DotW: Cash for Clunkers

We're baaack. Did you miss us--or was the respite from DOTW welcome? (On second thought, don't answer that.)

Things in D.C. are beginning to quiet down, as members of Congress head for their home districts and vacations. With healthcare reform stalled, the Obama administration's one piece of good news: cash for clunkers has been an undeniable success--at least for certain auto makers--especially now that the popular programs has been recapitalized.

In our own industry, the deal-making was of a small scale--and certainly involved a few clunkers. But this week the small players have nothing on big biotechs Biogen and Genzyme, which increasingly look like they could join the ranks of industry wrecks.

As part of J&J's recent deal with Elan, the big drug maker received an option to help Elan finance the purchase of Biogen's stake in Tysabri in the event Biogen is bought out and Elan decides it wants full control of the medicine. Biogen cried foul after learning of the arrangement via media reports and an Elan earnings call, saying the arrangement with J&J violates the two biotech's existing Tysabri contract. (Certainly, Biogen has a right to be worried. If the maker of Avonex and Rituxan goes on the block, the financing option on Tysabri could give J&J an advantage over competing bidders and enable the pharma--if it wants--to get the Cambridge-based biotech for a lower price.)

So on July 28 Biogen sent Elan a letter calling for an end to the relationship, triggering a 60-day window in which to effect a break-up. It didn't take long for Elan to respond with a lawsuit, filed in U.S. Federal District Court in New York. Elan is asking the court to stop the 60-day clock that is triggered by Biogen's letter and to expedite a review of the matter. (Read our discussion in "The Pink Sheet" DAILY for more.)

If the Biogen/Elan catfight isn't dramatic enough for you, there's additional entertainment provided by Genzyme, which continues to struggle because of manufacturing problems associated with its Allston plant. As competitors like Shire encroach on Genyzme's money-maker Cerezyme, analysts are beginning to doubt Genzyme's ability to survive the fall-out caused by the manufacturing snafu. On Friday, Aug. 7, Goldman Sachs added the biotech to its Americas conviction sell list. Off-the-record discussions with other industry experts suggest other analysts may follow suit in short order.

Could the events at Genzyme result in the company's sale? It's a good question and one we're pondering. Until such an event transpires, take a look at this week's edition of...


Anesiva/Arcion Therapeutics: Clunker Anesiva got a new engine thanks to this week’s reverse merger with privately–held Arcion Therapeutics. The deal calls for each company to contribute one clinical program to the surviving entity, which will be named Arcion. Anesiva’s existing CEO, Michael Kranda, gets to keep the top spot, and Arcion CEO James Campbell (who is also an Anesiva board member), will become CMO, with Arcion shareholders owning 64% of the newco. Industry watchers have been long predicted consolidation as troubled companies team up with up-and-comers in opportunistic deals; the Anesiva/Arcion tie-up certainly holds a certain logic given Campbell’s dual role at both companies, shared investors (CMEA Ventures and Interwest Partners have staked both players) and the firms' similar focus on novel treatments for pain. Anesiva’s primary contribution to the newco is Adlea, an intravenous formulation of capsaicin that has succeeded in two Phase III trials for post-operative pain in total knee replacement patients; Arcion, which was profiled in Start-Up in January, is developing a topical clonidine gel for diabetic neuropathic pain. For Anesiva, the news means at least a vestige of the company will continue to live on. Once a growing biotech with a marketed product and a stock price nearing $7, Anesiva was down to $315,000 in cash and equivalents at the end of the first quarter as manufacturing challenges forced the biotech to recall its transdermal pain patch Zingo. Baltimore-based Arcion, meanwhile, hasn’t been around long enough to raise a ton of money: InterWest Partners and CMEA staked the company with $8.8 million in a Series A raised in December 2007. The two VCs certainly didn't get an exit out of the deal, but since they already own a chunk of Anesiva, the merger allows them to consolidate their outlays into one, stronger company. We also assume the merger’s allure stems from the promise of Adlea and the management expertise of Kranda (okay, maybe a Nasdaq listing is also a plus). How the new company will be capitalized is still an open question. According to “The Pink Sheet” DAILY, the newco plans to pursue a $20 million private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing in conjunction with the merger--Joseph Haas and Ellen Foster Licking.

