Deals Of The Week: Novartis Places Bid To Dominate In Cancer

While the largest deal of the week, and certainly the one receiving the most attention, has been Actavis' expansion of its branded portfolio via its $25 billion purchase of Forest Laboratories, the deal that could have major implications for a hot target space in cancer is Novartis' pick-up of a small Massachusetts biotech.

Novartis nabbed young start-up CoStim Pharmaceuticals at the beginning of the week for an undisclosed amount – a move that could make it a major force in the red hot area of cancer immunotherapy.

The closely held biotech was founded in 2012 by MPM Capital and led by MPM managing directors Luke Evnin and Robert Millman. Atlas Ventures joined MPM in early 2013 to fund the company’s $10 million Series A round. While terms of the deal were not disclosed, Atlas partner Bruce Booth wrote in a recent blog post that “if the contingent milestones are paid, this deal will return a significant portion of the entire Life Science allocation in Atlas Fund VIII.”

The Swiss pharma knows a thing or two about oncology – it’s been marketing Gleevec (imatinib), one of the earliest targeted cancer treatments and a multi-billion dollar drug annually, since 2003. And it boasts one of the richest oncology pipelines in the industry, spanning numerous solid- and liquid-tumor indications and many of the hottest biological targets. Its latest R&D foray into chimeric antigen receptor technology (CART) – and the programs it’s acquired from CoStim – has enriched the pharma’s immunotherapy platform and upped its commitment to being a dominant player in oncology.

While Novartis has been cagey about revealing what CoStim actually has to offer, Bill Sellers, its global head of oncology, says the Cambridge biotech brings four to five late-stage programs to the table – programs the industry could start hearing about in early 2015.

“One of our strengths is attacking cancer from its genetic base,” said Sellers. “But we have not done a lot of work in immunotherapy until two years ago,” he admitted.

That’s when Novartis inked its deal with the University of Pennsylvania for its CART research. The deal is based on the work of Carl June, whose lab created T-cells that express the receptor CART 19, a synthetic fusion protein consisting of antibodies that attach to the CD-19 protein, commonly expressed in chronic lymphocytic (CLL) and other B-cell mediated leukemias. The genetically engineered T-cells are injected back into the patients, where they find their way to CD-19-expressing leukemia cells and kill them.

Since pairing up with Penn, Novartis has been “building expertise internally,” said Sellers, as well as opening a large-scale manufacturing facility in Morristown, NJ. “CART has shown dramatic efficacy, but it doesn’t work in everybody,” said Sellers. “So there is room to augment that.”

Sellers said Novartis has been looking for a way to get into checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies for a couple of years, knowing it doesn’t have the expertise in-house. That’s where CoStim comes in – one of its late-stage assets targets the PD-1 pathway. The smokin’ hot PD-1 pathway – if you’ve paid any attention to, or even just glanced at, companies like Merck or Bristol-Myers Squibb in recent months, then you’ve heard about their anti-PD-1 drugs. Combination therapies with these checkpoint inhibitors are going to be huge - $35 billion huge, if some analysts are to be trusted.

Merck already is jumping on the combo bandwagon – it’s inked three deals with Pfizer, Incyte and Amgen just this month to combine its anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor MK-3475 with assets in their respective pipelines.

Novartis is employing a different strategy – it’s hoping to move forward with a CART/PD-1 combo. “We are just starting to explore CART in solid tumors, which are thought to be more immunosuppressant,” said Sellers.

CART programs may be just as revolutionary as PD-1. On Feb. 19, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced results from a trial of adult B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia that showed 88% of patients achieved complete remission after receiving the modified T-cells. (The technology is the basis for the founding of high-profile start-up Juno Therapeutics, which currently is locked in a patent dispute over the CAR technology with Novartis.)

French biotech Servier also is getting in on the action, as you can read below in ...

Actavis/Forest – Actavis is nearly unrecognizable from the little Icelandic company it was just three years ago. The company has merged with both Warner Chilcott PLC and Watson Pharmaceuticals during that time to become a generics behemoth with multinational presence. Now, it is continuing down the road of transformation with its $25 billion acquisition of Forest Laboratories. The stock-and-cash deal will turn Actavis into a developer of specialty brand name drugs, boosting specialty products to represent about 50% of combined company revenue. North American specialty pharmaceuticals currently comprise about 30% of Actavis’ standalone revenue. Forest shareholders will get $26.04 in cash and a portion of an Actavis share for each Forest share. The total, per-share price of $89.48 represents a premium of about 25% over Forest's closing price on Feb. 14, the last trading day before the deal was announced, of $71.39. For Forest this is an ideal exit for its shareholders; activist investor Carl Icahn has said in news reports that this acquisition is a good example of when activist measures work. Forest CEO Brent Saunders has been touted as having the magic touch – he flipped Forest in less than six months after taking over and was the architect behind the sale of Bausch + Lomb to Valeant Pharmaceuticals for $8.7 billion before that. - Lisa LaMotta

Servier/Cellectis – Servier wants a piece of the CART action; the French biotech inked a collaboration with cell therapy company Cellectis on Feb. 17 for $10 million upfront and $840 million in potential milestones tied to the development, regulatory and commercial success of six potential products. The deal includes the development of UCART19, Cellectis’ lead product, a CD19-targeting compound that is in early stages, but could be a potential rival to Novartis’ lead CART program – which also targets the CD19 T-cells. “These original cell-based therapies will well complement Servier's innovative clinical oncology pipeline, which currently includes immunotherapeutic monoclonal antibodies, an HDAC inhibitor, kinase inhibitors, antiangiogenic and proapoptotic small molecules,” said Jean Pierre Abastado, head of oncology at Servier. The deal initially will focus on leukemias and lymphomas, with Servier having the option to license the products and take over development after Phase I has been completed. - L.L.

