e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal
year ended December 31,
2010
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-19871
STEMCELLS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
A Delaware Corporation
|
|
94-3078125
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
3155 PORTER DRIVE
PALO ALTO, CA
(Address of principal
offices)
|
|
94304
(zip code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(650) 475-3100
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
|
|
NASDAQ Global Market
|
Junior Preferred Stock Purchase Rights
|
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in Rule
12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated
filer o
|
Accelerated
filer þ
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
Aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates at
June 30, 2010: $118,676,127. Inclusion of shares held
beneficially by any person should not be construed to indicate
that such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to
direct or cause the direction of management policies of the
registrant, or that such person is controlled by or under common
control with the Registrant.
Common stock outstanding at March 7, 2011:
137,427,210 shares.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrants definitive Proxy Statement
relating to the registrants 2011 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be filed with the Commission pursuant to
Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference in
Part III of this report.
FORWARD
LOOKING STATEMENTS
THIS REPORT CONTAINS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AS DEFINED UNDER
THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. ACTUAL RESULTS COULD VARY
MATERIALLY. FACTORS THAT COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS TO VARY
MATERIALLY ARE DESCRIBED HEREIN AND IN OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. READERS SHOULD PAY
PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE CONSIDERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE
SECTION OF THIS REPORT ENTITLED MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AS WELL AS ITEM 1A UNDER THE HEADING
RISK FACTORS.
1
Table of
Contents
|
|
NOTE REGARDING
|
REFERENCES
TO OUR COMMON STOCK
|
Throughout this
Form 10-K,
the words we, us, our, and
StemCells refer to StemCells, Inc., including our
directly and indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries. Common
stock refers to StemCells, Inc., common stock,
$0.01 par value.
2
PART I
Overview
StemCells, Inc. is engaged in the research, development, and
commercialization of stem cell therapeutics and related tools
and technologies for academia and industry. We believe that
understanding cells and cell biology, and in particular stem
cells, will play an increasingly important role in the
understanding of human diseases and in the discovery of new
medical therapies. Consequently, we are focused on developing
and commercializing (i) stem and progenitor cells as the
basis for novel therapeutics and therapies, and (ii) cells
and related tools and technologies to enable stem cell-based
research and drug discovery and development.
Our primary research and development efforts are focused on
identifying and developing stem and progenitor cells as
potential therapeutic agents. We currently have two therapeutic
product development programs: (i) our CNS Program, which is
developing applications for
HuCNS-SC®
cells, our proprietary human neural stem cell product candidate,
and (ii) our Liver Program, which is characterizing our
proprietary human liver cells as potential therapeutic products.
We estimate that degenerative conditions of the central nervous
system (CNS) and the liver together currently affect more than
35 million people in the United
States.1
In our CNS Program, we are in clinical development with our
HuCNS-SC cells for disorders of the central nervous system,
which includes the brain, spinal cord and eye. Our HuCNS-SC
product candidate is currently in clinical development for the
treatment of spinal cord injury and two neurodegenerative brain
disorders. We expect to initiate in March 2011, a Phase I/II
clinical trial of our HuCNS-SC cells in Switzerland for the
treatment of chronic spinal cord injury. We received approval to
conduct this trial from Swissmedic in December 2010. In the
U.S., we are currently conducting a Phase Ib clinical trial in
infantile and late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis
(NCL, also often referred to as Batten disease). We previously
completed a Phase I clinical trial in infantile and late
infantile NCL, and the data from that trial showed that our
HuCNS-SC cells were well tolerated, non-tumorigenic, and there
was evidence of engraftment and long-term survival of the
transplanted HuCNS-SC cells. In February 2011, we completed
accrual in our Phase I clinical trial in Pelizeaus-Merzbacher
Disease (PMD), a fatal myelination disorder in the brain. Data
from this trial is expected to be reported in early 2012. In
addition, we plan to submit an Investigational New Drug
Application (IND) to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial for a
retinal disorder, such as age-related macular degeneration, in
late 2011.
In our Liver Program, we are focused on identifying and
developing liver cells as potential therapeutics for a range of
liver diseases. We recently identified a subset of our human
liver engrafting cells (hLEC) which we believe may be a
candidate for product development, and we are working to
characterize this subset.
In our tools and technologies programs, we are engaged in
developing and commercializing applications of our technologies
to enable stem cell-based research. We currently market a range
of proprietary cell culture products and antibody reagents under
the SC
Proven®
brand. Our cell culture products include
iSTEM®,
GS1-Rtm,
GS2-Mtm,
RHB-A®,
RHB-Basal®,
NDiff®
N2B27,
NDiff®
2 and 27 supplements,
HEScGROtm,
and ESGRO
Completetm
proprietary
media.2
Our antibody reagents include STEM24, STEM101, STEM121, STEM123,
and STEM133, which can be used for cell detection, isolation and
characterization. Academic and industrial laboratories
conducting stem cell research need specialized cell culture
products and reagents for the derivation, growth, maintenance,
and manipulation of stem cells, as well as their detection,
isolation and characterization in both in vitro and
in vivo models. As this type of research continues to
grow, the market for such cell culture products and
1 This
estimate is based on information from the Alzheimers
Association, the Alzheimers Disease Education &
Referral Center (National Institute on Aging), the National
Parkinson Foundation, the National Institutes of Healths
National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the
Foundation for Spinal Cord Injury Prevention, Care &
Cure, the Travis Roy Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the Wisconsin Chapter of the Huntingtons
Disease Society of America, the American Liver Foundation, and
the Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center.
2 HEScGRO
and ESGRO Complete are trademarks of Millipore Corporation, our
co-exclusive distributor of these products.
3
reagents should also continue to expand. In addition, the
pharmaceutical industry has shown an increasing interest in the
use of stem cell-based assays in its research and development
activities. We are seeking to leverage our proprietary
technologies, including technologies relating to embryonic stem
cells, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and tissue-derived
(adult) stem cells, for use in drug discovery and development.
Several of the cell technologies and intellectual property
related to our enabling cell technologies programs were acquired
in April 2009 through our acquisition of substantially all of
the operating assets and liabilities of Stem Cell Sciences Plc
(SCS).
The
Potential of Our Tissue-Derived Cell-Based
Therapeutics
Stem cells are building block cells as they produce
all of the mature functional cell types found in normal organs.
Stem cells have two defining characteristics: (i) they
produce all of the mature cell types of the particular organ,
and (ii) they self renew that is, some of the
cells developed from stem cells are themselves new stem cells.
Progenitor cells are cells that have already developed from stem
cells, but can still produce one or more mature cell types
within an organ. Stem cells are rare; to date only four human
stem cells have been identified and characterized in
vivo: the hemotopoietic stem cell, the mesenchymal stem
cell, the neural stem cell, and the embryonic stem cell. Because
of this self-renewal property, we believe that stem cell-based
therapies may have the potential to return an impaired organ to
proper function for the life of the patient.
Many degenerative diseases are caused by the loss of normal
cellular function in a particular organ. When cells are damaged
or destroyed, they no longer produce, metabolize or accurately
regulate the many substances essential to life. There is no
technology existing today that can deliver these essential
substances precisely to the sites of action, under the
appropriate physiological regulation, in the appropriate
quantity, or for the duration required to cure the degenerative
condition. Cells, however, can do all of this naturally.
Transplantation of stem or progenitor cells may therefore
prevent the loss of, or even generate new, functional cells and
thereby potentially maintain or restore organ function and the
patients health.
We are focused on identifying and purifying tissue-derived stem
and progenitor cells for use in homologous therapy. Homologous
therapy means the use of cells derived from a particular organ
to treat a disease of that same organ (for example, use of
brain-derived neural stem cells for treatment of CNS disorders
and liver-derived cells for treatment of liver disorders).
Tissue-derived stem cells are developmentally pre-programmed to
become the mature functional cells of the organ from which they
were derived. We believe that homologous use of purified,
unmodified tissue-derived cells is the most direct way to
provide for engraftment and differentiation into functional
cells, and should minimize the risk of transplantation of
unwanted cell types.
We use cells derived from donated fetal or adult tissue sources,
which are supplied to us in compliance with all applicable state
and federal regulations. We are not involved in any activity
directed toward human cloning, nor do we have any plans to start
such activities. We are currently developing embryonic stem
cells and iPS cells as potential research tools. We are not
currently developing embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells
for therapeutic use, although we may in the future explore their
applicability as cell-based therapeutic products.
Business
Strategy
Our aim is to create a sustainable business based on our belief
that understanding cells and cell biology will play an
increasingly important role in life science research and in the
discovery, development and implementation of new medical
therapies. Our primary strategy is to identify multiple types of
human stem and progenitor cells with therapeutic and commercial
importance, to develop techniques and processes to purify these
cells for direct transplant and to expand and bank these cells,
to advance these cells into clinical development and ultimately,
to commercialize them as cell-based therapeutic products.
The fundamental competencies required to execute this strategy
are knowledge and expertise in cell biology, particularly stem
cell biology, and a commitment to rigorous and robust research
and development. We believe that these competencies are critical
to identifying, characterizing and understanding cells with
therapeutic potential and importance.
4
Consequently, we have made significant investments in our
research and development, clinical and regulatory, and cell
processing and process development capabilities. Our management
and staff have many years of experience in the stem cell field
and in developing potential cell therapies. Two of the four
human stem cells identified and characterized to date (the
hematopoietic and neural stem cells) were discovered by
scientists who are currently on our staff, and we believe we
were the first company to receive authorization from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
conduct a clinical trial of a purified neural stem cell product
candidate, as well as the first to complete such a clinical
trial. We are committed to proving that groundbreaking
science, especially in the field of stem cell biology, has
the potential to create truly breakthrough medicine.
Many of our core competencies in cell biology have applicability
beyond the development of therapeutic products. Therefore,
another element of our business strategy is to leverage these
core competencies to develop non-therapeutic applications for
our cell technologies, which we believe represent nearer-term
commercial opportunities. As scientific and medical research
increasingly focuses on stem cells and cell biology, our
technologies are expected to have utility as tools to help
enable this research. We currently market specialized cell
culture products and antibody reagents through our SC Proven
product line and are seeking to develop and commercialize
applications of our technologies for use in stem cell-based
assays.
Further, a key element of our business strategy is to obtain
patent protection for the compositions, processes and uses of
multiple types of cells, as well as for those technologies that
appear applicable and useful to enable cell-based research. We
believe that patent protection will be available to the first to
identify and isolate any of the finite number of different types
of human stem and progenitor cells, and the first to define
methods to culture such cells, making the commercial development
of cell-based therapeutics and enabling applications financially
feasible. In addition to discovering and developing technologies
in-house, we have obtained from various academic and commercial
institutions rights to certain inventions relating to stem and
progenitor cells, cell culture media, and technologies to
reprogram, isolate and manipulate cells. We expect to continue
to expand our search for, and to seek to acquire rights from
third parties relating to, new stem and progenitor cells and
cell technologies. We have created an extensive patent estate,
see Patents, Proprietary Rights and Licenses, below.
Therapeutic
Product Development Programs
Overview
The following table summarizes the current status of, and the
anticipated initial indications for, our two therapeutic product
development programs. A more detailed discussion of each of
these follows the table.
|
|
|
|
|
Program Description and Objective
|
|
|
|
Status
|
|
CNS Program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spinal Cord Injury:
|
|
|
|
Cell-based therapeutics to restore or preserve function to
central nervous system tissue by protecting, repairing or
replacing dysfunctional or damaged cells. Initial indications
are spinal cord injury, lysosomal storage diseases that affect
the CNS, such as NCL, disorders in which deficient myelination
plays a central role, such as PMD and retinal disorders, such as
age-related macular degeneration.
|
|
Expect to initiate 12-patient Phase I/II
clinical trial in Switzerland in March 2011. Trial would enroll
patients with chronic spinal cord injury and would include both
complete and incomplete injuries.
Demonstrated in vivo proof of
principle by showing in a mouse model for spinal cord injury
that transplanted HuCNS-SC cells can:
restore motor function in injured
animals
directly contribute to functional
recovery (and that when human cells are ablated restored
function is lost)
become specialized oligodendrocytes and
neurons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (also known as Batten
disease):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase Ib clinical trial currently enrolling.
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Program Description and Objective
|
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six-patient Phase I clinical trial completed in January 2009.
Trial results show HuCNS-SC cells well tolerated and not
tumorigenic, and that there was evidence of engraftment and
survival of the transplanted cells.
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated in vivo proof of principle by showing in a
mouse model for infantile NCL that transplanted HuCNS-SC cells
can:
|
|
|
|
|
continuously produce the enzyme that is
deficient in infantile NCL
|
|
|
|
|
protect host neurons from death
|
|
|
|
|
delay the loss of motor function in
HuCNS-SC transplanted mice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pelizeaus-Merzbacher Disease:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patient accrual for four-patient Phase I clinical trial
completed February 2011. Data expected to be reported in early
2012.
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated in vivo proof of principle by showing in the
myelin deficient shiverer mouse that transplanted HuCNS-SC cells
can:
|
|
|
|
|
generate and integrate myelin producing
oligodendrocytes into the mouse brain
|
|
|
|
|
tightly wrap the mouse nerve axons to
form myelin sheath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retinal Disorders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan to file an IND for Phase I/II clinical trial by end of 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated in vivo proof of principle by showing in the
Royal College of Surgeons rat, a widely accepted model for
retinal degeneration, that HuCNS-SC cells can:
|
|
|
|
|
protect photoreceptor cells from death
|
|
|
|
|
prevent or slow loss of vision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liver Program
|
|
|
|
|
Cellular therapy to restore function to liver tissue by
replacing dysfunctional or damaged cells.
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated in vivo engraftment and survival of hLEC in
a mouse model of liver degeneration.
|
|
|
|
|
Detected human serum albumin and
alpha-1-antitrypsin
in serum of transplanted animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrated the generation of key structural elements of the
liver, the bile canaliculi, that are required to bile transport.
|
|
|
|
|
Identified cell surface markers and methods for selection of
hLEC from livers of a broad range of age and quality, including
livers deemed not suitable for transplantation.
|
|
|
|
|
Identified a subset of hLEC and are currently working to
characterize this subset.
|
6
CNS
Program
Many neurodegenerative diseases involve the failure of central
nervous system tissue (i.e., the brain, spinal cord and eye) due
to the loss of functional cells. Our CNS Program is initially
focusing on developing clinical applications in which
transplanting HuCNS-SC cells would protect or restore organ
function of the patient before such function is irreversibly
damaged or lost due to disease progression. Our initial target
indications are (i) spinal cord injury, (ii) neuronal
ceroid lipofuscinosis and certain other lysosomal storage
diseases, (iii) diseases in which deficient myelination
plays a central role, such as Pelizeaus-Merzbacher Disease,
cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis; and (iv) disorders in
which retinal degeneration plays a central role, such as
age-related macular degeneration or retinitis pigmentosa. These
disorders affect a significant number of people in the United
States and there currently are no effective long-term therapies
for them.
Our lead product candidate, HuCNS-SC cells, is a purified and
expanded composition of normal human neural stem cells.
Alternative therapies based on cells derived from cancer cells,
embryonic stem cells, iPS cells, animal-derived cells, or
unpurified mixes of cell types have a significantly higher
safety hurdle to overcome and while they might provide an
effective therapy, technologies to remove potentially harmful
cells are still being developed and tested. Furthermore, our
HuCNS-SC cells can be directly transplanted, unlike embryonic
stem cells or iPS cells, which require one or more prerequisite
differentiation steps prior to administration in order to
preclude teratoma formation (tumors of multiple differentiated
cell types). It is still unclear whether cellular transplants
derived from embryonic stem cells or iPS cells can avoid forming
teratomas or other abnormal cellular structures due to
contaminating cell types in the transplant product.
Our preclinical research has shown in vivo that HuCNS-SC
cells engraft, migrate, differentiate into neurons and glial
cells, and survive for as long as one year with no sign
of tumor formation or adverse effects. Moreover, the
HuCNS-SC cells were still producing progeny cells at the end of
the test period. These findings show that our neural stem cells,
when transplanted, act like normal neural stem cells, suggesting
the possibility of a continual replenishment of normal human
neural cells in transplant recipients. In the longer term, then,
we believe stem cells have the potential to restore or replace
lost cells and cellular function.
We hold a substantial portfolio of issued and allowed patents in
the neural stem cell field, which cover the isolation, expansion
and use of neural stem and progenitor cells, as well as the
compositions of the cells themselves. See Patents,
Proprietary Rights and Licenses, below.
Spinal
Cord Injury.
According to a recent study initiated by the Christopher and
Dana Reeve Foundation, nearly 1.3 million people in the
United States are estimated to be living with chronic spinal
cord injury. There are no therapies today that can address the
paralysis or loss of function caused by a spinal cord injury,
but neural stem cells may have the potential to provide a novel
therapeutic approach.
We expect to initiate a Phase I/II clinical trial in Switzerland
to evaluate our HuCNS-SC cells as a treatment for chronic spinal
cord injury in March 2011. A total of twelve patients are
expected to enroll in the study, all of whom will be three to
12 months post-injury. The study will follow a progressive
study design, beginning with patients with complete injuries and
then enrolling patients with incomplete injuries, all as
classified by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA)
Impairment Scale. In addition to assessing safety, the trial
will evaluate preliminary efficacy using defined clinical
endpoints, such as changes in sensation, motor, and
bowel/bladder function. We received authorization in December
2010 from Swissmedic, the regulatory agency for therapeutic
products in Switzerland, to conduct this trial, which will be
conducted at University Hospital Balgrist in Zurich.
The results of numerous preclinical studies demonstrate the
therapeutic potential of our human neural stem cells for the
treatment of spinal cord injury. Using a mouse model of spinal
cord injury, our collaborators at the Reeve-Irvine Research
Center at the University of California, Irvine have shown that
our HuCNS-SC cells have the potential to protect and regenerate
damaged nerves and nerve fibers, and that injured mice
transplanted with our HuCNS-SC cells showed improved motor
function compared to control animals. Inspection of the spinal
cords from the treated mice showed significant levels of human
neural cells derived from the transplanted stem cells. Some of
these cells were oligodendrocytes, the specialized neural cell
that forms the myelin sheath around axons, while
7
others had become neurons and showed evidence of synapse
formation, a requirement for proper neuronal function. The
researchers then selectively ablated the human cells, and found
that the functional improvement was lost, thus demonstrating
that the human cells had played a direct role in the functional
recovery of the transplanted mice. Moreover, our preclinical
studies show that our human neural stem cells enable a
significant and persistent recovery of motor function when
transplanted in spinal cord-injured mice at both
sub-acute
and chronic injury time points.
Neuronal
Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (NCL; also known as Batten
disease).
Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL), which is often referred to
as Batten disease, is a neurodegenerative disease that affects
infants and young children. Two forms of NCL
infantile and late infantile are caused by the
deficiency of a lysosomal enzyme. Infantile and late infantile
NCL are brought on by inherited genetic mutations in the CLN1
gene, which codes for palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1
(PPT1), and in the CLN2 gene, which codes for tripeptidyl
peptidase I (TPP-I), respectively. As a result of these
mutations, the relevant enzyme is either defective or missing,
leading to the accumulation of cellular waste product in various
neuronal cell types. This accumulation eventually interferes
with normal cellular and tissue function, and leads to seizures
and progressive loss of motor skills, sight and mental capacity.
Today, NCL is always fatal.
In October 2010, we initiated a Phase Ib clinical trial in
infantile and late infantile NCL at Oregon Health &
Science University Doernbecher Childrens Hospital. Our
goal is to enroll six patients, in this trial, which will be an
open label study with one dose level. All patients would be
immunosuppressed for nine months following transplantation of
the HuCNS-SC cells. The patients will be evaluated regularly
over a
12-month
period to monitor and evaluate the safety and tolerability of
the HuCNS-SC cells, the transplantation procedure, and the
immunosuppression. In addition, the trial is designed to assess
potential measures of effect from the donor cells, including
assessing and tracking cerebral volume and unique neuronal
metabolites, both of which are negatively impacted by disease
progression.
We completed a six-patient Phase I clinical trial of our
HuCNS-SC product candidate in infantile and late infantile NCL
in January 2009. We believe that this clinical trial was the
first FDA-authorized trial to evaluate purified human neural
stem cells as a potential therapeutic agent. This trial was an
open label study with two dose levels. Under the trial protocol,
patients received immunosuppression for one year following
transplantation of the HuCNS-SC cells. Overall, the trial data
demonstrated that the HuCNS-SC cells, the transplantation
procedure and the immunosuppression regimen were well tolerated
by all six patients, and the patients medical,
neurological and neuropsychological conditions, following
transplantation, appeared consistent with the normal course of
the disease. In addition to this favorable safety profile, there
was evidence of engraftment and long-term survival of the
HuCNS-SC cells. This Phase I trial was conducted at OHSU
Doernbecher Childrens Hospital.
Our preclinical data demonstrate that HuCNS-SC cells, when
transplanted in a mouse model of infantile NCL, engraft, migrate
throughout the brain, produce the missing PPT1 enzyme,
measurably reduce the toxic storage material in the brain,
protect host neurons so that more of them survive, and delay the
loss of motor function compared to a control group of
non-transplanted mice. A summary of this data was published in
September 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Cell Stem
Cell. We have also demonstrated in vitro that
HuCNS-SC cells produce TPP-I, the enzyme that is deficient in
late infantile NCL.
Other
Lysosomal Storage Diseases.
NCL is one of a group of approximately 46 known lysosomal
storage diseases (LSDs). All LSDs are caused by a defective or
missing gene which codes for an enzyme that processes cellular
waste substances. Cellular waste is stored in a part of cells
known as the lysosome, and patients with the defective gene are
unable to produce enough of the particular enzyme, causing the
cellular waste to build up in the lysosome. Eventually, the
cells cannot function and die. Some LSDs can be treated by
enzyme replacement therapies, and examples of enzyme replacement
products already approved are
Cerezymetm
for Gaucher disease,
Fabryzymetm
for Fabry disease,
Myozyme®
for Pompe disease,
Aldurazymetm
for MPS I, and
Naglazymetm
for MPS VI. All of these approved products, however, address
LSDs which primarily affect peripheral organs rather than the
central nervous system. Although about half of known LSDs
primarily affect the central nervous system, enzyme replacement
therapy is not currently a practical treatment option for this
subset of LSDs because enzymes are typically too large to cross
the blood-brain barrier. We
8
believe that transplanting HuCNS-SC cells directly into the
central nervous system may have the potential to treat some LSDs
that affect the central nervous system by supplying missing
enzymes to the brain. In addition to infantile and late
infantile NCL, we have found that HuCNS-SC cells can produce the
relevant enzyme in a number of other LSDs that affect the
central nervous system.
Pelizaeus-Merzbacher
Disease (PMD).
Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease, a rare, degenerative, central
nervous system disorder, is one of a group of genetic disorders
known as leukodystrophies. Leukodystrophies involve abnormal
growth of the myelin sheath which is the fatty substance that
surrounds nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord. PMD is most
commonly caused by a genetic mutation that affects an important
protein found in myelin, proteolipid protein. PMD is most
frequently diagnosed in early childhood and is associated with
abnormal eye movements, abnormal muscle function, and in some
cases, seizures. The course of the disease is marked by
progressive neurological deterioration resulting in premature
death.
In February 2011, we completed patient accrual in a Phase I
clinical trial in PMD. A total of four patients were
transplanted with HuCNS-SC cells and are being evaluated over a
12-month
period. The periodic evaluations will include magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) of the brain, which may enable the measurement of
new myelin formation. The trial is being conducted at the
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
Childrens Hospital.
In our preclinical research, we have shown that HuCNS-SC cells
differentiate into oligodendrocytes, the myelin producing cells,
and produce myelin. We have transplanted HuCNS-SC cells into the
brain of the mutant shiverer mouse, which is deficient in
myelin, and shown widespread engraftment of human cells that
matured into oligodendrocytes, and that the human
oligodendrocytes myelinated the mouse axons.
Other
Myelin Disorders.
Loss of myelin characterizes conditions such as multiple
sclerosis, cerebral palsy and certain genetic disorders (for
example, Krabbes disease and metachromatic
leukodystrophy). Loss of myelin can also play a role in certain
spinal cord indications. Based on our preclinical data, we
believe our HuCNS-SC product candidate may have applicability to
a range of myelin disorders. In addition, in collaboration with
researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, we
are attempting to detect human myelin production by HuCNS-SC
cells in the shiverer mouse model using magnetic
resonance imaging.
Retinal
Disorders.
The retina is a thin layer of neural cells that lines the back
of the eye and is responsible for converting external light into
neural signals. A loss of function in retinal cells leads to
impairment or loss of vision. The most common forms of retinal
degeneration are age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and
retinitis pigmentosa, with AMD being the leading cause of vision
loss and blindness in people over the age of 55.
