Financings Of The Fortnight Does Bollywood On A Budget

With IPOs still the twitter, er, talk of the town, the relative lack thereof the past couple weeks in our little corner of the world was noticeable. So forgive us if we were distracted from our IPO perusings by a particular firm that emerged from the roadshow scrum: top Indian film producer Eros International. Your FOTF correspondent has a soft spot for Indian cinema, having visited a couple local movie houses for the full Bollywood experience on a monthlong trip to India in late 2004. (We’ve ever since lobbied for chaat vendors to roam the aisles, sport stadium style, in American movie theaters.)

Eros went public this week, but only after taking a small haircut, so we figure a more budget-conscious approach to Bollywood spectacle is a better way to go.

FOTF is all about self-improvement, if you hadn’t noticed. We always make the healthy lifestyle choices: organic sustainable olives in the martini, strengthening those abs and buns to a bhangra beat, and regular salon visits.

Haircuts have been in the news for biotech, too, after a summer of letting it all hang out. Considered the highest profile of the current road-show warriors, Relypsa finally priced late last night after a couple of downgrades – or, if you prefer, a haircut a la Sweeney Todd. (For more, see our roundup below.) Antibody firm Xencor has amended terms, too, looking to raise $75 million by doubling its shares offered to 10.7 million and cutting its proposed price range in half. (As of this writing it hasn’t yet priced. 

Others have flat-out tabled their IPO efforts: Both gene therapy firm Celladon and diagnostic firm CardioDx postponed due to market conditions. That makes three four withdrawals or postponements in the past month. [UPDATE - On November 15 Xencor postponed its IPO.]

Companies that have made it out this year are also feeling a pinch. At the end of October, the biotech IPO class of 2013 was the best performing industry sector, up 47% as a group. (High tech, by comparison, was up 41%.) The past two weeks, however, those post-IPO biotech gains have slipped to 27% and now trail several other sectors. Still not too shabby. Who wouldn’t want a portfolio of stocks that are up 27% for the year? But the biotech slump, which actually started at the end of summer, is unmistakable.

Is it just a blip, a bump, or is it a big yellow flag? If we knew the answer, we wouldn’t be journalists, we’d be day traders working from home in our sweatpants, leaving after the final market bell at 1pm (FOTF is a West Coast shop all the way, dude) to do our Bollywood workout.

But here’s something to chew on. All those biotechs that went public this spring and summer? From right about now through December or so, their lock-ups are about to end. And a whole bunch of VCs who feel the hot breath of limited partners on their necks (yuck) will be looking to cash out. It won’t happen all at once, of course. Many venture investors can afford to cool their heels, as our colleague Stacy Lawrence reported in June.

But many can’t. And what might that do to stock prices? In an upcoming feature in Start-Up, Stacy dives into three recent biotech IPOs as well as the recent market dynamics. Two biotechs from the class of 2012 IPOs, Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Chimerix, recently saw their VCs sell directly into the public market, with mixed effects on the company’s shares. Will other VCs looking to sell to the public be staring down the barrel of a buyer’s market in the coming months? OrbiMed Advisors’ co-head of global equity Jonathan Silverstein doesn’t think so. “We’ve been approached on a number of IPOs by public investors who say they only have a 2% position and they want 5%. We are not necessarily interested in selling, but it’s nice to hear now.” OrbiMed's LPs don't seem too worried. That Silverstein quote comes from a recent story in “The Pink Sheet” DAILY about the firm’s new $735 million venture fund.

In the next START-UP, we break down the recent IPOs and acquisitions in OrbiMed’s portfolio to see what helped them sell that new fund. Until then, break it down old school style. Time for the Electric Slide.