Gilead/CURx - Gilead Sciences has had its hands full, what with plotting the domination of the market for all-oral HCV treatment. So busy, in fact, that the biotech has signed only one R&D deal in almost the last two years – a preclinical partnership with antibody company MacroGenics last January, according to the Strategic Transactions database. On Feb. 19, Gilead announced its latest R&D deal, but this time it has flipped the usual script and out-licensed a late-stage candidate for development. It’s calling upon CURx Pharmaceuticals develop non-core asset inhaled fosfomycin/tobramycin to treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The candidate met the primary endpoint in a Phase II trial in 2010 in this indication, but Gilead subsequently discontinued development. There already are two treatments for this indication approved in the U.S.: Gilead’s own Cayston (inhaled aztreonam) and Novartis' Tobi (inhaled tobramycin). In preclinical studies, inhaled fosfomycin/tobramycin has shown activity against several other pathogenic bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). About half of all CF patients become infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and about a quarter are infected with MRSA, according to CURx. The financial details of the transaction were not disclosed. - Stacy Lawrence

Pfizer/ MIT’s Synthetic Biology Center - Pfizer and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are collaborating on the use of novel synthetic biology tools to enhance drug discovery and development. The three-year deal, announced on Feb. 20, covers multiple therapeutic areas at Pfizer and involves several core investigators at MIT’s Synthetic Biology Center, according to the MIT press release. Scientists have different definitions for synthetic biology, but, essentially, it involves integrating current and new biotech tools, systems biology and bioinformatics to enable engineering of new biological parts, in short, making new genetic codes from scratch. The ultimate goal of using such techniques is to make design and construction of novel biological systems into a professional engineering discipline. Synthetic biology as an area of scientific focus has taken off in the past decade, with support from the National Science Foundation, which funded creation of the first synthetic biotech research center, Synberc, in 2006. Participants in Synberc were the University of California at Berkeley and University of California, San Francisco, Stanford University and MIT. Since then, NSF has awarded millions of dollars more to other academic organizations to set up centers of synthetic biology research, including the J. Craig Ventor Institute and New York University. Start-up activity also is climbing, with one of the most visible practitioners, Intrexon, netting $171 million in an initial public offering last year. The ability to use synthetic biology parts as “programmable entities” presents the opportunity to create new biological processes. The partners plan to use cellular genome engineering to support development of next-generation protein expression systems. Pfizer didn’t provide more details, except for comments by Jose Carlos Gutierrez-Ramos, the company’s group  senior VP and head of Biotherapeutics R&D. He noted in a press release that “We are reaching a key inflection point where advances in synthetic biology have the potential to rapidly accelerate and improve biotherapeutic drug discovery and development, from early-stage candidate discovery through product supply.” - Wendy Diller

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Financings Of The Fortnight Spreads Some Cheer

Well, that flew by. Unlike the little elf in the video above (and if you don't know Nick Lowe, 'tis the season to make your acquaintance), no one in biotech has had time to wait around this year, it seems. The calendar has been marked by several trends that we and our colleagues have followed closely, but none as important as the rush to jump through the IPO window.

It’s fitting, then, that we kick off our final 2013 column with a chat about initial public offerings. TetraLogic went through some contortions to go public this fortnight (see blurb below), but it was more a stumble than a sprint for what was likely the sector's final IPO of the year. Activity hit its peak this spring and summer, then fell off sharply in the fall as the federal government bumbled its way into a shutdown and a botched launch of the “Obamacare” insurance exchanges. We’re not implying causality, mind you, although the shutdown did absolutely nothing positive for the economy. More likely, the sheer volume of IPOs (38 through October 31) skimmed the cream off the pot.

Can the pipeline reload for 2014? Public investors will return after the ball drops looking for late-stage, near-commercial (or near-approval) companies, of course, but we saw in 2013 a certain appetite for higher risk bets like bluebird bio and OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, whose paths to the public markets we chronicled recently in Start-Up.

And the prospect pool for biotech should be stronger than it’s been for several years. This is a bit counter-intuitive, so bear with us. The MoneyTree report, a collaboration between PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, said recently that through September 30, the 541 publicized biotech and device venture deals comprised the lowest nine-month total since 2005. And only 104 life science companies raised first-time venture capital, the worst showing since 1996.

So what’s all this about a strong pool of prospects? By our near-final count, life science Series A fundings have already topped 2012’s count, both in deal flow and dollars committed. Note the difference: MoneyTree counts first-time venture raises; we count Series A’s, but not seed rounds, because we feel it’s a better gauge of companies with real promise. (See Bruce Booth’s description this week of Atlas Venture’s seed-funding program for a glimpse of the fragility of seed-stage biomedical companies.)

Landing Series A cash is obviously no guarantee of permanence, but the gatekeepers are ever more vigilant. For cutting-edge science, groups like Atlas, Flagship Ventures and Third Rock Ventures spend a year or more hammering on an idea, forcing it through iterations, proving its worth, before committing serious dollars. And if the ideas aren’t truly novel, there are other de-risking strategies; many Series As these days are for programs spun out of other companies, run by trusted management teams, or both.

In other words, there’s still plenty of risk in a Series A investment, but perhaps not as much as you’d think. And by our count, Series As particularly on the biopharma side are doing well. OK, maybe the $120 million A round for Juno Therapeutics has skewed the dollar figures just a wee bit, but the deal flow is still on track for well more than 100 financings in 2013, on top of the 100 or so in 2012. We’ll have the final count and a deeper dive into the Series A class of 2013 in the upcoming Start-Up, right around the time the JP Morgan conference is in full swing.

What do you think? Do the 200-plus companies that have had their Series A stockings stuffed in the past couple years represent a healthy pipeline? Since the Great Recession faded, the investors who've had cash to make bets with have insisted there's been no better time. In 2014, we should start to see if they're right.

