Attached files

file filename
EX-32 - EX-32 - VIVUS INCa10-12716_1ex32.htm
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - VIVUS INCa10-12716_1ex31d2.htm
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - VIVUS INCa10-12716_1ex31d1.htm

Table of Contents

 

 

 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 


 

FORM 10-Q

 


 

x

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For The Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2010

 

OR

 

o

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 001-33389

 

VIVUS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware

 

94-3136179

(State or other jurisdiction of

 

(IRS employer

incorporation or organization)

 

identification number)

 

 

 

1172 Castro Street

 

 

Mountain View, California

 

94040

(Address of principal executive office)

 

(Zip Code)

 

(650) 934-5200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

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 x  No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o  No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer o

 

Accelerated filer x

 

 

 

Non-accelerated filer o

 

Smaller reporting company o

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  o Yes  x No

 

At July 29, 2010, 81,163,712 shares of common stock, par value $.001 per share, were outstanding.

 

 

 




Table of Contents

 

PART I: FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

ITEM 1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

 

VIVUS, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except par value)

 

 

 

June 30
2010

 

December 31
2009*

 

 

 

(unaudited)

 

 

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current assets:

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

11,545

 

$

40,750

 

Available-for-sale securities

 

163,257

 

166,241

 

Accounts receivable, (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $35 and $27 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively)

 

2,072

 

7,259

 

Inventories, net

 

3,407

 

2,702

 

Prepaid expenses and other assets

 

5,163

 

6,410

 

Total current assets

 

185,444

 

223,362

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

 

5,443

 

5,970

 

Restricted cash

 

700

 

700

 

Total assets

 

$

191,587

 

$

230,032

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

$

4,735

 

$

8,485

 

Accrued product returns

 

2,899

 

3,026

 

Accrued research and clinical expenses

 

5,066

 

2,426

 

Accrued chargeback reserve

 

612

 

1,617

 

Accrued employee compensation and benefits

 

3,105

 

3,072

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

4,542

 

3,884

 

Total current liabilities

 

20,959

 

22,510

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes payable-net of current portion

 

19,914

 

19,998

 

Deferred revenue

 

567

 

798

 

Total liabilities

 

41,440

 

43,306

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitments and contingencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stockholders’ equity:

 

 

 

 

 

Preferred stock; $1.00 par value; 5,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding

 

 

 

Common stock; $.001 par value; 200,000 shares authorized; 80,964 and 80,607 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively

 

81

 

81

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

425,679

 

420,708

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 

22

 

(3

)

Accumulated deficit

 

(275,635

)

(234,060

)

Total stockholders’ equity

 

150,147

 

186,726

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

 

$

191,587

 

$

230,032

 

 


*     Derived from audited consolidated financial statements filed in the Company’s 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

3



Table of Contents

 

VIVUS, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

AND OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands, except per share data)

(UNAUDITED)

 

 

 

THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30

 

SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States product, net

 

$

3,036

 

$

3,368

 

$

4,138

 

$

4,261

 

International product

 

749

 

776

 

1,263

 

1,069

 

License and other revenue

 

115

 

10,581

 

231

 

31,627

 

Total revenue

 

3,900

 

14,725

 

5,632

 

36,957

 

Operating expenses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of goods sold and manufacturing expense

 

2,904

 

2,877

 

5,315

 

5,480

 

Research and development

 

14,175

 

20,258

 

24,398

 

40,327

 

Selling, general and administrative

 

8,234

 

4,555

 

14,819

 

9,966

 

Total operating expenses

 

25,313

 

27,690

 

44,532

 

55,773

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loss from operations

 

(21,413

)

(12,965

)

(38,900

)

(18,816

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest (expense) income:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest income

 

55

 

818

 

120

 

1,026

 

Interest expense

 

(1,391

)

(944

)

(2,779

)

(1,660

)

Other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities

 

 

(113

)

 

(557

)

Total interest (expense) income

 

(1,336

)

(239

)

(2,659

)

(1,191

)

Loss before provision for income taxes

 

(22,749

)

(13,204

)

(41,559

)

(20,007

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision for income taxes

 

(8

)

 

(16

)

(6

)

Net loss

 

(22,757

)

(13,204

)

(41,575

)

(20,013

)

Other comprehensive income (loss):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unrealized gain (loss) on securities

 

14

 

(59

)

25

 

(85

)

Comprehensive loss

 

$

(22,743

)

$

(13,263

)

$

(41,550

)

$

(20,098

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss per share:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic and diluted

 

$

(0.28

)

$

(0.19

)

$

(0.51

)

$

(0.29

)

Shares used in per share computation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic and diluted

 

80,903

 

69,805

 

80,801

 

69,746

 

 

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

4



Table of Contents

 

VIVUS, INC.

 

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

 

 

 

Six Months Ended
June 30

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

 

 

(unaudited)

 

(unaudited)

 

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss

 

$

(41,575

)

$

(20,013

)

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used for operating activities:

 

 

 

 

 

Provision for doubtful accounts

 

8

 

32

 

Provision for obsolete inventory

 

 

487

 

Depreciation

 

611

 

572

 

Net realized gain on investments

 

 

(297

)

Other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities

 

 

557

 

Share-based compensation expense

 

3,674

 

2,578

 

Changes in assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts receivable

 

5,179

 

730

 

Inventories

 

(705

)

(108

)

Prepaid expenses and other assets

 

1,247

 

301

 

Accounts payable

 

(3,750

)

(7,573

)

Accrued product returns

 

(127

)

62

 

Accrued research and clinical expenses

 

2,640

 

2,288

 

Accrued chargeback reserve

 

(1,005

)

130

 

Accrued employee compensation and benefits

 

33

 

186

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

652

 

359

 

Deferred revenue

 

(231

)

(31,627

)

Net cash used for operating activities

 

(33,349

)

(51,336

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

Property and equipment purchases

 

(84

)

(133

)

Investment securities purchases

 

(108,886

)

(80,086

)

Proceeds from sale/maturity of securities

 

111,895

 

86,470

 

Net cash provided by investing activities

 

2,925

 

6,251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeds from notes payable

 

 

6,666

 

Payments of notes payable

 

(78

)

(1,028

)

Net proceeds from exercise of common stock options

 

1,082

 

961

 

Sale of common stock through employee stock purchase plan

 

215

 

185

 

Net cash provided by financing activities

 

1,219

 

6,784

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NET DECREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS

 

(29,205

)

(38,301

)

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning of period

 

40,750

 

66,121

 

End of period

 

$

11,545

 

$

27,820

 

 

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

5



Table of Contents

 

VIVUS, INC.

 

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

JUNE 30, 2010

 

1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

 

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by United States generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the six months ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2010. Management has evaluated all events and transactions that occurred after June 30, 2010 up through the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were filed. There were no events or transactions occurring during this subsequent event reporting period which require recognition in these condensed consolidated financial statements. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed on March 10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

 

Reclassifications

 

Certain prior year amounts in the condensed consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current quarter presentation.

 

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

2. REVENUE RECOGNITION

 

The Company recognizes product revenue when the following four criteria are met:

 

·                                          persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists;

·                                          shipment has occurred;

·                                          the sales price is fixed or determinable; and

·                                          collectability is reasonably assured.

 

The Company recognizes revenue upon shipment when title passes to the customer and risk of loss is transferred to the customer. The Company does not have any post shipment obligations.

 

United States

 

The Company primarily sells its products through wholesalers in the United States. The Company provides for government chargebacks, rebates, returns and other adjustments in the same period the related product sales are recorded. Reserves for government chargebacks, rebates, returns and other adjustments are based upon analysis of historical data. Each period the Company reviews its reserves for government chargebacks, rebates, returns and other adjustments based on data available at that time. Any adjustment to these reserves results in charges to the amount of product sales revenue recognized in the period.

 

International

 

The Company has supply agreements with Meda AB, or Meda, to market and distribute MUSE internationally in some Member States of the European Union. In Canada, the Company entered into a license and supply agreement with Paladin Labs, Inc., or Paladin, for the marketing and distribution of MUSE. Sales to Meda for 2009, 2008, and 2007 were 94%, 93%, and 95.8% of international sales, respectively. The balance of international sales was made to Paladin.

 

6



Table of Contents

 

The Company invoices its international distributors based on an agreed transfer price per unit, in United States dollars, which is subject to revision upon quarterly reconciliations based on contractual formulas. Final pricing for product shipments to international distributors is subject to contractual formulas based on the distributor’s net realized price in the local currency to its customers. The Company recognizes additional revenue, if any, or reductions to revenue, upon finalization of pricing with its international distributors. International distributors generally do not have the right to return products unless the products are damaged or defective.

 

The Company initially received a $1.5 million upfront payment in connection with the international supply agreement signed with Meda in September 2002. In January 2006, the Company also received a milestone payment from Meda of $2 million. The milestone payment provides Meda with the right to continue to sell and distribute MUSE in its European Union territories. These amounts were recorded as deferred revenue and are being recognized ratably over the term of the supply agreement. Through June 30, 2010, $2.5 million has been recognized as revenue.

 

License and Other Revenue

 

The Company recognizes license revenue in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s, or SEC’s, Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition, and Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, Issue 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables, as codified in FASB ASC topic 605, Revenue Recognition, or ASC 605. Revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered item has standalone value to the customer, and whether there is objective, reliable evidence of the fair value of the undelivered items. Consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their relative fair values, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are identified and applied to each of the units.

 

Revenue from non-refundable, upfront license fees where the Company has continuing involvement is recognized ratably over the development or agreement period. Revenue associated with performance milestones is recognized based upon the achievement of the milestones, as defined in the respective agreements.

 

Sale of Evamist product

 

On May 15, 2007, the Company closed its transaction with K-V Pharmaceutical Company, or K-V, for the sale of its product candidate, Evamist. At the time of the sale, Evamist was an investigational product and was not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for marketing. The sale transaction contained multiple deliverables, including: the delivery at closing of the Evamist assets, a grant of a sublicense of the Company’s rights under a license agreement related to Evamist, and a license to the metered-dose transdermal spray, or MDTS, applicator; the delivery upon receipt of regulatory approval of the approved drug along with all regulatory submissions; and, lastly, the delivery after FDA approval of certain transition services and a license to improvements to the MDTS applicator. The Company received approval from the FDA to market Evamist on July 27, 2007, or FDA Approval, and on August 1, 2007, the Company transferred and assigned the Evamist FDA submissions, and all files related thereto, to K-V. The Company received an upfront payment of $10 million upon the closing and received an additional $140 million milestone payment in August 2007 upon FDA Approval. These payments are non-refundable. In August 2008, the Company assigned all of its rights and obligations under the Evamist license agreement to K-V.

 

Upon FDA Approval, the two remaining deliverables were the transition services to be performed under the Transition Services Agreement, or TSA, and a license to improvements to the MDTS applicator during the two-year period commencing with the closing, or May 15, 2007, and ending on May 15, 2009. The Company was able to establish fair value for the TSA. Given the unique nature of the license to improvements, the Company was unable to obtain objective, reliable evidence of its fair value.

 

Accordingly, the delivered items, together with the undelivered items, were treated as one unit of accounting. Since the deliverables were treated as a single unit of accounting, the total cash received, $150 million, was recognized as revenue on a pro-rata basis over the term of the last deliverable, which in this case was the license to improvements that expired on May 15, 2009. As a result, the initial $10 million paid at closing and the $140 million paid upon FDA Approval were recorded as deferred revenue and have been recognized as revenue ratably over the remaining 21.5-month term of the license to improvements, from August 1, 2007 to May 15, 2009. All of the revenue deferred from the Evamist sale has now been recognized.

 

Under the terms of the transaction, K-V reimbursed the Company for $1.5 million of the $3 million milestone payment paid by the Company to Acrux upon FDA Approval of the NDA.

 

7



Table of Contents

 

3. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

 

The Company accounts for share-based compensation arrangements in accordance with SFAS 123R, Share-Based Payment, as codified in FASB ASC topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, or ASC 718.

 

Total estimated share-based compensation expense, related to all of the Company’s share-based awards, recognized for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 was comprised as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

 

Three Months Ended
June 30,

 

Six Months Ended
June 30,

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010

 

2009

 

Cost of goods sold and manufacturing expense

 

$

218

 

$

183

 

$

432

 

$

355

 

Research and development

 

229

 

233

 

561

 

525

 

Selling, general and administrative

 

1,354

 

828

 

2,681

 

1,698

 

Share-based compensation expense before taxes

 

1,801

 

1,244

 

3,674

 

2,578

 

Related income tax benefits

 

 

 

 

 

Share-based compensation expense, net of taxes

 

$

1,801

 

$

1,244

 

$

3,674

 

$

2,578

 

Basic and diluted per common share

 

$

0.02

 

$

0.02

 

$

0.05

 

$

0.04

 

 

4. CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE SECURITIES

 

The fair value and the amortized cost of cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale securities by major security type at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 are presented in the tables that follow:

 

As of June 30, 2010 (in thousands) (unaudited):

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

Amortized
Cost

 

Estimated
Fair Value

 

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

Cash and money market funds

 

$

11,545

 

$

11,545

 

$

 

$

 

Total cash and cash equivalents

 

$

11,545

 

$

11,545

 

$

 

$

 

 

Available-for-sale securities

 

Amortized
Cost

 

Estimated
Fair Value

 

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

163,235

 

$

163,257

 

$

25

 

$

(3

)

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

163,235

 

$

163,257

 

$

25

 

$

(3

)

 

As of December 31, 2009 (in thousands):

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

Amortized
Cost

 

Estimated
Fair Value

 

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

Cash and money market funds

 

$

38,742

 

$

38,742

 

$

 

$

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

2,009

 

2,008

 

 

(1

)

Total cash and cash equivalents

 

$

40,751

 

$

40,750

 

$

 

$

(1

)

 

Available-for-sale securities

 

Amortized
Cost

 

Estimated
Fair Value

 

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

166,243

 

$

166,241

 

$

34

 

$

(36

)

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

166,243

 

$

166,241

 

$

34

 

$

(36

)

 

The following table summarizes the Company’s available-for-sale securities by the contractual maturity date as of June 30, 2010 (in thousands) (unaudited):

 

 

 

Amortized
Cost

 

Estimated
Fair Value

 

Due within one year

 

$

163,235

 

$

163,257

 

 

 

$

163,235

 

$

163,257

 

 

8



Table of Contents

 

The following table summarizes the net realized gains on available-for-sale securities for the periods presented (in thousands):

 

 

 

Three Months Ended

 

Six Months Ended

 

 

 

June 30, 2010

 

June 30, 2009

 

June 30, 2010

 

June 30, 2009

 

 

 

(unaudited)

 

(unaudited)

 

Realized gains

 

$

 

$

554

 

$

 

$

706

 

Realized losses

 

 

 

 

(409

)

Net realized gains

 

$

 

$

554

 

$

 

$

297

 

 

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, there were no sales of fixed income securities. In the ordinary course of business, the Company may sell securities at a loss for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the investment environment; (ii) expectation that the fair value could deteriorate further; (iii) desire to reduce exposure to an issuer or an industry; (iv) changes in credit quality; or (v) changes in expected cash flow.

 

At June 30, 2010, the Company had the following available-for-sale securities that were in an unrealized loss position (in thousands):

 

 

 

Less Than 12 Months

 

June 30, 2010 (unaudited)

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

Estimated
Fair
Value

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

(3

)

$

33,806

 

Total

 

$

(3

)

$

33,806

 

 

At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following cash equivalent and available-for-sale securities that were in an unrealized loss position (in thousands):

 

 

 

Less Than 12 Months

 

December 31, 2009

 

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

 

Estimated
Fair
Value

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

(37

)

$

79,709

 

Total

 

$

(37

)

$

79,709

 

 

The gross unrealized losses reported above for June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 were primarily caused by general fluctuations in market interest rates from the respective purchase date of these securities through the end of those periods. The gross unrealized loss of $3,000 at June 30, 2010 is attributable to the Company’s holding in 12 individual securities from one issuer, the U.S. Treasury.

 

As the Company presently does not intend to sell its debt securities and believes it will not likely be required to sell the securities that are in an unrealized loss position before recovery of their amortized cost, the Company does not consider these securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired.

 

As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the temporary unrealized gains (losses) on cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities, net of tax, of $22,000 and $(3,000), respectively, were included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2010, a significant portion of the available-for-sale securities that the Company held were investment grade with an average rating of AAA/Aaa.

 

SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, FSP SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-4, Recognition and Presentation of Other-than-Temporary Impairments (“FSP 115-2/SFAS 124-2”) and SAB Topic 5M, Accounting for Non-current Marketable Equity Securities, as codified in FASB ASC topic 320-10, Investments—Debt and Equity Securities, or ASC 320-10, provides guidance on determining when an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. Investments are reviewed quarterly for indicators of other-than-temporary impairment. Effective for all periods ending after June 15, 2009, it provides additional guidance designed to create a greater clarity and consistency in accounting for and presenting impairment losses on securities. In reviewing its non-U.S. Government available-for-sale securities during the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company concluded that it intended to sell the debt securities before recovering their costs. Therefore, in accordance with the above guidance, the Company recognized an “other-than-temporary” impairment of $654,000 on these securities during the year ended December 31, 2009. The Company included this non-cash impairment charge in other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive loss. These securities covered a number of industries. At June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, all available-for-sale securities were invested in U.S. Treasuries.

 

9



Table of Contents

 

Fair Value Measurements

 

Effective January 1, 2008, the Company adopted SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, as codified in FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, or ASC 820, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Broadly, the framework clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.

 

As a basis for considering such assumptions, this statement establishes a three-tier value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows: (Level 1) observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; (Level 2) inputs other than the quoted prices in active markets that are observable either directly or indirectly; and (Level 3) unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require the Company to develop its own assumptions. This hierarchy requires the Company to use observable market data, when available, and to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value. On a recurring basis, the Company measures its marketable securities at fair value.