At least it’s better than doing the Biotech Slump. If you prefer the Harlem Shake, well, there’s not much we can do for you. Get it out of your system, then crunk on over to the latest edition of…

Relypsa: The polymeric therapeutic specialists priced their initial public offering late Thursday, November 14, selling 6.85 million shares at $11 each for net proceeds of $67.4 million. It’s quite a comedown from the firm’s initial plans, which aimed for a top goal of $138 million back in October. The ambitious target was driven in large part by the amount of cash venture backers have sunk into the company:  more than $180 million over three financing rounds, according to Strategic Transactions. The firm spun out of Amgen in 2007 after that company bought Relypsa’s predecessor Ilypsa for its phosphate binder to treat hyperphosphatemia. That drug stalled soon after, but Relypsa carried on with former Ilypsa employees. 5AM Ventures and New Leaf Venture Partners led the $33 million Series A and were joined by the Sprout Group, Delphi Ventures, CMEA Ventures, and Mediphase Venture Partners. OrbiMed Advisors, which came in to lead the massive $70 million Series B round, is the largest shareholder going into the IPO, with a 44% stake. 5AM is next with 22%. Existing investors – including a limited partner of the venture investors – have said they could buy as much as $20 million worth of the IPO shares, according to the company’s final registration statement. Underwriters led by Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch and Cowen have the option to sell 1.03 million additional shares. – A.L.

Synta Pharmaceuticals: The small molecule oncology developer raised $52 million in a sale of 14 million shares of common stock at $3.75 each as it moves toward a pivotal trial for its lead program, ganetespib in non-small cell lung cancer. It’s the second time around for the Massachusetts firm, whose first lead drug, elescomol, failed in Phase III trials for stage IV metastatic melanoma. The company learned in 2009 that more people died on an elesclomol/chemotherapy combination than on chemo alone. It went into restructuring mode and emerged with ganetespib, a heat shock protein 90 (hsp90) inhibitor. Its most advanced hsp90 competitor, retaspimycin from Infinity Pharmaceuticals, has been terminated, which leaves ganetespib breathing room but also raises questions whether the entire class is compromised. Synta told analysts earlier this month about adjustments to its Phase III trial, dubbed GALAXY-2, that will shift the patient enrollment away from Eastern Europe and boost the study population. The disclosures didn’t stop the slide in Synta’s share price, which has fallen nearly 50% since late October. The firm is also working on a small molecule drug conjugation platform to link an hsp90 inhibitor to a toxic payload. Underwriters led by Jefferies have the option to buy up to 2.1 million more shares. – A.L.

ArGEN-X: The Belgian antibody company has raised 5 million Euros ($6.8 million) to extend its Series B round to $44 million. The new infusion of cash comes from Flemish regional investment firm PMV. The cash will go toward ArGEN-X’s preclinical compound ARGX-113, being developed to treat autoimmune disease. The compound is an antibody fragment that aims to clear autoantibodies – the antibodies produced by a patient’s own immune system that go haywire and cause autoimmune disorders. The company’s technology used to create ARGX-113 is dubbed “ABDEG,” or antibodies that enhance IgG degradation. The firm also has two antibodies in the clinic, an anti-CD70 agent and an anti-cMET agent, both in Phase Ib. Both were discovered using a different platform, SIMPLE, based on the immune system of llamas.  The first tranche of ArGEN-X’s B round was co-led by OrbiMed Advisors and Seventure Partners and included existing investors Forbion Capital Partners, Credit Agricole Private Equity, LSP, BioGeneration Ventures, the Erasmus Biomedical Fund, Thuja Capital and VIB. Its Series A round brought in $19 million over two tranches. – A.L. 

Karyopharm Therapeutics: In the fortnight’s only other IPO, Karyopharm netted $101 million by selling 6.8 million shares at $16 a piece. Despite all the talk of haircuts and postponements elsewhere, the offer priced at the top end of its proposed range. The IPO cash matches what Karyopharm raised in two private rounds from institutional investors (Delphi Ventures) and wealthy individuals. Before IPO, Karyopharm was 46% 61% owned by Chione and Plio, two investment vehicles that share the same address on the island of Cyprus and are linked to Slava Smolokowski, a Polish energy baron who has also put his considerable fortune into Broadway. (His big hit was as a producer was Fela!, a hugely acclaimed Broadway show about the legendary Nigerian musician and political activist. According to Playbill, Smolokowski was educated as a musician and played in a rock band for some time.) The firm says it has discovered and developed small molecules to inhibit the nuclear export protein XPO1, which cancer cells amplify to promote the transmission of tumor suppression proteins from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. Getting those suppression proteins out of the nucleus gives a tumor cell a better chance to survive. By inhibiting XO1, Karyopharm believes it can trap the suppression proteins in the nucleus and let them do their job – trigger apoptosis. Karyopharm’s technology was brought out of Epix Pharmaceuticals, which was liquidated in the late ‘00s. Epix CEO Michael Kauffman and SVP of drug development Sharon Shacham are behind Karyopharm, and they licensed key IP from Epix. The company says half the IPO proceeds will help pay for Phase II/III trials for selinexor, its lead candidate, which Karyopharm says in its filing documents has already administered to more than 170 patients in three Phase I trials for various malignancies. Phase II/III could start in two cancer indications in the first half of 2014. – A.L.

