Add
IDRA to Portfolio
Set Alert
Email to a
Friend
| |||
|
|
Quotes & Info
|
| IDRA > SEC Filings for IDRA > Form 10-K on 11-Mar-2013 | All Recent SEC Filings |
11-Mar-2013
Annual Report
Overview
We are a clinical stage biotechnology company engaged in the discovery and development of novel synthetic DNA- and RNA-based drug candidates that are designed to modulate immune responses mediated through Toll-like Receptors, or TLRs. We are focusing our development efforts on the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. We have two drug candidates, IMO-3100, a TLR7 and TLR9 antagonist, and IMO-8400, a TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9 antagonist, in clinical development for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. We recently announced top-line data from a Phase 2 clinical trial of IMO-3100 in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. We believe that the results of this trial provide clinical proof of concept for our approach of targeting specific TLRs for the treatment of psoriasis and potentially other autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.
TLRs are specific receptors present in immune system cells. Using a chemistry-based approach, we have created synthetic DNA- and RNA-based compounds that are targeted to TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9. A TLR antagonist is a compound that blocks activation of an immune response through the targeted TLR. A TLR agonist is a compound that stimulates an immune response through the targeted TLR.
We believe that the modulation of immune responses through TLRs provides a rationale for the development of drug candidates to treat a broad range of diseases, including autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, cancer and respiratory diseases, and for use as vaccine adjuvants. We are a party to a collaboration alliance with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (formerly Merck & Co., Inc.), or Merck & Co., for the use of agonists of TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9 as adjuvants in the development of vaccines for cancer, infectious diseases, and Alzheimer's disease. We are seeking to enter into additional collaborative alliances with third parties with respect to our TLR-targeted programs in oncology, hematological malignancies, respiratory diseases, and the use of TLR3 agonists as vaccine adjuvants.
We had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $10.1 million at December 31, 2012. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operations at least into the third quarter of 2013 based on our current operating plan, including the completion of our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of IMO-8400 in healthy subjects that we initiated in the fourth quarter of 2012, and preparations for the further advancement of our autoimmune and inflammatory disease program, including preparations for a planned Phase 2 clinical trial of IMO-8400 in patients with psoriasis. We will need to raise additional funds prior to the end of the second quarter of 2013 in order to further advance our autoimmune and inflammatory disease program, commence any clinical trials and operate our business and continue as a going concern. Although we are exploring financing alternatives, financing may not be available to us in the necessary time frame, in the amounts that we need, on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. If we are unable to raise the necessary funds by late in the second quarter of 2013, we expect that we will terminate our operations and pursue a liquidation of the Company through a sale or license of assets or a possible bankruptcy.
At December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $394.7 million. We expect to incur substantial operating losses in future periods. We do not expect to generate significant product revenue, sales-based milestones or royalties until we successfully complete development and obtain marketing approval for drug candidates, either alone or in collaborations with third parties, which we expect will take a number of years. In order to commercialize our drug candidates, we need to complete clinical development and to comply with comprehensive regulatory requirements.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
This management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates and judgments, including those related to revenue recognition, stock-based compensation and our Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock and related common stock warrants. Management bases its estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
We regard an accounting estimate or assumption underlying our financial statements as a "critical accounting estimate" where:
• the nature of the estimate or assumption is material due to the level of subjectivity and judgment necessary to account for highly uncertain matters or the susceptibility of such matters to change; and
• the impact of the estimates and assumptions on financial condition or operating performance is material.
Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 2 of the notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Not all of these significant policies, however, fit the definition of critical accounting policies and estimates. We believe that our accounting policies relating to revenue recognition, stock-based compensation and convertible preferred stock and related common stock warrants fit the description of critical accounting estimates and judgments.
Revenue Recognition
An important part of our business strategy is to enter into research and development collaborations with biotechnology and pharmaceutical corporations that bring expertise and resources to the potential research and development and commercialization of drugs based on our technology. Under our research and development collaborations, we have generally licensed specified portions of our intellectual property and provided research and development services to the collaborator during the period of continued involvement in the early portion of the collaborations. Our collaborators have generally been responsible for drug development activities initiated after the collaboration is effective. Our collaborators are also generally responsible for any commercialization activities that may be initiated if any of the drug candidates receive marketing approval from the appropriate regulatory authority. The terms of our agreements have included non-refundable license fees, research and development funding, payments based upon achievement of clinical and preclinical development milestones and royalties on product sales.
The following revenue recognition policy incorporates Accounting Standard Update, or ASU, No. 2009-13, "Multiple-Element Revenue Arrangements" and ASU No. 2010-17, "Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition" both of which we adopted on January 1, 2011. These new accounting standards did not affect revenue that we earned through December 31, 2012. We plan to follow No. 2009-13 prospectively for any arrangements entered into or materially modified after the adoption date. We plan to follow ASU No. 2010-17 prospectively for any future milestones.