 

The following fair value hierarchy tables present information about the Company’s assets (cash and cash equivalents, available-for-sale securities) measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2010 (in thousands):

 

 

 

Basis of Fair Value Measurements

 

 

 

Balance at
June 30, 2010
(unaudited)

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Cash and cash equivalents:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and money market funds

 

$

11,545

 

$

11,545

 

$

 

$

 

Total cash and cash equivalents

 

$

11,545

 

$

11,545

 

$

 

$

 

 

 

 

Basis of Fair Value Measurements

 

 

 

Balance at
June 30, 2010
(unaudited)

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Available-for-sale securities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

163,257

 

$

163,257

 

$

 

$

 

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

163,257

 

$

163,257

 

$

 

$

 

Reported as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

11,545

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Available-for-sale securities

 

163,257

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

174,802

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following fair value hierarchy tables present information about the Company’s assets (cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities) measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2009 (in thousands):

 

 

 

Basis of Fair Value Measurements

 

 

 

Balance at
December 31, 2009

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Cash and cash equivalents:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and money market funds

 

$

38,742

 

$

38,742

 

$

 

$

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

2,008

 

2,008

 

 

 

Total cash and cash equivalents

 

$

40,750

 

$

40,750

 

$

 

$

 

 

 

 

Basis of Fair Value Measurements

 

 

 

Balance at
December 31, 2009

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Available-for-sale securities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Treasury securities

 

$

166,241

 

$

166,241

 

$

 

$

 

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

166,241

 

$

166,241

 

$

 

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reported as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

40,750

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Available-for-sale securities

 

166,241

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

206,991

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10



Table of Contents

 

Fair values are based on quoted market prices, where available. These fair values are obtained primarily from third party pricing services, which generally use Level 1 or Level 2 inputs for the determination of fair value in accordance with ASC 820. Third party pricing services normally derive the security prices through recently reported trades for identical or similar securities making adjustments through the reporting date based upon available market observable information. For securities not actively traded, the third party pricing services may use quoted market prices of comparable instruments or discounted cash flow analyses, incorporating inputs that are currently observable in the markets for similar securities. Inputs that are often used in the valuation methodologies include, but are not limited to, benchmark yields, broker quotes, credit spreads, default rates and prepayment speeds. The Company performs a review of the prices received from third parties to determine whether the prices are reasonable estimates of fair value.

 

The Company generally obtains one price for each investment security. The Company performs a review to assess if the evaluated prices represent a reasonable estimate of their fair value. This process involves quantitative and qualitative analysis by the Company. Examples of procedures performed include, but are not limited to, initial and ongoing review of pricing service methodologies, review of the prices received from the pricing service, and comparison of prices for certain securities with different appropriate price sources for reasonableness. As a result of this analysis, if the Company determines there is a more appropriate fair value based upon available market data, which happens infrequently, the price of a security is adjusted accordingly. The pricing service provides information to indicate which securities were priced using market observable inputs so that the Company can properly categorize its financial assets in the fair value hierarchy.

 

As of June 30, 2010, the Company does not have any liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

 

Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis; that is, the instruments are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis but are subject to fair value adjustments only in certain circumstances (for example, when there is evidence of impairment). There were no assets or liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

 

5. INVENTORIES

 

Inventories are recorded net of reserves of $769,000 and $1.6 million as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. Inventory balances, net of reserves, consist of (in thousands):

 

 

 

June 30, 2010

 

December 31, 2009

 

 

 

(unaudited)

 

 

 

Raw materials and component parts

 

$

2,551

 

$

2,381

 

Work in process

 

65

 

52

 

Finished goods

 

791

 

269

 

Inventory, net

 

$

3,407

 

$

2,702

 

 

Inventory balances serve as collateral for the Company’s loans (see Note 7: “Deerfield Financing”). Included in the raw materials and component parts at June 30, 2010 is $208,000 in raw materials for Qnexa, in anticipation of a product launch. As noted above, the Company has recorded significant reserves against the carrying value of its inventory of raw material and certain component parts. The reserves relate primarily to inventories that the Company estimated would have no future use. In the second quarter of 2009, the Company increased the reserve for raw materials by $487,000 for a portion of its existing inventory of alprostadil that has exceeded its shelf life and is no longer usable in the manufacturing of MUSE.

 

The Company determined that it would likely continue to use some portion of the fully reserved raw materials and component parts in production. During the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, the Company used $55,000 and $45,000 of its fully reserved component parts inventory, respectively. In the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, the Company used $262,000 and $0, respectively, of its fully reserved raw materials inventory. In the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company disposed of $487,000 of its fully reserved raw materials inventory. As of June 30, 2010, the original cost of the fully reserved inventory is mainly $394,000 related to component parts and $367,000 related to raw materials. The Company intends to continue to use some portion of these reserved component parts and raw materials in production when appropriate.

 

11



Table of Contents

 

6. PREPAID EXPENSES AND OTHER ASSETS

 

Prepaid expenses and other assets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, consist of (in thousands):

 

 

 

June 30, 2010

 

December 31, 2009

 

 

 

(unaudited)

 

 

 

Receivable from Food and Drug Administration

 

$

1,553

 

$

2,140

 

Refundable federal and state income taxes

 

 

2,447

 

Prepaid clinical studies

 

1,117

 

520

 

Interest receivable

 

468

 

474

 

Prepaid insurance

 

315

 

429

 

Other prepaid expenses and assets

 

1,710

 

400

 

Prepaid expenses and other assets

 

$

5,163

 

$

6,410

 

 

The Company has paid product and establishment fees for its marketed product, MUSE, for the fiscal year 2008 of $653,000 (which was paid to the FDA in October 2007), for the fiscal year 2009 of $712,000 (which was paid to the FDA in September 2008) and for the fiscal year 2010 of $776,000 (which was paid in September 2009). The Company believes it is due a refund pursuant to Section 736(d)(1)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDC Act, on the basis that the fees paid by the Company exceed the anticipated present and future costs incurred by the FDA in conducting the process for the review of the Company’s human drug applications for VIVUS, Inc. As discussed in Note 18: “Subsequent Events”, in July 2010, the Company was informed by the FDA that it would be receiving a refund of $180,000 for the fiscal year 2008 and $597,000 for the fiscal year 2009. The Company also paid product and establishment fees for MUSE for fiscal year 2007 in October 2006, for which it received a refund of $525,000 in May 2009, on this same basis. In addition, the Company paid an application fee to the FDA in September 2006 for the NDA for Evamist of  $767,000, for which it received a refund in April 2008, again, on the same basis.

 

7. DEERFIELD FINANCING

 

On April 3, 2008, the Company entered into several agreements with Deerfield Management Company, L.P., or Deerfield, a healthcare investment fund, and its affiliates, Deerfield Private Design Fund L.P. and Deerfield Private Design International, L.P. (collectively, the Deerfield Affiliates). Certain of the agreements were amended and restated on March 16, 2009. Under the agreements, Deerfield and its affiliates agreed to provide $30 million in funding to the Company. The $30 million in funding consists of $20 million from a Funding and Royalty Agreement, or FARA, entered into with a newly incorporated subsidiary of Deerfield, or the Deerfield Sub, and $10 million from the sale of the Company’s common stock under a securities purchase agreement. Under the FARA, the Deerfield Sub made $3.3 million payments to the Company in April, September and December 2008 and February, June and September 2009, constituting all of the required payments under the FARA. The Company will pay royalties on the current net sales of MUSE and if approved, on future sales of avanafil, an investigational product candidate, to the Deerfield Sub. The term of the FARA is 10 years. The FARA includes covenants requiring the Company to use commercially reasonable efforts to preserve its intellectual property, manufacture, promote and sell MUSE, and develop avanafil.

 

The agreements also provide the Company with an option to purchase, and the Deerfield Affiliates with an option to compel the Company to purchase, or put right, the Deerfield Sub holding the royalty rights. If the Company exercises its right to purchase the Deerfield Sub, the net price will be $23 million if exercised before April 3, 2011, or $26 million if exercised after April 3, 2011 but before April 3, 2012 (the purchase prices are subject to other adjustments as defined in the agreement). After April 3, 2011, the Deerfield Affiliates may exercise the right to compel the Company to purchase the Deerfield Sub at a price of $17 million. This price could increase up to $26 million, and the timing of the sale of the shares could be accelerated under certain conditions including a change-in-control, sale of MUSE or avanafil, sale of major assets and the sale of securities in a transaction or a series of related transactions by the Company that exceed 20% of the Company’s outstanding common stock at the date the Option and Put Agreement was signed if at the time of the sale the Company’s market capitalization is below $300 million (each, a Major Transaction). Under these conditions, the cost of the shares of the Deerfield Sub would be $23 million on or before April 3, 2011 and $26 million from April 3, 2011 through April 3, 2018. The sale of the shares of the Deerfield Sub could also accelerate if the Company’s cash, cash equivalents and available for sale securities falls below $15 million or the Company’s market capitalization falls below $50 million. The purchase prices under the put right are subject to other adjustments as defined in the agreements. If either party exercises its option, any further royalty payments would be effectively terminated. In exchange for the option right, the Company paid $2 million to the Deerfield Affiliates. The Company’s intellectual property and all of the accounts receivable, inventory and machinery and equipment arising out of or relating to MUSE and avanafil are collateral for this transaction. At June 30, 2010, substantially all of the accounts receivable, inventory and machinery and equipment on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet relates to MUSE and serves as collateral for this transaction.

 

12



Table of Contents

 

The Company has evaluated the Deerfield financing in accordance with SFAS 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R), as codified in FASB ASC topic 810, Consolidation, or ASC 810, and determined that the Deerfield Sub may constitute a Variable Interest Entity, or VIE; however, the Company has also determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of this VIE at this time. The methodology the Company used for determining the primary beneficiary of the VIE was based on which entity (1) has the power to direct matters that most significantly impact the activities of the VIE, and (2) has the obligations to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. While the Company determined that it met the power criterion, it did not meet the losses/benefit criterion. The Deerfield Affiliates will absorb 100% of the Deerfield Sub’s expected losses and receive 100% of its expected gains. Therefore, it was determined that the Deerfield Sub should not be consolidated by the Company (see Note 8: “Notes Payable”).

 

8. NOTES PAYABLE

 

Deerfield Financing

 

In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue 88-18, Sale of Future Revenues, as codified in FASB ASC 605, the FARA transaction is in substance a financing arrangement, or loan, that will be repaid by the Company. The minimum repayment amount would be $17 million, the amount of the unconditional put option held by the Deerfield Affiliates, plus royalties paid during the term of the agreement on sales of MUSE and, if approved, avanafil. Accordingly, the Company has recorded the advances from the Deerfield Affiliates, net of the $2 million option right payment and related fees and expenses, as a loan. The Company has received all of the required advances under the financing arrangement and has recorded this as a loan. The loan amount is lower than the contractual amounts owed if the Company exercises its call option of $23 million to $26 million, or if the Deerfield Affiliates require the Company to purchase the shares as a result of a “Major Transaction” (see Note 7: “Deerfield Financing”). Using the interest method under APB Opinion No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, as codified in FASB ASC topic 835, Interest, subtopic 30, Imputation of Interest or ASC 835-30, interest expense on the loan will be calculated and recognized over three years, which is the estimated term of the loan based on the earliest date that the Deerfield Affiliates could require the Company to repay the amounts advanced. The Deerfield Affiliates will receive a quarterly payment based on net sales of MUSE. The initial imputed effective annual interest rate on the financing was approximately 32% as calculated based upon quarterly advances under the FARA, up to a loan balance of $17 million, offset by the estimated quarterly royalty payments to the Deerfield Affiliates. The imputed interest rate was revised to 31% at December 31, 2009 and 33% at December 31, 2008 based on the actual royalty payments made and the timing of payments and advances in 2009 and 2008, respectively. The imputed effective interest rate is utilized for purposes of calculating the interest expense only and does not reflect the amount of royalty paid to the Deerfield Affiliates on a quarterly basis. Quarterly royalty payments are based on a percentage of net MUSE sales at a rate substantially lower than the imputed effective interest rate used to calculate interest expense.

 

Crown Bank N.A. Loan

 

On January 4, 2006, VIVUS, Inc. and Vivus Real Estate LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of VIVUS, Inc., jointly, the Company, entered into a Term Loan Agreement and a Commercial Mortgage Note, or the Agreements, with Crown Bank N. A., or Crown, secured by the land and buildings, among other assets, located at 735 Airport Road and 745 Airport Road in Lakewood, New Jersey, or the Facility. The Facility is the Company’s principal manufacturing facility, which the Company purchased on December 22, 2005. Under the Agreements, the Company borrowed $5,375,000 on January 4, 2006 from Crown payable over a 10-year term. The interest rate is adjusted annually to a fixed rate for the year equal to the prime rate plus 1%, with a floor of 7.5%. Principal and interest are payable monthly based upon a 20-year amortization schedule and are adjusted annually at the time of the interest rate reset. All remaining principal is due on February 1, 2016. The interest rate was 7.5% and 7.5% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Because the interest rate is variable, and based on a market rate, the carrying value of the debt approximates fair value. The Agreements contain prepayment penalties, and a requirement to maintain a depository account at Crown with a minimum collected balance of $100,000 which, if not maintained, will result in an automatic increase in the interest rate on the note of one-half percent (0.5%). The Facility, assignment of rents and leases on the Facility, and a $700,000 Certificate of Deposit held by Crown, classified as restricted cash, serve as collateral for these Agreements.

 

Total long-term notes payable consist of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

June 30, 2010
(unaudited)

 

December 31, 2009

 

Deerfield loan

 

$

15,255

 

$

15,255

 

Crown Bank N.A. loan

 

4,822

 

4,900

 

Total notes payable

 

20,077

 

20,155

 

Less current portion

 

(163

)

(157

)

Total long-term notes payable

 

$

19,914

 

$

19,998

 

 

Current portion of notes payable is included under the heading “Accrued and other liabilities”.

 

13



Table of Contents

 

Future minimum principal payments of the long-term notes payable as of June 30, 2010 are as follows (in thousands):

 

As of June 30, 2010 (unaudited)

 

Deerfield Loan

 

Crown Bank N.A.
Loan

 

Total

 

Remainder of 2010

 

$

 

$

79

 

$

79

 

2011

 

15,255

 

169

 

15,424

 

2012

 

 

181

 

181

 

2013

 

 

197

 

197

 

2014

 

 

212

 

212

 

Thereafter

 

 

3,984

 

3,984

 

Total

 

$

15,255

 

$

4,822

 

$

20,077

 

 

9. AGREEMENTS

 

In 2001, VIVUS entered into a Development, Licensing and Supply Agreement with Tanabe for the development of avanafil, an oral PDE5 inhibitor product candidate for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. In October 2007, Tanabe and Mitsubishi Pharma Corporation completed their merger and announced their name change to Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC. Under the terms of the 2001 Development, Licensing and Supply Agreement with Tanabe, the Company paid a $2 million license fee obligation to Tanabe in the year ended December 31, 2006. No payments were made under this agreement with MTPC in the year ended December 31, 2008; however, the Company paid MTPC $4 million in January 2009 following the enrollment in December 2008 of the first patient in the first Phase 3 clinical study. The Company expects to make other substantial payments to MTPC in accordance with its agreements with MTPC as the Company continues to develop and, if approved for sale, commercialize avanafil for the oral treatment of male sexual dysfunction. Such potential future milestone payments total $15 million in the aggregate and include payments upon: the first submission of an NDA; obtainment of the first regulatory approval in the United States and any major European country; and achievement of $250 million or more in calendar year sales.

 

The term of the MTPC agreement is based on a country-by-country and on a product-by-product basis. The term shall continue until the later of (i) ten years after the date of the first sale for a particular product, or (ii) the expiration of the last-to-expire patents within the MTPC patents covering such product in such country. In the event that the Company’s product is deemed to be (i) insufficiently effective or insufficiently safe relative to other PDE5 inhibitor compounds based on published information, or (ii) not economically feasible to develop due to unforeseen regulatory hurdles or costs as measured by standards common in the pharmaceutical industry for this type of product, the Company has the right to terminate the agreement with MTPC with respect to such product.

 

In February 2004, the Company entered into exclusive licensing agreements with Acrux Limited, or Acrux, and a subsidiary of Acrux under which it agreed to develop and, if approved, commercialize Testosterone MDTS, or Luramist™, and Evamist in the United States for various female health applications. Under the terms of the agreements, the Company agreed to pay to Acrux for Luramist: licensing fees of $2 million, up to $3.3 million for the achievement of certain clinical development milestones, up to $3 million for achieving product approval milestones, and royalties on net sales in the United States following approval and commercialization. On March 31, 2010, the Company announced that it had terminated the Development and Commercialization Agreement with FemPharm Pty Ltd. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Acrux Limited) for Luramist.

 

For Evamist, the Company agreed to pay to Acrux licensing fees of $1 million, up to $1 million for the achievement of certain clinical development milestones, up to $3 million for achieving product approval milestones, and royalties on net sales in the United States following approval and commercialization. The Company made a $1 million milestone payment to Acrux in October 2006 related to the submission of an NDA to the FDA for Evamist. Upon approval of the NDA for Evamist, a $3 million product approval milestone became due and was paid to Acrux in August 2007. Under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement with K-V for the sale of Evamist, K-V paid $1.5 million of this $3 million obligation. In August 2008, the Company assigned all of its rights and obligations under the Evamist license agreement to K-V.

 

On October 16, 2001, the Company entered into an assignment agreement, or the Assignment Agreement, with Thomas Najarian, M.D. for a combination of pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of obesity and other disorders, or the Combination Therapy, that has since been the focus of our investigational product development program for Qnexa for the treatment of obesity, obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes. The Combination Therapy and all related patent applications, or the Patents, were transferred to the Company with worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the Combination Therapy and exploit the Patents. Pursuant to the Assignment Agreement, the Company has paid a total of $220,000 to Dr. Najarian through June 30, 2010 and has issued him options to purchase 40,000 shares of our common stock. The Company is obligated under the terms of the Assignment Agreement to make a milestone payment of $1 million and issue an option to purchase 20,000 shares of VIVUS’ common stock to Dr. Najarian upon marketing

 

14



Table of Contents

 

approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration of a product for the treatment of obesity that is based upon the Combination Therapy and Patents. This assignment will require the Company to pay royalties on worldwide net sales of a product for the treatment of obesity that is based upon the Combination Therapy and Patents until the last-to-expire of the assigned Patents. To the extent that the Company decides not to commercially exploit the Patents, the Assignment Agreement will terminate and the Combination Therapy and Patents will be assigned back to Dr. Najarian. In 2006, Dr. Najarian joined the Company as a part-time employee and currently serves as the Company’s Principal Scientist.