Meanwhile, there's no better time for you to spend a few days unplugged from your screens, relaxing with friends and family. May your holidays be safe and warm, and here's your first present: A delicious, sustainable, locally sourced, gift-wrapped edition of...

Atara Biotherapeutics: With news of Atara’s new $38.5 million Series B round also comes news of its $20 million Series A, quietly completed in March. The Brisbane, Calif.-based company was established in fall 2012 via a partnership between Amgen and venture stalwart Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and endowed with a portfolio of six former Amgen assets, all in the transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta family of compounds. First-time backers in the new round included Amgen Ventures, Celgene Corp., and crossover fund EcoR1; they joined Series A investors Alexandria Venture Investments, DAG Ventures and Domain Associates, as well as KPCB. The Series B remains open, and Atara CEO Isaac Ciechanover told “The Pink Sheet” DAILY it hopes to bring in a final investor within 90 days. The corporate venture units’ investments were “purely financial,” he said; Amgen itself holds equity but did not invest cash during the Series A. Atara is an umbrella company that operates three “sister company” subsidiaries named for Christopher Columbus’s three ships used in 1492. Its most advanced drug, PINTA745, is a myostatin inhibitor already in Phase II for a muscle-wasting disorder found in end-stage renal disease patients; it’s housed in Pinta Biotherapeutics. The company also hopes to submit an IND for activin inhibitor STM434, one of Santa Maria Biotherapeutics’ three compounds, and begin trials in ovarian cancer during 2014; farther along will be Nina Biotherapeutics’ antibody NINA842 for cancer cachexia, which Ciechanover said is about 18 months from the clinic. – Paul Bonanos

Crescendo Biologics: The UK firm has raised £17.5 million ($28 million) in a Series A financing to pursue development of its variable heavy-chain antibody fragments as therapeutics. The round was led by new investor Imperial Innovations Group, and included for the first time Astellas Venture Management. Sofinnova Partners (the European group) also participated in the round after providing seed funding to Crescendo, which was formed in 2009. The funds are expected not only to support development of the platform technology but also proof-of-concept clinical studies of its antibody fragments, applied topically in psoriasis. The firm will also pursue studies in oncology. Crescendo makes its fragments by first eliminating antibody production involving genes located in three chromosomal regions in mice, and then adding DNA-containing genes for the human antibody heavy chain. Marianne Brüggemann and colleagues at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, UK, pioneers of the first wave of transgenic technology exploited by Medarex and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, were involved in this work, Crescendo CEO Mike Romanos told “The Pink Sheet” DAILY. Psoriasis has been selected as the first target for Crescendo’s fragments as they can be formulated into creams and penetrate into the relevant region of the skin following topical application, Romanos said. Although systemic monoclonal antibodies have had a tremendous impact on severe psoriasis, milder cases are poorly served with current therapies, and a non-immunosuppressive treatment should be useful, Romanos said. The first fragment should enter clinical trials at the end of 2015 in psoriasis, and if successful, the work could be expanded to include atopic dermatitis and other inflammatory dermatological disorders. – John Davis

Acucela: The Seattle biotech filed on December 17 to raise up to $125 million in an IPO on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s Mother’s Market. The company has a partnership with Otsuka under a 2008 deal for lead compound, emixustat, which is in Phase IIb/III testing to treat dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Acucela started the trial in the first quarter of 2013 and expects that if 12-month study results warrant, it will submit to FDA and EMA for approval. There is no FDA-approved treatment for dry AMD. If you’re not familiar, biotech offerings on the Mother’s Market are for the most part relatively small, and like the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market, often raise tiny subsequent offerings. They typically suffer from chronic low liquidity and languish with little investor attention as small caps. Retail investors, and their whims, are a big factor on the Mother’s Market, which specializes in high growth and emerging stocks. That combination makes it very volatile. This year, some biotechs have proven hugely popular. For example, peptide therapeutic company Peptidream, which isn’t in the clinic yet but has several discovery partnerships, conducted a $68 million IPO on the Mother’s Market in June and is now worth about $1.6 billion. Acucela founder, President and CEO Ryo Kubota is a Japanese ophthalmologist who has trained, practiced and taught in both the US and Japan. In addition to its Seattle headquarters, the biotech also has a Tokyo office. – Stacy Lawrence

TetraLogic: The Phase II cancer company closed on December 12 with what was likely the final IPO of the year, but that was only after it had slashed its price in half to $7 per share from a range of $13 to $15. Even with the discount, its shares have remained flat in early trading. That’s with existing investors Amgen and Pfizer as well as company executives agreeing to purchase most of the shares offered at IPO. Not just some, but most: That’s a first in our IPO experience. Was this a venture round or an IPO? Insiders bought a whopping 4.6 million shares of 7.2 million sold.  (TetraLogic hasn’t yet fared as well as another recent discount IPO: Relypsa, which priced in November and is now up 137%.) Overall the biotech IPO class of 2013 is holding its own. The 44 IPOs this year are up 41% as a group with more winners than losers. Only about one-quarter of them have lost ground or are flat from their IPO prices. That’s better than coin-toss odds – and that’s saying something in biotech. TetraLogic hopes to gain some traction with its small molecule mimics of Second Mitochondrial Activator of Caspases technology (SMAC-mimetics). Its lead program is birinapant, which is in Phase I and Phase II testing in hematological malignancies and multiple solid tumors. The biotech plans to start a randomized Phase II trial for birinapant and azacitidine versus azacitidine alone to treat myelodysplastic syndromes in the first half of 2014. – S.L.

Best of the Rest (Highlights of Other Activity This Fortnight): In the second Xention spin-off following Provesica three years ago, Ario Pharma completed a $3M Series A round to pursue TRPV1 antagonists in chronic cough…in its second secondary offering in the last few months, Xoma netted $54M to pay for development of Phase III gevokizumab for non-infectious uveitis and its preclinical XMet program of insulin activators and sensitizers…days before announcing its acquisitions of CNS spec pharma NuPathe, Endo raised $700M in a 5.75% convertible notes sale…and Versant Ventures pledged investments in Canadian life sciences start-ups. – Amanda Micklus

Single, Early-Stage Financings of the Fortnight Seeks Attractive Exit Correlation

One month ago, as the government shut itself partially down, this column wondered if the IPO window might undergo a similar fate.

