UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal
year ended December 31, 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 1-33895
CPEX Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
No. 26-1172076
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
2 Holland Way
Exeter, New Hampshire
(Address of principal
executive offices)
|
|
03833
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(603) 658-6100
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
|
|
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(NASDAQ Capital Market)
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act.
YES o NO þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act.
YES o NO þ
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 þ
NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
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 if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
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 o
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting
company þ
|
(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).
YES o NO þ
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting
common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to
the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the
average bid and asked prices of such common equity, as of the
last business day of the registrants most recently
completed second fiscal quarter.
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Class
|
|
Aggregate Market Value
|
|
As of Close of Business on
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
|
|
$55,587,540
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
registrants classes of common stock, as of the latest
practicable date.
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Class
|
|
Shares Outstanding
|
|
As of Close of Business on
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
|
|
2,635,036
|
|
March 22, 2011
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I
Overview
We are an emerging specialty pharmaceutical company in the
business of research and development of pharmaceutical products
utilizing our validated drug delivery platform technology.
We have U.S. and international patents and other
proprietary rights to technology that facilitates the absorption
of drugs. Our platform drug delivery technology is based upon
CPE-215®,
which enhances permeation and absorption of pharmaceutical
molecules across biological membranes such as the skin, nasal
mucosa and eye. Our first product is
Testim®,
a gel for testosterone replacement therapy, which is a
formulation of our technology with testosterone. Testim is
licensed to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Auxilium) which is currently marketing it in the
United States, Europe and other countries. Substantially all of
our current revenue is derived from royalties on Testim sales.
In April 2010, we announced that Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
our licensing and development partner, entered into a global
agreement with Allergan, Inc. for the development and
commercialization of Ser-120, a product candidate for the
treatment of nocturia that utilizes our patented intranasal drug
delivery technology. In connection with its agreement with
Serenity, Allergan assumed our exclusive development and license
agreement with Serenity under which we granted Serenity an
exclusive and
sub-licensable
license to use our
CPE-215®
permeation technology for the development of Ser-120. In return,
we are entitled to sales milestones and low single digit
royalties on worldwide net sales following commercialization of
Ser-120. In 2010, Allergan reported that Serenity and Allergan
are in the process of reviewing the complete trial data from two
Phase 3 trials of Ser-120, which were not sufficient for
successful registration, to determine what additional trials are
indicated to support development of the program.
On January 4, 2011, we announced that we had entered into a
definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc., or FCB, a newly
formed company which is controlled by Footstar Corporation,
under which FCB, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, will acquire
all of our outstanding common stock for $27.25 per share in
cash, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger approved by
our Board of Directors. The proposed merger was subsequently
approved by our stockholders on March 24, 2011. The closing
of the transaction is subject to the satisfaction of certain
customary closing conditions, provided, the closing of the
transaction may not occur prior to April 4, 2011. We expect
that the transaction will be completed shortly after
April 4, 2011, but there can be no assurance that the
closing will occur on this timeframe or at all. Upon closing of
the transaction, we will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of FCB
and our common stock will cease to trade on the NASDAQ Capital
Market. The foregoing description of the transaction with FCB
does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to the Merger Agreement, a copy of which is filed
as Exhibit 2.1 to this report.
We were incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2007, and our
principal executive offices are located in Exeter, New
Hampshire. Our business was initially the drug delivery business
of Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We were spun off in June 2008
in connection with the sale of Bentleys remaining
business. Shares of our stock were distributed to Bentley
stockholders after the close of business on June 30, 2008
by means of a stock dividend (the Separation). Each
Bentley stockholder of record on June 20, 2008 received one
share of our common stock for every ten shares of Bentley common
stock. Bentley has no ownership interest in our company
subsequent to the spin-off.
Industry
Overview
Specialty pharmaceutical companies like ours develop products to
address the limitations of current therapies in selected
established markets (endocrinology, urology, dermatology,
neurology, etc.). These specialty markets can usually be
addressed by smaller sales forces, but have the same market
potential. Our pipeline products are designed to enhance safety,
efficacy,
ease-of-use
and patient compliance. Our pipeline
2
products also provide novel opportunities for pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies to partner with us to develop new and
innovative products and extend their therapeutic franchises.
Developing safer and more efficacious methods of delivering
existing drugs is generally subject to less risk than attempting
to discover new drugs, because of lower development costs. On
average, it takes 10 to 15 years for an experimental new
drug to progress from the laboratory to commercialization in the
U.S., with an average cost of approximately $800 million to
$900 million. Typically, only one in 5,000 compounds
entering preclinical testing advances into human testing and
only one in five compounds tested in humans is approved for
commercialization. By contrast, we typically consider drugs for
our pipeline that already have been approved and are
commercially available, have a track record of safety and
efficacy and have established markets for which there is an
unmet medical need. In addition, we may be able to pursue an
accelerated 505(b)(2) path to the market for some of our
pipeline products that may translate into less time spent in the
clinic and less money spent on clinical development. The
505(b)(2) development path in turn translates into a faster time
to market launch.
The vast majority of the drugs currently on the market are
administered orally or by injection. Oral drug delivery methods,
while simple to use, typically subject drugs to degradation
initially by the stomach and secondarily to first-pass
metabolism in the liver before reaching the bloodstream. In
order to achieve efficacy, higher drug dosages are often used,
which can increase the risk of side effects.
Injectable pharmaceuticals, while avoiding first-pass metabolism
in the liver, possess several disadvantages, which can lead to
decreased patient acceptance and compliance with prescribed
therapy. Injectable drugs are more painful for the patient and
often require medical personnel to administer. In addition,
injectable drugs are typically also more expensive due to the
added cost associated with their manufacturing under sterile
conditions and added costs for their administration, including
medical personnel, syringes, needles and other supplies. A
decline in patient acceptance and compliance due to any of these
reasons can delay the initiation of treatment and increase the
risk of medical complications and could lead to higher
healthcare costs.
Alternative
Drug Delivery Technologies
Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies recognize the
benefits of alternative delivery technologies as a way of
gaining a competitive advantage. It has been reported that while
pharmaceutical sales in the U.S. have risen steadily over
the last several years to more than $720 billion in 2008,
sales growth is expected to slow over the next several years due
to an extraordinary number of patent expirations and to the poor
global economy. At the same time, it is estimated that the
global drug delivery market has tripled in value since 2000 to
approximately $78 billion (Espicom Healthcare Intelligence,
2009). The growth in the drug delivery market has been driven by
the recognition of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies
that provide alternative delivery technologies that avoid
first-pass liver metabolism, that are less invasive than
injectable options and that enable product line and patent
position extension provide an attractive combination of
advantages to companies and patients. Further, these
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies often benefit from
specialty pharmaceutical companies that apply their technologies
to off-patent products, formulating their own proprietary
products, which are then typically commercialized by larger
pharmaceutical companies capable of promoting the products.
Our
Permeation Enhancement Technology The Path to
Improved Drug Benefits
Permeation enhancement with CPE-215 is the drug delivery
technology of CPEX. It has been proven to enhance the absorption
of drugs through the nasal mucosa, skin and eye. It can be
adapted to products formulated as creams, ointments, gels,
solutions, sprays or patches. CPE-215 also has maintained a
record of safety as a direct and indirect food additive and
fragrance, and is listed on the U.S. Food and Drug
Agencys inactive ingredient list for approved use in drug
applications.
3
We believe that potential key benefits of the patented drug
delivery formulation technology of CPEX using CPE-215 may
include the following therapeutic and commercial opportunities
and advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
Improved compliance and convenience to patients requiring
ongoing injection therapies and the potential for earlier
acceptance of prophylactic treatment for patients reluctant to
use injections;
|
|
|
|
Application to injectable peptides that could be administered
intranasally with CPE-215;
|
|
|
|
Application to therapeutic molecules that are degraded by
passage through the liver or would benefit from intra-nasal
administration to eliminate first-pass metabolism;
|
|
|
|
Application to a variety of metabolic, neurological and other
serious medical conditions;
|
|
|
|
Opportunities for life-cycle extension strategies for existing
marketed products;
|
|
|
|
Opportunities for allowing product differentiation based on
benefits of administration.
|
Licensed
Products
We earn royalty revenues on sales of Testim, a testosterone gel
that incorporates our CPE-215 drug delivery technology. The
product is licensed to Auxilium and was launched in the
U.S. in early 2003 as a testosterone replacement therapy.
Testim has been approved for marketing in Canada and 15
countries in Europe. Royalties received from Testim sales were
$23.3 million and $18.6 million for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Auxilium uses its
sales force to market Testim in the U.S. and has partnered
with Paladin Labs Inc. to market the drug in Canada and with
Ferring International S.A. to market the drug in Europe.
The testosterone replacement market has expanded as more
baby-boomers enter middle age and more attention is focused on
male hormonal deficiency and the benefits of replacement
therapy. Hypogonadism, a condition in men where insufficient
amounts of testosterone are produced, is thought to affect one
out of every five men in the U.S. and Europe aged over 50.
Symptoms associated with low testosterone levels in men include
depression, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, muscular
atrophy, loss of energy, mood alterations, increased body fat
and reduced bone density. This condition is currently
significantly under-treated. Growing patient awareness together
with education continue to spur demand for testosterone
replacement therapy.
Currently marketed testosterone replacement therapies deliver
hormones through injections, transdermal patches or gels. Gels
provide commercially attractive and efficacious alternatives to
the other current methods of delivery by providing a more steady
state of absorption rather than the bolus surge of injections or
the irritation caused by patches resulting in a less desirable
dosage regimen.
Product
Pipeline
Our CPE-215 technology has been licensed to Serenity, which in
turn has assigned it Allergen as part of a global agreement for
development of Serenitys potential nocturia product.
Allergen reported in 2010 that it is in the process of reviewing
the data from two Phase III trials of the product candidate to
determine what additional trials are indicated to support
development of the program.
Nasulintm,
our patented, intranasal insulin formulation, which incorporated
CPE-215 as a permeation facilitator, is no longer in
development. In 2010 we completed a Phase 2a study of Nasulin
which did not meet its primary endpoint. Based on a full review
of the results of this study, we determined not to proceed with
any further Nasulin development activities.
Key
Markets and Trends for
Testim®
The testosterone replacement market has expanded as more
baby-boomers enter middle age and more attention is focused on
male hormonal deficiency and the benefits of replacement
therapy. Symptoms
4
associated with low testosterone levels in men include
depression, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, muscular
atrophy, loss of energy, mood alterations, increased body fat
and reduced bone density. This condition is currently
significantly under-treated and growing patient awareness
together with education continue to spur demand for testosterone
replacement therapy.
Currently marketed testosterone replacement therapies deliver
hormones through injections, transdermal patches or gels. Gels
provide commercially attractive and efficacious alternatives to
the other current methods of delivery by providing a more steady
state of absorption rather than the bolus surge of injections or
the irritation caused by patches, which often results in a less
desirable dosage regimen.
The testosterone replacement therapy market is highly
competitive. Potential competitors, some of which are described
below, include large pharmaceutical companies, specialty
pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms.
Other pharmaceutical companies may develop generic versions of
Testim or any products that compete with Testim that do not
infringe our patents or other proprietary rights, and, as a
result, our business may be adversely affected. For example,
because the ingredients of Testim are commercially available to
third parties, it is possible that competitors may design
formulations, propose dosages or develop methods of
administration that would be outside the scope of the claims of
one or more, or of all, of our patents. This would enable their
products to effectively compete with Testim. Governmental and
other pressures to reduce pharmaceutical costs may result in
physicians writing prescriptions for these generic products.
Increased competition from the sale of competing generic
pharmaceutical products could cause a material decrease in
revenue from Testim.
The primary competition for Testim is
AndroGel®,
marketed by Abbott Laboratories. In February 2010, Abbott
acquired Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which launched Androgel
three years prior to Testim. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. began
co-promoting AndroGel with Solvay in late 2006, and Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. began co-promoting AndroGel in
early 2007, each pursuant to patent lawsuit settlement
agreements with Solvay. In January 2009, the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission, or FTC, and a number of private parties filed
actions against Solvay, Watson and Par alleging that their
respective 2006 patent lawsuit settlements related to AndroGel
are unlawful. All actions were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
In February 2010, the court dismissed the FTCs claims and
some of the private party claims. Certain private party claims
remain pending. According to IMS, as of December 31, 2010,
AndroGel accounted for 77.9% of the gel prescriptions.
Generic
Competition
In October 2008, we and Auxilium received notice that
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) filed
an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, containing a
paragraph IV certification in which it certified that it
believes that its proposed testosterone gel product does not
infringe CPEXs patent covering
Testim®,
U.S. Patent No. 7,320,968 (the 968
Patent). The 968 Patent claims a method for
maintaining effective blood serum testosterone levels for
treating a hypogonadal male, and will expire in January 2025.
The 968 Patent is listed for Testim in Approved Drug
Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly
known as the Orange Book), published by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration(FDA). Upsher-Smiths
paragraph IV certification sets forth allegations that the
968 Patent will not be infringed by the manufacture, use,
or sale of the product for which the ANDA was submitted. On
December 4, 2008, CPEX and Auxilium filed a Hatch-Waxman
patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the Court) against
Upsher-Smith, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The
Court docketed this case as Civil Action
No. 08-908-SLR.
In June 2009, Upsher-Smith amended its answer to the complaint
to include a defense and counterclaim of invalidity of the
968 Patent, which CPEX and Auxilium have denied. CPEX and
Auxilium filed a reply to the counterclaim in July 2009 denying
the invalidity of the 968 Patent. A patent issued by
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, such as the 968
Patent, is presumed valid. As of March 2011, the lawsuit remains
pending; however, the trial date has been removed from the
Courts calendar. As described more fully under
Item 3 Legal Proceedings in this
report, any final FDA approval of Upsher-Smiths proposed
generic product will be stayed until the earlier of
30 months beginning
5
on the date of receipt of the paragraph IV certification
(April 2011) or an adverse decision in our patent
infringement lawsuit.
In February 2009, Auxilium filed a Citizen Petition with FDA
concerning regulatory approval for testosterone gel products. In
August 2009, FDA responded to Auxiliums Citizen Petition.
While FDAs response did not address any particular
proposed generic product, it stated that any application
for a testosterone gel product that has different penetration
enhancers than the reference listed drug cannot be submitted as
an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) and, instead, will
have to be submitted as an NDA (New Drug Application) under
section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. Furthermore, in October, 2010, FDA issued a response
to the Citizen Petition submitted on behalf of Abbott
Laboratories regarding testosterone gel products. In its
response, FDA reiterated that the practical effect
of its statements is that an applicant must submit an NDA under
section 505(b)(2) rather than an ANDA if its proposed product
contains a different enhancer than the reference listed drug.
FDA further stated that if an applicant first filed an ANDA, and
later filed an NDA under Section 505(b)(2), the NDA would
be treated as a separate application, suggesting that this would
trigger a separate review by the agency. In July 2003, Watson
and Par filed ANDAs with the FDA to be approved as generics for
AndroGel. In response to these ANDAs, Solvay filed patent
infringement lawsuits against these two companies to block the
approval and marketing of the generic products. In 2006, all the
subject companies reached an agreement pursuant to which Watson
and Par agreed not to bring a generic of Androgel to the market
until August 2015. During this time frame, Abbott, Watson and
Par will co-promote AndroGel. In June 2009, Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Perrigo) filed an ANDA with a
paragraph IV certification seeking the approval of a
generic version of Androgel in the United States. The
paragraph IV certification procedure challenges a
U.S. patent relating to Androgel which runs through the
next decade. In its letter to the company, Perrigo asserted that
it did not infringe the AndroGel patent because its proposed
testosterone gel product contains a different formulation than
the formulation protected by the AndroGel patent. In contrast,
the proposed testosterone gel products that were the subject of
earlier ANDAs filed by other companies, and which were the
subject of prior patent litigation brought by the company,
purported to be identical to the AndroGel formulation. To date,
we believe that Abbott has not initiated patent infringement
litigation against Perrigo. The introduction of a generic
version of Androgel would have an adverse impact on the branded
gel market, including taking a significant portion of branded
Androgel business. Although Testim has a BX rating, meaning that
pharmacists are prohibited from substituting Testim with
Androgel, or a generic version of Androgel, a less expensive
generic testosterone gel product could still have a material
adverse affect on Testim market share
and/or
Testims formulary status, and therefore could have a
material negative impact on our financial condition and results
of operations.
Other
competition
|
|
|
|
|
In November 2010,
Axiron®,
a 2% testosterone solution delivered in the armpit, was approved
by the FDA for testosterone replacement therapy in men with a
deficiency or absence of testosterone. Axiron was developed by
Acrux Limited, an Australian company which has entered into an
agreement with Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) under
which Lilly received worldwide rights to commercialize Axiron.
Lilly is expected to launch Axiron in the United States in 2011.
|
|
|
|
In December 2010,
FORTESTAtm,
a 2% testosterone gel applied to the inner and front of the
thigh, was approved by the FDA. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
signed an agreement with U.K. based ProStrakan Group plc for
exclusive U.S. rights to commercialize
FORTESTAtm.
Post-marketing requirements include a hand-washing study to be
completed and submitted to the FDA by April 2012. An additional
trial Assessment of time to Eugonadal testosterone
Range is to be completed mid-2011.
FORTESTAtm
is also approved in Europe and is sold by ProStrakan under the
brand names
Tostrantm,
Tostrextm
and
Itnogentm.
|
|
|
|
Abbott (formerly Solvay) is awaiting FDA feedback on Androgel
1.62%, a high concentration gel. Abbott received an FDA Complete
Response letter in March 2010 regarding Androgel 1.62% gel. In
January 2011, Abbott stated they expected an FDA decision in
2011. Launch timing remains unclear.
|
6
There are several other compounds in various stages of clinical
development which may compete with Testim.
|
|
|
|
|
Bayer Schering Pharma discovered and developed
NEBIDOtm
a novel, long-acting injectable testosterone product sold in
Europe. Bayer has licensed U.S. rights for this product to
Endo, which filed an NDA with the FDA in 2009 using the brand
name
AVEEDtm.
In December 2009, Endo received a complete response letter from
the FDA regarding AVEED. In the letter the FDA requested
additional information on rare but serious incidents of
anaphylactic reactions and pulmonary oil microembolism among
patients taking AVEED. The FDA also said in its complete
response letter that Endos risk mitigation program for the
drug was inadequate. Endo is currently evaluating the FDAs
comments and is working with the FDA to determine the regulatory
pathway for AVEED. The timing of the entry of AVEED in the
U.S. market is unknown.
|
|
|
|
BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. have developed
Bio-T-Geltm,
a once-daily transdermal testosterone gel currently in late
stage human clinical trials. It has been reported that an NDA
submission is expected in 2013 with a potential launch in 2014
or 2015.
|
|
|
|
Clarus Therapeutics is developing an oral form of testosterone
called
OriTextm
which is currently in Phase 3 clinical trials.
|
|
|
|
Ascend Therapeutics is developing a transdermal
dihydrotestosterone gel therapy for late-onset hypogonadism. The
product is currently in Phase 2 clinical trials to gauge
efficacy.
|
Testim also competes with other testosterone replacement
therapies such as long-acting injectables, patches, orals, a
buccal tablet and implantable pellets. Other new treatments are
being sought for testosterone replacement therapy; these
products are in development and their future impact on the
treatment of testosterone deficiency is unknown.
Research
and Development
Research and development expenses, which are attributed to our
investments in our research and development programs, were
$7.5 million and $12.3 million for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Research and
development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009
and through the first quarter of 2010 were, primarily for
Nasulin, our intranasal insulin product candidate. As described
above, we have determined not to proceed with any further
Nasulin development activities. Expenses subsequent to the
suspension of the Nasulin program include costs for preclinical
studies and new product discovery projects.
Sources
and Availability of Raw Materials
Our technology is dependent upon obtaining pharmaceutical grade
CPE-215 from third-party suppliers. We do not manufacture our
own CPE-215. Pharmaceutical grade CPE-215 is available from at
least two major industrial manufacturers. Other molecules and
compounds used in our development process are often proprietary
to our development partners and supplied directly by those
partners.
Partners/Customers
We enter into research and license agreements with other
companies under which we perform research activities and license
product candidates in exchange for milestone payments and
royalties
and/or a
share of profits derived from product sales.
License
Agreement with Auxilium
We and Auxilium are parties to a License Agreement dated
May 31, 2000 pursuant to which Auxilium obtained a sole and
exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license (including
sub-license
rights) to make, have made on their behalf, use and sell
anywhere in the world any and all pharmaceutical compositions
which contain (A) testosterone as the single active
ingredient; and (B) CPE-215 and which are covered by a
valid CPEX patent, all related patents and technology. Initially
this license was based solely upon the issued
7
U.S. Patent No. 5,023,252. Since this patent expired
in June 2008, Auxiliums license is now based upon issued
U.S. Patents, No. 7,320,968 and the recently obtained
six U.S. patents (see Intellectual Property).