When evaluating multiple element arrangements, we consider whether the components of the arrangement represent separate units of accounting based on specified criteria such as whether the deliverable has standalone value to the collaborator. Any fixed or determinable payments that we expect to receive under the arrangement are allocated among the separate units of accounting and the appropriate revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of these separate units. Any item that does not qualify as a separate unit of accounting is combined with other appropriate items and the combined deliverable is treated as a separate unit of accounting.
Our allocation of fixed or determinable payments to the separate units of accounting is based on the relative-selling-price method, which is based on the following hierarchy used in determining the selling price for each unit of accounting: (1) vendor specific objective evidence, or VSOE, the price at which the item is regularly sold by the vendor on a standalone basis, is the preferred method; (2) third-party evidence, or TPE, of vendors selling
similar goods to similarly situated customers on a standalone basis if VSOE of selling price of a product or service is not available; and (3) best estimate of selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE of selling price of a product or service is available.
Our timing of revenue recognition from upfront license fees received under collaboration agreements depends upon the terms of the agreement.
We recognize revenue from reimbursements earned in connection with research and development collaboration agreements as related research and development costs are incurred, and contractual services are performed, provided collectability is reasonably assured. We include amounts contractually owed to us under these research and development collaboration agreements, including any earned but unbilled receivables, in receivables in our balance sheets. Our principal costs under these agreements are generally for our personnel and related expenses of conducting research and development, as well as for research and development performed by outside contractors or consultants or related research and development materials provided by third parties or for clinical trials we conduct on behalf of a collaborator.
For payments that are contingent upon milestone events or achieving a specific result from the research and development efforts, we recognize these milestone payments as revenue in their entirety upon achieving the related milestone provided the milestone meets the criteria specified below. Milestones typically consist of significant events in the development life cycle of the related technology, such as initiating clinical trials, filing for approval with regulatory agencies, and obtaining approvals from regulatory agencies. We recognize revenue from milestone payments received under collaboration agreements in their entirety upon achieving the related milestone, provided that the milestone event is substantive, its achievability was not reasonably assured at the inception of the agreement, the amount attributed to the milestone is reasonable in relation to our performance and to the amounts attributed to the other deliverables in the arrangement and we have no further performance obligations relating to the milestone event. In the event that the agreement provides for payment to be made subsequent to our standard payment terms, we recognize revenue when payment becomes due.
Amounts received prior to satisfying the above revenue recognition criteria are recorded as deferred revenue in our balance sheets. We classify amounts that we expect to recognize in the next twelve months as short-term deferred revenue. We classify amounts that we do not expect to recognize within the next twelve months as long-term deferred revenue.
Although we follow detailed guidelines in measuring revenue, certain judgments affect the application of our revenue policy. For example, we record deferred revenue, if any, on our balance sheet as short-term or long-term deferred revenue based on our best estimate of when such amounts would be recognized. However, these estimates are based on our collaboration agreement and our then current operating plan and, if either should change, we could recognize a different amount of deferred revenue over the subsequent twelve-month period.
Our estimate of deferred revenue also reflects our estimate of the periods of our involvement in our collaborations and the estimated periods over which our performance obligations will be completed. In some instances, the timing of satisfying these obligations can be difficult to estimate. Accordingly, our estimates may change in subsequent periods. Such changes to estimates would result in a change in revenue recognition amounts. If these estimates and judgments change over the course of these agreements, it may affect the timing and amount of revenue that we recognize and record in subsequent periods.
Stock-Based Compensation
We recognize all share-based payments to employees and directors as expense in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss based on their fair values. We record compensation expense over an award's requisite service period, or vesting period, based on the award's fair value at the date of grant. Our policy is to charge the fair value of stock options as an expense, adjusted for forfeitures, on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, which is generally four years for employees and three years for directors. Prior to December 2011, the vesting of all of our stock options was based on the passage of time and the employees' continued
service. In December 2011 and January 2012, we granted performance based stock options to purchase 697,500 shares of common stock to employees. As of the grant date of such options, options to purchase 174,375 shares were to vest immediately upon the achievement of various performance conditions and options to purchase 523,125 shares were to vest over a three-year service period upon the achievement of the same performance conditions. During 2012 we achieved three of the specified performance conditions. As a result, options to purchase 80,213 shares vested immediately and options to purchase 240,640 shares began vesting over a three-year period in accordance with the terms of the performance-based options. In addition, during 2012, four of the specified performance conditions were not met by their deadlines resulting in the cancellation of 156,797 performance-based options. We recognize expense over the implicit and explicit service periods for awards with performance conditions when we determine the achievement of the performance conditions to be probable.