Our preclinical data have shown that our HuCNS-SC cells, when
transplanted in a well-established animal model of retinal
degeneration, engraft long-term, can protect photoreceptors (the
sensory neurons of the retina) from progressive degeneration,
and can slow or prevent loss of visual function. In this model,
called the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) rat, a genetic
mutation causes dysfunction of the retinal pigmented cells,
which leads to progressive loss of the photoreceptors and
ultimately, loss of visual function in the rat. Our preclinical
data shows that our human neural stem cells protect both rod and
cone photoreceptors in the eye from progressive degeneration and
preserve visual function long term. The cone photoreceptors are
light sensing cells that are highly concentrated within the
macula of the human eye, and the ability to protect these cells
suggests a promising approach to treating AMD. We plan to submit
an IND for a Phase I/II study in AMD by the end of 2011.
Other
Neural Collaborations.
We have established a number of research collaborations to
assess both the in vitro potential of the HuCNS-SC
cells and the effects of transplanting HuCNS-SC cells into
preclinical animal models, including a collaboration with
researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine to
evaluate our human neural stem cells in animal models
9
of stroke. The results of these studies demonstrate the targeted
migration of the cells toward the stroke lesion and
differentiation toward the neuronal lineage. Another study with
researchers at Stanfords School of Medicine demonstrated
that HuCNS-SC cells labeled with magnetic nanoparticles could
non-invasively track the survival and migration of human cells
within the brain. In addition, we concluded an NIH-funded
collaboration with researchers at the McLaughlin Research
Institute to investigate the role of Alzheimers plaques in
neuronal cell death in Alzheimers disease. Under the
collaboration, our HuCNS-SC cells were transplanted into mouse
models of Alzheimers disease and the cells showed robust
engraftment in an environment riddled with Alzheimers
plaques.
Liver
Program
According to the American Association for the Study of Liver
Diseases, approximately 25 million Americans are afflicted
with liver-related disease each year. In many of these diseases,
such as hepatitis, liver failure, blood-clotting disorder,
cirrhosis, or liver cancer, the liver slowly loses function as
liver cells are damaged or destroyed by the disease process.
Eventually, an organ transplant is required in order to restore
liver function to the patient. Organ transplants, however, are
limited by the supply of suitable organs, and the transplant is
generally done at the very late stages of the disease, in part
because there are many more patients who need a transplant than
there are suitable organs available. Moreover, the transplant
procedure itself is very invasive.
Liver stem or progenitor cells have the potential to offer an
alternative treatment for some of these liver diseases. A liver
cellular therapy or cell-based therapeutic could provide or
support liver function in patients with liver disease and would
have a number of advantages over whole organ transplants. Such a
product could potentially (i) expand the range of patients
who would be treatable, (ii) allow for treatment in earlier
stages of disease, and (iii) be less invasive and better
tolerated.
We have identified a subset of our proprietary human liver
engrafting cells (hLEC) which we believe may be a candidate for
product development, and we are working to characterize this
subset to assess its biological activity. Numerous preclinical
studies show that the hLEC demonstrate essential liver enzymatic
functions in vitro and that hLEC engraft and show
basic function of hepatocytes when transplanted into
immunodeficient mice with a metabolic defect.
We hold a portfolio of issued and allowed patents in the liver
field which cover the isolation and use of hLEC cells, as well
as the composition of the cells themselves. See Patents,
Proprietary Rights and Licenses, below.
Tools and
Technologies Programs
Overview
Cells, and stem cells in particular, are an important resource
for researchers seeking to understand human diseases, advance
medical research and develop more effective therapies. Stem
cells provide potentially unlimited sources of different cell
types owing to their ability to be expanded and subsequently
differentiated into particular cell types. Embryonic stem cells,
for example, have the ability to become any one of the more than
200 specialized cell types found in the human body (they are
said to be pluripotent); induced pluripotent stem (iPS)
cells also possess this ability. Because of this versatility,
these cells are valuable tools for examining and researching the
fundamental biology of cells and the pathways involved in early
development and tissue formation. In recent years, the
pharmaceutical industry has become increasingly interested in
using stem cell-based assays in its drug discovery and
development efforts.
Specialty
Cell Culture Products and Antibody Reagents
Stem cell research is a growing and highly specialized field.
Because of their nature, stem and progenitor cells are rare and
they require specific conditions to survive and thrive. For this
reason, researchers require specialized cell culture products
that enable the derivation, growth, maintenance, and
manipulation of such cells. One of the greatest challenges
facing researchers is the limited quality and quantity of stem
and progenitor cells available. The challenge is in maintaining
the pluripotency or multipotency of stem or progenitor cells in
culture, i.e., keeping these cells from differentiating into
other cell types, which is their natural tendency. Our cell
biology expertise has enabled us to develop and commercialize
proprietary cell culture products to optimize the derivation,
growth,
10
maintenance, and differentiation of stem cells. In contrast to
common industry practice, we have developed media formulations
that are free of animal serum and feeder cells (helper cells
added to promote cell growth), which are known sources of
undesirable agents affecting stem cell performance and safety.
Our current range of cell culture products, which are sold under
the SC Proven brand, includes iSTEM, GS1-R, GS2-M, RHB-A,
RHB-Basal, NDiff N2, NDiff N2B27, HEScGRO, and ESGRO Complete
proprietary media. The following table describes each of these
in more detail:
|
|
|
iSTEM
|
|
A serum-free, feeder-free medium that maintains mouse embryonic
stem cells in their pluripotent ground state by
using selective small molecule inhibitors to block the pathways
which induce differentiation.
|
RHB-A
|
|
A defined, serum-free culture medium for the selective culture
of human and mouse neural stem (NS) cells and their maintenance
and expansion as adherent cell populations.
|
RHB-Basal
|
|
A defined, serum-free basal medium. When supplemented with
specific growth factors, this media is specifically formulated
for the propagation and differentiation of adherent NS cells.
RHB-Basal can also be tailored to specific-cell type
requirements by the addition of customer preferred supplements.
|
NDiff N2
|
|
A defined serum-free medium for adherent neural stem cell
culture.
|
NDiff N2B27
|
|
A defined, serum-free medium for the differentiation of mouse
embryonic stem cells to neural cell types.
|
HEScGRO
|
|
A defined, animal component free medium for the culture and
propagation of human embryonic stem cells.
|
ESGRO Complete
|
|
A defined, serum-free medium for the culture and propagation of
mouse embryonic stem cells.
|
GS1-R
|
|
The first defined, serum-free media formulation shown to enable
the derivation and long-term maintenance of true, germline
competent rat embryonic stem cells without the addition of
cytokines or growth factors.
|
GS2-M
|
|
A defined, serum- and feeder-free medium for the derivation and
long-term maintenance of true, germline competent mouse iPS
cells.
|
We also currently market a number of antibody reagents for use
in cell detection, isolation and characterization. These
reagents are also under the SC Proven brand. The following table
describes each of these in more detail:
|
|
|
STEM24
|
|
A human antibody that recognizes human CD24, also known as Heat
Stable Antigen (HSA), a glycoprotein expressed on the surface of
many human cell types, including immature human hematopoietic
cells, peripheral blood lymphocytes, erythrocytes, and many
human carcinomas. CD24 is also a marker of human neural
differentiation.
|
STEM101
|
|
A human-specific mouse antibody that recognizes the Ku80 protein
found in human nuclei.
|
STEM121
|
|
A human-specific mouse antibody that recognizes a cytoplasmic
protein of human cells.
|
STEM123
|
|
A human-specific mouse antibody that recognizes human glial
fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP).
|
STEM133
|
|
A human antibody that recognizes the human antigen CD133
(Prominin-1), a marker expressed on the surface of primitive
cells, including hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, neural
stem cells, endothelial stem cells, cancer stem cells, as well
as developing epithelium.
|
Cell-based
Assays for Drug Discovery and Development
The pharmaceutical industry has recognized that cell-based
assays could reduce the time and cost associated with drug
discovery and development by providing a more predictive and
physiologically relevant platform earlier in the development
process. Today, pharmaceutical companies and other research
institutions actively use human
11
and animal cells in their drug discovery and development
efforts, and they are increasingly interested in using stem
cells for those efforts. We believe stem cell-based drug assays
will offer a number of advantages over primary cell-based
assays. Stem and progenitor cells can be grown more easily and
consistently than most tissue-specific primary cells, which is a
key advantage for repetitive testing. Moreover, stem cells can
be differentiated into a wide range of cell types, thereby
enabling testing against specific cell types.
Because of our leading position in the neural stem cell field,
we are initially focusing our cell-based assay development
efforts on the CNS field. Neural stem cells can differentiate
into the three cell types of the nervous system
neurons, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes and
therefore have utility in the discovery and development of
compounds to treat disorders of the central nervous system. For
example, neural stem cells could be differentiated into specific
neuronal cell types to test for certain indications (e.g.
dopaminergic neurons for Parkinsons disease). Moreover,
neural stem cells may provide a range of assays to test for
neural toxicity. We have tested thousands of compounds on human
neural stem cells and have identified a number of compounds that
cause proliferation of these cells, and are continuing research
and development into additional CNS assay platforms.
We also believe that our hLEC cells may be useful in cell-based
assays to test for liver toxicity. Liver toxicity is believed to
be the most often cited cause of clinical trial failures and
drug product withdrawals. This is a major issue for the
pharmaceutical industry, and it is estimated that the industry
spends approximately $200 million per year on hepatocyte
preparations for use in toxicology screening.
Rat
Embryonic Stem Cell Technology
In August 2010, technology covered by our intellectual property
was used by independent researchers to achieve the first
genetically engineered rat derived from rat embryonic stem
cells. Prior to this breakthrough, these types of genetic
manipulations were only possible in mice. Today, genetically
engineered mice are widely used as disease models. While both
mice and rats are used as animal models of human disease,
aspects of the rats physiology, behavior, and metabolism
are closer to the human, making rats the preferred species for
drug development and studying human disease.
We own or have exclusively licensed a number of patents related
to technologies relevant to cell-based research. These include
patents related to certain mammalian pluripotent and multipotent
stem cells, cellular reprogramming, genetic manipulation of stem
cells, the creation of genetically engineered animals used for
research, technologies that facilitate the identification and
isolation of specific stem cell types, and media formulations
for the culture of stem cells. See Patents, Proprietary
Rights and Licenses, below.
Operations
Manufacturing
We have made considerable investments in our manufacturing
operations. We believe that we have the ability to process cells
suitable for use in our ongoing and planned therapeutic products
research and development activities and clinical trials. We
believe we also have sufficient ability to process our cell
culture media and reagent products that we are currently selling
commercially, and that we have sufficient resources to add
additional media and reagent manufacturing capacity should the
business need arise.
Marketing
Because of the early stage of our stem and progenitor cell-based
therapeutic product development programs, we have not yet
addressed questions of channels of distribution or marketing of
potential future products. We sell and ship our proprietary cell
culture products directly from our facility in Cambridge, U.K.
Customers can order these products through our dedicated website
(www.scproven.com). In addition, we have a number of
co-exclusive distribution agreements with Millipore Corporation
for the marketing and sale of certain of our cell culture
products, including HEScGRO and ESGRO Complete.
12
Employees
As of December 31, 2010, we had 74 full-time
employees, 19 of whom have Ph.D., M.D. or D.V.M. degrees.
60 full-time employees work in research and development and
laboratory support services. No employees are covered by
collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee
relations in general to be good.
Patents,
Proprietary Rights and Licenses
We believe that proprietary protection of our inventions will be
critical to our future business. We vigorously seek out
intellectual property that we believe might be useful in
connection with our products, and have an active program of
protecting our intellectual property. We may also from time to
time seek to acquire licenses to important externally developed
technologies.
We have exclusive or non-exclusive rights to a portfolio of
patents and patent applications related to various stem and
progenitor cells and methods of deriving and using them. These
patents and patent applications relate to compositions of
matter, methods of obtaining such cells, and methods for
preparing, transplanting and utilizing these cells. We also own
or have exclusive rights to exploit a number of patents that
claim tools and techniques important to cell-based research. A
number of these patents were acquired from SCS in April 2009. As
of December 31, 2010, our U.S. patent portfolio
included approximately 40 issued or allowed U.S. patents
from over 30 separate patent families. We also have foreign
counterparts to a majority of our U.S. patents and
applications; a substantial number of these have issued in
various countries, making a total of over 240 granted or allowed
non-U.S. patents
as of December 31, 2010.
Among our significant U.S. patents covering stem and
progenitor cells are:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 5,968,829, entitled Human CNS
Neural Stem Cells, which covers our composition of matter
for human CNS stem cells;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505, entitled Multipotent
neural stem cell compositions, which covers mammalian
neural stem cells derived from any tissue source, including
embryonic, fetal, juvenile, or adult tissue;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,153,686, entitled Enriched
Central Nervous System Stem Cell and Progenitor Cell
Populations, and Methods for Identifying, Isolating and
Enriching such Populations, which claims the composition
of matter of various antibody-selected neural stem cell
populations;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,777,233, entitled Cultures of
Human CNS Neural Stem Cells, which discloses a neural stem
cell culture with a doubling rate faster than days;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872, entitled Neural
transplantation using proliferated multipotent neural stem cells
and their progeny, which covers transplanting any neural
stem cells or their differentiated progeny, whether the cells
have been cultured in suspension or as adherent cells, for the
treatment of any disease;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,468,794, entitled Enriched
central nervous system stem cell and progenitor cell
populations, and methods for identifying, isolating and
enriching for such populations, which covers the
identification and purification of the human CNS stem cell;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,238,922 and 7,049,141, both entitled
Use of collagenase in the preparation of neural stem cell
cultures, which describe methods of in vitro
culture and passage of human CNS stem cells using
collagenase;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832, entitled In Vitro
growth and proliferation of multipotent neural stem cells
and their progeny, which covers methods and compositions
of proliferating and expanding human CNS cell cultures;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346, entitled Use of
multipotent neural stem cells and their progeny for the
screening of drugs and other biological agents, which
describes the use of human neural stem cells as a tool for
screening the effects of drugs and other biological agents on
such cells, such as small molecule toxicology studies;
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,211,404, entitled Liver
engrafting cells, assays, and uses thereof, which covers
the isolation and use of an enriched population of hepatic liver
engrafting cells; and
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,381,561, entitled Enriched
central nervous system stem cell and progenitor cell
populations, and methods for identifying, isolating and
enriching for such populations, which covers the use of
additional monoclonal antibodies for the prospective isolation
of rare cells from human neural tissue.
|
Among our significant U.S. patents covering cell-based
research tools and technologies are:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,005,299 and 6,150,169, both entitled
Expression of heterologous genes according to a targeted
expression profile, which cover the use of a gene sequence
called IRES (internal ribosome entry site), a pivotal technology
to target exogeneous gene expression in stem cells, thereby
facilitating their identification and use;
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 6,878,542 and 7,256,041, both entitled
Isolation, selection and propagation of animal transgenic
stem cells, and U.S. Patent No. 6,146,888,
entitled Method of enriching for mammalian stem
cells, which cover the isolation of stem cells using a
nucleic acid construct including a selectable marker; and
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,371,573, entitled Propagation
and/or
derivation of embryonic stem cells, which covers methods
of culturing and deriving embryonic stem cells using a MEK
inhibitor.
|
Of the eighteen patents identified above as being amongst
significant patents, eight are owned by us and ten
are exclusively licensed to us. The table below sets out the
anticipated expiration dates of these patents absent the grant
of any patent term extension, whether under the Hatch Waxman Act
(Pub. L.
98-417) or
otherwise, which information will be included in our future
10-K filings:
|
|
|
Patents Owned
|
|
5,968,829 (2017); 7,153,686 (2019); 6,777,233 (2017); 6,468,794
(2019); 6,238,922 (2019); 7,049,141 (2019); 7,211,404 (2022);
7,381,561 (2024)
|
Patents Exclusively Licensed (licensor included):
|
|
7,361,505 (NeuroSpheres, 2015); 6,497,872 (NeuroSpheres, 2019);
5,851,832 (NeuroSpheres, 2015); 6,294,346 (NeuroSpheres, 2018);
7,005,299 (University of Edinburgh 2014); 6,150,169 (University
of Edinburgh 2014); 6,878,542 (University of Edinburgh 2014);
7,256,041 (University of Edinburgh 2014); 6,146,888 (University
of Edinburgh 2014); 7,371,573 (University of Edinburgh 2019)
|
We also rely upon trade-secret protection for our proprietary
information and know-how, and we take active measures to control
access to this information. We believe that our know-how will
also provide a significant competitive advantage.
Our policy is to require our employees, consultants and
significant scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers
to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of
any employment or consulting relationship with us. These
agreements generally provide that all confidential information
disclosed by us or developed during the course of the
individuals relationship with us is to be kept
confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in
specific circumstances. In the case of employees and
consultants, the agreements generally provide that all
inventions conceived by the individual in the course of
rendering services to us will be our exclusive property.
Licenses
with Research Institutions
From time to time, we have entered into a number of license
agreements with academic organizations, including the University
of Edinburgh, the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech),
Cambridge University, RIKEN Institute, and Oregon
Health & Science University (OHSU), to gain either
exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive access to
certain technologies. Under these license agreements, we are
typically subject to obligations of due diligence and the
requirement to pay royalties on products that use patented
technology licensed under these agreements. However, except for
our agreements with NeuroSpheres and the University of
Edinburgh, these agreements concern the in-bound license of
various technologies unrelated to the Companys HuCNS-SC or
14
hLEC cell-based product development efforts. At this time, we do
not believe the future success of our research and development
efforts depend significantly on any particular license agreement
or research collaboration. The license agreements with some of
these institutions relate largely to stem or progenitor cells or
to processes and methods for the isolation, identification,
expansion, or culturing of stem or progenitor cells. Generally
speaking, these license agreements will terminate upon
expiration, revocation or invalidation of the patents licensed
to us, unless governmental regulations require a shorter term.
They also will terminate earlier if we breach our obligations
under the agreement and do not cure the breach or if we declare
bankruptcy. We can terminate these license agreements at any
time upon notice.
In January 2006, we entered into an exclusive, world-wide
license agreement with the University of Edinburgh covering
approximately twelve separate patent families in the stem cell
field. Since then, the parties added some additional patent
families and dropped some patent families which were not
considered core to our business activities. Today, the license
agreement covers thirteen patent families, including several
that cover culture media and research technologies, one that
covers purified populations of neural stem cells, some that
cover cell reprogramming technologies, and one that covers the
manipulation and use of embryonic stem cells for the derivation
of research animal models, such as knock-out rats, with one or
more missing genes. Under the license agreement, we have the
exclusive right to commercialize the technologies in all fields.
We have been paying royalties to the University of Edinburgh on
the commercial sale of certain SC Proven products, and will pay
royalties on all net sales of products covered by any of the
intellectual property licensed under this agreement. All of the
product-based royalty rates in the license agreement between the
Company and the University of Edinburgh are in the single digits
and there are no provisions under the University of Edinburgh
license agreement for the payment of potential milestones by the
Company.
Pursuant to the terms of our license agreement with Cal Tech, we
were required pay $10,000 upon the issuance of the first patent
in each family licensed to us under the relevant agreement and
$5,000 on the first anniversary of the issuance of each such
patent, payable in cash or common stock at our option. We have
paid $70,000 on account of these patents through
December 31, 2008; the $10,000 due in 2009 was paid in
common stock (5,900 shares). These amounts were creditable
against royalties we must pay under the license agreements. The
maximum annual royalty payable to Cal Tech was $2 million
per year, with an overall maximum of $15 million. Once we
pay the $15 million maximum royalty, the licenses will
become fully paid and irrevocable. In August 2002, we acquired
an additional license from Cal Tech to different technology,
pursuant to which we issued 27,535 shares of our common
stock with a market value of approximately $35,000; we have also
issued 9,535 shares of our common stock with a market value
of approximately $15,000 to Cal Tech on the issuance of two
patents covered under this additional license. In September 2010
and January 2011, we terminated all our licensing agreements
with Cal Tech and Cambridge University, respectively, because
neither covered technology central to our on-going product
development activities.
Licenses
with Commercial Entities
NeuroSpheres,
Ltd.
In March 1994, we entered into a contract research and license
agreement with NeuroSpheres, Ltd., an Alberta corporation
(NeuroSpheres), which was clarified in a license agreement dated
as of April 1, 1997. Under the agreement as clarified, we
obtained an exclusive patent license from NeuroSpheres in the
field of transplantation, subject to a limited right of
NeuroSpheres to purchase a nonexclusive license from us, which
right was not exercised and has expired. We have developed
additional intellectual property relating to the subject matter
of the license. We entered into an additional license agreement
with NeuroSpheres as of October 30, 2000, under which we
obtained an exclusive license in the field of non-transplant
uses, such as drug discovery and drug testing and clarified our
rights under NeuroSpheres patents for generating cells of the
blood and immune system from neural stem cells. Together, our
rights under the licenses are exclusive for all uses of the
technology. All of the product-based royalty rates in the
license agreement between the Company and NeuroSpheres are in
the single digits. We made up-front payments to NeuroSpheres of
65,000 shares of our common stock in October 2000 and
$50,000 in January 2001, and we will make additional cash
payments when milestones are achieved under the terms of the
October 2000 agreement. In addition, in October 2000 we
reimbursed NeuroSpheres for patent costs amounting to $341,000.
Milestone payments, payable at various stages in the development
of potential products, would total $500,000 for
15
each product that is approved for market. In addition, beginning
in 2004, annual payments of $50,000 became due, payable by the
last day of the year and fully creditable against royalties due
to NeuroSpheres under the October 2000 Agreement. Our agreements
with NeuroSpheres will terminate at the expiration of all
patents licensed to us, but can terminate earlier if we breach
our obligations under the agreement and do not cure the breach,
or if we declare bankruptcy.
On July 9, 2008, we amended our 1997 and 2000 license
agreements with NeuroSpheres. Six of the patents covered by the
license agreements are the basis of our patent infringement
suits against Neuralstem. Under the terms of the amendment, we
agreed to pay all reasonable litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys fees incurred by NeuroSpheres in the declaratory
judgment suit between us and Neuralstem. In
return, we are entitled to off-set all litigation costs incurred
in that suit against amounts that would otherwise be owed under
the license agreements, such as annual maintenance fees,
milestones and royalty payments.
ReNeuron
Limited
In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with ReNeuron
Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of ReNeuron Group plc, a
listed U.K. corporation (collectively referred to as
ReNeuron). As part of the agreement, we granted
ReNeuron a license that allows ReNeuron to exploit their
c-mycER conditionally immortalized adult human
neural stem cell technology for therapy and other purposes. We
received shares of ReNeuron common stock, as well as a
cross-license to the exclusive use of ReNeurons technology
for certain diseases and conditions, including lysosomal storage
diseases, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple
sclerosis. The agreement also provides for full settlement of
any potential claims that either we or ReNeuron might have had
against the other in connection with any putative infringement
of certain of each partys patent rights prior to the
effective date of the agreement. In July and August 2005 we
received approximately 8,836,000 ordinary shares of ReNeuron
common stock (net of approximately 104,000 shares that were
transferred to NeuroSpheres), and subsequently, in 2006 and
2007, as a result of certain anti-dilution provisions in the
agreement, we received approximately 1,261,000 more shares, net
of approximately 18,000 shares that were transferred to
NeuroSpheres. In February 2007, we sold 5,275,000 shares
for net proceeds of approximately $3,077,000, and we recognized
a realized gain of approximately $716,000 from this transaction.
In February and March of 2009, we sold, in aggregate,
approximately 2,900,000 more shares and received net proceeds of
approximately $510,000, and we recognized a realized gain of
approximately $398,000 from these transactions. As of
December 31, 2010, we held approximately
1,922,000 shares of ReNeuron as marketable equity
securities with a carrying and fair market value of
approximately $191,000. See Note 2 Financial
Instruments ReNeuron and Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk in
Part I, Item 7A of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Stem Cell
Therapeutics Corp.
In August 2006, we entered into an agreement with Stem Cell
Therapeutics Corp. (SCT), a Canadian corporation listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange, granting it a non-exclusive,
royalty-bearing license to use several of our patents for
treating specified diseases of the central nervous system; the
grant does not include any rights to cell transplantation. SCT
granted us a royalty-free non-exclusive license to certain of
its patents for research and development and a royalty-bearing
non-exclusive license for certain commercial purposes. SCT paid
an up-front license fee; the license also provides for other
payments including annual maintenance, milestones and royalties.
Other
Commercial Licenses
We have approximately a dozen other license agreements with
commercial entities, which we entered into in the ordinary
course of business to monetize certain of our patents. A number
of these include sublicenses to certain patents exclusively
licensed to us from either NeuroSpheres or the University of
Edinburgh. Some of these are license agreements to commercialize
cells. A number of these are license agreements to our research
tools patents, such as the IRES and selectable marker
technologies described above. We have an on-going licensing
program at the Company with the goal of identifying likely
infringers of our intellectual property rights in order to
generate license revenues.