In addition, Auxilium was granted the exclusive right to enter
into another license agreement to acquire rights in these
patents and technology for the development of combination
products, which right expires upon the termination of the
original License Agreement. The License Agreement continues for
an indefinite term but it is terminable by us if Auxilium fails
to make timely payments and may also be terminated by either
party if (i) the other party becomes insolvent,
(ii) the other party fails to cure a breach within
30 days or (iii) CPEX is dissolved.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, we receive royalties of
12%, of Auxiliums annual net sales of Testim in the
U.S. and Canada. In the event that we do not have, or do
not maintain an enforceable patent in a country in which
Auxilium products are sold, the royalty rate due to us from
sales in that particular country reduces from the aforementioned
rates to a rate in the low single-digits.
Development
and License Agreement with Serenity
In February 2008, we entered into a Development and License
Agreement with Serenity Pharmaceuticals Corporation, to develop
Ser-120, a product candidate for the treatment of nocturia that
utilizes CPEXs patented intranasal drug delivery
technology. Nocturia is a condition which causes an individual
to wake one or more times at night to urinate. Serenity granted
us a non-exclusive license to its technology and patents rights
to conduct initial formulation activities under the Agreement.
We granted Serenity an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide
license under United States Patent No. 7,244,703 and
foreign equivalents and CPEXs proprietary CPE-215 drug
delivery technology to conduct research activities related to
the development of Ser-120 and to make and sell the product. On
April 1, 2010, we announced that Serenity entered into a
global agreement with Allergan, Inc. (Allergan)
under which Allergan assumed our development and license
agreement with Serenity. In return, we are entitled to sales
milestones and low single digit royalties on worldwide net sales
following commercialization of Ser-120. Allergan has recently
reported that Serenity and Allergan are in the process of
reviewing the complete trial data from two phase 3 trials of
Ser-120, which were not sufficient for successful registration,
to determine what additional trials are indicated to support
development of the program.
Business
Strategy
Prior to entering into our Merger Agreement with FCB, our
objective has been to become a leading specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on advanced drug delivery and formulation
technologies to improve the delivery of new as well as existing
pharmaceuticals. Our business strategy to accomplish this
objective includes:
|
|
|
|
|
identifying and implementing new product candidates for internal
pipeline development that leverage our CPE-215 drug delivery
technology and formulation expertise; and
|
|
|
|
developing strong alliances for clinical research, product
manufacturing and marketing.
|
Identifying
new product candidates that leverage our CPE-215 technology and
formulation expertise
We intend to apply our CPE-215 drug delivery technology in an
effort to improve the performance of existing pharmaceutical
products and advanced research candidates with respect to their
method of delivery and effectiveness. Candidates will be
prioritized for selection based on compatibility with CPE-215,
clinical need, market size and potential for the associated
intellectual property to be protected through patents.
We are targeting therapeutic areas with high clinical need with
compounds that have established market demand or that face
limited market acceptance as a result of less efficient drug
delivery methods.
Once we bring our products to an advanced stage of development,
we intend to develop collaboration relationships that leverage
the clinical development, marketing and sales capabilities of
strategic partners. We hope to collaborate with partners to
commercialize our internal product candidates by utilizing their
late stage clinical development, regulatory, marketing and sales
capabilities. We believe that this will allow us to license
8
our products on terms that are more favorable than those that
would be possible earlier in the development cycle. As we
succeed with this strategy, we will identify product candidates
that we can bring to late stage development on our own.
Developing
strong alliances for clinical research, product manufacturing
and marketing
In addition to pursuing our own proprietary compounds, we will
continue to seek strategic collaborations with pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies to apply our CPE-215 technology to
their branded or generic products. We will assist our
collaboration partners in developing more effective drug
delivery methods for their product candidates that have already
completed early stage clinical trials, or are even currently
marketed. We believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies
will be motivated to co-develop products utilizing CPE-215
technology to achieve these benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
improving efficacy as compared to oral administration, which
subjects the drug to the effects of first-pass metabolism;
|
|
|
|
improving utilization of costly
and/or
scarce drugs and active ingredients;
|
|
|
|
expanding the market to patients less suitable for injection,
especially children and the elderly;
|
|
|
|
improving patient convenience and compliance and lowering costs
relative to a doctors office visit for an injection;
|
|
|
|
potentially extending the period of market exclusivity for a
branded compound based on the grant of a patent that
incorporates new drug delivery methods;
|
|
|
|
allowing branded and generic drug companies to differentiate
their products from those of competitors; and
|
|
|
|
reducing the high capital investment needed to introduce and
manufacture injectable drugs.
|
We generally structure our collaborative arrangements to receive
research and development funding and milestone payments during
the development phase and upon commercialization, and
patent-based royalties on future sales of products.
Competition
Competition in the drug industry is intense. There are a number
of competitors who possess capabilities relevant to the drug
delivery field. In particular, we face substantial competition
from companies pursuing the commercialization of products using
nasal drug delivery technology. Established pharmaceutical
companies, such as Archimedes Pharma Ltd, AstraZeneca PLC, Bayer
Consumer Care, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and Pfizer, Inc. also have
in-house nasal drug delivery research and development programs
that have successfully developed products that are being
marketed using nasal drug delivery technology. We also face
indirect competition from other companies with expertise in
alternate drug delivery technologies, such as oral, injectable,
patch-based and pulmonary administration. Competitors in these
fields include AstraZeneca PLC and GlaxoSmithKline plc, Alkermes
Inc., Unigene Inc., Generex Biotechnology Corporation, Emisphere
Technologies, Inc. and Coremed Corporation. Many of our
competitors have substantially greater capital resources,
research and development resources and experience, manufacturing
capabilities, regulatory expertise, sales and marketing
resources and established collaborative relationships with
pharmaceutical companies. Our competitors, either alone or with
their collaboration partners, may succeed in developing drug
delivery technologies that are similar or preferable in
effectiveness, safety, cost and ease of commercialization and
our competitors may obtain intellectual property protection or
commercialize competitive products sooner than we do.
Universities and public and private research institutions are
also potential competitors. While these organizations primarily
have educational objectives, they may develop proprietary
technologies related to the drug delivery field or secure
protection that we may need for development of our technologies
and products.
9
We may attempt to license these proprietary technologies, but
these licenses may not be available to us on acceptable terms,
if at all.
Even if we are able to develop products and then obtain the
necessary regulatory approvals, our success will depend to a
significant degree on the commercial success of the products
developed by us and sold or distributed by our collaboration
partners.
We have described on
page 5-6
the competition for Testim, the testosterone gel marketed and
sold by Auxilium, including the ANDA filed by Upsher-Smith.
Intellectual
Property
We actively seek to protect our pharmaceutical formulations and
proprietary information by means of U.S. and foreign
patents, trademarks, trade secrets as well as various other
contractual arrangements. We depend on our ability to protect
our intellectual property and proprietary rights, but we may not
be able to maintain the confidentiality, or assure the
protection, of these assets in the United States or elsewhere.
Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to protect
our current and future technologies and products and to defend
our intellectual property rights. If we fail to protect our
intellectual property adequately, competitors may manufacture
and market products similar to ours. Patents covering our
technologies have been issued to us, and we have filed, and
expect to continue to file, patent applications seeking to
protect newly developed technologies and products in various
countries, including the United States. However, patents may not
be issued with respect to any of our patent applications and
existing or future patents issued to or licensed by us may not
provide competitive advantages for our products. Patents that
are issued may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented by our
competitors. Furthermore, our patent rights may not prevent our
competitors from developing, using or commercializing products
that are similar or functionally equivalent to our products.
Where trade secrets are our sole protection, we may not be able
to prevent third parties from marketing generic equivalents to
our products, reducing prices in the marketplace and reducing
our profitability.
We have the following issued patents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patent/Technology
|
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
|
Expiration
|
|
|
Formulations and method of using macrocyclic enhancers,
including CPE-215, with Testosterone,
Testim®
product
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
2025
|
(1)
|
Pharmaceutical
formulations and methods of use patents relating to the use of
nasal formulations of insulin
(Nasulintm)
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
Pharmaceutical formulations and methods of use patents relating
to the combination of the macrocyclic enhancer with peptides,
peptidomimetics or proteins
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
2022
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Orange Book Listed Patents covering the
Testim®
formulation expire April 21, 2023 and January 18, 2025. |
The use of our technology with various products such as
testosterone as well as other peptides, is covered by both
U.S. and foreign patents in many major market countries.
The initial patent for use of our technology has expired in the
United States in June 2008, in Canada in 2010 and has expired in
all other markets outside the United States. We have patent
protection for the commercial formulations of testosterone
(Testim) until 2025 and in 2010 we obtained six
U.S. patents covering the testosterone formulation in the
United States. These latter patents were added to the currently
listed Orange Book: Approved Drugs with Therapeutic Equivalence
(Orange Book) patent for Testim, which means that
there are a total of seven listed patents covering the Testim
product. We also have a patent for our nasal insulin formulation
(Nasulin) until 2024. We have applied for and continue to file
patent applications covering the use of our technology
worldwide; however, we cannot provide any assurance that any
patents will issue.
We also rely on trade secrets, non-patented proprietary
expertise and continuing technological innovation that we seek
to protect, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements
with licensees, suppliers, employees, consultants and others. To
this end, we require our employees, consultants and advisors to
enter
10
into agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential
information and, where applicable, require disclosure and
assignment to us of all ideas, developments, discoveries and
inventions that arise from their activities for us.
Additionally, these confidentiality agreements require that our
employees, consultants and advisors do not bring to our
attention, or use, without proper authorization, any third
partys proprietary technology. However, these agreements
may be breached and there may not be adequate remedies in the
event of a breach. Disputes may arise concerning the ownership
of intellectual property or the applicability of confidentiality
agreements. Moreover, our trade secrets and proprietary
technology may otherwise become known or be independently
developed by our competitors.
Third parties may claim that we infringe on their proprietary
rights. There has been substantial litigation in the
pharmaceutical industry with respect to the manufacture, use and
sale of new products. These lawsuits relate to the validity and
infringement of patents or proprietary rights of third parties.
We may be required to commence or defend against charges
relating to the infringement of patent or proprietary rights.
Any such litigation could: (i) require us to incur
substantial expenses, even if we are insured or successful in
the litigation; (ii) require us to divert significant time
and effort of our technical and management personnel;
(iii) result in the loss of our rights to develop or make
certain products; (iv) require us to pay substantial
monetary damages or royalties in order to license proprietary
rights from third parties; and (v) prevent us from
launching a developed, tested and approved product.
Assignment
Agreement with Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Under an Assignment Agreement with MacroChem Corporation
(MacroChem), dated June 24, 2003, which was
assumed by Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Access)
following their acquisition of MacroChem in February 2009, we
own all of Accesss right, title and interest to
U.S. Patent Number 6,495,124 B1 and any and all related
patents and patent applications which are divisions,
continuations,
continuations-in-part,
reissues, renewals, extensions and supplementary protection
certificates (the Access Patent Rights). As a result
of the assignment, Access retained no interest whatsoever in the
Access Patent Rights. To date, we have not generated any revenue
from the Access Patent Rights, which expire in 2020.
Government
Regulation
Numerous governmental authorities in the U.S. and other
countries extensively regulate the activities of pharmaceutical
manufacturers. If we fail to comply with the applicable
requirements of governmental authorities, we may be subject to
administrative or judicial sanctions such as refusal of or delay
in the approval of pending marketing applications or supplements
to approved applications, warning letters, total or partial
suspension of production, fines, injunctions, product seizures
or recalls, as well as criminal prosecution.
Prior to marketing most pharmaceutical products in the U.S., the
product must first be approved by the FDA. For new compounds,
the regulatory approval process begins with developing
preclinical laboratory supporting data and animal safety
testing. The approval process generally consists of the
following five principal stages:
|
|
|
|
|
preclinical testing (supporting safety and potential efficacy);
|
|
|
|
submission and review by the FDA of an Investigational New Drug
Exemption (IND) Application;
|
|
|
|
clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
preparation and submission of the New Drug Application
(NDA); and
|
|
|
|
FDAs review and approval/disapproval of the NDA.
|
In some cases, further clinical trials may also be required
following approval.
The IND is submitted to the FDA when the appropriate preclinical
studies are completed and must be submitted to the FDA
30 days before beginning clinical studies. The IND becomes
effective if the FDA does not put the investigations described
in the IND on clinical hold within 30 days of receiving the
IND for filing.
11
Human clinical trials typically are conducted in three
sequential phases. Some clinical trials may include aspects of
more than one phase.
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 1 involves the initial introduction of the pharmaceutical
compound into patients or healthy human volunteers; the emphasis
is on testing for dosage tolerance, metabolism, excretion,
clinical pharmacology, safety (adverse effects) and possibly
early evidence of effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Phase 2 involves the first controlled clinical trial involving
patients who have the targeted disease or condition and consists
of safety and efficacy studies. The studies may be divided into
early Phase 2 (or 2a), during which studies are performed to
determine initial efficacy and late Phase 2 (or 2b) which may
consist of placebo-controlled trials in a larger number of
patients.
|
|
|
|
Phase 3 involves large scale, longer-term, well controlled
efficacy and safety studies within an expanded patient
population, frequently at multiple clinical study sites.
|
Throughout the drug development process, the IND must be updated
continually with protocol amendments, information amendments,
IND Safety Reports and Annual Reports. The FDA carefully reviews
all data submitted and holds meetings with the sponsor at key
stages to discuss the preclinical and clinical plans and results.
The Chemistry/Manufacturing/Controls data, clinical studies,
statistical evaluation and all relevant supporting research data
that has been collected over many years of development is
submitted to the FDA in an NDA. Additionally, an NDA will
contain complete information on the proposed manufacturing
process including process, equipment and facilities validation
demonstrating that the applicant is capable of consistently
manufacturing a drug product of appropriate strength, quality
and purity consistent with the product that was studied in the
clinical trials. An NDA is an application requesting FDA
approval to market a new drug for human use in interstate
commerce.
NDAs are allocated varying review priorities based on a number
of factors, including the severity of the disease, the
availability of alternative treatments and the risks and
benefits demonstrated in clinical trials. Additional animal
studies or clinical trials may be requested during the FDA
review process and may delay marketing approval. After FDA
approval for the initial indications, further clinical trials
are necessary to gain approval for the use of the product for
any additional indications. The FDA may also require
post-marketing testing to monitor for adverse effects, and in
some cases to provide additional information on efficacy, which
can involve significant expense. Our products under development
and future products to be developed must go through the approval
process delineated above prior to gaining approval by the FDA
for commercialization.
FDA approval is also required for the marketing of generic
equivalents of an existing drug. An Abbreviated New Drug
Application, or ANDA, is required to be submitted to the FDA for
approval. When processing an ANDA, the FDA, in lieu of the
requirement for conducting complete clinical studies, requires
bioavailability
and/or
bioequivalence studies. Bioavailability indicates the rate and
extent of absorption and levels of concentration of a drug
product in the body. Bioequivalence compares the bioavailability
of one drug product (in this case, the product under review)
with another (usually the innovator product). When
bioequivalence is established, the rate of absorption and levels
of concentration of the drug in the body will closely
approximate those of the previously approved drug. An ANDA may
only be submitted for a drug on the basis that it is the
equivalent to a previously approved drug.
In addition to obtaining FDA approval for each product, each
manufacturer of drugs must register its manufacturing facilities
with the FDA, and must list the drug products it manufactures at
each facility. Domestic manufacturing establishments are subject
to biennial inspections by the FDA and must comply with current
Good Manufacturing Practices or cGMPs for drugs. To supply
products for use in the U.S., foreign manufacturing
establishments must also comply with U.S. cGMPs and are
subject to inspection by the FDA. Such inspections generally
take place upon submission of an NDA or ANDA to the FDA or at
any other time deemed necessary by the FDA and can impact both
the approval of drugs, and a companys ability to continue
manufacturing following approval.
12
Employees
We employ 13 people, as of March 24, 2011, all of
which are full-time employees and are based in the United
States. Five of these employees are principally engaged in
research, development, clinical and regulatory activities. In
general, we consider our relations with our employees to be good.
You should carefully consider the following discussion of risks
and uncertainties relating to our business and ownership of our
securities. The risks described below are not the only risks we
face. Additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we
currently think are immaterial may also impair our business
operations. If any of the events or circumstances described
below actually occurs, our business, financial condition, or
results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In
such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline
and you may lose all, or part of your investment.
Risks
Related to the Transaction with FCB
Failure
of the FCB Merger to close could damage our
business.
There are a number of risks and uncertainties relating to our
proposed transaction with FCB, pursuant to which FCB has agreed
to acquire all of our outstanding shares of common stock (the
FCB Merger). There is no assurance that the FCB
Merger will close, or that it will close in a timely fashion.
There is no assurance that the closing conditions will be
satisfied or waived or that other events will not intervene to
delay or result in the termination of the merger agreement with
FCB. If the FCB Merger is not completed for any reason, we will
be subject to several risks, including the following:
(i) the current market price of our common stock may
reflect a market assumption that the FCB Merger will occur, and
a failure to complete the FCB Merger could result in a negative
perception by the market of us generally and a decline in the
market price of our common stock; (ii) many costs relating
to the FCB Merger are payable by us whether or not the FCB
Merger is completed; (iii) we would continue to face the
risks that we currently face as a independent company, as
further described herein. If the FCB Merger is not completed,
the risks described above may materialize and materially
adversely affect our business, financial results, financial
condition and stock price.
Risks
Related to our Business
Substantially
all of our revenues to date have been generated from royalties
on Auxiliums sales of Testim, which may be subject to
generic competition in the future. Should the sales of Testim
decline, we may be required to limit, scale back or cease
operations.
Substantially all of our revenues are derived through royalty
income from the only commercialized product utilizing our
CPE-215 technology,
Testim®,
which is sold by Auxilium.
Testim®
royalties totaled $23.3 million and $18.6 million in
the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
The only expenses regarding
Testim®
that we have incurred during this period are patent maintenance
costs, which have not been material. Though we believe that
Auxilium intends to continue commercialization of Testim, sales
of this product are subject to the following risks, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
pressures from existing or new competing products, including
generic products, that may provide therapeutic, convenience or
pricing advantages over Testim or may garner a greater share of
the market;
|
|
|
|
growth of competitors in the androgen market where
Testim®
competes and
|
|
|
|
commercialization priorities of Auxilium.
|
In October 2008, CPEX and Auxilium received notice that
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) filed
an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, containing a
paragraph IV certification in which it certified that it
believes that its proposed testosterone gel product does not
infringe CPEXs patent covering
Testim®,
U.S. Patent No. 7,320,968 (the 968
Patent). The 968 Patent claims a method for
maintaining effective blood serum testosterone levels for
treating a hypogonadal male, and will expire in January 2025.
The 968 Patent is listed for
Testim®
in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence
13
Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book),
published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Upsher-Smiths paragraph IV
certification sets forth allegations that the 968 Patent
will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the
product for which the ANDA was submitted. On December 4,
2008, CPEX and Auxilium filed a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (the Court) against Upsher-Smith, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court docketed this case
as Civil Action
No. 08-908-SLR.
In June 2009, Upsher-Smith amended its answer to the complaint
to include a defense and counterclaim of invalidity of the
968 Patent, which CPEX and Auxilium have denied. CPEX and
Auxilium filed a reply to the counterclaim in July 2009 denying
the invalidity of the 968 Patent. A patent issued by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, such as the 968
Patent, is presumed valid. As of March 2011, the lawsuit remains
pending; however, the trial date has been removed from the
Courts calendar. As described more fully under
Item 3 Legal Proceedings in this
report, any final FDA approval of Upsher-Smiths proposed
generic product will be stayed until the earlier of
30 months beginning on the date of receipt of the
paragraph IV certification (April 2011) or an adverse
decision in the patent infringement lawsuit. Should
Testim®
sales be adversely impacted by any of the above risks, our
revenues will be reduced, which may force us to delay our
current plans to develop other product candidates.
In addition, our royalty income is dependent upon our ability to
maintain our intellectual property claims for our CPE-215
technology that is used in the Testim product. Should we be
unable to maintain our intellectual property position with
regards to CPE-215, our royalty income would be impaired.
If we
are unable to meet our responsibilities under any of our
agreements, we may lose potential business and be subject to
penalties and other damages.
We have a licensing agreement with Auxilium pursuant to which we
license our CPE-215 with a testosterone formulation to Auxilium
and receive royalties of 12% from Auxilium based upon
Auxiliums sales of Testim. This royalty stream is our
major source of current revenue. If we do not maintain adequate
patent protection for Testim, the royalty rate due to us would
be reduced to 2%. To date we have not experienced a reduction in
the royalty rate due to loss of patent protection and we
recently obtained patents that cover the application of
testosterone with CPE-215 in the U.S. and in foreign
countries that continue through 2023.