GlaxoSmithKline/Vernalis: Vernalis wins DOTW's Monty Python award for "not dead yet" biotech. News Thursday Aug. 6 that the firm was teaming up with GlaxoSmithKline in an option-based oncology research agreement will keep the company alive that much longer. The deal provides Vernalis with $3 million up front cash, and the same amount again as an equity purchase. Vernalis also stands to realize potential payments "in excess of $200 million" (yeah, you know they get carried away with the 'if-all-goes-according-to-plan scenarios') and, maybe, double-digit royalties. For this, Vernalis will do drug discovery against an undisclosed target using its structure-based-drug design technologies. (The target is one that both Vernalis and GSK had been working on previously, according to CEO Ian Garland.) If and when an IND emerges, GSK will have 90 days to decide whether or not to exercise its option to license the compound (s) and take on development and commercialization. Amid today's flurry of option-based deals, where risk is often heavily skewed toward the biotech partner, our first reaction to the press release's "risk sharing" language was "you bet": Vernalis takes all the early risk, with some pocket money, and GSK may--or may not--choose to take on later risk. But this deal is in fact a little more biotech-friendly than that. According to Garland, GSK will pay further pre-IND milestones of "more than $6 million", and the Big Pharma is also committed to doing the IND-enabling studies too (whatever they think of it at that point).--Melanie Senior

Transcept/Purdue Pharma: If Purdue execs were waking up in the middle of the night wondering if their deal with Infinity was going to pay off, then they’ve now got just the thing for a good night’s sleep. Early this week the private pain-focused Pharma licensed US rights (and an option to the rest of North America) to Transcept Pharmaceuticals’ sublingual zolpidem tablet (Intermezzo) back-to-sleep treatment. Transcept gets $25 million up-front and a $30 million milestone at approval (based on that approval’s timing vis à vis its October 30 PDUFA date, i.e. probably adjustable downward if the drug isn’t approved the first time around) plus potential sales milestones. The biotech also gets double-digit royalties on US sales, ranging up to the mid-20-percent range. A year post-launch Transcept can opt to co-promote Intermezzo to psychiatrists. With Intermezzo Purdue continues its expansion into non-pain marketing, a transformation begun with the Infinity alliance. Tiny Transcept—which recently went public via reverse merger with Novacea--gets a partner that it hopes can creatively compete against generic zolpidem (the once-mighty Ambien’s active ingredient) and other marketed and near-market compounds in a crowded sleep market that has seemingly peaked: the market for insomnia meds was just over $2 billion in 2008, down from nearly $2.9 billion in 2007. If approved, Intermezzo’s status as the first drug designed for those middle-of-the-night episodes—essentially sleep-on-demand instead of put-you-to-sleep-every-night—will be an advantage. Whether it’s enough of an advantage to compete in the rough-and-tumble insomnia market remains to be seen--Chris Morrison.

Pfizer/NicOx: Is it fair to call NicOx's glaucoma drug a clunker? We've known for a year that Phase II data associated with the molecule--the awkwardly named PF-03187207--is, at best, a marginal improvement when it comes to lowering diurnal interocular pressure compared to Pfizer's Xalatan. In May, Pfizer indicated the data did not warrant advancing the compound into Phase III trials but remained "committed" to a joint program with NicOx "where the follow-up compounds ...have produced encouraging results." Looks like Pfizer had a change of heart (or maybe an eye-opener?). On August 6, NicOx took back '207 and the preclinical molecules, agreeing to pay the Big Pharma undisclosed milestone payments plus royalties tied to '207's approval and ability to meet predefined sales figures. We give NicOx credit for its masterful spin of the news: the press release focused on the big drugmaker’s decision to outlicense a non-core product rather than the marginal data associated with '207. (Really, what else was the company going to do?) Investors seemed to buy the idea that this was the best possible outcome for a product that has been mired in uncertainty, sending the company's share price up approximately 3% on the news. Certainly, the milestones NicOx has to pay out for the eye programs are likely small change compared to what the biotech might gain if it can partner the programs to another player. But partnering for a reasonable amount is a big if. Pfizer's Xalatan, which racked up $1.7 billion in worldwide sales in 2008, goes generic in 2011, so future glaucoma products like '207 will have to do significantly better clinically to justify reimbursement. Meantime, it's not as if NicOx is radically changing its focus. It's still naproxcinod all the time over at the French biotech. Just to refresh your memory, NicOx plans to submit that molecule, which is a nitric oxide donating version of Naproxen, for approval to European and U.S. regulatory agencies later this year.--EFL

(Image by flickr user dno1967 used with permission courtesy of a creative commons license.)

