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Since then, the same number of biopharmas has gone public (one) as has withdrawn their registration.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

Financings of the Fortnight Isn’t Convinced You Have Nice Assets

Skeptical kitten wants to see what comes out the other side.

Single-asset companies. Asset-centric funds. Project-based financing. Call it what you will, but with the biopharma news flow these days, you’d think the entire industry was restructuring itself to find, develop and sell single products. You’d think FIPCO dreams were exhibiting some serious unmet medical need.

Building the next Genentech, Amgen or Biogen Idec might not be a popular goal among biotech investors, but as START-UP's third annual life science VC survey is about to reveal, a sizable and growing minority of those investors aren’t interested in the asset-centric model. As the graphic below shows, the skeptics’ numbers (presented as a percentage of total biopharma-investor survey takers) keep inching up year by year.

Well then. Respondents left a lot of comments, too. Here are a few:

“Selectively appealing. Need[s] more human capital.”

“A fad.”

“This strategy requires additional caution.”

And this stem-winder:

“Not a sustainable model for more than a few specialized outfits; the asset scope is limited to anything between optimized leads up to Phase II POC - this is where, in most indications, Pharma can play as well. Again, it requires a specialized group that can identify ideas earlier [and] better than pharma groups and can execute better [and] faster. VC partnerships are in many cases not the right resource for this. [I] still believe this movement is primarily driven by a need to show LPs a new model now that returns on the old model have shown to be 'not so good.’”

Now that’s something to chew on. Because it’s becoming apparent that it’s exactly that combination – VC partnerships with Pharma – driving the model. Avalon Ventures will share the risk for some of its latest fund with GlaxoSmithKline, which is tapping Avalon to scout for assets in the San Diego area and holding options to buy those assets when they reach the cusp of IND-enabling studies. Index Ventures has raised its first life-science-only fund, with an asset-centric bent, with GSK and Johnson & Johnson as limited partners. (Neither will hold options, they say.)

And we’re now seeing the first products emerging from a new fund raised by TVM Capital, which hadn’t raised a fund since 2005. The new $150 million fund is also life sciences only – after 30 years, TVM will no longer actively invest in information technology – and could top out at $200 million by year’s end. Two thirds of it is dedicated not to building companies but to developing pharmaceutical compounds through proof of concept. And some of those assets will be tied to a buyer with an option at Phase II proof of concept. That buyer is Eli Lilly, which is seeing progress three years after announcing its intent to fund three VCs to run a “mirror” portfolio of single-asset companies, but not before some ups and downs.

TVM’s new fund is part of what Lilly used to call the mirror portfolio, now renamed the rather stodgy Capital Funds Portfolio. It’s one of two VCs involved – the other is HealthCare Ventures, which has formed five single asset companies (or, in Lilly-speak, project focused companies, or PFCs).

So there are various riffs on the basic asset-centric tune, but the only constant is the outcome: there isn’t any. That is to say, none of the larger-scale efforts we’ve seen so far have produced exits. Perhaps one or two now and again – such as Index Ventures’ sale of PanGenetics BV to Abbott Laboratories in 2009 -- but we're still waiting to see it pay off as a broader strategy.

We asked our survey takers a few other questions about asset financing: Are there plenty of good assets available to license? Is there enough development expertise to hire? Are LPs and Big Pharma interested in funding the model? Those answers should prove interesting – and they’ll be available in the upcoming issue of START-UP, as will a lot more detail about the TVM-Lilly tie-up. But until then, perhaps this investor comment is the best way to sum up asset financing, in all its various flavors: “They all need to show they work. Call me in a few years.”

That’s no skeptic talking. That’s Hubert Birner, the general partner at TVM leading the life science team, when START-UP asked him which model so far is working. With several efforts well under way, it shouldn’t take more than a few years to judge the early returns.