Disputes may arise with respect to certain of our development
agreements regarding the development and commercialization of
products, which incorporate our intellectual property. These
disputes could lead to delays in commercialization of products
incorporating our technologies or termination of the agreements.
If our
existing patents do not afford adequate protection to us, our
competitors may be able to develop competing
products.
The basic patent disclosing and claiming CPE-215 technology
expired in the U.S. in June 2008 and most foreign markets
in 2006. The patent also expired in Canada in 2010. The Company
has filed applications in many countries that cover the
application of testosterone with CPE-215. Patents for the
application of testosterone with CPE-215 have been issued to us
in various countries, including the U.S., Canada and Europe that
continue through 2023. As such, we do not anticipate a
significant impact from the expiration of the basic CPE-215
patent on the current Testim royalty rates due to the Company or
on our plan of operation or future business plans. The Company
also has pending applications for other applications involving
CPE-215 technology. If our pending applications covering various
applications involving CPE-215 technology are not issued as
patents or if our patents do not afford adequate protection to
us or our licensees, our competitors may be able to use
information from our expired and soon to expire patents to
develop, manufacture and market products that compete with our
products, as well as other products using CPE-215 that we
otherwise might have developed.
14
Our
patent positions and intended proprietary or similar protections
are uncertain.
We have filed a number of patent applications and have been
granted licenses to, or have acquired, a number of patents. We
cannot assure you, however, that any of our issued or licensed
patents will afford adequate protection to us or our licensees.
Furthermore, enforcing a claim that another person is infringing
one or more of our patents is expensive and time consuming, and
the outcome is unpredictable. We cannot determine the ultimate
scope and validity of patents that are now owned by or may be
granted to third parties, the extent to which we may wish, or be
required, to acquire rights under such patents or the cost or
availability of such rights. In the event that patent protection
for technologies expire, or are not extended, revenues derived
from such technologies may be reduced significantly.
Competitors may interfere with our patent process in a variety
of ways. Competitors may claim that they invented the claimed
invention prior to us. Competitors also may claim that we are
infringing their patents, interfering with or preventing the use
of our technologies. Competitors also may contest our patents by
showing the patent examiner that the invention was not original,
was not novel or was obvious. A competitor could claim that our
issued patents are not valid for a variety of other reasons as
well.
We also rely on trade secrets, unpatented proprietary
technologies and continuing technological innovations in the
development and commercialization of our products. We cannot
assure you that others will not independently develop the same
or similar technologies or obtain access to our proprietary
technologies. It is unclear whether our trade secrets will be
protected under law. While we use reasonable efforts to protect
our trade secrets, our employees or consultants may
unintentionally or willfully disclose our information to
competitors. Our employees and consultants with access to our
proprietary information have entered into or are subject to
confidentiality arrangements with us and have agreed to disclose
and assign to us any ideas, developments, discoveries and
inventions that arise from their activities for us. We cannot
assure you, however, that others may not acquire or
independently develop similar technologies or, if effective
patents in applicable countries are not issued with respect to
our products or technologies, that we will be able to maintain
information pertinent to such research as proprietary
technologies or trade secrets. Enforcing a claim that another
person has illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets,
like patent litigation, is expensive and time consuming, and the
outcome is unpredictable. In addition, we may be subject to the
jurisdiction of courts outside the U.S., some of which may be
less willing to protect trade secrets.
Our
growth depends on identifying drugs suitable for our drug
delivery technology.
We believe that our growth depends on the identification of
pharmaceutical products that are suitable for delivery using our
proprietary technologies. Our principal drug delivery technology
is our CPE-215 technology. This technology, like certain other
drug delivery technologies, operates to increase the amount and
rate of absorption of certain drugs across biological membranes.
This technology does not operate independently and must be
coupled with suitable pharmaceutical products in order to
provide value. Consequently, our growth will depend to a great
extent on identifying and commercializing these suitable drugs
with respect to which we intend to expend significant resources
and efforts. Identifying suitable products is a lengthy and
complex process that may not succeed. Even if identified,
products may not be available to us or we may otherwise be
unable to enter into licenses or other agreements for their use.
In our efforts to identify suitable products, we compete with
other drug delivery companies with greater research and
development, financial, marketing and sales resources. If we do
not effectively identify drugs to be used with our technologies,
improve the delivery of drugs with our technologies and bring
the improved drugs to commercial success, then we may not be
able to continue our growth and we will be adversely affected.
Products
using our technology that are in development may not achieve
commercial success.
In conjunction with strategic partners, we are investigating the
use of our technology with respect to pharmaceutical compounds
and products that are in various stages of development. We are
unable to predict whether any of these products will receive
regulatory approvals or be successfully developed, manufactured
or commercialized. Further, due to the extended testing and
regulatory review process required before marketing
15
clearance can be obtained, the time periods before
commercialization of any of these products are long and
uncertain. Risks during development include the possibility that:
|
|
|
|
|
any or all of the proposed products will be found to be
ineffective;
|
|
|
|
the proposed products will have adverse side effects or will
otherwise fail to receive necessary regulatory approvals;
|
|
|
|
the proposed products may be effective but uneconomical to
market; or
|
|
|
|
other pharmaceutical companies may market equivalent or superior
products.
|
If
medical doctors do not prescribe our products or the medical
profession does not accept our products, our ability to grow our
revenues will be limited.
Our business is dependent on market acceptance of our products
by physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, patients and the medical
community. Willingness to prescribe our products depends on many
factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
perceived efficacy of our products;
|
|
|
|
convenience and ease of administration;
|
|
|
|
prevalence and severity of adverse side effects in both clinical
trials and commercial use;
|
|
|
|
availability of alternative treatments;
|
|
|
|
cost effectiveness;
|
|
|
|
effectiveness of our marketing strategy and the pricing of our
products;
|
|
|
|
publicity concerning our products or competing products; and
|
|
|
|
our ability to obtain third-party coverage or reimbursement.
|
Even though regulatory approval has been received for Testim,
and even if any other product candidates developed by us or
incorporating our drug delivery technology receive regulatory
approval, physicians may not prescribe these products if they
are not promoted effectively. Factors that could affect success
in marketing any such products include:
|
|
|
|
|
the effectiveness of the sales force for the product;
|
|
|
|
the effectiveness of the production, distribution and marketing
capabilities for the product;
|
|
|
|
the success of competing products; and
|
|
|
|
the availability and extent of reimbursement from third-party
payors.
|
We
will rely on strategic partners to conduct clinical trials and
commercialize products that use our drug delivery
technology.
In light of our limited development resources and the
significant time, expense, expertise and infrastructure
necessary to bring new drugs and formulations from inception to
market, we are particularly dependent on resources from third
parties to commercialize products incorporating our
technologies. Our strategy involves forming alliances with
others who will develop, manufacture, market and sell our
products in the United States and other countries. We may not be
successful in finding other strategic partners or in otherwise
obtaining financing, in which case the development of our
products would be delayed or curtailed.
We must enter into agreements with strategic partners to conduct
clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing and sales necessary to
commercialize product candidates. In addition, our ability to
apply our drug delivery technologies to any proprietary drugs
will depend on our ability to establish and maintain strategic
partnerships or other collaborative arrangements with the
holders of proprietary rights to such drugs. Arrangements with
strategic partners may be established through a single
comprehensive agreement or may
16
evolve over time through a series of discrete agreements, such
as letters of intent, research agreements and license
agreements. We cannot assure you that we will be able to
establish such strategic partnerships or collaborative
arrangements on favorable terms or at all or that any agreement
entered into with a strategic partner will lead to further
agreements or ultimately result in commercialization of a
product.
In collaborative arrangements, we will depend on the efforts of
our strategic partners and will have limited participation in
the development, manufacture, marketing and commercialization of
the products subject to the collaboration. We cannot assure you
that these strategic partnerships or collaborative arrangements
will be successful, nor can we assure you that strategic
partners or collaborators will not pursue alternative
technologies or develop alternative products on their own or
with others, including our competitors. In addition, our
collaborators or contract manufacturers will be subject to
regulatory oversight which could delay or prohibit our
development and commercialization efforts. Moreover, we could
have disputes with our existing or future strategic partners or
collaborators. Any such disagreements could lead to delays in
the research, development or commercialization of potential
products or could result in time-consuming and expensive
litigation or arbitration.
An
interruption in the sourcing and availability of the active
ingredient used in our CPE-215 technology could cause our
product development and commercialization to slow or
stop.
We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for clinical
or commercial production of our product candidates. We lack the
resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product
candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We also lack the
resources to manufacture the excipient CPE-215, which is the
major component of our CPE-215 technology. Our technology is
dependent upon obtaining pharmaceutical grade CPE-215 which is
available from at least two major industrial manufacturers. If a
third party supplier is unable to provide us with required
quantities of pharmaceutical grade CPE-215 on commercially
favorable terms, we may be unable to continue our product
development or commercialization activity.
If any
of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory
approval do not achieve broad market acceptance, the revenues
that we generate from their sales will be limited.
The commercial success of our product candidates for which we
obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory
authorities will depend upon the acceptance of these products by
the medical community and coverage and reimbursement of them by
third-party payors, including government payors. The degree of
market acceptance of any of our approved products will depend on
a number of factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
limitations or warnings contained in a products
FDA-approved labeling;
|
|
|
|
changes in the standard of care for the targeted indications for
either of our product candidates could reduce the marketing
impact of any superiority claims that we could make following
FDA approval;
|
|
|
|
limitations inherent in the approved indication for either of
our product candidates compared to more commonly-understood or
addressed conditions; and
|
|
|
|
potential advantages over, and availability of, alternative
treatments, including, in the case of Nasulin, a number of
products already used to treat diabetes.
|
Our ability to effectively promote and sell our product
candidates will also depend on pricing and cost effectiveness,
including our ability to produce a product at a competitive
price and our ability to obtain sufficient third-party coverage
or reimbursement. We will also need to demonstrate acceptable
evidence of safety and efficacy as well as relative convenience
and ease of administration. Market acceptance could be further
limited depending on the prevalence and severity of any expected
or unexpected adverse side effects associated with our product
candidates. If our product candidates are approved but do not
achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health
care payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue
from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable.
In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and
third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may
require significant resources and may never be successful.
17
Pharmaceutical
pricing, changes in third-party reimbursement and governmental
mandates are uncertain and may adversely affect
us.
Successful commercialization of many of our products may depend
on the availability of reimbursement for the cost of such
products and related treatment from third-party healthcare
payors, such as the government, private insurance plans and
managed care organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly
challenging the price of medical products and services. Such
reimbursement may not be available for any of our products at
all or for the duration of the recommended treatment with a
drug, which could materially adversely affect our ability to
commercialize that drug. The increasing emphasis on managed care
in the U.S. continues to increase the pressure on
pharmaceutical pricing. Some governmental agencies can compel
companies to continue to produce products that are not
profitable for the company due to insufficient supply. In the
U.S., there have been a number of federal and state proposals to
implement similar government controls. We anticipate that there
will continue to be a number of proposals in the U.S., as has
been the case in many foreign markets. The announcement or
adoption of such proposals could adversely affect us. Further,
our ability to commercialize our products may be adversely
affected to the extent that such proposals materially adversely
affect the business, financial condition and profitability of
companies that are prospective strategic partners.
The cost of healthcare in the U.S. and elsewhere continues
to be a subject of investigation and action by various
governmental agencies. Certain resulting legislative proposals
may adversely affect us. For example, governmental actions to
further reduce or eliminate reimbursement for drugs may directly
diminish our markets. In addition, legislative safety and
efficacy measures may be invoked that lengthen and increase the
costs of drug approval processes. Further, social, economic and
other broad policy legislation may induce unpredictable changes
in the healthcare environment. If any of these measures are
enacted in some form, they may have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations.
Any of
our products candidates may fail or be delayed in clinical
trials.
Any human pharmaceutical product developed by us or a
collaboration partner of ours would require clearance by the FDA
for sales in the United States and by comparable regulatory
agencies for sales in other countries. The process of conducting
clinical trials and obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals
is expensive, takes several years and cannot be assured of
success. In order to obtain FDA approval of any new product
candidates using our technologies, a New Drug Application
(NDA) must be submitted to the FDA demonstrating
that the product candidate, based on preclinical research,
animal studies and human clinical trials, is safe for humans and
effective for its intended use. Positive results from
preclinical studies and early clinical trials do not ensure
positive results in more advanced clinical trials designed to
permit application for regulatory approval. Our product
candidates may suffer significant setbacks in clinical trials,
even in cases where earlier clinical trials show promising
results. Any of our new product candidates may produce
undesirable side effects in humans that could cause us or
regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical
trials of a product candidate. We or our collaboration partners,
the FDA or other regulatory authorities, may suspend our
clinical trials at any time if we or they believe the trial
participants face unacceptable health risks or if they find
deficiencies in any of the regulatory submissions for the
product candidate. Other factors that can cause delay or
terminate clinical trials include:
|
|
|
|
|
slow or insufficient patient enrollment;
|
|
|
|
slow recruitment and completion of necessary institutional
approvals at clinical sites;
|
|
|
|
longer treatment time required to demonstrate efficacy;
|
|
|
|
lack of sufficient supplies of the product candidate;
|
|
|
|
adverse medical reactions or side effects in treated patients;
|
|
|
|
lack of effectiveness of the product candidate being tested;
|
|
|
|
regulatory requests for additional clinical trials; and
|
|
|
|
instability of the pharmaceutical formulations.
|
18
A delay or termination of any of our clinical trials may have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations.
We
rely on third parties to conduct any clinical trials for our
product candidates and plan to rely on third parties to conduct
any future clinical trials. If these third parties do not
successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected
deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or
commercialize our current and future product
candidates.
We do not have the ability to conduct clinical trials for any of
our product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as
contract research organizations, medical institutions, clinical
investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct all of our
clinical trials for our product candidates. Although we rely on
these third parties to conduct our clinical trials, we are
responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is
conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and
protocol. Moreover, the FDA and other
non-U.S. regulatory
authorities require us to comply with regulations and standards,
commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices
(GCPs), for conducting, monitoring, recording and
reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data
and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that
the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential
risks of participating in clinical trials. Our reliance on third
parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities and
requirements. If the third parties do not perform their
contractual duties or obligations, do not meet expected
deadlines or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy
of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the
failure to adhere to GCPs or for any other reason, we may need
to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties
and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated.
In addition, failure by such third parties to perform their
obligations in compliance with GCPs may cause our clinical
trials to fail to meet regulatory requirements, which may
require us to repeat our clinical trials.
Regulatory
approvals must be obtained and maintained for products
incorporating our technology and, if approvals are delayed or
withdrawn, commercialization of these products must be suspended
or abandoned.
Government regulations in the United States and other countries
have a significant impact on our business and affect the
research, development and marketing of products incorporating
our technology. In the United States and other countries,
governmental agencies have the authority to regulate the
distribution, manufacture and sale of drugs. Failure to obtain
or experiencing a delay in obtaining regulatory approval for our
products could result in reduction of our expected revenues.
Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can,
among other things, result in fines, suspension or withdrawal of
regulatory approvals, product recalls, operating restrictions
and/or
criminal prosecution. In addition, governmental regulations may
be established that could prevent, delay, modify or rescind
regulatory approval of our products.
If we
cannot keep pace with rapid technological change and meet the
intense competition in our industry, we may not
succeed.
Our success depends, in part, on achieving and maintaining a
competitive position in the development of products and
technologies in a rapidly evolving industry. If we are unable to
continue to develop
and/or
acquire competitive products and technologies, our current and
potential strategic partners may choose to adopt the drug
delivery technologies of our competitors. We also compete
generally with other drug delivery, biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies engaged in the development of
alternative drug delivery technologies or new drug research and
testing. Many of these competitors have substantially greater
financial, technological, manufacturing, marketing, managerial
and research and development resources and experience than we do
and represent significant competition for us. Our competitors
may succeed in developing competing technologies or obtaining
governmental approval for products before we achieve success, if
at all. The products of our competitors may gain market
acceptance more rapidly than our products. Developments by
competitors may render our existing or proposed products
noncompetitive or obsolete.
The competitive position of our drug delivery technologies is
subject to the possible development by others of superior
technologies. Other drug delivery technologies, including oral
and injection methods, have
19
wide acceptance, notwithstanding certain drawbacks, and are the
subject of improvement efforts by other entities having greater
resources. In addition, our drug delivery technologies are
limited by the number and commercial magnitude of drugs with
which they can successfully be combined.
We may
be unable to meet increasing expenses and demands on our
resources from future growth, if any, or to effectively pursue
additional business opportunities.
We have no current agreements or commitments with respect to any
acquisitions or investments by us. Any future acquisitions or
investments would further challenge our resources. If we do not
properly meet the increasing expenses and demands on our
resources from future growth, we will be adversely affected. To
properly manage our growth, we must, among other things, improve
and implement additional administrative, financial, marketing,
operational and research and development systems, procedures and
controls on a timely basis. While we currently do not have any
plans to hire additional personnel, in the future, we may need
to expand our staff in various areas of the business. We may not
be able to complete the improvements to our systems, procedures
and controls necessary to support our future operations in a
timely manner. We may not be able to hire, train, integrate,
retain, motivate and manage required personnel, successfully
integrate acquisitions or investments, nor successfully
identify, manage and pursue existing and potential market
opportunities.
If we
cannot attract and retain key personnel, we may not be able to
execute our business plan as anticipated.
Our success is dependent on our ability to attract and retain
qualified, experienced personnel. We face significant
competition from other pharmaceutical companies in recruiting
competent personnel. The loss of key personnel, or the inability
to attract and retain additional, competent employees, could
adversely affect our business and financial results.
We may
incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit
commercialization of our products in response to product
liability claims.
The testing and marketing of pharmaceutical products entails an
inherent risk of product liability. We may be held liable to the
extent that there are any adverse reactions from the use of our
products. Our products involve new methods of delivery for
drugs, some of which may require precautions to prevent
unintended use, especially since they are designed for
patients self-use rather than being administered by
medical professionals. The FDA may require us to develop a
comprehensive risk management program for our products. The
failure of these measures could result in harmful side effects
or death. As a result, consumers, regulatory agencies,
pharmaceutical companies or others might make claims against us.
If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product
liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities, lose
market share or be required to limit commercialization of our
products.
Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may
result in:
|
|
|
|
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
|
|
termination of clinical trial sites or entire trial programs;
|
|
|
|
decreased demand for our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
impairment of our business reputation;
|
|
|
|
costs of related litigation;
|
|
|
|
substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
|
|
|
|
loss of revenues; and
|
|
|
|
the inability to commercialize our product candidates.
|
Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance
at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product
liability claims could inhibit or prevent the commercialization
of pharmaceutical products we develop alone or with corporate
collaborators. We maintain $10.0 million in product
liability and clinical trials insurance in the U.S. at an
approximate cost of $70,000 per policy year. While management
believes this
20
insurance is reasonable for conducting clinical trials, we
cannot assure you that any of this coverage will be adequate to
protect us in the event of a claim. We, or any corporate
collaborators, may not be able to obtain or maintain insurance
at a reasonable cost, if at all. Even if our agreements with any
future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification
against losses, such indemnification may not be available or
adequate if any claim arises.
The
discovery of any new side effects or negative efficacy findings
for our products could significantly harm our
business.
While the safety of our products has been, is being, and will be
extensively studied in clinical trials there can be no assurance
that new or more serious side effects or negative efficacy
findings may not be discovered based on long term safety and
efficacy studies or required reporting of adverse events
regarding any of our products after each such product has been
marketed, any of which could severely harm our business and
result in one or more of the following regulatory events:
|
|
|
|
|
a voluntary or involuntary recall or market withdrawal of the
applicable product;
|
|
|
|
labeling changes such as restriction on intended uses,
additional contraindications, warnings, precautions, or adverse
reactions that would limit the applicable products market
potential;
|
|
|
|
a boxed warning on the label;
|
|
|
|
imposition of post-marketing surveillance studies or risk
management programs;
|
|
|
|
distribution restrictions; and
|
|
|
|
adverse publicity.
|
In addition, one or more of the above factors would also have
the potential to negatively impact regulatory registrations for
the applicable product in other countries.
Our
revenues, operating results and cash flows may fluctuate in
future periods and we may fail to meet investor expectations,
which may cause the price of our common stock to
decline.