16
Scientific
Advisory Board
Members of our Scientific Advisory Board provide us with
strategic guidance primarily in regard to our therapeutic
products research and development programs, as well as
assistance in recruiting employees and collaborators. Each
Scientific Advisory Board member has entered into a consulting
agreement with us. These consulting agreements specify the
compensation to be paid and require that all information about
our products and technology be kept confidential. All of the
Scientific Advisory Board members are employed by employers
other than us and may have commitments to, or consulting or
advising agreements with, other entities that limit their
availability to us. The Scientific Advisory Board members have
generally agreed, however, for so long as they serve as
consultants to us, not to provide any services to any other
entities that would conflict with the services the member
provides to us. We are entitled to terminate the arrangements if
we determine that there is such a conflict.
The following persons are members of our Scientific Advisory
Board:
|
|
|
|
|
Irving L. Weissman, M.D., Chairman of our Scientific
Advisory Board, is the Virginia and Daniel K. Ludwig Professor
of Cancer Research, Professor of Pathology and Professor of
Developmental Biology at Stanford University, Director of the
Stanford University Institute for Stem Cell Biology and
Regenerative Medicine, and Director of the Stanford
Comprehensive Cancer Center, all in Stanford, California.
Dr. Weissmans lab was responsible for the discovery
and isolation of the first ever mammalian tissue stem cell, the
hematopoietic (blood-forming) stem cell. Dr. Weissman was
responsible for the formation of three stem cell companies,
SyStemix, Inc., StemCells, Inc. and Cellerant, Inc.
Dr. Weissman co-discovered the mammalian and human
hematopoietic stem cells and the human neural stem cell. He has
extended these stem cell discoveries to cancer and leukemia,
discovering the leukemic stem cells in human and mouse acute or
blast crisis myeloid leukemias, and has enriched the cancer stem
cells in several human brain cancers as well as human head and
neck squamous cell carcinoma. Past achievements of
Dr. Weissmans laboratory include identification of
the states of development between stem cells and mature blood
cells, the discovery and molecular isolation and
characterization of lymphocyte and stem cell homing receptors,
and identification of the states of thymic lymphocyte
development. His laboratory at Stanford has developed accurate
mouse models of human leukemias, and has shown the central role
of inhibition of programmed cell death in that process. He has
also established the evolutionary origins of pre-vertebrate stem
cells, and identified and cloned the transplantation genes that
prevent their passage from one organism to another.
Dr. Weissman has been elected to the National Academy of
Science, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Society
of Microbiology, and several other societies. He has received
the Kaiser Award for Excellence in Preclinical Teaching, the
Pasarow Foundation Award for Cancer Research, the California
Scientist of the Year (2002), the Kovalenko Medal of the
National Academy of Sciences, the Elliott Joslin Medal for
Diabetes Research, the de Villiers Award for Leukemia Research,
the Irvington Award for Immunologist of the Year, the Bass Award
of the Society of Neurosurgeons, the New York Academy of
Medicine Award for Medical Research, the Alan Cranston Award for
Aging Research, the Linus Pauling Award for Biomedical Research,
the E. Donnall Thomas Award for Hematology Research, the van
Bekkum Award for Stem Cell Research, the Outstanding
Investigator Award from the National Institutes of Health,
Robert Koch Award for research in the hemopoieteic system, and
many other awards.
|
|
|
|
David J. Anderson, Ph.D., is Roger W. Sperry Professor of
Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California and Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
His laboratory was the first to isolate a multipotent,
self-renewing, stem cell for the peripheral nervous system, the
first to identify instructive signals that promote the
differentiation of these stem cells along various lineages, and
the first to accomplish a direct purification of peripheral
neural stem cells from uncultured tissue.
Dr. Andersons laboratory also was the first to
isolate transcription factors that act as master regulators of
neuronal fate. More recently, he has identified signals that
tell a neural stem cell to differentiate to oligodendrocytes,
the myelinating glia of the central nervous system, as well as
factors for astrocyte differentiation. Dr. Anderson is a
co-founder of the Company and was a founding member of the
scientific advisory board of the International Society for Stem
Cell Research. Dr. Anderson also serves on the scientific
advisory board of Allen Institute for Brain Science. He has held
a presidential Young Investigator Award from the National
Science Foundation, a Sloan foundation Fellowship in
Neuroscience, and has been Donald D. Matson
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
lecturer at Harvard Medical School. He has received the Charles
Judson Herrick Award from the American Association of Anatomy,
the 1999 W. Alden Spencer Award in Neurobiology from
Columbia University, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
Award. Dr. Anderson has been elected to the National
Academy of Science and is a member of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred H. Gage, Ph.D., is Professor, Laboratory of Genetics,
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla,
California and Adjunct Professor, Department of Neurosciences,
University of California, San Diego, California.
Dr. Gages lab was the first to discover Neurogenesis
in the adult human brain. His research focus is on the
development of strategies to induce recovery of function
following central nervous system damage. Dr. Gage is a
co-founder of StemCells and of BrainCells, Inc., and a member of
the scientific advisory board of each. Dr. Gage also serves
on the Scientific Advisory Board of Ceregene, Inc, and he is a
founding member of the scientific advisory board of the
International Society for Stem Cell Research. Dr. Gage has
been the recipient of numerous awards, including the 1993
Charles A. Dana Award for Pioneering Achievements in Health and
Education, the Christopher Reeves Medal, the Decade of the Brain
Medal, the Max-Planck research Prize, and the Pasarow Foundation
Award. Professor Gage is a member of the Institute of Medicine,
a member of the National Academy of Science, and a Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Science.
|
Government
Regulation
Our research and development activities and the future
manufacturing and marketing of our potential therapeutic
products are, and will continue to be, subject to regulation for
safety and efficacy by numerous governmental authorities in the
United States and other countries.
U.S.
Regulations
In the United States, pharmaceuticals, biologicals and medical
devices are subject to rigorous regulation by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). The Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, applicable FDA
regulations, and other federal and state statutes and
regulations govern, among other things, the testing,
manufacture, labeling, storage, export, record keeping,
approval, marketing, advertising, and promotion of our potential
products. Product development and approval within this
regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves
significant uncertainty combined with the expenditure of
substantial resources. In addition, many jurisdictions, both
federal and state, have restrictions on the use of fetal tissue.
FDA
Marketing Approval
The steps required before our potential therapeutic products may
be marketed in the United States include:
|
|
|
Steps
|
|
Considerations
|
|
1. Preclinical laboratory and animal tests
|
|
Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of the cells and
the formulation intended for use in humans for quality and
consistency. In vivo studies are performed in normal
animals and specific disease models to assess the potential
safety and efficacy of the cell therapy product.
|
2. Submission of an Investigational New Drug (IND)
application
|
|
The IND is a regulatory document submitted to the FDA with
preclinical and manufacturing data, a proposed development plan
and a proposed protocol for a study in humans. The IND becomes
effective 30 days following receipt by the FDA, provided
there are no questions, requests for delay or objections from
the FDA. If the FDA has questions or concerns, it notifies the
sponsor, and the IND will then be on clinical hold until the
sponsor responds satisfactorily. In general an IND must become
effective before U.S. human clinical trials may commence.
|
18
|
|
|
Steps
|
|
Considerations
|
|
3. Human clinical trials
|
|
Clinical trials involve the evaluation of a potential product
under the supervision of a qualified physician, in accordance
with a protocol that details the objectives of the study, the
parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy
criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol is submitted to the FDA
as part of the IND. The protocol for each clinical study must be
approved by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) of
the institution at which the study is conducted and the informed
consent of all participants must be obtained. The IRB reviews
the existing information on the product, considers ethical
factors, the safety of human subjects, the potential benefits of
the therapy, and the possible liability of the institution. The
IRB is responsible for ongoing safety assessment of the subjects
during the clinical investigation.
|
|
|
Clinical development is traditionally conducted in three
sequential phases, Phase I, II and III.
|
|
|
Phase I studies for a product are designed to evaluate safety in
a small number of subjects in a selected patient population by
assessing adverse effects, and may include multiple dose levels.
This study may also gather preliminary evidence of a beneficial
effect on the disease.
|
|
|
Phase II studies typically involve a larger, but still
limited, patient population to determine biological and clinical
effects of the investigational product and to identify possible
adverse effects and safety risks of the product in the selected
patient population.
|
|
|
Phase III studies are undertaken to demonstrate clinical
benefit or effect in a statistically significant manner and to
test further for safety within a broader patient population,
generally at multiple study sites.
|
|
|
The FDA continually reviews the clinical trial plans and results
and may suggest changes or may require discontinuance of any
trial at any time if significant safety issues arise.
|
4. Submission of a Biologics Licensing Application (BLA)
|
|
The results of the preclinical studies and clinical studies are
submitted to the FDA in an application for marketing approval
authorization.
|
5. Regulatory Approval
|
|
The testing and approval process will require substantial time,
effort and expense. The time for approval is affected by a
number of factors, including relative risks and benefits
demonstrated in clinical trials, the availability of alternative
treatments and the severity of the disease. Additional animal
studies or clinical trials may be requested during the FDA
review period, which might add to that time. FDA approval of the
application(s) is required prior to any commercial sale or
shipment of the therapeutic product. Biologic product
manufacturing facilities located in certain states also may be
subject to separate regulatory and licensing requirements.
|
19
|
|
|
Steps
|
|
Considerations
|
|
6. Post-marketing studies
|
|
After receiving FDA marketing approval for a product for an
initial indication, further clinical trials may be required to
gain approval for the use of the product for additional
indications. The FDA may also require post-marketing testing and
surveillance to monitor for adverse effects, which could
involve significant expense, or the FDA may elect to grant only
conditional approvals subject to collection of post-marketing
data.
|
FDA
Manufacturing Requirements
Among the conditions for product licensure is the requirement
that the prospective manufacturers quality control and
manufacturing procedures conform to the FDAs current good
manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements. Even after a
products licensure approval, its manufacturer must comply
with GMP on a continuing basis, and what constitutes GMP may
change as the state of the art of manufacturing changes.
Domestic manufacturing facilities are subject to regular FDA
inspections for GMP compliance, which are normally held at least
every two years. Foreign manufacturing facilities are subject to
periodic FDA inspections or inspections by the foreign
regulatory authorities. Domestic manufacturing facilities may
also be subject to inspection by foreign authorities.
Orphan
Drug Act
The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to drug manufacturers to
develop and manufacture drugs for the treatment of diseases or
conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 individuals in the
United States. Orphan drug status can also be sought for
treatments for diseases or conditions that affect more than
200,000 individuals in the United States if the sponsor does not
realistically anticipate its product becoming profitable from
sales in the United States. We may apply for orphan drug
status for certain of our therapies. Under the Orphan Drug Act,
a manufacturer of a designated orphan product can seek tax
benefits, and the holder of the first FDA approval of a
designated orphan product will be granted a seven-year period of
marketing exclusivity in the United States for that product for
the orphan indication. While the marketing exclusivity of an
orphan drug would prevent other sponsors from obtaining approval
of the same compound for the same indication, it would not
prevent other compounds or products from being approved for the
same use including, in some cases, slight variations on the
originally designated orphan product.
FDA Human
Cell and Tissue Regulations
Our research and development is based on the use of human stem
and progenitor cells. The FDA has initiated a risk-based
approach to regulating Human Cell, Tissue and Cellular and
Tissue-based (HCT/P) products and has published current
Good Tissue Practice (GTP) regulations. As part of this
approach, the FDA has published final rules for registration of
establishments that recover, process, store, label, package, or
distribute HCT/P products or that screen or test the donor of
HCT/P products, and for the listing of such products. In
addition, the FDA has published rules for determining the
suitability of donors of cells and tissue, the eligibility of
the cells and tissues for clinical use and for current good
tissue practice for manufacturers using them. We have adopted
policies and procedures to comply with these regulations.
Other
Regulations
In addition to safety regulations enforced by the FDA, we are
also subject to regulations under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, and other present and potential future
foreign, federal, state, and local regulations.
20
International
Law
Outside the United States, we will be subject to regulations
that govern the import of drug products from the United States
or other manufacturing sites and foreign regulatory requirements
governing human clinical trials and marketing approval for our
products. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical
trials, product licensing, pricing, and reimbursements vary
widely from country to country. In particular, the European
Union (EU) is revising its regulatory approach to biotechnology
products, and representatives from the United States, Japan and
the EU are in the process of harmonizing and making more uniform
the regulations for the registration of pharmaceutical products
in these three markets. This process increases uncertainty over
regulatory requirements in our industry. Furthermore, human stem
and progenitor cells may be regulated in the EU and other
countries as transplant material or as a somatic cell therapy
medicinal product, depending on the processing, indication and
country.
Environment
We have made, and will continue to make, expenditures for
environmental compliance and protection. Expenditures for
compliance with environmental laws have not had, and are not
expected to have, a material effect on our capital expenditures,
results of operations or competitive position.
Reimbursement
and Health Care Cost Control
Reimbursement for the costs of treatments and products such as
ours from government health administration authorities, private
health insurers and others, both in the United States and
abroad, is a key element in the success of new health care
products. Significant uncertainty often exists as to the
reimbursement status of newly approved health care products.
The revenue and profitability of some health care-related
companies have been affected by the continuing efforts of
governmental and third party payors to contain or reduce the
cost of health care through various means. Payors are
increasingly attempting to limit both coverage and the levels of
reimbursement for new therapeutic products approved for
marketing by the FDA, and are refusing, in some cases, to
provide any coverage for uses of approved products for disease
indications for which the FDA has not granted marketing
approval. In certain foreign markets, pricing or profitability
of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government
control. In the United States, there have been a number of
federal and state proposals to implement government control over
health care costs.
The U.S. Patient Protection and Affordance Care Act and the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act were signed into
law in March 2010. A number of provisions of those laws require
further rulemaking action by governmental agencies to implement.
The laws change access to health care products and services and
create new fees for the pharmaceutical and medical device
industries. Future rulemaking could increase rebates, reduce
prices or the rate of price increases for health care products
and services, or require additional reporting and disclosure.
The laws also include new authorization to the FDA to approve
companies to market biosimilar products within the United
States, although biosimilar regulation and rulemaking has not
yet been adopted. We cannot predict the timing or impact of any
such future rulemaking on our business.
Competition
In most instances, the targeted indications for our initial
products in development have no effective long-term therapies at
this time. However, we do expect that our initial products will
have to compete with a variety of therapeutic products and
procedures. Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies
currently offer a number of pharmaceutical products to treat
lysosomal storage diseases, neurodegenerative and liver
diseases, and other diseases for which our technologies may be
applicable. Many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are
investigating new drugs and therapeutic approaches for the same
purposes, which may achieve new efficacy profiles, extend the
therapeutic window for such products, alter the prognosis of
these diseases, or prevent their onset. We believe that our
products, when and if successfully developed, will compete with
these products principally on the basis of improved and extended
efficacy and safety and their overall economic benefit to the
health care system. The market for therapeutic products that
address degenerative diseases is large and competition
21
is intense. Many companies have significant products approved or
in development that could be competitive with our potential
products. We expect competition to increase.
Competition for any stem and progenitor cell products that we
may develop may be in the form of existing and new drugs, other
forms of cell transplantation, ablative and simulative
procedures, medical devices, and gene therapy. We believe that
some of our competitors are also trying to develop stem and
progenitor cell-based technologies. We may also face competition
from companies that have filed patent applications relating to
the use of genetically modified cells to treat disease, disorder
or injury. In the event our therapies should require the use of
such genetically modified cells, we may be required to seek
licenses from these competitors in order to commercialize
certain of our proposed products, and such licenses may not be
granted.
If we develop products that receive regulatory approval, they
would then have to compete for market acceptance and market
share. For certain of our potential products, an important
success factor will be the timing of market introduction of
competitive products. This is a function of the relative speed
with which we and our competitors can develop products, complete
the clinical testing and approval processes, and supply
commercial quantities of a product to market. These competitive
products may also impact the timing of clinical testing and
approval processes by limiting the number of clinical
investigators and patients available to test our potential
products.
We expect that all of these products will compete with our
potential stem and progenitor cell-based products based on
efficacy, safety, cost, and intellectual property positions.
While we believe that these will be the primary competitive
factors, other factors include, in certain instances, obtaining
marketing exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act, availability of
supply, manufacturing, marketing and sales expertise and
capability, and reimbursement coverage.
The research markets served by our tools and technologies are
highly competitive, complex and dynamic. Technological advances
and scientific discoveries have accelerated the pace of change
in biological research, and stem cell technologies have been
evolving particularly fast. In these markets we face a wide
array of competitors, ranging from specialized companies with
strengths in niche segments of the life science markets to large
manufacturers offering a broad portfolio of products, tools and
services. Many of these competitors have significant financial,
operational, sales, and marketing resources, and experience in
research and development. In some cases, these and other
competitors are also our customers, distributors and suppliers.
In addition, many of our products can be home brewed
by customers following publicly available procedures and
methodologies.
Reliable independent information on sales and market share of
products produced by our competitors is not generally available.
We believe, however, based on our own estimates, that no one
company is so dominant that it prevents other companies from
competing effectively. We compete mainly by focusing on
specialty products and cell-based assays, which are custom
designed for use in stem cell-based research, where we believe
our expertise, intellectual property and reputation give us
competitive advantage. We believe that, in this particular
market niche, our products and technologies offer customers
specific advantages over those offered by our competitors. We
compete by offering innovative, quality-controlled products,
consistently made and designed to produce reproducible results.
We continue to make investments in research and development,
quality management, quality improvement, and product innovation.
We tend to avoid head to head competition against entrenched
competitors with commoditized products.
Available
Information
The following information can be obtained free of charge through
our website at
http://www.stemcellsinc.com
or by sending an
e-mail
message to irpr@stemcellsinc.com:
|
|
|
|
|
our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on Form
8-K, and all
amendments to these reports as soon as reasonably practicable
after such material is electronically filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission;
|
|
|
|
our policies related to corporate governance, including
StemCells Code of Conduct and Ethics and Procedure for
Submission of Complaints; and
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
the charters of the Audit Committee, the
Compensation & Stock Option Committee and the
Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee of our
Board of Directors.
|
The public may read and copy any material we file with the SEC
at the SECs Public Reference Room at
100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC, 20549. The public
may obtain information on the operations of the Public Reference
Room by calling the SEC at 1- 800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an
Internet site,
http://www.sec.gov,
which contains reports, proxy and information statements, and
other information regarding issuers that file electronically
with the SEC.
This annual report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and
uncertainties. Our business, operating results, financial
performance, and share price may be materially adversely
affected by a number of factors, including but not
limited to the following risk factors, any one of which could
cause actual results to vary materially from anticipated results
or from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made
by us in this annual report on
Form 10-K
or in other reports, press releases or other statements issued
from time to time. Additional factors that may cause such a
difference are set forth elsewhere in this annual report on
Form 10-K.
Risks
Related to our Business
Any
adverse development relating to our HuCNS-SC product candidate,
such as a significant clinical trial failure, could
substantially depress our stock price and prevent us from
raising additional capital.
At present, our ability to progress as a company is
significantly dependent on a single product candidate, our
HuCNS-SC cells (purified human neural stem cells), and on early
stage clinical trials. Any clinical, regulatory or other
development that significantly delays or prevents us from
completing any of our trials, any material safety issue or
adverse side effect to any study participant in any of these
trials, or the failure of these trials to show the results
expected would likely depress our stock price significantly and
could prevent us from raising the substantial additional capital
we will need to further develop our cell technologies. Moreover,
any material adverse occurrence in our first clinical trials
could substantially impair our ability to initiate additional
clinical trials to test our HuCNS-SC cells, whether in other
potential indications or otherwise. This, in turn, could
adversely impact our ability to raise additional capital and
pursue our planned research and development efforts.
We
have limited capital resources and we may not obtain the
significant additional capital needed to sustain our research
and development efforts.
We have limited liquidity and capital resources and must obtain
significant additional capital resources in order to sustain our
product development efforts, acquire businesses, technologies
and intellectual property rights which may be important to our
business, continue preclinical and clinical testing of our
therapeutic products, pursue regulatory approvals, acquire
capital equipment, laboratory and office facilities, establish
production capabilities, maintain and enforce our intellectual
property portfolio, and support our general and administrative
expenses and other working capital requirements. In addition, we
will require additional capital resources to continue to develop
and grow our enabling cell technologies programs. We rely on
cash reserves and proceeds from equity and debt offerings,
proceeds from the transfer, license, lease, or sale of our
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities, or
investments, and government grants and funding from
collaborative arrangements, if obtainable, to fund our
operations.
We intend to pursue opportunities for additional fundraising in
the future through equity or debt financings, corporate
alliances or combinations, grants or collaborative research
arrangements, or any combination of these. However, external
financing in the current financial environment may be
particularly difficult, and the source, timing and availability
of any future fundraising will depend principally upon market
conditions, and, more specifically, on progress in our research,
preclinical and clinical development programs. Funding may not
be available when needed at all or on terms
acceptable to us. While we actively manage our programs and
resources in order to conserve cash between fundraising
opportunities, our existing capital resources may not be
sufficient to fund our operations beyond the next twelve months.
If we exhaust our cash reserves and are unable to realize
adequate additional fundraising, we may be unable to meet
operating obligations and be required to initiate
23
bankruptcy proceedings or delay, scale back or eliminate some or
all of our research and product development programs.
Our
product development programs are based on novel technologies and
are inherently risky.
We are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the
development of products based on new technologies. The novel
nature of these therapies creates significant challenges in
regard to product development and optimization, manufacturing,
government regulation, third party reimbursement, and market
acceptance. For example, the pathway to regulatory approval for
cell-based therapies, including our therapeutic product
candidates, may be more complex and lengthy than the pathway for
conventional drugs. These challenges may prevent us from
developing and commercializing products on a timely or
profitable basis or at all.
Our
technologies are at early stages of discovery and development,
and we may fail to develop any commercially acceptable or
profitable products.
We have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash
flows since inception. We have not achieved profitability and
may not be able to realize sufficient revenue to achieve or
sustain profitability in the future. We have yet to develop any
therapeutic products that have been approved for marketing, and
we do not expect to become profitable within the next several
years, but rather expect to incur additional and increasing
operating losses. Before commercializing any therapeutic
product, we will need to obtain regulatory approval from the FDA
or from equivalent foreign agencies after conducting extensive
preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that
the product candidate is safe and effective. Except for the
Phase I NCL trial we completed at Oregon Health &
Science University (OHSU), and our currently ongoing clinical
trials in NCL, PMD and spinal cord injury, we have had no
experience conducting human clinical trials. We expect that none
of our cell-based therapeutic product candidates will be
commercially available for several years, if at all.
While regulatory agencies in the United States and Switzerland
have approved the clinical study of our cells in a total of
three indications, there can be no assurance that any of our
clinical trials will be completed or result in a successful
outcome.
We may elect to delay or discontinue studies or clinical trials
based on unfavorable results. Any product developed from, or
based on, cell technologies may fail to:
|
|
|
|
|
survive and persist in the desired location;
|
|
|
|
provide the intended therapeutic benefit;
|
|
|
|
engraft into existing tissue in the desired manner; or
|
|
|
|
achieve therapeutic benefits equal to, or better than, the
standard of treatment at the time of testing.
|
In addition, our therapeutic products may cause undesirable side
effects. Results of preclinical research in animals may not be
indicative of future clinical results in humans.
Ultimately if regulatory authorities do not approve our products
or if we fail to maintain regulatory compliance, we would be
unable to commercialize our products, and our business and
results of operations would be harmed. Even if we do succeed in
developing products, we will face many potential obstacles such
as the need to develop or obtain manufacturing, marketing and
distribution capabilities. Furthermore, because transplantation
of cells is a new form of therapy, the marketplace may not
accept any products we may develop.
Moreover, because our cell-based therapeutic products will be
derived from tissue of individuals other than the patient (that
is, they will be non-self or allogeneic
transplant products), patients will likely require the use of
immunosuppressive drugs. While immunosuppression is now standard
in connection with allogeneic transplants of various kinds, such
as heart or liver transplants, long-term maintenance on
immunosuppressive drugs can result in complications such as
infection, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and renal
dysfunction. An immunosuppression regimen was used with our
therapeutic product candidate in our Phase I clinical trial for
NCL, and is included in the protocol for our clinical trials for
PMD, NCL and chronic spinal cord injury.
24
Our
success will depend in large part on our ability to develop and
commercialize products that treat diseases other than neuronal
ceroid lipofuscinosis (Batten disease) and Pelizeaus-Merzbacher
Disease (PMD).
Although we have initially focused on evaluating our neural stem
cell product for the treatment of infantile and late infantile
NCL (Batten disease) and for Pelizeaus-Merzbacher Disease, these
diseases are rare and the markets for treating these diseases
are small. Accordingly, even if we obtain marketing approval for
our HuCNS-SC product candidate for infantile and late infantile
NCL or for PMD, in order to achieve profitability, we will
likely need to obtain approval to treat additional diseases that
present more significant market opportunities.
Acquisitions
of companies, businesses or technologies may substantially
dilute our stockholders and increase our operating
losses.