Best of the Rest (Highlights of Other Financing Activity This Fortnight): Liquidia Technologies spun out ophthalmic-focused start-up Envisia Therapeutics, which received $25M in Series A financing and will use Liquidia’s PRINT technology to develop a new glaucoma treatment…less than a year after reverse merging to go public, Ocera Therapeutics completed a $28M PIPE to fund studies of its oral and IV hepatic encephalopathy candidate OCR002…to fund commercialization of Esbriet in Europe and various other development and regulatory activities surrounding the IPF drug, InterMune raised $84M in a FOPO…After reporting growth in the Q3 2013 net product sales for its sold marketed myelofibrosis product Jakafi, Incyte sold two $350M series of convertible senior notes…TVM Capital officially announced (as Start-Up reported in September) that it is no longer investing in IT,  but instead focusing on life sciences and health care. -- Amanda Micklus

Deals Of The Week Road-Tests Biopharma Options

More options are always better, right? Obviously, that’s a “yes” when it comes to building our dream Tesla Model S. But big biopharma is getting nowhere fast with deals that build in options to license drug candidates.

The number of option-to-license deals executed peaked at more than 30 in 2009, when biotech financing had dried up in the wake of the 2008 U.S. economic meltdown, and has declined every year since, according to data from Elsevier’s Strategic Transactions database. That’s only counting deals with an option-to-license as the main component. What has big biopharma accomplished with its slew of option deals in the last decade and a half? Not much, so far. Even though option-based partnerships can be cheap, they also rarely offer results.

Option-to-license deals, or option-alliances, are often a way of making a half-hearted bet on biotechs’ riskiest, early-stage candidates and technologies. For small biotechs, the extent to which they rely upon these deals can be a sign of their relative fiscal desperation. Option-alliances lock up biotech assets very early, with a high level of continued uncertainty (and development costs) for the biotech and a capped future potential upside.

For pharma, these deals are a bargain – pay a little upfront and part of early-stage R&D costs and then pick up rights to a candidate, or not, typically after clinical proof-of-concept data emerges. Biotechs are able to retain control of their assets for a while longer, potentially allowing them to move development forward faster.

We analyzed all R&D-based option-alliances with a disclosed potential value of $100 million or more. That’s almost 120 deals, some dating back as early as the late 90s. Many of the more recent ones remain active, of course; these deals typically extend over at least three or four years. Most of the remaining deals either expired or were terminated. We could only find seven of these $100M+ deals that actually resulted in option exercises, and some of those later blew up in the clinic.

GlaxoSmithKline is a nice case in point. It has been one of the most active R&D options dealmakers, with at least 18 of these deals, most of which were initiated from 2006 through 2009. A few of GSK’s option-alliances have resulted in abject disappointments – most prominently with Nabi Biopharmaceuticals for the smoking cessation product NicVax, which failed in Phase III. Last year, Nabi merged with Biota.

Others got shunted to the side due to changes in GSK priorities (a $1.5B bio-bucks deal w Targacept was terminated in 2011 as the pharma left neuroscience) or as biotechs became defunct (after a $1.2B bio-bucks deal in 2007, Epix Pharmaceuticals then slid out of existence in 2009). Several of GSK’s option-to-license deals were done under its Center of Excellence for External Drug Discovery (CEEDD), which silently sank under waves of corporate restructuring around 2010.