Variations in our quarterly and year-end operating results are
difficult to predict and may fluctuate significantly from period
to period. If our sales or operating results fall below the
expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of
our common stock could decline substantially. In addition to the
other factors discussed under this Risk Factors
section, specific factors that may cause fluctuations in our
operating results include:
|
|
|
|
|
demand and pricing for our products;
|
|
|
|
government or private healthcare reimbursement policies;
|
|
|
|
physician, pharmacy and patient acceptance of any of our current
or future products;
|
|
|
|
patterns or cost structures for our products;
|
|
|
|
introduction of competing products;
|
|
|
|
any interruption in the manufacturing or distribution of Testim
or any of our future products;
|
|
|
|
our operating expenses which fluctuate due to growth of our
business;
|
|
|
|
timing and size of any new product or technology acquisitions we
may complete; and
|
|
|
|
variations in our rates of product returns and allowances.
|
Risks
Relating to Our Common Stock
Your
percentage ownership in CPEX common stock may be diluted in the
future.
Your percentage ownership in CPEX may be diluted in the future
because of equity awards that have or we expect will be granted
to our directors, officers and employees and the accelerated
vesting of equity
21
awards. Shareholders of CPEX have approved the Amended and
Restated 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2008 Equity
Incentive Plan), which provides for the grant of equity
based awards, including restricted stock, restricted stock
units, stock options, stock appreciation rights, unrestricted
stock and stock equivalents and other equity-based awards to our
directors, officers and other employees, advisors and
consultants.
Provisions
in our certificate of incorporation and by-laws and of Delaware
law may prevent or delay an acquisition of our Company, which
could decrease the trading price of our common
stock.
Our certificate of incorporation, by-laws and Delaware law
contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover
practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices
or bids unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage
prospective acquirors to negotiate with our Board of Directors
rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions
include, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
a Board of Directors that is divided into three classes with
staggered terms;
|
|
|
|
elimination of the right of our stockholders to act by written
consent;
|
|
|
|
rules regarding how stockholders may present proposals or
nominate directors for election at stockholder meetings;
|
|
|
|
the right of our Board to issue preferred stock without
stockholder approval; and
|
|
|
|
limitations on the right of stockholders to remove directors.
|
Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other
business combinations between us and any holder of 15% or more
of our outstanding common stock.
We also maintain a shareholder rights plan which may deter a
potential acquiror from pursuing an offer for our company.
We believe these provisions protect our stockholders from
coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring
potential acquirors to negotiate with our Board and by providing
our Board with more time to assess any acquisition proposal.
These provisions are not intended to make our company immune
from takeovers. However, these provisions apply even if the
offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and
could delay or prevent an acquisition that our Board determines
is not in the best interests of our company and our stockholders.
We do
not expect to pay any dividends in the short term.
We do not expect to declare dividends in the short term. Pending
completion of the merger agreement with FCB, we currently intend
to retain earnings to support our operations and to finance the
growth and development of our business. There can be no
assurance that we will have sufficient surplus under Delaware
law to be able to pay any dividends. This may result from
extraordinary cash expenses, actual expenses exceeding
contemplated costs funding of capital expenditures, or increases
in reserves. If we do not pay dividends, the price of our common
stock must appreciate for you to receive a gain on your
investment in CPEX. This appreciation may not occur.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
Not applicable.
We own a 15,700 square foot commercial building situated on
approximately 14 acres of land in Exeter, New Hampshire
which has sufficient space and fixtures to serve as our
corporate headquarters and research and development laboratory.
It is located approximately 50 miles north of Boston,
Massachusetts.
22
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
In October 2008, CPEX and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Auxilium) received notice that Upsher-Smith
Laboratories, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) had filed an
Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA containing a
paragraph IV certification in which Upsher-Smith certified
that it believes its proposed generic version of Testim does not
infringe our patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,320,968
(the 968 Patent). The 968 Patent claims
a method for maintaining effective blood serum testosterone
levels for treating a hypogonadal male, and will expire in
January 2025. The 968 Patent is listed for
Testim®
in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book), published
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Upsher-Smiths paragraph IV certification sets forth
allegations that the 968 Patent will not be infringed by
the manufacture, use, or sale of its proposed generic product.
On December 4, 2008, we and Auxilium filed a Hatch-Waxman
infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the Court) against
Upsher-Smith seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The
Court docketed this case as Civil Action
No. 08-908-SLR.
. In June 2009, Upsher-Smith amended its answer to the complaint
to include a defense and counterclaim of invalidity of the
968 Patent, which CPEX and Auxilium have denied. A patent
issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
such as the 968 Patent, is presumed valid. As of March
2011, the lawsuit remains pending; however, the trial date has
been removed from the Courts calendar. Any final FDA
approval of Upsher-Smiths proposed generic product will be
stayed until the earlier of thirty months from the date of our
receipt of the paragraph IV certification (April
2011) or an adverse decision in our patent infringement
lawsuit.
We have filed continuation and divisional applications with the
USPTO relating to the 968 Patent. Six patents,
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,608,605; 7,608,606; 7,608,607;
7,608,608; 7,608,609; and 7,608,610, issued from these
applications, and may provide us with further market protection.
Each of these six patents has been listed in the Orange Book
with respect to
Testim®.
We are committed to protecting our intellectual property rights
and will vigorously pursue the Hatch-Waxman patent infringement
lawsuit. However, if we are unsuccessful in obtaining an
injunction to keep Upsher-Smiths proposed version of
Testim®
off the market until the patent protection expires, or in
defending the 968 Patent covering
Testim®,
sales of
Testim®
and our royalties relating to
Testim®
sales will be materially reduced.
|
|
Item 4.
|
(Removed
and Reserved)
|
Part II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Our common stock has been trading on The NASDAQ Capital Market
since July 1, 2008, under the trading symbol
CPEX. The following table sets forth, for the
periods indicated, the range of quarterly high and low sales
prices for our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital
Market;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
17.42
|
|
|
$
|
11.02
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
29.47
|
|
|
|
15.11
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
27.00
|
|
|
|
22.50
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
25.25
|
|
|
|
22.71
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
12.58
|
|
|
$
|
5.90
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
11.54
|
|
|
|
6.76
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
11.00
|
|
|
|
8.23
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
12.75
|
|
|
|
8.00
|
|
As of March 24, 2011 the closing price of our Common Stock
was $27.19 and there were 576 holders of record of our common
stock, which does not reflect stockholders whose shares are held
in street name.
23
Dividends
We did not pay dividends on our common stock during the years
ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and we do not intend to
pay dividends pending completion of the merger agreement with
FCB. We intend to retain future earnings in order to finance the
growth and development of our business.
Securities
Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation
Plans
The following table summarizes the number of securities issuable
under our Amended and Restated 2008 Equity Incentive Plan as of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for Future Issuance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation Plans
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities to
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
(Excluding
|
|
|
|
be Issued Upon Exercise
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
of Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Reflected in the
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
First Column)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
367,023
|
|
|
$
|
12.92
|
|
|
|
152,187
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
367,023
|
|
|
$
|
12.92
|
|
|
|
152,187
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The following discussion and analysis should be read in
conjunction with the Financial Statements and related Notes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements, or Notes, included in
Item 15 of this Annual Report. Except for the historical
information contained herein the foregoing discussion contains
forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.
Our actual results could differ materially from those projected
in the forward-looking statements discussed herein.
Words such as expect, anticipate,
intend, believe, may,
could, project, estimate and
similar words are used to identify forward-looking statements
within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements, including, but
not limited to, the statements in Business,
Legal Proceedings, Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, Risk Factors and other sections in
this Annual Report, are not based on historical facts, but
rather reflect our current expectations concerning future
results and events. The forward-looking statements include
statements about our strategy, the prospects of our technologies
and research and development efforts, our plans to enter into
more collaborative relationships, the prospects for clinical
development of our product candidates, our prospects for revenue
growth, anticipated financial results and the prospects for
growth of our business. Although we believe that the
expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are
reasonable, such statements involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual
results, performance or achievements to be different from any
future results, performance and achievements expressed or
implied by these statements, including the risks outlined in the
Risk Factors section and elsewhere in this report. You are
cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking
statements. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or
revise any forward-looking statements, whether as the result of
new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be
required by law.
24
Overview
We are an emerging specialty pharmaceutical company that employs
13 people as of March 24, 2011, at our principal
executive offices in Exeter, New Hampshire. Our business is the
research, development, licensing and commercialization of
pharmaceutical products utilizing our validated drug delivery
platform technology. We have U.S. and international patents
and other proprietary rights to technology that facilitates the
absorption of drugs. Our platform drug delivery technology
enhances permeation and absorption of pharmaceutical molecules
across the skin, nasal mucosa and eye through formulation
development with proprietary molecules such as CPE-215. Our
principal product is
Testim®,
a gel for testosterone replacement therapy, which is a
formulation of CPE-215 with testosterone. Testim is licensed to
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which is currently marketing the
product in the United States, Europe and other countries.
We believe, based upon our experience with Testim, that our
CPE-215 technology is a broad platform technology that has the
ability to significantly enhance the permeation of a wide range
of therapeutic molecules. To expand the development and
commercialization of products using our CPE-215 drug delivery
technology, we are pursuing strategic alliances with partners
including large pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies. The alliance opportunities may include
co-development of products, in-licensing of therapeutic
molecules, out-licensing of delivery technology or partnering
late-stage candidates for commercialization.
Transaction
with FCB
On January 4, 2011, we announced that we had entered into a
definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc., a newly formed
company which is controlled by Footstar Corporation, under which
FCB, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, will acquire all of our
outstanding common stock for $27.25 per share in cash, pursuant
to an agreement and plan of merger. Approved by our Board of
Directors the agreement was subsequently approved by our
stockholders on March 24, 2011. The closing of the
transaction is subject to the satisfaction of certain customary
closing conditions, provided, the closing of the transaction may
not occur prior to April 4, 2011. We expect that the
transaction will be completed shortly following April 4,
2011, but there can be no assurance that the closing will occur
in this timeframe or at all. Upon closing of the transaction, we
will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of FCB and our common
stock will cease to trade on the NASDAQ Capital Market. The
foregoing description of the transaction with FCB does not
purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Merger Agreement, a copy of which is filed as
Exhibit 2.1 hereto.
Consolidated
Results of Operations
The following is a discussion of the results of our operations
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. Inflation
and changing prices have not had a material impact on our
revenues or results from operations in the two years ended
December 31, 2010.
25
Fiscal
Year Ended December 31, 2010 Compared To Fiscal Year Ended
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalties and other revenue
|
|
$
|
23,297
|
|
|
$
|
18,658
|
|
|
$
|
4,639
|
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
8,777
|
|
|
|
8,867
|
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)%
|
Research and development
|
|
|
7,510
|
|
|
|
12,291
|
|
|
|
(4,781
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)%
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
702
|
|
|
|
699
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
16,989
|
|
|
|
21,857
|
|
|
|
(4,868
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
6,308
|
|
|
|
(3,199
|
)
|
|
|
9,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
159
|
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
(37
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before taxes
|
|
|
6,408
|
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
|
|
9,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision (benefit) for income taxes
|
|
|
(230
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(230
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
6,638
|
|
|
$
|
(3,040
|
)
|
|
$
|
9,678
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalties and other revenue increased 25% to $23.3 million
in 2010 from $18.7 million in 2009 due entirely to
royalties earned on increased sales of Testim. For the year
ended December 31, 2010, Testim prescriptions were reported
to have grown approximately 11% compared to the same period in
2009. The long-term prospects for Testim sales are subject to
resolution of our patent infringement suit against Upsher-Smith,
which has made an ANDA filing for a generic version of Testim,
as described above in Legal Proceedings.
General and administrative costs decreased 1% to
$8.8 million in 2010 compared to $8.9 million in 2009,
primarily due to a net decrease in advisory and consulting
expenses. During 2010, there was a substantial decrease in legal
fees associated with the legal proceedings described
under Commitments, contingencies and
concentrations Legal Proceedings in the
accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
which were offset by an increase in fees and expenses relating
to the exploration of strategic alternatives.
Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs
associated with the development of Nasulin, which was our
product candidate in development until March 2010 when we
determined to cease Nasulin development activities. These costs
include costs of clinical trials, manufacturing supplies and
other development materials, compensation and related benefits
for research and development personnel, costs for consultants,
and various overhead costs. Research and development costs are
expensed as incurred. Research and development costs decreased
to $7.5 million in 2010 compared to $12.3 million in
2009, primarily due to a $4.7 million decrease in spending
on clinical trials following the discontinuation of the Nasulin
clinical trial program and a $1.2 million decrease in
employee related expenses. These decreases were partially offset
by a $1.5 million increase in spending on preclinical
activities during the year ended December 31, 2010.
Provision for income taxes for the year ended December 31,
2010 is a net credit of $230,000. During 2010, we determined
that it was more likely than not that we will realize our net
deferred tax assets for which there was a valuation allowance.
Accordingly, we reversed our valuation allowance of
$2.9 million which was partially offset by current and
deferred income taxes of $2.7 million. No tax benefit was
recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009 as future
operating profits could not be reasonably assured at that time.
See Note 8 Provision for Income Taxes in
the accompanying consolidated financial statements for
additional information.
26
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Overview
We had approximately $22.2 million in cash and cash
equivalents at December 31, 2010, which, along with Testim
royalties, we believe will be sufficient to fund our operations
and our cash requirements for at least the next twelve months.
Our cash includes balances maintained in commercial bank
accounts, amounts invested in overnight sweep investments and
cash deposits in money market accounts. There can be no
assurance that changes in our research and development plans or
other events affecting our revenues or operating expenses will
not result in the earlier depletion of our funds. In appropriate
situations, which will be strategically determined, we may seek
funding from other sources, including, but not limited to,
contribution by others to joint ventures and other collaborative
or licensing arrangements for the development, testing,
manufacturing and marketing of products currently under
development or sales of debt or equity securities.
Summary
Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Information
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Summary Financial Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
22,157
|
|
|
$
|
13,695
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
6,428
|
|
|
|
5,289
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
35,347
|
|
|
|
26,043
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
3,677
|
|
|
|
3,007
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
25,915
|
|
|
|
16,559
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
31,670
|
|
|
|
23,036
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Summary of Sources and (Uses) of Cash:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
6,719
|
|
|
$
|
(598
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
(922
|
)
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(398
|
)
|
Additions to intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(224
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
758
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Sources
and Uses of Cash
Operating
Activities
Net cash provided by operating activities was $6.7 million
for the year ended December 31, 2010, largely resulting
from the net income of $6.6 million, an increase in income
taxes payable of $1.5 million, non-cash share-based
compensation expense of $1.1 million and depreciation and
amortization of $702,000. These were partially offset by the
recognition of deferred tax assets of $1.9 million, an
increase in accounts receivable of $1.1 million and
decreases in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $866,000.
Net cash used in operating activities was $598,000 for the year
ended December 31, 2009, largely resulting from the net
loss of $3.0 million and an increase in accounts receivable
of $844,000, which were partially offset by non-cash share-based
compensation expense of $1.9 million, increases in accounts
payable and accrued expenses of $670,000 and depreciation and
amortization of $699,000.
Investing
Activities
Included in investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2010 is $1.0 million resulting from the
expiration of a letter of credit the Company was no longer
required to maintain. Historically, our investing
27
activities have included capital expenditures necessary to
expand our manufacturing capacity and laboratory facilities,
purchase laboratory equipment and upgrade office equipment. In
addition, investing activities included outlays related to
patent registration costs and costs to acquire intellectual
property rights. Cash used in investing activities in 2009 was
$922,000 which included a $300,000 note receivable, which is
described under Commitments, contingencies and
concentrations Agreement for a Potential Joint
Venture in the accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. It also included $398,000 for the purchase of
manufacturing and laboratory equipment, and $224,000 for costs
related to obtaining new patents.
Financing
Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2010 includes proceeds from the exercise of
stock options and excess tax benefits from share-based awards.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2009 includes proceeds from the exercise of
stock options.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any material off-balance sheet arrangements, as
defined in Item 303(a)(4)(ii) of SEC
Regulation S-K.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Certain of our accounting policies are particularly important to
the portrayal of our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows and require the application of significant
judgment by our management. As a result they are subject to an
inherent degree of uncertainty. In applying those policies, our
management uses judgment to determine the appropriate
assumptions to be used in the determination of certain
estimates. Those estimates are based on our historical
experience, terms of existing contracts, our observance of
trends in the industry, information provided by our customers
and information available from other outside sources, as
appropriate. Our critical accounting policies and estimates
include:
Revenue
recognition and accounts receivable
We earn royalty revenues on Auxiliums sales of Testim,
which incorporates our CPE-215 permeation enhancement
technology. Since 2003, Auxilium has sold Testim to
pharmaceutical wholesalers and chain drug stores. We recognize
revenue upon receiving sales reports from Auxilium which
includes estimates for revenue deductions, including discounts,
rebates and product returns.
Accounts receivable are also recorded upon the receipt of sales
reports from Auxilium at their net realizable value. Receivable
balances are reported net of an estimated allowance for
uncollectible accounts. Estimated uncollectible receivables are
based on the amount and status of past due accounts, contractual
terms with customers, the credit worthiness of customers and the
history of our uncollectible accounts.
Intellectual
property costs
Costs incurred in connection with acquiring licenses, patents
and other proprietary rights are capitalized. Capitalized costs
are amortized on a straight-line basis for periods not exceeding
15 years from the dates of acquisition. Such assets are
reviewed whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the assets may be impaired, by comparing the carrying
amounts to their estimated future undiscounted cash flows, and
adjustments are made for any diminution in value below the
carrying value.
Research
and development costs
Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs
associated with our clinical trials, manufacturing supplies and
other development materials, compensation and related benefits
for research and development personnel, costs for consultants,
and various overhead costs. Research and development costs are
expensed as incurred consistent with Financial Accounting
Standards Board (the FASB) Accounting Standards
Codification (FASB ASC)
730-10-25-1
(Prior authoritative literature: SFAS No. 2,
Accounting for
28
Research and Development Costs). Our clinical trial
costs, which are reflected in research and development expenses,
result from obligations under contracts with vendors,
consultants, and clinical site agreements in connection with
conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these
contracts are subject to negotiations which vary from contract
to contract and may result in cash flows which are not
consistent with the periods in which materials or services are
provided. These costs are capitalized upon payment and expensed
according to the progress of each trial as measured by patient
progression and the timing of various aspects of the trial. The
progress of the trials is obtained through discussions with
internal personnel as well as outside service providers.
Determining the timing and level of services performed often
requires judgment.
Share-based
compensation
We record share-based compensation expense in accordance with
the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718
(Prior authoritative literature: SFAS No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment). Under the fair value recognition
provisions of FASB ASC 718, share-based compensation cost
is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the
award and is recognized as expense over the requisite service
period. Determining the fair value of equity awards at the grant
date requires judgment. We estimate the grant date fair value of
stock options using the Black-Scholes option valuation model.
This option valuation model requires the input of subjective
assumptions including: (1) Expected life the
expected life (estimated period of time outstanding) of options
granted is estimated based on historical exercise behaviors,
including the periods prior to the Separation when we were the
drug delivery business of Bentley; (2) Volatility
the volatility applied to grants is the average
stock volatility of CPEX and a peer group of comparable life
science companies using daily price observations for each
company over a period of time commensurate with the expected
life of the respective award; (3) Risk-free
rate the risk-free interest rate is based on the
yield curve of U.S. Treasury securities in effect at the
date of the grant, having a duration commensurate with the
estimated life of the award; and (4) Dividends
as we have not declared dividends, and we do not expect to
declare dividends in the future, we include an annual dividend
rate of 0% when calculating the grant date fair value of equity
awards. Because share-based compensation expense is based on
awards ultimately expected to vest, it is reduced for estimated
forfeitures. FASB ASC 718 requires forfeitures to be
estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in
subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those
estimates. Forfeitures are estimated based on historical
experience.
Provision
for income taxes
We have provided for current and deferred U.S. federal and
state income taxes for the current and prior periods presented.
Current and deferred income taxes have been provided with
respect to jurisdictions where our subsidiary produces taxable
income.
In 2010, we determined that it is more likely than not that we
will realize our net deferred tax assets for which we have
previously recorded a valuation allowance. Accordingly, we
reversed the valuation allowance against our deferred taxes.
Previous to 2010, as future operating profits could not be
reasonably assured, no tax benefit was recorded for net deferred
taxes. In addition, we operate within multiple taxing
jurisdictions and are subject to audit in those jurisdictions.
These audits can involve complex issues, which may require an
extended period of time for resolution. Although we believe that
adequate consideration has been made for such issues, there is
the possibility that the ultimate resolution of such issues
could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
We account for uncertain tax positions in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 740 (Prior authoritative literature: Financial
Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes). The application of income tax law is
inherently complex. As such, we are required to make many
subjective assumptions and judgments regarding our income tax
exposures. Interpretations and guidance surrounding income tax
laws and regulations change frequently. Changes in our
subjective assumptions and judgments could have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
29
Recently
Issued Accounting Pronouncements
In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2010-06
for Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This
Update requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of
Level 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3. This Update
also clarifies existing disclosures for level of disaggregation
and about inputs and valuation techniques. The new disclosures
are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2009, except for the Level 3 disclosures,
which are effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2010 and for interim periods within those
years. Other than requiring additional disclosures, adoption of
this new guidance did not have a material impact on our
financial statements and is not expected to have a significant
impact on the reporting of our financial condition or results of
operations.
