Financings Of The Fortnight Asks For The Envelope, Please...

"And the Best Hair Restoration Product of 2013 goes to..."

It's awards season, as they say in Hollywood, and this blog is no stranger to polished hardware. A bit later, we’ve got another red-carpeted treat for you: The 2013 A-List winners. But first, a story…

Back when Financings of the Fortnight was a cub reporter on the high-tech beat, there was this new thing called a “Web browser” and a company called “Netscape.” The chief proponent of both was a young unassuming fellow named Marc Andreessen. He was, in the day’s currency, a bit of a rock star.  Perhaps you’ve heard of him.

Your correspondent happened to be at a small gathering to hear a panel discussion with Andreessen and others, including Apple Computer’s “evangelist” Guy Kawasaki (yes, tech companies bestowed ridiculous titles upon executives 20 years ago, too, and yes, that is actually his real name). The wiry, California-tanned and caffeinated Kawasaki regaled the audience with his bird/elephant rule for innovation:  one must consume information like a bird. Birds eat far more than their body weight, you see, and thus eat constantly. Then, at the other end, you take what you’ve learned and… how should we put this?... spread it around like an elephant. Andreessen, the big-boned, corn-fed Midwesterner, the phenotypic opposite of Kawasaki, followed. He picked up the mic and said, “Hi, I’m Marc. I try my best to eat like a bird, but usually I just shit like an elephant.”

We reconstruct this true tale to illustrate the trickle-down theory, to underline the importance of inputs and outputs, to draw attention to… oh, all right, we just like telling poop jokes.

But we admit trickle-down is fresh on our minds these days, what with the 2013 US venture data fresh in our inbox. Specifically: did the boffo IPO year for biotechs have any effect at the other end of the, uh, elephant? Have VCs begun spreading it around?

According to DJX Venture Source, health care venture investments in 2013 were up from 2012 ($8.2 billion vs. $7.8 billion) but fell well short of 2010 ($8.8 billion). Looking specifically at the biopharma and device sectors, which make up the bulk of healthcare investment, the 2013 numbers are down a tick from 2012 ($6.6 billion vs. $6.7 billion). No IPO effect there.

But much of the IPO activity in 2013 took place from spring through late summer. Perhaps the typical fourth quarter surge of investments was stronger than normal? Not in devices: 4Q was actually below the 1Q and 2Q totals. And in biopharma, the $1.3 billion for 4Q was the best quarter of the year, but a lower total than the 4Q totals of 2011 and 2012. Keep in mind that one-tenth of that quarterly total went to one company, Juno Therapeutics.

The rival MoneyTree report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association slices numbers in slightly different ways, but presents essentially the same trajectory. It also reports that first-time life science financings (biotech and device) were at near-record lows for the year: 154 deals total, just squeaking past 2012’s nadir of 148 deals.

So there hasn’t been much evidence of trickle-down, to which you might ask: Why should there be? Returns to old funds don’t simply translate into investments from new ones. LPs got to get paid.
And what if the IPO window slides shut, just as a new batch of hopefuls line up? It’s certainly not clear what kind of reception they’ll receive. Public investors fret that among a fresh flood of offerings, the quality will erode. “Biotech tends to fade when there is an over-supply of equity. More and more lower-quality IPOs continue to be thrust on generalists who don’t understand them,” says Andy Smith of biopharma specialist Mann Bioinvest. “To give management and VCs lots of money, that will continue. Do I want to divest another holding to buy into a new company? We are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality.”

That’s not what Cara Therapeutics, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Argos Therapeutics and others currently on their roadshows want to hear. But we think the bellwether for the next few months will be rare disease firm Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical. It’s got big clinical milestones coming up this year, and it’s the only one with a bulge bracket bank amongst its underwriters. (Not one, but two: J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley.) That’s a signal the big banks see money to be made, not just on the IPO itself but by establishing a relationship with a biotech that will subsequently be able to successfully raise funds on a large scale. (For more on Ultragenyx, see our roundup below.)

If IPOs continue apace, however, we see the VC trends shifting this year. There will be more liquidity, plus the momentum of new funds raised in 2013: OrbiMed Advisors, Third Rock Ventures, 5am Ventures, Atlas Venture, Frazier Healthcare, and others. They’ve got money to spend. In fact, among the unimpressive venture data from 2013, there was at least one sweet spot that, since the recession, has continued to attract more deals and more dollars: Series A financings.
In START-UP’s annual A-List, due out in a few days, we note that Series A deal flow increased for the fourth year in a row, as did the average dollars per round (in which figures were disclosed). Here’s a teaser:

We think the gradual increase, while overall venture numbers have remained unremarkable, is due to the growing emphasis on “long runway” A rounds, often funded by just one or two main groups. (Or in VC shorthand, A is the new A+B.) Plus, many early stage VCs have seed or equivalent programs for weeding out mediocre investments, but they’re not described or disclosed as seed round financings.  So: fewer first-time financings, but more enthusiasm for the ones that make it to a true Series A. That’s our theory. What’s yours?