(GSK is undeterred from experimenting with its approach to external, early innovation. This week it picked the first set of winners from a discovery-stage academic competition. See below for further details.)

The pharma does have several ongoing option-alliances, including at least four with companies that recently IPO’d. One is an option to back-up compounds for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) from Prosensa; GSK is partnered with the biotech on lead compound drisapersen, which failed in Phase III testing to treat DMD in September. Optimists are hoping its exon skipping technology has progressed since the first iteration and are looking for an effective DMD treatment among Prosensa’s back-up compounds, some of which GSK can option. Prosensa is the worst-performing 2013 IPO, down 72%.

GSK also has an anti-inflammatory and HCV deal with microRNAi company Regulus Therapeutics, initiated in 2008 and expanded in 2010; an anti-cancer stem cell antibody deal with OncoMed Pharmaceuticals that was for four candidate originally from 2007, but was cut down to two candidates in 2011; and a discovery deal with Five Prime Therapeutics for skeletal muscle diseases and muscle wasting targets and candidates that was originated in 2010 and expanded in 2011.

GSK has exercised its options at least twice, but both times candidates were returned. In 2010, it optioned Anacor Pharmaceuticals’ Gram-negative infection treatment and then subsequently returned it a few years later. That same year, it optioned Traficet-EN (now vercirnon) from ChemoCentryx. This September, GSK returned rights to the candidate for all indications. The pharma retained CCX354 for rheumatoid arthritis, which it also optioned. It may still option a third candidate under the 2006 deal.

Despite keeping a lot of options open, no one’s going anywhere fast. But we’re keeping our eyes on the road, moving ahead to all the latest deals (including loads of academic and discovery partnerships) in this edition of…

Salix/Santarus: The union of Salix Pharmaceuticals with Santarus creates a billion-dollar gastrointestinal specialty pharma that holds U.S. rights to fast-growing diabetes drug Glumetza (metformin extended release). Salix agreed Nov. 7 to pay $32 per share in cash for San Diego-based Santarus, valuing the company at $2.6 billion; its combined annual revenues would be about $1.3 billion based on their most recent quarterly performances. Salix has relied heavily on Xifaxan (rifaximin) for traveler’s diarrhea caused by Escherichia coli infections and hepatic encephelopathy; it produced $514.5 million in 2012 revenues, about 70% of the company’s total product sales. But it says the conjoined entity will be more diversified, with no drug accounting for more than half its revenues. Glumetza, a drug Santarus shares with Depomed, has delivered $131.4 million in revenue to Santarus in the first nine months of 2013. The buyout price represents a 37.8% premium over Santarus’s Nov. 7 closing price of $23.22. Raleigh, N.C.-based Salix had about $817 million in cash at the end of the third quarter, but intends to finance the deal with $1.95 billion in debt and a $150 million revolving credit facility from Jefferies Finance, as well as nearly all of its cash on hand. - Paul Bonanos

Roche/Polyphor: Switzerland-based Roche signed an exclusive global licensing deal to develop and commercialize Swiss biotech Polyphor's investigational antibiotic POL7080 against certain hospital-acquired superbug infections known as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, signaling Roche’s first foray back into antimicrobial development for three decades. Roche will pay up to CHF 500 million ($548 million) for the experimental antibiotic, which has only just entered Phase II testing, the companies said Nov. 4. The world’s largest maker of cancer drugs, which is trying to diversify into other disease areas, will make an upfront payment of CHF 35 million and milestone payments of up to CHF 465 million to the Swiss biotech. Roche said POL7080 belongs to a new class of antibiotics that kills P. aeruginosa, a bacterium found in hospitals and resistant to many antibiotic treatments, by a novel mode of action. It’s the first of a number of novel antibiotic candidate drugs being assembled by research and early development group pRED, which is now under the new leadership of John Reed and focusing on three main areas of unmet medical need: Hepatitis B, Influenza and Antibiotics. The pact with Polyphor is the first demonstration that Roche is back in antibiotics. In contrast, other Big Pharma companies have cut back, including former field leader Pfizer, which closed its antibiotic R&D center in Connecticut in 2011, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly. AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck remain active in the space. Privately-owned Polyphor discovers and develops macrocycle drugs intended as a complement to classical small molecules and large biopharmaceuticals. Although Polyphor, whose main shareholders are private individuals, doesn’t have any products on the market, its pact with Roche is its sixth deal since 2008. Its three drug candidates developed using its protein epitope mimetics (PEM) drug discovery technology are POL7080; POL6326, a CXCR4 antagonist currently in Phase II and ear-marked for several indications; and POL6014, an elastase inhibitor that’s in pre-clinical studies. PEMs are “medium-sized…, fully synthetic cyclic peptide-like molecules that mimic the two most relevant secondary structure patterns involved in Protein-Protein Interactions (PPIs),” according to the company’s Web site. It adds that they are “among the most potent and selective molecules known to modulate PPIs, GPCRs with large ligand-binding domains, and enzymes.” - Sten Stovall

