
authorization ("MAA") granted by the European Commission that is
valid across the EEA (i.e., the European Union as well as Iceland,
Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is compulsory
for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology
processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new
active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases,
such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases,
autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases,
(iii) officially designated orphan medicines and
(iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene therapy, somatic
cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized
procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used in
certain other cases. Therefore, the centralized procedure would be
mandatory for the products we are developing.
The Committee for Advanced Therapies ("CAT") is responsible in
conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CAT is
primarily responsible for the scientific evaluation of ATMPs and
prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of
each ATMP for which a marketing authorization application is
submitted. The CAT’s opinion is then taken into account by the CHMP
when giving its final recommendation regarding the authorization of
a product in view of the balance of benefits and risks identified.
Although the CAT’s draft opinion is submitted to the CHMP for final
approval, the CHMP may depart from the draft opinion, if it
provides detailed scientific justification. The CHMP and CAT are
also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs and have
published numerous guidelines, including specific guidelines on
gene therapies and cell therapies. These guidelines provide
additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in
relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include,
among other things, the preclinical studies required to
characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that
should be submitted in a marketing authorization application; and
post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate
the long-term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs.
Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that
our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain and maintain
approval for any of our product candidates.
Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum
timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days. This
excludes so-called clock stops, during which additional written or
oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to
questions asked by the CHMP. At the end of the review period, the
CHMP provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this is
opinion favorable, the Commission may then adopt a decision to
grant an MA. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an
accelerated review of an MAA in no more than 150 days (not
including clock stops). This is usually when the product is of
major interest from the point of view of public health and, in
particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic
innovation.
EU Data and Marketing Exclusivity
The European Union also provides opportunities for market
exclusivity. Marketing authorization applications for generic
medicinal products do not need to include the results of
preclinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data
included in the marketing authorization of a reference product for
which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. In the European
Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical
entities generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an
additional two years of market exclusivity. The two-year period may
be extended to three years if during the first eight years a new
therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over
existing therapies is approved. If granted, data exclusivity
prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from
referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application.
During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a
generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the
innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic product can be
marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However,
there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU
regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products
may not qualify for data exclusivity.
There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal
products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that
do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for
example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing
processes. For such products, the results of appropriate
preclinical or clinical trials must be provided, and guidelines
from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to
be provided for different types of biological product. There are no
such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or
cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that
biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the
European Union. However, guidance from the EMA states that they
will be considered in the future in light of the scientific
knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the
time.
EU Orphan Medicinal Products
Products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can
receive ten years of market exclusivity. During the ten-year market
exclusivity period, the EMA cannot accept another application for a
marketing authorization or grant a marketing authorization or
accept an application to extend an existing marketing
authorization, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a
similar medicinal product. An orphan product can also obtain an
additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union
for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection
certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for
orphan indications.
The criteria for designating an "orphan medicinal product" in the
European Union are similar in principle to those in the United
States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal
product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for
the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or
chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such
condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the
European Union when the application is made, or (b) the
product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not
generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify
investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of
diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for
marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the
product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the
condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal
products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of
fees or fee waivers. The application for orphan drug designation
must be submitted before the MAA. The applicant will receive a fee
reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been
granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time
the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation
does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the
regulatory review and approval process.
The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at
the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no
longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if
the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance
of market exclusivity. Additionally, an MAA may be granted to a
similar product for the same indication at any time
if:
•the
second applicant can establish that its product, although similar,
is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically
superior;
•the
applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product
application; or
•the
applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal
product.
EU Pediatric Investigation Plan
In the EMA, MAAs for new medicinal products not authorized have to
include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric
population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan
("PIP") agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee ("PDCO"). The PIP
sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to
support a pediatric indication of the drug for which an MA is being
sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to
implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are
sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the
product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric
clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are
not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be
ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for
which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or
when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic
benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the
MA is obtained in all EU Member States and trial results are
included in the product information, even when negative, the
product is eligible for a six-months supplementary protection
certificate extension.
EU Post-Approval Controls
The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance
system and appoint an individual qualified person for
pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system.
Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious
adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports
("PSURs").
All new MAAs must include a risk management plan ("RMP") describing
the risk management system that the company will put in place and
documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated
with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose
specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization.
Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations
may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission
of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or
post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely
available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited
redactions.
All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be
consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics,
and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited.
Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also
prohibited in the European Union. Although general requirements for
advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established
under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in
each EU Member State and can differ from one country to
another.
EU Pricing and Reimbursement
Governments influence the price of medicinal products in the
European Union through their pricing and reimbursement rules and
control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of
the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate
positive and negative list systems under which products may only be
marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain
reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may
require the completion of clinical trials that compare the
cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently
available therapies. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix
their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company
profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general,
particularly prescription medicines, has become intense. As a
result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry
of new products.
Other Healthcare Laws
Although we currently do not have any products on the market, our
current and future business operations may be subject to additional
healthcare regulation and enforcement by the U.S. federal
government and by authorities in the states and foreign
jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include,
without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and
abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting and
physician sunshine laws. Some of our pre-commercial activities are
subject to some of these laws.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person
or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party
acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive,
offer, or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, that is
intended to induce the referral of business, including the
purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for
which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such
as Medicare or Medicaid. The term "remuneration" has been broadly
interpreted to include anything of value, including cash, improper
discounts, and free or reduced-price items and services. The
Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements
between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers,
purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other.
Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory
safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution,
the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that
involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce
prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to
scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor.
Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable
statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the
conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead,
the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and
circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute's intent
requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement
involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare
covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been
violated.
Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute
was amended by the Affordable Care Act, to a stricter standard such
that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of
the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have
committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act
codified case law that a claim including items or services
resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute
constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal
civil False Claims Act.
The federal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims
Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from
knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to,
or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid,
claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or
fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be
held liable under these laws if they are deemed to "cause" the
submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing
inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting
a product off-label. In addition, certain of our future activities
relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices
for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate
Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting
federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, and
the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny
under this law.
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 ("HIPAA") created additional federal criminal statutes that
prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or
attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit
program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and
willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program,
willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare
offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or
covering up a material fact or making any materially false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery
of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act amended the
intent standard for certain healthcare fraud statutes under HIPAA
such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual
knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order
to have committed a violation.
The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any
person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have
presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health
program that the person knows or should know is for an item or
service that was not provided as claimed or is false or
fraudulent.
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic
and Clinical Health Act ("HITECH") and their implementing
regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January
25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform
standards for the electronic exchange of information in common
healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the
privacy and security of individually identifiable health
information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical
and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other
things, HITECH makes HIPAA's security standards directly applicable
to business associates, defined as independent contractors or
agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected
health information in connection with providing a service for or on
behalf of a covered entity. At present, it is unclear if we would
be considered a business associate subject to HIPAA based on our
business activities and service offerings upon the
commercialization of a product. HITECH also increased the civil and
criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and
business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority
to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts
to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney's fees and
costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition,
certain state and foreign laws, regulations, standards and
regulatory guidance govern the privacy and security of health
information in certain circumstances, some of which are more
stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in
significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus
complicating compliance efforts.
The Affordable Care Act, through the enactment of the Physician
Payments Sunshine Act, imposes, among other things, new annual
reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain
payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, as
defined by such law, and teaching hospitals, as well as certain
ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their
immediate family members.
Many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations
that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in
addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other
state programs. We may also be subject to state laws that require
pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical
industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant
compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, state
laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related
to pricing, payments and other transfers of value to physicians and
other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures as well as
state and local laws that require the registration of
pharmaceutical sales representatives. Additionally, to the extent
that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be
subject to similar foreign laws.
Because we intend to commercialize products that could be
reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other
governmental healthcare programs, we will continue to develop a
comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls
to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to
which we will or may become subject. Although the development and
implementation of compliance programs designed to establish
internal control and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of
violating these laws, and the subsequent investigation,
prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws,
the risks cannot be entirely eliminated.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws
or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be
subject to significant penalties, including, without limitation,
administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines,
disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished
profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and
oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement
or similar agreement, the curtailment or restructuring of our
operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state
healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely
affect our ability to operate our business and our financial
results.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
We are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as
amended ("FCPA"). The FCPA prohibits U.S. companies and their
representatives from processing, offering, or making payments of
money or anything of value to foreign officials with the intent to
obtain or retain business or seek a business advantage. In certain
countries, the health care professionals we regularly interact with
may meet the definition of a foreign government official for the
purposes of the FCPA. Our international activities create the risk
of unauthorized payments or offers of payments by our employees,
consultants and agents, even though they may not always be subject
to our control. We discourage these practices by our employees,
consultants, and agents. However, our existing safeguards may prove
to be less than effective, and our employees, consultants, and
agents may engage in conduct for which we might be held
responsible. Recently, there has been a substantial increase in
anti-bribery law enforcement activity by U.S. regulators, with more
frequent and aggressive investigations and enforcement activity by
both the Department of Justice and the SEC. A determination that
our operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance
with U.S. or foreign laws or regulations could result in the
imposition of substantial fines, interruptions of business, loss of
suppliers, vendor or other third-party relationships, termination
of necessary licenses or permits, and legal or equitable sanctions.
Other internal or governmental investigations or legal or
regulatory proceedings, including lawsuits brought by private
litigants, may also follow as a consequence.
Other Applicable Laws
We are subject to a variety of financial disclosure and securities
trading regulations, both in the United States and in other
jurisdictions in which we operate, as a public company in the U.S.,
including laws relating to the oversight activities of the SEC and
the regulations of the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq"), on
which our shares of common stock are traded.
We are also subject to various other federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, including those related to safe working
conditions, and the storage, transportation, or discharge of items
that may be considered hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or
environmental contaminants.
In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding
environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and
Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our
business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and
disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances
used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations
result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to
hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and
governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance
with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance
therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business.
We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect
our future operations.
We are also subject to or affected by federal, state and foreign
privacy, security and data protection laws, regulations, standards
and regulatory guidance that govern the collection, use,
disclosure, retention, security and transfer of personal data. Our
operations extend to countries around the world, and many of these
jurisdictions have established privacy legal frameworks with which
we, our customers or our vendors must comply.
Healthcare Reform
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have
been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed
changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other
things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product
candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and
affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we
obtain marketing approval.
In particular, the Affordable Care Act has had, and is expected to
continue to have, a significant impact on the healthcare industry.
The Affordable Care Act was enacted to broaden access to health
insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending,
enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency
requirements for health care and health insurance industries,
impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose
additional health policy reforms. The law has continued the
downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the
Medicare program, and increased the industry’s regulatory burdens
and operating costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among
other things, the Affordable Care Act revised the definition of
"average manufacturer price" ("AMP") for calculating and reporting
Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices and
imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or
import certain branded prescription drug products.
There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain
aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by the
current administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the
Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, the President of the
United States has signed Executive Orders and other directives
designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the
Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the
requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care
Act. Legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017, includes a provision repealing, effective
January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment
imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail
to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year
that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate."
Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently
eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act’s
"Cadillac" tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and
medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated
the health insurer tax.
Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things,
amended the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to
increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by
pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and
to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly
referred to as the "donut hole." In addition, the federal
government eliminated federal cost-sharing reduction ("CSR")
payments to insurance companies. The loss of such federal CSR
payments has resulted in increased premiums on certain policies
issued by qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, in December 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services ("CMS") published a new final rule permitting further
collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act
qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the
Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the
outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method
CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On April 27, 2020, the
United States Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision
that previously upheld Congress' denial of $12 billion in "risk
corridor" funding. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court
Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual
mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable
Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the
Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. In December 2019, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court
ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and
remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether
the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as
well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the
petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case. It is
unclear how such litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace
the Affordable Care Act will impact the Affordable Care Act and our
business. The Affordable Care Act is likely to continue the
downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase
our regulatory burdens and operating costs. We continue to evaluate
the effect that the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and
replacement has on our business.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the
Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011,
President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011,
which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending
reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted
deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013
through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to
several government programs. This included further reductions to
Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went
into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative
amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2030 unless
additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid,
Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed
into law in March 2020 and is designed to provide financial support
and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1,
2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one
year, through 2030. Additionally, in January 2013, the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other
things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and
increased the statute of limitations period in which the government
may recover overpayments to providers from three to five
years.
Further, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional
inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to,
among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review
the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs,
reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs and reform
government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Such
scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and
proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to,
among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical
product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and
manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program
reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the
current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021
includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals
seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower
out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access
to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the
U.S. presidential administration sent "principles" for drug pricing
to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other
things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy
expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary
monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical
price increases.
Additionally, on May 11, 2018, the President of the United States
previously laid out his administration’s "Blueprint to Lower Drug
Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs" to reduce the cost of
prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The
Department of Health and Human Services has solicited feedback on
some of these measures and has implemented others under its
existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final
rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step
therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule
codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019.
Congress and the U.S. presidential administration have each
indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or
administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level,
legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing
legislation and implementing regulations designed to control
pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or
patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on
certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and
transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage
importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
Additionally, on July 24, 2020, President Trump announced four
executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt
to implement several of the Trump administration proposals,
including (i) a policy that would tie certain Medicare Part B drug
prices to international drug prices, or the “most favored nation
price,” the details of which were released on September 13, 2020
and also expanded the policy to cover certain Part D drugs; (ii) an
order that directs HHS to finalize the Canadian drug importation
proposed rule previously issued by HHS and makes other changes
allowing for personal importation of drugs from Canada; (iii) an
order that directs HHS to finalize the rulemaking process on
modifying the Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors for discounts for
plans, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical benefit managers; (iv) a
policy that reduces costs of insulin and epipens to patients of
federally qualified health centers. The FDA also recently released
a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion
of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to
build and submit importation plans for drugs from
Canada.
Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand
post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional
activities for pharmaceutical products. We are not sure whether
additional legislative changes will be enacted, whether the current
regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what
the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be. In
addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s
approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing
approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling
and post-marketing testing and other requirements.
We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform
measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit
the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for
healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced
demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is
taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is uncertain whether and how future legislation, whether
domestic or foreign, could affect prospects for our product
candidates or what actions foreign, federal, state, or private
payors for health care treatment and services may take in response
to any such health care reform proposals or legislation. Adoption
of price controls and other cost-containment measures and adoption
of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing
controls and measures reforms may prevent or limit our ability to
generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product
candidates.
Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes obligations on
manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, among others, related to
product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this
legislation, manufacturers are required to provide certain
information regarding the drug product to individuals and entities
to which product ownership is transferred, label drug product with
a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding the drug
product. Further, under this legislation, manufacturers have drug
product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification
responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and
intentionally adulterated products, as well as products that are
the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit
for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to
result in serious health consequences or death.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Sales of our products, if and when approved, will depend, in part,
on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by
third-party payors, such as government healthcare programs, private
health insurers and managed care organizations. Third-party payors
generally decide which drugs they will cover and establish certain
reimbursement levels for such drugs. In particular, in the United
States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often
provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level
at which the government (through the Medicare or Medicaid programs)
provides reimbursement for such treatments. Patients who are
prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing
the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to
reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients
are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and
reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the
cost of our products. Sales of our product candidates, and those of
any future product candidate, will therefore depend substantially
on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates, and
those of any future product candidate, will be paid by third-party
payors. Additionally, the market for our product candidates, and
those of any future product candidate, will depend significantly on
access to third-party payors' formularies without prior
authorization, step therapy, or other limitations such as approved
lists of treatments for which third-party payors provide coverage
and reimbursement. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and
reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and
reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As
such, coverage and reimbursement for therapeutic products can
differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor's
decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not
ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical
product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate
reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process
will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the
use of our products to each payor separately and will likely be a
time-consuming process.
Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated
methods of controlling healthcare costs and challenging the prices
charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the
containment of healthcare costs (including drug prices) has become
a priority of federal and state governments. The U.S. government,
state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant
interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price
controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for
substitution by generic products. Adoption of price controls and
cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive
policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures,
could limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party
payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared
to other therapies, they may not cover our products once approved
as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of
reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our
products on a profitable basis. Decreases in third-party
reimbursement for our products once approved or a decision by a
third-party payor to not cover our products could reduce or
eliminate utilization of our products and have an adverse effect on
our sales, results of operations and financial condition. In
addition, state and federal healthcare reform measures have been
and will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the
amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare
products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our
products once approved or additional pricing
pressures.
Employees
As of April 30, 2021, we had 42 full-time employees. Our employees
are not represented by any collective bargaining unit, and we
believe our relations with our employees are good.
Corporate Information
We were originally an exempted limited company incorporated under
the laws of Bermuda in October 2014 and were named Axovant Gene
Therapies Ltd. from March 2019 until November 2020. In November
2020, we became a Delaware corporation in connection with the
Domestication and changed our corporate name to Sio Gene Therapies
Inc. Our principal executive office is located at 130 West
42nd
Street, 26th
Floor, New York, New York 10036, and our telephone number is 1
(877) 746-4891.
Available Information
Our website is www.siogtx.com. The contents of, or information
accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report
on Form 10-K, and our website address is included in this document
as an inactive textual reference only. We make our filings with the
SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those
reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as
reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish
such reports to, the SEC. Additionally, the SEC maintains an
internet site that contains reports, proxy and information
statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website
is www.sec.gov.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our
technology and products or if the scope of the patent protection
obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete
effectively in our markets.
We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents,
trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements
with employees, consultants, collaborators, advisors and other
third parties to protect the intellectual property related to our
current and future development programs and product candidates. Our
success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain
patent protection in the United States and other countries for our
current gene therapy product candidates and any future product
candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing
patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our
current and future product development programs and product
candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and
time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all
necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or
in a timely manner.
The patent applications we have in-licensed or own cannot be
enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in
such applications unless and until a patent issues from such
application(s). Our in-licensed and/or owned patent applications
may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our
current product candidates or other gene therapy product candidates
in the United States or in foreign countries. Our in-licensed and
owned patent portfolio alone may not provide us with sufficient
rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or
identical to ours.
It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable
aspects of our research and development output before it is too
late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we
own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims
that cover our current product candidates or any future product
candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. We
may also inadvertently make statements to regulatory agencies
during the regulatory approval process that may be inconsistent
with positions that have been taken during prosecution of our
in-licensed or owned patents which may result in such patents being
narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable.
The patent rights that we own or have licensed relating to our
product candidates may be limited in ways that may affect our
ability to exclude third parties from competing against us if we
obtain regulatory approval to market these product candidates. For
our current product candidates or future product candidates for
which we do not hold or do not obtain composition of matter
patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval
can offer products with the same composition as our products so
long as the competitors do not infringe any other patents, such as
method patents, that we may hold or obtain rights to. Method
patents only protect the product when used or sold for the
specified method. However, this type of patent protection does not
limit a competitor from making and marketing a product that is
identical to our product that is labeled for an indication that is
outside of the patented method, or for which there is a substantial
use in commerce outside the patented method.
There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior
art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found,
which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent
application or be used to invalidate a patent. The patent
examination process may require us to narrow our claims, which may
limit the scope of patent protection that we may obtain. Even if
patents do successfully issue based on our owned or in-licensed
applications and even if such patents cover our current or future
product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity,
enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being
narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Any successful
opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or
licensed to us in the future could deprive us of rights necessary
for the successful commercialization of any current or future
product candidates, if approved. Further, if we encounter delays in
regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could
market a product candidate under patent protection could be
reduced.
Our owned or in-licensed pending applications cannot be enforced
against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such
applications unless and until a patent issues from such
applications. If the patent applications we hold or have
in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product
candidates fail to issue as patents, if their breadth or strength
of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful
exclusivity for our current or future product candidates, it could
dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product
candidates and threaten our ability to commercialize future
products. Any such outcome could have an adverse effect on our
business.
The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies
generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual
questions and has in recent years been the subject of much
litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not
protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United
States. For example, European patent law restricts the
patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than
United States law does. Publications of discoveries in scientific
literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent
applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are
typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some
cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether
we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or
licensed patents or pending patent applications, or whether we were
the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a
result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and
commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our
pending and future patent applications may not result in patents
being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or
in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing
competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent
laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and
other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the
scope of our patent protection.
Patent reform legislation could increase uncertainties and costs
surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent
applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or
in-licensed issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law.
The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to United
States patent laws. These include provisions that affect the way
patent applications are prosecuted and challenged at the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and may also affect patent
litigation. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop new
regulations and procedures to govern administration of the
Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law
associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first
to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013.
Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith
Act, subsequent rulemaking, and judicial interpretation of the
Leahy-Smith Act and regulations will have on the operation of our
business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could
increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of
our patent applications and the enforcement and/or defense of our
issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our
business and financial condition.
Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance
submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in
opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review,
post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our
patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse
determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation
could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow
third parties to commercialize our technology or products and
compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our
inability to manufacture or commercialize products without
infringing third-party patent rights.
Even if our patent applications that we own or license issue as
patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any
meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us
or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our
competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing
similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing
manner. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection
provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it
could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license,
develop or commercialize current or future product
candidates.
The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship,
scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed
patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the
United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of
exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being
narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part,
which could limit our ability to stop others from using or
commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or
limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and
products.
The inventorship and/or ownership rights for patents or patent
applications we own or in-license may be challenged by third
parties. Such challenges could result in loss of exclusive rights
to such patents, which could limit our ability to stop others from
using or commercializing similar or identical technology and
products or require us to obtain a license from such third parties
on commercially reasonable terms to secure exclusive rights, or our
business could be harmed. If any such challenges to inventorship
and/or ownership were asserted, there is no assurance that a court
would find in our favor or that, if we choose to seek a license,
such license would be available to us on acceptable terms or at
all.
Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States,
the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after the
first non-provisional filing date. Certain extensions may be
available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it
affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our current or
future product candidates, we may be open to competition from
biosimilar or generic versions of such products. Given the amount
of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review
of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might
expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.
As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not
provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from
commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by
extending the patent term and obtain data exclusivity for our
product candidates, our business may be materially
harmed.
Our commercial success will largely depend on our ability to obtain
and maintain patents and other intellectual property in the United
States and other countries with respect to our proprietary
technology, product candidates and our target indications. Given
the amount of time required for the development, testing and
regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our
product candidates might expire before or shortly after such
candidates begin to be commercialized. We expect to seek extensions
of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other
countries where we are prosecuting patents.
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing
approval of our product candidates, one or more of our owned or
in-licensed U.S. patents or patent applications, once issued, may
be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as
the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a
patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal
expiration of the patent as compensation for patent term lost
during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is
limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications
approved during the period of extension). However, the total patent
term including the period of extension cannot exceed 14 years from
the product’s approval date. Furthermore, this extension is limited
to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved
use of the product, or a method of manufacturing the product.
However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the
USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority
in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether
such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions
to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we
request. We may not be granted an extension because of, for
example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to
apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing
to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time
period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less
than we request.
If we are unable to extend the expiration date of our existing
patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our
competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in
development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and
nonclinical data to obtain approval of competing products following
our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might
otherwise be the case.
The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents that cover
our biologic product candidates can be challenged by third
parties.
For biologics, such as AXO-AAV-GM1, AXO-AAV-GM2 and AXO-Lenti-PD,
the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”)
provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA
approval to manufacture or sell biosimilar or interchangeable
versions of brand name biological products. Due to the large size
and complexity of biological products, as compared to small
molecules, a biosimilar must be “highly similar” to the reference
product with “no clinically meaningful differences between the
biological product and the reference product in terms of the
safety, purity and potency of the product.” The BPCIA provides,
among other things, for a formal pre-litigation process which
includes the exchange of information between a biosimilar applicant
and a reference product sponsor that can include the identification
of relevant patents and each parties’ basis for infringement and
invalidity. After the exchange of this information (if the exchange
is elected), we must then initiate an infringement lawsuit within
30 days for the patents identified in the exchange. If the
biosimilar applicant successfully challenges the asserted patent
claims it could result in the invalidation of, or render
unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or result
in a finding of non-infringement.
Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual
property rights are often complex in nature, may be expensive and
time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from our core
business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit
our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our
product candidates.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on
compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee
payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent
agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated
for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid
to the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies in several stages
over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign
national or international patent agencies require compliance with a
number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar
provisions during the patent application process. While an
inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late
fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules,
there are situations in which noncompliance can result in
abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting
in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant
jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in
abandonment or lapse of patent rights include, but are not limited
to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent
applications based on our international patent application, failure
to respond to office actions within prescribed time limits,
non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit
formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the
patents and patent applications covering our current or future
product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the
market sooner, which would have an adverse effect on our
business.
We may need to license intellectual property from third parties,
and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on
commercially reasonable terms.
A third-party may hold intellectual property, including patent
rights and trade secrets that are important or necessary to the
development of our current or future product candidates. It may be
necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of
one or more third parties to manufacture or commercialize our
product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a
license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms,
or our business could be harmed, possibly materially. If any such
patents were to be asserted against us, there is no assurance that
a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose or are
required to seek a license, a license to any of these patents would
be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
It may be necessary to use a patented or proprietary AAV-related
technology of one or more third parties to manufacture and
commercialize AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2. If we are unable to
obtain licenses from such third parties when needed or on
commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize
AXO-AAV-GM1 (if approved) or AXO-AAV-GM2 (if approved), would
likely be delayed or impaired.
Third-party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents
or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or
other proprietary rights may delay or prevent the development and
commercialization of our product candidates.
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement
and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third
parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within
and outside the United States, involving patent and other
intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits,
interferences, derivation and administrative law proceedings, inter
partes review, and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as
oppositions and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.
Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent
applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields
in which we and our collaborators are developing product
candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries
expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater
visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk
increases that our product candidates or other business activities
may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other
proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that
we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary
technology without authorization.
There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims
to compositions, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or
methods for treatment related to our current or future product
candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to
issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may
later result in issued patents that our current or future product
candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain
patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies
infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held
by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing
process of any of our product candidates; any molecules, plasmids,
vectors, cell lines, etc. formed during the manufacturing process;
any final product itself or the intended method of treatment using
the product, including combination therapy, the holders of any such
patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such
product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable
patents, or until such patents expire.
A license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or
at all. In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are
infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks
or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and
to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use
intellectual property or proprietary information owned by others in
their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related
or resulting know-how and inventions.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other
equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to
further develop and commercialize one or more of our product
candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit,
would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a
substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In
the event of a successful infringement or other intellectual
property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages,
including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful
infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay
royalties or redesign our affected products, which may be
impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We
cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all
or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms.
Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to
obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow
commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so
from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a
reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event,
we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more
of our product candidates, which could harm our business
significantly. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential
information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar
negative impact on our business.
We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not
exist which might be enforced against our product candidates,
resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with
respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or
other forms of compensation to third parties.
Third-party patent applications directed to methods for producing
recombinant lentiviral vectors or recombinant AAV vectors could
adversely affect the potential commercialization of our current
gene therapy product candidates, if patents issue from such
applications that include claims that would cover the methods of
making our current gene therapy product candidates. While we do not
believe that such pending third-party claims that would cover the
methods of making our current gene therapy product candidates are
likely to be patentable, we may be incorrect in this
belief.
We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly
interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party
patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and
market our products.