Speaking of early, your columnist needs to get up before the sun, and the night is growing late. So we’ll get our assets in gear and leave you with the rest of the current edition of…

iPierian/True North Therapeutics: Alzheimer’s hopeful iPierian said September 4 it has pulled in a $30 million Series C round, with part of that cash earmarked for a new company to house one of iPierian’s preclinical compounds. Both iPierian and the newco, True North, will move forward as developers of single assets, which puts iPierian’s discovery platform on the backburner. Formed from the 2009 merger of two companies that benefited from California’s public stem-cell initiative, iPierian aimed to use induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells as the basis for drug discovery. Its current lead candidate, IPN007, has been tested in in vitro combinations of brain cells derived from iPS cells. It targets extracellular tau, a fragmented form of a protein closely associated with Alzheimer’s disease. It’s not yet clear whether iPierian will pursue approval in Alzheimer’s or a related tauopathy such as progressive supranuclear palsy or frontotemporal dementia, but CEO Nancy Stagliano told “The Pink Sheet” the company plans to file an IND in 2014. True North, bankrolled with an undisclosed amount of iPierian’s new venture round, will follow iPierian into the clinic with a compound that targets disorders of the classical complement system, a cascade that functions as part of the innate immune system. SR One, the investment arm of GSK, co-led the round with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, MPM Capital and all of iPierian’s other existing investors. iPierian’s original investors -- Kleiner Perkins, Highland Capital, MPM and FinTech -- helped establish the company with a $31.5 million Series A round announced in July 2009. Google Ventures led a Series B installment in July 2010, then SROne and Biogen Idec New Ventures topped off the round at $28 million in September 2010. – Paul Bonanos

Evotec: The German drug discovery services company has raised €30 million ($40 million) from the Biotechnology Value Fund and other affiliates of San Francisco investment firm BVF Partners, diversifying its investor base and bringing in extra funds to expand its program of collaborations with academia and biotech companies. BVF bought 11.8 million new shares in Evotec at €2.55 per share, a 3% discount to the closing price August 27, the companies announced August 31. At the same time, BVF bought an option to acquire 11.8 million Evotec shares from TVM Capital at €4 per share over the next 30 months. If exercised, BVF would be the largest single shareholder, with more than an 18% stake in Evotec. The Hamburg-based firm has turned its business around since it restructured in 2009, dropping costly work on its own product pipeline in favour of securing drug discovery alliances and helping pharma and biotech companies to find and optimize new compounds. It has long-term alliances with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Janssen, MedImmune and Ono Pharmaceutical. This year, the company has entered into a collaboration with Harvard University to identify new antibacterials, and with Dana Farber's Belfer Institute for Applied Cancer Science, to explore epigenetic oncology targets. – John Davis

ObsEva: Announced August 29 and detailed in "The Pink Sheet" DAILY, the Swiss start-up has raised a CHF 32 million ($34.9 million) Series A round of funding to develop women’s health drug candidates obtained from Merck Serono. It’s the latest in a series of asset spinouts from Merck Serono, which has cut research staff since Merck KGAA bought Serono in 2006, but its venture group MS Ventures has dedicated funds to help launch those spinouts. (Our IN VIVO colleagues have a detailed look at Merck Serono’s post-merger blues here.) Paris-based Sofinnova Partners led the round, while Sofinnova Ventures of Menlo Park, Calif., and Novo A/S of Denmark participated. MS Ventures took an equity stake as part of the licensing deal that gave ObsEva its first drug candidates. ObsEva CEO, serial entrepreneur and women’s health specialist Ernest Loumaye co-founded the firm roughly two years after selling reproductive medicine company PregLem to Gedeon Richter for CHF 150 million up-front plus milestones. Some clinical work already has been performed on at least one candidate, a Phase II program for pre-term labor that can either reduce or prevent uterine contractions. Both Sofinnova Partners and Sofinnova Ventures, independent firms with an intertwining history, were PregLem stakeholders. PregLem provided an exceptional 5 times return for Sofinnova Ventures, the firm's General Partner Jim Healy said in an interview with our Pink Sheet colleagues. The firm led PregLem's CHF 36 million Series B round in 2007. – P.B.