 

The Company has entered into several agreements to license patented technologies that are essential to the development and production of the Company’s transurethral product for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. In connection with these agreements, the Company is obligated to pay royalties on product sales of MUSE (3% of United States and Canadian product sales and 2% of sales elsewhere in the world). In the first six months of 2010 and 2009, the Company recorded royalty expenses of $136,000 and $182,000, respectively, as cost of goods sold and manufacturing expense.

 

International sales are transacted through distributors. The distribution agreements include certain milestone payments from the distributors to the Company including upon achieving established sales thresholds. To date, the Company has collected $3.6 million in milestone payments from its current international distributors.

 

10. INCOME TAXES

 

The Company makes certain estimates and judgments in determining income tax expense for financial statement purposes. These estimates and judgments occur in the calculation of certain tax assets and liabilities, which arise from differences in the timing of recognition of revenue and expense for tax and financial statement purposes.

 

As part of the process of preparing its condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company is required to estimate its income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which it operates. This process involves the Company estimating its current tax exposure under the most recent tax laws and assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are included in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets.

 

The Company assesses the likelihood that it will be able to recover its deferred tax assets. The Company considers all available evidence, both positive and negative, including historical levels of income, expectations and risks associated with estimates of future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance. If it is not more likely than not that the Company will recover its deferred tax assets, the Company will increase its provision for taxes by recording a valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets that the Company estimates will not ultimately be recoverable. As a result of the Company’s analysis of all available evidence, both positive and negative, as of June 30, 2010, it was considered more likely than not that the Company’s deferred tax assets would not be realized.

 

As of June 30, 2010, the Company believes that the amount of the deferred tax assets recorded on its condensed consolidated balance sheet would not ultimately be recovered. However, should there be a change in the Company’s ability to recover its deferred tax assets, the Company would recognize a benefit to its tax provision in the period in which the Company determines that it is more likely than not that it can recover its deferred tax assets.

 

At January 1, 2010, the Company did not have any unrecognized tax benefits, nor does it expect any material change in its unrecognized tax benefits over the next twelve months.

 

The Company recognizes interest and penalties accrued on any unrecognized tax benefits as a component of its provision for income taxes. As of January 1, 2010, the Company had no accrual for payment of interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits, nor were any amounts for interest or penalties recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

 

Although the Company files U.S. federal, various state, and foreign tax returns, the Company’s only major tax jurisdictions are the United States, California and New Jersey. Tax years 1991 to 2009 remain subject to examination by the appropriate governmental agencies due to tax loss carryovers from those years.

 

11. NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

 

The Company computes basic net income (loss) per share applicable to common shareholders based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income (loss) per share is based on the weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares, which represent shares that may be issued in the future upon the exercise of outstanding stock options. Common share equivalents are excluded from the computation in periods in which they have an anti-dilutive effect. Stock options for which the price exceeds the average market price over the period have an anti-dilutive effect on net income per share and, accordingly, are excluded from the calculation. When there is a net loss, other potentially dilutive common equivalent shares are not included in the calculation of net loss per share since their inclusion would be anti-dilutive.

 

15



Table of Contents

 

As the Company recognized a net loss for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, all potential common equivalent shares were excluded for these periods as they were anti-dilutive. For the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, 5,168,457 and 4,901,008 options outstanding, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share for the Company because the effect would be anti-dilutive. For the six months ended June 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively, 4,753,501 and 5,684,036 options outstanding, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share for the Company because the effect would be anti-dilutive.

 

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Lease Commitments

 

In November 2006, the Company entered into a 30-month lease for its corporate headquarters located in Mountain View, California. The lease commenced on February 1, 2007. The base monthly rent is set at $1.85 per square foot or $26,000 per month. The lease expired on July 31, 2009. On December 16, 2008, the Company entered into a first amendment to this lease. Under the terms of the amended lease, it will continue to lease the office space for its corporate headquarters for a two-year period commencing on August 1, 2009 and expiring on July 31, 2011. The base monthly rent is set at $1.64 per square foot or $23,000 per month. The amended lease allows the Company one option to extend the term of the lease for one year from the expiration of the lease. On November 12, 2009, the Company entered into a second amendment to this lease. The second amendment commenced on January 1, 2010, expires on July 31, 2011 and expands the leased space. The base rent for the expansion space is set at $2.25 per square foot or $8,500 per month. The option to extend the term of the amended lease for one year from the expiration of the lease applies to this expansion space as well.

 

Future minimum lease payments under operating leases are as follows (in thousands):

 

Remainder of 2010

 

$

339

 

2011

 

339

 

Total

 

$

678

 

 

Manufacturing Agreements

 

In November 2002, the Company entered into a manufacturing agreement to purchase alprostadil from a supplier beginning in 2003 and ending in 2008. In May 2007, the terms of the agreement were amended to require the purchase of a minimum total of $2.3 million of product from 2007 through 2011. The Company’s remaining commitment under this agreement is $765,000. In addition, the Company has entered into various other purchase commitments to support its manufacture of MUSE. The remaining commitments under these agreements totaled $773,000 at June 30, 2010.

 

Other Agreements

 

The Company has entered into various agreements with clinical consultants and clinical research organizations to perform clinical studies on its behalf and at June 30, 2010, its remaining commitment under these agreements totaled $17.4 million. The Company has remaining commitments under various general and administrative services agreements totaling $2.8 million at June 30, 2010, including $1.3 million related to Leland F. Wilson’s Employment Agreement (see paragraph below). The Company has also entered into various agreements with research consultants and other contractors to perform regulatory services, drug research, testing and manufacturing including animal studies and, at June 30, 2010, its remaining commitment under these agreements totaled $9.1 million. The Company has entered into marketing promotion and related agreements for its erectile dysfunction product, MUSE and as of June 30, 2010, its remaining commitment under these marketing agreements totaled $1.1 million. In addition, the Company has entered into agreements related to the pre-commercialization of Qnexa for obesity. The remaining commitments under these agreements totaled $3 million at June 30, 2010.

 

On December 19, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved an employment agreement, or the Employment Agreement, with Leland F. Wilson, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer. The Employment Agreement includes salary, incentive compensation, retirement benefits and length of employment, among other items, as agreed to with Mr. Wilson. The Employment Agreement had an initial term of two years commencing on the effective date, June 1, 2007, or the Effective Date. On the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the Employment Agreement will automatically renew for an additional one-year term unless either party provides the other party with a notice of non-renewal. On January 23, 2009, the Compensation Committee approved an amendment to the Employment Agreement, or the Amendment, which amends the Employment Agreement. Pursuant to the Amendment, the initial term of the Employment Agreement was increased from two to three years commencing on June 1, 2007 and other relevant dates were also extended to reflect the three-year initial term. On June 1, 2010, the Employment Agreement automatically renewed for an additional one-year term.

 

16



Table of Contents

 

Indemnifications

 

In the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications of varying scope to certain customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of its products and to its clinical research organizations and investigator sites against liabilities incurred in connection with any third-party claim arising from the work performed on behalf of the Company, among others. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations.

 

Pursuant to the terms of the Funding and Royalty Agreement with Deerfield, the Company made certain representations, warranties and covenants related to MUSE and avanafil. Covenants include that it will maintain all registrations and regulatory rights to sell and promote MUSE in the United States, it will continue to manufacture and promote MUSE and will continue the development of avanafil. The Company also entered into a covenant that it will not manufacture, promote or sell any product that competes with avanafil in the United States other than MUSE.

 

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company maintains director and officer insurance coverage that reduces its exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is minimal.

 

13. CONCENTRATION OF CUSTOMERS AND SUPPLIERS

 

Sales to significant customers as a percentage of total revenues were as follows:

 

 

 

Six Months Ended
June 30,

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

McKesson Corporation

 

32

%

33

%

Cardinal Health

 

36

%

37

%

Meda AB

 

18

%

14

%

Amerisource Bergen

 

10

%

13

%

 

The Company relies on third party sole-source manufacturers to produce its clinical trial materials, components and raw materials. Third party manufacturers may not be able to meet the Company’s needs with respect to timing, quantity or quality. Several of the Company’s manufacturers are sole-source manufacturers where no alternative suppliers exist. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company incurred $2.3 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for services provided by one clinical research organization on the Qnexa Phase 3 studies, which represented 16% and 15%, respectively, of the Company’s total research and development expenses. Separately, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company incurred another $1.7 million and $4.2 million, respectively, for services provided by another clinical research organization on the avanafil Phase 3 studies, which represented 12% and 17% of the Company’s total research and development expenses. In addition, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company incurred $1.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively, for services provided by a third clinical research organization related to Phase I studies performed on its behalf, which represented 14% and 11%, respectively, of the Company’s total research and development expenses. Finally, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company incurred $2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, for clinical supplies and formulation work performed by the Company’s sole-source manufacturer, which represented 14% and 14%, respectively, of the Company’s total research and development expenses.

 

In the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company expensed $4.7 million and $12 million, respectively, for services provided by one clinical research organization on the Qnexa Phase 3 studies, which represented 23% and 30% of the Company’s total research and development expenses for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. Separately, the Company expensed another $5.4 million and $9.9 million for services provided by another clinical research organization on the avanafil Phase 3 studies, which represented 27% and 24% of the Company’s total research and development expenses for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively.

 

17



Table of Contents

 

14. INTEREST INCOME, NET

 

The components of interest income, net were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

Three Months Ended

 

Six Months Ended

 

 

 

June 30, 2010

 

June 30, 2009

 

June 30, 2010

 

June 30, 2009

 

Interest income

 

$

55

 

$

264

 

$

120

 

$

729

 

Realized gains on marketable securities, net

 

 

554

 

 

297

 

Interest income, net

 

$

55

 

$

818

 

$

120

 

$

1,026

 

 

15. EQUITY TRANSACTIONS

 

On April 3, 2008, the Company entered into several agreements with the Deerfield Affiliates (see Note 7: Deerfield Financing). Under the agreements, Deerfield and its affiliates agreed to provide $30 million in funding to the Company. The $30 million in funding consists of $20 million from a FARA and $10 million from the sale of the Company’s common stock under a securities purchase agreement. At the closing on April 15, 2008, under the securities purchase agreement, the Deerfield Affiliates purchased 1,626,017 shares of the Company’s common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $10 million and the Company paid to the Deerfield Affiliates a $500,000 fee and reimbursed approximately $200,000 in certain expenses incurred in this transaction, registered under the shelf Registration Statement (File Number 333-135793) filed with the SEC on July 14, 2006. The number of shares was determined based on the volume weighted average price on the NASDAQ Global Market of the Company’s common stock on the three days prior to the execution of the securities purchase agreement dated as of April 3, 2008.

 

On May 5, 2008, the Company filed with the SEC a shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File Number 333-150649), which was declared effective by the SEC on May 29, 2008, providing the Company with the ability to offer and sell up to an aggregate of $150 million of common stock from time to time in one or more offerings. The terms of any such future offering would be established at the time of such offering.

 

On May 6, 2008, the Company filed with the SEC a Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 (File No. 333-135793), or the Registration Statement, which was filed with the SEC on July 14, 2006, to amend the Registration Statement to deregister any securities registered pursuant to the Registration Statement and not otherwise sold thereunder.

 

On August 6, 2008, the Company sold $65 million of its common stock in a registered direct offering. Under the terms of the financing, the Company sold 8,365,508 shares of its common stock at a price of $7.77 per share. On August 5, 2008, the Company filed a prospectus supplement with the SEC relating to this registered direct offering under the existing shelf Registration Statement (File Number 333-150649).

 

On March 9, 2009, the Company filed a Form S-8 (File Number 333-157787) with the SEC registering 1,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, under the 2001 Stock Option Plan, as amended.

 

On September 17, 2009, the Company entered into an underwriting agreement, or the Underwriting Agreement, with J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as representative of the several underwriters named therein, or the Underwriters, relating to the public offering and sale of 9,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, the Underwriters agreed to purchase, subject to customary closing conditions, 9,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company also granted the Underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to 1,350,000 additional shares of common stock on the same terms and conditions as set forth above to cover over-allotments, which the Underwriters exercised in full. The 10,350,000 shares were sold at a price to the public of $10.50 per share which resulted in approximately $108.7 million in gross proceeds to the Company before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses. The transaction closed on September 23, 2009. The offering was made pursuant to the Company’s effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-161948), including the prospectus dated September 16, 2009 contained therein, as supplemented.

 

On February 16, 2010, the Company filed a Form S-8 (File Number 333-164921) with the SEC registering 1,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, under the 2001 Stock Option Plan, as amended.

 

On July 14, 2010, the Company filed a Form S-8 (File Number 333-168106) with the SEC registering 16,615,199 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, to be issued pursuant to the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, and registering 400,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, to be issued pursuant to the Stand-Alone Stock Option Agreement with Michael P. Miller.

 

18



Table of Contents

 

16. LEGAL MATTERS

 

In the normal course of business, the Company receives claims and makes inquiries regarding patent infringement and other related legal matters. The Company believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and intends to pursue any such matters vigorously.

 

The Company and Acrux Limited through its wholly owned subsidiary FemPharm Pty Ltd., or Acrux, were parties to the Testosterone Development and Commercialization Agreement dated February 12, 2004, or the Testosterone Agreement. The Testosterone Agreement covers the Company’s investigational product candidate, Luramist, which is licensed from Acrux under the Testosterone Agreement. On November 5, 2007, Acrux made a demand for arbitration under the Testosterone Agreement regarding certain claims related to Luramist. Acrux’s demand sought a reversion of all rights assigned to the Company related to Luramist, monetary damages and the payment of a milestone payment for Luramist under the Testosterone Agreement and declaratory relief. The Company asserted counterclaims against Acrux in the arbitration and sought the enforcement of the Company’s rights under the Testosterone Agreement. The arbitration hearing concluded on January 23, 2009, and on April 6, 2009 the panel of arbitrators, or the Panel, issued its Interim Arbitration Award finding in favor of the Company that it was in compliance with the Testosterone Agreement and denying all of the relief sought by Acrux in its demand. The Panel found that the Company was not in breach of the Luramist license agreement and that the Company has used diligent, commercially reasonable efforts to develop Luramist. The Panel further ruled in favor of the Company on its counter claim that Acrux had breached the Luramist license agreement by failing to provide certain know-how and certain improvements in the formulation and delivery device for Luramist. The Panel denied the Acrux claim for additional milestone payments. The Panel ordered Acrux to turn over certain information to the Company that was previously withheld in violation of the agreement by Acrux. After the parties failed to agree on a new Outside Date by which the Company was to commence its first Phase 3 trial for Luramist, the Panel reset the Outside Date of April 30, 2006 to April 1, 2010 to reflect the regulatory environment.  On March 30, 2010, the Company provided written notice to Acrux of its intent to terminate the Testosterone Agreement. On April 6, 2010, in connection with Acrux’s request for further briefing on the issue of damages in light of the Company’s termination of the Testosterone Agreement, the Panel ordered the parties to enter into settlement discussions and to report back to the Panel no later than May 17, 2010 on whether a settlement had been reached. On May 6, 2010, the parties agreed to the terms of a settlement agreement and mutual release, or the Settlement Agreement, resolving any and all claims or potential claims in the arbitration and that may have or could have arisen from any case whatsoever, other than certain rights and obligations that survive the termination of the Testosterone Agreement or are required by the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company will transfer Luramist related assets to Acrux, including, clinical trial material, batch release documents, inventory of applicators, FDA correspondence, intellectual property and know-how and trademarks. In addition, the Company will cease its clinical study program for Luramist as part of the settlement. The parties will not exchange cash payments as a result of the settlement and termination of the Testosterone Agreement. The Panel will retain jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

 

In the ordinary course of business the Company may become involved in lawsuits and subject to various claims from current and former employees including wrongful termination, sexual discrimination and other employment-related matters. The Company is currently a party to a lawsuit involving a former employee. The Company has also been named as a potential defendant in a complaint filed by a former employee. The Company has investigated each of the claims and believes the allegations have no merit and that the Company has meritorious defenses to such charges. Due to the current economic downturn, former employees may be more likely to file employment-related claims. Employment-related claims also may be more likely following a poor performance review. Although there may be no merit to such claims or legal matters, the Company may be required to allocate additional monetary and personnel resources to defend against employment-related claims. The Company believes the disposition of the current lawsuit and claims is not likely to have a material effect on its financial condition or liquidity.

 

The Company is not aware of any other asserted or unasserted claims against it where an unfavorable resolution would have an adverse material impact on the operations or financial position of the Company.

 

17. STOCK OPTION PLANS

 

On March 29, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors terminated the Company’s 2001 Stock Option Plan, or the 2001 Plan. In addition, the Board of Directors adopted and approved a new 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2010 Plan, with 32,000 shares remaining reserved and unissued under the 2001 Plan. In addition, the Board of Directors adopted and approved a new 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2010 Plan, subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders. The 2001 Plan, however, will continue to govern awards previously granted under it. On June 25, 2010, the Company’s stockholders approved the 2010 Plan at the Company’s 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The 2010 Plan provides for the grant of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares and performance units to employees, directors and consultants, to be granted from time to time as determined by the Board of Directors, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, or its designees. The 2010 Plan’s share reserve which the stockholders approved is 8,400,000 shares, plus any shares reserved but not issued pursuant to

 

19



Table of Contents

 

awards under the 2001 Plan as of the date of stockholder approval, plus any shares subject to outstanding awards under the 2001 Plan that expire or otherwise terminate without having been exercised in full, or are forfeited to or repurchased by the Company, up to a maximum of 8,111,273 shares (which is the number of shares subject to outstanding options under the 2001 Plan as of March 11, 2010). Awards exercisable for 274,750 shares have been granted pursuant to the 2010 Plan.