We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent
searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant
patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant
patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we
have identified each and every third-party patent and pending
application in the United States and abroad that is or may be
relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product
candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the United
States and elsewhere are not published until approximately 18
months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed,
with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the
priority date. In addition, U.S. patent applications filed before
November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after
that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain
confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications
covering our products could have been filed by others without our
knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications or patents
that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be
later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates
or the use of our products.
The scope of a patent claim is determined by multiple factors
including an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a
patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of
the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may
be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our
products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not
covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether
a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of
relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any
patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may
be incorrect, and our failure to identify and correctly interpret
relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and
market our products.
If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we
may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we
will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such
infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to
being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently
prohibited from commercializing any of our products that are held
to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign
products, processes, or services so that we no longer infringe the
third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even
if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert
substantial financial and management resources that we would
otherwise be able to devote to our business.
If we breach any of our license or collaboration agreements, it
could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for
our product candidates.
We have licensed rights to intellectual property from UMMS and
Oxford in order to commercialize our product candidates, and we
have or intend to enter into one or more commercial supply and
manufacturing agreements for our current product
candidates.
Disputes may arise between us and any of these counterparties
regarding intellectual property rights that are subject to such
agreements, including, but not limited to:
•the
scope of rights granted under the agreement and other
interpretation-related issues;
•whether
and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on
intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the
agreement;
•our
right to sublicense patent and other rights to third
parties;
•our
diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed
technology in relation to our development and commercialization of
our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence
obligations;
•the
ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint
creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us
and our partners;
•our
right to transfer or assign our license; and
•the
effects of termination.
These or other disputes over intellectual property that we have
licensed (or will license or acquire in the future) may prevent or
impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on
acceptable terms or may impair the value of the arrangement to us.
Any such dispute could have an adverse effect on our
business.
If we materially breach or fail to perform any provision under
these license and collaboration agreements, including failure to
make payments to a licensor or collaborator when due for royalties
and failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and
commercialize our product candidates, such licensors and
collaborators have the right to terminate our agreement, and upon
the effective date of such termination, our right to practice the
licensed patent rights and other intellectual property would end.
Any uncured, material breach under the agreements could result in
our loss of rights to practice the patent rights and other
intellectual property licensed to us under the agreements and to
liability for potential damages.
Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be
subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could
narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual
property or technology.
Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be
susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any
contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect
the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or
technology or affect financial or other obligations under the
relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
and prospects.
We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our
patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual
property rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and
unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, the
patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights.
To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to
file legal claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In
addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a
patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable or
may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at
issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology
in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense
proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being
invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent
applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim
against a third-party may also cause the third-party to bring
counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents
are invalid or unenforceable.
In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims
alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds
for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of
several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty,
obviousness, non-enablement, or lack of statutory subject matter.
Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation
that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld
relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially
misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also
raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant
proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review,
or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside
the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the
context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of
invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be
certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and
the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the
patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have
limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed
patents against challenge by a third-party. If a defendant were to
prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we
would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent
protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss
of patent protection could harm our business.
We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our
licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights,
particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those
rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other
proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail,
and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and
distract our management and other employees.
Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to
grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead
award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate
remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery
required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there
is a risk that some of our confidential information could be
compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There
could also be public announcements of the results of hearings,
motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities
analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it
could have an adverse effect on the price of our common
stock.
Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be
in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against
third parties.
Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may
conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued
patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending
or future patent applications or other intellectual property
rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a
claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our
company or our stockholders. In such cases, we may decide that the
more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or
initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or
solution.
Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or
jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general,
thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
The United States has recently enacted and implemented wide-ranging
patent reform legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on
several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of
patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening
the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to
increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents
in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty
with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on
actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO,
the laws and regulations governing patents could change in
unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new
patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we
might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and
regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the
governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the
relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations
may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents
that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the
future.
The United States government may have certain rights in patent
applications and patents issuing therefrom that we in-license or
own. The United States federal government retains certain rights in
inventions produced with its financial assistance under the
Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive,
nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit.
The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in
rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified
circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to
the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or
exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If
the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the
license itself. Furthermore, if the U.S. Government has rights
related to a product candidate under the Bayh-Dole Act, we may be
obligated to substantially manufacture in the U.S. such product if
it was invented using government funding. Under certain
circumstances, we may be able to obtain a waiver to manufacture
outside the U.S., however, such waivers are not
guaranteed.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights
throughout the world, which could impair our business.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our current and
future product candidates throughout the world would be
prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in
jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to
develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise
infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent
protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that
in the United States. These products may compete with our products
in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed
patents and any future patent claims, or other intellectual
property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them
from so competing.
Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting
and defending intellectual property rights in foreign
jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the
enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection,
which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of
our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in
foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert
our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could
put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted
narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and
could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not
prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other
remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially
meaningful.
Many countries, including EU countries, India, Japan and China,
have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be
compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third
parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if
patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to
a third-party, which could materially diminish the value of those
patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities.
Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property
rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant
commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop
or license.
Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade
secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will
discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or
disclosed.
Because we expect to rely on third parties to manufacture our
product candidates, and we expect to continue to collaborate with
third parties on the development of our current and future product
candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We
also conduct joint research and development programs that may
require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our
collaboration or similar agreements. We seek to protect our
proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality
agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements,
consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our
advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior
to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These
agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use
or disclose our confidential information, including our trade
secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working
with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other
confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets
become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated
into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in
violation of these agreements. Any disclosure, either intentional
or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties
with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and
vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or
manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties
(such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or
proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or
surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our
competitive position in our market. Further, adequate remedies may
not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Given
that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how
and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or
other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive
position and may have an adverse effect on our business and results
of operations.
In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our
advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to
publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although
our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights.
Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors’ intellectual
property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be
unable to determine the extent of any unauthorized use. Moreover,
enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or
misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and
time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some
courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or
unwilling to protect trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect
our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets,
either through breach of our agreements with third parties,
independent development or publication of information by any of our
third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade
secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse
impact on our business.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or
independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed
confidential information of their former employers or other third
parties.
We employ individuals who were previously employed at other
biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we seek to
protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring
that our agreements with our employees, collaborators, and other
third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring
such parties to assign rights in inventions to us, we may be
subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or
independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or
disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former
employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims
that former employers or other third parties have an ownership
interest in our patents. Litigation may be necessary to defend
against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending
these claims, and if we fail in defending any such claims, in
addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable
intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or
right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are
successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a
distraction to our management and other employees. Moreover, any
such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our
reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense
our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or
hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition.
In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and
contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual
property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property
to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with
each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we
regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be
self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring
claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring
against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our
intellectual property.
If we or our licensors fail in prosecuting or defending any such
claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose
valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we and
our licensors are successful in prosecuting or defending against
such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a
distraction to management.
Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend
substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal
responsibilities.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal
proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us
to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and
management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In
addition, there could be public announcements of the results of
hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and
if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be
negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price
of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could
substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the
resources available for development activities or any future sales,
marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient
financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or
proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to
sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more
effectively than we can because of their greater financial
resources. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to
prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our
intellectual property. In addition, the uncertainties associated
with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds
necessary to initiate or continue our clinical trials and internal
research programs, or in-license needed technology or other product
candidates. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and
continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could
compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including
compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue
our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license
necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development
collaborations that would help us commercialize our product
candidates, if approved.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade
secrets, our business and competitive position would be
harmed.
In addition to seeking patents for our current and future product
candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented
know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain
our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in
part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality
agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our
employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific
collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and
other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and
invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and
consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach
the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including
our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate
remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party
illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult,
expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In
addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less
willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.
If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or
independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to
prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that
technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade
secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a
competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.
Any trademarks we have obtained or may obtain may be infringed or
successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our
business.
We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of
our product candidates that are approved for marketing from the
products of our competitors. Once we select new trademarks and
apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be
approved. Third parties may oppose or attempt to cancel our
trademark applications or trademarks, or otherwise challenge our
use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are
successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our
products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could
require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new
brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not
have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.
If we attempt to enforce our trademarks and assert trademark
infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have
asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against
whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to
the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced
to cease use of such trademarks.
Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all
potential threats to our competitive advantage.
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual
property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights
have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or
permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following
examples are illustrative:
•others
may be able to make products that are the same as or similar to our
product candidates, but that are not covered by the claims of the
patents or other intellectual property rights that we own or that
we have exclusively licensed and have the right to
enforce;
•we,
our licensor or any collaborators might not have been the first to
make the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent
applications that we own or license;
•we
or our licensor might not have been the first to file patent
applications covering certain of our inventions;
•others
may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or
duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our
intellectual property rights;
•it
is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to
issued patents;
•issued
patents that we own or license may not provide us with any
competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable as
a result of legal challenges;
•our
competitors might conduct research and development activities in
the United States and other countries that provide a safe harbor
from patent infringement claims for certain research and
development activities, as well as in countries where we do not
have patent rights, and then use the information learned from such
activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major
commercial markets; and
•we
may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are
patentable.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in
addition to the other information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this
report titled "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations" and our consolidated financial
statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described
below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and
uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently believe
are not material, may also become important factors that adversely
affect our business. If any of the events described in the
following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this
report occurs, our business, operating results and financial
condition could be seriously harmed and the trading price of our
shares of common stock could decline. This Annual Report on
Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that
involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ
materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements
as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in
this report. See the section under Part I of this report titled
"Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements".
Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Position and Capital
Requirements
We have a limited operating history and have never generated any
product revenues.
We are a clinical-stage gene-therapy company with a limited
operating history. Our operations to date have been limited to
organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, acquiring
product candidates and advancing our product candidates into
clinical development. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to
successfully complete a registration-enabling pivotal clinical
trial, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a clinical-stage or
commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on
our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for
successful product commercialization. Consequently, we have no
meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and
predictions about our future success or viability may not be as
accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a
history of successfully developing and commercializing
pharmaceutical products.
In addition, the failure of our clinical trials for and the
discontinuation of development of intepirdine and nelotanserin has
required us to reevaluate our business and led to dramatic shifts
in our strategy and business plan. Our new strategy and business
plan have not yet been proven and we may never be successful in
developing or commercializing any of our gene therapy product
candidates, including our gene therapy product candidates, which
remain in early stages of clinical development.
Our ability to generate revenue and become profitable depends upon
our ability to successfully complete the development of our product
candidates and to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for
their commercialization. We have never been profitable, have not
generated any revenue from product sales, and have no products
approved for commercial sale.
Even if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates,
we do not know when those candidates will generate revenue, if at
all. Our ability to generate product revenue depends on a number of
factors, including our ability to:
•successfully
commence and complete clinical trials and obtain regulatory
approval for the marketing of our gene therapy product
candidates;
•establish
effective sales, marketing and distribution systems for our gene
therapy product candidates;
•add
operational, financial and management information systems and
personnel, including personnel to support our clinical,
manufacturing and planned future commercialization efforts and
operations as a public company;
•initiate
and continue relationships with third-party suppliers and
manufacturers, including Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. ("Oxford"),
Viralgen Vector Core, S.L. and other third-party cGMP
manufacturers, and have clinical and commercial quantities of our
gene therapy product candidates manufactured at acceptable cost and
quality levels;
•attract
and retain an experienced management and advisory
team;
•raise
additional funds when needed and on terms acceptable to
us;
•achieve
broad market acceptance of our products in the medical community
and with third-party payors and consumers;
•launch
commercial sales of our products, whether alone or in collaboration
with others;
•compete
effectively with other biotechnology and gene therapy companies
targeting neurological diseases; and
•obtain,
maintain, expand and protect necessary intellectual property
rights.
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with
product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount
of increased expenses, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve
or maintain profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond
expectations if we are required by the United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), European Medicines Agency ("EMA"), Japan's
Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency ("PMDA") or comparable
regulatory authorities in other countries, to perform studies or
clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate.
Even if our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we
anticipate incurring significant costs associated with their
commercial launch. If we cannot successfully execute any one of the
foregoing, our business may not succeed, and your investment will
be adversely affected.
Our business, operations and clinical development plans and
timelines could continue to be adversely impacted by the effects of
health epidemics, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic, on the
manufacturing, clinical trial and other business activities
performed by us or by third parties with whom we conduct business,
including our contract manufacturers, contract research
organizations, or CROs, shippers and others.
Our business, including patient enrollment and Chemistry,
Manufacturing and Controls ("CMC") manufacturing efforts for our
clinical trials, could continue to be adversely impacted by health
epidemics wherever we have clinical trial sites or other business
operations. In addition, health epidemics could cause significant
disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers, CROs and
other third parties upon whom we rely. For example, the global
COVID-19 pandemic and measures introduced by local, state and
federal governments to contain the virus and mitigate its public
health effects have significantly impacted and may continue to
significantly impact our industry and the global economy. These and
similar, and perhaps more severe, disruptions in our operations,
our industry and the global economy could negatively impact our
business, operating results and financial condition.
We are dependent on an international supply chain for products to
be used in our clinical trials and, if approved by the regulatory
authorities, for commercialization. Continued quarantines,
shelter-in-place and similar government orders, whether related to
COVID-19 or other infectious diseases, could impact personnel at
third-party manufacturing facilities or the availability or cost of
materials, which could disrupt our supply chain. Any manufacturing
supply interruption of our product candidates could harm our
ability to conduct ongoing and future clinical trials of our
product candidates. In addition, closures of transportation
carriers and modal hubs could materially impact our clinical
development and any future commercialization
timelines.
If our relationships with our suppliers or other vendors are
terminated or scaled back as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or
other health epidemics, we may not be able to enter into
arrangements with alternative suppliers or vendors or do so on
commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Switching or
adding additional suppliers or vendors involves substantial cost
and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a
natural transition period when a new supplier or vendor commences
work. As a result, delays occur, which could adversely impact our
ability to meet our desired clinical development and any future
commercialization timelines. Although we carefully manage our
relationships with our suppliers and vendors, there can be no
assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the
future or that these delays or challenges will not have an adverse
impact on our business, financial condition and
prospects.
In addition, our clinical trials have been affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. Clinical trial progression, dosing, patient enrollment
and related activities have been delayed due to concerns among
patients about participating in clinical trials during a pandemic,
and reporting of some clinical data may be incomplete or delayed if
patients enrolled in our clinical trials are unable to fully
participate in all necessary measurement protocols as a result of
any such hospital resource prioritization, patient participation
concerns or other factors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal, state, and local guidelines for reopening in the United
States and United Kingdom, where our clinical trials are being run,
may negatively impact our ability to enroll additional patients in
any of our clinical programs. Some patients may have difficulty
following certain aspects of clinical trial protocols if
quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare
services. For example, patients in our clinical trials for
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 are infants, often with advanced
disease, who may not be able to safely participate in clinical
trials for these product candidates during the COVID-19 pandemic or
if they have not or are not eligible to receive COVID-19
vaccinations. Additionally, our clinical trial for AXO-Lenti-PD can
involve elderly patients with advanced disease who may be unable to
participate in clinical assessments at our research sites in the
United Kingdom. For example, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and a
patient refusal, two out of four patients in the second cohort of
our Phase 2 clinical trial of AXO-Lenti-PD at our United Kingdom
clinical trial sites were unable to participate in Unified
Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale assessments and the mandatory
washout of background levodopa therapy at the six-month time point.
However, all four of these subjects were able to complete all other
efficacy assessments at the six-month timepoint, including the
patient-recorded Hauser diaries. We are working with sites and
investigators to ensure safe and ethical data collection at future
time points through the pandemic in accordance with regulatory
guidance. Similarly, our inability to successfully recruit and
retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as
healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19 or
experience additional restrictions by their institutions or local,
state or national governments, could adversely impact our clinical
trial operations.
The ultimate impact and evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
or a similar health epidemic are highly uncertain and subject to
change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or
impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or
the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could harm
our operations, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19
situation closely.
We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future
and may never achieve or maintain profitability.
Investment in pharmaceutical and biological product development is
highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital
expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will
fail to gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We
have never generated any revenues, and we cannot estimate with
precision the extent of our future losses. We do not currently have
any products that are available for commercial sale and we may
never generate revenue from selling products or achieve
profitability. We expect to continue to incur substantial and
increasing losses through the projected commercialization of our
product candidates. Our product candidates have not been approved
for marketing in the United States or any other jurisdiction, and
we may never receive any such approvals. We are uncertain when or
if we will achieve profitability and, if so, whether we will be
able to sustain it. Our ability to produce revenue and achieve
profitability is dependent on our ability to complete the
development of our product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory
approvals, and have our product candidates manufactured and
successfully marketed and commercialized. We cannot assure you that
we will be profitable even if we successfully commercialize our
product candidates. If we do successfully obtain regulatory
approval to market our product candidates, our revenues will be
dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories
for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of competitors in
such markets, the accepted price for our product candidates and
whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the
indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we
expect, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition,
physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate
significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, even if
approved. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able
to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual
basis. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect
the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise
capital and continue operations.
We expect our research and development expenses to be significant
as we develop our gene therapy product candidates. In addition, if
we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we
expect to incur increased sales and marketing expenses. As a
result, we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses
and negative cash flows from operations for the foreseeable future.
These losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect
on our financial position and working capital.
We estimate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance is
sufficient to support operations beyond the twelve-month period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued, including beyond the expected dates of
major upcoming milestones for our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program
for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis. As such, we have
determined that there is no longer substantial doubt about our
ability to continue as a going concern for the one-year period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued. These estimates are based on assumptions
that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital
resources sooner than we currently expect.
In order to meet our long-term operating requirements, we will
need, among other things, additional capital resources. We
continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to
support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our
equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product
development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or
other sources of capital to complete our currently planned
development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing
may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and our
ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by
potentially worsening global economic conditions and the recent
disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets
in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. If we are unable to raise additional capital in
sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to
significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or
commercialization of our product candidates. Any significant delays
in our programs may also require us to reevaluate our corporate
strategy, resulting in the expenditure of significant resources and
time, or potentially resulting in us discontinuing our
operations.
We are heavily dependent on the success of our gene therapy product
candidates, which are still in early stages of clinical or
preclinical development. If we are unable to successfully develop
and commercialize any of our product candidates, our business will
be harmed.
We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale
and may never be able to develop marketable products. We expect
that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures over the
next few years will be devoted to the development of our gene
therapy product candidates, all of which are in the early stages of
clinical development. Accordingly, our business currently depends
heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and
commercialization of these product candidates. We cannot be certain
that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval
or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory
approval. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval,
sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are and
will remain subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA,
the PMDA and other comparable regulatory authorities that each have
differing regulations. We are not permitted to market our product
candidates in the United States or in any foreign countries until
they receive the requisite approvals from the FDA or comparable
regulatory authorities in other countries. We have not submitted
marketing applications to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities
and do not expect to be in a position to do so for the foreseeable
future. Obtaining marketing approval is a lengthy, expensive and
inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay,
limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons,
including:
•we
may not be able to demonstrate that a product candidate is safe and
effective as a treatment for our targeted indications to the
satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authorities;
•our
BLA or other key regulatory filings may be delayed or rejected due
to issues, including those related to product quality and
manufacturing, timing of results from supporting studies, database
lock and data transfer;
•the
regulatory authorities may require additional nonclinical studies
or clinical studies of the product candidate in Parkinson’s disease
or other indications, which would increase our costs and prolong
our development;
•the
results of our clinical trials may not meet the level of
statistical or clinical significance required for marketing
approval;
•the
regulatory authorities may disagree with the number, design, size,
conduct or implementation of our clinical trials;
•the
contract research organizations ("CROs") that we retain to conduct
clinical trials may take actions outside of our control, or
otherwise commit errors or breaches of protocols, that adversely
impact our clinical trials;
•the
regulatory authorities may not find the data from nonclinical
studies and clinical trials sufficient to demonstrate that the
clinical and other benefits of the product candidate outweigh its
safety risks;
•the
regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data
from our nonclinical studies and clinical trials or may require
that we conduct additional studies;
•the
regulatory authorities may not accept data generated at our
clinical trial sites;
•the
regulatory authorities may require, as a condition of approval,
limitations on approved labeling or distribution and use
restrictions;
•the
FDA may require development of a risk evaluation and mitigation
strategy ("REMS") as a condition of approval;
•the
regulatory authorities may identify deficiencies in the
manufacturing processes or facilities of our third-party
manufacturers; or
•the
regulatory authorities may change their approval policies or adopt
new regulations.
In addition, in October 2020, our manufacturing partner for
AXO-Lenti-PD, Oxford, informed us of delays in CMC data and
third-party fill/finish issues. As a result, the development of a
suspension-based manufacturing process for AXO-Lenti-PD has taken
longer than expected, which will likely result in delays in
starting our planned randomized, sham-controlled trial of
AXO-Lenti-PD. There can be no assurance as to the timeline for our
planned trial or that we will not experience future delays, which
would adversely affect our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
We will require additional capital to fund our operations, and if
we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may not be able to
complete the development and commercialization of our product
candidates.
We are currently in the clinical stage of operations and have not
yet achieved profitability. We expect to continue to incur
significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash
flows from operations, for the foreseeable future as we continue to
develop our gene therapy product candidates and prepare for
potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our
products. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not
expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully
complete development and obtain regulatory approval for at least
one of our gene therapy product candidates. Our current cash and
cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete
all necessary development activities and commercially launch our
products.
We expect to spend substantial amounts to complete the development
of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product
candidates. Because the length of time and activities associated
with successful development of our product candidates is highly
uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will
require for development and any approved marketing and
commercialization activities. However, we anticipate that our
current cash and cash equivalents balance is sufficient to fund our
clinical milestones beyond the expected dates of major upcoming
milestones for our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program for the
treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis. Our future funding requirements,
both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including,
but not limited to:
•the
progress, timing, costs and results of our clinical trials of our
product candidates;
•the
outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements
established by the FDA, the EMA, or the PMDA, and other comparable
foreign regulatory authorities;
•the
achievement of certain development, regulatory and
commercialization milestones that give rise to milestone and
royalty payments to licensors;
•the
cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent
claims and other intellectual property rights;
•the
cost of obtaining necessary intellectual property and defending
potential intellectual property disputes, including patent
infringement actions brought by third parties against us or our
product candidates or any future product candidates;
•the
effect of competing technological and market
developments;
•the
cost and timing of completion of clinical-stage and
commercial-scale manufacturing activities, including costs that may
result from delays in the development of a suspension-based
manufacturing process by our partner, Oxford;
•the
cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities
for our product candidates in regions where we choose to
commercialize our products on our own; and
•the
initiation, progress, timing and results of our commercialization
of our product candidates, if approved for commercial
sale.
For the years ended March 31, 2021 and March 31, 2020, we incurred
net losses of $32.4 million and $72.6 million, respectively. As of
March 31, 2021, our cash and cash equivalents totaled
$119.0 million and our accumulated deficit was $791.1 million.
We estimate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance is
sufficient to support operations beyond the twelve-month period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued, including beyond the expected dates of
major upcoming milestones for our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program
for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis. As such, we have
determined that there is no longer substantial doubt about our
ability to continue as a going concern for the one-year period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued. These estimates are based on assumptions
that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital
resources sooner than we currently expect.
In order to meet our long-term operating requirements, we will
need, among other things, additional capital resources. We
continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to
support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our
equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product
development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or
other sources of capital to complete our currently planned
development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing
may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and our
ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by
potentially worsening global economic conditions and the recent
disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets
in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. If we are unable to raise additional capital in
sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to
significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or
commercialization of our product candidates. Any significant delays
in our programs may also require us to reevaluate our corporate
strategy, resulting in the expenditure of significant resources and
time, or potentially resulting in us discontinuing our
operations.
Raising additional funds by issuing securities may cause dilution
to existing stockholders, raising additional funds through debt
financings may involve restrictive covenants, and raising funds
through lending and licensing arrangements may restrict our
operations or require us to relinquish proprietary
rights.
We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the
future to continue our planned operations. Until such time, if
ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to
finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings,
debt financings, strategic alliances and license and development
agreements in connection with any collaborations. We do not have
any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise
additional capital by issuing equity securities, including pursuant
to our "shelf" registration statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and our
"at-the-market" offering of common stock, our existing
stockholders’ ownership may experience substantial dilution, and
the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other
preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common
stockholder. Debt financing or preferred equity financing, if
available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting
or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as
incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring
dividends.
If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic
alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with
third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our
technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product
candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to
us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or
debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit,
reduce or terminate our product development or future
commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market
product candidates that we would otherwise develop and market
ourselves.
We may be required to make significant payments to third parties
under the agreements pursuant to which we acquired our gene therapy
product candidates.
Under our agreements with UMMS and Oxford, we are subject to
significant obligations, including payment obligations upon
achievement of specified milestones and payments based on product
sales, as well as other material obligations. Some of these
milestones require us to make payments prior to generating any
product sales. We may not have sufficient funds available to meet
our obligations at such time as any of these payments become due,
in which case our development efforts would be harmed. Further,
failure to make these payments or to meet our other material
obligations may result in our counterparties pursuing various
remedies under those agreements that could harm our
operations.
Our business plan may lead to the initiation of one or more gene
therapy development programs, the discontinuation of one or more
development programs, or the execution of one or more transactions
that you do not agree with or that you do not perceive as favorable
to your investment.
In June 2018, we announced that we received from Oxford a worldwide
exclusive license to develop and commercialize AXO-Lenti-PD and its
predecessor product candidate ProSavin and related gene therapy
products (the "Oxford Agreement"). In July 2018, we announced that
we received from Benitec Biopharma Limited ("Benitec") a worldwide
exclusive license to develop and commercialize investigational gene
therapy AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy products (the
"Benitec Agreement"). In December 2018, we announced that we had
received from the University of Massachusetts Medical School
("UMMS") a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize
gene therapy product candidates AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 (the
"UMMS Agreement"). We are pursuing a strategy to leverage our
clinical experience and expertise for the clinical development and
regulatory approval of our gene therapy product candidates. As part
of our ongoing business strategy, we continue to explore potential
opportunities to acquire or license new product candidates and to
collaborate on our existing products in development.
We cannot be certain that our product candidates will be
successfully developed, or that the early clinical trial results of
these product candidates will be predictive of future clinical
trial results. We may determine at any time that one or more of our
in-licensed product candidates is not suitable for continued
development due to cost, feasibility of obtaining regulatory
approvals or any other reason, and may terminate the related
license. For example, in June 2019, we decided to terminate the
Benitec Agreement following our decision to no longer pursue
development of AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy product
candidates. In addition, we have limited data from small,
uncontrolled clinical trials, performed by or on behalf of Oxford,
regarding the safety and tolerability of ProSavin, as the
predecessor product candidate to AXO-Lenti-PD, in patients with
advanced Parkinson’s disease, as well as nonclinical in vitro
experiments with AXO-Lenti-PD. Prior ProSavin trials were not
powered to demonstrate the efficacy of the therapy with statistical
significance. Given the information above, these trials could be
underpowered to demonstrate a potential clinical benefit for
AXO-Lenti-PD in these indications.