Since then, the same number of biopharmas has gone public (one) as has withdrawn their registration. The former is Aerie Pharmaceutical, and the latter is GlobeImmune, which said in its SEC filing, “The terms currently obtainable in the public marketplace are not sufficiently attractive.”

A second life sciences company actually went public, the cancer diagnostic firm Veracyte (see description in the roundup below). And several more companies filed their S-1s in October. And yes, the shutdown's been shut down and we're temporary passed the budget impasse. Six weeks ago, we would have taken GlobeImmune's lawyerese excuse as a fantastic joke -- C'mon, counsel, stop it! You're killing us! -- but as we wait for the likes of Relypsa, Karyopharm and GlycoMimetics to take the plunge, well, let's just say we're still waiting to exhale.

To distract ourselves for a moment, we'd like to draw your attention to an interesting back-and-forth that occurred recently on the high-tech VC side. Well-known investor Fred Wilson blogged in September that the more cash a startup raises in seed and Series A rounds, the less successful it will likely be. Data house CB Insights decided to fact-check Wilson, and it pronounced him wrong: there is no correlation.

This was all about high-tech, though, so START-UP decided to run the numbers for biopharma, where the investment dynamics are worlds apart from high-tech strategies. The article won’t be out for another week or two, but we’ll give you the high level answer: There's no correlation in biotech, either. (See above. R² = 0.0261, in case you're wondering.)

We found other interesting data around that answer, too. For example, of the 307 Series A rounds we found between 2002 and 2007 with disclosed value, 57, or 18.5%, of those companies went out of business. Those that exited via IPO (9%) and acquisition (31%) combined nearly equal those that remain private and independent (41%). Or sliced another way, of the 5-year cohort of companies we looked at, exactly half are still around, either public or private. (We'll save the rest for the Start-Up article, co-authored by Amanda Micklus.)

Since there's no correlation between size of exit (or, in the case of public companies, current market cap) and their Series A commitment, how much cash should an investor group front a new company? That question is driving much of the exploration of new biotech funding models that we're seeing from groups like Atlas Venture, Index Ventures, and Versant Ventures – whose new fundraising efforts we note in our roundup below. (And too late for inclusion here, but, ahem, speaking of fundraising efforts... our Pink Sheet colleagues will have all the details on the OrbiMed news later today.)

Even though venture returns across various timelines showed some improvement halfway through 2013, according to the NVCA, biotech VCs are still under tremendous pressure to shorten their investment timelines and take less risky bets. Tranching rounds, of course, is de rigueur, and sometimes those big Series A numbers announced with great fanfare never fully materialize. That could be a good thing: when Shire bought Lotus Tissue Repair early this year, its sole backer Third Rock Ventures had only funneled a sliver of its $26 million Series A commitment into the company.

Or, the company’s original plan could fizzle, as we note in this week’s note about Calithera in the roundup below.

Of course, how much VCs put into a company, and in what configuration, is driven by how much they’re getting out at the other end. The IPO bounty of recent months has LPs impatient for returns, and VCs need to “put some points on the board,” as Atlas Venture partner and bloguero Bruce Booth puts it in his latest Forbes column. How they manage those post-IPO exits when trading volume is limited, however, is a delicate complicated dance, which Booth explains in detail. (Whether to distribute cash or stock to LPs is just one of many considerations.)

With so many biotech exits these days coming via IPO -- have you noticed the dearth of private companies? So have our blogmates at Deals of the Week -- it makes us curious to see if the correlation between Series A size and exit success will shift in a few years, when we use a different cohort of companies that weren't forced to brave the Great Recession. We certainly acknowledge that the times we live in, and the data we collect, could be of our moment. Or, there could be a shift in correlation with more acquisition-heavy exit data if the IPO wave recedes -- perhaps we should say “when,” since all waves must eventually recede from the shore. We’re keeping an eye on the surf line, because, as anyone who grew up along the Pacific Coast knows, the worst time to gather shells is when the water suddenly disappears.

Where else can you get your safety tips and Zen koans all at once? Sit down, grasshopper, and open your mind to…

Veracyte: The diagnostics firm launched an initial public offering of its stock October 30 and raised $65 million by selling 5 million shares at $13 each. It’s one of the few diagnostics companies to tap the public markets this year, as most of the life-science activity has benefited the biopharmaceutical sector. (Foundation Medicine is another exception.) As we described in detail in February’s IN VIVO, Veracyte of South San Francisco, Calif., was founded to help resolve the ambiguity that often comes from a cytology sample of thyroid nodules that are possibly malignant. When looking at the cells isn’t enough to determine course of action – about 25% of the time -- Veracyte’s test is meant to guide an endocrinologist in the decision for or against surgery, which otherwise is recommended for cancerous, suspicious, or even indeterminate modules. Its test, Afirma, uses 167 biomarkers, and has also begun to identify rare types of thyroid cancer that aren’t evident under the microscope but reveal themselves in genomic analysis. Veracyte launched Afirma in 2011, and in the twelve months leading to June 30, 2013, the company tallied revenues of $17 million but with a net loss of $23 million. Its main shareholders before the offering were Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (22%), TPG (22%), Versant Ventures (23%), and Domain Associates (19%). Just before the IPO, on October 9, Veracyte enacted a 4-to-1 reverse split of its common stock. Underwriters were led by Morgan Stanley and have the option to buy up to 750,000 more shares in the 30 days after the IPO date. It closed on its first day of trading up 2% to $13.25 a share. – Alex Lash and Mark Ratner