Endo/Paladin: Endo Health Solutions’ new CEO Rajiv De Silva is making good on following in the footsteps of his former employer Valeant by conducting rapid-fire M&A that adds to the specialty pharma’s business. The Pennsylvania company announced Nov. 5 that it will acquire Montreal-based Paladin. The Canadian spec pharma has over 60 marketed products and will give Endo a jumping off point for building its business in Canada, Mexico, and South Africa. The $1.6 billion deal will be an almost all-stock transaction, with Endo paying CAD$77 ($73.70) per share for all outstanding shares of Paladin, a premium of 20% to Paladin’s share price of $63.91 on Nov. 4, the day before the deal was made public. Paladin shareholders will receive 1.6331 shares of the new company in stock and CAD$1.16 in cash, as well as one share of Knight Therapeutics, a new company. Knight will be spun-out of Paladin and be formed around Impavido (miltefosine), a treatment for the parasitic disease leishmaniasis. Impavido received a positive opinion from an FDA advisory committee in mid-October and has a PDUFA date of Dec. 18. Following the deal, the new company will be re-domiciled in Ireland in an effort to take advantage of a more favorable tax rate. Currently, Endo has a tax rate in the high-20% to 30% range. The new company will have a tax rate closer to 20%. - Lisa LaMotta

Pfizer/Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation: The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) said Nov. 4 it would partner with Pfizer’s Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI) to co-fund up to four jointly selected projects in the fields of immune tolerance, diabetic nephropathy and beta cell health. This is JDRF’s first corporate partnership since it announced a collaboration last year with Novo Nordisk, which will run out of the pharma’s Type 1 Diabetes R&D Center in Seattle. JDRF is the largest charitable supporter of type 1 diabetes R&D; it is currently sponsoring about $530 million worth of research, with $110 million in support last year. Pfizer’s CTI was established in 2010 to help further translational science; it hopes to get its first compound into the clinic this year and to bring two candidates into the clinic every year starting in 2014. CTI works with a network of 24 academic and medical institutions. Financial details of the deal were undisclosed. - Stacy Lawrence

Eisai/Arena: Eisai doubled down on Arena’s weight loss drug Belviq (lorcaserin) by expanding its commercialization rights to most of the world from much of North and South America. That’s despite slow sales in the drug’s first full quarter on the market – only $5.4 million. Insurers have been slow to start to reimburse for Belviq and Vivus’ Qsymia (phentermine/topiramate ER). Under the expanded deal, Arena will receive a $60 million upfront payment and up to $176.5 million in regulatory and development milestones. That’s an increase of $123 million from the milestone amount remaining under the prior agreement. Arena will continue to sell Belviq to Eisai for the U.S. and other North and South American territories for a purchase price of 31.5% and 30.75% of Eisai’s net sales in those regions, respectively. For Europe, China and Japan, Arena will receive 27.5% of Eisai’s net sales, while for all other territories the rate is 30.75%. These rates can increase on a tiered basis. Arena also stands to receive a one-time purchase price adjustment of $1.56 billion based on sales in the territories covered by an agreement; that’s an increase of $185 million from the prior deal. Eisai has exclusive commercialization rights in all countries worldwide, excluding South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Israel and New Zealand. The partners expect also to investigate Belviq as a smoking cessation treatment. - S.L.