We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock option grants. The Black-Scholes model relies on a number of key assumptions to calculate estimated fair values, including assumptions as to average risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield, expected life and expected volatility. For the assumed risk-free interest rate, we use the U.S. Treasury security rate with a term equal to the expected life of the option. Our assumed dividend yield of zero is based on the fact that we have never paid cash dividends to common stockholders and have no present intention to pay cash dividends. We use an expected option life based on actual experience. Our assumption for expected volatility is based on the actual stock-price volatility over a period equal to the expected life of the option.
If factors change and we employ different assumptions for estimating stock-based
compensation expense in future periods, or if we decide to use a different
valuation model, the stock-based compensation expense we recognize in future
periods may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the current
period and could materially affect our operating income (loss), net income
(loss) and earnings (loss) per share. It may also result in a lack of
comparability with other companies that use different models, methods and
assumptions. The Black-Scholes option pricing model was developed for use in
estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions
and are fully transferable. These characteristics are not present in our option
grants. Although the Black-Scholes option pricing model is widely used, existing
valuation models, including the Black-Scholes valuation model, may not provide
reliable measures of the fair values of our stock-based compensation.
We recorded charges of $2.1 million, $2.7 million, and $3.7 million in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for stock compensation expense attributable to share-based payments made to employees and directors. The decrease in stock compensation expense for 2012, as compared to 2011, was primarily due to decreases in the expense associated with employee options granted before 2009 and director options granted before 2010. The decrease in stock compensation expense for 2011, as compared to 2010, was primarily due to decreases in the expense associated with employee options granted before 2008 and director options granted before 2009, as well as 2010 stock compensation expense associated with the modification of stock options during 2010 as a result of our adoption of policies on the treatment of options in connection with director or employee retirement.
Convertible Preferred Stock and Warrants
Series D Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock and Warrants
On November 4, 2011, we received net proceeds of $9.1 million from the sale and issuance of shares of our Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock, or Series D preferred stock, and related warrants to purchase shares of our common stock, or Series D warrants. We first assessed these financial instruments under Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC 480, "Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity", and determined that neither financial instrument was within the scope of ASC 480. We then assessed these financial instruments under ASC 815, "Derivatives and Hedging" as follows:
Series D Warrants. We determined that the Series D warrants were a derivative instrument as they contained a price protection feature that causes the Series D warrants to not be considered "indexed to the
company's own stock" and to therefore not be qualified for the exemption requirements in ASC 815-40. We recorded the Series D warrants as a liability at fair value as of the November 4, 2011 transaction date and marked the recorded amount to fair value through earnings each quarter. The fair value of the Series D warrants was $3.2 million on the November 4, 2011 transaction date and $1.2 million at December 31, 2011. The $2.0 million decrease in the fair value between November 4, 2011 and December 31, 2011 was recorded as non-operating income in 2011. The fair value of the Series D warrant liability decreased from $1.2 million at December 31, 2011 to $0.5 million at November 9, 2012, the date on which we sold shares of our Series E convertible preferred stock, or Series E preferred stock, and related warrants to purchase shares of our common stock, or Series E warrants, in a financing transaction, resulting in the recognition of $0.7 million in non-operating income in 2012. The sale of shares of Series E preferred stock and Series E warrants in our November 2012 Series E financing triggered an anti-dilution adjustment under the terms of the Series D warrants, resulting in the exercise price of the Series D warrants being reduced and fixed at the minimum price of $1.46 per share. As a result, the Series D warrants are no longer being subject to any anti-dilution adjustments and now meet the exception under ASC 815-40 as they were now considered "indexed to the company's own stock" and met certain criteria for equity classification. Accordingly, we marked the Series D warrants to fair value through earnings as of November 9, 2012, and reclassified the remaining $0.5 million balance of the Series D warrant liability to stockholders equity at that time.
Series D Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock. We determined that the Series D preferred stock contained three embedded features: (1) optional redemption by the company; (2) optional redemption by the holder and (3) optional conversion by the holder. We determined that each of the embedded features met the definition of a derivative. We determined that the Series D preferred stock should be considered an equity host for the purposes of assessing the embedded derivatives for potential bifurcation. We noted the following regarding these embedded features:
Optional Redemption by the Company and Optional Redemption by the Holder. We assessed the redemption features under ASC 815-40 to determine if they were eligible for the exemption from derivative accounting. In order to meet the exemption the feature must be "indexed to the company's own stock" and meet specified criteria for equity classification. We determined that both redemption features met these requirements and were not bifurcated.
Optional Conversion by the Holder. We determined that the optional conversion by holder feature was clearly and closely related to the Series D preferred stock host. As such the conversion feature did not require bifurcation under ASC 815.