Acacia Pharma: The repurposing biotech said September 2 it has raised £15 million ($23.5 million) in a Series B round to fund completion of the Phase III development of APD421, its lead product for post-operative nausea and vomiting. Other companies already market the active ingredient in APD421 in a CNS indication. The fundraising, which comes two years after the Cambridge, UK-based virtual company raised $10 million in a Series A in March 2011, adds two new VCs to its investor group, Fidelity Biosciences and Novo A/S, who join Series A contributors Lundbeckfond Ventures and Gilde Healthcare. The funds extend Acacia's cash runway to mid-2015 and are enough to complete Phase II studies of the company's second pipeline product, APD403, for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, the company said. Although the company plans to find marketing partners for its products at the end of Phase III, the strength of its financial backing means Acacia could consider commercializing its own products, he said. Acacia CEO Julian Gilbert is no stranger to repurposing medicines, having co-founded Arakis, a UK company with a similar strategy that was sold to Sosei in 2005 for £107 million.  Arakis worked to repurpose the muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), now marketed by licensee Novartis AG as Seebri Breezhaler. - J.D.

All the Rest: CNS-focused Intra-Cellular Therapies took in $60mm (18.9mm common shares and $15.3mm in bridge notes) from institutional investors, then reverse merged with a public shell to gain its listing on the OTC…developing late-stage OTO201 and OTO104 for disorders of the inner and middle ear, Otonomy brought in $45.9 million in Series C financing…Argos Therapeutics raised $42.5mm in a Series E round led by Pharmstandard OJSC, which with other first-time backer Green Cross, will take territorial rights to Argos’ AGS003 late-stage metastatic renal cell carcinoma candidate…Syndax Pharmaceuticals’ $26.6mm Series B round will help advance Phase III Entinostat, an HDAC inhibitor for metastatic breast cancer…Also in Series B rounds, antibiotics developer MicuRx took in $25mm; Arsanis, an anti-infectives developer built around Adimab’s antibody platform, with many of the same backers as Adimab, brought in $20mm; Icon Bioscience, a company with a late-stage cataract surgery candidate, raised $14.9mm; Swiss-based Mind-NRG, focused on neurodegenerative diseases, brought in $8mm; and Rani Therapeutics, developing oral drug delivery formulations for existing large-molecule pharmaceuticals, raised an undisclosed amount…Triton Algae Innovations completed a $5mm Series A to support expansion of its PhycoLogix synthetic biology platform for producing proteins in algae and commercialization of its PhycoShield line of proteins…OTC-traded immunotherapeutics developer Stellar Biotechnologies completed a $12mm placement of 11.4mm units at $1.05…Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, which targets rare neuromuscular and neurological diseases, completed a $15.1mm registered direct offering of 8.8mm shares at $1.72…Two biotechs filed for initial public offerings:  lipid-based nutritional ingredients and medical foods maker Enzymotec, the third Israeli company to list on Nasdaq this year; and MacroGenics, a developer of MAb therapeutics for cancer and autoimmune diseases…Three pharmacos set IPO terms: Fate Therapeutics (stem cell-modulating treatments for orphan diseases) is offering 4mm shares at a $14-16 range; Evoke Pharma (GI-focused spec pharma) plans to sell 2.1mm shares between $12-14; and protein and antibody drug developer Five Prime Therapeutics is offering 4mm shares at a range of $12-14…infectious diseases player ContraFect raised $11.8mm in an oversubscribed convertible debt offering – which initially targeted $5 million – to support CF301, its bacteriophage lysin for staphylococcus aureus bacteremia infection…concurrent with its spin-off from Elcelyx Therapeutics, NaZura BioHealth raised $5mm in debt…Oxygen Biotherapeutics completed a $4.9mm debt offering to advance its Phase IIb Oxycyte PFC emulsion for traumatic brain injury…In fund news, former Dendreon CEO Mitch Gold has partnered with investment analyst David Miller to open a new multimillion-dollar hedge fund, Alpine BioVentures, to invest in newer biotech start-ups, particularly those focused on cancer and rare diseases. -- Maureen Riordan

Skeptical kitten photo courtesy of flickrer Jeff Eaton, who also shoots sandwiches.