While we’re in tease mode, how about the A-List winners of 2013? In alphabetical order, we present: 

Ajax Vascular

Allergen Research

Editas Medicine

electroCore

GeneCentric Diagnostics

Juno Therapeutics

Middle Peak Medical

PharmAkea Therapeutics

Spark Therapeutics

Syros Pharmaceuticals

Vivex Biomedical

For explanations of our choices, and a deeper look under the hood of the overall Series A numbers, you’ll have to read Start-Up’s A-List feature, due out next week. (Ultragenyx, by the way, is an A-List alumnus: Class of 2011.)

You can get a jump start, however, by continuing with us here, because Juno leads off our roundup this week, just on the other side of our little JPEG… But first, thanks to Stacy Lawrence for extra help with this edition. We also want to thank our families, our producers, Giorgio our makeup artist, our chauffeurs, our spa technicians, and last but not least...

 Juno Therapeutics: Gobs of money. Stunning patient results. Legal disputes. It’s been a busy couple of months for the new cancer immunotherapy start-up. Most recently, the firm said January 13 it reeled in extra Series A cash to push the round past $145 million, with the booster shot coming from Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment company of Amazon.com chief Jeff Bezos, and Venrock. Juno debuted in December with a $120 million Series A round and exclusive license to three autologous cell therapy programs, two of which reported very promising clinical data in 2013. Its programs come from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute. But it turns out Juno also took license to a slice of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) technologies from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and it has jumped in on St. Jude’s side in a dispute with the University of Pennsylvania, whose CAR T-cell program is licensed to Novartis. According to court documents, Juno signed the license agreement with St. Jude the day it made its public launch, December 3, and agreed to shoulder 80% of the legal fees in the dispute with Penn. (For a much fuller description than we can afford here, read our Pink Sheet colleague Brenda Sandburg’s account here.) The lead scientist behind Penn’s CAR T-cell program is Carl June. Now, of course, “Juno” was the queen of the Roman gods and certainly makes an appropriate name for a big important new company. But seeing how the company knew well before its launch it would be going a few rounds, legally speaking, with Penn – June v. Juno, in a manner of speaking – you have to wonder if the name is also a sly tweak of the nose. – Alex Lash

GlycoMimetics: Two months after postponing its IPO, GlycoMimetics succeeded in going public on January 10th, grossing $64.4 million by selling 8.1 million shares (including the over-allotment) for $8. The biotech ended up offering more than the 5.75 million shares it had planned but at a steep haircut to its $14-16 price range. The IPO is the first in the biotech space in 2014, or second if you count rare disease-focused Retrophin's move to Nasdaq from the OTC exchange. GlycoMimetics develops small molecules that mimic the structure of carbohydrates involved in key biological processes, in particular the complex carbohydrates that attach to the surface of proteins, altering their function and interactions with other molecules. Its first target is selectin, an adhesion protein involved in inflammation in multiple diseases. Lead compound GMI1070 (rivipansel), an E-, P-, and L-selectin antagonist, is in Phase II for painful vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC), a severe complication of sickle cell disease. It has US and EU orphan drug status, and if approved, the company claims it would be the first drug on the market to interrupt the underlying cause of VOC, which is currently treated by just managing the symptoms. Pfizer holds exclusive worldwide rights to GMI1070 under a 2011 deal. GlycoMimetics’ next project is preclinical GMI1271, in combination with chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and other hematological cancers. An IND for the E-selectin inhibitor is planned for Q1 2014. Since the company’s 2003 founding, GlycoMimetics has raised nearly $63 million; its principal shareholders are New Enterprise Associates, Genzyme Ventures, Anthem Capital, Alliance Technology Ventures, and Rosetta Capital. – Amanda Micklus

Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical: For its upcoming IPO, Ultragenyx has proposed to sell 4.8 million shares at $14 to $17 per share; that would raise $75 million at the mid-point and value the company at $436 million. It expects to price on or around Jan. 30. The biotech already has a legion of top-flight crossover investors to ease its transition to the public markets, including Adage Capital Partners, Capital Research, Columbia Wanger Asset Management, Jennison Associates, BlackRock and Cowen’s investment arm Ramius. Cowen and Canaccord Genuity join bulge-bracketers J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley as underwriters. Existing shareholders paid an average price of $4.68 per share, according to the S-1 filing with the SEC. The biotech’s strategy has been to go after low-hanging fruit in the rare disease space by in-licensing candidates with a clear mechanism in which the patient is missing something that can be restored through treatment, CEO Emil Kakkis said on the road show. It expects clinical data from five programs in the next 18 months, and is one of several biotechs with IPO ambitions that have big clinical milestones this year, as we report in the current START-UP. Ultragenyx anticipates Phase I/II data for KRN23, a monoclonal antibody to treat adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia, and for recombinant human beta-glucuronidase (rhGus), an intravenous enzyme replacement therapy to treat mucopolysaccharidosis 7 patients. In late 2014, it also expects additional Phase II data for an extended-release, oral formulation of sialic acid to treat hereditary inclusion body myopathy. – Stacy Lawrence

Alkermes: The expert on long-acting injectable drugs used the J.P. Morgan stage to announce January 13 a $248 million financing through the sale of 5.9 million shares to Invesco Perpetual Income Fund and Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund at a price of $42.25 a share, a 2% premium. The sale gives Invesco a 4% stake in Alkermes. CEO Richard Pops followed the follow-on news with an announcement January 14 that the company expects to file a long-acting injectable form of the atypical antipsychotic Abilify (aripiprazole) in the second half of 2014, with a potential launch expected in 2015. Abilify is copromoted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The Invesco investment adds to the $395.2 million on Alkermes’ balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2013, and gives the company more flexibility as it moves into the next phase of its lifecycle as it continues to develop its late-stage neurology pipeline. The sale of a significant slice of outstanding shares hasn’t dampened investor spirits; Alkermes shares closed January 22 at $50.52, up 133% from where they stood a year ago. – Jessica Merrill and Alex Lash

Best of the Rest (Highlights of Other Activity This Fortnight): Two cancer-focused companies completed Series A rounds: Madison Vaccines, a firm with a Phase II prostate cancer vaccine (MVI816), brought in $8 million in an offering led by Venture Investors... University of Basel spin-off Piqur Therapeutics closed an oversubscribed Series A round from existing shareholders and new industry investors concurrent with the start of Phase I European trials for its mTOR inhibitor PQR309... Regenerative medicine company Athersys closed a $20.5 million registered direct offering of common stock and warrants to fund ongoing clinical trials; it has pipeline programs in inflammatory bowel disease, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction damage, and graft-versus-host disease prevention... Three months after closing its $89.5 million IPO, rare disease therapeutics developer Acceleron Pharma priced a FOPO of 2.4 million shares at $50, grossing $120 million…after postponing its IPO in October 2013, Celladon (calcium dysregulation therapeutics) has revived the offering with a new S-1 filing… RNA start-up Moderna Therapeutics spun out its 15 oncology assets into Onkaido Therapeutics and invested $20 million in the new company, which will be run by run by Stephen Hoge, Moderna’s SVP of corporate development. – Maureen Riordan

Photo from the Gulltaggen award show courtesy of Jarle Naustvik via Creative Commons license.

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

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 Says Up You Worms! You Butterflies!

Forgive us if you don’t have small children, but events of the past fortnight have put a certain Dr. Seuss book in mind.

IPOs are certainly up. Not just the number of biotech firms going public – more than 20 this year, just past the half-way mark – but the pop for companies that, a couple years ago, public investors probably would have sneezed at. Bluebird bio, a gene therapy developer, nearly double its IPO price; Epizyme, doing epigenetic work, more than double its IPO price; rare-disease firm Prosensa Holdings, more than double. US IPO indices, where the bulk of the IPO activity is happening, are up about 20% for the year.

How much are the warm breezes blowing through the IPO window contributing to venture optimism? That’s a question we’re asking START-UP’s third annual life science venture survey. Here are the previous two years’ results. First, 2011:

And 2012:

In Seussian terms, 2011 and 2012 were not great years for up. This year? We don't want to unblind the data yet; the survey is still open. But we can tell you this: So far the VCs who feel positive about the industry say the IPO window is a major factor.

Can it continue? As we write this, yet another preclinical biotech has breached the public barricade; Agios Pharmaceuticals, which only recently filed its first IND, raised more than $100 million (see blurb below). We like to think the early-stage firms – the Agioses, Epizymes, Verastems, and Reguluses (Reguli?) -- are an excellent gauge of investor sentiment. The public side is listening to the early-stage story.