In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method, which
provides guidance on the criteria that should be met for
determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition
is appropriate. Under the milestone method of revenue
recognition, consideration that is contingent upon achievement
of a milestone in its entirety can be recognized as revenue in
the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the
milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. This
standard provides the criteria to be met for a milestone to be
considered substantive which include that: a) performance
consideration earned by achieving the milestone be commensurate
with either performance to achieve the milestone or the
enhancement of the value of the item delivered as a result of a
specific outcome resulting from performance to achieve the
milestone; and b) relate to past performance and be
reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the
arrangement. This standard is effective on a prospective basis
for milestones in fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010. The adoption of this new guidance did not
have a material impact on our financial statements and is not
expected to have a significant impact on the reporting of our
financial condition or results of operations.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29,
Business Combinations (Topic 805) (ASU
2010-29).
ASC Topic 350 (Prior authoritative literature : FASB Staff
Position (FSP)
142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets)has
required pro forma revenue and earnings disclosure requirements
for business combinations. ASU
2010-29
clarifies the requirements for disclosure of supplementary pro
forma information for business combinations. The amendments in
this Update specify that if a public entity presents comparative
financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and
earnings of the combined entity as though the business
combination(s) that occurred during the current year had
occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual
reporting period only. The amendments in this Update also expand
the supplemental pro forma disclosures under Topic 805 to
include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. The modifications to ASC Topic 805 resulting from
the issuance of ASU
2010-28 are
effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2010 and interim periods within those years. Early adoption is
permitted. The Company believes that the impact, if any, the
application of the amendments in ASU
2010-29 may
have on its financial statements will not be significant.
In June 2009, the FASB issued ASC Topic 810 (Prior
authoritative literature: Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation
No. 46(R),), which improves financial reporting
by enterprises involved with variable interest entities.
ASC 810 addresses (1) the effects on certain
provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December
2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, as a result
of the elimination of the qualifying special-purpose entity
concept in SFAS 166 and (2) concerns about the
application of certain key provisions of FIN 46(R),
including those in which the accounting and disclosures under
the Interpretation do not always provide timely and useful
information about an enterprises involvement in a variable
interest entity. We adopted this topic as of January 1,
2010 and determined that the adoption did not have a material
impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued ASC Topic 860 (Prior
authoritative literature: issued SFAS No. 166,
Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets, an Amendment
of FASB Statement No. 140. ASC Topic 860
prescribes the information that a reporting entity must provide
in its financial reports about a transfer of financial assets;
the effects of a transfer on its financial position, financial
performance, and cash flows; and a
30
transferors continuing involvement in transferred
financial assets. Specifically, among other aspects, ASC Topic
860 amends SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers
and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities, or SFAS No. 140, by removing the
concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity from
SFAS No. 140 and removes the exception from applying
FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable
Interest Entities (revised), or FIN 46(R), to variable
interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities.
It also modifies the financial-components approach used in
SFAS No. 140. We adopted this topic as of
January 1, 2010 and determined that the adoption did not
have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
The financial statements required by this item are located
beginning on
page F-1
of this report.
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act)) as of the end of the period covered
by this annual report (the Evaluation Date). Based
on such evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the Evaluation
Date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
of the Exchange Act. Under the supervision and with the
participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, we conducted an assessment of the design and
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
as of the Evaluation Date. In making its assessment of internal
control over financial reporting, management used the criteria
set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
(COSO) of the Treadway Commission in Internal
Control Integrated Framework. Based on this
assessment, our management concluded that, as of the Evaluation
Date, our internal control over financial reporting was
effective based on the criteria set forth by COSO in Internal
Control Integrated Framework.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
There have been no changes in our internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in
rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of 2010 that
have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
Not applicable.
31
Part III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors
and Executive Officers of the Registrant and Corporate
Governance
|
Directors
and Executive Officers
Our Directors and Executive Officers are listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Director Class
|
|
James R. Murphy
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board
|
|
III
|
Robert Forrester
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
Director
|
|
II
|
Michael McGovern
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Director
|
|
III
|
John W. Spiegel
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
Director
|
|
I
|
John A. Sedor
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|
|
N/A
|
Nils Bergenhem
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer and Vice President
|
|
N/A
|
Lance Berman
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President
|
|
N/A
|
Robert P. Hebert
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
|
|
N/A
|
James R. Murphy, Director and non-executive Chairman of the
Board 61, has served as our non-executive
Chairman of the Board since the spin-off from Bentley
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2008. Mr. Murphy was President of
Bentley from September 1994 until August 2005, was named Chief
Executive Officer effective January 1995 and became Chairman of
the Board in June 1995. Mr. Murphy served as Vice President
of Business Development at MacroChem Corporation, a publicly
owned pharmaceutical and drug delivery company, from March 1993
through September 1994. From September 1992 until March 1993,
Mr. Murphy served as a consultant in the pharmaceutical
industry with his primary efforts directed toward product
licensing. Prior thereto, Mr. Murphy served as Director
Worldwide Business Development and Strategic Planning of Bentley
from December 1991 to September 1992. Mr. Murphy previously
spent 14 years in pharmaceutical research and product
development with SmithKline Corporation and in international
business development with contract research and consulting
laboratories. Mr. Murphy received a B.A. in Biology from
Millersville University. The Board of Directors believes
Mr. Murphys qualifications to sit on our Board of
Directors include his extensive experience with pharmaceutical
companies, particularly including his focus on business
development and strategic collaborations, as well as his
executive leadership and management expertise.
Robert Forrester, Director 47, has served as
one of our directors since 2010. Mr. Forrester is Chief
Operating Officer of FORMA Therapeutics, Inc., a private
pharmaceutical development company. Before joining FORMA,
Mr. Forrester was the Interim President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of CombinatoRx
(NASDAQ:CRXX), a pharmaceutical company, from 2004 until 2010.
Prior to joining CombinatoRx, Mr. Forrester served as
Senior Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development at
Coley Pharmaceutical Group (acquired by Pfizer, Inc.), a
pharmaceutical company, from 2000 to 2003. From 1994 to 2000,
Mr. Forrester was a managing director of the Proprietary
Investment Group at MeesPierson, part of the Fortis Group, a
banking, insurance, and investment management company. Prior to
MeesPierson, Mr. Forrester worked for BZW, UBS, &
Clifford Chance. He is a member of the Board of Directors of
Myriad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:MYRX), Atlantic Healthcare,
Rhapsody Biologics and MoMelan Technologies. He holds a LL.B.
from Bristol University. The Board believes
Mr. Forresters qualifications to sit on our Board of
Directors include his leadership experience in the biotechnology
industry, as well as his years of experience in the banking and
legal fields, during which time he gained significant strategic,
operational and corporate governance expertise.
Michael McGovern, Director 67,
has served as one of our directors since the spin-off from
Bentley. Mr. McGovern served as a Bentley director from
1997 until the spin-off and was named Vice Chairman of Bentley
in October 1999. Mr. McGovern serves as President of
McGovern Enterprises, a provider of corporate and financial
consulting services, which he founded in 1975. Mr. McGovern
is Chairman of the Board of Training Solutions Interactive,
Inc., Chairman of the Board of Teacher Research Network, LLC,
Vice Chair of L2C Corporation, a Director on the corporate board
of the Reynolds Development Company, a Director of
32
Eclipse Aerospace, Inc., and a Director of each of
Community & Southern Holdings, Inc. and its banking
subsidiary, Community & Southern Bank Inc.
Mr. McGovern received a B.S. and M.S. in accounting and his
Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois. Mr. McGovern
is a Certified Public Accountant. The Board of Directors
believes Mr. McGoverns qualifications to sit on our
Board of Directors include his financial expertise and his years
of experience providing strategic and corporate consulting
services to a broad range of businesses.
John W. Spiegel, Director 70, has served as
one of our directors the spin-off from Bentley. Mr. Spiegel
served as a Bentley director from 2002 until the spin-off.
Mr. Spiegel served as Vice Chairman and Chief Financial
Officer of SunTrust Banks, Inc. from August 2000 until he
retired as Chief Financial Officer in August 2004 and as Vice
Chairman in 2005. Prior to August 2000, Mr. Spiegel was an
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SunTrust
Banks since 1985. Mr. Spiegel also serves on the Board of
Directors of Rock-Tenn Company, S1 Corporation, Colonial
Properties Trust and formerly served on the Board of Directors
of Homebanc Corp. Mr. Spiegel is a member of the
Deans Advisory Council of the Goizueta Business School at
Emory University. Mr. Spiegel is also a member of the board
of directors of Community and Southern Holdings, Inc. and
chairman of its banking subsidiary, Community and Southern Bank,
Inc. Mr. Spiegel received an MBA from Emory University. The
Board of Directors believes Mr. Spiegels
qualifications to sit on our Board of Directors include his
financial expertise, which qualify him as our audit
committee financial expert and his extensive executive
experience, including leadership roles in complex organizations.
John A. Sedor, CEO, President and Director
66, has been our Chief Executive Officer and President since the
spin-off from Bentley in 2008. Mr. Sedor was President of
Bentley from 2005 until the spin-off. From 2001 to May 2005, he
was President and CEO of Sandoz, Inc. (a division of Novartis
AG). From
1998-2001
Mr. Sedor was President and Chief Executive Officer at
Verion, Inc., a drug delivery company. Previously,
Mr. Sedor served as President and Chief Executive Officer
at Centeon, LLC, a joint venture between two major multinational
corporations, Rhône-Poulenc Rorer and Hoechst AG.
Previously, Mr. Sedor served as Executive Vice President at
Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Revlon Health Care and Parke-Davis.
Mr. Sedor holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
Pharmacy/Chemistry from Duquesne University, and has studied
strategic marketing at both Northwestern Universitys
Kellogg Graduate School of Management and Harvard Business
School. He has also attended Harvards Executive Forum. The
Board of Directors believes Mr. Sedors qualifications
to sit on our Board of Directors include his decades of
experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including his service
as our, and, prior to our spin-off, Bentleys, President
and/or Chief
Executive Officer.
Nils Bergenhem, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer and Vice
President 52, joined us as Chief Scientific
Officer in February 2010. From January 2008 until joining CPEX,
Dr. Bergenhem served as Chief Scientific Officer at
Escoublac, Inc., the first biotechnology company in the Biogen
Idec Innovations Incubator. There, he was responsible for
development and execution of the research plan for human
osteocalcin in metabolic disease, Type 2 diabetes and obesity.
From June 2005 until December 2007 he served as CSO at
AdipoGenix where he oversaw internal drug discovery and
development programs for obesity and related co-morbidities, as
well as the AdipoGenix alliance with Johnson and Johnson.
Previously, Dr. Bergenhem served as Vice President for
Research at the Institute for Diabetes Discovery, as Director
for Diabetes Research at OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc. and held
positions of increasing importance at Novo Nordisk in
Copenhagen. Dr. Bergenhem holds a BS degree in Chemistry
from Linkoping University, Sweden, and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry
from Umeå University, Sweden. He has completed postdoctoral
work at University of Michigan in Molecular Biology and Human
Genetics, where he also spent three years at the School of
Medicine as Research Investigator at the Institute of
Gerontology and at the Department of Biological Chemistry.
Lance Berman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer and Senior
Vice President 40, has been our Chief Medical
Officer since February 2009. Previously, Dr. Berman served
at Pfizer from 2003 until 2009. From December 2007 he served as
Senior Medical Director and Global Medical Team Leader at
Pfizer, responsible for the strategic medical development and
evolution of products within the cardiovascular and diabetes
portfolios. Previously, Dr. Berman held roles of increasing
importance at Schering-Plough from 1999 to 2003 and Janssen
Pharmaceuticals (Johnson & Johnson) from 1996 to 1999.
Dr. Berman received his Bachelor of Medicine and
33
Bachelor of Surgery at University of Cape Town in Cape Town,
South Africa, and holds a Masters Degree in Pharmaceutical
Medicine.
Robert P. Hebert, Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President 38, has been in this role since the
spin-off from Bentley in 2008. From June 2006 until the
spin-off, Mr. Hebert was Controller and Principal
Accounting Officer for Bentley. In this role, Mr. Hebert
managed all of Bentleys accounting and reporting
functions. From May 2003 until June 2006, Mr. Hebert was
Bentleys Director of SEC Reporting & Compliance,
Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer. His
responsibilities in this role included Bentleys financial
reporting and compliance with the requirements of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Prior to joining Bentley,
Mr. Hebert worked as an auditor for Deloitte &
Touche LLP from 1995 to 2003. Mr. Hebert received a B.S. in
Business Administration with a concentration in accounting from
Merrimack College in 1995.
Audit
Committee
The Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment,
compensation, retention and oversight of the independent
auditors, who audit our consolidated financial statements. The
Audit Committee is also responsible for discussing with our
management and our independent auditors, our accounting policies
and procedures and reporting systems, as well as the
effectiveness of our internal financial controls. The Audit
Committee monitors the independence of the auditors, and
resolves any disagreements between our management and our
independent auditors regarding financial reporting. The Audit
Committee also oversees the financial reporting process,
including review of the audited financial statements, and based
on the reviews and discussions referred to above, it recommends
to the Board whether the financial statements should be included
in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
The Audit Committee currently consists of Messrs. John W.
Spiegel (Chairman), Robert Forrester and Michael McGovern.
Currently, all members of the Audit Committee are
independent directors in accordance with the listing
standards of the NASDAQ and SEC rules. Our Nominating and
Governance Committee and our Board of Directors has determined
that Mr. Spiegel qualifies as an audit committee
financial expert as defined in applicable SEC rules.
Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics
The Company has adopted a code of business conduct and ethics,
or the code of conduct, that applies to its directors, officers,
and employees. The code of conduct is publicly available on the
Companys website at www.cpexpharm.com under the caption
Investor Relations Corporate Governance.
If the Company makes any substantive amendments to the code of
business conduct or grants any waiver, including any implicit
waiver from a provision of the code of conduct to our principal
executive officer, principal financial officer or principal
accounting officer, we will disclose the nature of such
amendments or waiver on our website or in a Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC. To date, we have not granted any waivers
under the code of conduct.
Stockholder
Recommendations for Director Nominations
Stockholders may recommend individuals for the Nominating and
Governance Committee to consider as potential director
candidates by submitting their names and background to
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Nominating and Governance
Committee
c/o the
Secretary, CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2 Holland Way, Exeter,
New Hampshire, 03833. The Nominating and Governance Committee
will consider a recommendation only if appropriate biographical
information and background material is provided on a timely
basis. Assuming that appropriate biographical and background
material is provided for candidates recommended by stockholders,
the Nominating and Governance Committee will evaluate those
candidates by following substantially the same process, and
applying substantially the same criteria, as for candidates
submitted by Board members.
34
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the
Companys directors, executive officers, and 10%
stockholders to file reports of ownership and reports of change
in ownership of the Companys equity securities with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Directors, executive
officers, and 10% stockholders are required to furnish the
Company with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.
Based on a review of the copies of such reports furnished, the
Company believes that during the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010, the Companys directors, executive
officers, and 10% stockholders filed on a timely basis all
reports required by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
Summary
Compensation Table for the 2010 and 2009 Fiscal Years
The following table summarizes the compensation of our principal
executive officer and our two other most highly paid executive
officers who were serving as executive officers as of
December 31, 2010 (the Named Executive
Officers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
Option
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Awards
|
|
Awards
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
John A. Sedor
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
408,116
|
|
|
|
204,058
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,370
|
(4)
|
|
|
650,544
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
397,000
|
|
|
|
198,500
|
|
|
|
8,360
|
(2)
|
|
|
34,144
|
(3)
|
|
|
45,494
|
|
|
|
683,498
|
|
Lance Berman, M.D.,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
308,400
|
|
|
|
123,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,220
|
(5)
|
|
|
446,980
|
|
Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
160,000
|
|
|
|
85,113
|
(2)
|
|
|
266,547
|
(3)
|
|
|
35,321
|
|
|
|
821,981
|
|
Nils Bergenhem
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
206,250
|
|
|
|
112,500
|
(1)
|
|
|
91,104
|
(2)
|
|
|
212,800
|
(3)
|
|
|
15,515
|
(6)
|
|
|
638,169
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer and Vice President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes a $30,000 hiring bonus, paid in February 2010, in
accordance with Mr. Bergenhems employment agreement. |
|
(2) |
|
These amounts include the aggregate grant date fair value,
calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of restricted
stock units granted to the executives in the year in which the
grant was made. For more information on the restricted stock
unit valuation assumptions, refer to Note 7 of our
Consolidated Financial Statements, included in this report, for
the year ended December 31, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
These amounts include the aggregate grant date fair value,
calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of stock
options granted to the executives in the year in which the grant
was made. For more information on the stock option valuation
assumptions, refer to Note 7 of our Consolidated Financial
Statements, included in this report, for the year ended
December 31, 2010. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes matching contributions in shares of common stock to
Mr. Sedors 401(k) plan valued at $14,000, life
insurance premiums of $12,370 and an automobile allowance of
$12,000. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes matching contributions in shares of common stock and
cash to Dr. Bermans 401(k) plan valued at $14,000, a
travel allowance of $1,020 and life insurance premiums of $200. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes matching contributions in shares of common stock and
cash to Mr. Bergenhems 401(k) plan valued at $14,000
and life insurance premiums of $1,515. |
Employment
Agreements
We have entered into employment agreements with each of
Messrs. Sedor, Berman and Bergenhem, which set forth the
terms of their relationships with the Company. The agreements
renew annually for one-year terms. Under the agreements, each
individual is paid a base salary and provided with life
insurance, as well as annual salary review, bonus potential and
stock option grants. Mr. Sedor is eligible for a bonus each
year of up to 50% of his base salary and Messrs. Berman and
Bergenhem are each eligible for a bonus each
35
year of up to 40% of his respective base salary. The amount of
any such bonuses, which are payable in cash, common stock
and/or any
other equity awards, and stock option grants are determined by
the Compensation Committee after considering the Companys
and each individuals performances during the year.
Mr. Sedors agreement also provides for a minimum
stock option grant of 5,000 options under the terms of the
Amended and Restated 2008 Equity Incentive Plan, however,
Mr. Sedor did not receive the minimum award in 2010. Each
of these individuals is employed by us on a full time basis.
For details regarding our obligations in the event of various
potential circumstances of termination of employment for any of
our Named Executives, please see Potential Payments Upon
Termination or
Change-In-Control
below.
Terms of
Restricted Stock Units and Stock Option Grants
Each restricted stock unit granted to the Companys
executive officers represents the right to receive one share of
common stock. The restricted stock units vest in three annual
installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant date.
The underlying shares will be issued on the respective vesting
dates for the units. The restricted stock units are not subject
to performance milestones or other vesting requirements beyond
continued employment on the applicable vesting dates. The terms
of the restricted stock units permit the Company to withhold
vested shares in satisfaction of applicable tax withholding
requirements.