 

On April 30, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors granted an option to purchase 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, or the Inducement Grant, to Michael P. Miller, the Company’s new Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. The Inducement Grant was granted outside of the Company’s 2010 Plan and without stockholder approval pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c)(4) and is subject to the terms and conditions of the Stand-Alone Stock Option Agreement between the Company and Michael P. Miller.

 

As of June 30, 2010, there were 8,794,089 shares subject to all options outstanding under all stock plans and 8,225,225 shares reserved for issuance under the 2010 Plan. Additionally, the average weighted exercise price of all outstanding options under all stock plans was $5.65 per share and the average weighted remaining term was 6.93 years.

 

18. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

 

On July 15, 2010, the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA, or the Advisory Committee, voted against the following question: “Based on the current available data, do you believe the overall benefit-risk assessment of PHEN/TPM (QNEXA) is favorable to support its approval for the treatment of obesity in individuals with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 or > 27 kg/m2 with weight-related co-morbidities?” The three co-morbidities included hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.

 

The vote from the Advisory Committee is a recommendation. The FDA will take the Committee’s recommendation into consideration during its review of the NDA and will make a determination. The FDA may or may not follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. The Company intends to work closely with the FDA leading up to the October 28, 2010 PDUFA date to address the labeling and safety questions raised during the Advisory Committee proceedings. The impact of the negative vote could delay or prevent regulatory approval or limit the commercial potential of Qnexa.

 

The Company has paid product and establishment fees for its marketed product, MUSE, for the fiscal year 2008 of $653,000 and for the fiscal year 2009 of $712,000. In July 2010, the Company was informed by the FDA that it would be receiving a refund of $180,000 for the fiscal year 2008 and $597,000 for the fiscal year 2009.

 

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations and other parts of this Form 10-Q contain “forward looking” statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements typically may be identified by the use of forward looking words or phrases such as “may,” “will,” “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “should,” “planned,” “continue,” “likely,” “opportunity,” “estimated,” and “potential,” the negative use of these words or other similar words. All forward looking statements included in this document are based on our current expectations, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward looking statements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for such forward looking statements. In order to comply with the terms of the safe harbor, we note that a variety of factors could cause actual results and experiences to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in such forward looking statements. The risks and uncertainties that may affect the operations, performance, development, and results of our business include but are not limited to: (1) our history of losses and variable quarterly results; (2) substantial competition; (3) risks related to the failure to protect our intellectual property and litigation in which we may become involved; (4) our reliance on sole source suppliers; (5) our limited sales and marketing efforts and our reliance on third parties; (6) failure to continue to develop innovative investigational drug candidates and drugs; (7) risks related to noncompliance with United States Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, regulations; (8) our ability to demonstrate through clinical testing the safety and effectiveness of our clinical investigational drug candidates; (9) the timing of initiation and completion of clinical trials and submissions to the FDA; (10) uncertainties around the acceptance and ultimate approval of our New Drug Application, or NDA, for Qnexa® and any actions taken on behalf of regulatory authorities during the review process; (11) the volatility and liquidity of the financial markets; (12) our liquidity and capital resources; (13) our expected future revenues, operations and expenditures; (14) the negative vote of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA, or the Advisory Committee, on Qnexa and the effect, if any, on the timing and approvability of the NDA for Qnexa; and (15) other factors that are described from time to time in our periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including those set forth in this filing as “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

 

20



Table of Contents

 

All percentage amounts and ratios were calculated using the underlying data in thousands. Operating results for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2010, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full fiscal year or any future period.

 

BUSINESS OVERVIEW

 

VIVUS, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, incorporated in 1991, dedicated to the development and commercialization of therapeutic products for large underserved markets. Currently, we have one drug that has been approved by the FDA, one investigational drug candidate for which we have submitted an NDA, one investigational drug candidate which is in Phase 3 studies, and several investigational drug candidates in various stages of clinical development, that are focused on market opportunities in obesity and related morbidities, including sleep apnea and diabetes, erectile dysfunction and other unmet medical needs. With respect to obesity, it is estimated that the potential worldwide pharmaceutical market for obesity could approach $5 billion annually. Annual worldwide sales of approved drugs for diabetes currently exceed $10 billion. There are currently no approved pharmaceutical therapies for sleep apnea; however, the sales of devices and related consumables used to treat sleep apnea exceed $2 billion annually. Sales of currently approved oral erectile dysfunction therapies exceed $3 billion annually. We market MUSE®, a legacy product, as a prescription treatment for erectile dysfunction in the United States and, together with our partners, internationally.

 

Recent Developments

 

On July 15, 2010 the Advisory Committee voted against the following question: “Based on the current available data, do you believe the overall benefit-risk assessment of PHEN/TPM (QNEXA) is favorable to support its approval for the treatment of obesity in individuals with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 or > 27 kg/m2 with weight-related co-morbidities?” The three co-morbidities included hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.

 

The vote from the Advisory Committee is a recommendation. The FDA will take the Advisory Committee’s recommendation into consideration during its review of the NDA and will make a determination. The FDA may or may not follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. We intend to work closely with the FDA leading up to our October 28, 2010 PDUFA date to address the labeling and safety questions raised during the Advisory Committee proceedings. The impact of the negative vote could delay or prevent regulatory approval or limit the commercial potential of Qnexa. We expect to release the results of the one-year extension study, SEQUEL (OB-305) in the third quarter of 2010. This study enrolled over 650 patients, in a blinded fashion, from the CONQUER, OB-303 study. The SEQUEL study is designed to include each of the primary and secondary endpoints as measured in CONQUER including weight loss and changes in co-morbidities over a two-year period.

 

On June 7, 2010, we announced positive results from the Phase 3 REVIVE-Diabetes (TA-302) study, evaluating the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) in men with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The REVIVE-Diabetes study met all three primary endpoints across the two doses studied by demonstrating statistically significant improvement in erectile function as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) and improvements in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score. The study also demonstrated a favorable side effect profile and successful intercourse (as measured by SEP 3) in as little as 15 minutes and beyond six hours after dosing, without any restrictions for food or alcohol intake.

 

Our Future

 

Our goal is to build a successful biopharmaceutical company through the development and commercialization of innovative proprietary products. We intend to achieve this by:

 

·                            establishing internal capabilities or strategic relationships with marketing partners to maximize sales potential for our products that require significant commercial support;

 

·                            capitalizing on our clinical and regulatory expertise and experience to advance the development of investigational drug candidates in our pipeline; and

 

·                            licensing complementary clinical stage investigational drug candidates or technologies with competitive advantages from third parties for new and established markets.

 

It is our objective to become a leader in the development and commercialization of products for large underserved markets. We believe we have strong intellectual property supporting several opportunities in obesity and related disorders, such as sleep apnea and diabetes, and men’s sexual health. Our future growth depends on our ability to further develop and obtain regulatory approval of our investigational drug candidates for indications that we are studying, or plan to study, as well as in-licensing and product line extensions.

 

21



Table of Contents

 

We have funded operations primarily through private and public offerings of our common stock, through the sale of the rights to Evamist and through product sales of MUSE (alprostadil). We expect to generate future net losses due to increases in operating expenses as our various investigational drug candidates are advanced through the various stages of clinical development and for pre-commercialization activities. In connection with the sale of Evamist, we received to date an aggregate of $150 million. The sale of Evamist was a unique transaction. An initial $10 million was paid at closing and $140 million was paid upon the FDA’s approval of the Evamist NDA. These payments were non-refundable and were originally recorded as deferred revenue and were recognized as license and other revenue ratably over a 21.5-month period, from August 1, 2007 to May 15, 2009. All of the revenue deferred from the Evamist sale has been recognized. As of June 30, 2010, we have incurred a cumulative deficit of $275.6 million and expect to incur operating losses in future years.

 

Our Investigational Drug Candidates

 

Our investigational product pipeline includes two late-stage clinical drug candidates. One of these investigational products, Qnexa, has recently completed Phase 3 clinical trials for obesity and Phase 2 clinical trials for diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea. We submitted an NDA to the FDA for Qnexa in December 2009. A one-year extension study of patients from the CONQUER (OB-303) trial has also been conducted. The trial is complete and the results are expected before the end of the third quarter of 2010. Avanafil is currently in Phase 3 trials for erectile dysfunction and we announced data from one of these trials, REVIVE (TA-301), in November 2009.

 

Product

 

Indication

 

Status

 

Commercial rights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qnexa (phentermine and topiramate CR)

 

Obesity

 

Phase 3 studies completed;
NDA submitted

 

Worldwide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qnexa (phentermine and topiramate CR)

 

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

 

Phase 2 study completed

 

Worldwide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qnexa (phentermine and topiramate CR)

 

Diabetes

 

Phase 2 study completed

 

Worldwide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avanafil (PDE5 inhibitor)

 

Erectile dysfunction

 

Phase 3 ongoing; Two
Phase 3 studies completed

 

Worldwide license from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (ex. certain Asian markets)

 

Qnexa for Obesity

 

Obesity is a chronic disease condition that affects millions of people and often requires long-term or invasive treatment to promote and sustain weight loss. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES, conducted for 2007-2008, 68% of adults in the United States (72.3% of men and 64.1% of women) were classified as overweight, defined as a body mass index, or BMI >25, and 33.8% were obese (BMI >30). Data from NHANES also found that almost 17% of school children were obese and almost 32% were overweight for the 2007-2008 time period. The percentage of American men and women classified as overweight and obese has more than doubled since 1962. Researchers fear that the percentage of American adults that are obese could climb as high as 43% in the next ten years. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. According to a study performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, as reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, an estimated 112,000 excess deaths a year in the United States are attributable to obesity. Additionally, Americans spend more than $30 billion annually on weight-loss products and services.

 

Qnexa is our proprietary oral investigational drug candidate for the treatment of obesity, incorporating low doses of active ingredients from two previously approved drugs, phentermine and topiramate. We believe that by combining these compounds, Qnexa targets excessive appetite and high threshold for satiety, or the feeling of being full, the two main mechanisms that impact eating behavior. Qnexa is a once-a-day capsule containing a proprietary formulation of controlled release phentermine and topiramate. Our first U.S patent on Qnexa (US 7,056,890 B2) and our EU patent on Qnexa (EU EP 1187603) both expire in 2020.

 

EQUATE (OB-301) Phase 3 study

 

The obesity development program included a six-month Phase 3 pivotal factorial-design study, known as EQUATE. The EQUATE study included 756 obese patients (599 females and 157 males) across 32 centers in the United States. The average baseline BMI of the study population was 36 kg/m2, baseline weight was 223 pounds and average height was 5 feet 6 inches. Patients in the EQUATE study had a 4-week dose titration period followed by 24 weeks of treatment. The study was a randomized, double-blind,

 

22



Table of Contents

 

placebo-controlled, 7-arm, prospective trial with patients randomized to receive once-a-day treatment with full-dose Qnexa (15 mg phentermine/92 mg topiramate CR), mid-dose Qnexa (7.5 mg phentermine/46 mg topiramate CR), the respective phentermine and topiramate constituents, or placebo. Patients were asked to follow a hypocaloric diet representing a 500-calorie/day deficit and were advised to implement a simple lifestyle modification program.

 

The EQUATE study met the co-primary endpoints by demonstrating weight loss with both the full-dose and mid-dose of Qnexa were significantly greater than the individual drug components and placebo. Patients treated with full-dose and mid-dose Qnexa had an average weight loss of 9.2% and 8.5% respectively, as compared to weight loss of 1.7% reported in the placebo group (ITT-LOCF p<.00001). Average weight loss was 19.8 pounds and 18.2 pounds in the treatment arms as compared to 3.3 pounds in the placebo group. Qnexa was well-tolerated, with no reported drug-related serious adverse events in the study. The proportion of patients losing 5% or more of their initial body weight was 66% for full-dose, 62% for mid-dose and 15% for placebo (ITT-LOCF p<0.0001).

 

The most common drug-related adverse events reported for the full-dose, mid-dose and placebo group were paresthesia, or tingling of the extremities, dry mouth, altered taste, headache and constipation. Reported drug-related adverse events for depression and altered mood were minimal (1.9%, 0.9% and 1.8%, respectively). Patients on antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRI’s, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or SNRI’s, were allowed to participate in the studies. Patients were monitored for depression and suicidality using the PHQ-9 questionnaire, a validated mental health assessment tool agreed to by the FDA for use in our studies. Individual depression assessments for each subject, as measured by PHQ-9, demonstrated statistically significant improvements (p<0.05) from baseline for both Qnexa treatment groups. Overall average completion rate in this study for the Qnexa treatment group was 70%.

 

The EQUATE study was designed as a weight loss trial; however, additional analysis of the results showed a control of blood sugar in these non-diabetic patients treated with Qnexa as compared to the placebo group. Patients treated with Qnexa had improvement in glycemic control as measured by a reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) compared to placebo. The overall placebo-subtracted reduction in HbA1c was 0.11% and 0.10% for Qnexa full and mid-dose, respectively, over the 28-week treatment period (p < 0.0001). Baseline HbA1c levels were 5.48% and 5.42% for the full-dose and mid-dose groups.

 

EQUIP (OB-302) AND CONQUER (0B-303) Phase 3 studies

 

The Qnexa development program also included two large Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-arm, prospective studies across 93 centers comparing Qnexa to placebo over a 56-week treatment period. All Phase 3 studies utilized our once-a-day formulation of Qnexa, which at full-dose contains 15 mg phentermine and 92 mg of a proprietary controlled release formulation of topiramate. The Phase 3 studies were designed to prospectively demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Qnexa in obese and overweight patients with different baseline characteristics. The co-primary endpoints for these studies evaluated the differences between treatments in mean percent weight loss from baseline to the end of the treatment period and the differences between treatments in the percentage of patients achieving weight loss of 5% or more. Patients were asked to follow a hypocaloric diet representing a 500-calorie/day deficit and were advised to implement a simple lifestyle modification program.

 

The first year-long Phase 3 study, known as EQUIP, enrolled 1,267 morbidly obese patients (1,050 females and 217 males) with a BMI that equaled or exceeded 35 kg/m2 with or without controlled co-morbidities. The average baseline BMI of the study population was 42.1 kg/m2 and baseline weight was 256 pounds. Patients had a 4-week dose titration period followed by 52 weeks of treatment with patients randomized to receive once-a-day treatment with low-dose Qnexa, full-dose Qnexa or placebo. Weight loss results from the study are summarized as follows:

 

 

 

ITT-LOCF

 

Completers

 

EQUIP (OB-302) 56 weeks

 

Placebo
(n=498)

 

Qnexa
low-dose
(n=234)

 

Qnexa
full-dose
(n=498)

 

Placebo
(n=241)

 

Qnexa
low-dose
(n=138)

 

Qnexa
full-dose
(n=301)

 

Mean weight loss (%)

 

1.6

%

5.1

%*

11.0

%

2.5

%

7.0

%*

14.7

%*

Greater than or equal to 5% weight loss rate

 

17

%

45

%*

67

%*

26

%

59

%*

84

%*

 


ITT-LOCF: Intent-to-treat with last observation carried forward

 

*                                         p<0.0001 vs. placebo

 

The EQUIP study met the co-primary endpoints by demonstrating that patients treated with full-dose and low-dose Qnexa had an average weight loss of 11.0% and 5.1% respectively, as compared to weight loss of 1.6% in the placebo group (ITT-LOCF p<0.0001). Average weight loss was 37 pounds and 18 pounds with full-dose Qnexa and low-dose Qnexa, respectively, as compared to 6 pounds in the placebo group. The proportion of patients losing 5% or more of their initial body weight was 67% for full-dose, 45% for low-dose and 17% for placebo (ITT-LOCF p<0.0001).

 

23



Table of Contents

 

The most common drug-related adverse events reported in the EQUIP study for the full-dose, low-dose and placebo group were tingling of the extremities, dry mouth, altered taste, headache and constipation. A significantly greater proportion of patients completed the study on Qnexa as compared to placebo patients. Overall average completion rates were 59%, 57% and 47% for patients taking full-dose Qnexa, low-dose Qnexa and placebo, respectively.

 

The second year-long Phase 3 trial, known as CONQUER, enrolled 2,487 overweight and obese adult patients (1,737 females and 750 males) with BMI’s from 27 kg/m2 to 45 kg/m2 and at least two co-morbid conditions, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes. The average baseline BMI of the study population was 36.6 kg/m2 and baseline weight was 227 pounds. Patients had a 4-week dose titration period followed by 52 weeks of treatment with patients randomized to receive once-a-day treatment with full-dose Qnexa, mid-dose Qnexa or placebo. Weight loss results from the study are summarized as follows:

 

 

 

ITT-LOCF

 

Completers

 

CONQUER (OB 303) 56 weeks

 

Placebo
(n=979)

 

Qnexa
mid-dose
(n=488)

 

Qnexa
full-dose
(n=981)

 

Placebo
(n=564)

 

Qnexa
mid-dose
(n=344)

 

Qnexa
full-dose
(n=634)

 

Mean weight loss (%)

 

1.8

%

8.4

%*

10.4

%*

2.4

%*

10.5

%*

13.2

%*

Greater than or equal to 5% weight loss rate

 

21

%

62

%*

70

%*

26

%

75

%*

85

%*

 


*                                         p<0.0001 vs. placebo

 

The CONQUER study also met the co-primary endpoints by demonstrating that patients treated with full-dose and mid-dose Qnexa had an average weight loss of 10.4% and 8.4%, respectively, as compared to weight loss of 1.8% in the placebo group (ITT-LOCF p<0.0001). Average weight loss was 30 pounds and 24 pounds with full-dose Qnexa and mid-dose Qnexa, respectively, as compared to 6 pounds in the placebo group. The proportion of patients losing 5% or more of their initial body weight was 70% for full-dose, 62% for mid-dose and 21% for placebo (ITT-LOCF p<0.0001).

 

The most common drug-related adverse events reported in the CONQUER study for the full-dose, mid-dose, and placebo group were tingling of the extremities, dry mouth, altered taste, headache and constipation. A significantly greater proportion of patients completed the study on Qnexa as compared to placebo patients. Overall average completion rates were 64%, 69%, and 57% for patients taking full-dose Qnexa, mid-dose Qnexa and placebo, respectively.