The venture investment data don’t all reflect the same bounce. According to the MoneyTree survey from the National Venture Capital Association and PwC, there have been 202 biotech investments in the US through the first half of 2013. The pace will need to pick up substantially to match 2012’s total of 477 deals, according to the survey (though seeing how pace usually picks up in the second half, don’t bet against it). Total dollars in are about on pace: $2.2 billion invested so far this year, slightly more than half of 2012’s total of $4.2 billion.

The Dow Jones VentureSource data has different numbers but the same trends: 127 biopharma venture deals so far this year, less than half of last year’s total of 279; and $1.9 billion into biopharma so far this year, roughly half of last year’s total of $3.7 billion.

It’s not our job to make predictions, but we're confident that if the IPO issues continue apace, those fair-to-middling half-year venture investment numbers will be a distant memory. The lure of the public markets is strong – even stronger when it’s rewarding companies that are years away from significant clinical data -- and it also should pull investment into companies that want to use IPOs as leverage in acquisition negotiations.

It will be interesting to see how the IPO window affects the need for corporate venture, which has been increasingly important the past few years. In the 2012 START-UP survey, 60% of respondents said it was important to maintain healthy life science industries and 19% said it was crucial. We haven’t closed out this year’s survey, but so far we haven’t seen any indication of those numbers fading. (For results and analysis from the 2011 survey, click here; for 2012, click here.)

On a related note, the current IN VIVO has an inside look at the corporate venture team at General Electric, dubbed healthymagination, which has recruited health care veterans from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Mohr Davidow to help the GE behemoth see – and potentially acquire – disruptive technologies before they become billion-dollar acquisitions. They shy away from pharmaceuticals, so you won’t see a lot of FOTF ink spilled about their investments, but it’s an insightful read nonetheless.

You’ll find no greater disruptive technology in children’s literature than Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat, by the way. If you’ve never read it, it’s not too late, no matter how old you are. But first, we encourage you to finish the rest of this edition of…

Agios Pharmaceuticals: Chalk up another IPO win for an early-stage biotech. Agios sold 5.9 million shares at $18 apiece July 23 to raise $106 million, a step up from the 5 million shares it hoped to sell in the $14 to $16 range. Working on metabolism targets to treat cancer and rare metabolic disease, Agios just recently filed its first IND for its lead candidate, AG-221, a small molecule that targets cancers with mutations in the enzyme isocitrate dehydrogenase 1, or IDH1. The company expects to start clinical trials this year. Some of the firm’s work is promised to partner Celgene, which signed a broad co-development deal with Agios in 2010, later revised in 2011. Before the IPO, Celgene was Agios’ second largest shareholder with 17% ownership and was expected to buy more shares in the offering, worth $12.75 million, according to regulatory filings. ARCH Venture Partners and Flagship Ventures each held 16.4%. The largest pre-IPO shareholder was Third Rock Ventures (23.7%), and the upsized offering represents the venture firm’s second big IPO haul – at least on paper – this summer. Third Rock was also top owner of bluebird bio, a gene therapy developer which debuted in June at $17 per share and has since doubled its share price. Bluebird and Agios are the first IPOs from Third Rock’s portfolio of mainly early stage biotechs, and it is benefiting from the public markets’ sudden embrace of riskier endeavors based on relatively new area of research. Recent successful debuts include Epizyme, an epigenetics company, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, working on cancer stem cells (see blurb below), and Prosensa and PTC Therapeutics, with drugs tackling the rare Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Preclinical cancer stem cell company Verastem went public in early 2012.  J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs led the Agios underwriting team, which has the option to sell an extra 883,333 shares. – Alex Lash

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals: The oncology developer raised $148 million in parallel equity and debt offerings as it moves several compounds through early clinical trials. Both sales closed July 17, the first financings for the firm since its IPO in 2012. The $125 million debt component consisted of convertible notes that bear 4.5% interest a year and mature in 2020. On the equity side, Merrimack sold 5.75 million shares at $5 each, which includes the option exercised by underwriters to sell an extra 750,000 shares. It netted the company $27 million. Merrimack’s science is based on building simulations of cancer pathway networks, which has led them to create several drug types: monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, antibody mixtures, and nanoparticle-formulated chemotherapies. Its most advanced compound is MM-398, an encapsulated irinotecan currently in Phase III, with orphan designation in the US and Europe for metastatic pancreatic cancer in patients who have failed gemcitabine treatment. The underwriters, led by JP Morgan and BofA Merrill Lynch, also have an option to sell an additional $18.75 million in convertible notes. Before its IPO last year, Merrimack had raised $270 million in private financing. – A.L.