Deerfield to Nitromed: Not So Fast, Not So Cheap

A few weeks ago we asked aloud why the investors in a public shell company would benefit from a reverse merger with a privately held biotech company.

Today, Deerfield Management--a 12% stakeholder in Nitromed--said it decided it would definitely not benefit from Nitromed's decision to become a public shell for Archemix by divesting its only asset of consequence, the combination heart failure drug Bidil. Our Pink Sheet Daily coverage of that reverse merger deal is here.

And Deerfield has a solution: it will buy Nitromed itself, for $0.50 per share, what Deerfield figures Nitromed would be worth if it sold off Bidil as planned and wound down the company and distributed the cash to shareholders. By Deerfield's calculations that's approximately 100% above the price of NitroMed's shares prior to the announcement of the Bidil asset sale and a 200% premium to the shares' closing price on December 3rd. (See left, click to enlarge.)

Deerfield Managing Partner James Flynn's letter noted that Deerfield has always remained a passive investor during its 15-year history, and not one to "wage contentious public debates." But:

"Unfortunately, the decisions of the NitroMed Board have placed us in the untenable position of neither being able to sell our shares at a reasonable price, nor receiving any value for the company's assets which are being entirely divested. Instead, the Board has determined to sell all of the BiDil assets and apply the proceeds of that sale, together with existing cash balances, for the benefit of a company that will be 70% owned by shareholders of Archemix."

Flynn goes on to note that Archemix, as a company whose lead asset is in Phase I, would have to break the mold for Deerfield and other Nitromed investors to benefit.

"NitroMed shareholders have been allotted a scant 30% of the combined company in exchange for NitroMed's cash, implying a value for Archemix of approximately $100 million. There are virtually no examples of public biotechnology companies with only Phase I data which have a comparable economic value today. In fact, we believe that in the current financing environment a majority of these companies have negative enterprise values. Even looking at biotechnology companies with credible products in Phase III development targeting large markets and retaining full economics, a high percentage have economic values lower than that proposed for Archemix."

After our post a few weeks ago we spoke with a variety of people about the up- and down-sides to reverse mergers from all perspectives--the private biotech, it's investors, and the public shell investors. Let's focus on the latter group--we think there is consensus on why private biotechs and their backers go after these deals (recall that Replidyne had more than 120 suitors for its cash and Nasdaq listing).

Flynn notes in his letter the basic argument against: significant dilution now, next to zero liquidity now and post-merger, and near-certain further significant dilution down the road when more cash is needed to push Archemix's projects through the clinic.

He also notes potential conflicts of interest:

"The person conducting the negotiations had the choice of losing his job if shares of NitroMed were sold or to become the CEO of a new company if a transaction were structured to keep the cash in the company. And, we understand, several members of the NitroMed Board have economic interests in Archemix."

Well, then.

But what about the upside? Archemix is certainly a well-funded and well-managed firm that in most markets would likely have pulled off its attempted IPO; it boasts near-exclusive access to therapeutic aptamers, a technology platform with potential to combine the best features of small molecules and antibody therapeutics; Nitromed shareholders--most of them--mightn't have had the opportunity to invest in Archemix, a private company, at any price without a reverse merger deal. One observer put that last point to us this way: "When I put my money into a company, I don’t put it in saying ‘if that asset fails, i want my money back’ ... if I invest in the management and the assets, then I’m willing to take their recommendation, they have access to more deals than I do."

Deerfield apparently sees things differently and is ready to cut its losses in a once-promising investment. Despite its better efficacy in African American patients, BiDil has proved a commercial disappointment; in late October, the company announced it had sold the business to JHP Pharmaceuticals for $24.5 million in cash and additional payments for product inventory, setting up essentially a Nasdaq-traded cash shell ripe for a reverse merger. Competition for NitroMed's estimated $35 to $40 million in cash was reportedly fierce, but Archemix ultimately won the day.

If Deerfield has its way, what next for Archemix? The company has raised $105 million from SV Life Sciences, Prospect Venture Partners and Atlas Venture and others since foundation in 2001 and has a variety of strategic alliances with the likes of Merck-Serono, Takeda and Lilly. It will probably have about $20 million without NitroMed's dowry.

Could it raise more cash privately? Probably, but the dilution would be tough to swallow. Another shell? The clock is ticking.

Deals of the Week: Winter of Our Discontent

Seems like many folks in pharma land are channeling Richard the Third this week. (Alas, there is no son of York to make winter's discontent glorious summer.)