Financings of the Fortnight Checks The Corporate Venture Numbers

How important is corporate venture capital right now to the life sciences? That’s one of the key questions in this year’s START-UP Life Science VC survey, the results of which will be published in a few weeks.

When asked about themselves, corporate VCs mainly said they were important (77%), and the rest (23%) minority said they were crucial. Not exactly unexpected.

But traditional life science VCs were right there behind their corporate counterparts. 22% said CVC was crucial and 69% said important. Of the rest, 7% agreed with the statement “It’s of growing importance but will be relegated to the sidelines once traditional VC returns,” and 2% said CVC was insignificant.

That’s even more glowing than what institutional VCs said in the 2012 survey. Here are the institutional VCs' answers in 2012 and 2013:

Click to embiggen.

 Corporate investors’ Q ratings are going up at the same time their wallets are opening. According to the National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers, 18.3% of biotech deals in 2010 and 2011 combined had CVC participation, accounting for 8.0% of biotech venture dollars. The average investment per round was $4.0 million.

In 2012, the average investment per round jumped 20%, to $5.0 million, and 19.5% of all biotech deals had CVC participation. The share of CVC dollars was 10.9%. Tack on the first half of 2013, and the last 18 months continue along those lines: corporate venture was involved in 19.2% of all biotech venture deals from the start of 2012 through June 2013, and their dollars accounted for 10.1% of all biotech venture. The average amount of participation per round was $4.9 million.

We’re not just tracking the corporate venture story for biopharma. Here’s a story that looks at the growing influence of hospitals and insurers in health care venture; and here’s one that examines the flow of corporate venture to medical device start-ups. Those sectors have also seen an increase in corporate venture dollars, according to the NVCA. (You can download all their corporate venture reports here.)

With all the IPO activity this year, we’ll also be able to update another corporate venture story we track closely: the financial returns of start-ups with corporate investors on board. Look for an update of those numbers this fall or early winter. Last time we checked was October 2012, and we found that biotechs with corporate venture backing averaged a 1.6x step-up at IPO, slightly lower than the 1.8x for those without corporate investors. That’s the opposite of what we uncovered for acquisitions: corporate-backed biotechs fare better when selling, with an average 4.3x step-up, compared with those without (3.5x).

Is this the reality from now on? As one VC said in the survey comments, “It wasn't all that long ago that corporates were the last folks you'd call to raise money, and you'd only do so if you were desperate or if they were willing to pay up."

It's hard to imagine traditional VC roaring back to fill the early stage coffers of platform and early technology companies, a niche the corporates have begun to claim (more on that in the upcoming survey). But overall, let's not forget that even with this apex, CVC participates in one of five biotech venture rounds. There's a long way to go before corporate venture dominates the landscape the way, say, the freely available bi-weekly biotech financing roundup is dominated by...

Retrophin: Martin Shkreli’s fledgling biotech got another injection of capital on August 16 when the company tapped new and existing institutional investors for a $25 million PIPE (private investment in public equity) financing. Retrophin sold approximately 5.6 million shares of common stock and warrants. The company conducted a similar financing in February, issuing 3,333,332 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 1,530,559 shares of common stock, which resulted in $10 million in proceeds. The new PIPE proceeds will help advance the company’s early-stage pipeline. Proceeds will also help license an autism treatment from an undisclosed major pharmaceutical company. None of the programs in Retrophin’s pipeline have made the advancements the 30-year-old Shkreli has been promising since the company’s inception a few years ago.
A Phase II pivotal study of RE-021, its lead compound, was intended to begin in early 2013 for the treatment of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis but has yet to enroll patients, and timelines continue to be pushed back. The company has yet to conduct any clinical trials in humans for any of its compounds, but has released what it believes to be promising data from studies in mice. Shkreli started the company after leaving his hedge fund MSMB Capital, which he started in 2000. He wasn’t shy about making waves as a hedge-fund manager, such as when he led an activist shareholder battle against AMAG Pharmaceuticals in 2011. Shkreli and his fund pushed for the ousting of the company’s management should the merger with Allos Therapeutics take place; the issue was dropped when the merger failed. – Lisa LaMotta