We may make acquisitions of businesses, technologies or
intellectual property rights or otherwise modify our business
model in ways we believe to be necessary, useful or
complementary to our current business. For example, in April
2009, we acquired substantially all of the operating assets and
liabilities of Stem Cell Sciences Plc (SCS). Any such
acquisition or change in business activities may require
assimilation of the operations, products or product candidates
and personnel of the acquired business and the training and
integration of its employees, and could substantially increase
our operating costs, without any offsetting increase in revenue.
Acquisitions may not provide the intended technological,
scientific or business benefits and could disrupt our operations
and divert our limited resources and managements attention
from our current operations, which could harm our existing
product development efforts. We would likely issue equity
securities to pay for any other future acquisitions. The
issuance of equity securities for an acquisition could be
substantially dilutive to our stockholders. In addition, our
results of operations may suffer because of acquisition-related
costs or the post-acquisition costs of funding the development
of an acquired technology or product candidates or operation of
the acquired business, or due to amortization or impairment
costs for acquired goodwill and other intangible assets. Any
investment made in, or funds advanced to, a potential
acquisition target could also significantly adversely affect our
results of operation and could further reduce our limited
capital resources. Any acquisition or action taken in
anticipation of a potential acquisition or other change in
business activities could substantially depress the price of our
stock.
Costs
and disruptions from the management of the acquired SCS business
may impair our business
In April 2009, we acquired substantially all of the operating
assets and liabilities of SCS, including its former subsidiaries
in England and Australia. To realize the anticipated benefits of
this acquisition, we must successfully manage and coordinate
business operations in multiple geographies, which is frequently
a complex, costly and time-consuming process. Therefore we
devote a significant amount of our managements time and
attention to managing our operations outside the United States.
As a result, we may have difficulty maintaining employee morale
and retaining key employees, consultants and collaborators. We
may also encounter incompatible methods, practices or policies
or unanticipated difficulties integrating information
technology, communications and other systems. Managing our
consolidated operations may also entail numerous operational,
legal and financial risks and uncertainties, including:
|
|
|
|
|
incurrence or assumption of material liabilities, including
unanticipated ones;
|
|
|
|
assumption of pre-existing contractual obligations and
obligations owed by the acquired SCS business to customers and
research collaborators, which may not be profitable to our
business or deemed consistent with our development plans;
|
|
|
|
diversion of resources and management attention from our
existing businesses and technologies;
|
|
|
|
inability to retain key employees of any acquired businesses or
hire enough qualified personnel to staff any new or expanded
operations;
|
|
|
|
impairment or loss of relationships with key customers or
collaborators; and
|
|
|
|
exposure to new and unanticipated federal, state, local, and
foreign legal requirements, which may impact our research and
development programs on a consolidated basis.
|
25
Our failure to address these risks and uncertainties
successfully in the future could harm our business and prevent
our achievement of anticipated growth, which could have an
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations.
We
have payment obligations resulting from real property owned or
leased by us in Rhode Island, which diverts funding from our
cell-based therapeutics research and development and enabling
cell technologies programs.
Prior to our reorganization in 1999 and the consolidation of our
business in California, we carried out our former encapsulated
cell therapy programs in Lincoln, Rhode Island, where we also
had our administrative offices. Although we have vacated the
Rhode Island facilities, we remain obligated to make lease
payments and payments for operating costs for our former science
and administrative facility, which we have leased through
June 30, 2013. These costs, before
sub-tenant
rental income, amounted to approximately $1,801,000 in 2010; our
rent payments will increase over the term of the lease, and our
operating costs may increase as well. In addition to these costs
of our former science and administrative facility, we are
obligated to make debt service payments and payments for
operating costs of approximately $400,000 per year for our
former encapsulated cell therapy pilot manufacturing facility,
which we own. We have currently subleased a portion of the
science and administrative facility, and we are seeking to
sublease the remaining portion, but we cannot be sure that we
will be able to keep any part of the facility subleased for the
duration of our obligation. We are currently seeking to sublease
the pilot manufacturing facility, but may not be able to
sublease or sell the facility in the future. These continuing
costs significantly reduce our cash resources and adversely
affect our ability to fund further development of our cell
technologies. In addition, changes in real estate market
conditions and assumptions regarding the length of time it may
take us to either fully sublease, assign or sell our remaining
interest in the our former research facility in Rhode Island may
have a significant impact on and cause large variations in our
quarter to quarter results of operations. In 1999, in connection
with exiting our former research facility in Rhode Island, we
created a reserve for the estimated lease payments and operating
expenses related to it. The reserve is periodically re-evaluated
and adjusted based on assumptions relevant to real estate market
conditions and the estimated time until we can either fully
sublease, assign or sell our remaining interests in the
property. At December 31, 2010, the reserve was $3,300,000.
For the year 2010, we incurred $1,219,000 in operating expenses
net of
sub-tenant
income for this facility. Expenses for this facility will
fluctuate based on changes in tenant occupancy rates and other
operating expenses related to the lease. Even though it is our
intent to sublease, assign, sell, or otherwise divest ourselves
of our interests in the facility at the earliest possible time,
we cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such
events will occur. In light of this uncertainty, based on
estimates, we will periodically re-evaluate and adjust the
reserve, as necessary, and we may make significant adverse
adjustments to the reserve in the future.
We may
be unable to obtain partners to support our product development
efforts when needed to commercialize our
technologies.
Equity and debt financings alone may not be sufficient to fund
the cost of developing our cell technologies, and we may need to
rely on partnering or other arrangements to provide financial
support for our product development efforts. In addition, in
order to successfully develop and commercialize our
technologies, we may need to enter into various arrangements
with corporate sponsors, pharmaceutical companies, universities,
research groups, and others. With the exception of our
distribution agreements with Millipore Corporation, we have no
such agreements. While we have engaged, and expect to continue
to engage, in discussions regarding such arrangements, we may
fail to obtain any such agreement on terms acceptable to us.
Even if we enter into such arrangements, we may not be able to
satisfy our obligations under them or renew or replace them
after their original terms expire. Furthermore, these
arrangements may require us to grant rights to third parties,
such as exclusive marketing rights to one or more products, may
require us to issue securities to our collaborators and may
contain other terms that are burdensome to us or result in a
decrease in our stock price.
26
If we
are unable to protect our patents and proprietary rights, our
business, financial condition and results of operations may be
materially harmed.
We either own or exclusively license a number of patents and
pending patent applications related to various stem and
progenitor cells, including human neural stem cell cultures, as
well as methods of deriving and using them. We also own or
exclusively license a number of patents and patent applications
related to certain mammalian pluripotent and multipotent stem
cells, cellular reprogramming, genetic manipulation of stem
cells, the creation of genetically engineered animals used for
research, technologies that facilitate the identification and
isolation of specific stem cell types, and media formulations
for the culture of stem cells. The process of obtaining patent
protection for products such as those we propose to develop is
highly uncertain and involves complex and continually evolving
factual and legal questions. The governmental authorities that
consider patent applications can deny or significantly reduce
the patent coverage requested in an application either before or
after issuing the patent. For example, under the procedures of
the European Patent Office, third parties may oppose our issued
European patents during the relevant opposition period. These
proceedings and oppositions could result in substantial
uncertainties and cost for us, even if the eventual outcome is
favorable to us, and the outcome might not be favorable to us.
In the United States, third parties may seek to invalidate or
render unenforceable issued patents through a U.S. PTO
reexamination process or through the courts; currently six of
our patents are the subject of litigation. In addition, changes
to the laws protecting intellectual property rights could
adversely impact the perceived or actual value of our Company.
Consequently, we do not know whether any of our pending
applications will result in the issuance of patents, whether any
of our issued patents will be invalidated or restricted, whether
any existing or future patents will provide sufficient
protection or significant commercial advantage, or whether
others will circumvent or invalidate these patents, whether or
not lawfully. In addition, our patents may not afford us
adequate protection from competing products. Moreover, because
patents issue for a limited term, our patents may expire before
we can commercialize a product covered by the issued patent
claims or before we can utilize the patents profitably. Some of
our most important patents begin to expire in 2015.
If we learn of third parties who infringe our patent rights, we
may decide to initiate legal proceedings to enforce these
rights. Patent litigation, including the pending litigation to
which we are a party, is inherently unpredictable and highly
risky and may result in unanticipated challenges to the validity
or enforceability of our intellectual property, antitrust claims
or other claims against us, which could result in the loss of
these intellectual property rights. Litigation proceedings can
be very time-consuming for management and are also very costly
and the parties we bring actions against may have significantly
greater financial resources than our own. We may not prevail in
these proceedings and if we do not prevail we could be liable
for damages as well as the costs and attorney fees of our
opponents.
Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also
important to our research and development activities. We cannot
be certain that others will not independently develop the same
or similar technologies on their own or gain access to our trade
secrets or disclose such technology or that we will be able to
meaningfully protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how.
We require our employees, consultants and significant scientific
collaborators and sponsored researchers to execute
confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of an
employment or consulting relationship with us. These agreements
may, however, fail to provide meaningful protection or adequate
remedies for us in the event of unauthorized use, transfer or
disclosure of such information or technology.
If we
are unable to obtain necessary licenses to third-party patents
and other rights, we may not be able to commercially develop our
expected products.
A number of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other companies,
universities and research institutions have filed patent
applications or have received patents relating to cell therapy,
stem and progenitor cells and other technologies potentially
relevant to, or necessary for, our expected products. We cannot
predict which, if any, of these applications will issue as
patents or how many of these issued patents will be found valid
and enforceable. There may also be existing issued patents which
we are currently unaware of which would be infringed by the
commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. If
so, we may be prevented from commercializing these products
unless the third party is willing to grant a license to us. We
may be unable to obtain licenses to the relevant patents at a
reasonable cost, if at all, and may also be unable to develop or
obtain alternative non-infringing
27
technology. If we are unable to obtain such licenses or develop
non-infringing technology at a reasonable cost, our business
could be significantly harmed. Also, any infringement lawsuits
commenced against us may result in significant costs, divert our
managements attention and result in an award against us
for substantial damages, or potentially prevent us from
continuing certain operations.
We are aware of intellectual property rights held by third
parties that relate to products or technologies we are
developing. For example, some aspects of our cell-based
therapeutic product candidates involve the use of growth
factors, antibodies and other reagents that may, in certain
cases, be the subject of third party rights. Before we
commercialize any product using these growth factors, antibodies
or reagents, we may need to obtain license rights from third
parties or use alternative growth factors, antibodies and
reagents that are not then the subject of third party patent
rights. We currently believe that the commercialization of our
products as currently planned will not infringe these third
party rights, or, alternatively, that we will be able to obtain
necessary licenses or otherwise use alternative non-infringing
technology. However, third parties may nonetheless bring suit
against us claiming infringement. If we are unable to prove that
our technology does not infringe their patents, or if we are
unable to obtain necessary licenses or otherwise use alternative
non-infringing technology, we may not be able to commercialize
any products.
We have obtained rights from companies, universities and
research institutions to technologies, processes and compounds
that we believe may be important to the development of our
products. These licensors, however, may cancel our licenses or
convert them to non-exclusive licenses if we fail to use the
relevant technology or otherwise breach these agreements. Loss
of these licenses could expose us to the risk that our
technology infringes the rights of third parties. We can give no
assurance that any of these licenses will provide effective
protection against our competitors.
We
compete with companies that have significant advantages over
us.
The market for therapeutic products to treat diseases of, or
injuries to, the central nervous system (CNS) is large and
competition is intense. The majority of the products currently
on the market or in development are small molecule
pharmaceutical compounds, and many pharmaceutical companies have
made significant commitments to the CNS field. We believe
cellular therapies, if proven safe and effective, will have
unique properties that will make them desirable over small
molecule drugs, none of which currently replace damaged tissue.
However, any cell-based therapeutic to treat diseases of, or
injuries to, the CNS is likely to face intense competition from
small molecule, biologics, as well as medical devices. We expect
to compete with a host of companies, some of which are privately
owned and some of which have resources far greater than ours.
In the liver field, there are no broad-based therapies for the
treatment of liver disease at present. The primary therapy is
liver transplantation, which is limited by the availability of
matched donor organs. Liver-assist devices, when and if they
become available, could also be used to help patients while they
await suitably matched organs for transplantation. Liver
transplantation may remain the standard of care even if we
successfully develop a cellular therapy. In addition, new
therapies may become available before we successfully develop a
cell-based therapy for liver disease.
The life science and research markets are each highly
competitive. Most of our competitors have greater financial
resources than we do, making them better equipped to license
technologies and intellectual property from third parties or to
fund research and development, manufacturing and marketing
efforts. Our competitors can be expected to continue to improve
the design and performance of their products and to introduce
new products with competitive price and performance
characteristics. In order to compete successfully in these
markets, we will likely need to continue to invest in research
and development, sales and marketing and customer service and
support. We cannot assure you that we will have sufficient
resources to continue to make such investments.
The
research market is heavily dependent on government funding, and
changes in government funding can adversely affect revenues for
our tools and technologies products.
Our customers include researchers at academic institutions,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and government
laboratories, all of whom fund much of their stem cell research
using government monies, such as grants. A number of these
customers, for example, are dependent for their funding upon
grants from
28
U.S. government agencies, such as the U.S. National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and agencies in other
countries. The level of government funding of research and
development is unpredictable. Research and development spending
of our customers can fluctuate based on spending priorities and,
as was experienced in 2009, general economic conditions. There
have been instances when NIH grants have been frozen or
otherwise unavailable for extended periods. The availability of
governmental research funding may also continue to be adversely
affected by the current economic downturn. Any reduction or
delay in governmental funding could cause our customers to delay
or forego purchases or reallocate their budgets in a manner
adverse to us, in which case our anticipated revenues could be
materially lower.
Development
of our technologies is subject to, and restricted by, extensive
government regulation, which could impede our
business.
Our research and development efforts, as well as any ongoing or
future clinical trials, and the manufacturing and marketing of
any products we may develop, will be subject to, and restricted
by, extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the
United States and other countries. The process of obtaining FDA
and other necessary regulatory approvals for human therapeutics
is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. FDA and other legal and
regulatory requirements applicable to the development and
manufacture of the cells and cell lines required for our
preclinical and clinical products could substantially delay or
prevent us from producing the cells needed to initiate
additional clinical trials. We or our collaborators may fail to
obtain the necessary approvals to commence or continue clinical
testing or to manufacture or market our potential products in
reasonable time frames, if at all. In addition, the
U.S. Congress and other legislative bodies may enact
regulatory reforms or restrictions on the development of new
therapies that could adversely affect the regulatory environment
in which we operate or the development of any products we may
develop.
We base our research and development on the use of human stem
and progenitor cells obtained from human tissue, including fetal
tissue. The U.S. federal and state governments and other
jurisdictions impose restrictions on the acquisition and use of
fetal tissue, including those incorporated in federal Good
Tissue Practice, or GTP, regulations. These regulatory and other
constraints could prevent us from obtaining cells and other
components of our products in the quantity or quality needed for
their development or commercialization of both therapeutic
products and certain of our enabling cell technologies. These
restrictions change from time to time and may become more
onerous. Additionally, we may not be able to identify or develop
reliable sources for the cells necessary for our potential
products that is, sources that follow all state and
federal laws and guidelines for cell procurement. Certain
components used to manufacture our stem and progenitor cell
product candidates will need to be manufactured in compliance
with the FDAs Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP.
Accordingly, we will need to enter into supply agreements with
companies that manufacture these components to GMP standards.
Noncompliance with applicable requirements both before and after
product marketing approval, if any, can subject us, our third
party suppliers and manufacturers, and our other collaborators
to administrative and judicial sanctions, such as, among other
things, warning letters, fines and other monetary payments,
recall or seizure of products, criminal proceedings, suspension
or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, interruption or cessation
of clinical trials, total or partial suspension of production or
distribution, injunctions, limitations on or the elimination of
claims we can make for our products, and refusal of the
government to enter into supply contracts or fund research, or
delay in approving or refusal to approve new drug applications.
We are
dependent on the services of key personnel.
We are highly dependent on the principal members of our
management and scientific staff, including our chief executive
officer, our vice presidents, and the heads of key departments
or functions, and on some of our outside consultants, including
the members of our scientific advisory board. Although we have
entered into employment agreements with some of these
individuals, they may terminate their agreements at any time. In
addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to
attract and retain additional qualified scientific and
management personnel. We may not be able to attract and retain
the personnel we need on acceptable terms given the competition
for experienced personnel among pharmaceutical, biotechnology
and health care companies, universities and research
institutions.
29
Our
activities involve hazardous materials and experimental animal
testing; improper handling of these animals and materials by our
employees or agents could expose us to significant legal and
financial penalties.
Our research and development activities involve the controlled
use of test animals as well as hazardous chemicals and
potentially hazardous biological materials such as human tissue.
Their use subjects us to environmental and safety laws and
regulations such as those governing laboratory procedures,
exposure to blood-borne pathogens, use of laboratory animals,
and the handling of biohazardous materials. Compliance with
current or future laws and regulations may be expensive and the
cost of compliance could adversely affect us.
Although we believe that our safety procedures for using,
handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials comply with the standards prescribed by
applicable state, federal and international law, the risk of
accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot
be eliminated. In the event of such an accident or of any
violation of these or future laws and regulations, state or
federal authorities could curtail our use of these materials; we
could be liable for any civil damages that result, the cost of
which could be substantial; and we could be subjected to
substantial fines or penalties. In addition, any failure by us
to control the use, disposal, removal, or storage, or to
adequately restrict the discharge, or to assist in the cleanup,
of hazardous chemicals or hazardous, infectious or toxic
substances could subject us to significant liability. Any such
liability could exceed our resources and could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations. Moreover, an accident could damage our research
and manufacturing facilities and operations and result in
serious adverse effects on our business.
Natural
disasters and violent acts of public protest may cause damage or
disruption to us and our employees, facilities, information
systems, vendors, and customers.
Our operations are concentrated in Northern California. The
western United States has experienced a number of earthquakes,
wildfires, flooding, landslides, and other natural disasters in
recent years. These occurrences could damage or destroy our
facilities which may result in interruptions to our business and
losses that exceed our insurance coverage. In addition, we know
that certain individuals are strenuously opposed to certain
types of medical research, including animal testing and
embryonic stem cell research engaged in by both us and many of
our customers. Acts of both legal and illegal public protest,
including picketing and bioterrorism, could affect the markets
in which we operate and our business operations. Any of these
events could cause a decrease in both our actual and anticipated
revenue, earnings and cash flows.
The
development, manufacturing and commercialization of cell-based
therapeutic products expose us to product liability claims,
which could lead to substantial liability.
By developing and, ultimately, commercializing therapeutic
products, we are exposed to the risk of product liability
claims. Product liability claims against us could result in
substantial litigation costs and damage awards against us. We
have obtained liability insurance that covers our clinical
trials, and we will need to increase our insurance coverage if
and when we begin commercializing products. We may not be able
to obtain insurance on acceptable terms, if at all, and the
policy limits on our insurance policies may be insufficient to
cover our liability.
The
manufacture of cell-based therapeutic products is novel, highly
regulated, critical to our business, and dependent upon
specialized key materials.
The manufacture of cell-based and related products is
complicated and difficult, dependent upon substantial know-how
and subject to the need for continual process improvements to be
competitive. Our manufacturing experience is limited and the
technologies are comparatively new. In addition, our ability to
scale-up
manufacturing to satisfy the various requirements of our planned
clinical trials, such as GTP, GMP and release testing
requirements, is uncertain. Manufacturing disruptions may occur
and despite efforts to regulate and control all aspects of
manufacturing, the potential for human or system failure
remains. Manufacturing irregularities or lapses in quality
control could have a serious adverse effect on our reputation
and business, which could cause a significant loss of
stockholder value. Many of the materials that we use to prepare
our cell-based and related products are highly specialized,
complex and available from only a limited number of suppliers or
derived from a biological origin. At
30
present, some of our material requirements are single sourced,
and the loss of one or more of these sources may adversely
affect our business if we are unable to obtain alternatives or
alternative sources at all or upon terms that are acceptable to
us.
Because
health care insurers and other organizations may not pay for our
products or may impose limits on reimbursements, our ability to
become profitable could be adversely affected.
In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of potential
therapeutic products are likely to depend in part upon the
availability and amounts of reimbursement from third-party
health care payor organizations, including government agencies,
private health care insurers and other health care payors, such
as health maintenance organizations and self-insured employee
plans. There is considerable pressure to reduce the cost of
therapeutic products. Government and other third party payors
are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by
limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new
therapeutic products and by refusing, in some cases, to provide
any coverage for uses of approved products for disease
indications for which the FDA or other relevant authority has
not granted marketing approval. Moreover, in some cases,
government and other third party payors have refused to provide
reimbursement for uses of approved products for disease
indications for which the FDA or other relevant authority has
granted marketing approval. Significant uncertainty exists as to
the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products
or novel therapies such as ours. Even if we obtain regulatory
approval to market our products, we can give no assurance that
reimbursement will be provided by such payors at all or without
substantial delay or, if such reimbursement is provided, that
the approved reimbursement amounts will be sufficient to enable
us to sell products we develop on a profitable basis. Changes in
reimbursement policies could also adversely affect the
willingness of pharmaceutical companies to collaborate with us
on the development of our cellular technologies. In certain
foreign markets, pricing or profitability of prescription
pharmaceuticals is subject to government control. We also expect
that there will continue to be a number of federal and state
proposals to implement government control over health care
costs. Efforts to change regulatory and reimbursement standards
are likely to continue in future legislative sessions. We do not
know what legislative proposals federal or state governments
will adopt or what actions federal, state or private payors for
health care goods and services may take in response to such
proposals or legislation. We cannot predict the effect of
government control and health care reimbursement practices on
our business.
Ethical
and other concerns surrounding the use of stem or
progenitor-based cell therapy may negatively affect regulatory
approval or public perception of our product candidates, which
could reduce demand for our products or depress our stock
price.
The use of stem cells for research and therapy has been the
subject of debate regarding related ethical, legal and social
issues. Although these concerns have mainly been directed to the
use of embryonic stem cells, which we are not presently pursuing
for therapeutic use, the distinction between embryonic and
non-embryonic stem cells is frequently overlooked; moreover, our
use of human stem or progenitor cells from fetal sources might
raise these or similar concerns. In addition, we are continuing
the development of embryonic stem cells and iPS cells as
potential research tools, and we may in the future explore their
applicability as cell-based therapeutic products. Negative
public attitudes toward stem cell therapy could result in
greater governmental regulation of stem cell therapies, which
could harm our business. The use of these cells could give rise
to ethical and social commentary adverse to us, which could harm
the market price of our common stock. Additional
government-imposed restrictions on the use of embryos or human
embryonic stem cells in research and development could also
cause an adverse effect on us by harming our ability to
establish important partnerships or collaborations, delaying or
preventing the development of certain non-therapeutic products,
and causing a decrease in the price of our stock or by otherwise
making it more difficult for us to raise additional capital. For
example, concerns regarding such possible regulation could
impact our ability to attract collaborators and investors. Also,
existing regulatory constraints on the use of embryonic stem
cells may in the future be extended to use of fetal stem cells,
and these constraints might prohibit or restrict us from
conducting research or from commercializing products. Existing
and potential government regulation of embryonic tissue may lead
researchers to leave the field of stem cell research or the
country altogether, in order to assure that their careers will
not be impeded by restrictions on their work. Similarly, these
factors may induce graduate students to choose other fields less
vulnerable to changes in regulatory oversight, thus exacerbating
the risk that we may not be able to attract and retain the
scientific personnel we need in face of the competition among
pharmaceutical,
31
biotechnology and health care companies, universities and
research institutions for what may become a shrinking class of
qualified individuals.
Our
corporate documents and Delaware law contain provisions that
could make it difficult for us to be acquired in a transaction
that might be beneficial to our stockholders.
Our board of directors has the authority to issue shares of
preferred stock and to fix the rights, preferences, privileges,
and restrictions of these shares without stockholder approval.
These provisions in our corporate documents, along with certain
provisions under Delaware law, may make it more difficult for a
third party to acquire us or discourage a third party from
attempting to acquire us, even if the acquisition might be
beneficial to our stockholders.
Risks
Related to the Securities Market
Our
stock price has been, and will likely continue to be, highly
volatile, which may negatively affect our ability to obtain
additional financing in the future.
The market price per share of our common stock has been and is
likely to continue to be highly volatile due to the risks and
uncertainties described in this section of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
as well as other factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to develop and test our technologies;
|
|
|
|
our ability to patent or obtain licenses to necessary
technologies;
|
|
|
|
conditions and publicity regarding the industry in which we
operate, as well as the specific areas our product candidates
seek to address;
|
|
|
|
competition in our industry;
|
|
|
|
economic and other external factors or other disasters or crises;
|
|
|
|
price and volume fluctuations in the stock market at large that
are unrelated to our operating performance; and
|
|
|
|
comments by securities analysts, or our failure to meet market
expectations.
|
Over the two-year period ended December 31, 2010, the
trading price of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ
Global Market ranged from a high of $3.07 to a low of $0.75 per
share. As a result of this volatility, an investment in our
stock is subject to substantial risk. Furthermore, the
volatility of our stock price could negatively impact our
ability to raise capital or acquire businesses or technologies.