This business plan requires us to be successful in a number of
challenging, uncertain and risky activities, including pursuing
development of our gene therapy product candidates in indications
for which we have limited or no human clinical data, designing and
executing a nonclinical and/or clinical development program for our
product candidates, building internal or outsourced gene therapy
capabilities, converting early stage gene therapy research efforts
into clinical development opportunities, identifying additional
promising new assets for development that are available for
acquisition or in-license and that fit our strategic focus and
identifying potential partners to collaborate on our products. We
may not be successful at one or more of the activities required for
us to execute this business plan. In addition, we are also
continuing to consider other strategic alternatives, such as
mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, partnerships
and collaborations. We cannot be sure when or if any type of
transaction will result. Even if we pursue a transaction, such
transaction may not be consistent with our stockholders’
expectations or may not ultimately be favorable for our
stockholders, either in the shorter or longer term.
Our growth prospects and the future value of our company are
primarily dependent on the progress of our ongoing and planned
clinical development programs for our product candidates as well as
the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and
pipeline expansion activities, together with the amount of our
remaining available cash. The development of our product candidates
and the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and
pipeline expansion activities are highly uncertain.
We expect to continue to reassess and make changes to our existing
development programs and pipeline expansion strategy. Our plans for
our development programs may be affected by the results of
competitors’ clinical trials of product candidates addressing our
current target indications, and our business development efforts
and pipeline expansion activities may also be affected by the
results of competitors' ongoing research and development efforts.
We may modify, expand or terminate some or all of our development
programs, clinical trials or collaborative research programs at any
time as a result of new competitive information or as the result of
changes to our product pipeline or business development
strategy.
We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are
unable to attract and retain key personnel. In addition, if we are
unable to effectively transition and integrate our new executive
officers, our business and financial performance could be adversely
affected.
We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and
commercial, scientific and clinical personnel due to the intense
competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract
and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business
objectives, we may experience constraints that will impede the
achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise
additional capital and our ability to implement our business
strategy.
Our financial performance will depend in significant part on our
senior management team and key employees with expertise in the gene
therapy development field. We are highly dependent on the skills
and leadership of our management team. Our senior management and
key employees may terminate their position with us at any time. If
we lose one or more members of our senior management team or key
employees, our ability to successfully implement our business
strategy could be seriously harmed. Replacing these individuals may
be difficult, cause disruption, and may take an extended period of
time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry
with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain
regulatory approval of and commercialize products successfully.
Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may
be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate additional key
personnel. We do not maintain "key person" insurance for any of our
executives or other employees.
Many of the other biopharmaceutical companies that we compete
against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater
financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer
history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more
diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement.
Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality
candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. If we are
unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and
consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and
develop product candidates, our ability to effectively manage any
future growth and our business will be limited.
Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators,
consultants, commercial collaborators, manufacturers, service
providers and other vendors, or those of our affiliates, may engage
in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance
with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an
adverse effect on our results of operations.
Our employees and contractors, including principal investigators,
consultants, commercial collaborators, manufacturers, service
providers and other vendors, or those of our affiliates, may engage
in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these
parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent
conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and
regulations, including those of the FDA and other similar
regulatory bodies that require the reporting of true, complete and
accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal, state and
foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws
that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial
information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other
business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to
extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing,
bribery, corruption, antitrust violations, and other abusive
practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of
business activities, including research, manufacturing,
distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales
commission, customer incentive programs and other business
arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the
improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the
course of clinical trials, the creation of fraudulent data in
nonclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation
of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and
serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to
identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the
precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be
effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in
protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or
lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws
or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a
person or government agency could allege such fraud or other
misconduct, even if none occurred. If our employees, independent
contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial
collaborators, manufacturers, service providers or other vendors,
or those of our affiliates, are alleged or found to be in violation
of any such regulatory standards or requirements, or become subject
to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and
curtailment of our operations, it could have a significant impact
on our business and financial results, including the imposition of
significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages,
monetary fines, suspension or delay in clinical trials, possible
exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other
federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages,
reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings,
additional reporting requirements and oversight, any of which could
adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our
results of operations.
Operation of our business internationally exposes us to business,
regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks
associated with doing business in various jurisdictions
globally.
Our business strategy includes establishing and maintaining
operations and certain key third party arrangements in various
jurisdictions around the world. Doing business internationally
involves a number of risks, including:
•multiple,
conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as tax laws,
export and import restrictions, employment laws, anti-bribery and
anti-corruption laws, regulatory requirements and other
governmental approvals, permits and licenses;
•failure
by us or our distributors to obtain appropriate licenses or
regulatory approvals for the sale or use of our product candidates,
if approved, in various countries;
•difficulties
in managing foreign operations;
•unexpected
changes in tariffs or trade barriers;
•complexities
associated with managing multiple payor-reimbursement regimes or
self-pay systems;
•financial
risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty enforcing
contracts and collecting accounts receivable and exposure to
foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations;
•reduced
protection for intellectual property rights;
•reduced
protection of contractual rights in the event of bankruptcy or
insolvency of the other contracting party;
•natural
disasters, political and economic instability, including wars,
terrorism and political unrest, outbreak of disease, including the
recent COVID-19 pandemic and related shelter-in-place orders,
travel, social distancing and quarantine policies, boycotts,
curtailment of trade and other business restrictions;
•failure
to comply with foreign laws, regulations, standards and regulatory
guidance governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention,
security and transfer of personal data, including the European
Union General Data Privacy Regulation ("GDPR"); and
•failure
to comply with the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 ("U.K. Bribery
Act") and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in other
jurisdictions, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including its
books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions,
including by failing to maintain accurate information and control
over sales and distributors’ activities.
Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our
current or future international operations and, consequently,
negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.
The withdrawal of the United Kingdom, or the U.K., from the
European Union, or the E.U., commonly referred to as “Brexit”, may
adversely impact our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our
product candidates in the U.K. or the EU and may require us to
incur additional expenses to develop and commercialize our product
candidates in the U.K. or the EU or receive clinical supply of our
product candidates from manufacturing partners in the
U.K.
Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the U.K. left the
E.U. on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit. Pursuant
to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the U.K. and
the E.U., the U.K. was subject to a transition period until
December 31, 2020 (the "Transition Period"), during which E.U.
rules continued to apply. A trade and cooperation agreement (the
"Trade and Cooperation Agreement") that outlines the future trading
relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union was
agreed in December 2020.
Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the
U.K. applicable to our business and our product candidates is
derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit has had, and may
continue to have, a material impact upon the regulatory regime with
respect to the development, approval and commercialization of our
product candidates in the U.K. or the EU. For example, Great
Britain is no longer be covered by the centralized procedures for
obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the EMA, and a
separate marketing authorization will be required to market our
product candidates in Great Britain. It is currently unclear
whether the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
in the U.K. is sufficiently prepared to handle the increased volume
of marketing authorization applications that it is likely to
receive. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any
marketing approvals, would delay or prevent us from commercializing
our product candidates in the U.K. or the E.U. and restrict our
ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability.
We anticipate that Oxford, which is based in the U.K., will
continue to provide clinical and commercial supply for our
AXO-Lenti-PD program. Brexit could affect the clearance or timing
of the release of our clinical trial materials out of the U.K. Any
such delays could result in our clinical study sites outside of the
U.K. not having sufficient clinical trial materials and could
adversely affect the timing and completion of our clinical
trials.
While the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for the
tariff-free trade of medicinal products between the U.K. and the
E.U. there may be additional non-tariff costs to such trade which
did not exist prior to the end of the Transition Period. Further,
should the U.K. diverge from the E.U. from a regulatory perspective
in relation to medicinal products, tariffs could be put into place
in the future. We could therefore, both now and in the future, face
significant additional expenses (when compared to the position
prior to the end of the Transition Period) to operate our business,
which could significantly and materially harm or delay our ability
to generate revenues or achieve profitability of our business. Any
further changes in international trade, tariff and import/export
regulations as a result of Brexit or otherwise may impose
unexpected duty costs or other non-tariff barriers on us. These
developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may
significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between
the impacted nations and the U.K. It is also possible that Brexit
may negatively affect our ability to attract and retain employees,
particularly those from the E.U.
Use of social media platforms presents new risks.
We believe that our potential patient population is active on
social media. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty
and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our
business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to
comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a
product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations. In
addition, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive
information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us or
our product candidates on any social networking website. If any of
these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with
applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive
regulatory actions or incur other harm to our
business.
The failure to maintain our current enterprise resource planning
system ("ERP") could adversely impact our business and results of
operations.
If our ERP system does not continue to operate as intended, the
effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting
could be adversely affected or our ability to assess those controls
adequately could be delayed. Significant delays in documenting,
reviewing and testing our internal control could cause us to fail
to comply with our SEC reporting obligations related to our
management's assessment of our internal control over financial
reporting.
Potential product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to
incur liabilities and limit commercialization of any products that
we may develop.
The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale
of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us
to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims
might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers,
pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into
contact with our products. On occasion, large monetary judgments
have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had
unanticipated adverse effects. If we are not successful in
defending ourselves against product liability claims, we could
incur liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or
eventual outcome, product liability claims may result
in:
•impairment
of our business reputation and significant negative media
attention;
•withdrawal
of participants from our clinical trials;
•significant
costs to defend related litigation;
•distraction
of management’s attention from our primary business;
•substantial
monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
•inability
to commercialize our product candidates or any future product
candidate;
•product
recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional
restrictions;
•decreased
demand for our product candidates or any future product candidate,
if approved for commercial sale; and
•loss
of revenue.
The product liability insurance we currently carry, and any
additional product liability insurance coverage we acquire in the
future, may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or
losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming
increasingly expensive, and in the future, we may not be able to
maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient
amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful
product liability claim or series of claims brought against us
could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our
insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of
operations and business, including preventing or limiting the
commercialization of any product candidates we
develop.
Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by
funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their
ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other
personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being
developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all,
which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be
affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and
funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept
the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy
changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in
recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other
government agencies that fund research and development activities
is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and
unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time
necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary
government agencies, which would harm our business. For example,
over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on
December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times
and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to
furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a
prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact
the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory
submissions, which could harm our business.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also resulted in the FDA imposing
preventive measures, including postponements of non-U.S.
manufacturing and product inspections. If global health concerns
continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from
conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory
activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or
other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our
regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect
on our business.
If we fail to comply with applicable U.S. and foreign privacy and
data protection laws and regulations, we may be subject to
liabilities that adversely affect our business, operations and
financial performance.
We are subject to laws and regulations requiring that we take
measures to protect the privacy and security of certain information
we gather and use in our business. For example, the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and
its implementing regulations impose, among other requirements,
certain regulatory and contractual requirements regarding the
privacy and security of personal health information. In addition to
HIPAA, numerous other federal and state laws, including, without
limitation, state security breach notification laws, state health
information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection
laws, govern the collection, use, and storage of personal
information. In addition, in June 2018, California enacted the
California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") which took effect on
January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded
rights to access and require deletion of their personal
information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and
receive detailed information about how their personal information
is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as
well as a private right of action for data breaches that may
increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes
exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and HIPAA protected
health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and
potential liability with respect to other personal information we
collect about California residents. The CCPA has prompted a number
of proposals for new federal and state privacy legislation that, if
passed, could increase our potential liability, increase our
compliance costs and adversely affect our business.
We may also be subject to or affected by laws and regulations
globally, including regulatory guidance, governing the collection,
use, disclosure, security, transfer and storage of personal data,
such as information that we collect about patients and healthcare
providers in connection with clinical trials and our other
operations in the U.S. and abroad. The global legislative and
regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to
evolve, and implementation standards and enforcement practices are
likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. This
evolution may create uncertainty in our business, result in
liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance
with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to
increase in the future. For example, the EU has adopted the GDPR,
which introduces strict requirements for processing personal data.
The GDPR is likely to increase the compliance burden on us,
including by mandating potentially burdensome documentation
requirements and granting certain rights to individuals to control
how we collect, use, disclose, retain and leverage information
about them. The processing of sensitive personal data, such as
physical health conditions, may impose heightened compliance
burdens under the GDPR and is a topic of active interest among
foreign regulators. In addition, the GDPR provides for breach
reporting requirements, more robust regulatory enforcement and
fines of up to 20 million euros or up to 4% of annual global
revenue. While the GDPR affords some flexibility in determining how
to comply with the various requirements, significant effort and
expense has been, and will continue to be, invested to ensure
continuing compliance. Moreover, the requirements under the GDPR
may change periodically or may be modified by EU national law and
could have an effect on our business operations if compliance
becomes more costly than under current requirements.
It is possible that each of these privacy laws may be interpreted
and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices.
Further, Brexit has created uncertainty with regard to data
protection regulation in the U.K. In particular, it is unclear
whether, post Brexit, the U.K. will enact data protection
legislation equivalent to the GDPR and how data transfers to and
from the U.K. will be regulated. Any failure or perceived failure
by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or
self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity,
diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us
by governmental entities or others. In many jurisdictions,
enforcement actions and consequences for noncompliance are rising.
As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and
jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations
that may affect how we conduct business.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and acquire
additional gene therapy product candidates, or to enter into
collaborations or strategic alliances for the development and
commercialization of any such future product
candidates.
Part of our strategy involves the business development activities
of identifying and acquiring novel product candidates. The process
by which we identify product candidates may fail to yield product
candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons,
including those discussed in these risk factors and
also:
•pre-clinical
and early clinical results of any product candidates we acquire may
not be predictive of future clinical results;
•potential
product candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful
side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are
unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and
achieve market acceptance; or
•potential
product candidates may not be effective in treating their targeted
diseases.
In addition, the process of identifying and acquiring product
candidates is highly competitive, and our ability to compete
successfully is impacted by the fact that many of the companies
with which we compete for these candidates have significantly
greater experience, development and commercialization capabilities,
name recognition and financial and human resources than we do.
Further, our business development efforts are led by our senior
executive officers and other management team members and would be
significantly impaired if we were to lose the services of any of
these executives. The time and resources spent on business
development activities may also distract management's attention
from our other development and business activities. Even if we are
successful in identifying and acquiring additional product
candidates, we may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a
potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be
unsuccessful. If we are unable to identify and acquire suitable
product candidates for clinical development, this could adversely
impact our business strategy, our financial position and stock
price.
We may also decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical
companies for the development and potential commercialization of
our product candidates in the United States or other countries or
territories of the world. We will face significant competition in
seeking appropriate collaborators. We may not be successful in our
efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative
arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed
to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative
effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as
having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.
If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and
commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to
relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of
that product candidate to the third party. Our ability to reach a
definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other
things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and
expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration
and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of
factors.
Risks Related to Clinical Development, Regulatory Approval and
Commercialization
Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design
and implement and involve an uncertain outcome.
Our gene therapy product candidates are still in development and
will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to
submit an application for marketing approval to regulatory
authorities. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we
might submit any such application for regulatory approval for our
product candidates or whether any such application will be approved
by the applicable regulatory authority in our target markets. Human
clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and
implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory
requirements. For instance, regulatory authorities may not agree
with our proposed endpoints for any clinical trials of our gene
therapy product candidates, which may delay the commencement of our
clinical trials. The clinical trial process is also time-consuming.
We estimate that clinical trials of our product candidates will
take at least several years to complete.
Failure can occur at any stage of our clinical trials, and we could
encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical
trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may
fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having
progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials,
and the results of smaller nonclinical or early clinical trials
therefore may not be predictive of the results of large scale or
later-stage clinical programs. For example, we have discontinued
further clinical development of product candidates that did not
meet their primary efficacy endpoints in Phase 2, Phase 2b and
Phase 3 clinical studies. Likewise, there can be no assurance that
the results of studies conducted by collaborators or other third
parties will be viewed favorably or are indicative of our own
future study results. A number of companies in the
biopharmaceutical industry, and especially in the neurology field,
have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due
to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding
promising results in earlier trials, and in the regulatory approval
process.
Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject
to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent
regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory
delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to
changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product
candidate development. Any such failures or delays could negatively
impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
All of our gene therapy product candidates are in early stages of
development. The outcome of nonclinical testing and early clinical
trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical
trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily
predict final results and results from one completed clinical trial
may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar
study design. The clinical trials conducted to date for our gene
therapy product candidates have involved a small number of
patients, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable
results that we observed in such trials will be repeated in larger
and more advanced clinical trials. In addition, the design of a
clinical trial, such as endpoints, inclusion and exclusion
criteria, statistical analysis plans, data access protocols and
trial sizing, can determine whether its results will support
approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial
may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced.
Furthermore, as we are exploring new disease areas without any
approved treatments, we may need to qualify new and unproven
endpoints as we are continuing the development of our product
candidates, which may increase uncertainty.
The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed
by several factors, including:
•failure
to obtain regulatory approval to commence a trial;
•unforeseen
safety issues;
•determination
of dosing issues;
•lack
of effectiveness during clinical trials;
•inability
to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and
clinical trial sites;
•slower
than expected rates of patient recruitment or failure to recruit
suitable patients to participate in a trial;
•changes
in or modifications to clinical trial design;
•failure
to manufacture or obtain supply of sufficient quantities of a gene
therapy product candidate or placebo or failure to obtain
sufficient quantities of concomitant medication for use in clinical
trials;
•inability
to monitor patients adequately during or after
treatment;
•inability
or unwillingness of medical investigators to follow our clinical
and other applicable protocols;
•failure
to establish sufficient number of clinical trial sites;
or
•clinical
sites or others deviating from trial protocol, inappropriately
unblinding results, or dropping out of a trial.
Further, by way of example, we, a regulatory agency or an
institutional review board ("IRB") at a clinical trial site may
suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or
our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with
regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical
Practice ("cGCP") regulations, that we are exposing participants to
unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our
IND submissions or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we
cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and
completion of clinical trials. If we experience delays in the
commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we
terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial
prospects of our gene therapy product candidates could be harmed,
and our ability to generate revenues may be delayed. In addition,
any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, cause a
drop in our stock price, slow down the approval process and
jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate
revenues. In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or
delays in commencing or completing clinical trials. Any of these
occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve
as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and
receive compensation in connection with such services. Under
certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these
relationships to the applicable regulatory agency, which may
conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal
investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise
affected interpretation of the study. The applicable regulatory
agency may therefore question the integrity of the data generated
at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the
clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a
delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by
the applicable regulatory agency and may ultimately lead to the
denial of marketing approval of one or more of our gene therapy
product candidates.
In addition, we acquired worldwide rights to our gene therapy
product candidates and were not involved in their development prior
to such acquisitions. More particularly, we have had no involvement
with or control over the nonclinical and clinical development of
our gene therapy product candidates prior to acquiring the rights
to them. We are dependent on our predecessors, including UMMS and
Oxford, having conducted such research and development in
accordance with the applicable protocols, legal, regulatory and
scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all
clinical trials and other research conducted prior to our
acquisition of the gene therapy product candidates, having
correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials and
other research and having supplied us with complete information,
data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the
results reported through the date of our acquisition of these
assets. In addition, we have limited data regarding the safety,
tolerability and efficacy of our gene therapy product candidates
and their potential indications, and we have not previously
conducted development activities for a biological product
candidate. Problems related to our predecessors, including UMMS and
Oxford, and our limited available data for our gene therapy product
candidates could result in increased costs and delays in the
development of our gene therapy product candidates, which could
adversely affect our ability to generate future
revenues.
Interim "top-line" and preliminary data from our clinical trials
that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more
patient data become available and are subject to audit and
verification procedures that could result in material changes in
the final data.
From time to time, we may publish interim "top-line" or preliminary
data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials
that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of
the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment
continues and more patient data over a longer follow-up period
become available. Preliminary or "top-line" data also remain
subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the
final data being materially different from the preliminary data we
previously published. In addition, our clinical trials have
involved small patient populations; the interim results of these
clinical trials may be subject to substantial variability and may
not be indicative of final results. As a result, interim and
preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data
are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim
data and final data could significantly harm our business
prospects.
Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical trials is an
expensive and time-consuming process and could be made more
difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our
control.
We may encounter delays in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a
sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical
trials, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a
sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials.
Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many
factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature
of the trial protocol, the effectiveness of our patient recruitment
efforts, delays in enrollment due to travel or quarantine policies,
or other factors, related to COVID-19, the existing body of safety
and efficacy data with respect to the study candidate, the
perceived risks and benefits of gene therapy approaches for the
treatment of neurological diseases, the number and nature of
competing existing treatments for our target indications, the
number and nature of ongoing trials for other product candidates in
development for our target indications, perceived risk of the
delivery procedure, patients with pre-existing conditions that
preclude their participation in any trial, the proximity of
patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the
study. Furthermore, the negative results we have reported in
clinical trials to date and any other negative results we may
report in clinical trials of any of our gene therapy product
candidates in the future may make it difficult or impossible to
recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of those gene
therapy product candidates. Similarly, negative results reported by
our competitors about their product candidates may negatively
affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Delays or
failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in
increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful
effect on our ability to develop our gene therapy product
candidates or could render further development impossible. In
addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to
ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and,
while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services,
we will be limited in our ability to control their actual
performance.
We face significant competition from other biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, and there is a possibility that our
competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop
therapies that are safer or more advanced or effective than ours
and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete
effectively.
Drug development, particularly in the gene therapy field, is highly
competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological
advancements. As a significant unmet medical need exists in the
neurology field, including for the treatments of Parkinson's
disease, GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis (including
Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases), there are several large and small
pharmaceutical companies focused on delivering therapeutics for the
treatment of these diseases. Further, it is likely that additional
therapies will become available in the future for the treatment of
our target indications.
We consider our direct competitors for AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2
to be LYS-GM101, a gene therapy product candidate being developed
by Lysogene S.A., as well as PBGM01, a gene therapy program being
developed by Passage Bio which recently received IND clearance,
each for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, and TGTX-101, a gene
therapy product candidate being developed by Taysha Gene Therapies
for the treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis.
We consider our most direct competitor with respect to AXO-Lenti-PD
to be Voyager Therapeutics, which previously was advancing VY-AADC,
a gene therapy product candidate for the treatment of advanced
Parkinson’s disease. VY-AADC delivers the AADC gene, one of the
three genes contained in AXO-Lenti-PD, via an adeno-associated
virus (an "AAV virus-based vector"). In May 2021, Voyager
Therapeutics announced that it will not advance the VY-AADC program
on its own following the termination of that portion of the
collaboration agreement with Neurocrine Biosciences. Agilis
Biotherapeutics, which was acquired by PTC Therapeutics, is
developing AGIL-AADC, another AAV virus-based vector gene therapy
that delivers the AADC gene, for the treatment of AADC deficiency,
a rare disorder that involves loss of AADC gene function. In
addition, DBS is approved for treating Parkinson’s disease and is
marketed by multiple device manufacturers, including Medtronic,
Abbott and Boston Scientific. DBS treatment involves permanent
placement of hardware in the brain via stereotactic neurosurgery
and may require follow-up adjustments or even invasive device
replacements. Another surgical approach is Abbvie’s Duopa which is
delivered via a port implanted in the abdominal wall. Further
efforts are also underway to develop and commercialize new improved
formulations of L-dopa, including Acorda’s Inbrija, for which an
NDA was approved by the FDA in December 2018, and Mitsubishi
Tanabe’s ND0612. Adjunct therapies are also being developed or have
recently been approved to supplement L-dopa therapy, including
Sunovion’s sublingual apomorphine and Adamas Pharmaceuticals’
GoCovri. Several companies are also trying to develop other disease
modifying therapies that could prevent the progression of
Parkinson’s disease. MeiraGTx is developing AAV-GAD, a gene therapy
product designed to deliver the GAD gene to increase production of
the neurotransmitter GABA to normalize motor circuits. Examples of
early stage efforts include Denali Therapeutics’ LRRK2 inhibitors
and anti-alpha synuclein antibodies from Prothena/Roche and Biogen,
as well as Prevail Therapeutics’ (acquired by Eli Lilly in 2020)
pipeline of AAV-based therapeutics targeting lysosomal dysfunction.
BlueRock Therapeutics (acquired by Bayer in 2019) is developing an
induced pluripotent stem cell-derived (iPSC) dopaminergic neuron
therapy for patients with Parkinson’s and will enter a Phase 1
clinical trial in 2021 to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and
preliminary efficacy in patients with Parkinson's
disease.
Many of our existing or potential competitors have substantially
greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and
significantly greater experience in the discovery and development
of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals
of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign
countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have
significantly more experience commercializing drugs, particularly
gene therapy and other biological products, that have been approved
for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries could result in even more resources being
concentrated among a small number of our competitors. These
competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining
qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing
clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials,
as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary
for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or
eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products
that are safer or more effective, have fewer or less severe side
effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any
products that we may develop or that would render any products that
we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also
may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more
rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in
our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are
able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by
our competitors may render our potential product candidates
uneconomic or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing
any product candidates we may develop against
competitors.
We will face competition from other drugs or from other non-drug
products currently approved or that will be approved in the future
in the neurology field, including for the treatment of Parkinson’s
disease, GM1 gangliosidosis and GM2 gangliosidosis (including
Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases). Therefore, our ability to compete
successfully will depend largely on our ability to:
•develop
and commercialize products that are superior to other products in
the market;
•demonstrate
through our clinical trials that our gene therapy product
candidates are differentiated from existing and future
therapies;
•attract
qualified scientific, product development and commercial
personnel;
•obtain
patent or other proprietary protection for our
medicines;
•obtain
required regulatory approvals;
•obtain
coverage and adequate reimbursement from, and negotiate competitive
pricing with, third-party payors; and
•successfully
collaborate with pharmaceutical companies in the discovery,
development and commercialization of new medicines.
The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the
demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any gene therapy
product candidate we develop. The inability to compete with
existing or subsequently introduced products would have an adverse
impact on our business, financial condition and
prospects.
Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to
accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to
in-license novel compounds that could make our gene therapy product
candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that
competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling
advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in
order to overcome price competition and to be commercially
successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining
patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving regulatory
and marketing approval for or commercializing therapies before we
do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results
of operations.
If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will
not be able to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates,
and our ability to generate revenue will be materially
impaired.
The activities associated with the development and
commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, including
their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy,
recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising,
promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive
regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United
States and by the EMA, the PMDA and similar regulatory authorities
outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for
our gene therapy product candidates will prevent us from
commercializing them.
We have not received approval from regulatory authorities to market
any gene therapy product candidate in any jurisdiction, and we will
need to complete pivotal clinical trials successfully for our gene
therapy product candidates before we can submit any application for
regulatory approval. It is possible that our gene therapy product
candidates in the future will never obtain the appropriate
regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product
sales.
We expect to rely on third-party CROs and consultants to assist us
in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain
marketing approvals. Securing marketing approval requires the
submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and
supporting information for our gene therapy product candidates to
regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish
safety and efficacy of the gene therapy product candidate for that
indication. Securing marketing approval also requires the
submission of information about the product manufacturing process
to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory
authorities. Delays or errors in the submission of applications for
marketing approval or issues, including those related to gathering
the appropriate data and the inspection process, may ultimately
delay or affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval,
commercialize our gene therapy product candidates and generate
product revenues.
Our gene therapy product candidates may cause adverse effects or
have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory
approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market
acceptance.
Adverse events caused by our gene therapy product candidates or
that of adjuncts could cause us, other reviewing entities, clinical
trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt
clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory
approval. If an unacceptable frequency or severity of adverse
events are reported in our clinical trials for our gene therapy
product candidates or any future product candidates, our ability to
obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates may be
negatively impacted. The laws and regulations governing controlled
substances could limit commercialization of our gene therapy
product candidates, and failure to comply with those laws and
regulations could also result in adverse regulatory, legal, and
operational consequences.