Sophiris Bio: It wasn't pretty, but the Canadian-American biotech raised $65 million in an initial NASDAQ listing after nine years of being public on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE). The funding is expected to take it through 2015, including top-line data by the end of 2014 for a Phase III trial of lead candidate PRX302 (topsalysin) that's slated to start this half. PRX302 is a genetically modified protein to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), also known as an enlarged prostate. Activated by prostate specific antigen (PSA), PRX302 binds to the GPI-anchored receptors on the cell surface of prostate cells. It induces cell death once activated. This, in turn, can relieve BPH-associated lower urinary tract symptoms such frequent and urgent urination, as well as a higher risk of urinary tract infections, urinary stones and bladder damage. Existing shareholders, including Tavistock with its 30.5% pre-IPO stake, committed to buy about $22.4 million worth in the offering. Other existing investors include Warburg Pincus (27.8%) and BC Advantage (6.6%). To lift its share price ahead of the offering, Sophiris executed a 52-1 reverse stock split on August 9. By August 14, that put its share price on the TSE at US $8.32. The offering priced at US $5 per share and sold 13 million shares on August 15; that's well below the last price on TSE. It had planned to sell only 5 million shares, when its TSE shares were each about US $13. In 2011, Sophiris moved its headquarters to San Diego from Vancouver, BC. – Stacy Lawrence

Regado Biosciences: The IPO window may be wide open for life sciences companies, but that doesn’t mean going public is always easy. Anticoagulant developer Regado scaled down expectations for its August 21 listing, finally pricing at just $4, far below its anticipated $14 to $16 range. The company sold 10.75 million shares in the offering, more than twice its original goal of 5 million, but still raised $43 million rather than the $75 million it hoped to take in. Regado will use the funds for a Phase III study of lead program REG1, a two-component anticoagulant used during heart surgeries. The therapy includes a therapeutic aptamer, pegnivacogin, and a control agent called anivamersin that reverses the aptamer’s effects. Physicians use the combination to balance the risks of ischemic events and excessive bleeding that can occur during percutaneous cardiac interventions. Shareholders in the Basking Ridge, N.J. company include Russian investment firm Rusnano, Fastenal Co. founder Robert Kierlin, Domain Associates, Edmond de Rothschild Investment Partners, Aurora Ventures, Quaker BioVentures and Baxter International Inc. Insiders purchased nearly $31.7 million worth of the shares sold in the offering, well more than 50%. – Paul Bonanos

Tigercat Pharma: The third project in the hands of Velocity Pharmaceutical Development Corp., the CMEA Capital-funded operator of virtual companies, now has a name. Tigercat Pharma was founded last year to study VPD-737, also known as serlopitant, as a treatment for chronic itching, or pruritis. Velocity and partner investor Remeditex Ventures of Dallas have since invested an undisclosed amount in it. A January regulatory filing suggests that Tigercat plans to raise up to $15 million, but at that time it had taken in $500,000 from a single investor. Tigercat licensed serlopitant from Merck & Co. Inc., which previously studied the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for overactive bladder. A clinical trial showed that it was no more effective than Pfizer Inc.’s Detrol (tolterodine) in treating the disorder, although it was well-tolerated by patients. Tigercat joins Spitfire Pharma Inc., Corsair Pharma Inc. and an as-yet-unnamed program among Velocity’s projects, funded by Velocity Pharmaceutical Holdings and operated by Velocity Pharmaceutical Development employees. Spitfire has VPD-107 for type 2 diabetes, and Corsair has VPD-380 for a pulmonary indication; neither has been tested in humans. (We’re guessing that the fourth project will also be named for a fighter aircraft, and we’re guessing it won’t be Fokker.) Velocity and Remeditex separately pledged to explore investment opportunities jointly. Regionally-focused Remeditex has confined its investments to Texas and Colorado previously, but expects to broaden its reach with the deal. – P.B.