Our
stock could be delisted from the NASDAQ Global Market, which
could affect our stocks market price and
liquidity.
Our common stock is currently listed on the NASDAQ Global
Market. If we fail to satisfy any of the listing requirements of
the NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ), our common stock
may be put under review or removed from listing on the NASDAQ
Global Market.
On March 3, 2011, we received a letter from the NASDAQ
providing notification that the closing bid price for the
companys common stock had been below $1.00 per share for
the previous 30 consecutive business days, and therefore we are
not in compliance with the requirements for continued inclusion
on the NASDAQ Global Market under NASDAQ Listing
Rule 5450(a)(1). We have 180 calendar days, or until
August 30, 2011, to regain compliance with this minimum bid
price requirement. We can regain compliance if the closing bid
price of our common stock is $1.00 per share or higher for a
minimum of ten consecutive business days during this initial
180-day
compliance period. If compliance is not achieved by
August 30, 2011, NASDAQ will provide written notification
to us that our securities are subject to delisting. We will
continue to monitor the closing bid price for our common stock
and consider our available options to regain compliance with the
NASDAQ minimum bid price requirement, which may include applying
for an extension of the compliance period or an appeal to a
NASDAQ
32
Listing Qualifications Panel. However, there can be no assurance
that we will be able to regain or maintain compliance with the
minimum bid price rule or other listing criteria or that an
appeal, if taken, would be successful.
We are
contractually obligated to issue shares in the future, diluting
the interest of current stockholders.
As of December 31, 2010, there were outstanding warrants to
purchase 14,344,828 shares of our common stock, at a
weighted average exercise price of $2.08 per share, outstanding
options to purchase 10,982,415 shares of our common stock,
at a weighted average exercise price of $2.02 per share, and
outstanding restricted stock units for 4,695,055 shares of
our common stock. We expect to issue additional options and
restricted stock units to purchase shares of our common stock to
compensate employees, consultants and directors, and may issue
additional shares to raise capital, to acquire other companies
or technologies, to pay for services, or for other corporate
purposes. Any such issuances will have the effect of diluting
the interest of current stockholders.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
None
We entered into a
5-year
lease, as of February 1, 2001, for a 40,000 square
foot facility, located in the Stanford Research Park in Palo
Alto, California. This facility includes space for animals as
well as laboratories, offices and a suite designed to be used to
manufacture materials for clinical trials. Effective
July 1, 2006, under an agreement that extends the lease
through March 31, 2010, we leased the remainder of the
building, adding approximately 27,500 square feet to our
leased premises. In October 2009, we amended the lease to extend
the expiry date of the lease term from March 31, 2010 to
August 31, 2011. In September 2010, we amended our lease to
reduce the area leased to 51,200 square feet, to change the
expiry date of the lease term from August 31, 2011 to
June 30, 2011. In connection with this September 2010 lease
amendment, we terminated a space-sharing agreement covering
approximately 10,451 square feet of this facility. In
February 2011, we amended our lease to extend the expiry date of
the lease term from June 30, 2011 to August 31, 2011.
In September 2010, we entered into a two-year sublease agreement
with Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., for approximately
13,200 square feet in a facility located in Mountain View,
California and relocated part of our Palo Alto R&D
operations to this site.
In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement
with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (BMR), as landlord,
for approximately 43,000 rentable square feet of office and
research space at BMRs Pacific Research Center in Newark,
California. The initial term of the lease is approximately
eleven and one-half years, and we expect to relocate our
corporate headquarters and core research activities in August
2011. Initial base rent is expected to be approximately $2.20
per rentable square foot, with yearly increases throughout the
term, and subject to certain adjustments for draws upon the
tenant allowances among other things. We will pay approximately
$14,906,000 in aggregate as rent over the term of the lease. We
anticipate that we will be constructing laboratories, offices
and related infrastructure within the leased space during the
first several months of the lease. As part of the lease, BMR has
agreed to provide various financial allowances so that we can
build to suit initial and future laboratories, offices and other
tenant improvements, subject to customary terms and conditions
relating to landlord-funded tenant improvements. As part of the
lease, we have, until January 2013, an option to lease up to an
additional 30,000 square feet in the building.
We continue to lease a facility in Lincoln, Rhode Island
obtained in connection with our former encapsulated cell
technology: our former research laboratory and corporate
headquarters building which contains 62,500 square feet of
wet labs, specialty research areas and administrative offices
held on a lease agreement that goes through June 2013, as well
as own a 21,000 square-foot pilot manufacturing facility
and a 3,000 square-foot cell processing facility financed
by bonds issued by the Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation. We have subleased small portions of the
62,500 square foot facility, amounting to approximately
30 percent of the total space. We are actively seeking to
sublease, assign or sell our remaining interests in these
properties.
33
In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our
wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd,
effectively reducing our leased space from approximately
5,000 square feet to approximately 1,900 square feet
of office and lab space. We expect to pay approximately 55,000
GBP as rental payments for 2011. StemCells, Inc. is the
guarantor of Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltds obligations
under the existing lease.
|
|
Item 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
In July 2006, we filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the
Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging
that Neuralstems activities violate claims in four of the
patents we exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres. In December
2006, Neuralstem petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) to reexamine two of the patents in our infringement
action against Neuralstem, namely U.S. Patent
No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells
for drug screening) and U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709
(claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening
biological agents). In April 2007, Neuralstem petitioned the PTO
to reexamine the remaining two patents in the suit, namely
U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for
proliferating human neural stem cells) and U.S. Patent
No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human
neural stem cells). These requests were granted by the PTO and,
in June 2007, the parties voluntarily agreed to stay the pending
litigation while the PTO considered these reexamination
requests. In April 2008, the PTO upheld the 832 and
872 patents, as amended, and issued Notices of Intent to
Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for both. In May
2009, the PTO upheld the 346 and 709 patents, as
amended, and issued Notices of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte
Reexamination Certificate for both.
In May 2008, we filed a second patent infringement suit against
Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In
this suit, which we filed in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of California, we allege that
Neuralstems activities infringe claims in two patents we
exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically
U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of
matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source
material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming
methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition,
we allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem
arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public
about our patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed
suit against us and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court
for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that
the 505 and 418 patents are either invalid or are
not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated
California state law. In August 2008, the California court
transferred our lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for
resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District
Court granted our motion to consolidate these two cases with the
litigation we initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. In August
2009, the Maryland District Court approved a scheduling order
submitted by the parties for discovery and trial.
In addition to the actions described above, in April 2008, we
filed an opposition to Neuralstems European Patent
No. 0 915 968 (methods of isolating, propagating and
differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention
is believed by us to be unpatentable over prior art, including
the patents exclusively licensed by us from NeuroSpheres. In
December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all
composition claims in Neuralstems 968 European
patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art including
several of the NeuroSpheres patents licensed to us.
|
|
Item 4.
|
SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
|
None.
34
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
|
|
(a)
|
Market
price and dividend information
|
Our stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol
STEM. The quarterly ranges of high and low bid prices per share
for the last two fiscal years as reported by NASDAQ are shown
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.58
|
|
|
$
|
1.12
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.89
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.27
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
3.07
|
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.94
|
|
|
$
|
1.50
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
1.56
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
1.72
|
|
|
$
|
1.02
|
|
No cash dividends have been declared on our common stock since
our inception.
35
PERFORMANCE
GRAPH
We show below the cumulative total return to our stockholders
during the period from December 31, 2005 through
December 31,
20103 in
comparison to the cumulative return on the Standard &
Poors 500 Index and the Amex Biotechnology Index during
that same period.
The stock price performance shown on the graph below is not
necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
StemCells, Inc.
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
76.81
|
|
|
|
$
|
43.48
|
|
|
|
$
|
39.42
|
|
|
|
$
|
36.52
|
|
|
|
$
|
31.30
|
|
S&P 500 Index
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
113.62
|
|
|
|
$
|
117.63
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.36
|
|
|
|
$
|
89.33
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.75
|
|
Amex Biotechnology Index
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
110.77
|
|
|
|
$
|
115.51
|
|
|
|
$
|
95.04
|
|
|
|
$
|
138.36
|
|
|
|
$
|
190.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information under Performance Graph is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference in any filing of StemCells,
Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before
or after the date of this
10-K and
irrespective of any general incorporation language in those
filings.
|
|
(b)
|
Approximate
Number of Holders of Common Stock
|
As of March 7, 2011, there were approximately 596 holders
of record of our common stock and the closing price of our
common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market was $0.80 per share.
The number of record holders is based upon the actual number of
holders registered on the books of our transfer agent at such
date and does not include holders of shares in street
names or persons, partnerships, associations, corporations
or other entities identified in security position listings
maintained by depository trust companies.
(c) Recent
Sales of Unregistered Securities (last three years ending
December 31, 2010)
We did not issue unregistered securities in 2010.
3 Cumulative
total returns assumes a hypothetical investment of $100 on
December 31, 2005.
36
We issued the following unregistered securities in 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
In September 2009, we issued 5,900 shares of common stock
to the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) for payment
of annual fees of $5,000 for each of two patent families to
which we hold a license from Cal Tech, payable in cash or stock
at our choice. We elected to pay these fees in stock. The shares
were issued in a transaction not involving any public offering
pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
|
We issued the following unregistered securities in 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
In September 2008, we issued 6,924 shares of common stock
to Cal Tech for payment of annual fees of $5,000 for each of two
patent families to which we hold a license from Cal Tech,
payable in cash or stock at our choice. We elected to pay these
fees in stock. The shares were issued in a transaction not
involving any public offering pursuant to Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
|
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table provides certain information with respect to
all of our equity compensation plans in effect as of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity Compensation Plan Information
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
be Issued upon
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Future Issuance Under Equity
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Stock
|
|
|
Outstanding Stock
|
|
|
Compensation Plans
|
|
|
|
Options,
|
|
|
Options,
|
|
|
(Excluding Securities
|
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Reflected in Column(a))
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders(1)
|
|
|
15,677,470
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
5,179,302
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists of stock options issued to employees and directors,
restricted stock units issued to employees and stock options
issued as compensation to consultants for consultation services.
These stock options and restricted stock units were issued under
our 1992 Equity Incentive Plan, Directors Stock Option
Plan, StemCells, Inc. Stock Option Plan, and our 2001, 2004 and
2006 Equity Incentive Plans. |
37
|
|
Item 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
The following selected financial and operating data are derived
from our audited consolidated financial statements. The selected
financial and operating data should be read in conjunction with
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operation and the
consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained
elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from licensing agreements and grants
|
|
$
|
928
|
|
|
$
|
608
|
|
|
$
|
232
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
Revenue from product sales
|
|
|
499
|
|
|
|
385
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
21,019
|
|
|
|
19,930
|
|
|
|
17,808
|
|
|
|
19,937
|
|
|
|
13,600
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
9,377
|
|
|
|
9,530
|
|
|
|
8,296
|
|
|
|
7,927
|
|
|
|
7,154
|
|
Wind-down expenses(1)
|
|
|
222
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
783
|
|
|
|
709
|
|
Write down for other than temporary impairment of marketable
securities(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) on change in fair value of warrant liabilities(3)
|
|
|
3,005
|
|
|
|
1,899
|
|
|
|
(937
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License & settlement agreement income, net(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
551
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
Gain on sale of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
407
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
716
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(25,244
|
)
|
|
|
(27,026
|
)
|
|
|
(29,087
|
)
|
|
|
(25,023
|
)
|
|
|
(18,948
|
)
|
Basic and diluted loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.25
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.35
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.25
|
)
|
Shares used in computing basic and diluted loss per share amounts
|
|
|
123,303
|
|
|
|
106,046
|
|
|
|
82,716
|
|
|
|
79,772
|
|
|
|
74,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
19,708
|
|
|
$
|
38,618
|
|
|
$
|
30,043
|
|
|
$
|
9,759
|
|
|
$
|
51,795
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
4,182
|
|
|
|
29,847
|
|
|
|
7,266
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
30,602
|
|
|
|
51,190
|
|
|
|
41,230
|
|
|
|
48,283
|
|
|
|
66,857
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses(1)
|
|
|
3,300
|
|
|
|
4,506
|
|
|
|
5,513
|
|
|
|
6,143
|
|
|
|
6,750
|
|
Fair value of warrant liabilities(3)
|
|
|
6,672
|
|
|
|
9,677
|
|
|
|
8,440
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including capital leases
|
|
|
540
|
|
|
|
785
|
|
|
|
867
|
|
|
|
1,034
|
|
|
|
1,145
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
15,481
|
|
|
|
30,495
|
|
|
|
21,809
|
|
|
|
35,212
|
|
|
|
54,376
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Relates to wind-down and exit expenses in respect of our Rhode
Island facility and relocation of our operations in Australia .
See Note 11 Wind-down and exit costs in the
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information. |
|
(2) |
|
Relates to the impairment of our marketable equity securities
(shares of ReNeuron) determined to be other than temporary. See
Note 2 Financial Instruments in the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8
of this
Form 10-K
for further information. |
|
(3) |
|
Relates to the fair value of warrants issued as part of our
financing in November 2008 and November 2009. See Note 13
Warrant Liability in the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information. |
|
(4) |
|
Relates to an agreement with ReNeuron. See Note 2
Financial Instruments in the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information. |
38
|
|
Item 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
This report contains forward looking statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act that involve
substantial risks and uncertainties. Such statements include,
without limitation, all statements as to expectation or belief
and statements as to our future results of operations; the
progress of our research, product development and clinical
programs; the need for, and timing of, additional capital and
capital expenditures; partnering prospects; costs of manufacture
of products; the protection of, and the need for, additional
intellectual property rights; effects of regulations; the need
for additional facilities; and potential market opportunities.
Our actual results may vary materially from those contained in
such forward-looking statements because of risks to which we are
subject, including the fact that additional trials will be
required to confirm the safety and demonstrate the efficacy of
our HuCNS-SC cells for the treatment of spinal cord injury,
neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL, also known as Batten
disease), Pelizeaus-Merzbacher disease (PMD), age-related
macular degeneration or any other disease; uncertainty as to
whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Swissmedic, or other regulatory authorities will permit us to
proceed with clinical testing of proposed products despite the
novel and unproven nature of our technologies; the risk that our
clinical trials or studies could be substantially delayed beyond
their expected dates or cause us to incur substantial
unanticipated costs; uncertainties in our ability to obtain the
capital resources needed to continue our current research and
development operations and to conduct the research, preclinical
development and clinical trials necessary for regulatory
approvals; the uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain a
corporate partner or partners, if needed, to support the
development and commercialization of our potential cell-based
therapeutics products; the uncertainty regarding the outcome of
our clinical trials or studies we may conduct in the future; the
uncertainty regarding the validity and enforceability of our
issued patents; the risk that we may not be able to manufacture
additional master and working cell banks when needed; the
uncertainty whether any products that may be generated in our
cell-based therapeutics programs will prove clinically safe and
effective; the uncertainty whether we will achieve significant
revenue from product sales or become profitable; uncertainties
regarding our obligations with respect to our former
encapsulated cell therapy facilities in Rhode Island;
obsolescence of our technologies; competition from third
parties; intellectual property rights of third parties;
litigation risks; and other risks to which we are subject. All
forward-looking statements attributable to us or to persons
acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety
by the cautionary statements and risk factors set forth in
Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A of this
Form 10-K.
Overview
The
Company
We are engaged in researching, developing, and commercializing
stem cell therapeutics and enabling tools and technologies for
stem cell-based research and drug discovery and development. Our
research and development (R&D) programs are primarily
focused on identifying and developing potential cell-based
therapeutics which can either restore or support organ function.
In particular, since we relocated our corporate headquarters to
California in 1999, our R&D efforts have been directed at
refining our methods for identifying, isolating, culturing, and
purifying the human neural stem cell and human liver engrafting
cells (hLEC) and developing these as potential cell-based
therapeutics for the central nervous system (CNS) and the liver,
respectively. In our CNS Program, our
HuCNS-SC®
product candidate (purified human neural stem cells) is
currently in clinical development for spinal cord injury and two
neurodegenerative brain indications: neuronal ceroid
lipofuscinosis (NCL), a lysomal storage disorder often referred
to as Batten disease, and Pelizeaus-Merzbacher Disease (PMD), a
myelination disorder in the brain. We expect to initiate in
March 2011 a Phase I/II clinical trial of our HuCNS-SC cells in
Switzerland for the treatment of chronic spinal cord injury. We
received approval to conduct this trial from Swissmedic in
December 2010. In the United States, we are currently conducting
a Phase Ib clinical trial in infantile and late infantile NCL.
We previously completed a Phase I clinical trial in infantile
and late infantile NCL, and the data from that trial showed that
our HuCNS-SC cells were well tolerated and non-tumorigenic, and
that there was evidence of engraftment and long-term survival of
the transplanted HuCNS-SC cells. In February 2011, we completed
patient accrual in our Phase I clinical trial in PMD. Data from
this trial is expected to be reported in early 2012. In
addition, we plan to submit an IND to conduct a Phase I/II
clinical trial in a retinal disorder, such as age-related
macular degeneration, in late 2011. In our Liver Program, we are
focused on identifying and developing liver cells as potential
therapeutics for a range
39
of liver diseases. We recently identified a subset of our human
liver engrafting cells (hLEC) which we believe may be a
candidate for product development, and we are working to
characterize this subset. For a brief description of our
significant therapeutic research and development programs see
Overview Research and Development Programs in the
Business Section of Part I, Item 1 of this
Form 10-K.
We have also conducted research on several other cell types and
in other areas, which could lead to other possible product
candidates, process improvements or further research activities.
We are also engaged in developing and commercializing
applications of our technologies to enable research, which we
believe represent current and nearer-term commercial
opportunities. Our portfolio of technologies includes cell
technologies relating to embryonic stem cells, induced
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and tissue-derived (adult) stem
cells; expertise and infrastructure for providing cell-based
assays for drug discovery; a cell culture products and antibody
reagents business; and an intellectual property portfolio with
claims relevant to cell processing, reprogramming and
manipulation, as well as to gene targeting and insertion. Much
of our these enabling technologies were acquired in April 2009
as part of our acquisition of the operations of Stem Cell
Sciences Plc (SCS). See Note 5, Acquisition of SCS
Operations, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
We have not derived any revenue or cash flows from the sale or
commercialization of any products except for license revenue for
certain of our patented cells and sales of cell culture products
for use in research. As a result, we have incurred annual
operating losses since inception and expect to incur substantial
operating losses in the future. Therefore, we are dependent upon
external financing from equity and debt offerings and revenue
from collaborative research arrangements with corporate sponsors
to finance our operations. We have no such collaborative
research arrangements at this time and there can be no assurance
that such financing or partnering revenue will be available when
needed or on terms acceptable to us.
Before we can derive revenue or cash inflows from the
commercialization of any of our therapeutic product candidates,
we will need to: (i) conduct substantial in vitro
testing and characterization of our proprietary cell types,
(ii) undertake preclinical and clinical testing for
specific disease indications; (iii) develop, validate and
scale-up
manufacturing processes to produce these cell-based
therapeutics, and (iv) obtain required regulatory
approvals. These steps are risky, expensive and time consuming.
Overall, we expect our R&D expenses to be substantial and
to increase for the foreseeable future as we continue the
development and clinical investigation of our current and future
product candidates. However, expenditures on R&D programs
are subject to many uncertainties, including whether we develop
our product candidates with a partner or independently. We
cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which of our
current product candidates will be subject to future
collaboration, when such collaboration agreements will be
secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would
affect our development plans and capital requirements. In
addition, there are numerous factors associated with the
successful commercialization of any of our cell-based
therapeutics, including future trial design and regulatory
requirements, many of which cannot be determined with accuracy
at this time given the stage of our development and the novel
nature of stem cell technologies. The regulatory pathways, both
in the United States and internationally, are complex and fluid
given the novel and, in general, clinically unproven nature of
stem cell technologies. At this time, due to such uncertainties
and inherent risks, we cannot estimate in a meaningful way the
duration of, or the costs to complete, our R&D programs or
whether, when or to what extent we will generate revenues or
cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of any of our
therapeutic product candidates. While we are currently focused
on advancing each of our product development programs, our
future R&D expenses will depend on the determinations we
make as to the scientific and clinical prospects of each product
candidate, as well as our ongoing assessment of the regulatory
requirements and each product candidates commercial
potential.
Given the early stage of development of our therapeutic product
candidates, any estimates of when we may be able to
commercialize one or more of these products would not be
meaningful. Moreover, any estimate of the time and investment
required to develop potential products based upon our
proprietary HuCNS-SC and hLEC technologies will change depending
on the ultimate approach or approaches we take to pursue them,
the results of preclinical and clinical studies, and the content
and timing of decisions made by the FDA, Swissmedic and other
regulatory authorities. There can be no assurance that we will
be able to develop any product successfully, or that we
40
will be able to recover our development costs, whether upon
commercialization of a developed product or otherwise. We cannot
provide assurance that any of these programs will result in
products that can be marketed or marketed profitably. If certain
of our development-stage programs do not result in commercially
viable products, our results of operations could be materially
adversely affected.
The research markets served by our tools and technologies
products are highly competitive, complex and dynamic.
Technological advances and scientific discoveries have
accelerated the pace of change in biological research, and stem
cell technologies have been evolving particularly fast. We
compete mainly by focusing on specialty media and antibody
reagent products and cell-based assays, which are custom
designed for use in stem cell-based research, where we believe
our expertise, intellectual property and reputation give us
competitive advantage. We believe that, in this particular
market niche, our products and technologies offer customers
specific advantages over those offered by our competitors. We
compete by offering innovative, quality-controlled products,
consistently made and designed to produce reproducible results.
We continue to make investments in research and development,
quality management, quality improvement, and product innovation.
We cannot assure you that we will have sufficient resources to
continue to make such investments. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, we generated revenues from the sale of
specialty cell culture products of approximately $499, 000. We
can give no assurances that we will be able to continue to
generate such revenues in the future.
Significant
Events
Therapeutic
Product Development
In February 2010, we enrolled and dosed the first patient in our
PMD trial at UCSF Benioff Childrens Hospital, marking the
first time that neural stem cells have been transplanted as a
potential treatment for a myelination disorder. In February
2011, the fourth and final patient for this trial was enrolled
and transplanted with our HuCNS-SC human neural stem cells.
In August 2010, we published new preclinical data demonstrating
that our proprietary human neural stem cells restore lost motor
function in mice with chronic spinal cord injury. This is the
first published study to show that human neural stem cells can
restore mobility even when administered at time points beyond
the acute phase of trauma, suggesting the prospect of treating a
much broader population of injured patients than previously
demonstrated. The paper was published in the international
peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE.
In October 2010, we initiated a Phase Ib clinical trial of our
HuCNS-SC human neural stem cells in neuronal ceroid
lipofuscinosis (NCL), which is also often referred to as Batten
disease. Our goal for this Phase Ib trial is to enroll six
patients with less advanced stages of the disease than those who
participated in our first NCL trial, which was completed in
January 2009. Like the Phase I NCL trial, this second trial is
being conducted at Oregon Health & Science University
(OHSU) Doernbecher Childrens Hospital, a leading medical
center with nationally recognized programs in pediatric
neurology and neurosurgery.
In December 2010 we received authorization from Swissmedic, the
Swiss regulatory agency, to initiate a Phase I/II clinical trial
in Switzerland of our HuCNS-SC product candidate in chronic
spinal cord injury. The trial is designed to assess both safety
and preliminary efficacy in patients with varying degrees of
paralysis who are three to 12 months post-injury, and will
progressively enroll patients based upon the severity of injury.
We expect to initiate the trial in March 2011.
Tools and
Technologies Programs
In January 2010, we launched
GS1-Rtm,
the first commercially available medium to enable the
derivation, maintenance and growth of true (germline competent)
rat embryonic stem cells. GS1-R is expected to have significant
utility in the creation of genetically engineered rat models of
human disease for use in academic, medical and pharmaceutical
research.
In February 2010, we launched
GS2-Mtm,
a new cell culture medium that enables the derivation and
long-term maintenance of true mouse iPS cells. GS2-M has been
shown to increase the efficiency of reprogramming
pre-iPS cells to derive fully pluripotent stem
cells, and to maintain mouse iPS cells in a pluripotent state in
long-term culture.
41
In June 2010, a newly published independent research
demonstrated that our GS2-M cell culture media formulation
enhances the pluripotency of human embryonic stem and iPS cells.
Our GS2-M medium has already been shown to enable the derivation
and long-term maintenance of mouse iPS cells. With this new
application of GS2-M, researchers may now be able to
significantly advance human pluripotent stem cell research.