In particular, there have been several significant adverse side
effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported
cases of leukemia in trials using earlier generation viral vectors.
Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease
treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop.
Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with
gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after
administration which could substantially limit the effectiveness of
the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Another
traditional safety concern for gene therapies using viral vectors
has been the possibility of insertional mutagenesis by the vectors,
leading to malignant transformation of transduced cells.
Additionally, in previous clinical trials involving AAV vectors for
gene therapy, some subjects experienced the development of a
positive ELISPOT test associated with T-cell responses, which is of
unclear clinical translatability.
There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events
following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent
biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of
products used to carry the genetic material. Possible adverse side
effects that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products
include an immunologic reaction early after administration that
could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or
represent safety risks for patients. Many times, side effects are
only detectable after investigational products are tested in larger
scale, pivotal clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are
made available to patients on a commercial scale after
approval.
In addition to side effects that may be caused by gene therapy
product candidates, the administration process or related
procedures also can cause adverse side effects. For example,
integration of AAV DNA into the host cell's genome has been
reported to occur. Further, our AAV delivery systems for
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 have not been validated in human
clinical trials previously, and if such delivery systems do not
meet the safety criteria or cannot provide the desired efficacy
results, then we may be forced to suspend or terminate our
development of AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2. For example, we
submitted an IND in late 2019 to support the initiation of a
company-sponsored clinical trial of AXO-AAV-GM2 for the treatment
of patients with GM2 gangliosidosis. Following its review of the
IND, while the FDA had no concerns over animal toxicology or
clinical safety in the AXO-AAV-GM2 program, the FDA placed the IND
on clinical hold, for which the IND was subsequently cleared in
November 2020 following our responses to CMC and device-related
questions. However, there can no assurance that our programs will
not be subject to future clinical holds or similar
delays.
If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our gene
therapy product candidates has side effects or causes serious or
life-threatening side effects, the development of the gene therapy
product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the gene therapy
product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval
may be revoked or limited.
Furthermore, if any of our products are approved and then cause
serious or unexpected side effects, a number of potentially
significant negative consequences could result,
including:
•regulatory
authorities may withdraw their approval of the product or require a
REMS to impose restrictions on its distribution or other risk
management measures;
•regulatory
authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such
as warnings or contraindications;
•we
may be required to change the way the product is administered or to
conduct additional clinical trials;
•we
could be sued and held liable for harm caused to
patients;
•we
could elect to discontinue the sale of our product;
and
•our
reputation may suffer.
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining
market acceptance of the affected gene therapy product candidate
and could increase the costs of commercializing our gene therapy
product candidates.
Our AAV-based gene therapy product candidates and our
lentiviral-based gene therapy product candidate are based on new
gene transfer technology, which makes it difficult to predict the
time and cost of product candidate development and of subsequently
obtaining regulatory approval.
The use of gene therapy in the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, GM2
gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease)
and Parkinson’s disease is new. We may experience problems or
delays in developing new gene therapy product candidates and such
problems or delays may cause unanticipated costs, and such
development problems may not be solvable. We may also experience
delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable
manufacturing process or transferring that process for our gene
therapy product candidates from their current manufacturers, which
may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or
commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at
all.
In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other
foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators
use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate
vary according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use
and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval
process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more
expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more
extensively studied product candidates. To date, only a limited
number of gene therapies have received marketing authorization from
the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Until August 2017, the
FDA had never approved a cell or gene therapy product. Since that
time, it has only approved a small number of product candidates,
including Kymriah by Novartis International AG, for pediatric and
young adult patients with a form of acute lymphoblastic leukemia,
Yescarta and Tecartus by Kite Pharma, Inc., Luxturna by Spark
Therapeutics, Inc. for patients with an inherited form of vision
loss, Zolgensma by Novartis International AG, for children less
than 2 years old with spinal muscular atrophy, and Abecma by
Bristol-Myers Squibb and bluebird bio, Inc. Additional cell and
gene therapies are undergoing regulatory review in the United
States and Europe. It is difficult to determine how long it will
take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for
our gene therapy product candidates in either the United States, or
other major markets or how long it will take to commercialize our
gene therapy product candidates, if any are approved. Approvals by
foreign regulatory authorities may not be indicative of what the
FDA may require for approval, and vice versa.
Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products have
changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The
FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies
within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ("CBER") to
consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and
has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory
Committee to advise the CBER in its review. If we were to engage an
NIH-funded institution, to conduct a clinical trial, that
institution’s institutional biosafety committee as well as its IRB
would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the
safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical
trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the
FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for
approval of any of our gene therapy product candidates. Similarly,
foreign regulatory authorities may issue new guidelines concerning
the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy
medicinal products and require that we comply with these new
guidelines.
The FDA, NIH and the EMA have each expressed interest in further
regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic
testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to
the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the
federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S.
Congressional committees and other governments or governing
agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the
biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent
commercialization of some or all of our gene therapy product
candidates.
These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new
guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review
process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our
development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and
interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of
these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval
limitations or restrictions. As we advance our gene therapy product
candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory
and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we
fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue
development of certain of our gene therapy product candidates.
These additional processes may result in a review and approval
process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay
or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the
regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to
market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product
revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects would be materially and adversely
affected.
Even if we obtain FDA approval for our gene therapy product
candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for
or commercialize them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit
our ability to realize their full market potential.
In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we
must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory
requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and
efficacy. Approval by the FDA in the United States does not ensure
approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or
jurisdictions. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one
country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other
countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not
guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval
processes vary among countries and can involve additional product
testing and validation and additional administrative review
periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in
difficulties and costs for us and require additional nonclinical
studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time
consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to
country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products
in those countries. We do not have any product candidates approved
for sale in any jurisdiction, including in international markets,
and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in
international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory
requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain
required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international
markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our
ability to realize the full market potential of any product we
develop will be unrealized.
Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates,
we will still face extensive regulatory requirements and our
products may face future development and regulatory
difficulties.
Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along
with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data,
labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting,
storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising and promotional
activities for such product, among other things, will be subject to
extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA, the
EMA, the PMDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
These requirements include submissions of safety and other
post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration
and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with cGMP
requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality
assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents,
requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians
and recordkeeping and cGCP requirements for any clinical trials
that we conduct post-approval. Even if marketing approval of a
product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to
limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be
marketed or to the conditions of approval, including any
requirement to implement a REMS. If any of our product candidates
receives marketing approval, the accompanying labels for such
products may limit the approved use of the product, which could
limit sales.
Regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly
post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to
monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. For example, the
holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report
adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the
specifications in the BLA. The FDA typically advises that patients
treated with gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for
potential adverse events for a 15-year period. The holder of an
approved BLA also must submit new or supplemental applications and
obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product,
product labeling or manufacturing process. These authorities
closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs
to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and
in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. We will
be subject to stringent restrictions on manufacturers’
communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our
products for their approved indications, we may be subject to
enforcement action for off-label marketing. Prescription drugs may
be promoted only for the approved indications in accordance with
the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the
laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses,
and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label
may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may,
in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available
products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior
of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does
restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label
use of their products. Violations of the FDCA or PHSA in the United
States, and other comparable regulations in foreign jurisdictions,
relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to
enforcement actions and investigations alleging violations of U.S.
federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as
state consumer protection laws and comparable laws in foreign
jurisdictions.
In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events
or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing
processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may
yield various results, including:
•restrictions
on manufacturing such products;
•restrictions
on the labeling or marketing of such products;
•restrictions
on product marketing, distribution or use;
•requirements
to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;
•warning
or untitled letters;
•withdrawal
of the products from the market;
•recall
of products;
•fines,
restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;
•suspension
or withdrawal of marketing approvals;
•refusal
to permit the import or export of such products;
•product
seizure; or
•injunctions
or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
Government regulations may change, and additional government
regulations may be enacted, either of which could prevent, limit or
delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or any future
product candidate. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or
extent of government regulation that may arise from future
legislation or administrative action. If we are slow or unable to
adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new
requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain
regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we
may have obtained.
Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may
fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients,
third-party payors or others in the medical community necessary for
commercial success.
Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may
nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by
physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical
community, including due to the novelty of gene therapy products in
general. If they do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we
may not generate significant product revenues and become
profitable. The degree of market acceptance for our product
candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a
number of factors, including but not limited to:
•the
efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative
treatments;
•the
effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;
•the
cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including
any similar generic treatments;
•our
ability to offer our products for sale at competitive
prices;
•the
convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative
treatments;
•the
willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies
and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
•the
ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy;
•the
strength of marketing and distribution support;
•the
availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement and
patients’ willingness to pay for our products in the absence of
such coverage and adequate reimbursement;
•the
prevalence and severity of any side effects; and
•any
restrictions on the use of our product together with other
medications.
We expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate
substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable
future. The failure of any of our product candidates, if approved,
to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require
us to seek additional financing.
Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene
therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our
product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our
business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product
candidates.
Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only a limited number
of gene therapy products approved to date. Public perception may be
influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, unethical or
immoral, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public
or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend
upon the comfort level of physicians to prescribe our product
candidates, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing or standard
treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater
clinical data may be available.
More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion
would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition
and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of
our gene therapy product candidates. Earlier gene therapy trials
led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of
leukemia and death seen in such trials using earlier generation
vectors. In addition, there is the potential risk of delayed
adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to
persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other
components of products used to carry the genetic material. Among
the risks in any gene therapy product based on viral vectors are
the risks of immunogenicity, elevated liver enzymes, and
insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion
of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth
or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could
potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. If our
vectors demonstrate a similar effect we may decide or be required
to halt or delay further clinical development of our AAV-based
product candidates. Adverse events in our clinical studies, even if
not ultimately attributable to our product candidates (such as the
many adverse events that typically arise from the conditioning
process), or adverse events in other lentiviral gene therapy
trials, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased
governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential
regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product
candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product
candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such
product candidates.
Increasing demand for compassionate use or expanded access of our
unapproved therapies could negatively affect our reputation and
harm our business.
We are developing our product candidates for life-threatening
illnesses for which there are currently limited to no available
therapeutic options. It is possible for individuals or groups to
target companies with disruptive social media campaigns related to
a request for access to unapproved drugs for patients with
significant unmet medical need. If we experience a similar social
media campaign regarding our decision to provide or not provide our
product candidates under an expanded access corporate policy, our
reputation may be negatively affected and our business may be
harmed.
Recent media attention to individual patients’ expanded access
requests has resulted in the introduction of legislation at the
local and national level referred to as "Right to Try" laws, such
as the Right to Try Act, which are intended to give patients access
to unapproved therapies. New and emerging legislation regarding
expanded access to unapproved drugs for life-threatening illnesses
could negatively impact our business in the future.
A possible consequence of both activism and legislation in this
area is the need for us to initiate an unanticipated expanded
access program or to make our product candidates more widely
available sooner than anticipated. We are a small company with
limited resources and unanticipated trials or access programs could
result in diversion of resources from our primary
goals.
In addition, some patients who receive access to unapproved drugs
through compassionate use or expanded access programs have
life-threatening illnesses and have exhausted all other available
therapies. The risk for serious adverse events in this patient
population is high which could have a negative impact on the safety
profile of our product candidates if we were to provide them to
these patients in accordance with our expanded access corporate
policy, which could cause significant delays or an inability to
successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could
materially harm our business. If we were to provide patients with
our product candidates under an expanded access program, we may in
the future need to restructure or pause ongoing compassionate use
and/or expanded access programs in order to perform the controlled
clinical trials required for regulatory approval and successful
commercialization of our product candidates, which could prompt
adverse publicity or other disruptions related to current or
potential participants in such programs.
If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution
capabilities either on our own or in collaboration with third
parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product
candidates, even if approved.
We do not have an infrastructure for the sales, marketing or
distribution of our product candidates should they be approved, and
the cost of establishing and maintaining such an organization may
exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any
product that may be approved, we must build our sales,
distribution, marketing, managerial and other non-technical
capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform
these services and obtain requisite licenses. To achieve commercial
success for any product for which we have obtained marketing
approval, we will need a sales and marketing
organization.
We plan to commercialize our product candidates in the United
States, the EU, Japan and other major markets. If our product
candidates are approved for marketing, we may build a focused
sales, distribution and marketing infrastructure to market them.
There are significant expenses and risks involved with establishing
our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, including
our ability to hire, retain and appropriately incentivize qualified
individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate
training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a
geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or
delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and
distribution capabilities, and any failure to obtain and maintain
the requisite licenses, could delay any product launch, which would
adversely impact the commercialization of our product
candidates.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products
on our own include:
•our
inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of
effective sales and marketing personnel;
•the
inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or
attain adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any
drugs;
•the
inability to negotiate with payors regarding reimbursement for our
products; and
•unforeseen
costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales
and marketing organization.
If we are unable to build our own sales force or negotiate a
collaborative relationship for the commercialization of our product
candidates, we may be forced to delay the potential
commercialization of such products or reduce the scope of our sales
or marketing activities for our product candidates. If we elect to
increase our expenditures to fund commercialization activities
ourselves, we will need to obtain additional capital, which may not
be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do not
have sufficient funds, we will not be able to bring our product
candidates to market or generate product revenue. We could enter
into arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an
earlier stage than otherwise would be ideal and we may be required
to relinquish rights to one or more of our product candidates or
otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have
an adverse effect on our business, operating results and
prospects.
If the market opportunities for any product candidates we may
develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenues, if any,
may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the
target patient populations for many of the product candidates we
may develop are small, we must be able to successfully identify
patients and achieve a significant market share to achieve and
maintain profitability and growth.
We focus our research and product development on treatments for
diseases with limited or no therapeutic options. Our projections of
both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the
subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to
benefit from treatment with product candidates we may develop, are
based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and
new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of
these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe
and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, and patients
may not be amenable to treatment with our products, or may become
increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which
could harm our business, financial condition, results of
operations, and prospects.
If we obtain approval to commercialize any products outside of the
United States, a variety of risks associated with international
operations could materially adversely affect our
business.
•If
our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may
enter into agreements with third parties to market them in certain
jurisdictions outside the United States. We expect that we will be
subject to additional risks related to international operations or
entering into international business relationships,
including:
•different
regulatory requirements for drug approvals and rules governing drug
commercialization in foreign countries;
•reduced
protection for intellectual property rights;
•unexpected
changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory
requirements;
•economic
weakness, including inflation, or political instability in
particular foreign economies and markets;
•compliance
with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees
living or traveling abroad;
•foreign
reimbursement, pricing and insurance regimes;
•foreign
taxes;
•foreign
currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating
expenses and reduced revenues, and other obligations incident to
doing business in another country;
•workforce
uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in
the United States;
•potential
noncompliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K.
Bribery Act and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in
other jurisdictions;
•production
shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply
or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and
•business
interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war
and terrorism, or natural disasters including earthquakes,
typhoons, floods and fires.
Our current and future relationships with investigators, health
care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers
will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which
could expose us to penalties.
Our business operations and current and future arrangements with
investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party
payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and
abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations.
These laws may regulate the business or financial arrangements and
relationships through which we conduct our operations, including
how we research, market, sell and distribute our products for which
we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:
•the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things,
persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting,
offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or
indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return
for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase,
lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or
service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under
a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A
person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it to
have committed a violation; in addition, the government may assert
that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or
fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims
Act;
•the
federal false claims laws including the civil False Claims Act,
which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam
actions, and civil monetary penalties laws, which impose criminal
and civil penalties against individuals or entities for knowingly
presenting, or causing to be presented to the federal government,
claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making,
using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement
material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making, or
causing to be made, a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal
an obligation to pay money to the federal government; in addition,
the government may assert that a claim including items and services
resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute
constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil
False Claims Act;
•HIPAA
imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things,
knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a
scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false or
fraudulent statements relating to healthcare matters. Similar to
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need
to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to
violate it to have committed a violation;
•HIPAA,
as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, also imposes
obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to
safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually
identifiable health information on health plans, health care
clearing houses, and certain health care providers, known as
covered entities, and their business associates, defined as
independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create,
receive or obtain protected health information in connection with
providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity as well as
their covered subcontractors;
•a
number of federal, state and foreign laws, regulations, guidance
and standards that impose requirements regarding the protection of
health data that are applicable to or affect our
operations;
•the
federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain
manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for
which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to
report annually to the government information related to payments
or other "transfers of value" made to physicians (defined to
include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and
chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable
manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually
to the government ownership and investment interests held by the
physicians described above and their immediate family members.
Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required
to report such information regarding their relationships with
physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse
specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified
nurse midwives during the previous year; and
•analogous
state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback
and false claims laws, may apply to our business practices,
including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and
marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or
services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors,
including private insurers, or otherwise restrict payments that may
be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral
sources; and state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to
comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance
guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the
federal government; state laws that require drug manufacturers to
report information related to payments and other transfers of value
to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing
expenditures or drug pricing, as well as state and local laws that
require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives;
and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of
health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from
each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by
HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements
with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and
regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that
governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices
do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency
guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our
operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any
other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be
subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of
significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages,
monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from
participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare
programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished
profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and
oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement
or similar agreement, and curtailment or restructuring of our
operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to
operate our business and our results of operations. Even the mere
issuance of a subpoena or the fact of an investigation alone,
regardless of the merit, may result in negative publicity, a drop
in our stock price, and other harm to our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming
and may require significant financial and personnel resources.
Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such
actions that may be brought against us, our business may be
impaired.
Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty
and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize
our product candidates and affect the prices we may
obtain.
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have
been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed
changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other
things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product
candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and
affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we
obtain marketing approval.
For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act (collectively, the "Affordable Care Act") was
enacted to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain
the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud
and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and
health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the
health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The
law has continued the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing,
especially under the Medicare program, and increased the industry’s
regulatory burdens and operating costs. Among the provisions of the
Affordable Care Act of importance to our product candidates are the
following:
•an
annual, nondeductible fee payable by any entity that manufactures
or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic
agents;
•an
increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay
under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;
•a
new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the
Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are
inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;
•a
new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which
manufacturers must now agree to offer point-of-sale discounts of
70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible
beneficiaries under their coverage gap period, as a condition for
the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare
Part D;
•extension
of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to individuals enrolled
in Medicaid managed care organizations;
•expansion
of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs in certain
states;
•expansion
of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health
Service pharmaceutical pricing program;
•a
licensure framework for follow on biologic products;
•a
new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers
and distributors provide to physicians; and
•a
new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee,
identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical
effectiveness research, along with funding for such
research.
There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain
aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by the
current administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the
Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, the President of the
United States has signed Executive Orders and other directives
designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the
Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the
requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care
Act. Legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017, includes a provision repealing, effective
January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment
imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail
to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year
that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate."
Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently
eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act’s
"Cadillac" tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and
medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated
the health insurer tax.
Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things,
amended the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to
increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by
pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and
to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly
referred to as the "donut hole." In addition, the federal
government eliminated federal cost-sharing reduction ("CSR")
payments to insurance companies. The loss of such federal CSR
payments has resulted in increased premiums on certain policies
issued by qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, in December 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services ("CMS") published a new final rule permitting further
collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act
qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the
Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the
outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method
CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On April 27, 2020, the
United States Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision
that previously upheld Congress' denial of $12 billion in "risk
corridor" funding. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court
Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual
mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable
Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the
Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. In December 2019, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court
ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and
remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether
the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as
well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the
petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case. It is
unclear how such litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace
the Affordable Care Act will impact the Affordable Care Act and our
business. The Affordable Care Act is likely to continue the
downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase
our regulatory burdens and operating costs. We continue to evaluate
the effect that the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and
replacement has on our business.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the
Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011,
President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011,
which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending
reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted
deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013
through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to
several government programs. This included further reductions to
Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went
into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative
amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2030 unless
additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid,
Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed
into law in March 2020 and is designed to provide financial support
and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1,
2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one
year, through 2030. Additionally, in January 2013, the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other
things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and
increased the statute of limitations period in which the government
may recover overpayments to providers from three to five
years.
Further, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional
inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to,
among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review
the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs,
reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs and reform
government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Such
scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and
proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to,
among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical
product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and
manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program
reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the
current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021
includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals
seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower
out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access
to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the
U.S. presidential administration sent "principles" for drug pricing
to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other
things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy
expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary
monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical
price increases.
Additionally, on May 11, 2018, the President of the United States
previously laid out his administration’s "Blueprint to Lower Drug
Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs" to reduce the cost of
prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The
Department of Health and Human Services has solicited feedback on
some of these measures and has implemented others under its
existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final
rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step
therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule
codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019.
Congress and the U.S. presidential administration have each
indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or
administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level,
legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing
legislation and implementing regulations designed to control
pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or
patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on
certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and
transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage
importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
Additionally, on July 24, 2020, President Trump announced four
executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt
to implement several of the Trump administration proposals,
including (i) a policy that would tie certain Medicare Part B drug
prices to international drug prices, or the “most favored nation
price,” the details of which were released on September 13, 2020
and also expanded the policy to cover certain Part D drugs; (ii) an
order that directs HHS to finalize the Canadian drug importation
proposed rule previously issued by HHS and makes other changes
allowing for personal importation of drugs from Canada; (iii) an
order that directs HHS to finalize the rulemaking process on
modifying the Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors for discounts for
plans, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical benefit managers; (iv) a
policy that reduces costs of insulin and epipens to patients of
federally qualified health centers. The FDA also recently released
a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion
of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to
build and submit importation plans for drugs from
Canada.
Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand
post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional
activities for pharmaceutical products. We are not sure whether
additional legislative changes will be enacted, whether the current
regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what
the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be. In
addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s
approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing
approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling
and post-marketing testing and other requirements.
We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform
measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit
the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for
healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced
demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is
taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our
product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell
our products profitably, if approved.
Market acceptance and sales of any approved product candidates that
we develop will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and
adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments
will be available from third-party payors, including government
health administration authorities and private health insurers. In
the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement
for products exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors
decide which drugs or therapies they will pay for and establish
reimbursement levels. One payor’s determination to provide coverage
for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide
coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product.
Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage
for a drug or therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement
rate will be approved. Each plan determines whether or not it will
provide coverage for a drug or therapy, what amount it will pay the
manufacturer for the drug or therapy, on what tier of its formulary
the drug or therapy will be placed, and whether to require step
therapy. The position of a drug on a formulary generally determines
the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug
and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and
physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their
conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely
on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated
healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless
coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a
significant portion of the cost of our products.
The process for determining whether a third-party payor will
provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for
setting the price of a product or for establishing the
reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Even
if we do obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party
payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers,
carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and
challenge the prices charged for, products. A primary trend in the
U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment.
Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical
companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list
prices and are challenging the prices charged for products. We may
also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to
justify the coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular
medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will
be available for any product that we commercialize and, if
reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will
be. Inadequate coverage or reimbursement may impact the demand for,
or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing
approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available,
or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to
successfully commercialize any product candidates that we
develop.
Additionally, there have been a number of legislative and
regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in the United
States and in some foreign jurisdictions that could affect our
ability to sell any future drugs profitably. There can be no
assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will be
considered medically reasonable and necessary, that it will be
considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or
an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that
reimbursement policies and practices in the United States and in
foreign countries where our products are sold will not adversely
affect our ability to sell our product candidate profitably, if
approved for sale.
Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties
Gene therapies are novel, complex, difficult and expensive to
manufacture. We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and
will rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial
supplies of our product candidates.
We are building teams with drug formulation and manufacturing
expertise but do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or
operate in the foreseeable future, facilities for product
manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. In
addition to the technical challenges of drug product formulation
and scale-up and environmental compliance aspects of chemical and
biologics manufacturing, our vendors of manufacturing services will
need to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory authority licensure
and cGMP quality requirements. These obligations are enforced by
periodic inspection and audit by regulatory authorities, and any
adverse findings or violations discovered on such inspections could
distract our vendors and be costly and time consuming to remediate,
potentially impacting their supply of clinical and future
commercial products to us.
Under the Oxford Agreement, Oxford will manufacture and supply the
AXO-Lenti-PD in accordance with separate clinical and commercial
supply agreements, which will be negotiated between us and Oxford.
The Oxford Agreement contains certain key provisions of the
clinical and commercial supply agreements, including pricing
structure and our ability to transfer the technology to another
manufacturer at any time following the completion of formal process
characterization, process validation or BLA submission. In July
2020, we entered into an agreement with Viralgen Vector Core, S.L.
for the manufacture of all additional clinical trial material for
our AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 development programs and subsequent
commercial supply.
Our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we
would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates
ourselves, including:
•failure
to satisfy their contractual duties or obligations;
•inability
to meet our product specifications and quality requirements
consistently;
•delay
or inability to develop, procure or expand sufficient manufacturing
capacity;
•manufacturing
and/or product quality issues related to manufacturing development
and scale-up;
•costs
and validation of new equipment and facilities required for
scale-up;
•failure
to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and standards,
including cGMP and similar foreign standards;
•deficient
or improper record-keeping;
•contractual
restrictions on our ability to engage additional or alternative
manufacturers;
•inability
to negotiate manufacturing agreements with third parties under
commercially reasonable terms;
•termination
or nonrenewal of manufacturing agreements with third parties in a
manner or at a time that is costly or damaging to us;
•reliance
on a limited number of sources, and in some cases, single sources
for product components, such that if we are unable to secure a
sufficient supply of these product components, we will be unable to
manufacture and sell our product candidates or any future product
candidate in a timely fashion, in sufficient quantities or under
acceptable terms;
•lack
of qualified backup suppliers for those components that are
currently purchased from a sole or single source
supplier;
•lack
of access or licenses to proprietary manufacturing methods used by
third-party manufacturers to make our product
candidates;
•operations
of our third-party manufacturers or suppliers could be disrupted by
conditions unrelated to our business or operations, including the
bankruptcy of the manufacturer or supplier or regulatory sanctions
related to the manufacture of our or other company’s
products;
•carrier
disruptions or increased costs that are beyond our control;
and
•failure
to deliver our products under specified storage conditions and in a
timely manner.
The process for manufacturing gene therapy products, including our
product candidates, is more complex than those required for most
chemical pharmaceuticals, requiring substantial expertise,
specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and
significant capital investment and involving other production
constraints. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the
physical and chemical properties of a gene therapy product such as
ours generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays
of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the
product will perform in the intended manner or that the dosing will
be uniform in our products. Accordingly, we and our manufacturers
employ multiple steps to control our manufacturing process to
assure that the process works and that our product candidates are
made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process.
Problems with the manufacturing process, including even minor
deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects
or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product
recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory. We may
encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of
clinical-grade or commercial-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or
other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and
acceptable production yields and costs. In addition, the FDA, EMA
and other regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples
of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols
showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some
circumstances, the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities may
require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes
its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process,
including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may
result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in
lot failures or product recalls. Delays in manufacturing processes
at our third party manufacturers, including recently at Oxford,
which may be outside of our control, have resulted in, and may in
the future result in, delays in our planned clinical trials. Lot
failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product
launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and
otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
Due to the complexity and constraints associated with manufacturing
gene therapy products, there is a limited number of suppliers that
can adequately and timely provide the raw materials, including
vectors, for our product candidates, particularly if we commence
larger clinical trials and studies for our product candidates. If
supply from a manufacturing facility is interrupted, including due
to equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, material
shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in
utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of
suppliers, there could be a significant disruption in supply
of our product candidates. We have also terminated supply
and manufacturing agreements in the past, and may terminate such
agreements in the future, which could also result in supply
disruptions. If we are unable to engage other manufacturers or
suppliers, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with them
on favorable terms or at all. Use of new third-party manufacturers
could increase the risk of delays in production or insufficient
supplies of our product candidates as we transfer our manufacturing
technology to these manufacturers and as they gain experience
manufacturing our product candidates. Further, due to intense
competition among companies developing gene therapy product
candidates, we may encounter difficulties in sourcing adequate
supply for our gene therapy products on a timely or cost-efficient
basis.