Financings of the Fortnight Gets Comfortable In Genes

Twenty-three years after the first gene therapy clinical trial began, investors are finally showing confidence in the sector. The field still isn’t without risks, but some of its most daunting challenges are being resolved as clinical data broadens, regulators show support, and manufacturing improves.

The promise of gene therapy, which entails replacing a malfunctioning gene with a properly functioning copy delivered by a viral vector, is that its treatments are administered once with long-lasting, potentially curative results. That has tantalized scientists since the first gene therapy trials began in 1990, even as clinical research endured a standstill in the early 2000s after the deaths of several trial subjects. Their first big payoff came late last year, when European regulators approved uniQure’s Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec) to treat the rare disease lipoprotein lipase deficiency.

Since April, VC syndicates have backed two new companies studying new gene therapy treatments. First, Novartis Venture Fund, Abingworth, Versant Ventures and Index Ventures committed €32 million ($41.4 million) in GenSight Biologics’ springtime Series A round. Then Versant doubled down last month, contributing to Audentes Therapeutics’ $30 million Series A alongside OrbiMed Advisors and 5AM Ventures. Ophthalmological treatment developer GenSight and muscle-wasting specialist Audentes join a field of private companies that includes Celladon, Finland’s FKD Therapies, and uniQure.

More notably, gene therapy developer bluebird bio took advantage of the appetite for biotech listings in June, blowing past expectations with a $116 million IPO. In the aftermarket, bluebird shares touched $35, more than double their opening value; they currently trade above $27, giving the company a market capitalization of about $620 million.

Why has interest been renewed? “In terms of the investment community, the barriers to gene therapy as a therapeutic modality are being erased,” Celladon CEO Krisztina Zsebo told “The Pink Sheet” last month.

The body of evidence has grown significantly since 2006, with proof-of-concept shown across a variety of diseases. The manufacturing process has been industrialized and, while still expensive, occurs at a scale that appears sustainable. And in the wake of Glybera’s approval overseas, U.S. regulators have revised their guidance for clinical trials on therapies, suggesting cautious procedures but implying a willingness to approve a product when the time is right. It may be soon, as uniQure pursues Stateside approval.

It’s not just investors getting into the act. Several pharmas have their own programs, and others are striking high-profile deals. Celgene paid bluebird $75 million up-front in May, as the two inked a cancer research partnership, while uniQure teamed with Chiesi Farmaceutici for a territorial rights deal. Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim have also licensed vector-related technology that could lead to new products as well.

Some risks are still very present. Many therapies pose a danger of “insertional oncogenesis,” the accidental triggering of a nearby gene that leads to cancer, although the vectors most commonly used today (adeno-associated virus and Lentivirus) are believed to be safer than the ones that led to patient deaths more than a decade ago. For now, the trailblazing companies are mostly operating in rare-disease fields where alternatives are scarce; as data sets grow, the treatment modality could soon be used in broader areas.

And although bluebird’s investors have reached liquidity, it’s tough to assess the value of gene therapy companies because of unresolved questions around product pricing. uniQure appears to be targeting a price of €1.2 million ($1.6 million) per injection, payable over a period of five years. That could induce sticker shock, but Versant venture partner Tom Woiwode argues that it’s quite reasonable, since a single, potentially curative treatment could ultimately cost less than a lifetime of chronic pharmaceutical use.