The stock options granted during 2010 and 2009 vest in three
equal installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant
date and expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant. We
believe that this vesting schedule, as well as the vesting
schedule for the restricted stock units, aids in retaining
executive officers and motivating longer-term performance. The
exercise price of stock options is the closing price per share
of our common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market on the date of
grant.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at 2010 Fiscal Year End
The following table details unexercised options and restricted
stock units that have not vested for each of our Named Executive
Officers as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Market Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares or
|
|
|
of Shares or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units of
|
|
|
Units of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock That
|
|
|
Stock That
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Have Not
|
|
|
Have Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Expiration
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
Name
|
|
Grant Date(1)
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
(#)(4)
|
|
|
($)(5)
|
|
|
John A. Sedor
|
|
|
8/27/2005
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.88
|
|
|
|
8/27/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/23/2006
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.57
|
|
|
|
5/23/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/23/2006
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
10.57
|
|
|
|
5/23/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/23/2007
|
|
|
|
7,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.74
|
|
|
|
5/23/2017
|
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
8,589
|
|
|
|
|
7/1/2008
|
|
|
|
66,666
|
|
|
|
33,334
|
(3)
|
|
|
17.21
|
|
|
|
7/1/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/29/2009
|
|
|
|
1,458
|
|
|
|
2,917
|
(3)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
9/29/2019
|
|
|
|
558
|
|
|
|
13,693
|
|
Lance Berman
|
|
|
2/2/2009
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
7.05
|
|
|
|
2/2/2019
|
|
|
|
7,347
|
|
|
|
180,295
|
|
|
|
|
9/29/2009
|
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
|
|
2,204
|
(3)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
9/29/2019
|
|
|
|
422
|
|
|
|
10,356
|
|
Nils Bergenhem
|
|
|
2/1/2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
(3)
|
|
|
15.60
|
|
|
|
2/1/2020
|
|
|
|
5,840
|
|
|
|
143,314
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The grant dates, vesting schedules and expiration dates of the
awards outstanding on June 30, 2008, which was the
Separation date from Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are based on
the original grant dates, vesting schedules and expiration dates
of the Bentley awards from which they were converted. |
|
(2) |
|
These options become exercisable as to one-fifth of the shares
on each of the first five anniversaries of the date of grant. |
|
(3) |
|
These options become exercisable as to one-third of the shares
on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant. |
36
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Consists of restricted stock units. Restrictions lapse as to
one-third of the shares on each of the first three anniversaries
of the grant. |
|
(5) |
|
Market value based on closing stock price of the common stock on
the NASDAQ Capital Market of $24.54 on December 31, 2010. |
Potential
Payments Upon Termination or
Change-in-Control
The employment agreements with our Named Executive Officers may
be terminated at any time upon written notice. If we terminate a
Named Executive Officer without cause, we would be obligated to
pay the terminated executive severance equal to the sum of one
years salary plus a bonus equal to the greater of the
bonus target for the current year or bonus paid for the prior
year; provided, however, that these obligations shall terminate
if the terminated executive does not deliver a general release
of claims to us within 60 days after such termination.
Additionally, vesting of equity awards shall be accelerated on a
pro rata basis determined by the number of completed months of
service during the then current annual vesting period. Upon a
termination for cause (as defined in such Named Executive
Officers employment agreement), no severance is payable
and the terminated executives equity awards shall not be
accelerated. Upon the death or disability of an executive
officer, all equity awards shall vest.
If any of the Named Executive Officers terminates his employment
for good reason (as defined in such Named Executive
Officers employment agreement), or we terminate his
employment without cause, within 12 months after a change
in control, (i) we would be obligated to pay the terminated
executive two times either (A) the average of his aggregate
annual compensation paid by his current employer during the two
prior calendar years (including base salary and bonuses, if any)
or (B) if he has not been so employed for two full prior
calendar years, 12 times his monthly base salary immediately
prior to the change in control plus the greater of his
(X) most recent bonus, if any, paid by his current employer
before the change in control and (Y) his target bonus most
recently determined by his current employer prior to the change
in control; provided, however, that the obligations in this
clause (i) shall terminate if the release described above
has not been delivered within 60 days after such
termination; (ii) all of his then outstanding equity awards
would vest and become fully exercisable immediately; and
(iii) he would be entitled to health benefits for a period
of up to two years and the right to continue life insurance
coverage at our expense for up to two years. The severance
payments described in (i) of the preceding sentence would
be paid in a lump sum within 30 days after termination of
employment, subject to a six month delay if so required to
comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
2010 Director
Compensation
The following table summarizes compensation paid to our
non-employee directors during 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid in
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Name
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
Miguel Fernandez(1)
|
|
|
31,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,500
|
|
Robert Forrester(2)
|
|
|
50,583
|
|
|
|
69,840
|
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,423
|
|
Michael McGovern(3)
|
|
|
72,417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,417
|
|
James R. Murphy(4)
|
|
|
84,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,500
|
|
John W. Spiegel(5)
|
|
|
78,042
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,042
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Fernandez did not stand for re-election at and thus
ceased being a director following our annual meeting of
stockholders held on May 26, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
As of December 31, 2010, Mr. Forrester held 3,000
restricted stock units, of which 1,500 are vested. |
|
(3) |
|
As of December 31, 2010, Mr. McGovern held 4,000
restricted stock units and 5,000 stock options, all of which are
vested. |
37
|
|
|
(4) |
|
As of December 31, 2010, Mr. Murphy held 7,000
restricted stock units and 10,000 stock options, all of which
are vested. |
|
(5) |
|
As of December 31, 2010, Mr. Spiegel held 5,600
restricted stock units and 14,000 stock options, all of which
are vested. |
|
(6) |
|
This amount represents the aggregate grant date fair value,
calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of 3,000
restricted stock units granted to the director upon his
appointment to the board of directors in fiscal 2010. For more
information on the restricted stock unit valuation assumptions,
refer to Note 7 of our Consolidated Financial Statements,
included in this report, for the year ended December 31,
2010. |
We pay directors who are not employees, fees consisting of a
$25,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for each meeting of the Board of
Directors attended, $1,000 for each Audit Committee meeting
attended, $1,000 for each Compensation Committee meeting
attended, and $1,000 for each Nominating and Governance
Committee meeting attended. We also reimburse expenses incurred
in attending meetings. In addition, the chairman of the Board is
paid an annual retainer of $50,000, the chairman of the Audit
Committee is paid an additional annual retainer of $7,500, the
chairman of the Compensation Committee is paid an additional
annual retainer of $5,000, and the chairman of the Nominating
and Governance Committee is paid an additional annual retainer
of $5,000.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
The following table sets forth information as of
January 31, 2011 as to (i) each person (including any
group as that term is used in Section 13(d)(3)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) who we know
to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the
outstanding shares of our common stock, (ii) each of the
Named Executive Officers listed in the Summary Compensation
Table above, (iii) each director, and (iv) all current
executive officers and directors as a group.
Unless otherwise indicated below, to our knowledge, all persons
listed below have sole voting and dispositive power with respect
to their shares of our common stock, except to the extent
authority is shared by spouses under applicable law. Pursuant to
the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, the
number of shares of common stock deemed outstanding includes
shares issuable pursuant to options held by the respective
person or group that are currently exercisable or may be
exercised within 60 days of January 31, 2011 unless a
more recent SEC filing through February 24, 2011 is
available for our 5% stockholders. Except
38
as otherwise indicated, the address of each beneficial holder is
c/o CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2 Holland Way, Exeter, New Hampshire
03833.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Percent of
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Common Stock
|
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Owned(1)
|
|
Outstanding(2)
|
|
5% stockholders (not including executive officers and
directors):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porter Orlin LLC(3)
|
|
|
175,604
|
|
|
|
6.66
|
%
|
666 Fifth Avenue,
34th Floor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, NY 10103
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kingstown Capital Partners, LLC(4)
|
|
|
159,156
|
|
|
|
6.04
|
%
|
11 East
44th
Street,
7th Floor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, NY 10017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P.(5)
|
|
|
139,017
|
|
|
|
5.28
|
%
|
10 East
53rd
Street,
31st Floor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, NY 10022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Sedor(6)
|
|
|
126,563
|
|
|
|
4.65
|
%
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nils Bergenhem(7)
|
|
|
8,332
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer and Vice President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lance Berman(8)
|
|
|
40,800
|
|
|
|
1.54
|
%
|
Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Employee Directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Murphy(9)
|
|
|
134,168
|
|
|
|
5.09
|
%
|
Robert Forrester(10)
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Michael McGovern(11)
|
|
|
374,137
|
|
|
|
14.25
|
%
|
John W. Spiegel(12)
|
|
|
21,100
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All current executive officers and directors as a group (eight
persons)(13)
|
|
|
758,785
|
|
|
|
26.54
|
%
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Less than 1% |
|
(1) |
|
Except as noted below, totals do not include unvested restricted
stock units, the holders of which are not considered
beneficial owners within the meaning of
Rule 13d-3
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the
holders of such units do not have voting or investment power
with respect to such units and only obtain voting and investment
power when shares of common stock are issued upon settlement of
the restricted stock units. |
|
(2) |
|
Pursuant to the rules of the SEC, the number of shares of common
stock deemed outstanding includes shares issuable pursuant to
options held by the respective person or group that are
currently exercisable or may be exercised or issued within
60 days of January 31, 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
The number of shares is based solely on information contained in
a Schedule 13G filed by this stockholder on
February 14, 2011. Porter Orlin LLC filed the
Schedule 13G with A. Alex Porter, Paul Orlin, Amici
healthcare, L.P., The Collectors Fund L.P., Lightpath
Capital L.P. and CF Advisors (collectively with Porter Orlin
LLC, the Porter Orlin Reporting Persons). The
Schedule 13G reported that the Porter Orlin Reporting
Persons have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to
all shares owned by Porter Orlin LLC. |
|
(4) |
|
The number of shares is based solely on information contained in
a Schedule 13G filed by this stockholder on
February 24, 2011. The Kingstown Capital Partners, LLC
(General Partner) filed the Schedule 13D with
Kingstown Capital Management L.P. (Kingstown
Capital), Kingstown Management GP LLC (Kingstown
Management), Kingstown Partners Master Ltd. (Master
Fund), Kingstown Partners II, L.P.
(Fund II), Ktown, LP (Ktown,, and
together with Master Fund and Fund II, the
Funds), Michael Blitzer, Guy Shanon, George P.
Bauer, Carol B. Bauer and Bradley P. Bauer. General Partner is
the general partner of each of the Funds. Kingstown Capital is
the investment manager of each |
39
|
|
|
|
|
of the Funds. Kingstown Management is the general partner of
Kingstown Capital. Each of Mr. Blitzer and Mr. Shanon
is a managing member of Kingstown Management. By virtue of these
relationships, each of Kingstown Capital, Kingstown Management,
Mr. Blitzer and Mr. Shanon may be deemed to
beneficially the 156,156 shares owned by the Funds. The
Schedule 13D also reported that George P. Bauer has shared
voting power with respect to 164,372 shares and shared
dispositive power with respect to 5,216 shares and Carol B.
Bauer has shares voting and dispositive power with respect to
5,216 shares. |
|
(5) |
|
The number of shares is based solely on information contained in
a Schedule 13D filed by this stockholder on
January 31, 2011. The Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P.
(Mangrove Fund) filed the Schedule 13D with
Mangrove Partners, Mangrove Capital and Nathaniel August
(Mr. August). Mangrove Capital is the general
partner of Mangrove Fund. Mangrove Partners is the investment
manager of Mangrove Fund. Mr. August is Director of
Mangrove Partners. Mangrove Fund, Mangrove Partners, Mangrove
Capital and Mr. August have shared voting and dispositive
power with respect to all 139,017 shares. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes 1,200 shares of common stock owned by
Mr. Sedors children, as to which Mr. Sedor
disclaims beneficial ownership, and includes 2,850 shares
of common stock held in Mr. Sedors 401(k) Retirement
Plan account. Also includes 107,624 shares of common stock
issuable pursuant to presently exercisable stock options. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes 553 shares of common stock held in
Mr. Bergenhems 401(k) Retirement Plan account. Also
includes 5,833 shares of common stock issuable upon stock
options that will vest within 60 days of January 31,
2011 and 1,946 shares of common stock issuable upon
settlement of restricted stock units that will vest within
60 days of January 31, 2011. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes 2,142 shares of common stock held in
Mr. Bermans 401(k) Retirement Plan account. Also
includes 16,102 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to
presently exercisable stock options and 15,000 shares of
common stock issuable upon stock options that will vest within
60 days of January 31, 2011 and 3,673 shares of
common stock issuable upon settlement of restricted stock units
that will vest within 60 days of January 31, 2011. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes 1,211 shares of common stock held in an individual
retirement account. Also includes 10,000 shares of common
stock issuable pursuant to presently exercisable stock options
and 7,000 shares of common stock issuable upon settlement
of vested restricted stock units. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes 1,500 shares of common stock issuable upon
settlement of vested restricted stock units and 750 shares
of common stock issuable upon settlement of restricted stock
units that will vest within 60 days of January 31,
2011. |
|
(11) |
|
Includes 10,000 shares of common stock owned by
Mr. McGoverns spouse, as to which Mr. McGovern
disclaims beneficial ownership, 5,000 shares of common
stock issuable pursuant to presently exercisable stock options
and 4,000 shares of common stock issuable upon settlement
of vested restricted stock units. |
|
(12) |
|
Includes 1,500 shares held in a revocable trust over which
Mr. Spiegel possesses shared voting and dispositive power,
14,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to
presently exercisable stock options and 5,600 shares of
common stock issuable upon settlement of vested restricted stock
units. |
|
(13) |
|
Includes 196,527 shares of common stock issuable pursuant
to presently exercisable stock options. Also includes
6,369 shares of common stock issuable upon settlement of
restricted stock units that will vest within 60 days of
January 31, 2011. Also includes 18,100 shares of
common stock issuable upon settlement of vested restricted stock
units. Also includes 20,833 shares of common stock issuable
upon stock options that will vest within 60 days of
January 31, 2011. Also includes 10,006 shares of
common stock held in 401(k) Retirement Plan accounts and/or
individual retirement accounts of certain of our executive
officers. See footnotes 6 through 13 above. |
Change in
Control
On January 4, 2011, we announced that we had entered into a
definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc. (FCB),
a newly formed company which is controlled by Footstar
Corporation, under which FCB, through a wholly-owned subsidiary,
will acquire all of our outstanding common stock for $27.25 per
share in
40
cash, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger (the
Merger Agreement). The transaction was approved by
our Board of Directors and was approved by our stockholders on
March 24, 2011. The closing of the transaction is subject
to the satisfaction of certain customary closing conditions,
provided, the closing of the transaction may not occur prior to
April 4, 2011. We expect that the transaction will be
completed shortly following April 4, 2011, but there can be
no assurance that the closing will occur on this timeframe or at
all. Upon closing of the transaction, we will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of FCB and our common stock will cease
to trade on the NASDAQ Capital Market. The foregoing description
of the transaction with FCB does not purport to be complete and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Merger
Agreement, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit 2.1 hereto.
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
Our Board of Directors has adopted a written Policy on Related
Person Transactions that sets forth our policies and procedures
for the reporting, review, and approval or ratification of each
related person transaction. The Nominating and Governance
Committee is responsible for implementing the policy. The policy
applies to transactions and other relationships that would need
to be disclosed in this proxy statement as related person
transactions pursuant to Item 404 of the SECs
Regulation S-K,
or Item 404. In general, these transactions and
relationships are defined as those involving our executive
officers, directors, nominees for director or 5% stockholders,
or specified members of the family or household of any of these
individuals, where CPEX or any of its affiliates have
participated in the transaction as a direct party or by
arranging the transaction and the transaction involves more than
$120,000. In adopting this policy, our Board of Directors
expressly excluded from its coverage any transactions, among
others, involving compensation of our executive officers or
directors that has been expressly approved by our Compensation
Committee or our Board of Directors.
Since January 1, 2009, we have not been engaged in any
related party transactions requiring disclosure pursuant to
subsection (d) of Item 404, nor are we party to any
proposed related party transactions.
Director
Independence
We are subject to the NASDAQ listing standards, which require
that a majority of our directors be independent. Under the
NASDAQ listing standards, a director is independent if he or she
is not an executive officer or employee of CPEX and does not
have any relationship that, in the opinion of our Board, would
interfere with his or her exercise of independent judgment in
carrying out his or her responsibilities as a director. The
NASDAQ listing standards also identify a variety of
relationships that, if they exist, prevent a director from being
considered independent.
Our Nominating and Governance Committee and our Board of
Directors have determined that, at the current time,
Messrs. Forrester, McGovern and Spiegel meet the NASDAQ
listing standards for independence. Mr. Murphy does not
meet these standards because of his prior employment with
Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which under NASDAQ independence
standards, will preclude independence until the third
anniversary of CPEXs independence from Bentley in
mid-2008. Mr. Sedor, as the President and Chief of
Executive Officer of CPEX, is precluded from being considered
independent.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009
|
|
|
BDO USA, LLP Audit Fees
|
|
$
|
138,339
|
|
|
$
|
165,871
|
|
Deloitte & Touche Audit Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
138,339
|
|
|
$
|
290,830
|
|
The Audit Committee pre-approves the engagement of BDO USA, LLP
for all professional services. The pre-approval process
generally involved the full Audit Committee evaluating and
approving the particular
41
engagement prior to the commencement of services. There were no
audit-related, tax or other fees billed by BDO USA or
Deloitte & Touche for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Part IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Herein
|
|
(a)
|
|
The following documents are filed as a part of this report:
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Financial Statements of
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
|
|
F-1 to F-22
|
|
|
(2) Financial Statement Schedules:
|
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Exhibits See index beginning on page 43
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
The exhibits filed as a part of this annual report on Form 10-K
are listed on the Exhibit Index immediately following the
signature page. The Exhibit Index is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
|
42
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
CPEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
John A. Sedor
Chief Executive Officer and President
Date: March 31, 2011
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
R. Murphy
James
R. Murphy
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael
McGovern
Michael
McGovern
|
|
Director
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert
Forrester
Robert
Forrester
|
|
Director
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
W. Spiegel
John
W. Spiegel
|
|
Director
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
A. Sedor
John
A. Sedor
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert
P. Hebert
Robert
P. Hebert
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President (Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
43
Exhibit Index
to
Form 10-K
for the Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 3, 2011,
by and among CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and FCB I Holdings Inc.
and FCB I Acquisition Corp. Filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the
CPEX
Form 8-K
filed on January 4, 2011 and incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
Form of Separation and Distribution Agreement by and between
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Filed as Exhibit 2.1 to Amendment No. 2 of the CPEX
Form 10
(File No. 001-33895)
filed on May 8, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed with the Office of the Secretary of
State of the State of Delaware on September 28, 2007. Filed
as Exhibit 3.1 to Amendment No. 4 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on May 30, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated By-laws of CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Filed
as Exhibit 3.2 to Amendment No. 4 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on May 30, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated June 13, 2008, by and between CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and American Stock Transfer and
Trust Company. Filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the CPEX
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed on June 18, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated as of January 3, 2011,
by and between CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc and American Stock
Transfer and Trust Company. Filed as Exhibit 4.1 to
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed on January 4, 2011 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Form of Certificate of Designation of Series A Preferred
Stock. Filed as Exhibit A to the Form of Rights Agreement
filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Amendment No. 4 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on May 30, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Form of Rights Certificate. Filed as Exhibit B to the Form
of Rights Agreement filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Amendment
No. 4 of the CPEX Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on May 30, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement between Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Yungtai Hsu dated February 1, 1999, including letter
amendment effective as of December 31, 2007. Filed as
Exhibit 10.4 to Amendment No. 1 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on April 11, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
License Agreement between Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Auxilium A2, Inc. dated May 31, 2000, including thereto
Amendment No. 1 dated October 2000, Amendment No. 2
dated May 31, 2001, Amendment No. 3 dated
September 6, 2002 and Amendment No. 4 dated
March 25, 2004. Filed as Exhibit 10.5 to the CPEX
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and
incorporated herein by this reference.
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Employment Agreement by and between CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and John Sedor dated April 11, 2007. Filed as
Exhibit 10.6 to Amendment No. 1 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on April 11, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Employment Agreement by and between CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Robert P. Hebert dated April 11, 2007 Filed as
Exhibit 10.7 to Amendment No. 1 of the CPEX
Form 10 (File
No. 001-33895)
filed on April 11, 2008 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Amended and Restated 2008 Equity
Incentive Plan. Filed as Appendix A to the CPEX definitive
proxy statement filed on May 8, 2009 and incorporated
herein by this reference.
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
Employment Agreement by and between CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Lance Berman dated February 2, 2009. Filed as
Exhibit 10.1 to the CPEX
Form 8-K
filed on February 3, 2009 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Employment Agreement by and between CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Nils Bergenhem dated February 1, 2010. Filed as
Exhibit 10.11 to the
Form 10-K
filed on March 29, 2010 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description of Exhibit
|
|
|
23
|
.1*
|
|
Consent of BDO USA, LLP, Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm.
|
|
31
|
.1*
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2*
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.2*
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
|
|
|
Exhibits 10.3 through 10.7 above are management contracts
or compensatory plans or arrangements in which executive
officers or directors of CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. participate. |
45
Index to
Consolidated Financial Statements of
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
F-2
|
|
|
|
|
F-3
|
|
|
|
|
F-4
|
|
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
|
|
F-6
|
|
|
|
|
F-7
|
|
F-1
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Exeter, New Hampshire
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiary (the
Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders equity and cash flows for the years then
ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to
have nor were we engaged to perform an audit of its internal
control over financial reporting. Our audits included
consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiary as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.
Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 2011
F-2
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per
|
|
|
|
share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
22,157
|
|
|
$
|
13,695
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
6,428
|
|
|
|
5,289
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
701
|
|
|
|
582
|
|
Short-term deferred tax assets
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
29,592
|
|
|
|
19,566
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed assets, net
|
|
|
2,183
|
|
|
|
2,938
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
1,663
|
|
|
|
2,211
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
Note receivable
|
|
|
327
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
Long-term deferred tax assets
|
|
|
1,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current assets
|
|
|
5,755
|
|
|
|
6,477
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
35,347
|
|
|
$
|
26,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
697
|
|
|
$
|
1,374
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
1,445
|
|
|
|
1,633
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
3,677
|
|
|
|
3,007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A preferred stock, $1.00 par value, authorized
1,000 shares, issued and outstanding, none
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, authorized
35,000 shares, issued and outstanding, 2,617 and
2,537 shares at December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
28,760
|
|
|
|
26,765
|
|
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)
|
|
|
2,884
|
|
|
|
(3,754
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
31,670
|
|
|
|
23,036
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
35,347
|
|
|
$
|
26,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are
an integral part of these financial statements.