 

In the EQUIP and CONQUER studies, there was no difference between Qnexa and placebo for reported incidence of moderate or severe depression/depressed mood (1.9%, 1.2%, 1.7% and 1.7% for Qnexa full-, mid- and low-dose and placebo, respectively). Patients were monitored for depression and suicidality using the PHQ-9 questionnaire, a validated mental health assessment tool, and the C-SSRS, or Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, agreed to by the FDA for use in our studies. Overall, depression scores, quality of life, including self-esteem and general health, significantly improved for patients on Qnexa. In addition, Qnexa was well-tolerated and there was no difference between Qnexa (0.4%) and placebo (0.4%) for serious adverse events that were considered to be drug-related by investigators in these studies.

 

SEQUEL (0B-305) one-year extension study

 

We have also conducted a one-year extension study of a subset of patients who have completed the 56-week CONQUER study.  The SEQUEL study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-arm, prospective study across 36 centers comparing Qnexa to placebo over an additional 52-week treatment period. Patients in SEQUEL continued in a blinded fashion to receive the same treatment they were receiving when they completed the CONQUER study. The co-primary endpoints for this study are the differences between treatments in mean weight loss and percent weight loss from start of the OB-303 study (baseline) to the end of the treatment period (two-years). Secondary endpoints include the differences between treatments in the percentage of patients achieving weight loss of 5% and 10% and the change in waist circumference. Patients were asked to continue a hypocaloric diet representing a 500-calorie/day deficit and were advised to implement a simple lifestyle modification program.

 

SEQUEL enrolled approximately 650 obese or overweight patients with a BMI that equaled or exceeded 22 kg/m2 with controlled co-morbidities. There was no titration necessary for patients rolling over to OB-305 as they continued to receive treatment. Patients were followed for 52 weeks of treatment with patients continuing in their respective CONQUER treatment of once-a-day mid-dose Qnexa, full-dose Qnexa or placebo. This extension study was not required by the FDA nor did it need to be completed in support of the NDA for Qnexa for the treatment of obesity. The purpose of this study is to provide long-term safety and efficacy data to support the Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, filing in Europe. The results of the SEQUEL study are expected before the end of the third quarter of 2010 and we are on track to file for approval of Qnexa in the EU by the end of 2010.

 

24



Table of Contents

 

We completed a “Thorough QT”, or TQT, prolongation study evaluating patients taking Qnexa. The QT interval represents the time for both ventricular depolarization and repolarization to occur in the heart, and therefore roughly estimates the duration of an average ventricular action potential. If abnormally prolonged or shortened, there is a risk of developing ventricular arrhythmias. The study was completed with no drug-related signal for QT prolongation. Patients taking Qnexa also underwent complex and extensive cognitive and psychomotor testing using validated, FDA recognized testing methodologies. There was no clinically relevant change in overall cognitive function or effect on psychomotor skills seen in patients taking Qnexa.

 

The primary efficacy endpoint for Phase 3 weight loss trials, as recommended by the FDA, is at least a 5% mean reduction in baseline body weight compared to placebo or at least 35% of patients losing 5% or more of their baseline body weight. In Europe, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has recommended that demonstration of significant weight loss of at least 10% of baseline weight is considered to be a valid primary endpoint for anti-obesity drugs. The FDA and foreign authorities require pivotal obesity studies to be conducted for at least one year. Although the results for both of our Phase 2 studies and all of our Phase 3 obesity trials met these current guidelines for efficacy, there can be no assurance that these results will be acceptable to the FDA.

 

In 2007, we reported results from a Phase 2 double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled clinical trial in which patients on Qnexa lost on average 25.1 pounds as compared to patients in the placebo group who lost 4.8 pounds. This trial involved 200 patients, 159 women and 41 men, with an average age of 40 and a mean BMI of 38.6 kg/m2. Patients completing the 24-week treatment period lost on average approximately 11% of baseline body weight, as compared to an average 2.8% in the placebo group. The study completion rate for patients on Qnexa over the 24-week treatment period was 92%, as compared to 62% for patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events included tingling, altered taste, increased urinary frequency and headache. There were no dropouts in the Qnexa arm due to serious or severe adverse events.

 

The Phase 2 study also demonstrated improvements in patients’ quality of life, such as self-esteem, public distress and physical function, when treated with Qnexa.

 

We have entered into a Master Services Agreement and related Task Orders with Medpace, Inc., or Medpace, pursuant to which Medpace will perform certain clinical research services in connection with the clinical trials for Qnexa. Our aggregate payment obligations under the agreement for services entered into during 2007 through 2010, out of pocket expenses and pass through costs totals approximately $80.1 million of which we have paid approximately $71.8 million through June 30, 2010. We have agreed to defend and indemnify Medpace against third party claims arising from the services other than claims resulting from Medpace’s negligence, willful misconduct, violation of law or material breach of the Master Service Agreement or a Task Order. We can terminate the agreement at any time without cause. Medpace may terminate the agreement following our material breach of the agreement that remains uncured.

 

On July 15, 2010 the Advisory Committee of the FDA voted against the following question: “Based on the current available data, do you believe the overall benefit-risk assessment of PHEN/TPM (QNEXA) is favorable to support its approval for the treatment of obesity in individuals with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 or > 27 kg/m2 with weight-related co-morbidities?” The three co-morbidities included hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.

 

The vote from the Advisory Committee is a recommendation. The FDA will take the Advisory Committee’s recommendation into consideration during its review of the NDA and will make a determination. The FDA may or may not follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. We intend to work closely with the FDA leading up to our October 28, 2010 PDUFA date to address the labeling and safety questions raised during the Advisory Committee proceedings. The impact of the negative vote could delay or prevent regulatory approval or limit the commercial potential of Qnexa.

 

Qnexa for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

 

Obstructive sleep apnea, or OSA, is a condition in which patients momentarily pause or stop breathing altogether while sleeping. The pauses in breathing can occur frequently throughout the course of sleep. Sleep apnea is often undiagnosed and can lead to severe health problems and even death if left untreated. It is estimated that about 18 million people in the United States have obstructive sleep apnea. Currently, there are no approved pharmacologic treatments for OSA. Modafinil is approved for the treatment of residual daytime sleepiness associated with OSA, but does not specifically treat the sleep apnea condition.

 

In January 2010, we announced positive results from a Phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of Qnexa for the treatment of OSA. This Phase 2 study (OB-204) was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trial including 45 obese men and women (BMI 30 to 40 kg/m2 inclusive), 30 to 65 years of age with OSA (apnea/hypopnea index, or AHI, greater than or equal to 15 at baseline), who had not been treated with, or who were not compliant with continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, within three months of screening. Patients were randomized to placebo or full-dose Qnexa. CPAP is the current standard of

 

25



Table of Contents

 

care treatment for the majority of patients with moderate or severe OSA, defined as an apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, of 15 or more events per hour. Although CPAP is effective in treating OSA when properly and consistently used, compliance (as defined by use for at least 4 hours per night, on at least 70% of nights) may be as low as 50-60%.

 

In the OB-204 study, patients underwent a four-week dose titration followed by 24 weeks of additional treatment. All patients were also provided with a lifestyle modification program focusing on diet and exercise. Overnight polysomnography in a sleep laboratory was performed at baseline, Week 8 and Week 28. The primary endpoint was the change in AHI between baseline and Week 28; secondary endpoints included weight loss, improvement in overnight oxygen saturation and reduction in blood pressure.

 

The study demonstrated statistically significant improvement in AHI in patients with OSA treated with Qnexa for 28 weeks. Qnexa-treated patients also experienced significant weight loss, improvements in blood pressure, and overnight blood oxygen saturation.

 

Highlights of the study include:

 

·                            Patients treated with Qnexa for 28 weeks had a 69% reduction in the AHI;

 

·                            Qnexa treatment reduced the number of apnea/hypopnea events from a mean of 46 events per hour of sleep to 14—compared to placebo patients with a reduction from a mean 44 events per hour of sleep to 27 (ITT-LOCF p<0.001 active vs. placebo);

 

·                            Qnexa treated patients lost 10.2% body weight, or 23.8 lbs in 28 weeks—compared to 4.3% for placebo patients, or 10.4 lbs, (ITT-LOCF p<0.001 active vs. placebo);

 

·                            Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 15 mm Hg in the Qnexa group from a mean of 138 mm Hg at baseline (ITT-LOCF p<0.04 active vs. placebo); and

 

·                            Mean overnight blood oxygen saturation was significantly improved in Qnexa patients (p<0.014 active vs. placebo).

 

Sleep apnea is one of the leading co-morbidities associated with obesity and research has shown that weight loss can improve OSA. Qnexa treatment was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events reported in the Qnexa arm; the most common side-effects were dry mouth, altered taste and sinus infection.

 

Qnexa for Diabetes

 

Diabetes is a significant worldwide disease. Based on the fourth edition of the Diabetes Atlas published in 2009, the International Diabetes Federation estimated that in 2008 there were 285 million people with diabetes worldwide, with 27 million of those people living in the United States. Diabetes, mostly type 2 diabetes, is projected to reach 6.6% of the world’s adult population in 2010, with almost 70% of the total in developing countries. The CDC estimates, based on 2007 data, that nearly 24 million people in the United States have diabetes, mostly type 2 diabetes, and that 57 million people have pre-diabetes, a condition that puts people at increased risk of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is characterized by inadequate response to insulin and/or inadequate secretion of insulin as blood glucose levels rise. Currently approved therapies for type 2 diabetes are directed toward correcting the body’s inadequate response with oral or injectable medications, or directly modifying insulin levels through injection of insulin or insulin analogs.

 

The currently approved oral medications for type 2 diabetes include insulin releasers such as glyburide, insulin sensitizers such as Actos and Avandia, inhibitors of glucose production by the liver such as metformin, DPP-IV inhibitors like Januvia, as well as Precose and Glyset, which slow the uptake of glucose from the intestine. The worldwide market for diabetes medications was estimated at $24 billion in 2007, according to IMS Health. However, it is estimated that a significant portion of type 2 diabetics fail oral medications and require injected insulin therapy. Current oral medications for type 2 diabetes have a number of common drug-related side effects, including hypoglycemia, weight gain and edema. Numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are seeking to develop insulin sensitizers, novel insulin formulations and other therapeutics to improve the treatment of diabetes. Previous clinical studies of topiramate, a component of Qnexa, in type 2 diabetics resulted in a clinically meaningful reduction of hemoglobin A1c, a measure used to determine treatment efficacy of anti-diabetic agents.

 

In December 2008, we announced the results of our DM-230 diabetes study, a 56-week, Phase 2 clinical trial in 130 type 2 diabetics conducted at 10 sites in the United States. Patients treated with Qnexa had a reduction in hemoglobin A1c of 1.6%, from 8.8% to 7.2%, as compared to 1.1% from 8.5% to 7.4% in the placebo group (ITT LOCF p=0.0381) at 56 weeks. Patients in the study were actively managed according to American Diabetes Association, or ADA, standards of care with respect to diabetes medications

 

26



Table of Contents

 

and lifestyle modification. For patients treated with placebo, increases in the number and doses of concurrent anti-diabetic medications were required to bring about the observed reduction in HbA1c. By contrast, concurrent anti-diabetic medications were reduced over the course of the trial in patients treated with Qnexa (p<0.05).

 

Fasting plasma glucose levels were reduced in patients treated with Qnexa from 176 mg/dL to 133 mg/dL, as compared to a decrease from 171 mg/dL to 145 mg/dL for the placebo group (p=0.02). Over 56 weeks, patients treated with Qnexa also lost 9.4% of their baseline body weight, or 20.5 pounds, as compared to 2.7%, or 6.1 pounds, for the placebo group (p<0.0001). Sixty-five percent of the Qnexa patients lost at least 5% of their body weight as compared to 24% in the placebo group (p<0.001), and 37% of the Qnexa patients lost at least 10% of their body weight as compared to 9% of patients in the placebo group (p<0.001). Patients treated with Qnexa had reductions in blood pressure, triglycerides and waist circumference. Both treatment groups had a study completion rate greater than 90%.

 

The most common drug-related side effects reported were tingling, constipation and nausea. Patients on antidepressants such as SSRI’s or SNRI’s were allowed to participate in the studies. Patients were monitored for depression and suicidality using the PHQ-9 questionnaire, a validated mental health assessment tool agreed to by the FDA for use in our studies. Patients treated with Qnexa demonstrated greater improvements in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to the end of the study than the placebo group.

 

Despite a mean baseline HbA1c level of 8.8%, 53% of the patients treated with Qnexa were able to achieve the ADA recommended goal of 7% or lower, versus 40% of the patients in the placebo arm (p<0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the treatment and placebo arms were similar (12% and 9%, respectively). Patients in the Qnexa arm experienced no treatment-related serious adverse events.

 

The DM-230 Phase 2 study enrolled 130 patients, who completed OB-202, our Phase 2 study for the treatment of obesity, at 10 study sites to continue in a blinded fashion as previously randomized for an additional 28 weeks. The results of the DM-230 study included assessments from the start of the OB-202 study through the end of the DM-230 study in this population, for a total treatment period of 56 weeks.

 

Qnexa for Other Indications

 

We believe Qnexa may be helpful in treating other obesity-related diseases including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or its precursor, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, also known as fatty liver disease. Qnexa may also be helpful in treating hyperlipidemia or an elevation of lipids (fats) in the bloodstream. These lipids include cholesterol, cholesterol esters (compounds), phospholipids and triglycerides.

 

Avanafil for Erectile Dysfunction

 

Erectile dysfunction, or ED, is defined as the inability to attain or maintain an erection sufficient for intercourse. ED was reported by 52% of men between the ages of 40 to 70, in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, with the incidence increasing with age. Erectile dysfunction, frequently associated with vascular problems, is particularly common in men with diabetes and in those who have had a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. PDE5 inhibitors such as sildenafil (Viagra®), vardenafil (Levitra®) and tadalafil (Cialis®), which inhibit the breakdown of cyclic guanosine monophosphate, have been shown to be effective oral treatments for ED.

 

The worldwide sales in 2009 of PDE5 inhibitor products for the treatment of ED were in excess of $3.8 billion, including approximately $1.9 billion in sales of Viagra, approximately $1.6 billion in sales of Cialis and approximately $350 million in estimated sales of Levitra. Based on the aging population and the desire to maintain an active sexual lifestyle, we believe the market for PDE5 inhibitors will continue to grow.

 

Avanafil is an oral PDE5 inhibitor investigational drug candidate, which we licensed from Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd., or Tanabe, in 2001. In October 2007, Tanabe and Mitsubishi Pharma Corporation completed their merger and announced their name change to Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC. Our US patent on avanafil (US 6,656,935) expires in 2020.

 

We have exclusive worldwide development and commercialization rights for avanafil with the exception of certain Asian markets.

 

Pre-clinical and clinical data suggest that avanafil:

 

·                            is highly selective to PDE5, which we believe may result in a favorable side effect profile; and

 

·                            is fast-acting as compared to the current commercially available PDE5 inhibitors.

 

27



Table of Contents

 

We previously announced results from a Phase 2, multi-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-design study conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of different doses of avanafil for the treatment of ED. Patients in this study were instructed to attempt sexual intercourse 30 minutes after taking avanafil, with no restrictions on food or alcohol consumption. Results showed that avanafil-treated patients met all the primary endpoints as compared to those who received a dosage of placebo. No serious adverse events were reported during this study.

 

We previously released the results from an open-label, pharmacokinetic study designed to evaluate the feasibility of allowing avanafil to be taken twice in a 24-hour period. This study compared blood levels of avanafil in healthy volunteer patients after taking a single dose of avanafil and after taking avanafil every 12 hours for seven days. The results showed no significant plasma accumulation of avanafil after the twice-a-day treatment regimen when compared to the single dose.

 

We also previously announced the results of a clinical pharmacology study conducted to evaluate the hemodynamic responses (blood pressure and heart rate) to glyceryl trinitrate in patients pretreated with placebo, avanafil, and sildenafil citrate (Viagra). Results revealed that avanafil had less impact on blood pressure and heart rate than Viagra. The clinical significance of this data is unknown.

 

In November 2009, we announced results of the first of several pivotal Phase 3 studies of avanafil. The first study, REVIVE (TA-301) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study of avanafil in 646 men. Participants in the study had ED for at least six months; 72% of study participants had tried at least one other ED treatment. Patients underwent a four-week, non-treatment run-in period followed by 12 weeks of treatment with one of three doses of avanafil: 50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg or placebo. Patients were instructed to attempt sexual intercourse 30 minutes after taking avanafil, with no restrictions on food or alcohol consumption. The primary endpoints of the study were improvement in erectile function as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile, or SEP, and improvements in the International Index of Erectile Function, or IIEF, score; secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction with erections and with sexual experience. This Phase 3 study was conducted under a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, with the FDA.

 

The REVIVE study met all primary endpoints across the three doses studied by demonstrating statistically significant improvement in erectile function as measured by the SEP and improvements in the IIEF score. Highlights of the study include:

 

·                            Nearly 80% of sexual attempts among patients on the 200 mg dose of avanafil had erections sufficient for intercourse (SEP2);

 

·                            Full efficacy, as measured by successful intercourse (SEP3), was reported by avanafil patients on all 3 dose levels in 15 minutes or less;

 

·                            Full efficacy was maintained for all doses across multiple time points from 15 minutes to beyond six hours;

 

·                            All FDA-defined primary endpoints were met across all three doses of avanafil;

 

·                            Avanafil was well tolerated as demonstrated by a high retention rate (85%);

 

·                            There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events in the study; and

 

·                            Avanafil patients reported low rates of common PDE5i side effects (headache, flushing and upset stomach).