Calithera Biosciences: Calithera is hardly the same company that announced a $40 million Series A round of funding in 2010. The high-flying start-up, which made our A-List that year, is now heading in a different direction. As announced October 29, the company is shifting focus with $35 million in fresh cash in a Series D round that includes some, but not all, of its original investors. Moreover, the company never raised the full $40 million initial round, designed to arrive in tranches. Founded by University of California, San Francisco professor Jim Wells to commercialize research on the role of caspases in inducing apoptosis of cancer cells, Calithera is now turning to an oncology program centering on glutamine metabolism that CEO Susan Molineaux tells FOTF was internally developed. Meanwhile, scientific co-founder Wells has left Calithera’s board of directors, as has U.S. Venture Partners’ Larry Lasky, an early investor. Another Series A backer, Mission Bay Capital, also did not participate in the new round; USVP and Mission Bay area still shareholders, however. In addition, Molineaux described the interim Series B and C rounds in an email as “tranches of the original $40 million Series A financing in June 2010,” and added that the total amount Calithera raised in all three rounds amounted to just $30 million. Two first-time investors, hedge fund operator Adage Capital Partners and VC firm Longwood Fund, joined existing backers Morgenthaler Ventures, Advanced Technology Ventures and Delphi Ventures in the Series D funding. Since backing Calithera initially, Morgenthaler and ATV’s life sciences teams have created Lightstone Ventures; Morgenthaler and ATV have ceased making new life sciences investments. – Paul Bonanos

Spark Therapeutics: For the first time, the non-profit Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has spun out a privately held, for-profit company. As our colleagues at "The Pink Sheet" described, the hospital has budgeted $50 million to support the launch of Spark Therapeutics, created to house a pair of gene therapy programs that the hospital’s Center for Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics has been working on for several years. CHOP chief executive Steve Altschuler said the hospital will supply Spark with cash when needed, and only when Spark executives can justify expenditures. Spark has a Phase III program for a type of inherited blindness attributable to a malfunctioning RPE65 gene, and a Phase I/II program for hemophilia B. Spark CEO Jeffrey Marrazzo said it also holds rights to other preclinical programs, including at least one in-licensed from another source. The cash commitment is designed to fund the opthalmological program all the way to the market, Marrazzo said. While considerable uncertainty remains in the gene therapy field, barriers have begun to fall, leading to more fundings recently. Paris-based GenSight Biologics, another ophthalmological gene therapy developer, received one of 2013’s largest Series A rounds to date, a €32 million ($41.4 million) commitment in April. – P.B.

Versant Ventures: The life science firm headquartered in Silicon Valley slipped toward the bottom of this year’s annual VC “gas tank” chart in Start-Up, not having raised a fund since 2008.

That’s apparently about to change. According to a regulatory filing, the firm is aiming for a fifth fund of at least $250 million, which would be half the amount of its 2008 vintage fund. If successful – the October 18 filing says none of the offering has been sold -- the new fund would come after a couple years of big changes at the firm. In late 2011 Start-Up reported the firm would head into fundraising mode without four veteran partners, two each from the biopharma and device sides of the firm. In the interim, its biopharma team began a shift toward smaller scale investments by building an unusual investment-R&D hybrid called Inception Biosciences. Inception is run by a drug discovery team that scouts for early-stage programs and works them into assets that could move forward in spun-out entities, some with pharma partners holding acquisition rights, some with more traditional backing. With the pharma team building Inception in San Diego and expanding it to Vancouver, the device team got START-UP’s attention with an industry-high quartet of Series A investments in 2012. Assuming Versant’s new $250 million target is a ceiling, not a floor, it stands to reason the biopharma side will continue to explore cost-sharing (and -saving) models like Inception. (Managing director Brad Bolzon declined to comment on the document or the new fund.) The SEC document, which you can view here, has other interesting tidbits. The firm is using three names: Versant Venture Capital V, Versant Affiliates Fund V, and Versant Ophthalmic Affiliates I. Our colleagues reported this spring that the first spin-off from the Vancouver team was in the works, so perhaps that last name holds a clue to what Versant’s Canadian team has been eyeballing. – A.L.

Best of the Rest (Highlights of Other Financing Activity This Fortnight): Immune Design headed up the late-stage venture financing category with its $49mm Series C round led by the Column Group and Topspin Partners (and five additional backers, including Sanofi-Genzyme BioVentures, also participated); the funds will progress proof-of-concept studies for its lead solid-tumor candidates IDLV305 and IDG305…with a $31mm private placement including a debt conversion and a 1-for-8 reverse stock split, another oncology drug developer, Arno Therapeutics, hopes to advance its breast and prostate cancer compound onapristone into the clinic…Dynavax Technologies raised funds to support Phase III development of its Heplisav hepatitis B vaccine, netting a total of $125mm through concurrent offerings: in a FOPO it sold 79.6mm shares at $1.075 (for $81mm) and brought in another $44mm through the sale of 43k shares of Series B convertible preferred stock at $1,075…Aerie Pharmaceuticals (ophthalmology therapeutics) netted $71.8mm in its IPO, selling 6.72mm shares at $10, below its anticipated $12-14 range. – Maureen Riordan

Early-Stage Funding: Replacing Dwindling VC and Alliance Dollars?

We live in strange times. Venture capitalists, the traditional support for research-stage biopharmas, have been pulling back from early stage investments. Some are moving downstream, some are choosing not to raise new funds, others are exiting life science investment altogether. A few stalwarts – firms like Third Rock, Flagship and Atlas – have stayed the course, continuing to invest in unprecedented, high-science ideas. Although they’ve shown themselves able to re-up their funds, in some cases out-raising their last funds by good measure, it’s too early to say that their portfolio bets will pay off.

Pharma has been stepping into the breach, acting as LP or co-investor with venture. But it’s not enough to reverse the fall in Series A rounds.