We then assessed the Series D preferred stock under ASC 470, "Debt," to determine if there was a beneficial conversion feature, or BCF. We determined the value of the BCF by comparing (1) the $6.3 million financing proceeds allocated to the Series D preferred stock, computed by reducing the $9.5 million gross proceeds from the Series D financing by the $3.2 million fair value of the Series D warrants, to (2) the $10.7 million intrinsic value of the common stock that the Series D preferred stock could be converted into on the date of the Series D financing. Based on this comparison, we determined the BCF to be $4.4 million which we recorded in additional paid-in capital.
As the Series D preferred stock contains a contingent put feature that is outside of our control, it is considered redeemable and we have recorded it in temporary equity. The initial carrying value of the Series D preferred stock was $1.5 million, after discounts for the portion of the financing proceeds allocated to the warrant liability, the BCF and the financing transaction costs. Since the Series D preferred stock was immediately convertible, the $4.4 million discount related to the BCF was immediately accreted to preferred dividends in 2011, resulting in an increase in the carrying value of the Series D preferred stock to $5.9 million. The sale of shares of Series E preferred stock and Series E warrants in our November 2012 Series E financing triggered an anti-dilution adjustment under the terms of the Series D preferred stock, resulting in the conversion price of the Series D preferred stock being reduced and fixed at $1.46 per share, and such shares no longer being subject to
any anti-dilution adjustments. The anti-dilution adjustment to the conversion price of the Series D preferred stock resulted in an additional $1.2 million discount on the purchase price of the Series D preferred stock and resulted in an additional BCF. The $1.2 million additional BCF was immediately accreted to preferred dividends in November 2012 which resulted in the carrying value of the Series D preferred stock remaining at $5.9 million. The holders of shares of Series D preferred stock then outstanding are entitled to require us to purchase such shares of Series D preferred stock for $9.1 million plus any accrued but unpaid dividends upon the occurrence of a fundamental change of the Company. Since we have determined that a fundamental change of the Company is not currently probable, the remaining discount of $3.2 million is not accreted to preferred stock dividends in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss. Such amount will only be accreted to preferred dividends in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss at the time that the redemption becomes probable, if ever.
If we had determined that the Series D preferred stock was a debt host rather than an equity host, the conversion feature would have been bifurcated and accounted for as a derivative. If the conversion feature had been accounted for as a derivative it would have been marked to fair value each quarter with the change in fair value being recorded in other income (expense) in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss. This would have materially affected our net loss available for common stockholders and loss per share.
Series E Convertible Preferred Stock
On November 9, 2012, we received net proceeds of $6.0 million from the sale and issuance of shares of our Series E preferred stock and Series E warrants to purchase shares of our common stock. We first considered the Series E preferred stock under ASC 480 and determined that it was not mandatorily redeemable. We then identified the following three embedded features within the Series E preferred stock: (1) optional conversion by the holder; (2) optional redemption by the company; and (3) an alternative redemption by the company. We determined that the Series E preferred stock was equity like. We was assessed the optional conversion by the holder to be clearly and closely related to the preferred stock and thus not subject to bifurcation under ASC 815. The optional redemption by us and the alternative redemption by us were both indexed to our own stock and met the criteria for equity classification under ASC 815-40 and thus were not required to be bifurcated.
We issued the Series E preferred stock together with Series E warrants to purchase up to 8,484,840 shares of common stock. Since the Series E preferred stock and the Series E warrants were classified in stockholders' equity, the gross proceeds from the financing were allocated between the Series E preferred stock and the Series E warrants based on their relative fair values at the time of the November 9, 2012 Series E financing. We computed the fair value of the warrants using the Black Scholes Model and determined it to be $2.9 million. We recorded the $2.3 million prorated value of the warrants as additional paid-in capital.
We then considered the Series E preferred stock under ASC 470-20 to determine if a BCF existed. As of the transaction date, we computed a BCF of $1.3 million using the initial stated conversion rate. Since the conversion feature is immediately exercisable, we accreted the $1.3 million BCF immediately to preferred dividends
New Accounting Pronouncements
We adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, ASU No. 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)" on a prospective basis effective January 1, 2012. ASU No. 2011-04 updates the existing fair value measurement guidance currently included in the ASC to achieve common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements in United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or U.S. GAAP, and International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU No. 2011-04 is generally consistent with the Company's previous fair value measurement policies but includes additional disclosure requirements, particularly for assets and liabilities that require the use of Level 3 inputs to measure fair value. The adoption of ASU No. 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations.
Effective January 1, 2012, we adopted ASU No. 2011-05, "Comprehensive Income", which requires companies to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous
statement or as two consecutive statements. ASU No. 2011-05 is applied . . .
|
|