F-3
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalties and other revenue
|
|
$
|
23,297
|
|
|
$
|
18,658
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
8,777
|
|
|
|
8,867
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
7,510
|
|
|
|
12,291
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
702
|
|
|
|
699
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
16,989
|
|
|
|
21,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
6,308
|
|
|
|
(3,199
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before taxes
|
|
|
6,408
|
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
Provision (benefit) for income taxes
|
|
|
(230
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
6,638
|
|
|
$
|
(3,040
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
|
$
|
(1.21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
2.46
|
|
|
$
|
(1.21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
2,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
2,699
|
|
|
|
2,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are
an integral part of these financial statements.
F-4
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Consolidated
Statements of Changes in Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$0.01 Par Value
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
(Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Deficit)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Income (loss)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
2,484
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
24,532
|
|
|
$
|
(714
|
)
|
|
$
|
23,843
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock in lieu of cash as 401(k) matching
contributions
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock in lieu of cash compensation
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock units
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,537
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
26,765
|
|
|
|
(3,754
|
)
|
|
|
23,036
|
|
|
|
(3,040
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,638
|
|
|
|
6,638
|
|
|
|
6,638
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock in lieu of cash as 401(k) matching
contributions
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock units
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
636
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
2,617
|
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
|
$
|
28,760
|
|
|
$
|
2,884
|
|
|
$
|
31,670
|
|
|
$
|
3,598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are
an integral part of these financial statements.
F-5
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
6,638
|
|
|
$
|
(3,040
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided
by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
702
|
|
|
|
699
|
|
Share-based compensation expense
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
|
|
1,764
|
|
Deferred taxes
|
|
|
(1,888
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock in lieu of cash as 401(k) matching
contributions
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based awards
|
|
|
(122
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash charge for write-down of intangible assets
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
(1,139
|
)
|
|
|
(844
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
383
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(865
|
)
|
|
|
670
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
1,657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
6,719
|
|
|
|
(598
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to fixed assets
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(398
|
)
|
Additions to intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(224
|
)
|
Note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(300
|
)
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
(922
|
)
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
636
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based awards
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
758
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
8,462
|
|
|
|
(1,516
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
13,695
|
|
|
|
15,211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
22,157
|
|
|
$
|
13,695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for interest
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Disclosures of Non-Cash Financing and Investing
Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has issued common stock in lieu of cash to its
executive officers and other employees as a portion of their
2008 bonus during the year as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
293
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are
an integral part of these financial statements.
F-6
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
NOTE 1
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
CPEX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which may be referred to as
CPEX or the Company) was incorporated in
2007 in the State of Delaware and has one wholly-owned
subsidiary, CPEX Park, LLC. CPEX is an emerging specialty
pharmaceutical company in the business of research and
development of pharmaceutical products utilizing its validated
drug delivery platform technology. The Company was initially the
drug delivery business of Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(referred to as Bentley) which was spun off in June
2008 in connection with the sale of Bentleys remaining
business. Shares of CPEX stock were distributed to Bentley
stockholders after the close of business on June 30, 2008
by means of a stock dividend (the Separation). Each
Bentley stockholder of record on June 20, 2008 received one
CPEX share for every ten shares of Bentley common stock. Bentley
has no ownership interest in CPEX subsequent to the spin-off.
The CPEX platform drug delivery technology is based upon
CPE-215®,
which enhances permeation and absorption of pharmaceutical
molecules across biological membranes such as the skin, nasal
mucosa and eye.
The first product of CPEX is
Testim®,
a gel for testosterone replacement therapy that is a formulation
of CPE-215 with testosterone. Testim is licensed to Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which is currently marketing the product
in the United States, Europe and other countries.
On January 4, 2011, the Company announced that it had
entered into a definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc.
(FCB), a newly formed company which is controlled by
Footstar Corporation, under which FCB, through a wholly-owned
subsidiary, will acquire all of the Companys outstanding
common stock for $27.25 per share in cash. The transaction was
initially approved by CPEXs Board of Directors and was
subsequently approved by CPEXs stockholders on
March 24, 2011. The closing of the transaction is subject
to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, provided,
the closing of the transaction may not occur prior to
April 4, 2011. See Note 9 Subsequent
Events for additional information.
The Company is subject to a number of risks common to emerging
companies in the life sciences industry. Principal among these
risks are the uncertainties of the drug development process,
technological innovations, development of the same or similar
technological innovations by the Companys competitors,
protection of proprietary technology, compliance with government
regulations and approval requirements, uncertainty of market
acceptance of products, dependence on key individuals, product
liability, and the need to obtain additional financing necessary
to fund future operations. Pending completion of the merger
agreement with FCB, the Companys growth may be dependent
upon the successful commercialization of new products and
partnering arrangements.
NOTE 2
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis
of presentation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America and reflect the
accounts of the Company and its subsidiary. All intercompany
accounts and transactions have been eliminated. In the
accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in
Stockholders Equity for the year ended December 31,
2009, 18,000 shares and $172,000 has been reclassified from
Share-based compensation to Issuance of common stock
in lieu of cash as 401(k) matching contributions to conform
to the current periods presentation. Additionally, in the
accompanying Consolidating Balance Sheet as of December 31,
2009, $11,000 has been reclassified from Prepaid expenses and
other current assets to Notes receivable to conform
to the current periods presentation.
F-7
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Principles
of consolidation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the
accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CPEX
Park, LLC.
Segment
Data
The Company manages its operations on a consolidated, single
segment basis for purposes of assessing performance and making
operating decisions. Accordingly, the Company has only one
reporting segment.
Use of
estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure 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.
Cash
and cash equivalents and restricted cash
The Company considers all highly liquid investments with
remaining maturities of three months or less when purchased to
be cash equivalents for purposes of classification in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and the Consolidated Statements of
Cash Flows. The cash and cash equivalents of CPEX include cash
balances maintained in commercial bank accounts, amounts
invested in overnight sweep investments and cash deposits in
money market accounts. The Companys cash balances exceed
the limits of amounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation; however, because deposits are maintained at highly
rated financial institutions management believes there is not a
significant risk of loss of uninsured amounts. At
December 31, 2010, the Companys cash and cash
equivalents balance totaled $22.2 million.
In connection with intellectual property in-licensed in 2003,
the Company obtained a renewable, irrevocable letter of credit
in the amount of $1.0 million in favor of the assignor to
guarantee future royalty payments by the Company. This letter of
credit expired on June 30, 2010, and was not renewed by the
Company. The $1.0 million used to secure the letter of
credit had been classified as Restricted cash in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2009.
Accounts
receivable and allowances for doubtful accounts
The Company enters into collaboration and research agreements
whereby the Company may receive milestone payments, research
fees and/or
royalties. Accounts receivable from these agreements are
recorded at their net realizable value, generally as services
are performed or as milestones and royalties are earned. When
necessary, receivable balances are reported net of an estimated
allowance for uncollectible accounts. Estimated uncollectible
receivables are based on the amount and status of past due
accounts, contractual terms with customers, the credit
worthiness of customers and the history of uncollectible
accounts. The Companys accounts receivable and revenues
are primarily royalties due from its licensee, Auxilium for
sales of
Testim®.
Testim royalties represented substantially all of the accounts
receivable as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and
substantially all of the revenues in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009. All receivables are
uncollateralized and therefore subject to credit risk.
The Company did not write-off any uncollectible receivables in
the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. In addition,
the Company reviewed all receivable balances and concluded that
no allowance for doubtful accounts was necessary as of
December 31, 2010.
F-8
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Fixed
assets
Fixed assets are stated at cost. Depreciation is computed using
the straight-line method over the following estimated economic
lives of the assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
|
|
30
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
3-7
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
5-7
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5
|
|
Expenditures for replacements and improvements that
significantly add to productive capacity or extend the useful
life of an asset are capitalized, while expenditures for
maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred.
Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of the
useful life of the assets or over the life of the respective
lease. When assets are sold or retired, the cost of the asset
and the related accumulated depreciation are removed from the
accounts and any gain or loss is recognized currently.
Intangible
assets
Costs incurred in connection with acquiring licenses, patents,
and other proprietary rights related to the business of the
Company are capitalized as intangible assets. These assets are
amortized on a straight-line basis for periods not exceeding
fifteen years from the dates of acquisition. Such assets are
reviewed whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the assets may be impaired, by comparing the carrying
amounts to their estimated future undiscounted cash flows, and
adjustments are made for any diminution in value below the
carrying value. The Company did not capitalize any costs
relating to acquiring patents during the year ended
December 31, 2010. During the year ended December 31,
2010, the Company recorded $98,000 related to the write-down of
certain intangible assets related to a license and collaboration
agreement with a third-party for intranasal insulin in certain
non-U.S countries. Impairment losses related to intangible
assets are included in research and development expenses in the
accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the
year ended December 31, 2009, the Company capitalized
approximately $224,000 relating to acquiring patents and did not
record any impairment losses. At December 31, 2010, the
Company has also reassessed the useful lives of its remaining
intangible assets and has determined that the estimated useful
lives are appropriate for determining amortization expense.
Revenue
recognition
The Company recognizes revenue from royalties on Auxiliums
sales of Testim in accordance with the Financial Standards
Accounting Board (the FASB) Accounting Standards
Codification (FASB ASC)
605-10-S99-1
(Prior authoritative literature: SAB No. 104,
Revenue Recognition), which requires sales to be recorded
upon delivery, provided that there is evidence of a final
arrangement, there are no uncertainties surrounding acceptance,
title has passed, collectability is reasonably assured and the
price is fixed or determinable. Since 2003, Auxilium has sold
Testim to pharmaceutical wholesalers and chain drug stores,
which have the right to return purchased products prior to the
units being dispensed through patient prescriptions. Based on
historical experience, the Company is able to reasonably
estimate future product returns on sales of Testim and as a
result, the Company did not defer Testim royalties for the years
ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. Total royalty revenues
recognized for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
were $23.3 million and $18.6 million, respectively.
Fair
value measurements
On January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FASB ASC Topic 820
(Prior authoritative literature: SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements), which provides
guidance for measuring the fair value of assets
F-9
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
and liabilities, and requires expanded disclosures about fair
value measurements. FASB
ASC 820-10-35-9
indicates that fair value should be determined based on the
assumptions marketplace participants would use in pricing the
asset or liability, and provides additional guidelines to
consider in determining the market-based measurement. The
adoption of FASB ASC Topic 820 did not have a material impact on
the Companys consolidated financial statements. The
carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, trade
receivables, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate
fair value because of their short-term nature. FASB
ASC 820-10-20
clarifies that the definition of fair value retains the exchange
price notion and focuses on the price that would be received to
sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit
price), not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or
received to assume the liability (an entry price). FASB
ASC 820-10-35
also emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement,
not an entity-specific measurement, therefore a fair value
measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that
market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability
including assumptions about risk, the effect of sale or use
restrictions on an asset and non-performance risk including an
entitys own credit risk relative to a liability. FASB ASC
820-10-35
also establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes
between (1) market participant assumptions developed based
on market data obtained from sources independent of the
reporting entity (observable inputs) and (2) the reporting
entitys own assumptions about market participant
assumptions developed based on the best information available in
the circumstances (unobservable inputs). FASB
ASC 820-10-35-6
emphasizes that valuation techniques should maximize the use of
observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.
The additional disclosure requirements of FASB
ASC 820-10-50
focus on the inputs used to measure fair value and for recurring
fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
and the effect of the measurement on earnings (or changes in net
assets) for the reporting period. Inputs are categorized by a
fair value hierarchy, Level 1 through Level 3, the
highest priority being given to Level 1 and the lowest
priority to Level 3. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices
(unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access
at the measurement date. Level 2 inputs are inputs other
than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are
observable for the asset or liability, either directly or
indirectly. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the
asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure
fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not
available.
The following tables present the Companys assets and
liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of
December 31, 2010 and the amounts as they correspond to the
respective level within the fair value hierarchy established by
FASB
ASC 820-10-50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at December 31, 2010 Using:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
|
Total at
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
Inputs
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds(1)
|
|
$
|
20,922
|
|
|
$
|
20,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
20,922
|
|
|
$
|
20,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Included in cash and cash equivalents in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet. |
Research
and development
Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs
associated with the clinical trials of the Companys
product candidates, manufacturing supplies and other development
materials, compensation and related benefits for research and
development personnel, costs for consultants, and various
overhead costs.
F-10
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred
consistent with FASB Topic ASC 730 (Prior authoritative
literature: SFAS No. 2, Accounting for Research and
Development Costs).
Clinical
trial expenses
Clinical trial expenses, which are reflected in research and
development expenses, result from obligations under contracts
with vendors, consultants, and clinical sites in connection with
conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these
contracts are subject to negotiations which vary from contract
to contract and may result in cash flows which are not
consistent with the periods in which materials or services are
provided. In accordance with FASB
ASC 830-20-25-13
(Prior authoritative literature: Emerging Issues Task Force
Issue
No. 07-3,
Accounting for Nonrefundable Advance Payments for Goods or
Services Received for Use in Future Research and Development
Activities), these costs are capitalized upon payment and
recognized as an expense according to the progress of each trial
as measured by patient progression and the timing of various
aspects of the trial. The progress of the trials, including the
level of services performed, is determined based upon
discussions with internal personnel as well as outside service
providers.
Provision
for income taxes
The Company adopted the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 740
(Prior authoritative literature: Financial Accounting
Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes). The purpose of
ASC Topic 740 is to clarify and set forth consistent rules for
accounting for uncertain tax positions by requiring the
application of a more likely than not threshold for
the recognition and derecognition of tax positions. The adoption
of ASC Topic 740 did not have a material effect on the
Companys financial statements. The Company recognizes
interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as a
component of the provision for income taxes. There were no
unrecognized tax positions relating to the Company at the date
of adoption.
In 2010, the Company reported operating profits that have
utilized all previously reported Federal and state net operating
loss carryforwards. In addition, as CPEX management has
determined that it is more likely than not that it will realize
its net deferred tax assets for which it has previously recorded
a valuation allowance, the Company reversed its valuation
allowance against its deferred taxes. Previous to 2010 as future
operating profits could not be reasonably assured, no tax
benefit was recorded for net deferred taxes. Accordingly, CPEX
had established a valuation allowance equal to the full amount
of the deferred tax assets. In addition, no tax benefit had been
recorded for the losses generated by CPEX in the year ended
December 31, 2009.
Comprehensive
income and loss
The Company had no components of comprehensive income or loss
other than its net income or loss for the periods presented.
Basic
and diluted net income per common share
Basic and diluted net income per common share is based on the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding
during each period in accordance with ASC Topic 260 (Prior
authoritative literature :
EITF 03-6-1,
Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment
Transactions Are Participating Securities). The effect of
the Companys outstanding stock options and restricted
stock units were considered in the diluted net income per share
calculation for the year ended December 31, 2010.
The following is a reconciliation between basic and diluted net
income per common share for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2010. Dilutive securities issuable for the
twelve months ended December 31,
F-11
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
2010 included approximately 121,000 dilutive incremental shares
issuable as a result of various stock options and unvested
restricted stock units that were outstanding.
For the year ended December 31, 2010 (in thousands, except
per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive
|
|
|
|
|
Basic EPS
|
|
Securities
|
|
Diluted EPS
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
6,638
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,638
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
2,699
|
|
Net income per common share
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.46
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2009 was $1.21. Weighted average shares
outstanding for the year ended December 31, 2009 were
approximately 2,511,000 shares. Excluded from the diluted
earnings per share presentation for the year ended
December 31, 2009 were 509,925 common stock equivalents,
which includes stock options and restricted stock units as the
incremental effect of those shares would have been anti-dilutive
in that period.
Share-based
compensation
As of December 31, 2010 the Company had one share-based
compensation plan, its Amended and Restated 2008 Equity
Incentive Plan (the Plan). The Plan, which is
stockholder approved, permits awards of unrestricted common
stock, restricted stock, restricted stock units, options to
purchase CPEX common stock, stock appreciation rights and stock
equivalents for the Companys employees, directors and
consultants. Equity awards are generally granted with an
exercise price equal to the high and low trading prices of the
Companys common stock on the grant date. Equity awards
generally vest ratably over one to four year periods and expire
10 years from the grant date. Shares issued upon exercise
of options or upon vesting of restricted stock units are
generally issued from previously unissued shares of the Company.
Prior to the Separation, all equity awards were granted by
Bentley. In accordance with the Employee Matters Agreement
between the Company and Bentley, upon the Separation,
outstanding Bentley awards held by U.S. employees,
directors and consultants were converted into an adjusted
Bentley award and a CPEX award. The number of common shares
underlying the CPEX awards was calculated as one-tenth of the
number of common shares underlying the original Bentley awards.
The price of the CPEX awards was determined by multiplying the
original exercise price of the Bentley awards by the when-issued
trading price of CPEX common stock on the Separation Date and
then dividing that number by the closing Bentley trading price
on the Separation Date. These CPEX awards were granted under the
Plan.
The Company follows the provisions of Statement of FASB ASC
Topic 718 (Prior authoritative literature:
SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment).
Compensation expense is recognized, based on the
requirements of ASC Topic 718, for all share-based payments.
The fair value of options granted was calculated using the
Black-Sholes option valuation model. ASC Topic 718 also requires
companies to use an estimated forfeiture rate when calculating
the expense for the period. The Company has applied an estimated
forfeiture rate to remaining unvested awards based on historical
experience in determining the expense recorded in the
Companys Statement of Operations. This estimate is
periodically evaluated and adjusted as necessary. Ultimately,
the actual expense recognized over the vesting period will only
be for those shares that vest. See Note 7 for further
discussion.
Recently
issued accounting pronouncements
In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2010-06
for Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This
Update requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of
Level 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3. This Update
F-12
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
also clarifies existing disclosures for level of disaggregation
and about inputs and valuation techniques. The new disclosures
are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2009, except for the Level 3 disclosures,
which are effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2010 and for interim periods within those
years. Other than requiring additional disclosures, adoption of
this new guidance did not have a material impact on the
Companys financial statements and is not expected to have
a significant impact on the reporting of the Companys
financial condition or results of operations.
In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method, which
provides guidance on the criteria that should be met for
determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition
is appropriate. Under the milestone method of revenue
recognition, consideration that is contingent upon achievement
of a milestone in its entirety can be recognized as revenue in
the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the
milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. This
standard provides the criteria to be met for a milestone to be
considered substantive which include that: a) performance
consideration earned by achieving the milestone be commensurate
with either performance to achieve the milestone or the
enhancement of the value of the item delivered as a result of a
specific outcome resulting from performance to achieve the
milestone; and b) relate to past performance and be
reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the
arrangement. This standard is effective on a prospective basis
for milestones in fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010. The adoption of this new guidance did not
have a material impact on our financial statements and is not
expected to have a significant impact on the reporting of our
financial condition or results of operations.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29,
Business Combinations (Topic 805) (ASU
2010-29).
ASC Topic 350 (Prior authoritative literature: FASB Staff
Position (FSP)
142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets) has
required pro forma revenue and earnings disclosure requirements
for business combinations. ASU
2010-29
clarifies the requirements for disclosure of supplementary pro
forma information for business combinations. The amendments in
this Update specify that if a public entity presents comparative
financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and
earnings of the combined entity as though the business
combination(s) that occurred during the current year had
occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual
reporting period only. The amendments in this Update also expand
the supplemental pro forma disclosures under Topic 805 to
include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. The modifications to ASC Topic 805 resulting from
the issuance of ASU
2010-28 are
effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2010 and interim periods within those years. Early adoption is
permitted. The Company believes that the impact, if any, the
application of the amendments in ASU
2010-29 may
have on its financial statements will not be significant.
In June 2009, the FASB issued ASC Topic 810 (Prior
authoritative literature: Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation
No. 46(R),), which improves financial reporting
by enterprises involved with variable interest entities.