What’s odd is that, despite the decline in VC investment, we’re seeing a steady trickle of truly novel products come to market. Immunotherapy, epigenetics, gene therapy, optimized antibodies aimed at exciting new targets – they’re all working their way through the pipeline. But venture’s declining interest (overall) in early stage start-ups has been going on for over five years now. Shouldn’t we be seeing some signals of scarcity or a fall-off in quality?

So we speculated that maybe that other fount of early stage support, big pharma alliances, is compensating for the drop in venture dollars. Maybe big pharma through its business development activities is correcting for the absence of venture with non-dilutive support for fledgling companies.

But early stage alliance funding, as measured by disclosed upfront payments, has also been trending down. The chart above measures upfront dollars from big pharma/biotech collaborations and licensings.  At its current run rate – as best this can be predicted – the alliance line will finish 2013 at around $940 million, sharply reversing its five-year downward trend.

As to the apparent paradox of a healthy, productive pipeline in the absence of the high investment levels seen in prior years, it appears that the most interesting ideas continue to be funded. As Bruce Booth of Atlas Ventures wrote in his blog two years ago “. . . less capital chasing fewer companies with more disciplined investors offers a mix that bodes well for returns from early stage investing.”

Solid returns is good news for investors, for sure. But is that what pharma, whose own internal labs are sputtering, needs from these engagements? And what about the potential for new players, like crowdfunders, to disrupt the life science investment supply chain? In the next few years, we may be looking at a markedly different environment for financing early stage ideas.

We intend to probe these and other matters at Elsevier’s 2013 PSA: The Pharmaceutical Strategy Conference in the panel “Funding Biotech: New Ways to Create Value.”  We’ll be joined by Gregory Simon, CEO of Poliwogg; Martin Shkreli, CEO of Retrophin; Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Ventures; Mark Clein, President and Founder of Precision for Medicine; and Damien McDevitt, VP and Head of Business Development for R & D Therapy Areas at GlaxoSmithKline.

We hope you’ll join us.

Financings of the Fortnight Waits For Public Investors To Hop On Bluebird

It’s been another IPO-intensive couple of weeks here at FOTF HQ. We keep looking for other things to write about, but sometimes the fastest shave on deadline is with Occam’s razor. Or something like that. We didn't exactly ace our philosophy classes in college.

You don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to notice how life-science IPOs have re-inserted themselves into the daily chatter this year, and there’s one upcoming issue that makes for fascinating conversation: bluebird bio, a big-idea company (gene therapy for rare diseases) that apparently strives to avoid capital letters. The firm later this year expects to enter a Phase II/III study with its lead program Lenti-D to treat young boys with the rare hereditary disorder childhood cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, or CCALD. Also this year, bluebird should launch a Phase I/II trial for another gene transfer product, LentiGlobin, to treat ß-thalassemia major and sickle cell disease.

A bell-ringing IPO would be notable for at least three reasons. First, if someone told you five years ago that public investors would one day line up to buy shares in a gene therapy company, you probably would have had that person tested for the stark-raving-mad gene. But this decade the field has enjoyed quite a turn-around, as our Start-Up colleagues explained last summer. A large step in that journey came a couple of months later, when the European Union approved uniQure's Glybera despite a spotty track record.

Perhaps true optimists would say they never doubted that gene therapy, like so many biomedical technologies, would take more than two decades to find its way into commercial products. But a lot of other biomedical technologies aren't effectively shut down for years because of daunting safety concerns. Glybera’s approval was one kind of validation of gene therapy; a bluebird IPO would be another.

In a sense, though, public investor validation happened nearly a year ago, before the Glybera approval, when bluebird raised its $60 million Series D. The round included its previous VC backers, but new to the company’s cap table were hedge funds, so-called “crossovers” that have made their presence felt in biotech the past few years. The idea is that public investors with biotech savvy want a foothold in an elite circle of privately held firms so they’re in position to benefit from a boffo takeout offer or from an inside seat at IPO. Once in, as with bluebird’s D round, liquidity is probably no more than a couple years away. The crossovers bring much-needed cash to a mezzanine round, but they also bring a certain amount of impatience.

So when bluebird said Deerfield Capital, RA Capital Management, Ramius Capital Group and two undisclosed public funds pitched into last year Series D, it was pretty clear where the firm’s sights were set. Those undisclosed public funds are likely affiliated with Fidelity and The Capital Group, both of which are listed in bluebird’s S-1 as having invested for the first time in the Series D, and which own about 12% and 9% pre-IPO respectively. We don’t know yet how much bluebird is aiming for, but the firm has raised north of $100 million since a 2004 recapitalization. (It was known as Genetix Pharmaceuticals until 2010.)

Raj Shah, partner at RA Capital Management, one of bluebird's "crossovers," told FOTF that his firm had been waiting for a gene therapy company to produce good animal data. When bluebird showed its two lead programs were “unequivocally active” in humans, RA jumped in and is prepared to increase its position at the IPO. “We want exposure to the best technologies in this space,” said Shah. The EU approval of Glybera was encouraging, said Shah, but “FDA's recent IND acceptances of bluebird’s programs are also quite validating for the gene therapy space.”

It’s not the same as approval, of course – no gene therapy product has made it to market in the US – but it’s a significant point and speaks to the company’s approach of using a method that has elements familiar to regulators. The company extracts the patient’s own hematopoetic stem cells, makes the genetic modification ex-vivo, and transfuses the modified cells back into the patient.

The third reason to take note of bluebird is its largest owner, Third Rock Ventures, which appears in this column as often as a Kardashian on the New York Post’s Page Six. Third Rock owns 28.1% of bluebird, double the stake of the next largest owner, TVM Capital (with 14.3%, and ARCH Venture Partners is next with 10.6%). The Boston firm has had no problem raising funds – and funds, and funds, and more funds – with two exits, and two other portfolio companies in option-to-acquire agreements with larger partners.