In December 2010, we launched
STEM101tm,
STEM121tm
and
STEM123tm,
three new antibody reagents that significantly improve the
visualization of human cells, including human stem cells and
their progeny. These high potency antibody reagents , which
expand the range of our SC
Proven®
portfolio of research products, provide tools for the detection,
tracking and characterization of human cells both in vitro
and when transplanted into animal models of human diseases.
In January, 2011 we launched
STEM24(tm)
and
STEM133(tm),
two new antibody reagents that have utility for the isolation
and detection of a range of different human cell types.
Intellectual
Property and Licensing Activities
In March 2010, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Intellectual Property
Office granted us patent number GB2451523 with broad claims
covering true (germline competent) rat stem cells and
genetically engineered rats derived from these cells. The
patented technology is expected to have significant utility to
academic and pharmaceutical industry researchers by enabling
them to create novel rat models for the study of human diseases.
In August 2010, we announced that our technology was used by
independent researchers to achieve the first genetically
engineered rat derived from rat embryonic stem cells. This
breakthrough work, published in the international peer-reviewed
journal Nature, makes possible the types of genetic
manipulations previously only possible in mice. Both mice and
rats are used as animal models of human disease; however certain
aspects of the rats physiology, behavior, and metabolism
are closer to the human, making rats the preferred species for
drug development and studying human disease.
Financing
and Other Business-related Activities
In June 2010, we appointed R. Scott Greer to our Board of
Directors. Mr. Greer is a successful entrepreneur with a
proven track record in developing and growing life sciences
companies, and adds more than twenty-five years of life sciences
and financial services industry experience to our Board. In
addition, we reconstituted our Strategic Transactions Committee,
which Mr. Greer chairs, as a standing committee of the
Board.
In June 2010, we raised gross proceeds of $6,055,000 through the
sale of 7,000,000 shares of common stock to an
institutional investor at a price of $0.865 per share. No
warrants were issued in this transaction. The shares were sold
under our effective shelf registration statement previously
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part
of the agreement, the institutional investor agreed to purchase
an additional 5,000,000 shares of common stock twelve weeks
after the initial closing, subject to our election to sell the
additional shares. In September 2010, we decided not to sell the
additional shares.
In October 2010, we were awarded cash grants totaling $977,917
for projects related to our CNS and Liver programs. These grants
were certified under the federal governments Qualifying
Therapeutic Discovery Project (QTDP) program, which was created
as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010. All four project applications submitted by us were
approved, and we received the entire grant amounts in December
2010.
In January 2011, we sold 10,000,000 shares of our common
stock to selected institutional investors at a price of $1.00
per share. We received net proceeds, after deducting offering
expenses and fees, of approximately $9,400,000. The investors
were also granted an option to purchase an additional
6,000,000 shares at $1.00 per share. The option was not
exercised and expired on February 18, 2011. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration statement filed
with the SEC on June 25, 2008.
Critical
Accounting Policies and the Use of Estimates
The accompanying discussion and analysis of our financial
condition and results of operations are based on our
Consolidated Financial Statements and the related disclosures,
which have been prepared in accordance with
42
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP).
The preparation of these Consolidated Financial Statements
requires management to make estimates, assumptions, and
judgments that affect the reported amounts in our Consolidated
Financial Statements and accompanying notes. These estimates
form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of
assets and liabilities. We base our estimates and judgments on
historical experience and on various other assumptions that we
believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, and we have
established internal controls related to the preparation of
these estimates. Actual results and the timing of the results
could differ materially from these estimates.
Warrant
Liability
Authoritative accounting guidance prescribes that warrants
issued under contracts that could require net-cash settlement
should be classified as liabilities and contracts that only
provide for settlement in shares should be classified as equity.
In order for a contract to be classified as equity, specific
conditions must be met. These conditions are intended to
identify situations in which net cash settlement could be forced
upon the issuer. As part of both our November 2008 and November
2009 financings, we issued warrants with five year terms to
purchase 10,344,828 and 4,000,000 shares of our common
stock at $2.30 and $1.50 per share, respectively. As the
contracts include the possibility of net-cash settlement, we are
required to classify the fair value of the warrants issued as a
liability, with subsequent changes in fair value to be recorded
as income (loss) on change in fair value of warrant liability.
The fair value of the warrants is determined using the
Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option pricing model and is
affected by changes in inputs to that model including our stock
price, expected stock price volatility, the contractual term,
and the risk-free interest rate. Our estimate of the expected
volatility is based on historical volatility. The expected term
of the warrants is based on the time to expiration of the
warrants from the date of measurement. Risk-free interest rates
are derived from the yield on U.S. Treasury debt
securities. We will continue to classify the fair value of the
warrants as a liability until the warrants are exercised, expire
or are amended in a way that would no longer require these
warrants to be classified as a liability. The estimated fair
value of our warrant liability at December 31, 2010, was
approximately $6,672,000.
Stock-Based
Compensation
U.S. GAAP requires us to recognize expense related to the
fair value of our stock-based compensation awards, including
employee stock options and restricted stock units. Employee
stock-based compensation is estimated at the date of grant based
on the awards fair value using the Black-Scholes option
pricing model and is recognized as expense ratably over the
requisite service period. The Black-Scholes option pricing model
requires the use of certain assumptions, the most significant of
which are our estimates of the expected volatility of the market
price of our stock, the expected term of the award, and the
risk-free interest rate. Our estimate of the expected volatility
is based on historical volatility. The expected term represents
the period during which our stock-based awards are expected to
be outstanding. In 2010, we estimated this amount based on
historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to
the contractual terms of the awards, vesting requirements, and
expectation of future employee behavior, including post-vesting
terminations. Our estimate of the risk-free interest rate is
based on U.S. Treasury debt securities with maturities
close to the expected term of the option as of the date of
grant. We review our valuation assumptions at each grant date
and, as a result, our assumptions in future periods may change.
At the end of each reporting period we estimate forfeiture rates
based on our historical experience within separate groups of
employees and adjust stock-based compensation expense
accordingly. For the year ended December 31, 2010, employee
stock-based compensation expense (stock options, restricted
stock units and 401(k) Plan employer match in form of shares)
was approximately $3,930,000. As of December 31, 2010,
total compensation cost related to unvested stock options and
restricted stock units not yet recognized was approximately
$6,162,000, which is expected to be recognized as expense over a
weighted-average period of 2.6 years.
Wind-down
expenses
Rhode
Island
In connection with our wind-down of our research and
manufacturing operations in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the
relocation of our corporate headquarters and remaining research
laboratories to California in October 1999, we provided a
reserve for our estimate of the exit cost obligation. The
reserve reflects estimates of the ongoing costs of our former
research and administrative facility in Lincoln, which we hold
on a lease that terminates on June 30,
43
2013. We are seeking to sublease, assign, sell, or otherwise
divest ourselves of our interest in the facility at the earliest
possible time, but we cannot determine with certainty a fixed
date by which such events will occur, if at all.
In determining the facility exit cost reserve amount, we are
required to consider our lease payments through the end of the
lease term and estimate other relevant factors such as facility
operating expenses, real estate market conditions in Rhode
Island for similar facilities, occupancy rates, and sublease
rental rates projected over the course of the leasehold. We
re-evaluate the estimate each quarter, taking into account
changes, if any, in each of the underlying factors. The process
is inherently subjective because it involves projections into
time from the date of the estimate through the end
of the lease and it is not possible to determine any
of the factors except the lease payments with certainty over
that period.
Management forms its best estimate on a quarterly basis, after
considering actual sublease activity, reports from our
broker/realtor about current and predicted real estate market
conditions in Rhode Island, the likelihood of new subleases in
the foreseeable future for the specific facility and significant
changes in the actual or projected operating expenses of the
property. We discount the projected net outflow over the term of
the lease to arrive at the present value, and adjust the reserve
to that figure. The estimated vacancy rate for the facility is
an important assumption in determining the reserve because
changes in this assumption have the greatest effect on estimated
sublease income. In addition, the vacancy rate estimate is the
variable most subject to change, while at the same time it
involves the greatest judgment and uncertainty due to the
absence of highly predictive information concerning the future
of the local economy and future demand for specialized
laboratory and office space in that area. The average vacancy
rate of the facility over the last eight years (2003 through
2010) was approximately 74%, varying from 62% to 89%. As of
December 31, 2010, based on current information available
to management, the vacancy rate is projected to be approximately
69% for 2011, and approximately 70% from 2012 through the end of
the lease. These estimates are based on actual occupancy as of
December 31, 2010, predicted lead time for acquiring new
subtenants, historical vacancy rates for the area and
assessments by our broker/realtor of future real estate market
conditions. If the assumed vacancy rate for 2011 to the end of
the lease had been five percentage points higher or lower at
December 31, 2010, then the reserve would have increased or
decreased by approximately $61,000. Similarly, a 5% increase or
decrease in the operating expenses for the facility from 2010 on
would have increased or decreased the reserve by approximately
$49,000, and a 5% increase or decrease in the assumed average
rental charge per square foot would have increased or decreased
the reserve by approximately $46,000. Management does not wait
for specific events to change its estimate, but instead uses its
best efforts to anticipate them on a quarterly basis.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recorded actual
expenses against this reserve, net of subtenant income, of
approximately $1,219,000. Based on managements evaluation
of the factors mentioned above, and particularly the projected
vacancy rates described above, we adjusted the reserve in 2010
by recording an additional $291,000 as wind-down expenses. At
December 31, 2010, the reserve was $3,300,000.
Australia
On April 1, 2009, as part of our acquisition of the SCS
operations, we acquired certain operations near Melbourne,
Australia. In order to reduce operating complexity and expenses,
we made the decision to close our site in Australia and
consolidate personnel and programs to our Cambridge, U.K. and
Palo Alto, California sites. At June 30, 2009, we
established a reserve of approximately $310,000 for the
estimated costs to close down and exit our Australia operations.
The reserve reflects the estimated cost to terminate our
facility lease in Australia (which provided for an original
termination date of December 31, 2010), employee
termination benefits and other liabilities associated with the
wind-down and relocation of our operations in Australia. As of
December 31, 2010, the facility lease agreement has been
terminated and our operations in Australia have been relocated
to Cambridge, U.K. and Palo Alto, California. We recorded actual
expenses, net of foreign currency translation changes, of
approximately $241,000 against this reserve. At
December 31, 2010, we concluded that all costs related to
the close down and exit of our Australia operations have been
recorded against the reserve and we closed the reserve by
crediting the remaining reserve balance of $69,000 to wind-down
expense.
44
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets (Patent and License
Costs)
Goodwill of approximately $1,877,000 at December 31, 2010,
relates to the acquisition of SCS operations. Goodwill and
intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives are not
amortized but are subject to annual impairment tests. If the
assumptions and estimates used to allocate the purchase price
are not correct, or if business conditions change, purchase
price adjustments or future asset impairment charges could be
required. We test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or
more frequently if we believe indicators of impairment exist.
Impairment evaluations involve management estimates of asset
useful lives and future cash flows. Significant management
judgment is required in the forecasts of future operating
results that are used in the evaluations, and it is possible,
even likely, that the plans and estimates used may be incorrect.
If our actual results, or the plans and estimates used in future
impairment analysis are lower than the original estimates used
to assess the recoverability of these assets, we could incur
additional impairment charges in a future period. We completed
our annual impairment testing during the fourth quarter of 2010,
and determined that there was no impairment of goodwill.
Other intangible assets, net were approximately $2,997,000 at
December 31, 2010. Intangible assets with finite useful
lives are amortized generally on a straight-line basis over the
periods benefited. Intangible assets with finite useful lives
are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset may not
be recoverable. Prior to fiscal year 2001, we capitalized
certain patent costs, which are being amortized over the
estimated life of the patent and would be expensed at the time
such patents are deemed to have no continuing value. Since 2001,
all patent costs are expensed as incurred. License costs are
capitalized and amortized over the estimated life of the license
agreement. In 2010, we wrote-off the unamortized amount of
approximately $67,000 for certain license agreements that we
terminated.
Impairment
of Long-Lived Tangible Assets
Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an
asset may not be recoverable. If property, plant, and equipment
are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized
equals the amount by which the carrying value of the assets
exceeds its estimated fair market value. In 2010, we recorded a
charge of approximately $63,000, to adjust the fair value of
certain lab equipment we expect to dispose. No such impairment
was recognized during the years 2009 and 2008.
Income
Taxes
When accounting for income taxes, we recognize deferred tax
assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences
of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the
tax bases of assets and liabilities. Income tax receivables and
liabilities and deferred tax assets and liabilities are
recognized based on the amounts that more likely than not will
be sustained upon ultimate settlement with taxing authorities.
Developing our provision for income taxes and analyzing our tax
positions requires significant judgment and knowledge of federal
and state income tax laws, regulations and strategies, including
the determination of deferred tax assets and liabilities and,
any valuation allowances that may be required for deferred tax
assets.
We assess the likelihood of realizing our deferred tax assets to
determine whether an income tax valuation allowance is required.
Based on such evidence that can be objectively verified, we
determine whether it is more likely than not that all or a
portion of the deferred tax assets will be realized. The main
factors that we consider include:
|
|
|
|
|
cumulative losses in recent years;
|
|
|
|
income/losses expected in future years; and
|
|
|
|
the applicable statute of limitations.
|
Tax benefits associated with uncertain tax positions are
recognized in the period in which one of the following
conditions is satisfied: (1) the more likely than not
recognition threshold is satisfied; (2) the position is
ultimately settled through negotiation or litigation; or
(3) the statute of limitations for the taxing authority to
examine and challenge the position has expired. Tax benefits
associated with an uncertain tax position are reversed in the
period in which the more likely than not recognition threshold
is no longer satisfied.
45
We concluded that the realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon future earnings, if any, the timing and amount of
which are uncertain. Accordingly, the net deferred tax assets
have been fully offset by a valuation allowance.
Results
of Operations
Our results of operations have varied significantly from year to
year and quarter to quarter and may vary significantly in the
future due to the occurrence of material recurring and
nonrecurring events, including without limitation the receipt
and payment of recurring and nonrecurring licensing payments,
the initiation or termination of research collaborations, the
on-going expenses to lease and maintain our Rhode Island
facilities, other than temporary impairment of our financial
assets, changes in estimated fair value of our warrant
liability, and increasing operating costs.
Revenue
Revenue totaled approximately $1,427,000 in 2010, $993,000 in
2009, and $232,000 in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versus 2009
|
|
|
Versus 2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensing agreements and grants
|
|
$
|
927,772
|
|
|
$
|
608,011
|
|
|
$
|
231,730
|
|
|
$
|
319,761
|
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
|
$
|
376,281
|
|
|
|
162
|
%
|
Product Sales
|
|
|
499,200
|
|
|
|
384,859
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,341
|
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
384,859
|
|
|
|
*
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenue
|
|
|
1,426,972
|
|
|
|
992,870
|
|
|
|
231,730
|
|
|
|
434,102
|
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
|
|
761,140
|
|
|
|
328
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Sales
|
|
|
168,424
|
|
|
|
261,443
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(93,019
|
)
|
|
|
(36
|
)%
|
|
|
261,443
|
|
|
|
*
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Profit
|
|
$
|
1,258,548
|
|
|
$
|
731,427
|
|
|
$
|
231,730
|
|
|
$
|
527,121
|
|
|
|
72
|
%
|
|
$
|
499,697
|
|
|
|
216
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Calculation cannot be performed or is not meaningful |
Total revenue in 2010 was approximately $1,427,000, which was
44% higher than total revenue in 2009. Licensing and grant
revenue for 2010 were approximately $320,000, or 53%, higher as
compared to 2009. The increase was primarily attributable to a
milestone payment of approximately $438,000 received from a
licensee under terms of a license agreement, net of royalty due
to NeuroSpheres, Ltd. (NeuroSpheres), an Alberta corporation
from which we have licensed some of our patent rights (See
Note 2, Financial Instruments in the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8
of this
Form 10-K
for further information). In 2010, we recognized approximately
$499,000 as revenue from product sales and $168,000 as cost of
product sales, compared to approximately $385,000 as revenue
from product sales and $261,000 as cost of products sales in
2009. The increase in 2010 compared to 2009 was primarily
attributable to the consolidation of four quarters of product
sales from our acquired operations in the U.K. in 2010 compared
to three quarters in 2009. In 2010, approximately 12% of our
product sales were in the United States, 27% in Asia and the
remainder primarily in Europe.
Total revenue in 2009 was approximately $993,000, which was 328%
higher than total revenue in 2008. The increase in 2009 compared
to 2008 was primarily attributable to the consolidation, as of
April 1, 2009, of revenues from the acquired SCS
operations, which were not part of our operations in 2008.
Licensing and grant revenue for 2009 were approximately
$376,000, or 162%, higher as compared to 2008. This increase was
primarily attributable to approximately $387,000 in grant and
licensing revenue recognized and consolidated as part of our
acquisition of the SCS operations, and an increase in grant
revenue of approximately $80,000 from an existing grant which we
were awarded in October 2008 from the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to research and
develop a potential cell-based therapeutic for liver disease.
Those increases were partially offset by a decrease of
approximately $91,000 in licensing revenue from existing
licensing agreements. In 2009, we recognized and consolidated
approximately $385,000 and $261,000 as revenue from product
sales and cost of product sales, respectively, in connection
with of our acquisition of the SCS operations, compared to none
in the same period
46
of 2008. In 2009, approximately 9% of our product sales were in
the United States, 27% in Asia and the remainder primarily in
Europe.
Operating
Expenses
Operating expense totaled approximately $30,618,000 in 2010,
$30,110,000 in 2009, and $26,970,000 in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versus 2009
|
|
|
Versus 2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research & development
|
|
$
|
21,019,301
|
|
|
$
|
19,929,592
|
|
|
$
|
17,808,009
|
|
|
$
|
1,089,709
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,121,583
|
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
Selling, general & administrative
|
|
|
9,376,774
|
|
|
|
9,530,421
|
|
|
|
8,295,554
|
|
|
|
(153,647
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)%
|
|
|
1,234,867
|
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Wind-down expenses
|
|
|
221,991
|
|
|
|
649,608
|
|
|
|
866,199
|
|
|
|
(427,617
|
)
|
|
|
(66
|
)%
|
|
|
(216,591
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
$
|
30,618,066
|
|
|
$
|
30,109,621
|
|
|
$
|
26,969,762
|
|
|
$
|
508,445
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,139,859
|
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research
and Development Expenses
Our R&D expenses consist primarily of salaries and related
personnel expenses, costs associated with clinical trials and
regulatory submissions; costs associated with preclinical
activities such as toxicology studies; costs associated with
cell processing and process development; certain patent-related
costs such as licensing; facilities-related costs such as
depreciation; lab equipment; and supplies. Clinical trial
expenses include payments to vendors such as clinical research
organizations, contract manufacturers, clinical trial sites,
laboratories for testing clinical samples and consultants.
Cumulative R&D costs incurred since we refocused our
activities on developing cell-based therapeutics (fiscal years
2000 through 2010) were approximately $132 million.
Over this period, the majority of these cumulative costs were
related to: (i) characterization of our proprietary
HuCNS-SC cell, (ii) expenditures for toxicology and other
preclinical studies, preparation and submission of applications
to regulatory agencies to conduct clinical trials and obtaining
regulatory clearance to initiate such trials, all with respect
to our HuCNS-SC cells, (iii) preclinical studies and
development of our human liver engrafting cells, (iv) costs
associated with cell processing and process development, and
(v) costs associated with our clinical studies.
We use and manage our R&D resources, including our
employees and facilities, across various projects rather than on
a
project-by-project
basis for the following reasons. The allocations of time and
resources change as the needs and priorities of individual
projects and programs change, and many of our researchers are
assigned to more than one project at any given time.
Furthermore, we are exploring multiple possible uses for each of
our proprietary cell types, so much of our R&D effort is
complementary to and supportive of each of these projects.
Lastly, much of our R&D effort is focused on manufacturing
processes, which can result in process improvements useful
across cell types. We also use external service providers to
assist in the conduct of our clinical trials, to manufacture
certain of our product candidates and to provide various other
R&D related products and services. Many of these costs and
expenses are complementary to and supportive of each of our
programs. Because we do not have a development collaborator for
any of our product programs, we are currently responsible for
all costs incurred with respect to our product candidates.
R&D expense totaled approximately $21,019,000 in 2010, as
compared to $19,930,000 in 2009 and $17,808,000 in 2008. At
December 31, 2010, we had 62 full-time employees
working in research and development and laboratory support
services as compared to 59 at December 31, 2009 and 43 at
December 31, 2008.
2010 versus 2009. R&D expenses increased
approximately $1,090,000, or 5%, in 2010 compared to 2009. This
increase was primarily attributable to (i) an increase of
approximately $328,000 in R&D expenses related to
consolidation of four quarters of our acquired operations in
2010 compared to three quarters in 2009, (ii) an increase
47
of approximately $496,000 in expenses related to our clinical
trials, (iii) an increase in personnel expenses of
approximately $255,000 due to an increase in head count, and
(iv) a net increase of approximately $11,000 in other
operating expenses.
2009 versus 2008. The increase in R&D
expenses of approximately $2,122,000, or 12%, in 2009 as
compared to 2008 was primarily attributable to a
(i) increased R&D expenses of approximately $1,842,000
from consolidating the operations acquired from SCS (these
additional R&D activities are primarily focused on
developing applications of our cell technologies that would
enable research, such as cell-based assays for drug discovery),
and (ii) an increase in personnel expenses of approximately
$890,000, resulting from an increased head count in our
California site to support expanded operations in our cell
processing and product development programs and an increase in
variable performance based compensation expense. At our
California site, we had 59 full time employees in research
and development and laboratory support services at
December 31, 2009, as compared to 43 at December 31,
2008. These increased expenses were partially offset by a
decrease of approximately $610,000 in expenses primarily
attributable to a reduction in our use of external services and
supplies related to manufacturing and testing of our cells, and
to the completion of our Phase I NCL trial in January 2009.
Selling,
General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are
primarily comprised of salaries, benefits and other
staff-related costs associated with sales and marketing,
finance, legal, human resources, information technology, and
other administrative personnel, facilities and overhead costs,
external legal and other external general and administrative
services.
SG&A expenses totaled approximately $9,377,000 in 2010,
compared with $9,530,000 in 2009 and $8,296,000 in 2008.
2010 versus 2009. SG&A expenses decreased
by approximately $154,000, or 2%, in 2010 compared to 2009. This
decrease was primarily attributable to (i) a decrease of
approximately $54,000 in SG&A expenses at our U.K.
operations primarily attributable to a decrease in consulting
expenses, (ii) a decrease of approximately $57,000 in
personnel expenses primarily attributable to a decrease in
stock-based compensation expense, and (iii) a net decrease
of approximately $43,000 in other operating expenses.
2009 versus 2008. SG&A expenses were
approximately $1,235,000 higher in 2009 as compared to 2008,
with approximately $693,000 of this increase due to non
recurring expenses related to the acquisition of the SCS
operations. Excluding these acquisition expenses, SG&A
expenses were approximately $542,000, or 7%, higher in 2009 as
compared to 2008. This increase was primarily attributable to
(i) increased SG&A expenses of approximately $695,000
related to the consolidation of the operations acquired from
SCS, (ii) an increase in personnel expenses of $264,000
primarily due to an increase in variable performance-based
compensation expense, and (iii) an increase in other
expenses of approximately $79,000, mainly related to investor
relations. These increased expenses were partially offset by a
decrease in external services of approximately $496,000,
primarily attributable to a decrease in patent and legal fees.
Wind-down
Expenses
Rhode
Island
In 1999, in connection with exiting our former research facility
in Rhode Island, we created a reserve for the estimated lease
payments and operating expenses related to it. The reserve has
been re-evaluated and adjusted based on assumptions relevant to
real estate market conditions and the estimated time until we
could either fully sublease, assign or sell our remaining
interests in the property. The reserve inclusive of deferred
rent was approximately $3,300,000 at December 31, 2010 and
$4,433,000 at December 31, 2009. Payments net of subtenant
income were recorded against this reserve of $1,219,000 in 2010,
$1,216,000 in 2009, and $1,293,000 in 2008. We re-evaluated the
estimate and adjusted the reserve by recording, in aggregate,
additional wind-down expenses of $291,000 in 2010, $340,000 in
2009, and $866,000 in 2008. Expenses for this facility will
fluctuate based on changes in tenant occupancy rates and other
operating expenses related to the lease. Even though it is our
intent to sublease, assign, sell, or otherwise divest ourselves
of our interests in the facility at the earliest possible time,
we cannot determine
48
with certainty a fixed date by which such events will occur. In
light of this uncertainty, based on estimates, we will
periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve, as necessary.
See Note 11 Wind-down and exit costs, in the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Australia
On April 1, 2009, as part of our acquisition of the SCS
operations, we acquired certain operations near Melbourne,
Australia. In order to reduce operating complexity and expenses,
we made the decision to close our site in Australia and
consolidate personnel and programs to our Cambridge, U.K. and
Palo Alto, California sites. At June 30, 2009, we
established a reserve of approximately $310,000 for the
estimated costs to close down and exit our Australia operations.