We have no experience manufacturing any of our product candidates.
Building our own manufacturing facility, if we decide to do so in
the future, would require substantial additional investment, would
be time-consuming and may be subject to delays, including those
resulting from compliance with regulatory requirements. We also may
encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced specialist
scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to
operate our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in
our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements. Although we may establish
our own manufacturing facility or use that of a third-party
contract manufacturer to support a commercial launch of our gene
therapy product candidates, if approved, the timeframe for us to
obtain approval for such facility or qualify such third-party
contract manufacturer and ensure that all processes, methods and
equipment are compliant with cGMP requirements is uncertain. We
must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA or
other MAA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s and EMA’s
cGMP requirements before any of our product candidates can obtain
marketing approval. To date, to our knowledge, a limited number of
cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facilities have received approval
from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved gene therapy
product and, therefore, the timeframe required for us to obtain
such approval is uncertain. We are subject to audits from FDA, EMA
and other authorities that may result in observations of
non-compliance from cGMP requirements. In addition, our ability to
receive damages from our CROs in connection with such failures is
generally contractually limited.
Any of these events affecting our product candidates or those of
adjuncts could lead to clinical trial delays, cost overruns, delay
or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to
successfully commercialize our products, as well as potential
product liability litigation, product recalls or product
withdrawals. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA
action, including injunction, recall, seizure, or total or partial
suspension of production.
Any contamination in our manufacturing process, shortages of raw
materials or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver
necessary components could result in delays in our clinical
development or marketing schedules.
Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of
contamination. Any contamination could harm our ability to produce
product candidates on schedule and could, therefore, harm our
results of operations and cause reputational damage. Some of the
raw materials required in our manufacturing process are derived
from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure
and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage,
contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically
derived substances in the manufacture of our product candidates
could harm or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the
production of clinical material, which could harm our development
timelines and our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
We intend to rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and
monitor our nonclinical studies and our clinical trials, and if
those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may
harm our business.
We intend to rely on CROs and nonclinical and clinical trial sites
to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our nonclinical studies
and our clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence
over their actual performance. In addition, pursuant to our
agreements with UMMS and Oxford, we may rely on their respective
employees for certain services in connection with the transition of
the respective gene therapy product candidates to us. We do not
have complete control over those employees or their execution of
services provided to us, and those employees may not perform such
services in a timely or satisfactory manner, which could harm our
business and development programs.
We intend to rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our
clinical programs, as well as the execution of future nonclinical
studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our
CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for
ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with
the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards
and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory
responsibilities.
We and our CROs will be required to comply with Good Laboratory
Practices ("GLPs") and cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines
enforced by the FDA and are also required by the competent
authorities of the member states of the European Economic Area and
comparable foreign regulatory authorities in the form of
International Council for Harmonization guidelines for any of our
product candidates that are in nonclinical and clinical
development. The regulatory authorities enforce cGCPs through
periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and
clinical trial sites. Although we may rely on CROs to conduct
our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical
trials, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our
GLP preclinical studies and GCP clinical trials is conducted in
accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and
applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does
not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or our
CROs fail to comply with cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our
clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable
foreign regulatory authorities may reject our marketing
applications or require us to perform additional clinical trials
before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if
we or our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or other
applicable laws, regulations or standards, or fail to recruit a
sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat
clinical trials, which would delay the relevant regulatory approval
process. Failure by our CROs to properly execute study protocols in
accordance with applicable law could also create product liability
and healthcare regulatory risks for us as sponsors of those
studies.
Our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not control whether
or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical
and nonclinical programs. These CROs may also have
relationships with other commercial entities, including our
competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials,
or other drug development activities which could harm our
competitive position. We face the risk of potential
unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual
property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and
intellectual property protection and allow our potential
competitors to access and exploit our proprietary
technology. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their
contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines,
or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is
compromised due to the failure to adhere to our (or their own)
clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other
reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or
terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval
for, or successfully commercialize, any product candidate that we
develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial
prospects for any product candidate that we develop could be
harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate
revenues could be delayed.
If our relationships with these CROs terminate, we may not be able
to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on
commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Switching
or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires
management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural
transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result,
delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our
desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to
carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no
assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the
future or that these delays or challenges will not have an adverse
impact on our business, financial condition and
prospects.
We may seek to enter into collaborations in the future with other
third parties. If we are unable to enter into such collaborations,
or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could
be adversely affected.
We will seek to enter into additional collaborations in the future,
including sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing,
and/or broader collaboration agreements. Our likely collaborators
include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and
national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and
medical device manufacturers. However, we may not be able to enter
into additional collaborations on favorable terms or at all. Our
ability to generate revenues from our collaborations will depend on
our and our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the
functions assigned to each of us in these arrangements. In
addition, our collaborators have the ability to abandon research or
development projects and terminate applicable agreements. Moreover,
an unsuccessful outcome in any clinical trial for which our
collaborator is responsible could be harmful to the public
perception and prospects of our existing product candidate
pipeline.
Our relationship with any future collaborations may pose several
risks, including the following:
•collaborators
have significant discretion in determining the amount and timing of
the efforts and resources that they will apply to these
collaborations;
•collaborators
may not perform their obligations as expected;
•the
nonclinical studies and clinical trials conducted as part of these
collaborations may not be successful;
•collaborators
may not pursue development and commercialization of any product
candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to
continue or renew development or commercialization programs based
on nonclinical study or clinical trial results, changes in the
collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding or external
factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create
competing priorities;
•collaborators
may delay nonclinical studies and clinical trials, provide
insufficient funding for nonclinical studies and clinical trials,
stop a nonclinical study or clinical trial or abandon a product
candidate, repeat or conduct new nonclinical studies or clinical
trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for
nonclinical studies or clinical trials;
•we
may not have access to, or may be restricted from disclosing,
certain information regarding product candidates being developed or
commercialized under a collaboration and, consequently, may have
limited ability to inform our stockholders about the status of such
product candidates;
•collaborators
could independently develop, or develop with third parties,
products that compete directly or indirectly with our product
candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products
are more likely to be successfully developed or can be
commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive
than ours;
•product
candidates developed in collaboration with us may be viewed by our
collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or
products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote
resources to the commercialization of our product
candidates;
•a
collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more
of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not
commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of
any such product candidate;
•disagreements
with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary
rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of
development of any product candidates, may cause delays or
termination of the research, development or commercialization of
such product candidates, may lead to additional responsibilities
for us with respect to such product candidates or may result in
litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time consuming and
expensive;
•collaborators
may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property
rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to
invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our
intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to
potential litigation;
•disputes
may arise with respect to the ownership or inventorship of
intellectual property developed pursuant to our
collaborations;
•collaborators
may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties,
which may expose us to litigation and potential
liability;
•the
terms of our collaboration agreement may restrict us from entering
into certain relationships with other third parties, thereby
limiting our options; and
•collaborations
may be terminated for the convenience of the collaborator and, if
terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to
pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable
product candidates.
We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate
collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and
complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement
with any future collaborators will depend, among other things, upon
our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the
terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed
collaborator’s evaluation of several factors. Those factors may
include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of
approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the
United States, the potential market for the subject product
candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and
delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of
competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to
our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a
challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the
challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. We may
also be restricted under future license agreements from entering
into agreements on certain terms with potential
collaborators.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
An active trading market for our common stock may not be
sustained.
Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market ("Nasdaq"), we cannot assure you that an active trading
market for our common stock will be sustained. In addition, as a
result of Roivant Sciences Ltd. ("RSL") owning approximately 26.8%
of our shares of common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2021,
trading in our common stock may be less liquid than the stock of
companies with broader public ownership. If an active market for
our common stock is not sustained, you may not be able to sell your
stock quickly or at the market price. An inactive market may also
impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations
by selling shares of our common stock and may impair our ability to
acquire other companies or technologies by using our common stock
as consideration.
The market price of our common stock has been and is likely to
continue to be highly volatile, and you may lose some or all of
your investment.
The market price of our common stock has been and is likely to
continue to be highly volatile and may be subject to wide
fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the
following:
•any
additional delays in the commencement, enrollment and ultimate
completion of our clinical trials, including as a result of the
clinical hold placed on our AXO-AAV-GM2 program that was lifted in
November 2020, and manufacturing delays for our AXO-Lenti-PD
program;
•results
of clinical trials of our product candidates or those of our
competitors;
•any
delay in filing applications for marketing approval of our product
candidates, and any adverse development or perceived adverse
development with respect to applicable regulatory authorities’
review of those applications;
•failure
to successfully develop and commercialize our product
candidates;
•failure
to maintain our relationship with Oxford or UMMS or comply with the
terms of the Oxford Agreement or the UMMS Agreement;
•inability
to obtain additional funding;
•inability
to obtain, protect or maintain necessary intellectual
property;
•regulatory
or legal developments in the United States and other countries
applicable to our product candidates, including gene
therapies;
•adverse
regulatory decisions or statements;
•changes
in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
•inability
to obtain adequate product supply for our current product
candidates or any future product candidate, or the inability to do
so at acceptable prices;
•introduction
of new products, services or technologies by our
competitors;
•failure
to meet or exceed financial projections we provide to the
public;
•failure
to meet or exceed the estimates and projections of the investment
community;
•changes
in the market valuations of similar companies;
•market
conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, and the
issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or
recommendations;
•announcements
of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures
or capital commitments by us or our competitors;
•significant
lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation, and disputes
or other developments relating to our proprietary rights, including
patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent
protection for our technologies;
•additions
or departures of key scientific or management
personnel;
•short
sales of our common stock;
•sales
of shares of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the
future;
•negative
coverage in the media or analyst reports, whether accurate or
not;
•issuance
of subpoenas or investigative demands, or the public fact of an
investigation by a government agency, whether meritorious or
not;
•trading
volume of our common stock;
•general
economic, industry and market conditions; and
•the
other factors described in this "Risk Factors"
section.
In addition, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and
volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the
market prices of equity securities of many companies, including in
connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted
in decreased stock prices for many companies notwithstanding the
lack of a fundamental change in their underlying business models or
prospects. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or
disproportionate to the operating performance of those
companies. Broad market and industry factors, including
potentially worsening economic conditions and other adverse effects
or developments relating to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well
as general economic, political, regulatory and market conditions,
may negatively affect the market price of our common stock,
regardless of our actual operating performance.
Volatility in our stock price could subject us to securities class
action litigation.
In the past, securities class action litigation has often been
brought against a company following a decline in the market price
of its securities and/or the discontinuation of development of a
product candidate due to adverse clinical circumstances or
results. This risk is especially relevant for us because
pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price
volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it
could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s
attention and resources, which could harm our
business.
RSL owns a significant percentage of our shares of common stock and
is able to exert significant control over matters subject to
stockholder approval.
Based on shares of our common stock outstanding as of March 31,
2021, RSL beneficially owns approximately 26.8% of the voting power
of our outstanding shares of common stock and has the ability to
substantially influence us through this ownership position. RSL’s
interests may not always coincide with our corporate interests or
the interests of other stockholders, and RSL may act in a manner
with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best
interests of our other stockholders. In 2020, RSL closed a
transaction with Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. ("Sumitomo")
that includes a grant to Sumitomo of a right of first refusal with
respect to our shares of common stock held by RSL, which could
result in RSL taking actions that may not coincide with our
corporate interests or the interests of other stockholders, and
could impact our ability to undertake certain corporate
transactions. Further, RSL is a privately held company whose
ownership and governance structure is not transparent to our other
stockholders. RSL recently entered into a business combination
agreement with Montes Archimedes Acquisition Corp., a special
purpose acquisition corporation, pursuant to which RSL would become
a publicly-traded corporation if such transaction is completed.
There may be changes to the management or ownership of RSL that
could impact RSL’s interests in a way that may not coincide with
our corporate interests or the interests of other stockholders. So
long as RSL continues to own a significant amount of our equity,
RSL will continue to be able to strongly influence our
decisions.
Our organizational and ownership structure may create significant
conflicts of interests.
Our organizational and ownership structure involves a number of
relationships that may give rise to certain conflicts of interest
between us and minority holders of our common stock, on the one
hand, and RSL and its shareholders, on the other hand. Certain of
our directors and employees have equity interests in RSL and,
accordingly, their interests may be aligned with RSL’s interests,
which may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the
interests of our other stockholders. Further, our other
stockholders may not have visibility into the RSL ownership of any
of our directors or officers, which may change at any time through
acquisition, disposition, dilution, or otherwise. Any change in our
directors’ or officers’ RSL ownership could impact the interests of
those holders.
In addition, we are party to certain related party agreements with
RSL and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Roivant Sciences, Inc.
("RSI") and Roivant Sciences GmbH ("RSG"). These entities and their
shareholders, including certain of our directors and employees, may
have interests which differ from our interests or those of the
minority holders of our common stock. For example, we are party to
an information sharing and cooperation agreement with RSL pursuant
to which RSL has granted us a right of first review on any
potential dementia-related product or investment opportunity that
RSL may consider pursuing. It is possible that we could fail to
pursue a product candidate under this agreement and that product
candidate is then successfully developed and commercialized by RSL
or one of its other subsidiaries or affiliates. Any material
transaction between us and RSL, RSI or RSG is subject to our
related party transaction policy, which requires prior approval of
such transaction by our Audit Committee. To the extent we fail to
appropriately deal with any such conflicts of interests, it could
negatively impact our reputation and ability to raise additional
funds and the willingness of counterparties to do business with us,
all of which could have an adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on shares of
our common stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation,
if any, would be your sole source of gain.
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on shares of our
common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain
future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our
business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash
dividends for the foreseeable future. As a result, capital
appreciation, if any, of our common stock would be your sole source
of gain on an investment in our common stock for the foreseeable
future.
Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware
law may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to change
our management and hinder efforts to acquire a controlling interest
in us, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a
result.
There are provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws
that may make it difficult for a third party to acquire, or attempt
to acquire, control of our company, even if a change of control was
considered favorable by you and other stockholders. For example,
our board of directors will have the authority to issue up to
10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. The board of directors can
fix the price, rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions of
the preferred stock without any further vote or action by our
stockholders. The issuance of shares of preferred stock may delay
or prevent a change of control transaction. As a result, the market
price of our common stock and the voting and other rights of our
stockholders may be adversely affected. An issuance of shares of
preferred stock may result in the loss of voting control to other
stockholders.
Our charter documents will also contain other provisions that could
have an anti-takeover effect, including:
•stockholders
will not be entitled to remove directors other than by a 66 2/3%
vote and only for cause;
•stockholders
cannot call a special meeting of stockholders;
•stockholders
cannot act by written consent in lieu of a meeting;
and
•stockholders
must give advance notice to nominate directors or submit proposals
for consideration at stockholder meetings.
In addition, we are subject to the anti-takeover provisions of
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which
regulates corporate acquisitions by prohibiting Delaware
corporations from engaging in specified business combinations with
particular stockholders of those companies. These provisions could
discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or
prevent a change of control transaction. They could also have the
effect of discouraging others from making tender offers for our
common stock, including transactions that may be in your best
interests. These provisions may also prevent changes in our
management or limit the price that investors are willing to pay for
our stock.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, under certain
circumstances, the federal district courts of the United States of
America are the exclusive forums for certain types of actions and
proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could
limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial
forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or
agents.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any
state court located within the State of Delaware or, if all such
state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district
court for the District of Delaware) is the sole and exclusive forum
for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware
statutory or common law for:
•any
derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf;
•any
action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty;
•any
action arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law,
our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or our
amended and restated bylaws; and
•any
action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the
internal-affairs doctrine.
These provisions would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty
or liability created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") or any claim for which the federal
district courts of the United States of America have exclusive
jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates
concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such
Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both state and federal courts
have jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
Our stockholders cannot waive compliance with the federal
securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Any
person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in
shares of our capital stock will be deemed to have notice of, and
consented to, the provisions of our amended and restated
certificate of incorporation described in the preceding
sentences.
To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and
the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts,
among other considerations, our certificate of incorporation and
bylaws further provide that the federal district courts of the
United States are the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint
asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. While
the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum
provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek
to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the
exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, we would expect to
vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive
forum provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws.
This may require significant additional costs associated with
resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no
assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those
other jurisdictions.
These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability
to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for
disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees,
which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors,
officers and other employees. If a court were to find the
exclusive-forum provisions in our amended and restated certificate
of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable, we may incur
additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other
jurisdictions.
Your rights as a stockholder arise under Delaware law as well as
our Delaware certificate of incorporation and bylaws.
The rights of our stockholders arise under our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws as well as Delaware law. These
organizational documents and Delaware law contain provisions for
class actions and derivative actions, which may result in becoming
involved in costly litigation, which could harm our business. In
addition, our bylaws may generally be amended by our board of
directors, as permitted under the provisions of Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). Additionally, while the
provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL regarding business
combination provisions currently apply, there can be no assurance
that the rights afforded by Section 203 of the DGCL will not be
changed or rescinded by the Delaware legislature or courts in the
future.
Future sales of shares of our common stock, or the perception that
such sales may occur, could depress our stock price, even if our
business is doing well.
As of March 31, 2021, 18,577,380 of our outstanding shares of
common stock, representing 26.8% of our shares of common stock,
were held by RSL. If RSL, or any of our executive officers or
directors, were to sell our common stock, or if the market
perceived that RSL or any of our executive officers or directors
intend to sell our common stock, it could negatively affect our
stock price. Such a decrease in our stock price could also in
turn impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of
additional equity securities.
Further, we have filed registration statements on Form S-8 under
the Securities Act to register the common stock that may be issued
under our equity incentive plans from time to time. Stock
registered under these registration statements is available for
sale in the public market subject to vesting arrangements and
exercise of options, as well as Rule 144 in the case of our
affiliates. Sales of these shares of common stock may negatively
impact our stock price.
In addition, we have filed a "shelf" registration statement on Form
S-3 under the Securities Act, allowing us, from time to time, to
offer up to $750 million of any combination of registered shares of
common stock or preferred stock, debt securities and warrants. We
have also entered into a sales agreement with SVB Leerink LLC to
sell shares of common stock from time to time through an
at-the-market equity offering program with an aggregate offering
price of up to approximately $36.3 million remaining available to
be sold as of June 8, 2021. To the extent we issue new shares of
common stock as a result of needing additional capital, such stock
could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding shares
of common stock and cause dilution to our existing
stockholders.
If we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls
over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures,
investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of
our common stock, may be adversely affected.
Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary
for us to provide reliable financial reports and to protect from
fraudulent, illegal or unauthorized transactions. Effective
disclosure controls and procedures enable us to make timely and
accurate disclosure of financial and non-financial information that
we are required to disclose. If we cannot provide effective
controls and reliable financial reports and other disclosures, our
business and operating results could be harmed. We have in the past
discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of our internal
controls over financial reporting or disclosure controls and
procedures that, even if effective, could be improved.
We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each
fiscal year. Our independent registered public accounting firm will
not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting until our first annual report
required to be filed with the SEC following the date we are deemed
to be an "accelerated filer," as defined in the Exchange
Act.
If material weaknesses or control deficiencies occur or our
disclosure controls and procedures are ineffective in the future,
we may be unable to report our financial results or make other
disclosures accurately on a timely basis, which could cause our
reported financial results or other disclosures to be materially
misstated and result in the loss of investor confidence and cause
the market price of our common stock to decline.
We are a smaller reporting company, and we cannot be certain if the
reduced reporting requirements applicable to smaller reporting
companies will make our common stock less attractive to
investors.
We currently qualify as a "smaller reporting company". For so long
as we continue to be a smaller reporting company, we may take
advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that
are applicable to other public companies that are not smaller
reporting companies, including reduced disclosure obligations
regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy
statements, and we also may still qualify as a "non-accelerated
filer" which provides for exemption from compliance with the
auditor attestation requirements of Section 404.
We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less
attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some
investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there
may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our
stock price may be more volatile.
The change of our jurisdiction of incorporation from Bermuda to
Delaware on November 12, 2020 (the "Domestication") may result in
adverse tax consequences for holders of our common shares prior to
the Domestication.
As discussed more fully under “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax
Consequences of the Domestication” included as Exhibit 99.1 to our
Current Report on Form 8-K12G3, filed November 13, 2020 (the
"Current Report"), we believe that the Domestication constituted a
tax-free reorganization within the meaning of Section 368(a)(l)(F)
of the Code. Assuming the Domestication so qualifies, U.S. holders
(as defined in “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of
the Domestication” in the S-4 Registration Statement) of Sio Gene
Therapies Inc. (formerly Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. until the
Domestication became effective) ("Sio") common shares or warrants
are subject to Section 367(b) of the Code and, as a result, such
U.S. holders may be subject to U.S. federal income tax as a result
of the Domestication depending on their status. Although it is not
entirely free from doubt, because the warrants are pre-funded
warrants, we believe the warrants should be treated as Sio common
shares for U.S. federal income tax purposes and a holder of
warrants should generally be taxed in the same manner as a holder
of Sio common shares, as described below. The balance of this
discussion generally assumes that the characterization described
above is respected for U.S. federal income tax purposes and all
references to Sio common shares include warrants (including with
respect to the determination of percentage ownership of a
holder).
If you are a U.S. holder who owned Sio common shares that had a
fair market value of less than $50,000 at the time the
Domestication occurred, you generally will not recognize any gain
or loss and will not be required to include any part of Sio’s
earnings in income.
If you are a U.S. holder who owned Sio common shares that had a
fair market value of $50,000 or more, but less than 10% (actually
or constructively) of (i) the total combined voting power of all
classes of our shares entitled to vote at general meetings of Sio
on the day of Domestication occurred and (ii) the total value of
all classes of our shares at the time the Domestication occurred,
then except as noted below, you must generally recognize gain (but
not loss) with respect to such common stock of Sio received in the
Domestication, even if you continue to hold your stock and have not
received any cash as a result of the Domestication. As an
alternative to recognizing gain, however, such U.S. holder may
elect to include in income the “all earnings and profits amount,”
as the term is defined in Treasury Regulation Section
1.367(b)-2(d), attributable to its common shares in Sio provided
certain other requirements are satisfied. The income so included
pursuant to this election generally would be treated as dividend
income. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, we, in consultation
with our tax advisor, believe that Sio's cumulative earnings and
profits were not greater than zero through the day of the
Domestication. Each shareholder should get their own tax advice,
however it is expected that on this basis, the making of an
election to include the person’s share of the “all earnings and
profits amount” into income as a dividend generally would not be
expected to result in an adverse effect to U.S. holders who would
otherwise recognize gain with respect to the conversion of the
Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. common shares in the
Domestication.
THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOMESTICATION ARE COMPLEX AND DEPEND ON
A HOLDER’S PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. WE STRONGLY URGE EACH SUCH
U.S. HOLDER TO READ CAREFULLY OUR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ELECTION IN
“MATERIAL U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE
DOMESTICATION” IN THE CURRENT REPORT, AS WELL AS TO CONSULT ITS OWN
TAX ADVISOR FOR A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE
DOMESTICATION, INCLUDING THE APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT OF U.S.
FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND NON-U.S. INCOME AND OTHER TAX
LAWS.
If a U.S. holder owned Sio common shares with 10% (actually or
constructively) or more of the total combined voting power of all
classes of our shares entitled to vote at general meetings of Sio
on the day the Domestication occurred or 10% or more of the total
value of all classes of our shares at the time the Domestication
occurred, such U.S. holder will generally be required to pay taxes
on a deemed dividend equal to the “all earnings and profits amount”
attributable to its common shares in Sio. As noted above, we, in
consultation with our tax advisor, believe that Sio's cumulative
earnings and profits were not greater than zero through the day of
the Domestication. Complex attribution rules apply in determining
whether a U.S. holder owns 10% or more of the total combined voting
power of all classes of our shares for U.S. federal tax
purposes.
EACH U.S. HOLDER IS STRONGLY URGED TO CONSULT ITS OWN TAX
ADVISOR.
If we are (or were at any time during such U.S. holder’s holding
period) characterized as a passive foreign investment company
(“PFIC”), U.S. holders of our common shares may have suffered
adverse tax consequences in connection with the Domestication. In
addition, special information reporting may be required. We do not
believe that we were (for our taxable year ending on the date of
the Domestication), or have been, characterized as a PFIC; however,
there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with our
conclusion and that the IRS would not successfully challenge our
position. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the
Domestication” in the S-4 Registration Statement.
If you are a non-U.S. holder (as defined in “Material U.S. Federal
Income Tax Consequences of the Domestication” in the Current
Report) of our common shares or warrants, you may be subject to
withholding tax on any dividends paid on the shares of common stock
of Sio subsequent to the Effective Time. Please read the following
information which provides more details on the potential tax
consequences of the Domestication.
For a more detailed description of the material U.S. federal income
tax consequences associated with the Domestication, please read
“Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the
Domestication” in the S- 4 Registration Statement.
THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOMESTICATION ARE COMPLEX AND WILL
DEPEND ON A HOLDER’S PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU
TO CONSULT WITH YOUR OWN TAX ADVISOR FOR A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE
TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOMESTICATION, INCLUDING THE APPLICABILITY
AND EFFECT OF U.S. FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND NON-U.S. INCOME AND
OTHER TAX LAWS.
The intended tax effects of our corporate structure prior to and
following the Domestication and our corporate reorganization to
align our corporate structure with current and future business
activity (the "Reorganization"), and intercompany arrangements
prior to the Domestication and Reorganization, depend on the
application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and on how we
operate our business.
The Domestication and Reorganization involved the tax authorities
and related rules and regulations of multiple international
jurisdictions. In connection with the Domestication and
Reorganization, we relied on the availability of certain exemptions
from tax, and losses and other deductions, in certain such
jurisdictions in respect of steps being taken as part of the
Domestication and Reorganization, which are complex. If the tax
authorities of any such jurisdictions do not agree with such
exemptions, losses or deductions, we may be subject to tax charges
and liabilities. Following the Domestication and Reorganization, we
still have subsidiaries that are domiciled in the U.K., Switzerland
and Ireland. Our corporate structure is organized so that we can
achieve our business objectives in a tax-efficient manner following
the Domestication and Reorganization and control operating
expenses. Historically, we have conducted operations prior to the
Domestication and Reorganization through subsidiaries in various
countries and tax jurisdictions, including the U.K. and
Switzerland, in part through intercompany service agreements
between RSL and certain of its subsidiaries, our subsidiaries and
us. In that case, our corporate structure and intercompany
transactions, including the manner in which we developed and used
our intellectual property, were organized to achieve our business
objectives in a tax-efficient manner and in compliance with
applicable transfer pricing rules and regulations. If two or more
affiliated companies are located in different countries or tax
jurisdictions, the tax laws and regulations of each country
generally will require that transfer prices be the same as those
between unrelated companies dealing at arms’ length and that
appropriate documentation be maintained to support the transfer
prices. While we believe that we have operated in compliance with
applicable transfer pricing laws, our transfer pricing procedures
are not binding on applicable tax authorities. If tax authorities
in any of these countries were to successfully challenge our
transfer prices as not reflecting arms’ length transactions in
historical periods prior to the Domestication and Reorganization,
they could require us to adjust our transfer prices and thereby
reallocate our income to reflect these revised transfer prices,
which could result in a higher tax liability to us. In addition, if
the country from which the income is reallocated does not agree
with the reallocation, both countries could tax the same income,
potentially resulting in double taxation. If tax authorities were
to allocate income to a higher tax jurisdiction, subject our income
to double taxation or assess interest and penalties, it would
increase our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely
affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and
determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary
course of business, there are many transactions and calculations
for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example,
our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by changes in
foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax,
accounting, and other laws, regulations, principles, and
interpretations. As we intend to operate in more than one country
and taxing jurisdiction, the application of tax laws can be subject
to diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations by tax
authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing
authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for
instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which
the arm’s length standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes,
or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property. In
addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws
are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or
applied. Moreover, certain relevant tax, accounting and other laws
have special application with respect to “affiliated,” “combined”
or similar groups, which included RSL and its subsidiaries prior to
March 2020, and which may impact the tax liabilities of the
companies. We continue to assess the impact of such changes in tax
laws on our business and may determine that changes to our
structure, practice or tax positions are necessary in light of such
changes and developments in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in
which we operate. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in
avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could
harm our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Changes in our effective tax rate may reduce our net income in
future periods.