ASC 810 addresses (1) the effects on certain
provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December
2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, as a result
of the elimination of the qualifying special-purpose entity
concept in SFAS 166 and (2) concerns about the
application of certain key provisions of FIN 46(R),
including those in which the accounting and disclosures under
the Interpretation do not always provide timely and useful
information about an enterprises involvement in a variable
interest entity. The Company adopted this topic as of
January 1, 2010 and determined that the adoption did not
have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued ASC Topic 860 (Prior
authoritative literature: issued SFAS No. 166,
Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets, an Amendment
of FASB Statement No. 140). ASC Topic 860
prescribes the information that a reporting entity must provide
in its financial reports about a transfer of financial assets;
the effects of a transfer on its financial position, financial
performance, and cash flows; and a transferors continuing
involvement in transferred financial assets. Specifically, among
other aspects, ASC
F-13
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Topic 860 amends SFAS No. 140, Accounting for
Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments
of Liabilities, or SFAS No. 140, by removing the
concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity from
SFAS No. 140 and removes the exception from applying
FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable
Interest Entities (revised), or FIN 46(R), to variable
interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities.
It also modifies the financial-components approach used in
SFAS No. 140. The Company adopted this topic as of
January 1, 2010 and determined that the adoption did not
have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
NOTE 3
RECEIVABLES
Receivables consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Royalties receivable
|
|
$
|
6,428
|
|
|
$
|
5,206
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,428
|
|
|
$
|
5,289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 4
FIXED ASSETS
Fixed assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
787
|
|
|
$
|
787
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
|
|
1,183
|
|
|
|
1,183
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
1,531
|
|
|
|
2,151
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,757
|
|
|
|
4,369
|
|
Less-accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(1,574
|
)
|
|
|
(1,431
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,183
|
|
|
$
|
2,938
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During 2010, as a result of managements decision not to
proceed with the development of Nasulin, management identified
certain equipment related to the manufacture of Nasulin that it
does not expect to use in the future. In the second quarter of
2010, the Company determined that the plan of sale criteria as
set forth in FASB
ASC 360-10-45
(Prior authoritative literature: Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144,
Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets), had been met. The carrying value of the
manufacturing equipment, which the Company believes approximates
fair value, is based upon the original acquisition cost of
approximately $626,000 less continuing depreciation expense
through the date that plan of sale criteria were met of
approximately $109,000. The resulting carrying value of
approximately $517,000 has been recorded separately within other
current assets on the Companys Consolidated Balance Sheets
as of December 31, 2010. The Company intends to sell this
equipment, however, if it is unable to sell it under terms the
Company deems acceptable, it may seek to enter a fee for use, or
similar arrangement, with another party. The Company has not
recognized any gains or losses related to this equipment during
the year ended December 31, 2010.
F-14
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Depreciation expense of approximately $253,000 and $292,000 has
been charged to operations as a component of Depreciation and
amortization expense in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
NOTE 5
INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Intangible assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Patents and related patent costs
|
|
$
|
5,105
|
|
|
$
|
5,204
|
|
Less-accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(3,442
|
)
|
|
|
(2,993
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,663
|
|
|
$
|
2,211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense for drug licenses was approximately
$449,000 and $407,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively, and has been recorded in Depreciation
and amortization expense in the accompanying Consolidated
Statements of Operations. The carrying value of approximately
$1.7 million as of December 31, 2010 will be amortized
over a weighted average period of 4.3 years.
Amortization expense for existing drug licenses and patents and
related costs for each of the next five years and for all
remaining years thereafter is estimated to be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future
|
|
|
Amortization
|
Year Ending December 31,
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
449
|
|
2012
|
|
|
449
|
|
2013
|
|
|
449
|
|
2014
|
|
|
81
|
|
2015
|
|
|
68
|
|
2016 and beyond
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 6
ACCRUED EXPENSES
Accrued expenses consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
$
|
772
|
|
|
$
|
828
|
|
Accrued clinical costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
Accrued professional fees
|
|
|
307
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
Other accrued expenses
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
222
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,445
|
|
|
$
|
1,633
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-15
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
NOTE 7
EQUITY AND SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
As previously stated, as of December 31, 2010, the
Companys one share-based compensation plan, which is
stockholder approved, permits awards of unrestricted common
stock, restricted stock, restricted stock units, options to
purchase CPEX common stock, stock appreciation rights and stock
equivalents for the Companys employees, directors and
consultants. On June 18, 2009, the Companys
stockholders approved, among other things, the addition of
100,000 shares of common stock to the reserve of shares
available for issuance under the Plan. At December 31,
2010, approximately 519,000 shares of common stock were
reserved for issuance under the Plan. Approximately 330,000 of
these shares were subject to outstanding stock options and
approximately 37,000 shares were subject to outstanding
restricted stock units including approximately 18,000 restricted
stock units that have vested but have not been settled. The
balance of approximately 152,000 shares were available for
future issuance of awards under the Plan. The table below
presents the Companys option activity for the year ended
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
(in 000s)
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Term (Years)
|
|
|
(in 000s)
|
|
|
Options outstanding, January 1, 2010
|
|
|
466
|
|
|
$
|
14.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
15.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(84
|
)
|
|
|
15.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited and expired
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
16.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
330
|
|
|
$
|
14.36
|
|
|
|
7.40
|
|
|
$
|
3,363
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
326
|
|
|
$
|
14.36
|
|
|
|
7.39
|
|
|
$
|
3,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
$
|
14.66
|
|
|
|
7.09
|
|
|
$
|
2,097
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Through December 31, 2010, options to purchase
83,748 shares of CPEX common stock were exercised. Of this
amount, 46,553 options were exercised on a net exercise basis
resulting in the issuance of 22,436 shares of the
Companys common stock. The remaining options to purchase
37,195 shares of common stock were exercised for cash
resulting in proceeds to the Company of approximately $636,000.
The total intrinsic value of those option exercises in 2010 was
approximately $946,000. During the year ended December 31 2009,
options to purchase approximately 2,000 shares of CPEX
common stock were exercised for net cash proceeds to the Company
of approximately $4,000, while the total intrinsic value of
those option exercises was approximately $14,000. The total fair
value of stock options that vested during the year ended
December 31, 2010 was approximately $1.1 million.
As of December 31, 2010, unrecognized compensation expense
related to the unvested portion of the Companys stock
options granted to CPEX employees was approximately $635,000 and
is expected to be recognized primarily in 2011.
F-16
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The fair value of each option award granted to employees is
estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option
valuation model. Assumptions and the resulting fair value for
option awards granted by CPEX during the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009 are provided below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Weighted average risk free interest rate
|
|
3.12%
|
|
2.45%
|
Dividend yield
|
|
0%
|
|
0%
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
7
|
|
7
|
Volatility
|
|
87.55%
|
|
85%-88%
|
Weighted average grant-date fair value of options granted
|
|
$12.16
|
|
$5.98
|
The risk-free interest rate is based on the yield curve of
U.S. Treasury securities in effect at the date of the
grant, having a duration commensurate with the estimated life of
the award. CPEX does not expect to declare dividends in the
future. Therefore, an annual dividend rate of 0% is used when
calculating the grant date fair value of equity awards. The
expected life (estimated period of time outstanding) of options
granted is estimated based on historical exercise behaviors of
CPEX employees and Bentleys U.S. employees prior to the
Separation. Shares of CPEX common stock began trading on the
NASDAQ Capital Market on July 1, 2008. Since this period of
time is shorter than the expected term of the options granted,
the volatility applied is the average volatility of CPEX and a
peer group of comparable life science companies using daily
price observations for each company over a period of time
commensurate with the expected life of the respective award.
CPEX share-based awards generally vest over three years and the
maximum contractual term of the awards is 10 years.
In addition to the stock options described above, the Company
has granted restricted stock units to its employees. The common
shares subject to the restricted stock units are generally
issued when they vest. The table below presents the
Companys restricted stock unit activity for the twelve
months ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
(in 000s)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Term (Years)
|
|
|
(in 000s)
|
|
|
Restricted stock units outstanding, January 1, 2010
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
$
|
9.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
18.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested(1)
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
11.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
10.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock units outstanding, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
12.21
|
|
|
|
1.33
|
|
|
$
|
457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
$
|
12.20
|
|
|
|
1.34
|
|
|
$
|
442
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes approximately 9,000 restricted stock units that have
vested but for which the underlying common shares are not
settled or issued. |
As of December 31, 2010, unrecognized compensation expense
related to the unvested portion of the Companys restricted
stock units granted to CPEX employees was approximately $142,000
and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period
of approximately 1.33 years.
F-17
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Share-based compensation expense relative to grants of stock
options and restricted stock units for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009 totaled approximately
$1.1 million and $1.8 million, respectively. The
expenses were recorded in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
$
|
1,018
|
|
|
$
|
1,351
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
413
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,096
|
|
|
$
|
1,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No related compensation expense was capitalized as the cost of
an asset and there was no impact on net cash provided by
operating activities or net cash used in financing activities as
a result of these share-based transactions.
The Company sponsors a 401(k) Plan for eligible employees (the
401k Plan) and through the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, matched eligible contributions with
shares of the Companys common stock. Beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2010, the Company began matching eligible
contributions with cash rather than in stock. In July 2008, the
Companys Board of Directors authorized and reserved
50,000 shares of common stock for the Companys
contribution to the 401(k) Plan. As of December 31, 2010
approximately 20,000 of these shares were available for
contribution to the 401(k) Plan.
Share-based compensation expense includes matching contributions
to the 401(k) Plan by the Company. For the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, the related expenses were
recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Operations as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
$
|
68
|
|
|
$
|
76
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
142
|
|
|
$
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholder
Rights Plan
Pursuant to the Rights Agreement that was adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Company on June 12, 2008, the Board of
Directors declared a dividend of one Right for each outstanding
share of common stock payable to stockholders of record at the
close of business on June 23, 2008. Each Right, when
exercisable, entitles the registered holder to purchase one
one-thousandth of a share of Series A preferred stock, par
value $0.01 per share, at a purchase price of $100 per share,
subject to adjustment. The Rights Agreement is designed to
prevent a potential acquirer from gaining control of the Company
without fairly compensating all of the Companys
stockholders and to protect the Company from coercive takeover
attempts. The Rights will become exercisable only if a person or
group of affiliated persons beneficially acquires 15% or more of
the Companys common stock (subject to certain exceptions).
In the event that an acquiring person became the beneficial
owner of 15% or more of the then outstanding shares of common
stock (except pursuant to a qualifying offer), each holder of a
Right will thereafter have a right to receive, upon payment of
the purchase price, shares of common stock or, in certain
circumstances, cash, property, or other securities of the
Company having a value (based on a formula set forth in the
Rights Agreement) equal to two times the purchase price of the
Right. The Rights are not exercisable
F-18
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
until the distribution date and will expire at the close of
business on June 12, 2018, unless earlier redeemed or
exchanged by the Company.
As explained in Note 1 Description of
Business, on January 4, 2011 the Company announced that
it had entered into a definitive agreement with FCB under which
FCB will acquire all of the Companys outstanding common
stock. Accordingly, the Companys Board of Directors
amended the Rights Agreement, making it inapplicable to, among
other things, the planned merger.
NOTE 8
PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES
The provisions for income taxes in 2010 and 2009 for CPEX are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Currently payable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State
|
|
$
|
466
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
1,192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,658
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
(158
|
)
|
Federal
|
|
|
1,002
|
|
|
|
(1,505
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,079
|
|
|
|
(1,663
|
)
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
1,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision (benefit) for income taxes
|
|
$
|
(230
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation of the income tax provision using the federal
statutory rate to the CPEX effective income tax rate is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Income tax provision (benefits) at federal statutory rates
|
|
$
|
2,179
|
|
|
$
|
(1,034
|
)
|
State income taxes (net of federal benefit)
|
|
|
384
|
|
|
|
(158
|
)
|
Tax credits
|
|
|
(330
|
)
|
|
|
(496
|
)
|
Permanent differences
|
|
|
697
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
|
|
25
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
1,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total tax benefit
|
|
$
|
(230
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permanent differences arise from legal and consulting expenses
of $1.7 million, included in general and administrative
expense in the Consolidated Statement of Operations, capitalized
for tax purposes, incurred in connection with the Company
entering into a definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc.
(FCB), a newly formed company which is controlled by
Footstar Corporation, under which FCB, through a wholly-owned
subsidiary, will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of
CPEX for $27.25 per share in cash. See Note 9
Subsequent Events for additional information. These legal and
consulting expenses are not considered to be deductible for tax
purposes.
F-19
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The components of the CPEX deferred taxes are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
$
|
1,074
|
|
|
$
|
1,024
|
|
Book/tax basis difference in assets
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
309
|
|
General business credit carryforwards
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
652
|
|
Net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
656
|
|
Other timing differences, net
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
326
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
|
1,888
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax asset, net
|
|
$
|
1,888
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2010, the Companys reported operating profits that
utilized all previously reported Federal and state net operating
loss (NOL) carryforwards. In addition, as CPEX
management believes that it is more likely than not that it will
realize its net deferred assets for which it has previously
recorded a valuation allowance, the Company has eliminated its
valuation allowance. Previous to 2010, as future operating
profits could not be reasonably assured, no tax benefit was
recorded for net deferred taxes. Accordingly, CPEX had
established a valuation allowance equal to the full amount of
the deferred tax assets. The valuation allowance for CPEX
decreased by $2,967,000 in 2010 and increased by $1,663,000 in
2009.
In 2010, net deferred tax assets of $1,888,000 consist
principally of $1,074,000 attributable to stock options,
$341,000 due to book/tax difference in assets and $167,000 in
general business credits. Net deferred tax assets in 2010
decreased by $1,079,000 principally to the utilization of
$656,000 of net operating loss carryforwards and $427,000 of
general business credits. The 2009 increase in net deferred tax
assets consists of $680,000 attributable to stock options,
$496,000 in general business credits and $442,000 to NOL
carryforwards. The general business credits are attributed to
the Companys research and development activities.
As a result of the taxable income reported for the year ended
December 31, 2010, the Company utilized all of its federal
and state net operating loss carryforwards. Accordingly, the
Company has recorded a current tax provision of $1,658,000. The
Company did not record a tax provision for the year ended
December 31, 2009 because of the taxable losses reported
for the period.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company realized
an excess tax deduction relative to exercised stock options
which reduced its current tax payable. The impact of this excess
tax deduction resulted in a net credit to additional paid in
capital of $122,000. In addition, in accordance with FASB ASC
Topic
718-740-25-10,
the Company has not recognized a tax benefit and a credit to
paid-in capital of $58,000 related to research and development
credits until these credits can reduce taxes payable. As of
December 31, 2010, the CPEX U.S. Federal general
business credit carryforwards were approximately $167,000. If
not offset against future federal taxes, these general business
credit carryforwards will expire in the tax years 2029 and 2030.
The Company did not experience any ownership changes during 2010
under Internal Revenue Code Section 382 that would further
limit their NOLs or general business credit carryforwards.
The Company adopted the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 740
(Prior authoritative literature: Financial Accounting
Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
F-20
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes). There was no activity related to unrecognized
tax benefits for the year ended December 31, 2010.
CPEX recognizes interest and penalties related to uncertain tax
positions as a component of the provision for income taxes.
There were no unrecognized tax positions relating to CPEX at the
date of adoption or December 31, 2010 or 2009. As of
December 31, 2010, the tax years 2009 and 2008 are the
years that are open to examination.
NOTE 9
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On January 4, 2011 the Company announced that it had
entered into a definitive agreement with FCB I Holdings Inc.
(FCB), a newly formed company which is controlled by
Footstar Corporation, under which FCB, through a wholly-owned
subsidiary, will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of
CPEX for $27.25 per share in cash. The transaction price
represents a premium of 11% over the Companys closing
stock price on January 3, 2011 and a 142% premium over the
price of CPEX shares on January 7, 2010, the day prior to
the date a third party publicly stated its intention to make an
unsolicited offer for the Company. The transaction was initially
unanimously approved by the Companys Board of Directors,
and subsequently was approved by CPEX stockholders on
March 24, 2011.
The transaction is subject to the satisfaction of customary
closing conditions, provided, the closing of the transaction may
not occur prior to April 4, 2011. We expect that the
transaction will be completed shortly after April 4, 2011,
but there can be no assurance that the closing will occur on
this timeframe or at all. Upon closing of the transaction, we
will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of FCB and our common
stock will cease to trade on the NASDAQ Capital Market.
Footstar Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Footstar,
Inc., a public company, holds an 80.5% equity interest in FCB.
NOTE 10
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND CONCENTRATIONS
The Company is obligated to pay certain royalty payments upon
commercialization of products using its CPE-215 technology
acquired in 1999 and its intellectual property acquired in 2003.
The royalties are primarily calculated based upon net sales of
certain products generated by the intellectual property. As of
December 31, 2010, no royalties are due under the
agreements.
Legal
Proceedings
In October 2008, CPEX and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Auxilium) received notice that Upsher-Smith
Laboratories, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) had filed an
Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA containing a
paragraph IV certification in which Upsher-Smith certified
that it believes its proposed generic version of
Testim®
does not infringe our patent, U.S. Patent
No. 7,320,968 (the 968 Patent). The
968 Patent claims a method for maintaining effective blood
serum testosterone levels for treating a hypogonadal male, and
will expire in January 2025. The 968 Patent is listed for
Testim®
in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book), published by
FDA. Upsher-Smiths paragraph IV certification sets
forth allegations that the 968 Patent will not be
infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of its proposed
generic product.
On December 4, 2008, CPEX and Auxilium filed a Hatch-Waxman
patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the Court) against
Upsher-Smith, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The
Court docketed this case as Civil Action
No. 08-908-SLR.
In June 2009, Upsher-Smith amended its answer to the complaint
to include a defense and counterclaim of invalidity of the
968 Patent, which CPEX and Auxilium have denied. A patent
issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
such as the 968 Patent, is presumed valid. As of March
2011, the lawsuit remains pending; however, the trial date has
been removed from the Courts calendar. Any final FDA
approval of Upsher-
F-21
CPEX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Smiths proposed generic product will be stayed until the
earlier of thirty months from the date of our receipt of the
paragraph IV certification (April 2011) or an adverse
decision in our patent infringement lawsuit.
CPEX has filed continuation and divisional applications with the
USPTO relating to the 968 patent. Six patents issued from
these applications on October 27, 2009, namely
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,608,605; 7,608,606; 7,608,607;
7,608,608; 7,608,609; and 7,608,610, which may provide us with
further market protection. Each of these six patents has been
listed in the Orange Book with respect to
Testim®.
CPEX is committed to protecting its intellectual property rights
and will vigorously pursue the Hatch-Waxman patent infringement
lawsuit against Upsher-Smith. However, if CPEX is unsuccessful
in obtaining an injunction to keep Upsher-Smiths proposed
version of
Testim®
off the market until the patent protection expires, or in
defending the 968 Patent covering
Testim®,
sales of
Testim®
and CPEXs royalties relating to
Testim®
sales will be materially reduced.
Agreement
for a Potential Joint Venture
As previously disclosed, on March 17, 2009, the Company
signed an agreement with Heights Partners,
LLC (Heights) to evaluate the desirability for
the Company to enter into a joint venture arrangement with
Heights for the development of specified product candidates.
Under the agreement, the parties evaluated several product
candidates and on October 15, 2009, the Company advised
Heights that it had selected two products for the collaboration.
Under the terms of the agreement, the parties had to execute a
joint venture or other contractual arrangement within
90 days, or by January 13, 2010, to conduct such
collaboration. This deadline was later extended by the parties,
most recently until November 30, 2010. Under the agreement,
the Company paid $300,000 to Heights as an advance against its
initial contribution to the potential joint venture. This
payment was evidenced by a promissory note payable by Heights to
CPEX and secured by a first priority security interest in
Heights intellectual property, including, without
limitation, patents, patent applications and know-how relating
to any of several specified product development projects, all
licenses and other agreements with respect to the foregoing and
all proceeds received by Heights from the sale or license of any
of such intellectual property or products covered by any such
intellectual property. Under the terms of the agreement as
amended, the promissory note, which is included in non-current
assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 31, 2010, together with interest, was originally
due in October 2009. The due date of the promissory note was
later extended, most recently until November 30, 2010, the
same deadline as for the execution of a joint venture agreement,
if any. Under the terms of the agreement as amended, upon
execution of a joint venture or other contractual arrangement,
Heights would contribute the amounts payable under the note to
the joint venture as the Companys initial investment in
the joint venture or other arrangement. The agreement, as
amended, provides that if the parties were unable to execute a
joint venture agreement by November 30, 2010, all amounts
advanced by the Company would become payable by Heights to the
Company and either party would have the right to seek to
terminate the obligation to form the joint venture. This
deadline passed without both parties agreeing to an extension.
As a result, the initial contribution of $300,000, which is
included in Non-current assets in the accompanying Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010, together with
interest, became due. Notwithstanding the terms of the
promissory note, Heights is disputing the amount due and has
declined to make payment of the principal or interest relating
to such note. The Company intends to vigorously pursue
collection of the promissory note and believes it is collectible
under the original arrangement.
F-22