The reserve reflects the estimated cost to terminate our
facility lease in Australia (which provided for an original
termination date of December 31, 2010), employee
termination benefits and other liabilities associated with the
wind-down and relocation of our operations in Australia. As of
December 31, 2010, the facility lease agreement has been
terminated and our operations in Australia have been relocated
to Cambridge, U.K. and Palo Alto, California. We recorded actual
expenses, net of foreign currency translation changes of
approximately $241,000 against this reserve. At
December 31, 2010, we concluded that all costs related to
the close down and exit of our Australia operations have been
recorded against the reserve and we closed the reserve by
crediting the remaining reserve balance of $69,000 to wind-down
expense.
Other
Income (Expense)
Other income totaled approximately $4,116,000 in 2010, compared
with other income of approximately $2,352,000 in 2009 and other
expense of $2,349,000 in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versus 2009
|
|
|
Versus 2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain on sale of marketable securities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
406,910
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(406,910
|
)
|
|
|
(100
|
)%
|
|
$
|
406,910
|
|
|
|
*
|
%
|
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,082,894
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
%
|
|
|
2,082,894
|
|
|
|
(100
|
)%
|
Change in fair value of warrant liability
|
|
|
3,005,040
|
|
|
|
1,898,603
|
|
|
|
(937,241
|
)
|
|
|
1,106,437
|
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
2,835,844
|
|
|
|
(303
|
)%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
26,728
|
|
|
|
67,345
|
|
|
|
803,095
|
|
|
|
(40,617
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)%
|
|
|
(735,750
|
)
|
|
|
(92
|
)%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(93,382
|
)
|
|
|
(110,807
|
)
|
|
|
(109,762
|
)
|
|
|
17,425
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,045
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Qualifying Therapeutic Disc. Proj. Grant
|
|
|
977,917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
977,917
|
|
|
|
*
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
199,664
|
|
|
|
89,732
|
|
|
|
(21,943
|
)
|
|
|
109,932
|
|
|
|
123
|
%
|
|
|
111,675
|
|
|
|
(508
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense), net
|
|
$
|
4,115,967
|
|
|
$
|
2,351,783
|
|
|
$
|
(2,348,745
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,764,184
|
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,700,528
|
|
|
|
(200
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Calculation cannot be performed or is not meaningful. |
Gain
on Sale of Marketable Equity Securities
The gain on sale of marketable equity securities of
approximately $407,000 in 2009 was primarily attributable to
sales of ReNeuron shares. See Note 2 Financial
Instruments, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information on this transaction.
Other
than temporary Impairment of Marketable Securities
As of December 31, 2008, we determined that our investment
in ReNeuron shares (marketable equity securities) was impaired
and that such impairment was other than temporary. We considered
various criteria, including the duration of the impairment and
our intent to liquidate all or part of this investment within a
reasonably
49
short period of time. For the year ended December 31, 2008,
we recorded a loss of $2,082,894, which is the difference
between the investments carrying value and its quoted
market price at that date. No other than temporary impairment
was recognized during the years ended December 31, 2010 and
2009. See Note 2 Financial Instruments, in the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information on this transaction.
Change
in Fair Value of Warrant Liability
We record changes in fair value of outstanding warrants as
income or loss in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. The
outstanding warrants were issued as part of both our November
2008 and November 2009 financings and were classified as a
liability. The fair value of the outstanding warrants is
determined using the Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option
pricing model and is affected by changes in inputs to that model
including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, the
contractual term, and the risk-free interest rate. The fair
value of the warrant liability will be revalued at the end of
each reporting period, with the change in fair value of the
warrant liability recorded as a gain or loss in our Consolidated
Statements of Operations. See Note 13 Warrant
Liability, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information on this transaction.
Interest
Income
Interest income totaled approximately $27,000 in 2010, $67,000
in 2009, and $803,000 in 2008. The decrease in interest income
from 2008 to 2010 was primarily attributable to lower average
yields on cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. The
decrease for 2010 compared to 2009 was also due to lower average
cash balances.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense was approximately $93,000 in 2010, $111,000 in
2009, and $110,000 in 2008. The decrease in interest expense in
2010 as compared to 2009 was primarily attributable to lower
outstanding debt and capital lease balances. Interest expense in
2009 as compared to 2008 was relatively flat.
Qualifying
Therapeutic Discovery Project Grants
In October 2010, we were awarded four cash grants totaling
approximately $978,000, in aggregate, for work related to our
CNS and Liver Programs. These grants were certified under the
federal governments Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery
Projects program, which was created by Congress as part of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. See
Note 17 The Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project
Grant, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
of Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information on these grants.
Other
Income (Expense), net
Other income, net in 2010 includes approximately $227,000 from
final settlement of various claims related to our SCS
acquisition. On April 1, 2009, we acquired the operations
of Stem Cell Sciences Plc (SCS, now known as Asset Realization
Company Ltd.) As consideration, we issued 2,650,000 shares
of our common stock with a closing price of $1.67 per share and
waived certain commitments of SCS to repay approximately
$709,000 in principal and accrued interest owed to us. Pursuant
to the acquisition agreement, 20% of the 2,650,000 shares
were placed into an escrow for a twelve month period to satisfy
any indemnification obligations owed to us by SCS. On
August 19, 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement
with SCS in which the parties agreed to the release of half the
escrowed shares to SCS and half to us in full satisfaction of
our claims for indemnification, and both parties waived all
other claims, known and unknown, against the other. The
265,000 shares returned to us are being treated as retired
and no longer outstanding. We have recorded approximately
$227,000 as other income, which was the value of these shares
based on the closing price of $0.91 per share on August 19,
2010, and net of amounts already accrued for potential claims
against the escrowed shares. Other income also includes
approximately $89,000 of R&D tax credits due to our
wholly-owned subsidiary Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd. The above
income was offset by other expenses, net of approximately
$116,000 primarily related to write-down of assets and state
franchise taxes.
50
Other income, net in 2009 was approximately $90,000. This was
primarily related to R&D tax credits of approximately
$152,000 due to our wholly-owned subsidiary Stem Cell Sciences
(Australia) Pty Ltd recorded as other income. Other income for
2009 was partially offset by approximately $59,000 in foreign
exchange transaction losses and approximately $3,000 in state
franchise taxes. Other expense, net for 2008 was approximately
$22,000, primarily related to the payment of state franchise
taxes.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Since our inception, we have financed our operations through the
sale of common and preferred stock, the issuance of long-term
debt and capitalized lease obligations, revenue from research
grants, license fees, product sales and interest income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versus 2009
|
|
Versus 2008
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
At December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and highly liquid investments(1)
|
|
$
|
19,707,821
|
|
|
$
|
38,617,977
|
|
|
$
|
34,037,775
|
|
|
$
|
(18,910,156
|
)
|
|
|
(49
|
)%
|
|
$
|
4,580,202
|
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
Year ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities
|
|
$
|
(24,519,913
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,682,669
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,740,421
|
)
|
|
$
|
162,756
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(1,942,248
|
)
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
$
|
(923,964
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,731,991
|
|
|
$
|
24,223,629
|
|
|
$
|
(4,655,955
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(20,491,638
|
)
|
|
|
(85
|
)%
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
$
|
6,586,380
|
|
|
$
|
29,786,280
|
|
|
$
|
18,800,609
|
|
|
$
|
(23,199,900
|
)
|
|
|
(78
|
)%
|
|
$
|
10,985,671
|
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Cash and highly liquid investments include unrestricted cash,
cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term marketable debt
securities. Marketable equity securities, which are comprised of
approximately 1,922,000 ordinary shares of ReNeuron with a
market value in aggregate of approximately $191,000, $197,000
and $187,000 as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively are excluded from the amounts above. See
Note 2, Financial Instruments, in the Notes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information. |
Total cash and highly liquid investments were approximately
$19,708,000 at December 31, 2010, compared with
approximately $38,618,000 at December 31, 2009, and
$34,038,000 at December 31, 2008. The decrease of cash and
highly liquid investments of approximately $18,910,000, or 49%
in 2010 as compared to 2009, was primarily attributable to
higher proceeds from the issuance of common stock in 2009 as
compared to 2010. In 2010, we received approximately $7,279,000
as net proceeds from the issuance of common stock as compared to
approximately $29,603,000 in 2009. The increase in cash and
highly liquid investments of approximately $4,580,000, or 13%,
in 2009 as compared to 2008 was primarily attributable to cash
generated by financing activities and partially offset by cash
used in operating activities.
In January 2011, we raised gross proceeds of $10,000,000 through
the sale of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock to
selected institutional investors at a price of $1.00 per share.
We received net proceeds, after deducting offering expenses and
fees, of approximately $9,400,000. The investors were also
granted an option to purchase an additional
6,000,000 shares at $1.00 per share. The option was not
exercised and expired on February 18, 2011. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration statement
previously filed with the SEC. At December 31, 2010, we had
cash, and cash equivalents of approximately $19,708,000, and
together with the net proceeds of this sale, would have a pro
forma cash balance of approximately $29,108,000.
Net
Cash Used in Operating Activities
Cash used in operating activities consists of net loss for the
year, adjusted for non-cash expenses such as depreciation and
amortization and stock-based compensation and adjustments for
changes in various components of working capital. Cash used in
operating activities was approximately $24,520,000 in 2010,
$24,683,000 in 2009,
51
and $22,740,000 in 2008. Cash used in operating activities in
2010 compared to 2009 was relatively flat. The increase in cash
used in operating activities in 2009 compared to 2008 was
primarily attributable to the increased operating expenses,
which were partially offset by increased revenue from the
consolidation of the SCS operations. See Note 5
Acquisition of SCS Operations in the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8
of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Net
Cash Provided by Investing Activities
Net cash provided by investing activities in 2010 as compared to
2009 decreased by $4,655,955, or 125%. In 2010, our investment
portfolio comprised primarily of U.S. Treasury debt
securities, which are classified as cash equivalents, with no
positions held in-long term marketable debt securities. In 2009,
we received net proceeds of approximately $4,018,000 as
marketable debt securities we held reached maturity, and
approximately $510,000 from the sale of 2,900,000 ordinary
shares of ReNeuron (marketable equity securities). The decrease
of $20,492,000, or 85%, in net cash provided by investing
activities in 2009 as compared to 2008 was primarily
attributable to a lower amount of investments (marketable debt
securities) held to maturity in 2009 than in 2008. In 2008, we
received net proceeds of approximately $23,859,000 as marketable
debt securities we held reached maturity.
Net
Cash Provided by Financing Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities in 2010 decreased by
approximately $23,200,000, or 78%, compared to 2009, primarily
due to lower net proceeds from sales of common stock. In 2010,
we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $7,279,000
from the sale of 1,475,200 shares of common stock at an
average price of $1.16 per share under various sales agreements
and the sale of 7,000,000 shares at $0.865 per share to an
institutional investor. In 2009, we received net proceeds of
approximately $29,603,000 from the sale of 9,817,400 shares
of common stock at an average price of $1.88 per share under a
sales agreement and 10,000,000 units at a price of $1.25
per unit; each unit consisted of one share of our common stock
and a warrant to purchase 0.4 shares of our common stock at
an exercise price of $1.50 per share. Net cash provided by
financing activities in 2009 was also higher when compared to
2008. The increase was approximately $10,986,000, or 58%, due to
higher net proceeds from sales of common stock in 2009 as
compared to 2008. In 2008, we received total proceeds net of
offering expenses and placement agency fees of approximately
$18,637,000 from the sale of 13,793,104 units at a price of
$1.45 per unit; each unit consisted of one share of our common
stock and a warrant to purchase 0.75 shares of our common
stock at an exercise price of $2.30 per share and the sale of
205,600 shares at $1.25 per share under a sales agreement.
Listed below are recent financing transactions entered into by
us:
|
|
|
|
|
In January 2011, we sold 10,000,000 shares of our common
stock to selected institutional investors at a price of $1.00
per share. We received net proceeds, after deducting offering
expenses and fees, of approximately $9,400,000. The investors
were also granted an option to purchase an additional
6,000,000 shares at $1.00 per share. The option was not
exercised and expired on February 18, 2011. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration statement filed
with the SEC on June 25, 2008.
|
|
|
|
On June 29, 2010, we sold 7,000,000 shares of our
common stock to an institutional investor, at a price of $0.865
per share. We received net proceeds, after deducting offering
expenses and fees, of approximately $5,700,000. No warrants were
issued in this transaction. The shares were sold under our
effective shelf registration statement previously filed with the
SEC. As part of the purchase agreement, the institutional
investor agreed to purchase an additional 5,000,000 shares
of common stock approximately 12 weeks after the initial
sale, at our option and at a purchase price to be calculated
using the then-current trading price. We decided not to sell
these additional shares and on September 20, 2010, we
terminated the purchase agreement.
|
|
|
|
In 2010, we sold a total of 1,475,200 shares of our common
stock under a sales agreement entered into in June 2009 (the
2009 sales agreement) at an average price per share
of $1.16 for gross proceeds of approximately $1,705,000. The
sales agent is paid compensation equal to 3.0% of the gross
proceeds pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
statement filed with the SEC on June 25, 2008. Under the
terms of the 2009 sales agreement, we may sell up to $30,000,000
of our common stock, from time to time through a sales agent.
|
Listed below are key financing transactions entered into by us
in the prior three years:
|
|
|
|
|
In November 2009, we sold 10,000,000 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.25 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$12,500,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.4 shares of common
stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share, were offered as a
registered direct offering under a shelf registration statement
filed with the SEC on June 25, 2008. We received total
proceeds net of offering expenses and placement agency fees of
approximately $11,985,000.
|
|
|
|
In 2009, we sold a total of 1,830,000 shares of our common
stock under the 2009 sales agreement at an average price per
share of $1.80 for gross proceeds of approximately $3,291,000.
The shares were offered under our effective shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC on June 25, 2008.
|
|
|
|
In November 2008, we sold 13,793,104 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.45 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$20,000,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.75 shares of
common stock at an exercise price of $2.30 per share, were
offered as a registered direct offering under a shelf
registration statement previously filed with and declared
effective by the SEC. We received total proceeds net of offering
expenses and placement agency fees of approximately $18,637,000.
|
|
|
|
In 2007, 2008 and 2009, we sold a total of
10,000,000 shares of our common stock at an average price
per share of $2.06 for gross proceeds of approximately
$20,555,000. These shares were sold under a sales agreement
entered into in December 2006, under which up to
10,000,000 shares may be sold from time to time under a
shelf registration statement.
|
We have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash
flows since inception. We have not achieved profitability and
may not be able to realize sufficient revenue to achieve or
sustain profitability in the future. We do not expect to be
profitable in the next several years, but rather expect to incur
additional operating losses. We have limited liquidity and
capital resources and must obtain significant additional capital
resources in order to sustain our product development efforts,
for acquisition of technologies and intellectual property
rights, for preclinical and clinical testing of our anticipated
products, pursuit of regulatory approvals, acquisition of
capital equipment, laboratory and office facilities,
establishment of production capabilities, for selling, general
and administrative expenses and other working capital
requirements. We rely on cash balances and proceeds from equity
and debt offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of our
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or
investments, and government grants and funding from
collaborative arrangements, if obtainable, to fund our
operations.
We intend to pursue opportunities to obtain additional financing
in the future through equity and debt financings, grants and
collaborative research arrangements. In June 2008, we filed with
the SEC a universal shelf registration statement, declared
effective in July 2008, which permits us to issue up to
$100 million worth of registered debt and equity
securities. As of March 7, 2011, we had approximately
$41 million under this universal shelf registration
statement available for issuing debt or equity securities;
approximately $30 million of this $41 million has been
reserved for the potential exercise of the warrants issued in
connection with our November 2008 and November 2009 financings.
In November 2010, we filed with the SEC, and the SEC declared
effective, a universal shelf registration statement which
permits us to issue up to $100 million worth of registered
debt and equity securities. As of March 7, 2011, we had
approximately $90 million under this universal shelf
registration statement available for issuing debt or equity
securities. Under these effective shelf registrations, we have
the flexibility to issue registered securities, from time to
time, in one or more separate offerings or other transactions
with the size, price and terms to be determined at the time of
issuance. Registered securities issued using this shelf may be
used to raise additional capital to fund our working capital and
other corporate needs, for future acquisitions of assets,
programs or businesses, and for other corporate purposes.
The source, timing and availability of any future financing will
depend principally upon market conditions, interest rates and,
more specifically, on our progress in our exploratory,
preclinical and future clinical development programs. Funding
may not be available when needed at all, or on terms
acceptable to us. Lack of necessary funds may require us, among
other things, to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of
our research and product
53
development programs, planned clinical trials,
and/or our
capital expenditures or to license our potential products or
technologies to third parties. In addition, the decline in
economic activity, together with the deterioration of the credit
and capital markets, could have an adverse impact on potential
sources of future financing.
In August 2010, we were notified by NASDAQ that the closing bid
price of our common stock had been below $1.00 per share for 30
consecutive business days, and therefore we did not meet the
requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Global Market.
In accordance with NASDAQ rules, we had 180 calendar days to
regain compliance with this requirement by having the closing
bid price of our common stock be $1.00 per share or higher for a
minimum of ten consecutive trading days. On November 22,
2010, we regained compliance with the minimum bid price
requirement for continued listing on the NASDAQ Global Market.
On March 3, 2011, we were notified by NASDAQ that the
closing bid price of our common stock had been below $1.00 per
share for 30 consecutive business days, and therefore we did not
meet the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Global
Market. In accordance with NASDAQ rules, we have 180 calendar
days, or until August 30, 2011, to regain compliance with
this minimum bid price requirement. We can regain compliance if
the closing bid price of our common stock is $1.00 per share or
higher for a minimum of ten consecutive business days during
this initial
180-day
compliance period. If compliance is not achieved by
August 30, 2011, NASDAQ will provide written notification
to us that our securities are subject to delisting. We will
continue to monitor the closing bid price for our common stock
and consider our available options to regain compliance with the
NASDAQ minimum bid price requirement, which may include applying
for an extension of the compliance period or an appeal to a
NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel. However, there can be no
assurance that we will be able to regain or maintain compliance
with the minimum bid price rule or other listing criteria or
that an appeal, if taken, would be successful.
Commitments
See Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies in
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have certain contractual arrangements that create potential
risk for us and are not recognized in our Consolidated Balance
Sheets. Discussed below are those off-balance sheet arrangements
that have or are reasonably likely to have a material current or
future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial
condition, revenue or expenses, results of operations,
liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.
Operating
Leases
We lease various real properties under operating leases that
generally require us to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, and
minimum lease payments. Some of our leases have options to renew.
Operating
Leases California
We currently lease space in an approximately 68,000 square
foot facility located at the Stanford Research Park in Palo
Alto, California. The facility includes space for animals,
laboratories, offices, and a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices)
suite. Prior to September 2010, we leased approximately
68,000 square feet of the facility, and were required to
provide a letter of credit for approximately $778,000, which
served as a security deposit for the duration of the lease term.
The letter of credit issued by our financial institution is
collateralized by a certificate of deposit for the same amount,
which was reflected as restricted cash in other assets,
non-current on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In
September 2010, we amended our lease to reduce the area leased
to 51,200 square feet, to change the expiry date of the
lease term from August 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011, and
to reduce the letter of credit that serves as a security deposit
to approximately $389,000 from approximately $778,000. The
difference of approximately $389,000 was transferred from our
restricted cash account to our cash and cash equivalents
account. In connection with this September 2010 lease amendment,
we terminated a space-sharing agreement covering approximately
10,451 square feet of this facility. In February 2011, we
amended our lease to extend the term expiry date from
June 30, 2011 to August 31, 2011. For 2011, the
aggregate remaining rent payment under the amended lease is
approximately $1,106,000. We recognize operating lease expense
on a straight-line
54
basis. At December 31, 2010, we had prepaid rent balance of
approximately $42,000. At December 31, 2009, we had a
deferred rent balance of approximately $131,000.
In September 2010, we entered into a two-year sublease agreement
with Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., for approximately
13,200 square feet in a facility located in Mountain View,
California. We will pay approximately $695,000 in aggregate as
rent over the term of the lease. The lease contains escalating
rent payments, which we recognize as operating lease expense on
a straight-line basis. Deferred rent was approximately $1,000 as
of December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement
with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (BMR), as landlord,
for approximately 43,000 square feet of office and research
space at BMRs Pacific Research Center in Newark,
California. The initial term of the lease is approximately
eleven and one-half years, and we expect to relocate our
corporate headquarters and core research activities to this
facility in August 2011. Initial base rent is expected to be
approximately $2.20 per rentable square foot, with yearly
increases throughout the term, and subject to certain
adjustments for draws upon the tenant allowances among other
things. We will pay approximately $14,906,000 in aggregate as
rent over the term of the lease. We anticipate that we will be
constructing laboratories, offices and related infrastructure
within the leased space during the first several months of the
lease. As part of the lease, BMR has agreed to provide various
financial allowances so that we can build to suit initial and
future laboratories, offices and other tenant improvements,
subject to customary terms and conditions relating to
landlord-funded tenant improvements. As part of the lease, we
have, until January 2013, an option to lease up to an additional
30,000 square feet in the building.
Operating
Leases Rhode Island
We continue to have outstanding obligations in regard to our
former facilities in Lincoln, Rhode Island. In 1997, we had
entered into a fifteen-year lease for a scientific and
administrative facility (the SAF) in a sale and leaseback
arrangement. The lease includes escalating rent payments. For
the year 2011, we expect to pay approximately $1,172,000 in
operating lease payments and estimated operating expenses of
approximately $625,000, before receipt of
sub-tenant
income. For the year 2011, we expect to receive, in aggregate,
approximately $364,000 in
sub-tenant
rent and operating expenses. As a result of the above
transactions, our estimated cash outlay net of
sub-tenant
rent for the SAF will be approximately $1,433,000 for 2011.
Operating
Leases United Kingdom
In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our
wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd,
effectively reducing our leased space from approximately
5,000 square feet to approximately 1,900 square feet
of office and lab space. We expect to pay approximately 55,000
GBP as rental payments for 2011. StemCells, Inc. is the
guarantor of Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltds obligations
under the existing lease.
With the exception of the operating leases discussed above, we
have not entered into any off balance sheet financial
arrangements and have not established any special purpose
entities. We have not guaranteed any debts or commitments of
other entities or entered into any options on non-financial
assets.
See Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies, in
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Indemnification
Agreement
Effective 2008, as part of an indemnification agreement with
NeuroSpheres, we are entitled to offset all litigation costs
incurred in this patent infringement suit, against amounts that
would otherwise be owed to NeuroSpheres under our exclusive
license agreements with NeuroSpheres, such as annual maintenance
fees, milestones and royalty payments. Under the terms of our
license agreements, we are required to make annual payments of
$50,000 to NeuroSpheres, and we expect to make these annual
payments through the remaining life of the patent which, at
December 31, 2010, was approximately 14 years. We have
therefore capitalized $700,000 (14 years at $50,000 per
year) to offset litigation costs. The amount capitalized is not
dependent on the achievement of any milestones or related to any
other contingent payments which may become due under the
arrangement. We
55
will reduce this asset by $50,000 per year in lieu of the cash
payments due to NeuroSpheres. As the $50,000 annual payments are
fully creditable against royalties due to Neurospheres, we have
classified the $700,000 as prepaid royalties under Other
assets, non-current on our accompanying Consolidated
Balance Sheets. We have concluded that the estimated balance of
$700,000, as of December 31, 2010, is a fair estimate and
realizable against future milestone and royalty payments to
NeuroSpheres, and that litigation costs incurred above this
amount will be expensed as incurred. Management will reevaluate
this estimate on a quarterly basis based on actual costs and
other relevant factors.
Contractual
Obligations
In the table below, we set forth our legally binding and
enforceable contractual cash obligations at December 31,
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
|
Obligations
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
Payable in
|
|
|
2016 and
|
|
|
|
at 12/31/10
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
Operating lease payments(1)
|
|
$
|
19,540,936
|
|
|
$
|
2,777,319
|
|
|
$
|
2,561,875
|
|
|
$
|
1,936,422
|
|
|
$
|
1,255,600
|
|
|
$
|
1,307,200
|
|
|
$
|
9,702,520
|
|
Capital lease (equipment)
|
|
|
91,720
|
|
|
|
73,391
|
|
|
|
18,329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds Payable (principal & interest)(2)
|
|
|
857,432
|
|
|
|
242,321
|
|
|
|
240,666
|
|
|
|
237,593
|
|
|
|
136,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash obligations
|
|
$
|
20,490,088
|
|
|
$
|
3,093,031
|
|
|
$
|
2,820,870
|
|
|
$
|
2,174,015
|
|
|
$
|
1,392,452
|
|
|
$
|
1,307,200
|
|
|
$
|
9,702,520
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating lease payments exclude
sub-lease
income. See Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Operating Leases above for further information. |
|
(2) |
|
See Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies in
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II,
Item 8 of this Form
10-K for
further information. |
Under license agreements with NeuroSpheres, Ltd., we obtained an
exclusive patent license covering all uses of certain neural
stem cell technology. We made up-front payments to NeuroSpheres
of 65,000 shares of our common stock and $50,000, and will
make additional cash payments as stated milestones are achieved.