Our tax position could be adversely impacted by changes in tax
rates, tax laws, tax practice, tax treaties or tax regulations or
changes in the interpretation thereof by the tax authorities in
Ireland, the United States and other jurisdictions for periods
following the Domestication and Reorganization, and also Europe
(including the U.K. and Ireland), the United States and other
jurisdictions for historical periods prior to the Domestication and
Reorganization. Such changes may become more likely as a result of
recent economic trends in the jurisdictions in which we operate,
particularly if such trends continue. If such a situation was to
arise, it could adversely impact our tax position and our effective
tax rate. Failure to manage the risks associated with such changes,
or misinterpretation of the laws providing such changes, could
result in costly audits, interest, penalties and reputational
damage, which could adversely affect our business, results of our
operations and our financial condition.
Our actual effective tax rate may vary from our expectation and
that variance may be material. A number of factors may increase our
future effective tax rates, including: (1) the jurisdictions in
which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; (2) the
resolution of issues arising from any future tax audits with
various tax authorities; (3) changes in the valuation of our
deferred tax assets and liabilities; (4) increases in expenses not
deductible for tax purposes, including transaction costs and
impairments of goodwill in connection with acquisitions; (5)
changes in the taxation of stock-based compensation; (6) changes in
tax laws or the interpretation of such tax laws, and changes in
generally accepted accounting principles; and (7) challenges to the
transfer pricing policies related to our structure prior to the
Domestication and Reorganization.
Changes in tax laws in the United States or foreign jurisdictions
could materially increase our tax expense.
We are subject to income taxes in the United States and foreign
jurisdictions. Changes to income tax laws and regulations, or the
interpretation of such laws, in any of the jurisdictions in which
we operate could significantly increase our effective tax rate and
ultimately reduce our cash flows from operating activities and
otherwise have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition. Additionally, various levels of government are
increasingly focused on tax reform and other legislative actions to
increase tax revenue, and President Biden’s campaign proposals
included increasing the U.S. corporate income tax rate from 21% to
28%. Further changes in the tax laws of foreign jurisdictions could
arise as a result of the base erosion and profit shifting project
undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, which represents a coalition of member countries and
recommended changes to numerous long-standing tax principles. If
implemented by taxing authorities, such changes, as well as changes
in U.S. federal and state tax laws or in taxing jurisdictions’
administrative interpretations, decisions, policies, and positions,
could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations, or financial condition.
General Risk Factors
Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system
failures, security breaches or cyber-attacks.
Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on
which we rely, or may rely on in the future, including our CRO's
and other contractors, consultants, and law and accounting firms,
may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data
breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters,
terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We
rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security
measures and identify and correct for any such failures,
deficiencies or breaches. The risk of a security breach or
disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion,
including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber
terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and
sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the
world have increased. We have experienced phishing attacks in the
past, which have not had a material impact on our operations,
however, we may in the future experience material system failures
or security breaches that could cause interruptions in our
operations or result in a material disruption of our development
programs. For example, the loss of nonclinical or clinical trial
data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in
delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly
increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent
that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of
or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure
of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could
incur liability, suffer reputational damage, and the further
development of our product candidates could be
delayed.
If securities or industry analysts cease to publish research or
reports about our business, or publish negative reports about our
business, our stock price and trading volume could
decline.
The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the
research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish
about us or our business. We do not have any control over
these analysts. If our financial performance fails to meet
analyst estimates or one or more of the analysts who cover us
downgrade our common stock or change their opinion of our common
stock, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of
these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly
publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial
markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to
decline.
We have incurred and will continue to incur substantial costs as a
result of operating as a public company, and our management has
been and will be required to continue to devote substantial time to
compliance with our public company responsibilities and corporate
governance practices.
As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur
significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and
other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various
requirements on public companies. Our management and other
personnel devote a substantial amount of time to compliance with
these requirements. Moreover, changing rules and regulations may
increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some
activities more time-consuming and more costly. If, notwithstanding
our efforts to comply with new or changing laws, regulations and
standards, we fail to comply, regulatory authorities may initiate
legal proceedings against us, and our business may be
harmed.
Further, failure to comply with these laws, regulations and
standards may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to
obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which could
make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified
members of our Board of Directors or members of senior
management.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff
Comments
None.
Item
2. Properties
Our principal and registered offices are located at 130 West
42nd
St., 26th
Floor, New York, New York 10036. In August 2020, we entered into a
lease agreement for office space in New York, New York that
commenced in December 2020 and expires in June 2026. In August
2019, we entered into a lease agreement for office space in Durham,
North Carolina, which expires in November 2022.
We believe that all of our facilities are in good condition and are
well maintained and that our current arrangements will be
sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future and that
any required additional space will be available on commercially
reasonable terms to meet space requirements if they
arise.
Item 3. Legal
Proceedings
From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings
relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of
business. We are not currently a party to any material legal
proceedings, and we are not aware of any pending or threatened
legal proceeding against us that we believe could have a material
adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial
condition.
Item 4. Mine Safety
Disclosures
Not applicable.
PART II.
Item 5. Market for
Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information for Shares of Common Stock
Our shares of common stock began trading on the NYSE under the
symbol "AXON" on June 11, 2015. Prior to that date, there was no
public market for our shares of common stock. Effective September
6, 2017, we changed our listing to the Nasdaq Global Select Market
and began trading under the symbol "AXON". Effective February 14,
2019, we changed our symbol to "AXGT" and effective November 13,
2020, we changed our symbol to "SIOX".
A 1-for-8 reverse stock split of our outstanding common stock was
effected in May 2019 as approved by our Board of Directors and a
majority of our shareholders. As such, all references to share and
per share amounts in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been
retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-8 reverse stock split,
except for the authorized number of shares of our common stock and
the par value per share, which were not affected. The reverse stock
split reduced the number of the Company's shares of common stock
issued and outstanding from approximately 182.2 million to 22.8
million as of March 31, 2019.
Stockholders
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company is the transfer agent
and registrar for our shares of common stock. As of April 30, 2021,
we had three holders of record of our shares of common stock. The
actual number of shareholders is greater than this number of record
holders and includes shareholders who are beneficial owners but
whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees.
This number of holders of record also does not include shareholders
whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.
Dividend Policy
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our shares of
common stock. We anticipate that we will retain all of our future
earnings, if any, for use in the expansion and operation of our
business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the
foreseeable future. Payment of future dividends, if any, will be at
the discretion of our Board of Directors.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated
Parties
None.
Item 6. Selected
Financial Data
In the table below, we provide you with our selected consolidated
financial data for the periods presented. The information has been
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements found
elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the other
reports we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). You should read the following selected
consolidated financial data in conjunction with our consolidated
financial statements and related notes included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K and "Item 7—Management’s Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial data in this
section are not intended to replace our consolidated financial
statements and the related notes. Our historical results are not
necessarily indicative of our future results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended March 31, |
|
2021 |
|
2020 |
|
2019 |
|
2018 |
|
2017 |
Statements of Operations Data: |
(In thousands, except share and per share data) |
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(includes $1,583, $2,772, $4,758, $16,597 and $19,186 of
stock-based compensation expense for the years ended March 31,
2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively) |
$ |
24,903 |
|
|
$ |
47,110 |
|
|
$ |
87,552 |
|
|
$ |
141,412 |
|
|
$ |
134,778 |
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(includes $2,909, $5,123, $11,671, $15,281 and $17,184 of
stock-based compensation expense for the years ended March 31,
2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively) |
17,294 |
|
|
22,061 |
|
|
39,466 |
|
|
71,906 |
|
|
45,721 |
|
Total operating expenses |
42,197 |
|
|
69,171 |
|
|
127,018 |
|
|
213,318 |
|
|
180,499 |
|
Interest expense |
799 |
|
|
4,377 |
|
|
7,530 |
|
|
7,545 |
|
|
1,143 |
|
Other (income) expense |
(10,359) |
|
|
(1,358) |
|
|
(5,616) |
|
|
(211) |
|
|
369 |
|
Loss before income tax (benefit) expense |
(32,637) |
|
|
(72,190) |
|
|
(128,932) |
|
|
(220,652) |
|
|
(182,011) |
|
Income tax (benefit) expense |
(212) |
|
|
438 |
|
|
133 |
|
|
921 |
|
|
(1,060) |
|
Net loss |
$ |
(32,425) |
|
|
$ |
(72,628) |
|
|
$ |
(129,065) |
|
|
$ |
(221,573) |
|
|
$ |
(180,951) |
|
Net loss per share of common stock — basic and diluted |
$ |
(0.62) |
|
|
$ |
(2.93) |
|
|
$ |
(8.02) |
|
|
$ |
(16.51) |
|
|
$ |
(14.60) |
|
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding — basic and
diluted |
52,181,398 |
|
|
24,812,536 |
|
|
16,100,686 |
|
|
13,421,984 |
|
|
12,394,837 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, |
|
2021 |
|
2020 |
|
2019 |
|
2018 |
|
2017 |
Balance Sheet Data: |
(In thousands) |
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
118,986 |
|
|
$ |
80,752 |
|
|
$ |
106,999 |
|
|
$ |
154,337 |
|
|
$ |
212,573 |
|
Working capital |
121,485 |
|
|
53,387 |
|
|
71,085 |
|
|
111,687 |
|
|
173,422 |
|
Total assets |
135,147 |
|
|
93,680 |
|
|
122,706 |
|
|
160,786 |
|
|
222,539 |
|
Long-term liabilities |
932 |
|
|
79 |
|
|
22,994 |
|
|
42,925 |
|
|
51,436 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
(791,069) |
|
|
(758,644) |
|
|
(686,016) |
|
|
(556,951) |
|
|
(335,143) |
|
Total shareholders’ equity |
123,367 |
|
|
61,558 |
|
|
56,213 |
|
|
71,286 |
|
|
124,837 |
|
Item
7. Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition
and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the
audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes
thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage company focused on developing gene
therapies to radically transform the lives of patients with
neurodegenerative diseases. We currently have three clinical-stage
programs: (i) the AXO-AAV-GM1 program for the treatment of GM1
gangliosidosis in which five patients have been dosed in the
late-infantile/juvenile (Type II) low-dose cohort of stage 1, and
we have dosed two late-infantile/juvenile (Type II) patients in the
higher dose cohort of the study and expect to continue to dose Type
II patients and initiate the low-dose infantile (Type I) patients
in calendar year 2021; (ii) the AXO-AAV-GM2 program for the
treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff
diseases) for which we received clearance for the IND from the FDA
in November 2020, and in which we dosed the first infantile patient
in January 2021; and (iii) the AXO-Lenti-PD program for the
treatment of Parkinson's disease, comprised of the ProSavin Phase
1/2 study in which 15 patients were previously dosed and the
AXO-Lenti-PD SUNRISE-PD study in which we have dosed two patients
in Cohort 1 of the dose-escalation study and four patients in
Cohort 2.
We are dedicated to realizing the potential of gene therapies to
offer transformative patient outcomes in areas of high unmet
medical need and extending the reach of gene therapies to highly
prevalent neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease. We
have assembled a portfolio of gene therapies in partnership with
leading scientific institutions and have built a team with
extensive experience in the gene therapy space. Our team pursues
new innovations in vector design and delivery to optimize our
investigational gene therapy products for safety, potency,
durability, and immunologic response. We will continue to build
integrated internal development capabilities from product
development through commercialization and focus on accelerating the
pace of product development in the clinic. As part of our ongoing
business strategy, we continue to explore potential opportunities
to acquire or license new product candidates as well as
opportunities for partnership or collaboration on our existing
products in development. Our vision is to build the world's leading
gene therapy company for the treatment of neurodegenerative
diseases by progressing our current programs and identifying,
developing and commercializing other novel gene therapy treatments
for neurodegenerative diseases.
See section "Our Key Agreements" within "Item 1—Business" of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding our license
agreement with the University of Massachusetts Medical School (the
"UMMS Agreement" and "UMMS", respectively) and our license
agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. (the "Oxford Agreement"
and "Oxford", respectively).
The Domestication
We have substantially completed our previously disclosed corporate
transformation to align corporate structure and governance with
current and future business activity, including significantly
reducing the number of our subsidiaries. On November 12, 2020,
Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. ("AGT") discontinued as a Bermuda
exempted company pursuant to Section 132G of the Companies Act 1981
of Bermuda, and pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), continued its existence
under the DGCL as a corporation named Sio Gene Therapies Inc.
("Sio") organized in the State of Delaware (the "Domestication").
The Domestication effected a change in our jurisdiction of
incorporation, and other changes of a legal nature, including
changes in our organizational documents. Our consolidated business,
operations, assets and liabilities did not change upon
effectiveness of the Domestication. However, following the
Domestication, the principal executive offices and registered
offices of Sio are located at 130 West 42nd St, 26th Floor, New
York, New York 10036, and the telephone number for Sio at its
principal executive offices is 1-877-746-4891. The fiscal year end
of Sio Gene Therapies Inc. following the Domestication remains at
March 31. In addition, our directors and executive officers
immediately after the Domestication were the same individuals who
were directors and executive officers, respectively, immediately
prior to the Domestication.
In the Domestication, each of our currently issued and outstanding
common shares automatically converted by operation of law, on a
one-for-one basis, into shares of Sio common stock. Consequently,
upon the effectiveness of the Domestication, each holder of an AGT
common share instead holds a share of Sio common stock representing
the same proportional equity interest in Sio as that shareholder
held in AGT and representing the same class of shares. The number
of shares of Sio common stock outstanding immediately after the
Domestication is the same as the number of common shares of AGT.
outstanding immediately prior to the Domestication. In connection
with the Domestication, we adopted a new certificate of
incorporation, bylaws and form of common stock certificate, copies
of which were filed as Exhibits 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1, respectively, to
our Report on Form 8-K12G3 filed with the SEC on November 13,
2020.
COVID-19 Business Update
We are continuing to closely monitor the impact of the global
COVID-19 pandemic on our business and are taking proactive efforts
to minimize the risks to the health and safety of our patients,
study investigators and employees, as well as to maintain business
continuity. We believe that the measures we are implementing are
appropriate, reflecting both regulatory and public health guidance,
to maintain business continuity. We will continue to closely
monitor and seek to comply with guidance from governmental
authorities and adjust our activities as appropriate.
In the conduct of our business activities, we are also taking
actions designed to protect the safety and well-being of patients,
healthcare workers and employees. For patients already enrolled in
our clinical trials, we are working closely with clinical trial
investigators and site staff to continue treatment in compliance
with trial protocols and to uphold trial integrity, while working
to observe government and institutional guidelines designed to
safeguard the health and safety of patients, clinical trial
investigators and site staff. We are continuing to evaluate
clinical trial site initiations and patient enrollment on a
case-by-case and patient-by-patient basis in coordination with
clinical trial investigators and site staff. Some clinical trial
sites, both within the United States and the United Kingdom,
continue to screen patients in our clinical trials, and new
patients are being enrolled when appropriate. Our clinical trial
progression, dosing, patient enrollment and related activities may
be delayed, and reporting of some clinical data may be incomplete
or delayed if patients enrolled in our clinical trials are unable
to fully participate in all necessary measurement protocols, due to
concerns among patients about participating in clinical trials
during a pandemic, or remaining restrictions imposed by
institutions or local, state or national governments, among other
factors. Some patients may have difficulty following certain
aspects of clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient
movement or interrupt healthcare services. For example, patients in
our clinical trials for AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 are infants,
often with advanced disease, who may not be able to safely
participate in clinical trials for these product candidates during
the COVID-19 pandemic or if they have not received or are not
eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Additionally, our
clinical trial for AXO-Lenti-PD can involve elderly patients with
advanced disease who may be unable to participate in clinical
assessments at our research sites in the United Kingdom. For
example, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and a patient refusal,
two out of four patients in the second cohort of our Phase 2
clinical trial of AXO-Lenti-PD at our United Kingdom clinical trial
sites were unable to participate in Unified Parkinson’s Disease
Rating Scale ("UPDRS") assessments and the mandatory washout of
background levodopa therapy at the six-month time point. However,
all four of these subjects were able to complete all other efficacy
assessments at the six-month timepoint, including the
patient-recorded Hauser diaries. We are working with sites and
investigators to ensure safe and ethical data collection at future
time points through the pandemic in accordance with regulatory
guidance. While the COVID-19 pandemic has not resulted in a
significant delay to our clinical development timelines to-date,
the global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to evolve, and could
materially impact our clinical development and any future
commercialization timelines.
Our business, including patient enrollment and CMC manufacturing
efforts for our clinical trials, could continue to be adversely
impacted by health epidemics wherever we have clinical trial sites
or other business operations. In addition, health epidemics could
cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party
manufacturers, CROs and other third parties upon whom we rely. We
are also dependent on an international supply chain for products to
be used in our clinical trials and, if approved by the regulatory
authorities, for commercialization. While the COVID-19 pandemic has
not significantly adversely impacted our business operations,
international supply chain, productivity or clinical development
timelines to-date, the reintroduction of health directives and
recommendations to reduce the spread of the disease, including
shelter-in-place directives and executive orders directing that all
non-essential businesses close their physical operations may
continue to negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business or
international supply chain and delay our clinical programs and
timelines in the future, the magnitude of which will depend, in
part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other
limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary
course.
The ultimate impact and evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
or a similar health epidemic are highly uncertain and subject to
change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or
impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or
the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could harm
our operations, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19
situation closely. For additional information about risks and
uncertainties related to the COVID-19 pandemic that may impact our
business, financial condition and results of operations, see the
section titled “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
Financial Operations Overview
Revenue
We have not generated any revenue from the sale of any products,
and we do not expect to generate any revenue unless and until we
obtain regulatory approval of and begin to commercialize one of our
gene therapy product candidates in development.
Research and Development Expense
Since our inception, our operations have primarily been focused on
organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, and
acquiring, preparing for and advancing our product candidates into
clinical development. Our research and development expenses
include program-specific costs, as well as unallocated internal
costs.
Program-specific costs include:
•direct
third-party costs, which include expenses incurred under agreements
with CROs and contract manufacturing organizations, the cost of
consultants who assist with the development of our product
candidates on a program-specific basis, investigator grants,
sponsored research, manufacturing costs in connection with
producing materials for use in conducting nonclinical and clinical
studies, and any other third-party expenses directly attributable
to the development of our product candidates; and
•upfront
payments for the purchase of in-process research and development
and milestone payments, which include costs incurred under our
agreements with UMMS and Oxford, as well as costs incurred for our
discontinued AXO-AAV-OPMD program.
Unallocated internal costs include:
•stock-based
compensation expense for research and development
personnel;
•personnel-related
expenses, which include employee-related expenses, such as
salaries, benefits and travel expenses, for research and
development personnel; and
•other
expenses, which includes the cost of consultants who assist with
our research and development but are not allocated to a specific
program.
Research and development activities will continue to be central to
our business model and will vary significantly based upon the
success of our programs and the achievement of milestones requiring
payments to our partners, UMMS and Oxford. We plan to substantially
increase our research and development expenses in the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2022, as we continue the enrollment of patients in
our GM1 and GM2 clinical trials, and commission the manufacturing
of clinical supplies for these trials. As well, it is possible that
Oxford will complete the development of a suspension-based
manufacturing process for AXO-Lenti-PD this fiscal year, and, as a
result, we will be responsible for one or more batches of clinical
supplies for this program.
Product candidates in later stages of clinical development
generally have higher development costs than those in earlier
stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size
and duration of later-stage clinical trials.
The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials of our products
in development and any other product candidates will depend on a
variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the
following:
•the
number of trials required for approval;
•the
per patient trial costs;
•the
number of patients who participate in the trials;
•the
number of sites included in the trials;
•the
countries in which the trials are conducted;
•the
length of time required to enroll eligible patients;
•the
dose that patients receive;
•the
drop-out or discontinuation rates of patients;
•the
potential additional safety monitoring or other studies requested
by regulatory agencies;
•the
duration of patient follow-up;
•any
delays in key trial activities and patient enrollment or diversion
of healthcare resources as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic;
•production
shortages or other supply interruptions in clinical trial materials
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic;
•the
timing and receipt of regulatory approvals; and
•the
efficacy and safety profile of the product candidates.
In addition, the probability of success of our gene therapy
products in development and any other product candidate will depend
on numerous factors, including competition, manufacturing
capability and commercial viability. We may never succeed in
achieving regulatory approval of our gene therapy product
candidates for any indication in any country. As a result of the
uncertainties discussed above, we are unable to determine in
advance the duration and completion costs of any clinical trial we
conduct, or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from
the commercialization and sale of our products in development or
other product candidates, if at all.
General and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of
stock-based compensation, including expense allocated to us related
to common share awards and options issued by RSL to certain of our
employees and to certain employees of RSL and certain of its
subsidiaries; legal and accounting fees; consulting services; and
employee-related expenses such as salaries, benefits and travel
expenses, for general and administrative personnel. In prior
periods, a significant component of our total stock-based
compensation expense related to allocated costs from RSL for common
share awards and options issued by RSL to certain of our employees,
as well as to certain employees of RSL and certain of its
subsidiaries. Stock-based compensation expense is allocated to us
from RSL based upon the relative percentage of time utilized by
certain employees of RSL and certain of its subsidiaries on our
matters, as well as based upon our employees that hold such RSL
common share awards and options. These common share awards and
options are fair valued on the date of grant with expense
recognized over the requisite service period. The fair value of
each such option is estimated on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes closed-form option-pricing model. These common share
awards and options are subject to specified vesting schedules and
requirements (a mix of time-based, performance-based and corporate
event-based, including targets for RSL’s post-initial public
offering market capitalization and future financing events), which
could result in significant stock-based compensation expense
allocated to us from RSL in the future, if achieved.
We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will at
least approximate those incurred during the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2021 in the near term.
Results of Operations for the Years Ended March 31, 2021 and
March 31, 2020
The following table summarizes our results of operations for the
years ended March 31, 2021 and March 31, 2020 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2021 |
|
2020 |
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
(includes $1,583 and $2,772 of stock-based compensation expense for
the years ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively) |
|
|
$ |
24,903 |
|
|
$ |
47,110 |
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
(includes $2,909 and $5,123 of stock-based compensation expense for
the years ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively) |
|
|
17,294 |
|
|
22,061 |
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
42,197 |
|
|
69,171 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
799 |
|
|
4,377 |
|
Other income |
|
|
(10,359) |
|
|
(1,358) |
|
Income tax (benefit) expense |
|
|
(212) |
|
|
438 |
|
Net loss |
|
|
$ |
(32,425) |
|
|
$ |
(72,628) |
|
Research and Development Expenses
For the years ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, our research and
development expenses consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2021 |
|
2020 |
|
Change |
Program-specific costs: |
|
|
|
|
|
AXO-Lenti-PD |
$ |
5,668 |
|
|
$ |
22,182 |
|
|
$ |
(16,514) |
|
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 |
6,907 |
|
|
9,785 |
|
|
(2,878) |
|
AXO-AAV-OPMD (discontinued) |
— |
|
|
1,791 |
|
|
(1,791) |
|
Unallocated internal costs: |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation |
1,583 |
|
|
2,772 |
|
|
(1,189) |
|
Personnel-related |
7,058 |
|
|
7,149 |
|
|
(91) |
|
Other |
3,687 |
|
|
3,431 |
|
|
256 |
|
Total research and development expenses |
$ |
24,903 |
|
|
$ |
47,110 |
|
|
$ |
(22,207) |
|
Research and development expenses were $24.9 million for the year
ended March 31, 2021 compared to $47.1 million for the year
ended March 31, 2020. The $22.2 million decrease was primarily
related to $14.0 million in certain nonrecurring development and
regulatory milestones achieved in the prior year for the
AXO-Lenti-PD ($13.0 million) and AXO-AAV-GM2 programs. In addition,
there were reduced program-specific research and development costs
of $7.2 million due to (i) lower AXO-Lenti-PD clinical expenses as
the enrollment of Cohort 2 was completed in the prior year, as well
as lower manufacturing expenses due to the delays at Oxford, (ii)
reduced clinical and manufacturing expenses while awaiting FDA
clearance of the IND for the AXO-AAV-GM2 program, and (iii) the
discontinuation of the AXO-AAV-OPMD program during the prior
year.
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses were $17.3 million for the year
ended March 31, 2021 and $22.1 million for the year ended
March 31, 2020. The decrease of $4.8 million was primarily
related to reductions in stock-based compensation expense of $2.2
million primarily attributable to lower grant date fair values per
share for equity awards and lower headcount and personnel costs
(including severance) of $1.3 million attributable to lower
headcount.
Interest Expense
Interest expense was $0.8 million and $4.4 million for the years
ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The decrease in
interest expense during the current year was primarily due to the
April 2020 prepayment of the $15.7 million outstanding principal
balance on our loan and security agreement with Hercules Capital,
Inc. ("Hercules").
Other Income
Other income was $10.4 million and $1.4 million for the years ended
March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Other income for the
year ended March 31, 2021 included income of approximately
$11.3 million associated with gains on our investment in
Arvelle Therapeutics B.V. ("Arvelle") that was sold in February
2021, which was partially offset by foreign exchange losses. Other
income for the year ended March 31, 2020 consisted primarily
of foreign exchange gains and interest income.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Sources of Liquidity
Since our initial public offering in June 2015, our operations have
been financed primarily through sales of common stock and
pre-funded warrants, as well as borrowings under our credit
facilities. As of March 31, 2021, we had $119.0 million of
cash and cash equivalents available to us, and in April 2020, we
prepaid the remaining outstanding principal balance, equal to $15.7
million, together with $0.3 million of accrued interest, fees and
other amounts due under our loan and security agreement with
Hercules.
Capital Requirements
We are currently in the clinical stage of operations and have not
yet achieved profitability. We expect to continue to incur
significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash
flows from operations, for the foreseeable future as we continue to
develop our gene therapy product candidates and prepare for
potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our
products. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not
expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully
complete development and obtain regulatory approval for at least
one of our gene therapy product candidates. Our current cash and
cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete
all necessary development activities and commercially launch our
products.
We expect to spend substantial amounts to complete the development
of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product
candidates. In addition, as part of our business development
strategy, we generally structure our license agreements and
collaboration agreements so that a significant portion of the total
license cost is contingent upon the successful achievement of
specified development, regulatory or commercial milestones. As a
result, we will require cash to make payments upon achievement of
these milestones under these agreements. Based on our anticipated
timeline for the achievement of development, regulatory and
commercial milestones, we do not expect significant milestone
payments under our license and collaboration agreements to come due
prior to March 31, 2022.