 

Patients on all 3 dose levels achieved an overall improvement in erectile function, as measured by improvement in the IIEF. IIEF scores range from 0-30 and measure the severity of erectile dysfunction as follows: severe dysfunction is less than or equal to 10; moderate is 11-16; and mild/minimal is 17-25. IIEF results of the study were:

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

12.4

 

15.3

 

Avanafil 50 mg

 

12.7

 

18.1

 

Avanafil 100 mg

 

12.6

 

20.9

 

Avanafil 200 mg

 

12.7

 

22.2

 

 


(p</=0.001 vs. placebo)

 

 

 

 

 

 

28



Table of Contents

 

Patients on avanafil had erections sufficient for vaginal penetration as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile question number 2 (SEP2):

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

47

%

54

%

Avanafil 50 mg

 

45

%

64

%

Avanafil 100 mg

 

46

%

74

%

Avanafil 200 mg

 

48

%

77

%

 


(p<0.001 vs. placebo)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patients taking avanafil experienced successful intercourse as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile question 3 (SEP3):

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

13

%

27

%

Avanafil 50 mg

 

13

%

41

%

Avanafil 100 mg

 

14

%

57

%

Avanafil 200 mg

 

12

%

57

%

 


(p<0.001 vs. placebo)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most commonly reported side effects in patients taking avanafil (all doses combined) included headache (7.0% vs. 1.2% placebo), flushing (4.6% vs. 0% placebo) and nasal congestion (2.3% vs. 1.2%); there were no reports of visual disturbances such as “blue vision.”

 

In January 2010, we announced new data from an analysis of REVIVE TA-301. Patients who attempted intercourse within 15 minutes of dosing were successful 67%, 69% and 72% of the time on 50, 100 and 200 mg of avanafil, respectively, as compared to 29% of the patients on placebo (p<0.05).

 

We previously completed a Phase 1 “Thorough QT”, or TQT, study evaluating 100 mg and 800 mg of avanafil compared to placebo and a known positive control. The study was successfully completed with no concern associated with QT prolongation.

 

In June 2010, we announced results from the Phase 3 REVIVE-Diabetes (TA-302) study, evaluating the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) in men with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The REVIVE-Diabetes study met all three primary endpoints across the two doses studied by demonstrating statistically significant improvement in erectile function as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) and improvements in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score. The study also demonstrated a favorable side effect profile and successful intercourse (as measured by SEP 3) in as early as 15 minutes and beyond six hours after dosing, without any restrictions for food or alcohol intake.

 

Highlights of the REVIVE-Diabetes study include:

 

·                            More than 60% of subjects on the 200 mg dose of avanafil had erections sufficient for intercourse (SEP2) at the end of treatment;

 

·                            Patients treated with 100 mg and 200 mg of avanafil improved their ability to have successful intercourse three and four fold, respectively, from the start of treatment;

 

·                            Treatment with avanafil improved erectile function in a dose-dependent manner with significant increases in the IIEF scores from the beginning of treatment through the end of treatment. Erectile function scores increased 41% and 45% for patients on the 100 mg and 200 mg doses, respectively, as compared to the placebo group with an increase of 17%; and

 

·                            The most commonly reported side effects in patients taking avanafil included headache, nasopharyngitis, flushing, sinus congestion, sinusitis and dyspepsia. There were no drug-related serious adverse events in the study.

 

29



Table of Contents

 

The REVIVE-Diabetes study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study that evaluated two doses of avanafil in men with diabetes and a history of ED. The results of the phase 3 study showed:

 

Patients achieved an overall statistically significant improvement in erectile function, as measured by the Erectile Function Domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). EF-Domain scores range from 0-30 and measure the severity of erectile dysfunction as follows: severe dysfunction is less than or equal to 10; moderate is 11-16; and mild/minimal is 17-25. Results of the study were:

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

11.3

 

13.2

 

Avanafil 100 mg

 

11.2

 

15.8

*

Avanafil 200 mg

 

11.9

 

17.3

**

 


*(p=0.002 100mg vs. placebo change from baseline)

**(p<0.001 200mg vs. placebo change from baseline)

 

Patients on avanafil had erections sufficient for penetration as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) question 2:

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

36

%

42

%

Avanafil 100 mg

 

32

%

54

%*

Avanafil 200 mg

 

42

%

63

%*

 


*(p<0.001 active vs. placebo change from baseline)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patients taking avanafil experienced successful intercourse as measured by the SEP question 3:

 

 

 

Baseline

 

End of
Treatment

 

Placebo

 

10

%

20

%

Avanafil 100 mg

 

8

%

34

%*

Avanafil 200 mg

 

8

%

40

%*

 


*(p<0.001 active vs. placebo change from baseline)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most commonly reported side effects in patients taking avanafil (all doses combined) included headache (7.8% vs. 1.5% placebo), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 4.6% placebo), flushing (2.7% vs. 0% placebo), sinus congestion (1.9% vs. 0.8% placebo), sinusitis (1.9% vs. 0% placebo), and dyspepsia (1.6% vs. 0% placebo). No drug related serious adverse events were reported. The discontinuation rates for all patients enrolled were 15.4% placebo, 15.5% 100 mg, and 13.0% 200 mg.

 

REVIVE-Diabetes (TA-302) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of avanafil in 390 men with ED as a result of their diabetes. On average patients had ED for at least six years and had diabetes for over 11 years. 76% of study participants had tried at least one other ED treatment. Patients underwent a four-week, non-treatment run-in period followed by 12 weeks of treatment with one of two doses of avanafil: 100 mg and 200 mg or placebo. Patients were instructed to attempt sexual intercourse approximately 30 minutes after taking the drug with no restrictions on food or alcohol consumption. The primary endpoints of the study were improvement in erectile function as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) and improvements in the EF-Domain of the IIEF score; secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction with erections and with sexual experience.

 

The Phase 3 program will include two additional studies. REVIVE-RP (TA-303) has commenced enrollment and will randomize up to 375 patients with ED following a radical prostatectomy. Patients undergo a four-week run-in period followed by 12 weeks of treatment. Patients are randomized to placebo or one of two dose levels of active drug. The primary endpoints of the study will be the same as those used in TA-301, namely, improvement in erectile function as measured by the Sexual Encounter Profile and the IIEF score. Patients are instructed to attempt sexual intercourse 30 minutes after taking avanafil, with minimal restrictions on food or alcohol consumption. REVIVE-RP will study two doses of avanafil: 100 mg and 200 mg.

 

30



Table of Contents

 

Enrollment in the TA-303 study has been slower than anticipated. We believe in part this was due to the fact that physicians are routinely prescribing PDE5 inhibitors to their patients shortly following prostate surgery for penile rehabilitation, and patients do not wish to discontinue this rehabilitation therapy for the purpose of enrolling into a double-blind, placebo-controlled study such as TA-303. In April 2010, we discussed with the FDA our NDA filing for avanafil without the inclusion of TA-303. The FDA agreed that we may submit the NDA for avanafil prior to the completion of the TA-303 study. It is our intent to submit the results of the TA-303 study to the FDA once it is complete. We have also been informed by the FDA that the submission of the TA-303 study results subsequent to our NDA filing will not impact the timing of their decision concerning the approvability of avanafil for other populations.

 

In March of 2009, we initiated an open-label safety study (TA-314) evaluating the long-term safety and tolerability of avanafil as part of our development toward NDA submission. TA-314 is being conducted over one year in approximately 600 patients across 40 U.S. centers; patients completing either the 12-week REVIVE or REVIVE-Diabetes studies are eligible to participate in TA-314. Results of the study are expected to be available in the second half of 2010.

 

In total, it is estimated that the Phase 3 avanafil clinical program will enroll approximately 1,300 patients. We anticipate submitting an NDA with the FDA for avanafil in the first half of 2011.

 

We have entered into a Master Services Agreement and related Task Orders with Quintiles, Inc., or Quintiles, pursuant to which Quintiles will perform certain clinical research services in connection with the clinical trials for avanafil. Our aggregate payment obligations entered into during 2008 through 2010 under the agreement for services, out of pocket expenses and pass through costs totals approximately $28.4 million of which we have paid approximately $21.7 million through June 30, 2010. We have agreed to defend and indemnify Quintiles against third party claims arising from the services other than claims resulting from Quintiles’s negligence, willful misconduct, violation of law or material breach of the Master Service Agreement or a Task Order. We can terminate the agreement at any time without cause. Quintiles may terminate the agreement following our material breach of the agreement that remains uncured.

 

MUSE for Erectile Dysfunction

 

In 1997, we commercially launched MUSE in the United States. MUSE was the first minimally invasive therapy for erectile dysfunction approved by the FDA. With MUSE, an erection is typically produced within 15 minutes of administration and lasts approximately 30 to 60 minutes. Alprostadil is the active pharmacologic agent used in MUSE. Alprostadil is the generic name for the synthetic version of prostaglandin E1, a naturally-occurring vasodilator present in the human body and at high levels in seminal fluid.

 

Because therapeutic levels of drug are delivered locally to the erectile tissues with minimal systemic drug exposure, MUSE is a relatively safe, local treatment that minimizes the chances of systemic interactions with other drugs or diseases.

 

In May 2005, results were reported from an independent study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic, which focused on an individual’s ability to restore sexual function following radical prostatectomy, a common treatment for prostate cancer. The study showed that 74% of patients who completed six months of MUSE treatment were able to resume sexual activity and 40% were able to achieve natural erections sufficient for intercourse.

 

We have obtained the exclusive rights to patents, patent applications and other intellectual property related to MUSE through a series of license and assignment agreements with Alza Corporation, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, Gene A. Voss, M.D. and Allen C. Eichler, M.D., Kjell Holmquist AB and Amsu, Ltd. These licenses and assignments are royalty bearing, requiring the Company to pay an aggregate of 2% of worldwide net sales, 1% of U.S. net sales and 1% of Canada sales of MUSE in royalties. Our obligations to pay royalties under the license and assignment agreements terminate upon a fixed date or the last to expire of the licensed or assigned patents under the agreements. Absent an extension by the issuance of any additional patents covered by the licenses, our royalty obligations are set to terminate in (1) January 2012 (2% of worldwide net sales), (2) July 2010 (1% of Canada net sales), and (3) March 2016 (1% of U.S. net sales). Either party to the agreements may terminate under certain limited circumstances, including material breach. In addition to our royalty obligations, we have agreed to defend and indemnify the licensors and assignors against third party claims arising from our use of the licensed or assigned patents, patent applications and other intellectual property. The aggregate royalties incurred were $783,000, $829,000 and $730,000 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Other than the royalty payments, we have no other material payment obligations under these license and assignment agreements.

 

31



Table of Contents

 

MUSE remains as a legacy product for VIVUS.  In light of our focus on Qnexa and avanafil, we may explore strategic alternatives for MUSE including a joint venture, spin-off, sale or other transaction to maximize shareholder value.

 

Other Programs

 

We have licensed and intend to continue to license from third parties the rights to other products to treat various diseases and medical conditions. We also sponsor early stage clinical trials at various research institutions and intend to conduct early stage proof of concept studies on our own. We expect to continue to use our expertise in designing clinical trials, formulation and drug development to commercialize pharmaceuticals for unmet medical needs or for disease states that are underserved by currently approved products. We intend to develop products with a proprietary position or that complement our other products currently under development.

 

Sale of Evamist to K-V Pharmaceutical Company

 

On March 30, 2007, we entered into a definitive agreement with K-V, to transfer our assets and grant a sublicense of our rights under the Evamist Agreement to K-V, or the Transaction. The closing of the Transaction occurred on May 15, 2007. Under the terms of the Transaction, upon the closing, we received an upfront payment of $10 million. On July 27, 2007, we received FDA approval of the NDA for Evamist. On August 1, 2007, we transferred and assigned the Evamist FDA submissions, and all files related thereto to K-V and on August 8, 2007, K-V paid us the additional $140 million milestone payment due upon FDA approval of the Evamist NDA. In August 2008, we assigned all of our rights and obligations under the Evamist license agreement to K-V. In connection with the Transaction, in order to obtain MTPC’s blanket release of liens against our assets including the Evamist assets and intellectual property, we repaid the MTPC line of credit.

 

In May 2006, we announced positive results from the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of Evamist. The study showed a statistically significant reduction in the number and severity of moderate and severe hot flashes. We submitted the NDA for Evamist to the FDA in the third quarter of 2006 and made a $1 million clinical development milestone payment to Acrux in October 2006 under the terms of our licensing agreement, related to this submission. Upon approval of the NDA for Evamist, a $3 million product approval milestone became due and was paid to Acrux in August 2007. Under the terms of the Transaction, K-V paid $1.5 million of this $3 million milestone.

 

Deerfield Financing

 

On April 3, 2008, we entered into several agreements with Deerfield Management Company, L.P., or Deerfield, a healthcare investment fund, and its affiliates, Deerfield Private Design Fund L.P. and Deerfield Private Design International, L.P. (collectively, the Deerfield Affiliates). Certain of the agreements were amended and restated on March 16, 2009. Under the agreements, Deerfield and its affiliates agreed to provide us with $30 million in funding. The $30 million in funding consists of $20 million from the Funding and Royalty Agreement, or FARA, entered into with a newly incorporated subsidiary of Deerfield, or the Deerfield Sub, and $10 million from the sale of our common stock. Under the FARA, the Deerfield Sub made $3.3 million payments to us in April, September and December 2008 and February, June and September 2009. The Company has received all of the required payments under the FARA. Such payments are referred to as the Funding Payments. We will pay royalties on the current net sales of MUSE and, if approved, on future sales of avanafil, an investigational drug candidate to the Deerfield Sub. The term of the FARA is 10 years. The FARA includes covenants requiring us to use commercially reasonable efforts to preserve our intellectual property, to manufacture, promote and sell MUSE, and to develop avanafil. At the closing on April 15, 2008, under the securities purchase agreement, the Deerfield Affiliates purchased 1,626,017 shares of our common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $10 million, and we paid to the Deerfield Affiliates a $500,000 fee and reimbursed approximately $200,000 in certain expenses incurred in this transaction. The number of shares was determined based on the volume weighted average price on the NASDAQ Global Market of the Company’s common stock on the three days prior to the execution of the securities purchase agreement dated as of April 3, 2008. The agreements also provided us with an option to purchase, and the Deerfield Affiliates with an option to compel us to purchase, the Deerfield Sub holding the royalty rights, each as described in greater detail below. If either party exercises its option, any further royalty payments would be effectively terminated. Collectively, these transactions are referred to as the Deerfield Transactions.

 

Also in connection with the Deerfield Transactions, the Company, the Deerfield Affiliates and the Deerfield Sub entered into the Option and Put Agreement, dated April 3, 2008, and an Amended and Restated Option and Put Agreement dated March 16, 2009, or the OPA. Pursuant to the OPA, the Deerfield Affiliates have granted us an option to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Deerfield Sub from the Deerfield Affiliates, referred to as the Option, and we have agreed to grant the Deerfield Affiliates an option to require us to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Deerfield Sub from the Deerfield Affiliates, referred to as the Put Right.

 

32



Table of Contents

 

If we exercise the Option, base consideration for the Option exercise, or Base Option Price, will be:

 

·                  $25 million, less $2 million we paid upon closing, if the Option is exercised on or prior to the third anniversary of the execution of the OPA; or

 

·                  $28 million, less $2 million we paid upon closing, if the Option is exercised subsequent to the third anniversary but prior to the fourth anniversary of the execution of the OPA.

 

The aggregate consideration payable by VIVUS upon exercise of the Option, or the Option Purchase Price, would be equal to the sum of the Base Option Price, plus: (i) the cash and cash equivalents held by the Deerfield Sub at the date of the closing of the resulting sale of the common stock of the Deerfield Sub; (ii) accrued and unpaid royalties; and minus (i) the option premium of $2 million that was paid at the closing of the transaction (referred to as the Option Premium); (ii) accrued but unpaid taxes; (iii) unpaid Funding Payments; (iv) loans payable by the Deerfield Sub; and (v) any other outstanding liabilities of the Deerfield Sub. The Option terminates on the fourth anniversary of the execution of the OPA.

 

In consideration of the grant of the Option, at closing we paid $2 million to the Deerfield Affiliates. As indicated in the calculation of the Option Purchase Price, if the Option is exercised by us, the Option Premium will be applied to reduce the Option Purchase Price.

 

The Put Right terminates on the tenth anniversary of the execution of the OPA and will become exercisable on the earliest of:

 

·                  the third anniversary of the execution of the OPA;

 

·                  any date on which:

 

(1)                                  the market capitalization of the Company falls below $50 million; or

 

(2)                                  the amount of cash and cash equivalents, as defined, held by the Company falls below $15 million; or

 

(3)                                  the fifteenth day following the delivery of written notice to the Company that we have failed to make Royalty Payments in accordance with the provisions of the FARA unless we make such Royalty Payments prior to such fifteenth day; or

 

(4)                                  a Major Transaction, as defined below, closes.

 

If the Deerfield Affiliates exercise the Put Right, base consideration for the put exercise, or the Base Put Price, will be:

 

·                  $23 million, if the Put Right is exercised on or prior to the third anniversary of the execution of the OPA, or April 3, 2011, and we have notified the Deerfield Affiliates of our intent to enter into a Major Transaction (such notice is referred to as a Major Transaction Notice); or

 

·                  $26 million, if the Put Right is exercised subsequent to the third anniversary of the execution of the OPA, or April 3, 2011, and we have provided the Deerfield Affiliates a Major Transaction Notice; or

 

·                  $17 million, in all other cases.

 

The aggregate consideration payable by the Company upon exercise of the Put Right, or the Put Purchase Price, would be equal to the sum of the Base Put Price, plus: (i) the cash and cash equivalents held by the Deerfield Sub at the date of the closing of the resulting sale of the common stock of the Deerfield Sub; (ii) accrued and unpaid royalties; and minus (i) accrued but unpaid taxes; (ii) unpaid Funding Payments; (iii) loans payable by the Deerfield Sub, and (iv) any other outstanding liabilities of the Deerfield Sub.