GSK/Various Academic Researchers: With a view to front-loading its pipeline, GSK has selected eight winners in its first Discovery Fast Track competition, designed to translate academic research into starting points for new potential medicines. The contest attracted 142 entries across 17 therapeutic areas from 70 universities, academic research institutions, clinics and hospitals in the US and Canada. The program gives certain researchers the opportunity to partner with GSK and jump-start their research into a development program. The winning projects deal with important unmet medical needs, including antibiotics resistance, diseases of the developing world, and certain cancers. The selected scientists will collaborate with GSK’s Discovery Partnerships with Academia (DPAc) team, the sponsor of the competition, to quickly screen and identify novel compounds to test their hypotheses. If advanced chemical testing is successful, the winning investigators could be offered a DPAc partnership to further refine molecules and assess their potential as novel new medicines. GSK devised the contest as a potential engine for accelerating input into its translational research operation, hoping to entice the brightest minds across North America with the promise of lending its potential to their discovery-stage programs. GSK and the academic partner share the risk and reward of innovation, where the U.K. drug maker funds activities in the partner laboratories, and provides in-kind resources to progress a program from an idea to a candidate medicine. Work on the winning Discovery Fast Track projects will begin immediately and the first screens are expected to be completed in mid-2014. - S.S.

Johnson & Johnson/ Evotec: Johnson & Johnson and Evotec are looking broadly, beyond the current focus on beta amyloid and Tau protein-based mechanisms, to identify new targets for Alzheimer’s disease. Under a collaboration announced on Nov. 8, the companies will seek to identify drug targets that could lead to entirely new approaches to treatment using Evotec’s TargetAD database. At best, the drugs in clinical trials today, if successful, will have modest efficacy for treating symptoms of mild-to-moderate patients, and “delay Alzheimer’s symptoms by a few weeks,” said Evotec’s Werner Lanthaler in an interview. The Janssen-Evotec partnership is much more ambitious than current efforts, both in its approach to how it achieves its goals and the goals themselves, he added. The database is derived from analysis of dysregulated genes in high-quality, well-characterized human brain tissues representing all stages of disease progression, Evotec said. It was built off of tissue contributions from The Netherlands Brain Bank and is “systematized, unbiased, and comprehensive,” said Lanthaler, explaining that by being unbiased, it is agnostic to whether the approach is ultimately an antibody, small molecule, or other kind of compound.  No other companies currently have access to the database, and Lanthaler was cagey in stating whether they would or its use would be exclusive to J&J. But he did say that J&J was the first company Evotec approached when it decided to look for licensees, and it jumped on the opportunity – perhaps in part because the companies have had a previous successful relationship in other therapeutic areas. Janssen will reimburse up to $10 million of full-time employee-based research costs and make preclinical, clinical, regulatory and commercial payments, capped at between $125 million and $145 million per program. Evotec will also be entitled to royalties from sales from any products that emerge from the collaboration. The deal runs for three years, and, on J&J’s side, is being conducted through its California Innovation Center. - Wendy Diller

(Thanks to Teslamotors.com for use of this image of our new Tesla S -- are you paying attention Santa??)

Deals Ot The Week Searches For Meaning In Deal Breakups

 It’s been a ghoulish week for deal-making – only half a handful of deals made it onto our list of noteworthy new transactions.

We could not spot one, large or small, involving big pharma or specialty companies. Nor could we see any particularly compelling reason for the interlude. A number of the largest and most active deal makers are adjusting to new leadership and reorganizations, among them Shire PLC, AstraZeneca PLC, Bayer AG, Merck & Co. Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Certainly, the abrupt resignation of scientist-executive Jeremy Levin as CEO of Teva was a management deal gone bad, leaving the world’s largest generics company adrift and its board of directors on the defensive against a bewildered and angry Wall Street.

That led us to reflect on business deals gone bad and – a trip to the virtual deal cemetery – Deals of the Week’s ‘No Deal’ designation. For the year to date, DOTW has tracked 10 noteworthy terminations, a figure that is in line with stats for the past three years. It’s impossible, or rather meaningless, to speculate much about commonalities among these deals. It’s likewise impossible to extract trends based on, say, the ratio of deals that don’t pan out to those that do. Discarded deals covered a range of therapeutic areas and most involved a big pharma abandoning a biotech collaboration. But breakups occurred at all kinds of points in time and at different phases of development.