In the longer term, it’s also unclear whether gene therapies will really be permanently curative, or will need to be re-administered periodically. Moreover, a handful of early successes in rare diseases won’t necessarily carry over to more widespread disorders. Payer relationships haven’t yet been established, nor is there a precedent for a high-priced, one-time treatment before uniQure’s market entry. But each additional step offers a little more clarity for investors willing to risk their money on a treatment modality that holds so much promise.

We can't promise you, dear reader, a curative therapy, but if you don't mind a biweekly dosing schedule, we're always happy to bring you...

Edimer Pharmaceuticals: The tiny Cambridge, Mass. firm said July 30 it has raised an $18 million Series B round to test its protein replacement therapy EDI200 in newborns with X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (XLHED), a rare genetic disease that can lead to fatal hyperthermia, as well as loss of hair and teeth in older patients. The Phase II trial, scheduled for six to ten newborns, comes on the heels of a Phase I trial in adult patients. The final data are still under analysis, Edimer CEO Neil Kirby told our Pink Sheet colleagues. Kirby is unsure what Edimer’s strategy will be for Phase III if EDI200 is successful in Phase II study, but said a partnership would likely be necessary to commercialize the drug if approved. New Enterprise Associates led the round, with Sanofi-Genzyme BioVentures also a first-time investor. NEA gets a seat on the board, while Sanofi-Genzyme, which can offer considerable expertise in rare disease drug development, will provide a board observer. Third Rock Ventures and VI Partners, which funded Edimer’s $22 million Series A in 2009, also are participating. -- Joseph Haas

aTyr Pharma: The San Diego biotech pulled in a $49 million Series D round as well as $10 million in venture debt to fund clinical trials of treatments for rare immune disorders. aTyr is developing protein therapeutics based on physiocrines, which are extracellular fragments of the tRNA synthetase family of enzymes. (You can find a deeper discussion of aTyr here in a recent START-UP feature on companies pursuing more phenotypic inquiry in the drug discovery process.) The firm's work on physiocrines -- which were first called "resectins" -- spun out of Scripps Research Institute and was backed by Alta Partners, Cardinal Partners, and Polaris Ventures, all of which participated in the new Series D. Domain Associates, which led aTyr's Series C, also participated, as did an unnamed global investment fund. The $10 million loan comes from Silicon Valley Bank and puts aTyr's total cash raised through equity and debt past the $100 million mark. tRNA synthetases have been well known for decades as humble helpers with protein synthesis within cells. No one gave them much thought as disease-modifying agents. Scripps reseachers realized the synthetases were also getting outside cells and being cleaved; part of the outcome of that cleavage were physiocrines, and that these fragments have extracellular signaling function that might also have disease implications. aTyr's focus on rare immune disease is fairly recent; in 2011, it quietly shelved its previous lead candidate, a thrombocytopenia treatment. -- Alex Lash

Dicerna Pharmaceuticals: This alumnus of the 2011 A-List said August 1 it has raised a $60 million Series C round, its first venture round in three years. The Boston-area biotech was part of the wave of companies to launch last decade, led by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, to pursue therapies based on the breakthrough of RNA interference. Alnylam has had early clinical success, but generally the field's high expectations have been tempered because of drug-delivery limitations and other problems. Dicerna, however, has attracted a roster of new backers generally regarded as "crossovers," or public investors looking to buy into private companies to gain a foothold in a pre-IPO round. Dicerna's Series C was led by RA Capital and included Brookside Capital, Deerfield, and Omega Funds, which often buys shares from venture investors looking to cash out. The round also included all five of Dicerna’s existing institutional investors: Abingworth Management, Domain Associates, Oxford Bioscience Partners, Skyline Ventures and SR One. -- A.L.