Certainly staffers at both AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis are less than happy: both companies announced more job cuts this week. (AZ will lay-off some 300 R&D employees from its Alderly Park site while Sanofi plans to reduce its German sales staff by 380.) And, pity the poor VCs. The Star Ledger is reporting that VCs are accepting smaller returns on smaller deals and waiting longer to cash-out as a result of the global credit crunch and the flagging IPO market.

Finally, remember Trimeris? Back in December that company put its R&D activities on hold to review its strategic options. But management isn't moving fast enough for the company's largest shareholder, HealthCor. On Feb. 1, HealthCor officials wrote a letter to Trimeris executives asking for two board seats, stating: "We are not in favor of strategic transactions other than those involving a sale of the business." (Hmm. Maybe the HealthCor folks are actually channeling Carl Icahn...)

If you, too, are suffering the winter blues, fear not. The IN VIVO Blog has a cure. (WARNING: Side-effects may include motivational deficiency disorder, sudden on-set of snarkiness syndrome (SOSS), maniacal laughter, and IN VIVO Blog addiction. Hey, there are worse things...) You guessed it. It's that time again.

• Dynogen/Apex Bioventures Acquisition Corp.: On Wednesday, Dynogen and Apex Bioventures announced they have signed a definitive agreement that will allow Dynogen to become public through a merger with one of Apex Bioventure's subsidiaries. (In case you don't know, Apex Bioventures is a special purpose acquisition company--or SPAC--that raises money for the sole purpose of buying another entity. The key thing is the SPAC can't say whom its acquiring--or even considering acquiring--before it raises the money. SPACs have enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in the life sciences in recent years as an alternative to the IPO market or a reverse merger.) The move gives Dynogen plenty of cash--the press release says the company should have up to $65 million at the deal's closing. Dynogen will certainly need it. It's currently developing two Phase II-stage drugs for gastrointestinal disorders, including irritable bowel syndrome. And given pharma's own R&D heartburn in the space, Dynogen may need the additional data before a partner with deep-pockets will assume some of the development risk. In the past, SPACs have favored companies with a shorter runway to commercialization like Alsius and Precision Therapeutics so this combination will be interesting to watch.
  
• Amgen/Takeda: Hit by declining sales of its EPO franchise and growing competition, Amgen announced a monster two-part deal with Takeda this week. In Part I, Takeda gets Japanese rights to 12 of Amgen's pipeline assets in exchange for $200 million up-front, up to $340 million in development costs, and potentially $363 million in sales-linked milestones and royalties. The Japanese firm will also buy Amgen’s Japanese subsidiary for an undisclosed sum. In Part II, Takeda takes on worldwide rights to Phase III motesanib, a small molecule angiogenesis inhibitor for cancer, for another $100 million up-front and $175 million in additional success-based milestones. The deal embodies two major trends we’ve talked about: the need to cut unnecessary infrastructure and the importance of risk-sharing in the vein of Bristol-Myers Squibb's deals with AstraZeneca and Pfizer. (For a more in-depth look at the deal, see here and here.)
  
• GE Healthcare/ Whatman: On Monday, GE Healthcare announced it was buying Whatman, a global supplier of filtration products and technologies for approximately $713 million. That's a lot of money for a research tools business, even if Whatman posted 2007 revenues of more than $225 million. Still it's a far cry from the $8 billion GE planned to plunk down for Abbott's point-of-care and diagnostics businesses, a deal that was eventually scuppered. It's likely GE has realized it must resort to a serial acquisition strategy if it's to challenge Siemens for the title of global leader in IVD. And Whatman's filtration and sample prep technologies could play a key role in building better protein and DNA-based tests, an area in which GE is interested in bulking up. Meanwhile, we continue to ponder the fundamental connections between tool and test companies, something we wrote about here.
  
• GlaxoSmithKline/ Amira: Also on Monday, GSK and Amira teamed up to develop Amira's 5-lipoxygenase activating protein (FLAP) inhibitors in a deal that could be worth up to $425 million for the biotech. (But only if it meets all potential development and regulatory milestones. Makes you wonder what the up-front payment was, doesn't it?) Most of the flap...sorry, we couldn't resist...is about Amira's lead product, AM103, a once-daily, non-steroidal asthma treatment that just completed Phase I trials in November. This isn't the first monster deal Amira has inked. Back in 2006 it signed a deal with Roche worth up to $287 million to develop three anti-inflammatory candidates.

"West," by Flickr user Dreamer7112, used under a creative commons license.