OncoMed Pharmaceuticals: The developer of cancer treatments netted $89 million through its initial public offering on July 17. Including the overallotment, the company sold 5.6 million shares at $17, higher than the anticipated $14-16 range. OncoMed, which targets cancer stem cells with both biologics and small molecules, plans to use the IPO proceeds to advance its key projects through Phase II trials and to support ongoing partnerships. Cancer stem cells are the subset of cells within a tumor that help a cancer regenerate and proliferate even after treatment, although their existence and function is still a matter of debate in solid tumors. OncoMed’s wholly-owned demcizumab, which inhibits DLL4 in the Notch signaling pathway, is in Phase Ib trials for solid tumors including pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancers. Its most advanced partnerships are for OMP59R5, in Phase Ib/II, and the Phase I anti-Notch MAb OMP52M51, both shared with GlaxoSmithKline. OncoMed’s other key collaboration is with Bayer to develop biologics and small molecules that target the Wnt pathway. Since its 2004 inception, OncoMed has raised close to $170 million in two rounds of venture funding. Pre-IPO, US Venture Partners was the company’s largest shareholder (17.3%), followed by Latterell Venture Partners and GSK. OncoMed reported $24.7mm in revenues for 2012 (on a $22 million loss), and had about $60 million in cash on hand as of March 31, 2013. – Beth Detuzzi

Alcresta: The small Newton, Mass.-based nutritionals company has raised a $10 million Series B round that it says will get it to commercialization and provide options when entering partnering discussions. Alcresta’s original three investors – Third Rock Ventures, Frazier Healthcare Ventures and Bessemer Venture Partners – have returned to provide the B round. Founded by former Alnara Pharmaceuticals executives Alexey Margolin and Robert Gallotto, Alcresta is developing a nutritional supplement with omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids that are more easily digested and absorbable for patients who have digestive problems. The fatty acids are an important part of cardiovascular and brain health. Most nutritional drinks and infant formula include the triglyceride form of the fatty acids, but certain patients – including premature infants, some elderly, and cancer patients – lack the proper enzymes to digest the nutrients in the triglyceride form. Gallotto told our Pink Sheet colleagues that Alcresta has yet to burn through its Series A financing. It chose to raise more money before it receives product approval to keep the option of commercializing its first product on its own. The company currently has two point-of-care products in development, one for patients who need to be fed with a feeding tube and one for patients who can swallow their own food. Both products are designed to be mixed with nutritional supplements that patients are already taking. If they work as planned, they would jumpstart the digestive process. Alcresta has an unusual business model. It shares its staff, headquarters, and investors with a sister company, Allena, which is developing similar enzyme-based products that will be considered pharmaceuticals. Allena focuses on innovative non-systemic oral protein therapeutics to treat nephrologic and urologic conditions. – Lisa LaMotta

All The Rest: In addition to closing a $14M Series A round, Amphivena Therapeutics also secured an option-to-acquire from Janssen…to support Phase II studies of AbGn-168H for psoriasis, AbGenomics received $9.6M in funding…RusnanoMedInvest led a $6.7M add-on to Lithera’s Series C, which now totals $27.3M…transgenic mice producer Harbour Antibodies raised €2.3M and signed a concurrent deal with Pfizer…UK firm ReNeuron grossed £25.35M through a private placement and also received a £7.8M grant from the Welsh government…after closing its reverse merger with Tranzyme, Ocera closed on a $20M PIPE…a sole health care-dedicated investor backed Rexahn in a $5.7M RDO…oral drug delivery company Oramed raised $4.6M in an RDO…to fund lead candidate Arikace for orphan lung infections, Insmed completed a $62.4M FOPO…Verastem, which is targeting cancer stem cells, publicly raised $55M…acute and chronic pain drug developer AcelRx grossed $51M in a secondary offering…microRNA-targeting Regulus closed on a $42.8M follow-on…cancer company TG Therapeutics did a $35M FOPO…with a focus on back-of-the-eye diseases, pSivida raised $10.8M publicly…Oxygen Biotherapeutics completed a $5.7M public offering of Series C 8% convertible preferred stock…Heat Biologics, developer of allogeneic cellular vaccines for cancer and infectious diseases, priced its IPO at $10, the bottom end of its range, to gross $25M…Onconova and Iroko set terms for their IPOs...in advance of a Series B round planned for later this year, Immunomic Therapeutics raised $3M in debt…and Quest Diagnostics gained $485M by selling to Royalty Pharma rights to future royalties on the Phase III cancer candidate ibrutinib. -- Amanda Micklus