A romp among the headstones: GlaxoSmithKline PLC pulled out of a licensing agreement with ChemoCentryx Inc. in September, over Crohn’s disease candidate vercimon following a Phase III miss; ChemoCentryx is trying to figure out why the GSK-led study failed while the Phase II succeeded. Teva itself was the source of several ‘No Deals’ in the course of the year, as its new CEO – now gone – and his management team undertook a pipeline review that resulted in handing back solid tumor therapy Rx 3117 to Rexahn Pharmaceuticals Inc. Also canned was the Israeli generics maker’s much larger, high-profile four-year-old biosimilars pact with biologics manufacturer Lonza Group, which is doing its share of soul-searching and dealing with its own management upheaval.

Amgen Inc. ended a 2009 collaboration around a Type-2 diabetes program with Array BioPharma Inc. Perhaps the fissure with the biggest ramifications was AstraZeneca’s termination of a collaboration with partner Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. around the Phase III rheumatoid arthritis drug fostamatinib. Although that deal involved only one asset, it was expensive – AZ paid $100 million upfront – and emblematic of AZ’s ongoing pipeline problems.

But we couldn’t bear to end the week on such a downbeat note, with an energetic meeting like Partnering For Cures about to begin on Monday in New York. This meeting, funded by The Milken Institute, now in its fourth year, is a showcase for venture philanthropy and aims to bring together non-profit disease foundations, patient advocacy groups, investors and biopharma companies in order to look for ways to fund gaps in financial support of innovative medicines for deadly diseases.--Wendy Diller (Thanks to Hollywood Gothique for photo)

Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/ Stemline Therapeutics: One of the few deals announced this week involved one such venture philanthropy initiative. On Oct. 29, the non-profit Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and two-year-old biotech Stemline Therapeutics Inc. announced a partnership to speed up development of a cancer stem cell therapy, SL-401, for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. The latter is a rare hematological disorder with characteristics of both leukemia and lymphoma. LLS is committing more than $3 million to help develop the drug and support an educational program around BPDCN.

The drug has demonstrated efficacy in patients with advanced AML and BPDCN, including multiple durable complete responses in both indications, a greater than 80% overall response rate in BPDCN, and an improvement in overall survival of third-line AML patients relative to historic data, the companies said in a press release.

LLS wouldn’t provide much information about the compound or the deal, but it has a long track record in funding early stage research in blood cancers and getting some of those projects into the clinic.  It awards about $60 million in grants to academic investigators each year, and at any one time has about 300 grant-sponsored projects underway. Because of its close, long-standing ties to academia, it has deep expertise in science and a network of contacts that can facilitate progress of successful development programs, said Louis DeGennaro, the society’s chief mission officer and a scientist by training.

The effort to bring industry closer into the LLS fold began after DeGennaro joined the organization eight years ago, when it had the broad grant program for academics but little else in place to facilitate getting promising research projects through what is referred to as ‘the valley of death’. About 10% to 15% of the projects it funded moved into development, but it was tough to do FDA-compliant studies in an academic environment, he recalled in an interview. In 2008, DeGennaro started the society’s Therapeutic Acceleration Program to assist investigators and companies in filling in that gap, harvesting programs from its research portfolio as well as early-stage programs underway at biotech companies that could be effective in treating blood cancers, but were not being developed because of economic or other concerns.

LLS provides these companies with non-dilutive capital, expertise and access to networks of key opinion leaders and contract research organizations; in exchange, the recipient company has to agree to continue work on the project for a period of time after LLS funding has ended. The largest subsidy to date is $12 million, and the development timeline of interest is from late preclinical through Phase III.

LLS does not ask for equity or take a typical private-sector return; it seeks comparatively small milestone payments tied to approval of the drugs it funds in major markets, as well as a small royalty. The aim is to provide enough capital for companies to advance a compound to the point where they can attract private-sector funding. Nor does LLS retain intellectual property on the products it funds; it wants the asset to be unencumbered when its owners look for outside financing, he added.