BioMotiv: The drug-development accelerator based in Cleveland said August 5 it has raised $25 million from Nationwide Mutual Insurance and other investors, bringing its total cash raised to $46 million. That's about half of the firm's goal of $100 million to bring to fruition an asset-centric development model that looks to in-license preclinical compounds, work them into the clinic, and sell them to pipeline-hungry buyers with Phase Ib or IIa data. The only previously disclosed investors, which provided BioMotiv’s first $21 million, are University Hospitals of Cleveland and the Harrington family. BioMotiv is one piece of a $250 million initiative – The Harrington Project for Discovery and Development – spurred by the family to accelerate biomedical research into new therapies. Like many asset-based schemes, the BioMotiv structure allows returns from individual projects to pass through to investors. But as CEO Baiju Shah told our sister publication START-UP, which featured BioMotiv in its June Capital Matters column, the for-profit's investors are not limited partners; they function as direct investors with a certain amount of operational control, just as would the shareholders in a corporation. So when a return from a project comes in, investors will decide whether to distribute those earnings to themselves and management in an 80/20 split, or to plow them back into company operations. BioMotiv has already brought in eight compounds: two in oncology, three autoimmune-related, and one each in inflammation, ophthalmology, and infectious disease. The goal is 20 projects in hand at any one time. To maintain that steady state, the firm will have to reach another goal: an "evergreen" flow of capital to pour back into projects from successful exits. Shah hopes to have the first in the clinic in 2014.  -- A.L.

All The Rest: To support a clinical study of icaritin in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, Shenogen raised $30M in Series C funds…Imperial Innovations led a £13.5M investment in the newly merged PolyTherics/Antitope…antibody company Apexigen completed a $20M Series A…vaccine player Vaxart raised $20M in a Series C financing...Karyopharm added $19M on to its Series B round, bringing the total to $67.2M…developing a Pfizer-discovered compound for premature ejaculation, Ixchelsis raised $14M from TVM Life Science Ventures VII…Merck Lumira Biosciences Fund led a $13.2mm investment in enGene…Rhythm Pharmaceuticals completed a second $11M tranche on its Series B, which now totals $44M…to advance monoclonal antibody linker technology, Meditope Biosciences closed a $3.6M Series A…Sialix, which is researching the role glycans play in cancer and inflammatory diseases, raised $1M in Series B funds from angel investors…AuraSense Therapeutics added on an undisclosed amount of money to its $5.4M Series B…days after completing reverse merger with Marathon Bar Corp., Lipocine privately raised $37.8M…to pay for clinical trials of cancer candidates Validive and Livatage, BioAlliance Pharma completed a €8.7M PIPE…Transition Therapeutics grossed $11M, enough funding to finish three major Phase II studies…cell therapeutics company TiGenix closed a €6.5M capital increase….Aeterna Zentaris raised $7.8M in a private placement to advance its zoptarelin doxorubicin (AEZS108) program in prostate cancer…CNS disorder-focused Vanda Pharmaceuticals closed on a $52.3M FOPO…Organovo, developer of 3D human biological disease models, publicly raised $40.5M…Opexa Therapeutics grossed $18M in a FOPO and plans to spend the money on Phase IIb studies of immunotherapeutic Tcelna...to pay for Phase I trials of BCX4161 for hereditary angioedema, BioCryst completed a $17.6M secondary offering…synthetic biology company Intrexon priced its IPO at $16, the top end of its range, to gross $160M...small-molecule cancer drug developer Onconova grossed $89M in its IPO…Conatus, focused on hepatic diseases, raised $66M in its IPO…stem cell manufacturer Cellular Dynamics completed its $45.6M IPO…Sophiris Bio set IPO terms at 5M shares…Acceleron Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, and Foundation Medicine filed for their initial public offerings…Emmaus Life Sciences, Paratek Pharmaceuticals, and Iroko Pharmaceuticals withdrew their IPO filings…through the offering of three series of senior unsecured notes, Celgene grossed $1.5B…and Telegraph Hill Partners closed on a $310M fund dedicated to life sciences and health care. -- Amanda Micklus

Many thanks to Paul Bonanos, who authored this fortnight's introduction on gene therapy. 

Photo courtesy of Flickr user certified su, who also has cool pictures of Australia.