Because the length of time and activities associated with
successful development of our product candidates are highly
uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will
require for development and any approved marketing and
commercialization activities. However, we anticipate that our
current cash and cash equivalents balance is sufficient to fund our
clinical milestones beyond the expected dates of major upcoming
milestones for our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program for the
treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis. Our future funding requirements,
both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including,
but not limited to:
•the
progress, timing, costs and results of our clinical trials of our
product candidates;
•the
outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements
established by the FDA, the EMA, or the PMDA, and other comparable
foreign regulatory authorities;
•the
achievement of certain development, regulatory and
commercialization milestones that give rise to milestone and
royalty payments to licensors;
•the
cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent
claims and other intellectual property rights;
•the
cost of obtaining necessary intellectual property and defending
potential intellectual property disputes, including patent
infringement actions brought by third parties against us or our
product candidates or any future product candidates;
•the
effect of competing technological and market
developments;
•the
cost and timing of completion of clinical-stage and
commercial-scale manufacturing activities, including costs that may
result from delays in the development of a suspension-based
manufacturing process by our partner, Oxford;
•the
cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities
for our product candidates in regions where we choose to
commercialize our products on our own; and
•the
initiation, progress, timing and results of our commercialization
of our product candidates, if approved for commercial
sale.
For the years ended March 31, 2021 and March 31, 2020, we incurred
net losses of $32.4 million and $72.6 million, respectively. As of
March 31, 2021, our cash and cash equivalents totaled
$119.0 million and our accumulated deficit was $791.1 million.
We estimate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance is
sufficient to support operations beyond the twelve-month period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued, including beyond the expected dates of
major upcoming milestones for our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program
for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis. As such, we have
determined that there is no longer substantial doubt about our
ability to continue as a going concern for the one-year period
following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial
statements were issued. These estimates are based on assumptions
that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital
resources sooner than we currently expect.
Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue
from sales of our products in development, we expect to finance our
cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt
financings and potential collaboration, license or development
agreements. We do not currently have any committed external
source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional
capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities,
our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the
terms of these securities may include liquidation or other
preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights. Debt
financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve
agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our
ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional
debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. In
addition, if we raise additional funds through collaborations,
strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing
arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish
valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams,
research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on
terms that may not be favorable to us.
In order to meet our long-term operating requirements, we will
need, among other things, additional capital resources. We
continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to
support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our
equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product
development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or
other sources of capital to complete our currently planned
development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing
may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and our
ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by
potentially worsening global economic conditions and the recent
disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets
in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, extreme price and volume
fluctuations in the stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Global
Select Market, in particular, have resulted in volatile and
sometimes decreased stock prices for many companies, including us.
Broad market and industry factors, including worsening economic
conditions and other adverse effects or developments relating to
the evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, may negatively
affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our
actual operating performance, and impact our ability to raise
sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms, if at all. If we
are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be
required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product
development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to
develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise
prefer to develop and market ourselves.
At-the-Market Equity Offering Program
We have engaged SVB Leerink LLC as our agent to sell shares of our
common stock from time to time through an at-the-market equity
offering program. SVB Leerink LLC is entitled to compensation for
its services in an amount equal to 3% of the gross proceeds of any
of our shares of common stock sold. As of March 31, 2021, we have
sold approximately 29.7 million shares of common stock for total
proceeds of approximately $90.5 million, net of brokerage fees,
under the sales agreement since April 2020. Subsequent to March 31,
2021, we have sold approximately 0.2 million shares of common stock
for total proceeds of approximately $0.5 million under the sales
agreement, net of brokerage fees.
Cash Flows
The following table sets forth a summary of our cash flows for each
of the periods shown (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2021 |
|
2020 |
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities |
$ |
(46,589) |
|
|
$ |
(67,473) |
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
12,386 |
|
|
(255) |
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities |
73,621 |
|
|
41,481 |
|
|
|
Operating Activities
Cash flows from operating activities consist of net loss adjusted
for non-cash items, including depreciation and stock-based
compensation expenses, as well as the effect of changes in working
capital and other activities.
For the year ended March 31, 2021, net cash used in operating
activities was $46.6 million and was primarily attributable to a
net loss of $32.4 million,
which includes costs incurred for research and development
activities, including CRO fees, manufacturing, regulatory and other
clinical trial costs, as well as our general and administrative
expenses, in addition to other income of $11.3 million associated
with gains on our investment in Arvelle, an increase of $4.4
million in prepaid expenses and other current assets and decreases
of $3.1 million in accounts payable and $2.1 million in accrued
expenses, which were partially offset by $4.5 million of non-cash
stock-based compensation expense and $1.5 million of operating
lease right-of-use asset amortization expense
For the year ended March 31, 2020, net cash used in operating
activities was $67.5 million and was primarily attributable to a
net loss of $72.6 million, which includes costs incurred for
research and development activities, including $14.0 million for
development and regulatory milestones achieved, CRO fees,
manufacturing, regulatory and other clinical trial costs, as well
as our general and administrative expenses, in addition to a
decrease of $9.3 million in accrued expenses, which were partially
offset by $7.9 million of non-cash stock-based compensation
expense, a decrease of.$2.9 million in prepaid expenses and other
current assets and an increase of $2.7 million in accounts
payable.
Investing Activities
For the year ended March 31, 2021, net cash provided by
investing activities was $12.4 million, consisting of proceeds of
$12.8 million from the sale of our long-term investment in Arvelle
that was partially offset by purchases of fixed
assets.
For the year ended March 31, 2020, net cash used in investing
activities was $0.3 million, consisting of purchases of fixed
assets.
Financing Activities
For the year ended March 31, 2021, net cash provided by
financing activities was $73.6 million and consisted primarily of
$89.2 million of net proceeds from the issuance and sale of our
shares of common stock under our share sales agreement with SVB
Leerink LLC, partially offset by $15.7 million of principal
payments made on long-term debt.
For the year ended March 31, 2020, net cash provided by
financing activities was $41.5 million and consisted primarily of
$70.8 million of net proceeds from the issuance and sale of our
shares of common stock and pre-funded warrants in a public
offering, partially offset by $29.6 million of payments made on
long-term debt.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not
currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined
under the SEC’s rules.
Contractual Obligations
The following table provides information with respect to our
outstanding contractual obligations as of March 31,
2021:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations (in thousands)
(1)
|
Total |
|
Under 1 year |
|
1-3 years |
|
3-5 years |
|
Over 5 years |
|
Real property lease obligations
(2)
|
$ |
1,561 |
|
|
$ |
327 |
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
|
$ |
667 |
|
|
$ |
— |
|
|
Total |
$ |
1,561 |
|
|
$ |
327 |
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
|
$ |
667 |
|
|
$ |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
This table does not include any milestone and royalty payments
which may become payable to third parties for which the timing and
likelihood of such payments are not known. Potential milestone and
royalty payments are described below under "-Milestone and Royalty
Payments."
|
|
(2)
Amounts due, net of prepayments. Real property lease obligations
are described below under "-Real Property Leases."
|
|
In addition, we have entered into services agreements with third
parties for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research activities in
the normal course of business, which can generally be terminated by
us with 30- or 60-days' written notice, unless otherwise indicated.
These cancellable contracts are not included in the table above.
Further, certain of our manufacturing agreements could require
early termination and wind-down payments due from us upon either
the termination of our clinical trials or if we unilaterally
terminate such agreements for convenience, which agreements are not
included in the table above.
Milestone and Royalty Payments to UMMS and Oxford
In addition to the amounts shown in the above table, we are
contractually obligated to make payments to UMMS totaling up to
$24.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and
regulatory milestones, including development and regulatory
milestones of $1.0 million and $1.0 million that were achieved in
February 2019 and October 2019, respectively, and that were paid
during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, and up to $39.8
million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones for
AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2. We are also obligated to pay UMMS
tiered mid-single digit royalties based on yearly net sales of the
licensed products, subject to a specified annual minimum amount.
Additionally, we will pay UMMS a percent of any revenues we receive
from any third-party sublicenses to licensed products at rates
ranging in the mid-single digits to mid-teens. We could also be
obligated to make payments to Oxford totaling up to $55.0 million
upon the achievement of specified development milestones, including
certain development milestones that were achieved in April 2019
that resulted in a $13.0 million net payment due to Oxford that was
paid during the year ended March 31, 2020, and up to $757.5 million
upon the achievement of specified regulatory and sales milestones,
as well as a tiered royalty from 7% to 10% of the yearly aggregate
net sales of the underlying gene therapy products.
These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future
events and, given the nature of those events, it is unclear when,
if ever, we may be required to make sure payments, and with respect
to royalty payments, what the total amount of such payments will
be. Further, the timing of any of the foregoing future payments is
not reasonably estimable. For those reasons, these contingent
payments have not been included in the table above.
Real Property Leases
In June 2017, we entered into a license agreement with a
third-party to lease office space in New York, New York that
expired in January 2021, and we also leased office space in
Princeton, New Jersey under an agreement that expired in October
2020. In October 2019, we entered into an agreement with a
third-party to lease office space in Durham, North Carolina under a
lease agreement expiring in November 2022, and in August 2020, we
entered into a lease agreement with a third-party for an office
facility in New York, New York that commenced in December 2020 and
expires in June 2026. For the years ended March 31, 2021 and
March 31, 2020, we incurred $1.6 million and
$1.8 million, respectively, in rent expense under these
agreements.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
For detailed information regarding recently issued accounting
pronouncements and the expected impact on our financial statements,
refer to Note 2 "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," in
the accompanying notes to our audited consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.
Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and
Estimates
Our management's discussion and analysis of our financial condition
and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). The preparation
of these consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes
requires us to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure
of contingent assets and liabilities as of the dates of the balance
sheets and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting
periods. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we evaluate our
estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. Significant
estimates include research and development accruals. We base
our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors
that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results
of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying
value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from
other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates
under different assumptions or conditions.
We define our critical accounting policies as those under U.S. GAAP
that require us to make subjective estimates and judgments about
matters that are uncertain and are likely to have a material impact
on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as
the specific manner in which we apply those
principles.
Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in
Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," to our
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Not all of these significant
accounting policies, however, require that we make estimates and
assumptions that we believe are "critical accounting estimates." We
believe that our estimates relating to research and development
accruals have the greatest potential impact on our consolidated
financial statements and consider these to be our critical
accounting policies and estimates and are "critical accounting
estimates."
Research and Development Accruals
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Clinical
study costs are accrued over the service periods specified in the
contracts and adjusted as necessary based upon an ongoing review of
the level of effort and costs actually incurred. The Company’s
assessment of the completeness of the information is subject to
variability and uncertainty. In addition, in certain circumstances,
the determination of the nature and amount of services that have
been received during the reporting period requires judgment as the
timing and pattern of vendor invoicing does not correspond to the
level of services provided. Payments for a product license prior to
regulatory approval of the product and payments for milestones
achieved prior to regulatory approval of the product are expensed
in the period incurred as research and development. Milestone
payments made in connection with final regulatory approvals are
capitalized and amortized to cost of revenue over the remaining
useful life of the asset. Research and development costs are
charged to expense when incurred and currently primarily consist of
the development and regulatory milestones achieved for our
AXO-AAV-GM1, AXO-AAV-GM2 and AXO-Lenti-PD gene therapy programs, as
well as research and development materials acquired from UMMS and
Oxford and expenses from third parties who conduct research and
development activities on our behalf. We expense in-process
research and development projects acquired as asset acquisitions
which have not reached technological feasibility, and which have no
alternative future use.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk
Market risk is the potential loss arising from adverse changes in
market rates and market prices such as interest rates, foreign
currency exchange rates, and changes in the market value of equity
instruments. As of March 31, 2021, we had cash and cash
equivalents of $119.0 million, with cash consisting of
non-interest-bearing deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar, Swiss
franc and Euro, and cash equivalents consisting of interest-bearing
money market fund deposits denominated in the U.S. dollar, which
are invested in debt securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
government and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by U.S.
Treasury and U.S. government securities. We have policies requiring
us to invest in high-quality issuers, limit our exposure to any
individual issuer, and ensure adequate liquidity. Our primary
exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is
affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates,
particularly because our cash equivalent investments are in the
form of money market funds and marketable securities and are
invested in U.S. Treasury obligations. Due to the short-term
duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of
our investments, an immediate 100 basis point change in interest
rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of
our portfolio.
Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
All financial statements and schedules required to be filed
hereunder are listed in the Index to Financial Statements and set
forth in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9. Changes in
and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial
Disclosure
None.
Item 9A. Controls and
Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision of our principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of our
disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2021, the
end of the period covered by this report. The term "disclosure
controls and procedures" (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act")), means controls and other procedures of a
company that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that
information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we
file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the
SEC’s rules and forms.
Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation,
controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance
that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that
we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and
communicated to our management, including our principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow
for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on this
evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial
officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were
effective as of March 31, 2021 at the reasonable assurance
level.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our
management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of March 31,
2021, based on the criteria established in Internal Control -
Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
Based on the results of our evaluation, management concluded that
our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
March 31, 2021.
Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls
Our management, including our principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure
controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all
error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived
and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance
that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the
design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are
resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be
considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent
limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can
provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of
fraud, if any, within Sio Gene Therapies Inc. have been
detected.
Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting
Firm
This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation
report of our independent registered public accounting firm
pursuant to the rules of the SEC that permit us to provide only
management’s report on internal control over financial reporting in
this report, as we were a smaller reporting company as defined in
the rules and regulations of the SEC as of March 31,
2021.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
No changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act)
occurred during the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2021 that
have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.
PART III.
Item 10. Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Directors
Our Board of Directors (the "Board") presently has seven members.
Each director is elected to serve a one-year term, with all
directors subject to annual election. Vacancies on the Board may be
filled by the Board or by the shareholders in a general meeting. A
director elected to fill a vacancy, including vacancies created by
an increase in the number of directors, will serve for the
remainder of the full term.
Berndt Modig, Senthil Sundaram, Pavan Cheruvu, M.D., Atul Pande,
M.D., Frank Torti, M.D. and Eric Venker, M.D, Pharm.D. are each
current directors who were previously elected by our shareholders.
Kristiina Vuori, M.D., Ph.D. was appointed to the Board in October
2020 to fill an existing vacancy. Ilan Oren was not nominated to
stand for re-election at our annual meeting of shareholders for
2020. Effective September 24, 2020, the date of such meeting, Mr.
Oren is no longer a member of our Board.
The following table identifies our directors, as well as the
position they hold, any committee membership, and their ages as of
April 30, 2021:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
Age |
Director Since |
Position |
Audit Committee |
Compensation Committee |
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee |
Frank Torti, M.D. |
42 |
2018 |
Chairperson |
|
|
|
Atul Pande, M.D. |
66 |
2015 |
Lead Independent Director |
ü |
ü |
ü*
|
Pavan Cheruvu, M.D. |
39 |
2018 |
Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|
|
|
Berndt Modig |
62 |
2015 |
Director |
ü |
ü*
|
|
Senthil Sundaram |
42 |
2019 |
Director |
ü*
|
|
ü |
Eric Venker, M.D., Pharm.D. |
34 |
2020 |
Director |
|
|
|
Kristiina Vuori, M.D., Ph.D. |
53 |
2020 |
Director |
|
|
ü |
_____________
* Chairperson.
Below is a brief biography of each director.
Frank Torti, M.D.
Dr. Torti has served as Chairperson of the Board since September
2018. Dr. Torti has served as the Vant Chair of Roivant Sciences,
Inc., or RSI, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of our affiliate,
RSL, since January 2020. In this capacity he is responsible for the
biopharmaceutical companies in the Roivant family and serves as
Chairperson of the boards of directors of those companies. He
previously served as Vant Investment Chair of RSI, from August 2018
to December 2019. Prior to joining RSI, from August 2007 to August
2018, Dr. Torti served as a Partner of New Enterprise Associates,
or NEA, specializing in investments in healthcare. Prior to joining
NEA, Dr. Torti worked for the Duke University Center for Clinical
& Genetic Economics from 2002 to 2005 in various capacities,
where he was involved in clinical trials research and economic
evaluations of multinational clinical trials. Dr. Torti presently
serves as Chairperson of the boards of directors of Arbutus
Biopharma Corp., Immunovant Inc., and several private
biopharmaceutical companies. He has previously served on the boards
of directors of numerous development and commercial stage public
and private healthcare companies, including Annexon Biosciences,
Inc., Eargo Inc., Galera Therapeutics, Inc., Myovant Sciences Ltd.,
NeoTract, Inc., Urovant Sciences Ltd, and others. Dr. Torti earned
an M.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine,
an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.A. from the
University of North Carolina. Our Board of Directors believes that
Dr. Torti’s extensive experience in healthcare investing, as well
as his operational experience and clinical trial background,
qualifies him to serve on the Board.
Atul Pande, M.D.
Dr. Pande has served as a member of the Board since March 2015 and
currently serves as our Lead Independent Director. Dr. Pande has
served as Chief Medical Advisor of PureTech Health plc since
February 2018, and previously served as its Chief Medical Officer
since February 2017 and a Senior Advisor from July 2016 through
February 2017. Dr. Pande has also served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of Verity BioConsulting LLC, a drug development
consulting firm, since 2014. He previously served as Chief Medical
Officer of Tal Medical, Inc., a clinical-stage medical device
company, from December 2014 to December 2017. From 2007 to April
2014, Dr. Pande was Senior Vice President and Senior Advisor,
Pharmaceutical R&D at GlaxoSmithKline plc, a pharmaceutical
company. He has also held senior roles at Pfizer Inc., a
multinational pharmaceutical company, Parke-Davis/Warner-Lambert, a
subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. and Lilly Research Laboratories, a global
pharmaceutical research organization and division of Eli Lilly
& Co., where he was involved in the development of numerous
central nervous system drugs. Dr. Pande is currently a director of
Autifony Therapeutics Limited, a biotechnology company, Karuna
Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, Perception
Neurosciences, a biopharmaceutical company, and Immunovant Inc., a
biopharmaceutical company, and he previously served as a director
of Heptares Therapeutics Ltd., a biotechnology company now a part
of the Sosei Group. He also serves on the Scientific Advisory
Boards of Cennerv Pharma PTE LTD and Centrexion Corporation. Dr.
Pande is a fellow of several professional societies, including the
American Psychiatric Association. He has published over 50
peer-reviewed scientific papers and numerous abstracts, book
chapters and book reviews. Dr. Pande received his MBBS (Bachelor of
Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) and his M.D. from the University of
Lucknow, India and completed his research fellowship training in
psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical School and his
postgraduate specialty training and psychiatry residency program at
Western University. We believe that Dr. Pande’s medical background
and significant knowledge of the life sciences industry qualify him
to serve on the Board.
Pavan Cheruvu, M.D.
Dr. Cheruvu has served as our Chief Executive Officer since
November 2020 and as a member of the Board since September 2018,
and served as the Principal Executive Officer of Axovant Gene
Therapies Ltd. from February 2018 until November 2020 and as the
Chief Executive Officer of Axovant Sciences, Inc. from February
2018 until December 2020. Prior to joining us, Dr. Cheruvu worked
at RSI since October 2015, and was appointed to RSI’s executive
leadership team in September 2017. Dr. Cheruvu completed his
residency in internal medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital and
continued his training in a clinical fellowship in cardiovascular
medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Prior to
his medical training, Dr. Cheruvu worked as a management consultant
at McKinsey & Company from June 2008 through June 2011, where
he focused on biopharmaceutical strategy. Dr. Cheruvu received his
B.S.E. in Biomedical Engineering, B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering,
and A.B. in Chemistry from Duke University, his M.Sc. in Computer
Science from Oxford University and his M.D. from Harvard Medical
School. We believe that Dr. Cheruvu’s experience as a life sciences
investor and experience in the biopharmaceutical industry qualify
him to serve on the Board.
Berndt Modig
Mr. Modig has served as a member of the Board since March 2015.
Since March 2016, Mr. Modig has served as Chief Executive Officer
of Pharvaris N.V., a public clinical stage biotechnology company
focusing on rare diseases. He served as Chief Financial Officer of
Prosensa Holding N.V., a pharmaceutical company, from March 2010
until its acquisition by BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. in January
2015. From October 2003 to November 2008, Mr. Modig was Chief
Financial Officer at Jerini AG, a pharmaceutical company, where he
directed private financing rounds, its initial public offering in
2005, and its acquisition by Shire plc, a biopharmaceutical company
acquired by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, in 2008. Before that,
Mr. Modig served as Chief Financial Officer at Surplex AG, a
reseller of used industrial equipment, from 2001 to 2003, and as
Finance Director Europe of U.S.-based Hayward Industrial Products
Inc., a thermoplastic valve manufacturer, from 1999 to 2001. In
previous positions, Mr. Modig was a partner in the Brussels-based
private equity firm Agra Industria from 1994 to 1999 and a Senior
Manager in the Financial Services Industry Group of Price
Waterhouse LLP in New York from 1991 to 1994. Mr. Modig currently
serves as a director of Pharvaris N.V., a public clinical stage
biotechnology company. He also serves as chair of the audit
committee and as a director of Centogene N.V., a public
biopharmaceutical company. He also previously served on (i) the
board of directors of Kiadis Pharma N.V., a public
biopharmaceutical company, from June 2016 to April 2021, (ii) the
board of directors of Auris Medical Holding Ltd., a pharmaceutical
company, from April 2014 to March 2018, and (iii) the board of
directors of Affimed N.V., a public biopharmaceutical company, from
September 2014 to August 2020. Mr. Modig received his bachelor’s
degree in business administration, economics and German from the
University of Lund, Sweden and his M.B.A. from INSEAD,
Fontainebleau, France and is a Certified Public Accountant
(inactive). We believe that Mr. Modig’s extensive international
experience in finance and operations, private equity, and mergers
and acquisitions qualifies him to serve on the Board.
Senthil Sundaram
Mr. Sundaram has served as a member of the Board since June 2019.
In July 2020, Mr. Sundaram became the Chief Executive Officer and a
director of Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a publicly-traded
clinical-stage pharmaceutical company. Mr. Sundaram served as the
Chief Financial Officer of Nightstar Therapeutics plc, a
publicly-traded clinical-stage gene therapy company, from April
2017 to June 2019, when it was acquired by Biogen, Inc., a
multinational biotechnology company. While at Nightstar, Mr.
Sundaram led a number of private and public offerings, including
its initial public offering, and a variety of business development
efforts including the M&A process that resulted in the
acquisition by Biogen. From February 2013 to April 2017, Mr.
Sundaram served in a variety of positions at Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, including most
recently as its Vice President and head of business development.
Prior to joining Intercept, from 2000 to 2013, Mr. Sundaram worked
in the healthcare investment banking groups at Lehman Brothers
Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and
Lazard Ltd. Mr. Sundaram earned a B.S. in Computer Engineering and
a B.A. in Economics from Brown University. We believe that Mr.
Sundaram’s extensive experience in leadership roles at
biopharmaceutical companies qualifies him to serve on the
Board.
Eric Venker, M.D., Pharm.D.
Dr. Venker has served as a member of the Board since February 2020.
Since February 2021, Dr. Venker has served as President, Chief
Operating Officer of RSI, having previously served as Chief
Operating Officer of RSI since November 2018 and as President of
RSI since January 2021. From October 2017 to October 2018, Dr.
Venker served as Chief of Staff to RSI’s Chief Executive Officer,
and from 2014 to 2015 as an Analyst at RSI. From 2015 to 2017, Dr.
Venker was a physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia
University Medical Center, where he trained in internal medicine,
and also served as Chair of the Housestaff Quality Council leading
operational initiatives to improve efficiencies. From 2011 to 2015,
Dr. Venker was a Clinical Pharmacist at Yale-New Haven Hospital.
Dr. Venker also serves on the boards of directors of Arbutus
Biopharma Corporation and Immunovant, Inc., each a
biopharmaceutical company, as well as several private
biopharmaceutical companies. Dr. Venker received his Pharm.D. from
St. Louis College of Pharmacy and his M.D. from Yale School of
Medicine. We believe that Dr. Venker’s medical background and
experience in the biopharmaceutical industry qualify him to serve
on the Board.
Kristiina Vuori, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Vuori has served as a member of the Board since October 2020.
Dr. Vuori has served as President of Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical
Discovery Institute, or the Institute, since January 2010. The
Institute is a non-profit research organization focused on
biomedical research and drug discovery in the areas of cancer,
neurodegeneration, diabetes, and infectious, inflammatory, and
childhood diseases. In addition, Dr. Vuori has held the Pauline and
Stanley Foster Presidential Chair since January 2010 and has served
as Professor at the Institute since January 1995. From July 2014 to
September 2017, Dr. Vuori served on the board of directors of WebMD
Health Corp., an online publisher of health news and information,
and since June 2019, has served on the board of directors of
Bionano Genomics, Inc., a life sciences instrumentation company.
She has served on the board of directors of Forian, Inc., a health
data analytics company, since January 2021. Additionally, she
serves or has served in the past five years on the boards of
directors of the American Association for Cancer Research and the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Vuori earned
her M.D. and Ph.D. from the University of Oulu, Finland. We believe
that that Dr. Vuori’s experience as a physician-scientist in
biomedical research and drug discovery and as an educator of
research scientists, her experience managing a large non-profit
research organization, and her various leadership roles in
non-profit, for-profit and public boards qualify her to serve on
the Board.
Executive Officers
The following table sets forth information concerning our executive
officers and other senior management, including their ages, as of
April 30, 2021:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position(1)
|
Executive Officers |
|
|
|
|
Pavan Cheruvu, M.D. |
|
39 |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
David Nassif, J.D. |
|
67 |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, General
Counsel |
Gavin Corcoran, M.D. |
|
58 |
|
Chief R&D Officer |
Executive Officers
Pavan Cheruvu, M.D.
See "Directors, Executive Officer’s and Corporate Governance—Pavan
Cheruvu, M.D."
David Nassif, J.D.
Mr. Nassif served as the Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer, General Counsel of Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. from July
2019 until November 2020 and as the Chief Financial Officer of
Axovant Sciences, Inc. from July 2019 through December 2020, and
has served as the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer, General Counsel of Sio Gene Therapies Inc. since November
2020. He served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of SteadyMed, Ltd., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
from March 2013 (first as a financial consultant and commencing
March 2015 on a full-time basis) until June 2019. From May 2011
through September 2014, Mr. Nassif served as the President and
Chief Financial Officer of Histogen, Inc., a regenerative medicine
company. From May 2007 to February 2010, Mr. Nassif served as the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Zogenix,
Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company. Mr. Nassif received a
B.Sc. in Finance and Management Information Systems from the
University of Virginia with honors and a J.D. from the University
of Virginia School of Law.
Gavin Corcoran, M.D.
Dr. Corcoran has served as our Chief R&D Officer since November
2020 and served as the Chief R&D Officer of Axovant Sciences,
Inc. from July 2018 until December 2020. Prior to joining Axovant,
he served as Chief Medical Officer of Allergan plc from March 2015
to June 2018 and of Actavis plc from July 2014 to March 2015. Dr.
Corcoran served as Executive Vice President for Global Medicines
Development at Forest Laboratories from December 2011 to June 2014,
prior to the acquisition of Forest Laboratories, Inc. by Actavis in
2014. Earlier in his career, Dr. Corcoran also served as Head of
Late Stage Clinical Development for Inflammation and Immunology at
Celgene Corporation, Chief Scientific Officer and head of R&D
at Stiefel Laboratories and he held various leadership roles in
clinical development and regulatory affairs at Amgen Inc.,
Schering-Plough Corporation, and Bayer AG. He received his
M.B.B.Ch. from the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa
and completed his clinical training in internal medicine and
infectious diseases at the University of Texas Health Science
Center at San Antonio.