But bluebird as far as we can tell would be its first IPO, and cofounder Mark Levin told our "Pink Sheet" DAILY colleagues that there should be more in the coming year. (The story on Levin’s talk this week at the Harvard Club in New York is coming soon. The dressed-down Levin had to don a tie to speak at the stuffy club, which made for good comedy at the start of his talk: "How many people here had to borrow a tie to get in?" he asked the crowd. "I actually heard someone had to get a pair of pants.")

Fully clothed or not, every venture firm wants its portfolio companies to be public and liquid, of course, but if TRV notches multiple issues in the next several months, it could be a big validation not only of its company formation process but also its ability to shepherd those firms quickly to important milestones -- important enough for the still-small coterie of public biotech specialists to buy in. That is, if the companies going public are the ones in TRV’s portfolio that have grown from true early-stage seedlings into viable businesses.

We’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Yes, biopharma firms are going public, but on the whole, they’re still not big-science risk takers. A couple pain-med companies here, a PE-backed CRO there (see our Quintiles blurb below), and the next out the door is probably going to be a firm with $300 million-plus in venture backing that’s hoping public investors buy its rationale for yet another blood thinner on the market. (See our Portola Pharmaceuticals blurb below.)

Meanwhile, venture firms continue to cozy up to Big Pharma to help raise new funds or to help defray the risk of their early-stage efforts, as Avalon did with GlaxoSmithKline, in a deal that got our DOTW brethren thinking deep thoughts a couple weeks ago.

Now Atlas Venture is the latest to pull in big drug companies as limited partners. The venerable firm said this week it has Amgen and Novartis on board, although neither is accorded special rights to either invest in or acquire the companies that Atlas starts up. However, Atlas pledges to “explore areas of mutual interest” with its Pharma LPs, and Amgen and Novartis are free to invest directly in the Atlas companies from their own venture funds, both of which are extremely active. The key, Atlas partner Jean-Francois Formela told our PSD colleagues, is not to do anything that would lead the firm or its LPs to “unnatural behavior,” which we have to nominate for quote of the year. Because, when you think about it, what exactly is natural behavior for a VC and its investors? (We know a few entrepreneurs who would love to answer that in a manner unsuitable for family viewing.)

It all brings us back to philosophy: the Platonic ideal of venture capital, and all that. Are your investments the true essence of your existence, or just shadows on the wall of your portfolio? A famous philosopher once said, "I know kung-fu." But, grasshopper, if you have traveled this far, it is infinitely better to know…

Quintiles Transnational: The massive contract research organization’s return to the public markets, timed perfectly, was by no means a typical biopharmaceutical IPO. The May 8 issue raised a staggering $1.1 billion and pushed the company's market value to $6 billion as Wall Street’s interest in biopharma continues to rise. As you might guess from the dollar totals and the fact that Quintiles went private a decade ago, this was a private equity deal, not a venture capital exit. Quintiles founder and Executive Chairman Dennis Gillings, Bain Capital and TPG Capital each made more than $150 million in the IPO, and each continues to hold about 20% of the company, assuming the percentage of shares to be sold was the same in the final sale as reported in the S-1. Bain became the lead Quintiles investor in 2008, when several new private equity investors came in. The investors weren’t waiting for an IPO to get paid; they've already cashed out about $1.5 billion in dividends in the last five years. In addition, Gillings and investors split a one-time $25 million payment upon the IPO. Quintiles will use most of the proceeds to make that investor payment and pay down more than $350 million in debt. The IPO priced at the top of its range at $40, and – in another sign this was no ordinary biopharma IPO – the number of shares sold by insiders ballooned at the last minute by more than 5 million. For most VC-backed biotechs, insiders have to buy shares to get an IPO done. – Stacy Lawrence

Portola Pharmaceuticals: The next biotech IPO likely to price is for hematology firm Portola, which is currently on the road to talk up an IPO slated for the week of May 20. Portola had $125 million in cash on March 31, and wants to raise $100 million through the sale of 6.9 million shares at $13-$16 each, not a massive sum considering the firm has raised at least $306 million in venture financing. Pre-IPO, the firm’s largest shareholders are an arm of the Singapore government’s investment company, MPM Capital, Prospect Venture Partners, and several other venture firms hold more than 5 percent. At the proposed mid-point, Portola would be valued at $469 million. Portola’s lead compound is the oral anticoagulant betrixaban, a once-daily Factor Xa inhibitor that ex-partner Merck handed back to Portola in 2011. Portola hopes to carve out a market in the crowded field for the drug after hospitalization. There are other differences that Portola hopes will catch the fancy of public investors. Betrixaban is in Phase III for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acute medically ill patients; there isn’t another novel oral anticoagulant in the clinic or approved for this indication, according to the company. On the road show, Portola CEO William Lis pegged the betrixaban market at $3 billion to $4 billion, based on the current price of orals of about $8 daily, and assuming 35 days of usage post-hospitalization. Lis expects to market betrixaban to hospitals, so he estimates a sales force of about 100 will be sufficient. The firm’s next candidate is PRT4445, a Phase II antidote for Factor Xa inhibitors. – S.L.