One LLS relationship in particular, with Celgene Corp., continues to expand. About a year and a half ago, the organizations entered into a partnership, which Celgene is supporting, and which LLS and Celgene are administering. In its simplest terms, the partners use a grant program to vet and fund early-stage research, and Celgene gets first right of negotiation for intellectual property coming out of the programs over a protected period of time. If it is interested, the big biotech then has the right to negotiate with the academic investigator and his or her institution. LLS does not participate in any deal Celgene works out.--WD

Cancer Research Technology/ Chroma Therapeutics: Cancer Research Technology (CRT), the commercial arm of the charity Cancer Research UK, is accelerating its support of early biotech research through a deal with the U.K.'s Chroma Therapeutics Ltd.

With funding from the CRT Pioneer Fund (CPF), Chroma will move a lead molecule, a mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38) inhibitor, towards clinical trials, with the CPF receiving rights to further develop and commercialize any resulting products, CRT announced Oct. 31. Chroma attaches chemical motifs onto drugs that are freely transported into cells but then cannot exit. The therapeutic molecule then accumulates within tumor-associated macrophages, reprogramming them to attack tumors, the company explained. The deal is the third made by the $80 million asset-centric CPF, which was set up in 2012 by CRT, the charity, and the European Investment Fund.--Sten Stovall, John Davis
 

Adimab/ Alector: The formation and financing of Alzheimer’s disease-focused Alector LLC ties what its founders call “unique biological insight” with the prolific antibody discovery platform of Adimab LLC – and demonstrates private investors’ appetites for making distinct bets on discovery and development opportunities.  

Alector, which announced an undisclosed amount of Series A financing Oct. 31, is the second R&D-focused biotech to spring in part from Adimab’s antibody discovery engine. The company is not a spin-off of Adimab; instead it holds a license to Adimab’s technology and aims to exploit novel biology elucidated by co-founders Asa Abeliovich and president and CEO Arnon Rosenthal.

The terms of the deal between Adimab and Alector are extremely flexible. In the near term, Alector will cover fee-for-service costs associated with Adimab’s discovery process. But it essentially accesses Adimab’s antibody discovery technology for free. Downstream there are different flavors of project-specific licensing options depending on Alector’s financial and strategic priorities. These range from heavy upfront and milestone deals that are royalty free through to all-royalty deals that are back-end loaded.

Alector and Adimab are separate companies, but the newco is part of the Adimab family tree. Alector’s chairman and co-founder is Tillman Gerngross, co-founder and CEO of Adimab, and co-founder of Arsanis  (a similar Adimab-offshoot in the infectious diseases space) and other companies. Adimab co-founder and COO and Arsanis director Errik Anderson is also an Alector co-founder. And Alector’s backers – the company simultaneously announced an undisclosed Series A financing – are Adimab investors Polaris Venture Partners and Orbimed Advisors; Polaris general partner Terry McGuire and Orbimed general partner Carl Gordon, both Adimab directors, also sit on the Alector board.--Chris Morrison

 

And then there's the:

Numab/Sucampo: Yes, there’s another “No Deal” this week. The Zurich, Switzerland-based company Numab AG announced Oct. 29 that it had reacquired rights to an investigational bispecific antibody fragment, ND003, from its collaborator, Sucampo AG, a subsidiary of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and intended to develop the compound further as an inhaled therapy for severe asthma. Further financial details of the agreement were not disclosed.

The two companies entered into a multi-target collaboration in 2011, just months after Numab was founded, aimed at discovering high-affinity antibodies with sub-picomolar affinities against difficult-to-reach targets. Sucampo would retain exclusive commercial rights to any potential products identified, in return for research funding and other potential payments.

Numab says it is now raising Series A financing to advance ND003 and another compound, the potential anti-inflammatory ND007, to the next value inflection point.  ND003 is expected to be administered by inhalation, thereby attacking lung-resident eosinophils that play a role in severe asthma but are difficult to reach with systemic-administered antibody-based products, the Swiss company noted. ND003 targets interleukin-5 receptors on eosinophils, rapidly depleting their number. --SS, JD

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