Information Regarding the Board of Directors and Corporate
Governance
Board Leadership Structure
Dr. Torti currently serves as Chairperson of the Board. The Board
believes that Dr. Torti’s role as Chairperson helps ensure that
management and the Board act with common purpose and benefit from
the extensive executive leadership and operational experience of
Dr. Torti. The Board believes that Dr. Torti is well-positioned to
act as a bridge between management and the Board, facilitating the
regular flow of information. In addition, the Board believes that,
under current circumstances, the separation of the offices of
Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer will enhance oversight of
management and Board function, allowing Dr. Cheruvu the ability to
focus on his primary responsibilities as Chief Executive Officer,
enhancing shareholder value and expanding and strengthening our
business.
Our corporate governance guidelines provide that the Board will
select its Chairperson in the manner that it determines to be in
the best interests of our shareholders. The same person may hold
the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson, or the
Board may separate these offices. If the Chairperson is an
independent director, the Board may designate the Chairperson as
the lead independent director. If the Chairperson is not an
independent director, the Board may designate one of the
independent directors as the lead independent director. Dr. Pande
was designated by the Board as our lead independent director in
September 2018. The lead independent director’s duties include
among other things: establishing the agenda for meetings of the
independent directors and meetings of the non-management directors,
as applicable; presiding over meetings of the independent directors
and meetings of the non-management directors, as applicable;
presiding over any portions of meetings of the Board evaluating the
performance of the Board; and coordinating the activities of the
other independent directors and perform such other duties the Board
may establish or delegate.
At the present time, the Board believes that the current Board
members, together with our management, possess the requisite
leadership and industry skills, expertise and experiences to
effectively oversee our business and affairs. Moreover, the Board
prefers to retain the flexibility to select the appropriate
leadership structure based upon the existence of various
conditions, including, but not limited to, business, financial or
other market conditions, affecting us at any given time.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the independent directors of the
Board regularly participate in executive sessions at which only
independent directors are present.
Role of the Board in Risk Oversight
One of the Board’s key functions is informed oversight of our risk
management process. The Board administers this oversight function
directly through the Board as a whole, as well as through various
Board standing committees that address risks inherent in their
respective areas of oversight. The Board believes its current
leadership structure, including the appointment of a lead
independent director and having a majority or equal number of
independent directors on each committee and the Board itself,
supports the risk oversight function of the Board.
In particular, the Board is responsible for reviewing, approving
and monitoring fundamental financial and business strategies and
major corporate actions, assessing major risks facing us and
considering ways to address those risks and overseeing the
establishment and maintenance of processes and conditions to
maintain our integrity. Our Board has received regular updates from
the management team on the evolving COVID-19 situation and is
involved in strategy decisions related to the impact of COVID-19 on
our business. The Audit Committee of the Board has the
responsibility to consider and discuss our major financial risk
exposures and the steps our management has taken to monitor and
control these exposures, including guidelines and policies to
govern the process by which risk assessment and management is
undertaken. The Audit Committee of the Board also monitors
compliance with certain legal and regulatory requirements,
including oversight of related-person transactions, complaint
procedures, certain ethical compliance and regulatory and
accounting initiatives, and is responsible for oversight of the
performance of our internal audit function. The Compensation
Committee of the Board assesses and monitors whether any of our
compensation policies and programs have the potential to encourage
excessive risk-taking. The Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee of the Board monitors the effectiveness of our corporate
governance guidelines, including whether they are successful in
preventing illegal or improper liability-creating conduct, and
monitor compliance with certain regulatory requirements. It is the
responsibility of the committee chairs to report findings regarding
material risk exposures to the Board as quickly as
possible.
The oversight responsibility of the Board and its committees is
informed by reports from our management team that are designed to
provide visibility to Board about the identification and assessment
of key risks and our risk mitigation strategies. At periodic
meetings of the Board and its committees, management reports to and
seeks guidance from the Board and its committees with respect to
the most significant risks that could affect our business, such as
legal risks, information security and privacy risks, and financial,
tax and audit related risks. In addition, among other matters,
management provides the Audit Committee and Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee of the Board periodic reports on our
compliance programs and investment policy and
practices.
Meetings of the Board of Directors; Attendance at Annual Meeting of
Shareholders
During our fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, the Board met 7 times;
the Audit Committee met four times; the Compensation Committee met
two times; and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
met three times. Each Board member attended 75% or more of the
aggregate number of meetings of the Board and of the committees on
which he or she served that were held during the portion of the
last fiscal year for which he or she was a director or committee
member.
As required under applicable Nasdaq listing rules, in our fiscal
year ended March 31, 2021, our independent directors met in
regularly scheduled executive sessions at which only independent
directors were present. Dr. Pande and Mr. Modig typically presided
over the executive sessions.
Our policy is that directors are invited to attend the Annual
General Meetings of Shareholders. No members of the Board attended
our 2020 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders.
Information Regarding Committees of the Board of
Directors
The Board has an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Below is a
description of each of these committees. Each committee has the
authority to engage legal counsel or other experts or consultants,
as it deems appropriate to carry out its responsibilities. Copies
of the written charters of such committees, are available on our
website at
http://investors.siogtx.com/investors/corporate-governance.
Information contained on or accessible through this website is not
incorporated by reference nor otherwise included in this report,
and any references to this website are intended to be inactive
textual references only.
As previously disclosed, on February 24, 2020, we completed a
public offering of our shares of common stock and pre-funded
warrants to purchase shares of common stock, which resulted in
Roivant Sciences Ltd. ("RSL") no longer controlling a majority of
the voting power of our outstanding shares of common stock (the
"February Offering"). As a result of the February Offering, we no
longer qualify as a "controlled company" for purposes of certain
exemptions from the corporate governance standards of Nasdaq,
including director independence.
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee of the Board was established by the Board in
accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act to oversee
our corporate accounting and financial reporting processes and
audits of our financial statements. The Board reviews Nasdaq
listing standards definition of independence for Audit Committee
members on an annual basis and has determined that each member of
the Audit Committee satisfies the independence requirements under
applicable Nasdaq listing rules and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange
Act.
The Audit Committee is composed of Mr. Modig, Dr. Pande and Mr.
Sundaram. The Board has also determined that each of Mr. Modig and
Mr. Sundaram qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert,” as
defined in applicable Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
rules and regulations. The Board made a qualitative assessment of
Mr. Modig’s level of knowledge and experience based on a number of
factors, including his formal education and experience as a chief
financial officer at public reporting companies. In addition to our
Audit Committee, Mr. Modig also serves on the audit committees of
two other public companies, Kiadis Pharma N.V. and Affimed N.V.
Likewise, the Board made a qualitative assessment of Mr. Sundaram’s
level of knowledge and experience based on a number of factors,
including his experience as a chief financial officer at a public
reporting company and investment banker. The Board has determined
that this simultaneous service of Mr. Modig does not impair his
ability to effectively serve on our Audit Committee.
The principal duties and responsibilities of the Audit Committee
include:
•recommending
and retaining an independent registered public accounting firm to
serve as our independent auditors, for purposes of the Companies
Act, overseeing our independent auditors’ work and determining our
independent auditors’ compensation;
•evaluating
the performance of and assessing the qualifications of our
independent auditors;
•approving
in advance all audit services and non-audit services to be provided
to us by our independent auditors;
•monitoring
the rotation of partners of the independent auditors on our audit
engagement team as required by law;
•assessing
and taking other appropriate action to oversee the independence of
our independent auditors, including reviewing written disclosures
from the independent auditors delineating all relationships between
the auditors, or their affiliates, and us, or persons in financial
oversight roles at Sio, that may reasonably be thought to bear on
independence (at least annually, consistent with the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, Rule 3526);
•reviewing
the financial statements proposed to be included in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K to be filed with the SEC and recommending to
the Board whether such financial statements should be so
included;
•reviewing
and discussing with management and our independent auditors the
results of the annual audit and the independent auditor’s review of
our quarterly financial statements, including, as appropriate, a
review of our disclosures under “Management’s Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our
periodic reports filed with the SEC;
•reviewing
and discussing with management and our independent auditors, as
appropriate, our guidelines and policies with respect to risk
assessment and management, including risks related to our
accounting matters, financial reporting and legal and regulatory
compliance; and reviewing and discussing with management, as
appropriate, insurance programs;
•conferring
with management and our independent auditors, as appropriate,
regarding the scope, adequacy and effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting;
•coordinating
the Board’s oversight of the performance of our internal audit
function;
•reviewing
and approving or rejecting transactions between us and any related
persons; and
•establishing
procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints
received by us regarding accounting, internal accounting controls,
auditing or compliance matters and the confidential and anonymous
submission by our employees of concerns regarding questionable
accounting or auditing matters.
Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors*
The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited
financial statements for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2021 with
our management. The Audit Committee has discussed with the
independent registered public accounting firm the matters required
to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 1301, Communications with
Audit Committees, as adopted by the PCAOB. The Audit Committee has
also received the written disclosures and the letter from the
independent registered public accounting firm required by
applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent
accountants’ communications with the Audit Committee concerning
independence, and has discussed with the independent registered
public accounting firm the accounting firm’s independence. Based on
the foregoing, the Audit Committee has recommended to the Board
that the audited financial statements be included in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended March 31,
2021.
Mr. Senthil Sundaram
Mr. Berndt Modig
Dr. Atul Pande
*
The material in this report is not deemed "filed" with the SEC, and
is not to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether
made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any
general incorporation language in any such filing.
Compensation Committee
The Compensation Committee is composed of Mr. Modig and Dr. Pande.
The Board has determined that Mr. Modig and Dr. Pande are
“independent,” as independence is currently defined in applicable
Nasdaq listing rules. All members of the Compensation Committee are
“non-employee directors,” as defined in Rule 16b-3 under the
Exchange Act.
The Compensation Committee of the Board acts on behalf of the Board
to, among other things, oversee our compensation strategy,
policies, plans and programs and to review and determine the
compensation to be paid to our executive officers. In general, the
Compensation Committee of the Board performs the same policy- and
compensation-setting functions for our subsidiaries and their
executive officers as it does for us, and references herein to our
personnel, policies, plans and programs include those of our
subsidiaries as well. The principal duties and responsibilities of
the Compensation Committee include:
•reviewing,
modifying and approving our overall compensation strategy and
policies, including: (1) reviewing and approving corporate goals
and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive
officers and other senior management, as appropriate; (2)
evaluating and approving, or recommending to the Board for
approval, compensation plans and programs advisable for us,
including modifications and terminations to those plans and
programs; (3) establishing policies with respect to equity
compensation arrangements; (4) assessing the adequacy and
competitiveness of our executive compensation programs among
comparable companies in our industry; (5) reviewing and approving
the terms of any employment agreements, severance arrangements,
change-of-control protections and any other compensatory
arrangement for our executive officers and other senior management,
as appropriate; (6) reviewing our practices and policies of
employee compensation as they relate to risk management and
risk-taking incentives; (7) considering and establishing share
ownership guidelines for our executive officers and directors, if
deemed appropriate; and (8) evaluating the efficacy of our
compensation policy and strategy in achieving expected benefits to
us and otherwise furthering our policies;
•establishing
and approving individual and corporate goals and objectives of our
Chief Executive Officer and our other executive officers and senior
management and evaluating performance of the Chief Executive
Officer and our other executive officers and senior management, as
appropriate, in light of these stated objectives;
•reviewing
and approving the type and amount of compensation to be paid or
awarded to Board members;
•selecting
and retaining compensation consultants, legal counsel and other
advisers; and
•adopting,
amending, administering, and terminating our equity compensation
plans, pension and profit sharing plans, bonus plans, deferred
compensation plans and similar programs.
Compensation Committee Processes and Procedures
The Compensation Committee meets at least once annually and with
greater frequency if necessary. The agenda for each meeting is
usually developed by the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee,
in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer and the General
Counsel. The Compensation Committee meets regularly in executive
session. From time to time, various members of management and other
employees as well as outside advisors or consultants may be invited
by the Compensation Committee to make presentations, to provide
financial or other background information, to provide advice or to
otherwise participate in Compensation Committee meetings. The Chief
Executive Officer may not participate in, or be present during, the
voting or deliberations of the Compensation Committee regarding his
compensation. The charter of the Compensation Committee grants the
Compensation Committee full access to all books, records,
facilities and personnel of Sio.
In addition, under the charter, the Compensation Committee has the
authority to obtain, at our expense, advice and assistance from
internal or external legal, accounting or other advisors and
consultants that any member of the Compensation Committee deems
necessary or appropriate in the discharge of his or her
responsibilities. If the Compensation Committee chooses to retain
or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, independent
legal counsel, or other advisor, it has the direct responsibility
for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of such
party, and we will provide for appropriate funding, as determined
by the Compensation Committee, for the payment to such party. In
addition, the Compensation Committee has the sole authority to
retain and terminate any compensation consultant to assist in its
evaluation of executive and director compensation, including the
sole authority to approve the consultant’s reasonable fees and
other retention terms, all at our expense. Under the charter, the
Compensation Committee may select a compensation consultant, legal
counsel or other advisor (other than in-house legal counsel and
certain other types of advisors) only after taking into
consideration all factors relevant to that party’s independence
from management, including the six factors prescribed by the SEC
and Nasdaq; however, there is no requirement that any advisor be
independent.
During the past fiscal year, after taking into consideration the
six factors prescribed by the SEC and Nasdaq, the Compensation
Committee engaged Radford, a national compensation consulting firm,
to provide executive compensation advisory services based, in part,
on its reputation and extensive experience in the industry. The
Compensation Committee determined that Radford was independent from
management and had no conflicts of interest in connection with the
advisory services to be provided. Specifically, the Compensation
Committee requested that Radford develop a comparative group of
companies and perform analyses of competitive performance and
compensation levels for that group. Radford has also conducted
interviews with members of the Compensation Committee and senior
management to learn more about our business operations and
strategy, key performance metrics and strategic goals, as well as
the labor markets in which we compete. Radford ultimately developed
recommendations that were presented to the Compensation Committee
for its consideration. Following an active dialogue with Radford,
the Compensation Committee approved the
recommendations.
The Compensation Committee generally makes adjustments to annual
compensation, determines bonuses and equity awards and establishes
new performance objectives at one or more meetings held during the
first quarter of the year. However, the Compensation Committee also
considers matters related to individual compensation, such as
compensation for new executive hires, as well as high-level
strategic issues, such as the efficacy of our compensation
strategy, potential modifications to that strategy and new trends,
plans or approaches to compensation, at various meetings throughout
the year.
Generally, the Compensation Committee’s process comprises two
related elements: the determination of compensation levels and the
establishment of performance objectives for the current year. For
executives other than the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation
Committee solicits and considers evaluations and recommendations
submitted to the Compensation Committee by the Chief Executive
Officer. The evaluation of the performance of the Chief Executive
Officer is conducted by the Compensation Committee, which
determines any adjustments to his compensation as well as awards to
be granted. For all executives and directors, the Compensation
Committee may review and consider, as appropriate, materials such
as financial reports and projections, operational data, tax and
accounting information, tally sheets that set forth the total
compensation that may become payable to executives in various
hypothetical scenarios, executive and director share ownership
information, company share performance data, analyses of historical
executive compensation levels and current company-wide compensation
levels and recommendations of the Compensation Committee’s
compensation consultant, including analyses of executive and
director compensation paid at other companies identified by the
consultant.
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is composed of
Dr. Pande, Mr. Sundaram and Dr. Vuori. The Board has determined
that Dr. Pande, Mr. Sundaram and Dr. Vuori are “independent,” as
independence is currently defined in applicable Nasdaq listing
rules. The principal duties and responsibilities of the Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee include:
•identifying,
reviewing and evaluating candidates to serve as directors,
consistent with criteria approved by the Board;
•reviewing,
evaluating and considering the recommendation for nomination of
incumbent directors for re-election to the Board;
•reviewing,
discussing and assessing the performance of the Board, including
Board committees, such assessment to include evaluation of the
Board’s contribution as a whole and effectiveness in serving the
best interests of Sio and its shareholders, specific areas in which
the Board and/or management believe contributions could be
improved, overall Board composition and makeup, including the
reelection of current Board members, and the independence of
directors;
•overseeing
the Board’s committee structure and operations, evaluating the
performance of the members of the committees of the Board,
reviewing the composition of such committees, and recommending to
the Board the membership of each such committee;
•reviewing,
discussing and assessing our corporate governance
principles;
•reviewing
our policy statements to determine adherence to our Code of
Business Ethics and Conduct; and
•overseeing
and reviewing the processes and procedures we use to provide
accurate, relevant and appropriately detailed information to the
Board and its committees on a timely basis.
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee believes that
candidates for director should have certain minimum qualifications,
including the ability to read and understand basic financial
statements, being over 21 years of age and having the highest
personal integrity and ethics. The Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee also intends to consider such factors as
possessing relevant expertise upon which to be able to offer advice
and guidance to management, having sufficient time to devote to the
affairs of Sio, demonstrated excellence in his or her field, having
the ability to exercise sound business judgment, diversity and
having the commitment to rigorously represent the long-term
interests of our shareholders. However, the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee retains the right to modify these
qualifications from time to time. Candidates for director nominees
are reviewed in the context of the current composition of the
Board, our operating requirements and the long-term interests of
our shareholders. In conducting this assessment, the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee typically considers diversity, age,
skills and such other factors as it deems appropriate, given the
current needs of the Board and Sio, to maintain a balance of
knowledge, experience and capability.
In the case of incumbent directors whose terms of office are set to
expire, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews
these directors’ overall service to us during their terms,
including the number of meetings attended, level of participation,
quality of performance and any other relationships and transactions
that might impair the directors’ independence. The Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee also takes into account the results
of the Board’s self-evaluation, conducted annually on a group and
individual basis.
In the case of new director candidates, the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee also determines whether the nominee
is independent for Nasdaq purposes, which determination is based
upon applicable Nasdaq listing standards, applicable SEC rules and
regulations and the advice of counsel, if necessary. The Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee then uses its network of
contacts to compile a list of potential candidates, but may also
engage, if it deems appropriate, a professional search firm. The
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee conducts any
appropriate and necessary inquiries into the backgrounds and
qualifications of possible candidates after considering the
function and needs of the Board. The Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee meets to discuss and consider the candidates’
qualifications and then selects a nominee for recommendation to the
Board by majority vote.
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider
director candidates recommended by shareholders. The Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee does not intend to alter the manner
in which it evaluates candidates, including the minimum criteria
set forth above, based on whether or not the candidate was
recommended by a shareholder.
Shareholder Communications with the Board of Directors
The Board has adopted a formal process by which shareholders may
communicate with the Board or any of its directors. Shareholders
who wish to communicate with the Board or an individual director
may do so by sending written communications to the Board or such
director at Sio Gene Therapies Inc., Attn: Corporate Secretary, at
130 West 42nd
Street, 26th
Floor, New York, New York 10036. The Corporate Secretary will
forward each communication to the Legal Department of Sio Gene
Therapies Inc., and the communication will be further forwarded to
the Board or individual directors to whom the communication is
addressed unless the communication contains advertisements or
solicitations or is unduly hostile, threatening or similarly
inappropriate, in which case the communication will be
discarded.
In addition to shareholder communications with directors, any
interested person may communicate directly with the presiding
director of the Board’s executive sessions or the independent or
non-management directors as a group. Persons interested in
communicating directly with the independent or non-management
directors regarding their concerns or issues may do so by
addressing correspondence to a particular director, or to the
independent or non-management directors generally, in care of Sio
Gene Therapies Inc., Attn: Corporate Secretary, at 130 West
42nd
Street, 26th
Floor, New York, New York 10036. If no particular director is
named, letters will be forwarded, depending upon the subject
matter, to the Chairperson of the Audit, Compensation, or
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.
Please note that the foregoing communication procedure does not
apply to (i) shareholder proposals pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 14a-8 and communications made in connection with such
proposals or (ii) service of process or any other notice in a
legal proceeding.
Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
The Board has adopted a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, or
Code of Conduct, that applies to all of our directors, officers,
employees, consultants and independent contractors. The Code of
Conduct is available on our website at
http://investors.siogtx.com/investors/corporate-governance.
Information contained on or accessible through this website is not
incorporated by reference nor otherwise included in this report,
and any references to this website are intended to be inactive
textual references only. If we make any substantive amendments to
the Code of Conduct or grant any waiver from a provision of the
Code of Conduct to any executive officer or director, we will
promptly disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on our
website or otherwise as required by applicable law and Nasdaq
listing requirements.
Corporate Governance Guidelines
The Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines to establish
the authority and practices to review and evaluate our business
operations as needed and to make decisions that are independent of
our management. The guidelines are also intended to align the
interests of directors and management with those of our
shareholders. The Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth the
practices that the Board intends to follow with respect to a number
of areas, including its composition and selection, role, meetings,
committees, access to management and use of outside advisors, Chief
Executive Officer evaluation and succession planning, and Board
assessment and compensation. The Corporate Governance Guidelines
may be viewed at
http://investors.siogtx.com/investors/corporate-governance.
Information contained on or accessible through this website is not
incorporated by reference nor otherwise included in this report,
and any references to this website are intended to be inactive
textual references only.
Item 11. Executive
Compensation
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth, for our fiscal years ended March
31, 2021 and 2020, compensation awarded or paid to, or earned by,
our principal executive officer and our two next most highly
compensated executive officers as of March 31, 2021. These
executive officers are referred to herein as our named executive
officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position |
Fiscal Year |
Salary |
Stock Awards
(1)
|
Option Awards(1)
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation(2)
|
Other |
|
Total |
Pavan Cheruvu, M.D. |
2020 |
$ |
517,500 |
|
$ |
388,815 |
|
$ |
483,113 |
|
$ |
298,080 |
|
$ |
19,191 |
|
(3)
|
$ |
1,706,699 |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
2019 |
500,000 |
|
351,056 |
|
1,784,077 |
|
225,000 |
|
8,616 |
|
(4)
|
2,868,749 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Nassif, J.D.
(5)
|
2020 |
414,000 |
|
181,470 |
|
225,415 |
|
213,728 |
|
43,485 |
|
(6)
|
1,078,098 |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, General
Counsel |
2019 |
300,000 |
|
234,032 |
|
970,828 |
|
175,000 |
|
81,350 |
|
(7)
|
1,761,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Corcoran, M.D.
(7)
|
2020 |
433,500 |
|
146,280 |
|
181,989 |
|
204,769 |
|
17,410 |
|
(8)
|
983,948 |
|
Chief R&D Officer |
2019 |
425,000 |
|
248,663 |
|
628,885 |
|
146,094 |
|
8,616 |
|
|
1,457,258 |
|
(1)
Amounts reported in this column do not reflect the amounts actually
received by our named executive officers. Instead, these amounts
reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of each stock option
and stock award granted to the named executive officers during the
indicated fiscal year, as computed in accordance with Financial
Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Accounting Standards
Codification ("ASC") 718. Assumptions used in the calculation of
these amounts are included in Note 10 to our consolidated financial
statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 2021. As required by SEC rules, the amounts
shown exclude the impact of estimated forfeitures related to
service-based vesting conditions. In March 2020, RSL forfeited all
of Dr. Cheruvu’s RSL restricted stock units ("RSL RSUs") and
granted him newly issued RSL equity instruments: RSL performance
options and RSL capped value appreciation rights ("RSL CVARs"). The
vesting of the RSL performance options and RSL CVARs is not deemed
probable as of March 31, 2021. These two instruments will vest only
to the extent certain RSL liquidity conditions and vesting
requirements (a mix of time-based and market conditions) are
achieved by a specified date in the future, and provided, for the
time-based vesting requirements, that Dr. Cheruvu has provided
continued service to RSL or an affiliate of RSL, such as Sio. As a
result, as of the grant date the RSL performance options and RSL
CVARs performance criteria were deemed not probable of occurring,
therefore no stock-based compensation expense has been recorded
related to these newly awarded RSL instruments and no value has
been ascribed to such instruments in the table above. Assuming that
the vesting conditions to the RSL performance options and RSL CVARs
were met and the performance criteria was deemed probable, the
value of such awards as of the grant date would have been $7.7
million.
(2)
See "—Annual Cash Bonus".
(3)
Amount includes (a) $18,975 in 401(k) matching
contributions.
(4)
Amount excludes $1,011,993 in stock-based compensation expense
allocated to Sio from RSL for RSL equity instruments granted to Dr.
Cheruvu.
(5)
Mr. Nassif joined Sio in July 2019.
(6)
Amount includes (a) $25,173 for reimbursed temporary housing
expenses, as a result of the Company requiring Mr. Nassif to reside
in New York City for one year as a condition to his employment; and
(b) $18,172 in 401(k) matching contributions.
(7)
Amount includes (a) $78,206 for reimbursed temporary housing
expenses.
(8)
Amount includes (a) $17,194 in 401(k) matching
contributions.
Narrative to Summary Compensation Table
We review compensation annually for all employees, including our
named executive officers. In setting executive base salaries and
bonuses and granting equity incentive awards, we consider
compensation for comparable positions in the market, the historical
compensation levels of our executives, individual performance as
compared to our expectations and objectives, our desire to motivate
our employees to achieve short- and long-term results that are in
the best interests of our stockholders and a long-term commitment
to Sio. We do not target a specific competitive position or a
specific mix of compensation among base salary, bonus or long-term
incentives.
The Compensation Committee of the Board has historically determined
compensation for our named executive officers. The Compensation
Committee typically reviews and discusses management’s proposed
compensation with the Chief Executive Officer for all named
executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer. Based on
those discussions and its discretion, the Compensation Committee
then recommends the compensation for each named executive officer.
The Compensation Committee, without members of management present,
discusses and ultimately approves the compensation of our named
executive officers. For our fiscal years ended March 31, 2021 and
2020, the Compensation Committee retained Radford, a compensation
consulting firm, to evaluate and make recommendations with respect
to our executive compensation program.
Annual Cash Bonus
We seek to motivate and reward our executives for achievements
relative to our corporate goals and expectations for each fiscal
year. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, the target cash
bonus for Dr. Cheruvu is 60% of his base salary, subject to the
achievement of overall company performance criteria, and the target
cash bonus for each of Mr. Nassif and Mr. Corcoran is 50% of their
respective base salaries, subject to the achievement of individual
performance criteria to be determined by the Board or the
Compensation Committee, as well as overall company performance
criteria.
Additionally, On March 30, 2021, the Compensation Committee of the
Board approved a one-time cash performance incentive for Dr.
Corcoran (the "Performance Incentive"). Under the terms of the
Performance Incentive, Dr. Corcoran shall be paid a bonus of
$35,000 upon completion of patient enrollment in the
dose-escalation Stage 1 of our AXO-AAV-GM1 gene therapy program for
the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, including both Type 1 (early
infantile) and Type 2 (late infantile and juvenile) patients if
such enrollment occurs on or before March 31, 2022. Additionally,
Dr. Corcoran shall be paid a bonus of $35,000 upon dosing of the
first patient in our AXO-Lenti-PD gene therapy program for the
treatment of Parkinson's disease using clinical trial material from
a suspension-based manufacturing process if such dosing occurs on
or before March 31, 2022.
For the years ended March 31, 2021 and March 31, 2020, bonuses were
awarded based on our achievement of specified corporate goals,
including creating value with our gene therapy pipeline and finance
goals, as well as individual goals for the named executive
officers. Dr. Cheruvu’s bonuses were weighted 100% based on the
achievement of corporate goals. For each other named executive
officer, the bonuses were weighted 75% based on the achievement of
the corporate goals and 25% based on the achievement of individual
objectives established for each such officer. In March 2020, the
Compensation Committee awarded each named executive officer a bon