 

Pursuant to the OPA, the following events would qualify as Major Transactions:

 

·                  a consolidation, merger, exchange of shares, recapitalization, reorganization, business combination or similar event:

 

(1)                                  following which the holders of the Company’s common stock immediately preceding such event either:

 

(a)                                  no longer hold a majority of the shares of the Company’s common stock; or

 

(b)                                 no longer have the ability to elect a majority of the Company’s Board of Directors;

 

33



Table of Contents

 

(2)                                  as a result of which shares of the Company’s common stock are changed into (or the shares of common stock become entitled to receive) the same or a different number of shares of the same or another class or classes of stock or securities of the Company or another entity, collectively referred to as Change in Control Transactions;

 

·                  a sale or transfer of the Company’s assets in one transaction or a series of related transactions for a purchase price of more than $350 million where the consideration to be payable at or within 30 days of closing of such transaction or transactions has a value of more than $350 million, or a sale, transfer or license of all or substantially all the Company’s assets or proprietary rights that relate specifically to MUSE or avanafil; or

 

·                  a purchase, tender or exchange offer made to the holders of outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, such that following such purchase, tender or exchange offer a Change in Control Transaction shall have occurred; or

 

·                  an issuance or series of issuances in a series of related transactions by the Company of an aggregate number of shares of common stock in excess of 20% of the Company’s outstanding common stock on April 3, 2008 if, immediately prior to such issuance, the market capitalization of the Company is less than $300 million.

 

In connection with the FARA, the Deerfield Sub and the Company have entered into a Royalty Security Agreement, whereby we have granted the Deerfield Sub a security interest in certain collateral related to MUSE and avanafil including: all of our drug applications; all existing and future licenses relating to the development, manufacture, warehousing, distribution, promotion, sale, importing or pricing of MUSE and avanafil; our intellectual property and all of the accounts, inventory and equipment arising out of or relating to MUSE and avanafil. In connection with the OPA, the Deerfield Affiliates and the Company have entered into a security agreement whereby we have granted the Deerfield Affiliates a security interest in the same Collateral as defined by the Royalty Security Agreement. The security interest granted to the Deerfield Affiliates has priority over that granted to the Deerfield Sub by the Royalty Security Agreement.

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

 

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our condensed consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to available-for-sale securities, product returns, rebates and sales reserves, research and development expenses, doubtful accounts, income taxes, inventories, contingencies and litigation and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, information received from third parties and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

 

We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our condensed consolidated financial statements:

 

Revenue Recognition

 

Product Revenue:  Product sales are recognized as revenues when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, shipment has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

 

Sales Allowances and Reserves:  Revenues from product sales are recorded net of product sales allowances for expected returns of expired product, government chargebacks and other rebate programs, and cash discounts for prompt payment.

 

34



Table of Contents

 

These sales allowances are deducted from gross product revenues at the time such revenues are recognized along with the recording of a corresponding reserve, or liability. In making these estimates we take into consideration our historical information, current contractual and statutory requirements, shelf life of our products, estimated customer inventory levels and information received from outside parties. Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in estimating the reserve balances in any accounting period. Our product sales allowances and reserves include:

 

·                  Product Returns: We have estimated reserves for product returns from wholesalers, hospitals and pharmacies in the United States in accordance with our product returns policy. Our returns policy allows product returns within the period beginning six months prior to and twelve months following product expiration. We sell one pharmaceutical product, MUSE, which is sold in four dosages. The 1,000 mcg and 500 mcg product has a 24-month shelf-life and, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2009, the 250 mcg and 125 mcg product has an 18-month shelf-life. As of June 30, 2010, the shipments of MUSE in the United States made in 2010, 2009, 2008 and a portion of the shipments in 2007 remain subject to future returns.

 

We record reserves for anticipated returns of expired product in the United States. We follow this method since reasonably dependable estimates of product returns can be made based on historical experience. There is no right-of-return on expired product sold internationally subsequent to shipment; thus, no returns reserve is needed.

 

We estimate our returns reserve by utilizing historical information and returns data obtained from external sources, along with the shelf life of the product. We believe that the information obtained from external sources is reliable, but we are unable to independently verify the accuracy of such data. We track the actual returns on a lot-by-lot basis along with date of production and date of expiration. We review the actual returns experience for trends. We calculate our returns reserve by applying an estimated return rate to the quantity of units sold that is subject to future return. We routinely assess our experience with product returns and adjust the reserves accordingly. Revisions in returns estimates are charged to income in the period in which the information that gives rise to the revision becomes known.

 

At December 31, 2007, our returns rate was increased from 6% to 6.5%, based upon an increasing trend of product returns. The returns rate of 6.5% has been used since December 31, 2007. The product returns reserve at June 30, 2010, covering the estimated returns exposure for product shipped in 2010, 2009, 2008 and a portion of 2007, was estimated at $2.9 million. This product returns reserve calculation is based upon the most recent information available, and we believe is reasonable and adequate to cover the estimated future credit memos to be issued for the return of prior sales of MUSE. Quarterly, we will continue to monitor the product returns experience and make adjustments to the product returns reserve, as appropriate.

 

·      Chargebacks: Chargebacks include government chargebacks which are contractual commitments by us to provide MUSE to federal government organizations including the Veterans Administration at specified prices and other rebate programs including those with managed care organizations, for the reimbursement of portions of the prescriptions filled that are covered by these programs. Allowances for chargebacks are recorded at the time of sale to the wholesaler distributors and accrued as a reserve. In estimating the chargeback reserve, we analyze actual government chargeback and rebate amounts paid and apply chargeback rates to estimates of the quantity of units subject to chargeback. We estimate this reserve by utilizing historical information, contractual and statutory requirements, end-customer prescription demand data, estimated quantities sold to these organizations and estimated wholesaler inventory levels based upon data obtained from our larger wholesaler customers which we began receiving in 2007. At that time, we determined the inventory data we had received from the larger wholesaler customers was more reliable than our previous estimates. We believe that the information received from the wholesaler customers regarding inventory levels and information received from external sources regarding end-customer prescription demand are reliable, but we are unable to independently verify the accuracy of such data. We routinely reassess the chargeback estimates and adjust the reserves accordingly.

 

·      Cash Discounts: We offer cash discounts to wholesaler distributors, generally 2% of the sales price as an incentive for prompt payment. The estimate of cash discounts is recorded at the time of sale. We account for the cash discounts by reducing accounts receivable by the full amount of the discounts we expect wholesaler distributors to take.

 

All of the aforementioned categories of sales allowances are evaluated each reporting period and adjusted when trends or significant events indicate that a change in estimate is appropriate. Changes in actual experience or changes in other qualitative factors could cause our sales allowance adjustments to fluctuate. If actual returns, government chargebacks, rebates and cash discounts are greater than our estimates, additional reserves may be required which could have an adverse effect on financial results in the period of adjustment. Revisions to estimates are charged to income in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known.

 

License and Other Revenue:  We recognize license revenue in accordance with the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition, as codified in the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s, or FASB, Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, topic 605, Revenue Recognition, or ASC 605. When evaluating multiple element arrangements, we consider whether the components of the arrangement represent separate units of accounting as defined in Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables, or EITF 00-21, as codified in FASB ASC topic 605, subtopic 25 Multiple Element Arrangements, or ASC 605-25. In accordance with EITF 00-21, we recognize revenue for delivered elements only when the delivered

 

35



Table of Contents

 

element has stand-alone value and we have objective and reliable evidence of fair value for each undelivered element. If the fair value of any undelivered element included in a multiple element arrangement cannot be objectively determined, revenue is deferred until all elements are delivered and services have been performed, or until fair value can objectively be determined for any remaining undelivered elements, or such elements are insignificant. Application of this standard requires subjective determinations and requires management to make judgments about the fair value of the individual elements and whether such elements are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship.

 

Revenue from non-refundable, upfront license fees where we have continuing involvement is recognized ratably over the development or agreement period. Revenue associated with performance milestones is recognized based upon the achievement of the milestones, as defined in the respective agreements.

 

On May 15, 2007, we closed our transaction with K-V for the sale of our drug candidate, Evamist, a metered-dose transdermal spray for the treatment of menopause symptoms. At the time of the sale, Evamist was an investigational drug and was not yet approved by the FDA for marketing. The sale transaction contained multiple deliverables, including: the delivery at closing of the Evamist assets (mainly raw material inventory and certain fixed assets), a grant of a sublicense of our rights under a license related to Evamist, and a license to the MDTS applicator; the delivery upon receipt of regulatory approval of Evamist, along with all regulatory submissions; and, lastly, the delivery after FDA approval of certain transition services and a license to improvements to the MDTS applicator. We received approval from the FDA to market Evamist on July 27, 2007, or FDA Approval, and on August 1, 2007, we transferred and assigned the Evamist FDA submissions, and all files related thereto to K-V. In August 2008, we assigned all of our rights and obligations under the Evamist license agreement to K-V.

 

We received an upfront payment of $10 million in May 2007 upon the closing and received an additional $140 million milestone payment in August 2007 upon FDA Approval. These payments are non-refundable.

 

We evaluated this multiple deliverable arrangement to determine whether the deliverables were divided into separate units of accounting.

 

Upon FDA Approval, the two remaining deliverables were the transition services to be performed under the Transition Services Agreement, or TSA, and a license to improvements to the MDTS applicator, or Improvement License, during the two-year period commencing with the closing, or May 15, 2007, and ending on May 15, 2009. We were able to establish fair value for the TSA.

 

As it relates to the Improvement License, no specific value was assigned in the agreement. We had no obligation to develop improvements to the MDTS applicator and had no plans to expend significant resources in this endeavor. However, we did not have objective, reliable evidence of fair value or evidence of inconsequential value to the customer of the Improvement License. Accordingly, the delivered items, together with the undelivered items, were bundled together and were treated as one unit of accounting.

 

As a result, the initial $10 million paid at closing and the $140 million paid upon FDA Approval were recorded as deferred revenue and have been recognized as license revenue ratably over the 21.5-month term of the Improvement License, from August 1, 2007 to May 15, 2009. The revenue related to the transaction recognized for years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $31.4 million, $83.7 million and $34.9 million, respectively.

 

In September 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2009-13, Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements. ASU No. 2009-13 amends the guidance for measurement and separation of deliverables in multiple element arrangements under EITF Issue 00-21, as codified in FASB ASC 605-25, and significantly increases the related disclosure requirements. Under this new guidance, which will be effective for us beginning January 1, 2011, our accounting for the revenue from the sale of the Evamist transaction may have been different.

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Research and development, or R&D, expenses include license fees, related compensation, consultants’ fees, facilities costs, administrative expenses related to R&D activities and clinical trial costs at other companies and research institutions under agreements that are generally cancelable, among other related R&D costs. We also record accruals for estimated ongoing clinical trial costs. Clinical trial costs represent costs incurred by clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical sites and include advertising for clinical trials and patient recruitment costs. These costs are recorded as a component of R&D expenses and are expensed as incurred. Under our agreements, progress payments are typically made to investigators, clinical sites and CROs. We analyze the progress of the clinical trials, including levels of patient enrollment, invoices received and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of accrued liabilities. Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in determining the accrued balance in any accounting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates under different assumptions. Revisions are charged to expense in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known.

 

36



Table of Contents

 

Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

 

We extend credit to our customers for product sales resulting in accounts receivable. Customer accounts are monitored for past due amounts. Past due accounts receivable, determined to be uncollectible, are written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts. Allowances for doubtful accounts are estimated based upon past due amounts, historical losses and existing economic factors, and are adjusted periodically. The accounts receivable are reported on the condensed consolidated balance sheet, net of the allowance for doubtful accounts.

 

Income Taxes

 

We make certain estimates and judgments in determining income tax expense for financial statement purposes. These estimates and judgments occur in the calculation of certain tax assets and liabilities, which arise from differences in the timing of recognition of revenue and expense for tax and financial statement purposes.

 

As part of the process of preparing our condensed consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. This process involves us estimating our current tax exposure under the most recent tax laws and assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are included in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

 

We assess the likelihood that we will be able to recover our deferred tax assets. We consider all available evidence, both positive and negative, including historical levels of income, expectations and risks associated with estimates of future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance. If it is not more likely than not that we will recover our deferred tax assets, we will increase our provision for taxes by recording a valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets that we estimate will not ultimately be recoverable. As a result of our analysis of all available evidence, both positive and negative, as of June 30, 2010, it was considered more likely than not that the Company’s deferred tax assets would not be realized.

 

As of June 30, 2010, we believed that the amount of the deferred tax assets recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet would not ultimately be recovered. However, should there be a change in our ability to recover our deferred tax assets, we would recognize a benefit to our tax provision in the period in which we determine that it is more likely than not that we will recover our deferred tax assets.

 

Inventories

 

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. We record inventory reserves for estimated obsolescence, unmarketable or excess inventory equal to the difference between the cost of inventory and the estimated market value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory write downs may be required. During the quarter ended September 30, 1998, we established significant reserves against our inventory to align with the then new estimates of expected future demand for MUSE. As of June 30, 2010, the remaining inventory reserve balance is $769,000 relating primarily to raw materials and components. In the first quarter of 2005, we determined that we likely would continue to use some portion of the fully reserved component parts inventory in production. In the third quarter of 2009, we determined that we would also likely use some portion of the fully reserved raw materials inventory. When we record inventory reserves, we establish a new, lower cost basis for the inventory for accounting purposes. Accordingly, to the extent that this fully reserved inventory was used in production in the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, it was charged to cost of goods sold at a zero basis, which had a favorable impact on cost of goods sold. During the second quarter of 2009, a portion of our existing inventory of alprostadil exceeded its shelf life and was no longer usable in the manufacturing of MUSE. At that time, we increased our inventory reserves by $487,000 for this raw material. We subsequently disposed of this fully reserved raw material in the first quarter of 2010. We do not expect the loss of this material to impede our ability to meet the demand for MUSE.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

The Company considers highly liquid investments with maturities from the date of purchase of three months or less to be cash equivalents. At June 30, 2010, all cash equivalents are invested in money market funds and U.S. Treasury securities. These accounts are recorded at cost, which approximates fair value.

 

Cash with restrictions for a period of greater than 12 months is classified as restricted cash, a non-current asset.

 

37



Table of Contents

 

Available-for-Sale Securities

 

We focus on liquidity and capital preservation in our investments in available-for-sale securities. Our investment policy, as approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, allows us to invest our excess cash balances in money market and marketable securities, primarily U.S. Treasury securities and debt securities of U.S. government agencies, corporate debt securities and asset-backed securities. The investment policy has the primary investment objectives of preservation of principal; however, there may be times when certain of the securities in our portfolio will fall below the credit ratings required in the policy. If those securities are downgraded or impaired we would experience losses in the value of our portfolio which would have an adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

 

We determine the appropriate classification of marketable securities at the time of purchase and reevaluate such designation at each balance sheet date. Our marketable securities have been classified and accounted for as available-for-sale. We may or may not hold securities with stated maturities greater than 12 months until maturity. In response to changes in the availability of and the yield on alternative investments as well as liquidity requirements, we may sell these securities prior to their stated maturities. Where these securities are viewed by us as available to support current operations, securities with maturities beyond 12 months are classified as current assets.

 

Securities are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of taxes, reported as a component of stockholders’ equity, unless the decline in value is deemed to be other-than-temporary and we intend to sell such securities before recovering their costs, in which case such securities are written down to fair value and the loss is charged to other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities. We evaluate our investment securities for other-than-temporary declines based on quantitative and qualitative factors. Any realized gains or losses on the sale of marketable securities are determined on a specific identification method, and such gains and losses are reflected as a component of interest income.

 

SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, FSP SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-4, Recognition and Presentation of Other-than-Temporary Impairments (“FSP 115-2/SFAS 124-2”) and SAB Topic 5M, Accounting for Non-current Marketable Equity Securities, as codified in FASB ASC topic 320, Investments—Debt and Equity Securities, or ASC 320, provide guidance on determining when an investment is other-than-temporarily impaired. FSP 115-2/124-2 is effective for all periods ending after June 15, 2009 and provides additional guidance designed to create a greater clarity and consistency in accounting for and presenting impairment losses on securities. In reviewing our non-U.S. Government available-for-sale securities during the year ended December 31, 2009, we concluded that we intended to sell the debt securities before recovering their costs and consequently these securities were included in our assessment of other-than-temporarily impaired securities. For securities that are deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, the security is adjusted to fair value and the resulting losses are recognized in other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

 

During our quarterly impairment assessments, we determined that a decline in value of our U.S. Treasury securities was not other-than-temporary. Accordingly, we did not record any other-than-temporary impairment adjustments in the six months ended June 30, 2010. We include any non-cash impairment charges in other-than-temporary loss on impaired securities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income (loss).

 

Contingencies and Litigation

 

We are periodically involved in disputes and litigation related to a variety of matters. When it is probable that we will experience a loss, and that loss is quantifiable, we record appropriate reserves. We record legal fees and costs as an expense when incurred.

 

Share-Based Payments

 

We follow the fair value method of accounting for share-based compensation arrangements in accordance with SFAS 123R, Share-Based Payment, as codified in FASB ASC topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, or ASC 718. We adopted SFAS 123R effective January 1, 2006 using the modified prospective method of transition. Under SFAS 123R, the estimated fair value of share-based-compensation, including stock options and restricted stock units granted under our Stock Option Plan and purchases of common stock by employees at a discount to market price under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or the ESPP, is recognized as compensation expense. Compensation expense for purchases under the ESPP is recognized based on the estimated fair value of the common stock purchase rights during each offering period and the percentage of the purchase discount.

 

We recorded $1.8 million and $3.7 million of share-based compensation expense for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively, and $1.2 million and $2.6 million of share-based compensation expense for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. Share-based compensation expense is allocated among cost of goods sold and manufacturing, research and development and selling, general and administrative expenses based on the function of the related employee. This charge had no impact on our cash flows for the periods presented.

 

38



Table of Contents

 

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of the share-based awards as of the grant date. The Black-Scholes model, by its design, is highly complex, and dependent upon key data inputs estimated by management. The primary data inputs with the greatest degree of judgment are the estimated lives of the share-based awards and the estimated volatility of our stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes in these two data inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding and is derived by analyzing the historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of the stock-based awards, vesting schedules and expectations of future employee behavior. We determine expected volatility using the historical method, which is based on the daily historical trading data of our common stock over the expected term of the option. Management selected the historical method primarily because we have not identified a more reliable or appropriate method to predict future volatility.