Isis Pharmaceuticals: The publicly traded antisense developer said May 8 it priced a secondary offering of 9 million shares of common stock at $19 per share. Isis gathered $162.5 million in net proceeds from the sale, a sizeable amount to help the firm push through its deep pipeline, with nine compounds expected to produce Phase III or significant Phase II data by early 2014. The offering cashes in on momentum the firm has seized in the past several months – not least of which was the Kynamro (mipomersen) approval in late January for the treatment of the very rare homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Meanwhile, Isis’s dealflow continues unabated, as our DOTW brothers and sisters note in this post. The firm has raised more through partnerships, about $2 billion, than it has from equity sales; at the end of 2012, the firm had the potential to earn up to $5.1 billion in future milestones. It’s also worth noting that Isis owned nearly 21% of Regulus Therapeutics, which it and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals established jointly in 2007, when Regulus went public in October 2012. As of the end of February, the most recent disclosure, the stake had dipped just below 20%. Regulus debuted at $4 a share and has risen 82% to $7.29 as of May 15. Underwriters led by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have the option to sell an additional 1.35 million shares.-- Alex Lash

Lumena Pharmaceuticals: It’s a new company wrapped around a very old product. Lumena announced a $23 million Series A round to redirect toward orphan indications a compound that was tested more than a decade ago in more than 1,400 patients. The tests were run by Searle and then Pharmacia, where Lumena’s current VP of research worked on the program to fight high cholesterol. (Subsequent acquirer Pfizer shelved the program.) Lumena is aiming to treat cholestatic liver disease, which is characterized by retention of bile acids in the liver, resulting in painful symptoms related to an intractable itch. Sufferers of various forms, including Primary Biliary Cirrhosis, the pediatric Alagille Syndrome and Progressive Familial Intrahepatic Cholestasis, often have difficulty sleeping, and have been known to scratch their skin until they bleed and scar. Lumera will use the Series A proceeds to run Phase III trials in each of the orphan indications. The firm has been in stealth mode since 2011 with Pappas Ventures partner Mike Grey serving as CEO. Pappas led the round and recruited Alta Partners and RiverVest Venture Partners to join. Like many venture firms seeking to avoid high-risk, high-cost projects, Pappas was interested especially in pharma opportunities with defrayed risk and short clinical development paths. Grey said the prior clinical work and orphan indications requiring smaller trials made LUM001 appealing. The compound inhibits apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT). That protein is critical in the process of reabsorption of bile acids from the small intestine, specifically the lumen, where the body absorbs nutrients from digested food. – Paul Bonanos

All The Rest: The fortnight’s largest venture round was GPCR therapeutics developer Trevena’s $60mm Series C round to which Forest Labs committed $30mm and also optioned the company’s Phase IIb-ready TRV027 for acute decompensated heart failure… In a Series E round, oncology-focused Tokai Pharmaceuticals took in $35.5mm…Kite Pharma’s Series A preferred stock financing – including the conversion of $15mm in outstanding promissory notes – garnered the cancer immunotherapeutics developer $35mm…Belgian biotech Cardio3 Biosciences raised €19mm ($25mm) in venture funding: €7mm in new equity committed by existing investors and €12mm from the conversion of existing convertible loans…Virtual company Tacurion Pharma (formed by Drais Pharmaceuticals) raised $15mm in an A round from backers including Astellas, which also out-licensed its nocturia candidate to the start-up…In a round led by Mérieux Développement, which was joined by return backer Shire, NeuroPhage Pharmaceuticals scored $6.4mm…Callidus Biopharma closed a $4.6mm Series A financing to speed up preclinical studies of candidates in Pompe and Gaucher diseases…In a registered direct offering, Dyax will issue 8.9mm common shares priced at $2.30 and 41k Series 1 preferred shares (priced at $230 and convertible into 100 shares) for proceeds of $30mm…A stock purchase agreement with Lincoln Park Capital Fund grants Zalicus the right to sell up to $25mm worth of its common stock to support clinical trials of lead pain candidates Z160 (Phase II) and Z944 (Phase I)…Through an RDO of 3.9mm shares at $4.14, Omeros brought in $16.1mm…A follow-on public offering of 63.3mm shares at RMB12.25 ($1.99) each, resulted in proceeds of  $126mm for Chinese CRO Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals…Acadia Pharma netted $94mm through its FOPO of 8mm shares priced at $12.50…Rockwell Medical brought in net proceeds of $33.1mm in its FOPO, selling 11.5mm shares at $3.05…Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals expects to see $20mm in proceeds from a public offering of 6.7mm shares at $3…In a FOPO of 9.5mm shares at $1.50, Discovery Laboratories netted $13.4mm…Initial public offerings that priced: Receptos netted $68.3mm through the sale of 5.2mm shares at $14, the low-end of its $14-16 range; Ambit Biosciences, first planning to sell 4.6mm shares at a $13-15 range, priced 8.1mm shares at $8, still bringing in $65mm; and after trying since 2007, Insys Therapeutics finally completed a $34.2mm IPO by selling 4.6mm shares (including overallotment) at $8, way below its $16-18 range, which was later cut to $8-$10…Alocobra upped the number of IPO shares it plans to sell to 2.275mm at a $10-12 range; increased from the 1.4 mm shares in its March S-1 filing…Kamada, which filed for its IPO in April, announced it would sell 5.6mm ordinary shares…Biotechs that filed for IPOs: OTC cellular therapeutic vaccines developer Heat Biologics and Esperion Therapeutics; the latter cardio-focused company went public in 2000, but was acquired in 2003 by Pfizer, which spun it off to investors five years later…Vivus plans to offer $200mm worth of 7-year, convertible senior unsecured notes…Alimera Sciences (ophthalmic pharmaceuticals) has secured a $20mm debt facility – $5mm in a principal term loan, plus up to $15mm more as a working capital line of credit – through Silicon Valley Bank…Theravance is splitting into two separate public entities, one to focus on its 2004 GlaxoSmithKline deal, the other to perform R&D; and in a separate arrangement, Elan will make a $1bn cash payment to Theravance in exchange for a 21% stake (held by GSK under the 2004 deal) in royalties related to a portfolio of four Theravance respiratory drug programs…In fund news: Merck KGAA pledged to increase its investment in its corporate venture capital fund MS Ventures, raising its funding level to €100mm ($129mm) from up from its initial €40mm at the fund's inception in March 2009. -- Maureen Riordan

Photo courtesy of IngytheWingy, who seems to have a thing for public transportation. 

Thanks to Mike Goodman for his contributions this week.