 

Fair Value

 

On January 1, 2008, we adopted SFAS No. 157 Fair Value Measurements, as codified in FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, or ASC 820, and effective October 10, 2008, we adopted FSP No. SFAS 157-3, Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not Active, except as it applies to the nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities subject to FSP 157-2. On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No 157 with respect to non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities. On June 15, 2009 we adopted FSP 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Assets or Liabilities Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly. Adoption of the provisions of these standards did not have a material effect on our financial position.

 

Financial Instruments Measured at Fair Value.  Our cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale financial instruments are carried at fair value and we make estimates regarding valuation of these assets measured at fair value in preparing the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

Fair Value Measurement—Definition and Hierarchy.  SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., the “exit price”) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

 

Valuation Technique.  SFAS No. 157 establishes a hierarchy for inputs used in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that the observable inputs be used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of VIVUS. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect our assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. SFAS No. 157 prescribes three valuation techniques that shall be used to measure fair value as follows:

 

1.                                       Market Approach—uses prices or other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities.

 

2.                                       Income Approach—uses valuation techniques to convert future cash flow amounts to a single present value amount (discounted).

 

3.                                       Cost Approach—the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset (i.e., current replacement cost).

 

One or a combination of the approaches above can be used to calculate fair value, whichever results in the most representative fair value.

 

In addition to the three valuation techniques, SFAS No. 157 prescribes a fair value hierarchy in order to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures. The hierarchy is broken down into three levels based on the reliability of inputs as follows:

 

·                  Level 1—Valuations based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets. Since valuations are based on quoted prices that are readily and regularly available in an active market, valuation of these products does not entail a significant degree of judgment.

 

39



Table of Contents

 

These types of instruments primarily consist of financial instruments whose value is based on quoted market prices such as cash, money market funds and U.S. Treasury securities that are actively traded. Management judgment was required to determine our policy that defines the levels at which sufficient volume and frequency of transactions is met for a market to be considered active.

 

·                  Level 2—Valuations based on quoted prices in markets that are not active or for which all significant inputs are observable, directly or indirectly. Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

 

The types of instruments valued based on other observable inputs include debt securities of U.S. government agencies, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed and asset-backed products. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace.

 

·                  Level 3—Valuations based on inputs that are unobservable and significant to the overall fair value measurement.

 

These types of instruments have included certain corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities. We have no Level 3 securities as of June 30, 2010. Level 3 is comprised of unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity. These instruments are considered Level 3 when their fair values are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flows or similar techniques and at least one significant model assumption or input is unobservable. Level 3 may still include some observable inputs such as yield spreads derived from markets with limited activity. Level 3 financial assets include securities for which there is limited market activity such that the determination of fair value requires significant judgment or estimation. The availability of observable inputs can vary from product to product and is affected by a wide variety of factors, including, for example, the type of product, whether the product is new and not yet established in the marketplace, and other characteristics particular to the transaction. To the extent that valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised by us in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

 

Fair Value Measurements

 

As of June 30, 2010, our cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities measured at fair value on a recurring basis totaled $174.8 million.

 

All of our cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities are in cash, money market instruments and U.S. Treasury securities at June 30, 2010, and these are classified as Level 1. The valuation techniques used to measure the fair values of these financial instruments were derived from quoted market prices, as substantially all of these instruments have maturity dates, if any, within one year from the date of purchase and active markets for these instruments exists.

 

Deerfield Financing

 

On April 3, 2008, we entered into several agreements with Deerfield Management Company, L.P., or Deerfield, a healthcare investment fund, and its affiliates, Deerfield Private Design Fund L.P. and Deerfield Private Design International, L.P. (collectively, the Deerfield Affiliates). Certain of these agreements were amended and restated on March 16, 2009. Please refer to Note 7: “Deerfield Financing” and Note 8: “Notes Payable” to the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q for additional information on these agreements. Under the agreements, Deerfield and its affiliates agreed to provide $30 million in funding to the Company. The $30 million in funding consists of $20 million from the Funding and Royalty Agreement, or FARA, and $10 million from the sale of the Company’s common stock. Under the FARA, the Deerfield Affiliates made $3.3 million payments to us in April, September, and December 2008 and February, June and September 2009, constituting all of the required payments under the FARA. We have agreed to pay royalties on the current net sales of MUSE and if approved, on future sales of avanafil, an investigational drug candidate, to the Deerfield Sub, a newly incorporated subsidiary of Deerfield. The agreements also provide us with an option to purchase, and the Deerfield Affiliates with an option to compel us to purchase, the Deerfield Sub holding the royalty rights. If either party exercises its option, any further royalty payments would be effectively terminated. In exchange for the option right, we paid $2 million to the Deerfield Affiliates.

 

We have evaluated the Deerfield financing in accordance with SFAS 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R), as codified in FASB ASC topic 810, Consolidation, or ASC 810, and determined that the Deerfield Sub may constitute a Variable Interest Entity, or VIE; however, we also determined that we are not the primary beneficiary of this VIE at this time. The methodology used for determining the primary beneficiary of the VIE was based on which entity (1) has the power to direct matters that most significantly impact the activities of the VIE, and (2) has the obligations to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. While we determined that we met the power criterion, we did not meet the losses/benefit criterion. The Deerfield Affiliates will absorb 100% of the Deerfield Sub’s expected losses and receive 100% of its expected gains. Therefore, it was determined that we are not required to consolidate the Deerfield Sub at this time.

 

40



Table of Contents

 

In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force Issue 88-18, Sale of Future Revenues, as codified in FASB ASC 605, the transaction is in substance a financing arrangement, or loan that will be repaid by us. The minimum repayment amount would be $17 million, the amount of the unconditional put option held by Deerfield Affiliates, plus royalties paid on MUSE sales, and avanafil sales if approved, during the term of the agreement. Accordingly, we have recorded the advances from the Deerfield Affiliates, net of the $2 million option right payment and related fees and expenses, as a loan. Using the interest method under APB Opinion No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, as codified in FASB ASC topic 835, Interest, subtopic 30, Imputation of Interest or ASC 835-30, interest on the loan will be recognized over three years, which is the estimated term of the loan based on the earliest date that the Deerfield Affiliates could require us to repay the amounts advanced.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements Disclosures, which amends Subtopic 820-10 of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to require new disclosures for fair value measurements and provides clarification for existing disclosures requirements. More specifically, this update will require (a) an entity to disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 fair value measurements and to describe the reasons for the transfers; and (b) information about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements to be presented separately (i.e. present the activity on a gross basis rather than net) in the reconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3 inputs). This update clarifies existing disclosure requirements for the level of disaggregation used for classes of assets and liabilities measured at fair value and requires disclosures about the valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair value for both recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements using Level 2 and Level 3 inputs. The adoption of this statement effective January 1, 2010 did not materially expand our condensed consolidated financial statement footnote disclosures.

 

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, (amendments to FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition), or ASU 2009-13, and ASU 2009-14, Certain Arrangements That Include Software Elements, (amendments to FASB ASC Topic 985, Software), or ASU 2009-14. ASU 2009-13 requires entities to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated selling prices of the delivered goods and services based on a selling price hierarchy. The amendments eliminate the residual method of revenue allocation and require revenue to be allocated using the relative selling price method. ASU 2009-14 removes tangible products from the scope of software revenue guidance and provides guidance on determining whether software deliverables in an arrangement that includes a tangible product are covered by the scope of the software revenue guidance. ASU 2009-13 and ASU 2009-14 should be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating the effect of the adoption of ASU 2009-13 and ASU 2009-14 on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 168, The FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, a replacement of FASB Statement No. 162, as codified in FASB ASC topic 105, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or ASC 105. This statement establishes the FASB Accounting Standards Codification as the source of authoritative accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP. The adoption of this statement effective September 30, 2009 did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R), as codified in ASC 810. This statement amends the consolidation guidance applicable to variable interest entities and the definition of a variable interest entity, and requires enhanced disclosures to provide more information about an enterprise’s involvement in a variable interest entity. This statement also requires ongoing assessments of whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity. This statement is effective for our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2010. The adoption of this statement did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, Subsequent Events, as codified in FASB ASC topic 855, Subsequent Events. This statement establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosures of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. The standard is based on the same principles that currently exist in the auditing standards. U.S. GAAP requires disclosure for certain non-recognized subsequent events, the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The adoption of this statement effective June 30, 2009 did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

41



Table of Contents

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, as codified in FASB ASC topic 825-10, Financial Instruments. This statement requires disclosures about fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting periods of publicly traded companies as well as in annual financial statements. This statement also requires those disclosures in summarized financial information at interim reporting periods. This statement is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. It does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this statement requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. On June 30, 2009, we adopted this statement, which did not have a material effect on the determination or reporting of our financial results.

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments, as codified in FASB ASC topic 320-10, Investments—Debt and Equity Securities, or ASC 320. This statement amends the other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities in the financial statements. It does not amend existing recognition and measurement guidance related to other-than-temporary impairments of equity securities. This statement modifies the requirements for recognizing other-than-temporarily impaired debt securities and revises the existing impairment model for such securities, by modifying the current intent and ability indicator in determining whether a debt security is other-than-temporarily impaired. This statement is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The statement does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this statement requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. On June 30, 2009, we adopted this statement, which did not have a material effect on the determination or reporting of our financial results.

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly, as codified in ASC 820-10. This statement provides additional guidance for estimating fair value when the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability have significantly decreased. This statement includes guidance on identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly. The statement also provides guidance on how to determine the fair value of assets and liabilities in the current economic environment and reemphasizes that the objective of a fair value measurement remains an exit price. If we were to conclude that there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity of the asset or liability in relation to normal market activities, quoted market values may not be representative of fair value and we may conclude that a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate. This statement is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. It does not require disclosures for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes at initial adoption. In periods after initial adoption, this statement requires comparative disclosures only for periods ending after initial adoption. On June 30, 2009, we adopted this statement, which did not have a material effect on the determination or reporting of our financial results.

 

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

Executive Overview

 

For the three months ended June 30, 2010, we reported a net loss of $22.8 million, or $0.28 net loss per share, as compared to a net loss of $13.2 million, or $0.19 net loss per share, during the same period in 2009. The increase in net loss in the second quarter of 2010 as compared to the second quarter of 2009 results from the completion of the recognition of the Evamist deferred revenue in 2009 and decreased research and development spending due to the completion of the Phase 3 clinical trials for Qnexa for the treatment of obesity, partially offset by increased selling, general and administrative expenses, primarily due to Qnexa pre-commercialization expenses.

 

On April 3, 2008, we entered into several agreements with Deerfield, a healthcare investment fund, and its affiliates. Certain of these agreements were amended and restated on March 16, 2009. Under the agreements Deerfield and its affiliates provided $30 million in funding to us. The $30 million in funding included $20 million from the FARA, and $10 million from the sale of the Company’s common stock at the closing on April 15, 2008 in connection with the registered direct offering mentioned above under a securities purchase agreement. Under the FARA, the Deerfield Affiliates made $3.3 million payments to us in April, September and December 2008 and February, June and September 2009, constituting all of the required payments under the FARA. The amounts of funding provided under the FARA, net of certain amounts, represent a financial obligation, a loan payable by the Company in which the principal and interest will be repaid through royalty payments and the exercise of the option or put rights.

 

In connection with the sale of Evamist, we received $150 million. The sale of Evamist was a unique transaction. An initial $10 million was paid at closing and $140 million was paid upon FDA approval of Evamist. These payments were non-refundable and were recorded as deferred revenue and have been recognized as license and other revenue ratably over a 21.5-month period, from August 1, 2007 to May 15, 2009, which was the remaining term of a license to improvements to the MDTS applicator. No improvements to the MDTS applicator were made during this period. As compared to revenues from product sales, license and other revenue was

 

42



Table of Contents

 

significant on a quarterly basis during this 21.5-month period. Since the $150 million was received and we had no related contingencies, the recognition of revenue and the corresponding reduction of deferred revenue related to the Evamist sale had no impact on our cash flows from operations during this period. The revenue related to the Evamist transaction recognized in the first six months of 2009 was $31.4 million.

 

We may have continued losses in future years, depending on the timing of our research and development expenditures, and we plan to continue to invest in clinical development of our current research and investigational drug candidates to bring those potential products to market.

 

Revenue. (Unaudited)

 

 

 

Three Months Ended
June 30,

 

Six Months Ended
June 30,

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009

(Decrease)

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009
Increase/
(Decrease)

 

 

 

(In thousands, except percentages)

 

United States product, net

 

$

3,036

 

$

3,368

 

(10

)%

$

4,138

 

$

4,261

 

(3

)%

International product

 

749

 

776

 

(3

)%

1,263

 

1,069

 

18

%

License and other revenue

 

115

 

10,581

 

(99

)%

231

 

31,627

 

(99

)%

Total revenues

 

$

3,900

 

$

14,725

 

(74

)%

$

5,632

 

$

36,957

 

(85

)%

 

Product revenues for the quarters ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009, were $3.8 million and $4.1 million, respectively. In the six months ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009, product revenues totaled $5.4 million and $5.3 million, respectively.

 

U.S. product revenues in the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2010 decreased as compared to the same periods in 2009. The decreases in product revenues for both periods as compared to the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009, were primarily due to smaller quantities of U.S. units shipped partially offset by a nominal price increase for MUSE. In addition, in the six months ended June 30, 2009 revenue was partially offset by both an increase in the sales allowance for pricing discounts for certain government customers of $208,000 and the allowance of $95,000 for out-of-specification production identified in the first quarter 2009. The decrease in MUSE domestic shipments is a result of fluctuations in inventory levels at the wholesale level and is not indicative of any trend.

 

While international shipments increased in the three months ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the prior year period, international product revenue decreased slightly in the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the prior year quarter. This decrease in international product revenue is the result of incremental increases of $127,000 for the out-of-specification condition noted above for certain production lots of MUSE shipped and a $90,000 increase in our international pricing reserve due to a reduction in transfer prices resulting from the difference in currency exchange rates. If the exchange rate differences and lower transfer prices continue, our future international product revenue will continue to be negatively impacted. In the six months ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the prior year period, international revenue increased due to greater quantities of international shipments and an incremental decrease of $82,000 for the out-of-specification condition noted above for certain production lots of MUSE shipped, partially offset by an incremental increase of $100,000 in our international pricing reserve due to a reduction in transfer prices resulting from the difference in currency exchange rates.

 

In the first quarter of 2009, through our routine testing, we identified that certain production lots of the lower strength MUSE shipped did not meet certain specifications applied toward the end of the 24-month shelf life. This out-of-specification condition appears to arise in the last six months of the 24-month shelf life. This condition does not pose any safety risk to patients. In May 2009, we issued a voluntary recall of specific lots of 125 mcg and 250 mcg MUSE product remaining in the U.S. wholesaler’s inventory. Units of 125 mcg and 250 mcg represented 13% of total domestic units shipped in 2008.

 

In September 2009, we received approval from the FDA to reduce the shelf life of our 125 mcg and 250 mcg MUSE product from 24 months to 18 months and we are currently manufacturing the 125 mcg and 250 mcg MUSE product with an 18-month shelf life. During the fourth quarter of 2009, we began shipping 125 mcg and 250 mcg MUSE product with an 18-month shelf life. We offered an exchange of product with the 18-month shelf life for any product with the 24-month shelf life remaining in the wholesalers’ inventories and, in the fourth quarter of 2009, we completed the product exchange.

 

43



Table of Contents

 

While the demand for MUSE declined slightly in the six months ended June 30, 2010, we are not able to anticipate if our largest wholesaler customer will continue its historical pattern of making purchases in the fourth quarter that exceed expected quarterly demand. If our largest wholesaler customer does not repeat this pattern of purchasing quantities of MUSE that exceed quarterly demands, revenues from the sale of MUSE in 2010 may be lower as compared to 2009.

 

On March 30, 2007, we announced that we had entered into a definitive agreement with K-V, to transfer our assets and grant a sublicense of our rights under the Evamist Agreement to K-V, or the Transaction. In August 2008, we assigned all of our rights and obligations under the Evamist license agreement to K-V. The closing of the Transaction occurred on May 15, 2007 and on July 27, 2007 we received FDA approval of the Evamist NDA. An initial $10 million was paid at closing and $140 million was paid upon FDA approval. These payments were recorded as deferred revenue and have been recognized as revenue ratably over the 21.5-month term of the Improvement License, from August 1, 2007 to May 15, 2009. As a result, license and other revenue decreased in the first half of 2010 as compared to the same period last year.

 

Cost of goods sold and manufacturing. (Unaudited)

 

 

 

Three Months Ended
June 30,

 

Six Months Ended
June 30,

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009
Increase

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009
(Decrease)

 

 

 

(In thousands, except percentages)

 

Cost of goods sold and manufacturing

 

$

2,904

 

$

2,877

 

1

%

$

5,315

 

$

5,480

 

(3

)%

 

Cost of goods sold and manufacturing, or cost of goods sold, in the second quarter of 2010 increased $27,000, or 1%, to $2.9 million, as compared to $2.9 million for the first quarter of 2009. Cost of goods sold increased in the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009 primarily due to the increase in the number of units shipped. In the second quarter of 2009, we increased our alprostadil reserves by $487,000 for raw material which had exceeded its shelf life. This increase in cost of goods sold was offset by settlements in the second quarter 2009 with the supplier and insurance company totaling $408,000 related to the non-conformance of raw materials that occurred in the first quarter of 2008.

 

In the six months ended June 30, 2010 costs of goods sold decreased $165,000, or 3%, to $5.3 million, as compared to $5.5 million in the same period last year. Although there was a slight increase in product shipped in the six months ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2009, cost of goods sold decreased slightly primarily due to $262,000 of fully reserved alprostadil that was subsequently used in production in the six months ended June 30, 2010.

 

We anticipate that cost of goods sold and manufacturing in 2010 will be similar to costs incurred in 2009.

 

Research and development. (Unaudited)

 

 

 

Three Months Ended
June 30,

 

Six Months Ended
June 30,

 

 

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009
(Decrease)

 

2010

 

2009

 

2010 vs.
2009
(Decrease)

 

 

 

(In thousands, except percentages)

 

Research and development

 

$

14,175

 

$

20,258

 

</