Effective in 2004, we were obligated to pay annual payments of
$50,000, creditable against certain royalties. Effective in
2008, as part of the indemnification agreement with NeuroSpheres
described above, we offset the annual $50,000 obligation against
litigation costs incurred under that agreement.
We periodically enter into licensing agreements with third
parties to obtain exclusive or non-exclusive licenses for
certain technologies. The terms of certain of these agreements
require us to pay future milestone payments based upon
achievement of certain developmental, regulatory or commercial
milestones. We do not anticipate making any milestone payments
under any of our licensing agreements for 2010. Milestone
payments beyond fiscal year 2010 cannot be predicted or
estimated, due to the uncertainty of achieving the required
developmental, regulatory or commercial milestones.
We do not have any material unconditional purchase obligations
or commercial commitments related to capital expenditures,
clinical development, clinical manufacturing, or other external
services contracts at December 31, 2010.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB), issued new standards to update and amend existing
standards on Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures. These standards require new disclosures on
the amount and reason for transfers in and out of Level 1
and Level 2 fair value measurements. The standards also
require disclosure of activities in Level 3 fair value
measurements that use significant unobservable inputs, including
purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements. The standards also
clarify existing disclosure requirements on levels of
disaggregation, which requires fair value measurement disclosure
for each class of assets and liabilities, and disclosures about
valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair value of
recurring and non recurring fair value measurements that fall in
ether Level 2 or Level 3. The new disclosures and
clarifications of existing
56
disclosures are effective for our interim and annual reporting
periods beginning January 1, 2010, except for the
disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in
the roll forward activity in Level 3 fair value
measurements. Those disclosures are effective for our fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2011. As this guidance requires
only expanded disclosures, the adoption did not and will not
impact our consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.
In April 2010, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU)
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method,
which provides guidance on defining a milestone and
determining when it may be appropriate to apply the milestone
method of revenue recognition for research or development
transactions. Research or development arrangements frequently
include payment provisions whereby a portion or all of the
consideration is contingent upon milestone events such as
successful completion of phases in a study or achieving a
specific result from the research or development efforts. The
amendments in this ASU provide guidance on the criteria that
should be met for determining whether the milestone method of
revenue recognition is appropriate. The ASU is effective for
fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning on
or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. This
ASU is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods
beginning January 1, 2011. We adopted this standard on
January 1, 2011 and it is not expected to have a material
effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
Interest
Rate and Credit Risks
Our interest-bearing assets, or interest-bearing portfolio,
consist of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and
marketable debt securities. The balance of our interest-bearing
portfolio was approximately $20,097,000, or 66%, of total assets
at December 31, 2010 and $39,396,000, or 76%, of total
assets at December 31, 2009. Interest income earned on
these assets was approximately $27,000 in 2010 and $67,000 in
2009. Our interest income is sensitive to changes in the general
level of interest rates, primarily U.S. interest rates. At
December 31, 2010, our debt securities were primarily
composed of money market accounts comprised of
U.S. Treasury debt securities and repurchase agreements
that are backed by U.S. Treasury debt securities.
Generally, corporate obligations must have senior credit ratings
of A2/A or the equivalent. See Note 1, Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies Financial
Instruments and Note 2 Financial
Instruments section in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Our long-term debt is comprised of industrial revenue bonds
issued by the State of Rhode Island to finance the construction
of our pilot manufacturing facility in Rhode Island. See
Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies, section
in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
Part II, Item 8 of this
Form 10-K
for further information.
Equity
Security and Foreign Exchange Risks
In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with ReNeuron
Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of ReNeuron Group plc, a
listed U.K. corporation (collectively referred to as
ReNeuron). As part of the agreement, we granted
ReNeuron a license that allows ReNeuron to exploit their
c-mycER conditionally immortalized adult human
neural stem cell technology for therapy and other purposes. We
received shares of ReNeuron common stock, as well as a
cross-license to the exclusive use of ReNeurons technology
for certain diseases and conditions, including lysosomal storage
diseases, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple
sclerosis. The agreement also provides for full settlement of
any potential claims that either we or ReNeuron might have had
against the other in connection with any putative infringement
of certain of each partys patent rights prior to the
effective date of the agreement. In July and August 2005 we
received approximately 8,836,000 ordinary shares of ReNeuron
common stock (net of approximately 104,000 shares that were
transferred to NeuroSpheres), and subsequently, as a result of
certain anti-dilution provisions in the agreement, we received
approximately 1,261,000 more shares, net of approximately
18,000 shares that were transferred to NeuroSpheres. In
February 2007, we sold 5,275,000 shares for net proceeds of
approximately $3,077,000. In February and March of 2009, we sold
in aggregate, approximately 2,900,000 more shares and received
net proceeds of approximately $510,000 for a realized gain of
approximately $398,000. As of
57
December 31, 2010, we held approximately
1,922,000 shares of ReNeuron as marketable equity
securities with a carrying and fair market value of
approximately $191,000.
Changes in market value as a result of changes in market price
per share or the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and
the British pound are accounted for under Other
comprehensive income (loss) if deemed temporary and are
not recorded as Other income (expense), net until
the shares are disposed of and a gain or loss realized or an
impairment is determined to be other than temporary. At
December 31, 2008, after considering various criteria,
including, the duration of the impairment and our intent to
liquidate all or part of this investment within a reasonably
short period of time, we determined that the impairment of our
investment in ReNeuron was other than temporary. For the year
ended December 31, 2008, we recorded, on our Consolidated
Statements of Operations under Other Income (expense),
net, a loss of $2,082,894, which is the difference between
the investments carrying value and its quoted market price
at that date. No other than temporary impairment was recognized
during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Exchange
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of
|
|
|
Price at
|
|
|
Rate at
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Expected
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares at
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
in USD at
|
|
|
Future
|
|
Company/Stock
|
|
|
|
Associated
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
Symbol
|
|
Exchange
|
|
Risks
|
|
2010
|
|
|
in GBP(£)
|
|
|
1 GBP = USD
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Flows
|
|
|
ReNeuron Group plc/RENE
|
|
AIM (AIM is the
|
|
Lower share price
|
|
|
1,921,924
|
|
|
|
0.0645
|
|
|
|
1.5392
|
|
|
$
|
190,806
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
London Stock
|
|
Foreign currency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchanges
|
|
translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative
|
|
Liquidity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment Market)
|
|
Bankruptcy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
It is our intention to liquidate this investment when we can do
so at prices acceptable to us. Although we are not legally
restricted from selling the stock, the share price is subject to
change and the volume traded has often been very small since the
stock was listed on the AIM on August 12, 2005. |
Another foreign exchange risk is our exposure to foreign
currency exchange rates on the earnings, cash flows and
financial position of our foreign subsidiary in the United
Kingdom. Financial statements of our foreign subsidiary are
translated into U.S. dollars from U.K. pounds (GBP), using
period-end exchange rates for assets and liabilities and average
exchange rates for revenues and expenses. Adjustments resulting
from translating net assets are reported as a separate component
of Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
within shareholders equity under the caption
Unrealized gain (loss) on foreign currency
translation. A hypothetical 10% weakening of the
U.S. dollar in relation to the GBP would have resulted in
an approximate $238,000 increase in our net loss reported for
the year ended December 31, 2010. Because we are currently
not subject to material foreign currency exchange risk with
respect to revenue transactions and cash balances, we have not
to date entered into any hedging contracts.
58
|
|
Item 8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
STEMCELLS,
INC.
INDEX TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
59
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Stockholders
StemCells, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
StemCells, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries
(collectively, the Company) as of December 31,
2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of StemCells, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
We also have audited, in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), StemCells,
Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report
dated March 11, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion
thereon.
San Francisco, California
March 11, 2011
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
19,707,821
|
|
|
$
|
38,617,977
|
|
Marketable securities, current
|
|
|
190,804
|
|
|
|
196,995
|
|
Trade receivables
|
|
|
118,890
|
|
|
|
87,019
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
151,144
|
|
|
|
679,034
|
|
Prepaid assets
|
|
|
610,980
|
|
|
|
560,144
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
389,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
21,168,678
|
|
|
|
40,141,169
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
2,626,821
|
|
|
|
2,856,695
|
|
Other assets, non-current
|
|
|
1,931,871
|
|
|
|
2,525,185
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
1,877,315
|
|
|
|
2,019,679
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
2,996,888
|
|
|
|
3,647,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
30,601,573
|
|
|
$
|
51,190,324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
1,098,962
|
|
|
$
|
890,582
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
2,828,168
|
|
|
|
3,760,438
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses, current
|
|
|
1,310,571
|
|
|
|
1,449,810
|
|
Deferred revenue, current
|
|
|
45,885
|
|
|
|
119,542
|
|
Capital lease obligation, current
|
|
|
67,847
|
|
|
|
68,000
|
|
Deferred rent, current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,392
|
|
Bonds payable, current
|
|
|
176,250
|
|
|
|
161,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
5,527,683
|
|
|
|
6,530,014
|
|
Capital lease obligation, non-current
|
|
|
17,979
|
|
|
|
85,826
|
|
Bonds payable, non-current
|
|
|
522,500
|
|
|
|
698,750
|
|
Fair value of warrant liability
|
|
|
6,671,929
|
|
|
|
9,676,968
|
|
Deposits and other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
276,439
|
|
|
|
466,211
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses, non-current
|
|
|
1,989,800
|
|
|
|
3,056,675
|
|
Deferred rent, non-current
|
|
|
1,227
|
|
|
|
50,600
|
|
Deferred revenue, non-current
|
|
|
113,387
|
|
|
|
130,213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
15,120,944
|
|
|
|
20,695,257
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value; 250,000,000 shares
authorized; issued and outstanding 127,312,870 at
December 31, 2010 and 118,349,587 at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,273,128
|
|
|
|
1,183,495
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
325,359,265
|
|
|
|
314,944,784
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(311,271,486
|
)
|
|
|
(286,027,935
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
119,722
|
|
|
|
394,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
15,480,629
|
|
|
|
30,495,067
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
30,601,573
|
|
|
$
|
51,190,324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
61
StemCells,
Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from licensing agreements and grants
|
|
$
|
927,772
|
|
|
$
|
608,011
|
|
|
$
|
231,730
|
|
Revenue from product sales
|
|
|
499,200
|
|
|
|
384,859
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
1,426,972
|
|
|
|
992,870
|
|
|
|
231,730
|
|
Cost of product sales
|
|
|
168,424
|
|
|
|
261,443
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,258,548
|
|
|
|
731,427
|
|
|
|
231,730
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
21,019,301
|
|
|
|
19,929,592
|
|
|
|
17,808,009
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
9,376,774
|
|
|
|
9,530,421
|
|
|
|
8,295,554
|
|
Wind-down expenses
|
|
|
221,991
|
|
|
|
649,608
|
|
|
|
866,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
30,618,066
|
|
|
|
30,109,621
|
|
|
|
26,969,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(29,359,518
|
)
|
|
|
(29,378,194
|
)
|
|
|
(26,738,032
|
)
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain on sale of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,910
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,082,894
|
)
|
Change in fair value of warrant liability
|
|
|
3,005,040
|
|
|
|
1,898,603
|
|
|
|
(937,241
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
26,728
|
|
|
|
67,345
|
|
|
|
803,095
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(93,382
|
)
|
|
|
(110,807
|
)
|
|
|
(109,762
|
)
|
Qualifying therapeutic discovery project grant
|
|
|
977,917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
199,664
|
|
|
|
89,732
|
|
|
|
(21,943
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense), net
|
|
|
4,115,967
|
|
|
|
2,351,783
|
|
|
|
(2,348,745
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(25,243,551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(27,026,411
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,086,777
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.25
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.35
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used to compute basic and diluted loss per share
|
|
|
123,302,992
|
|
|
|
106,045,961
|
|
|
|
82,716,455
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
62
StemCells,
Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2007
|
|
|
80,681,087
|
|
|
$
|
806,810
|
|
|
$
|
264,603,711
|
|
|
$
|
(229,914,747
|
)
|
|
$
|
(283,874
|
)
|
|
$
|
35,211,900
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,086,777
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,086,777
|
)
|
Change in unrealized loss on securities
available-for-sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
276,126
|
|
|
|
276,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,810,651
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock and warrants, net of issuance cost of
$1,432,539
|
|
|
13,998,704
|
|
|
|
139,987
|
|
|
|
11,184,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,324,175
|
|
Common stock issued for licensing agreements
|
|
|
6,924
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
9,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to employee benefit plan
|
|
|
144,188
|
|
|
|
1,442
|
|
|
|
189,724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,166
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of options, restricted stock
units and stock (fair value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,754,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,754,871
|
|
Exercise of employee and director stock options
|
|
|
114,700
|
|
|
|
1,147
|
|
|
|
126,377
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,524
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2008
|
|
|
94,945,603
|
|
|
|
949,455
|
|
|
|
279,868,802
|
|
|
|
(259,001,524
|
)
|
|
|
(7,748
|
)
|
|
|
21,808,985
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,026,411
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,026,411
|
)
|
Unrealized gain on foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272,184
|
|
|
|
272,184
|
|
Change in unrealized gain on securities
available-for-sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,287
|
|
|
|
130,287
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,623,940
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock and warrants, net of issuance cost of
$1,351,487
|
|
|
19,817,400
|
|
|
|
198,174
|
|
|
|
26,269,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,467,314
|
|
Common stock issued for acquisition of SCS
|
|
|
2,650,000
|
|
|
|
26,500
|
|
|
|
4,399,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,425,500
|
|
Common stock issued for licensing agreements
|
|
|
5,900
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
9,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to employee benefit plan
|
|
|
98,475
|
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
155,947
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156,932
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of options, restricted stock
units and stock (fair value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,046,339
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,046,339
|
|
Exercise of employee and director stock options
|
|
|
315,277
|
|
|
|
3,152
|
|
|
|
249,832
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
252,984
|
|
Exercise and net settlement of restricted stock units
|
|
|
342,458
|
|
|
|
3,425
|
|
|
|
(383,973
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(380,548
|
)
|
Exercise of warrants
|
|
|
174,474
|
|
|
|
1,745
|
|
|
|
329,756
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
331,501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
118,349,587
|
|
|
$
|
1,183,495
|
|
|
|
314,944,784
|
|
|
|
(286,027,935
|
)
|
|
|
394,723
|
|
|
|
30,495,067
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,243,551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,243,551
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(268,810
|
)
|
|
|
(268,810
|
)
|
Change in unrealized gain on securities
available-for-sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,191
|
)
|
|
|
(6,191
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,518,552
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock, net of issuance cost of $480,835
|
|
|
8,475,200
|
|
|
|
84,752
|
|
|
|
7,194,482
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,279,234
|
|
Common stock issued pursuant to employee benefit plan
|
|
|
184,876
|
|
|
|
1,849
|
|
|
|
230,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
232,229
|
|
Compensation expense from grant of options, restricted stock
units and stock (fair value)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,697,405
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,697,405
|
|
Exercise of employee and director stock options
|
|
|
34,507
|
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
19,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,802
|
|
Exercise and net settlement of restricted stock units
|
|
|
533,700
|
|
|
|
5,337
|
|
|
|
(488,743
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(483,406
|
)
|
Stock retired from settlement agreement
|
|
|
(265,000
|
)
|
|
|
(2,650
|
)
|
|
|
(238,500
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(241,150
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
127,312,870
|
|
|
$
|
1,273,128
|
|
|
$
|
325,359,265
|
|
|
$
|
(311,271,486
|
)
|
|
$
|
119,722
|
|
|
$
|
15,480,629
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
63
StemCells,
Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(25,243,551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(27,026,411
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,086,777
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,520,772
|
|
|
|
1,694,490
|
|
|
|
1,186,428
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
3,929,634
|
|
|
|
4,203,270
|
|
|
|
3,946,037
|
|
Net Gain on disposal of fixed assets
|
|
|
(10,462
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write-down of fixed assets
|
|
|
62,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on disposal of intangible assets
|
|
|
67,151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from settlement agreement, net
|
|
|
(226,580
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(406,910
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,082,894
|
|
Change in fair value of warrant liability
|
|
|
(3,005,040
|
)
|
|
|
(1,898,603
|
)
|
|
|
937,241
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
550,282
|
|
|
|
275,726
|
|
|
|
100,427
|
|
Trade receivables
|
|
|
(39,146
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid and other current assets
|
|
|
(437,110
|
)
|
|
|
129,747
|
|
|
|
387,240
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
601,532
|
|
|
|
(436,424
|
)
|
|
|
(358,449
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(808,722
|
)
|
|
|
477,170
|
|
|
|
(936,479
|
)
|
Accrued wind-down expenses
|
|
|
(1,202,733
|
)
|
|
|
(1,027,242
|
)
|
|
|
(630,174
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(79,211
|
)
|
|
|
(361,329
|
)
|
|
|
(16,826
|
)
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
(129,764
|
)
|
|
|
(306,153
|
)
|
|
|
(290,390
|
)
|
Deposits and other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(69,772
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(61,593
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities
|
|
|
(24,519,913
|
)
|
|
|
(24,682,669
|
)
|
|
|
(22,740,421
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of marketable debt securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,976,959
|
)
|
|
|
(4,822,684
|
)
|
Sales or maturities of marketable debt securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,994,806
|
|
|
|
28,681,708
|
|
Proceeds from sales of marketable equity securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
510,213
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment received under note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
Advance made under note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(79,829
|
)
|
|
|
(298,032
|
)
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(923,964
|
)
|
|
|
(701,240
|
)
|
|
|
(312,988
|
)
|
Purchase of intangibles and other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,000
|
)
|
|
|
(24,375
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
(923,964
|
)
|
|
|
3,731,991
|
|
|
|
24,223,629
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net
|
|
|
7,279,234
|
|
|
|
29,602,953
|
|
|
|
18,826,865
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
19,802
|
|
|
|
252,984
|
|
|
|
127,524
|
|
Payments related to net share issuance of stock based awards
|
|
|
(483,406
|
)
|
|
|
(380,548
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
331,501
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds (repayments) of capital lease obligations
|
|
|
(68,000
|
)
|
|
|
128,557
|
|
|
|
(17,531
|
)
|
64
StemCells,
Inc.
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Repayments of bonds payable
|
|
|
(161,250
|
)
|
|
|
(149,167
|
)
|
|
|
(136,249
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
6,586,380
|
|
|
|
29,786,280
|
|
|
|
18,800,609
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(18,857,497
|
)
|
|
|
8,835,602
|
|
|
|
20,283,817
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
38,617,977
|
|
|
|
30,042,986
|
|
|
|
9,759,169
|
|
Effects of foreign currency rate changes on cash
|
|
|
(52,659
|
)
|
|
|
(260,611
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year
|
|
$
|
19,707,821
|
|
|
$
|
38,617,977
|
|
|
$
|
30,042,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid
|
|
$
|
93,382
|
|
|
$
|
110,807
|
|
|
$
|
109,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental schedule of non-cash investing and financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock retired from settlement agreement(1)
|
|
$
|
241,150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock issued as part of our acquisition of the operations of SCS
Plc(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,425,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgiveness of principal and accrued interest on notes
receivable(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
709,076
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock issued for licensing agreements(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On April 1, 2009, we acquired the operations of Stem Cell
Sciences Plc (SCS, now known as Asset Realisation Company
Limited). As consideration, we issued 2,650,000 shares of
our common stock with a closing price of $1.67 per share and
waived certain commitments of SCS to repay approximately
$709,000 in principal and accrued interest owed to us. Pursuant
to the acquisition agreement, 20% of the 2,650,000 shares
were placed into an escrow for a twelve month period to satisfy
any indemnification obligations owed to us by SCS. On
August 19, 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement
with SCS in which the parties agreed to the release of half the
escrowed shares to SCS and half to us in full satisfaction of
our claims for indemnification, and both parties waived all
other claims, known and unknown, against the other. The
265,000 shares returned to us are being treated as retired
and no longer outstanding. We have recorded approximately
$227,000 as other income, which was the value of these shares
based on the closing price of $0.91 per share on August 19,
2010, and net of amounts already accrued for potential claims
against the escrowed shares. |
|
(2) |
|
Under terms of a license agreement with the California Institute
of Technology (Cal Tech), annual fees of $5,000 were due on each
of two patents to which StemCells holds a license from Cal Tech,
payable in cash or stock at our choice. We elected to pay the
fees in common stock and issued shares of 5,900 in 2009, and
6,924 in 2008. In September 2010, we terminated all our
licensing agreements with Cal Tech. |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
65
StemCells,
Inc.
December 31, 2010
|
|
Note 1.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Nature
of Business
StemCells, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a biopharmaceutical
company that operates in one segment, the research, development,
and commercialization of stem cell therapeutics and related
technologies.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared on the basis that we will continue as a going concern.
Since inception, we have incurred annual losses and negative
cash flows from operations and have an accumulated deficit of
approximately $311 million at December 31, 2010. We
have not derived significant revenue from the sale of products,
and do not expect to receive significant revenue from product
sales for at least several years. We may never be able to
realize sufficient revenue to achieve or sustain profitability
in the future.
We expect to incur additional operating losses over the
foreseeable future. We have limited liquidity and capital
resources and must obtain significant additional capital and
other resources in order to sustain our product development
efforts, to provide funding for the acquisition of technologies
and intellectual property rights, preclinical and clinical
testing of our anticipated products, pursuit of regulatory
approvals, acquisition of capital equipment, laboratory and
office facilities, establishment of production capabilities,
general and administrative expenses and other working capital
requirements. We rely on our cash reserves, proceeds from equity
and debt offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of
intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or
investments, government grants and funding from collaborative
arrangements, to fund our operations. Funding may not be
available when needed at all or on terms acceptable
to us. If we exhaust our cash reserves and are unable to obtain
adequate financing, we may be unable to meet our operating
obligations and we may be required to initiate bankruptcy
proceedings. The financial statements do not include any
adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the
recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and
classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome
of this uncertainty.
Principles
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
StemCells, Inc., and our wholly-owned subsidiaries, StemCells
California, Inc., StemCells Property Holding LLC, Stem Cell
Sciences Holdings Ltd., Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd., and Stem
Cell Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd. All significant intercompany
accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles requires management to
make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the
amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and
accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from
those estimates.
Significant estimates include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
accrued wind-down expenses (see Note 11, Wind-Down
and Exit Costs);
|
|
|
|
the fair value of share-based awards recognized as compensation
(see Note 10, Stock-Based Compensation);
|
|
|
|
valuation allowance against net deferred tax assets (see
Note 18, Income Taxes);
|
|
|
|
the fair value of warrants recorded as a liability (see
Note 13, Warrant Liability); and
|
|
|
|
the fair value of intangible assets acquired (see Note 5,
Acquisition of SCS Operations).
|
66
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Financial
Instruments
Cash
Equivalents and Marketable Securities
All money market and highly liquid investments with a maturity
of 90 days or less at the date of purchase are classified
as cash equivalents. Highly liquid investments with maturities
of 365 days or less not previously classified as cash
equivalents are classified as marketable securities, current.
Investments with maturities greater than 365 days are
classified as marketable securities, non-current. Our marketable
debt and equity securities have been classified and accounted
for as
available-for-sale.
Management determines the appropriate classification of its
investments in marketable debt and equity securities at the time
of purchase and reevaluates the
available-for-sale
designations as of each balance sheet date. These securities are
carried at fair value (see Note 2, Financial
Instruments, below), with the unrealized gains and losses
reported as a component of stockholders equity. The cost
of securities sold is based upon the specific identification
method.
If the estimated fair value of a security is below its carrying
value, we evaluate whether we have the intent and ability to
retain our investment for a period of time sufficient to allow
for any anticipated recovery to the cost of the investment, and
whether evidence indicating that the cost of the investment is
recoverable within a reasonable period of time outweighs
evidence to the contrary.
Other-than-temporary
declines in estimated fair value of all marketable securities
are charged to Other income (expense), net.
Trade and
Other Receivables
Our receivables generally consist of interest income on our
financial instruments, revenue from licensing agreements and
grants, revenue from product sales, and rent from our
sub-lease
tenants. Since the majority of our product sales are prepaid, we
regard the associated credit risk to be minimal.
Estimated
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The estimated fair values of cash and cash equivalents,
receivables, accounts payable and the current portion of the
bonds payable approximates their carrying values due to the
short maturities of these instruments. The long-term portion of
the bonds payable approximates its carrying value as the
interest rate for the bond series approximates our current
borrowing rate.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant, and equipment, including those held under
capital lease, are stated at cost. Depreciation is computed by
use of the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives
of the assets, or the lease term if shorter, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
|
3 - 20 years
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
3 - 10 years
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
3 - 10 years
|
|
Repairs and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred.
Business
Combinations
The operating results of acquired companies or operations are
included in our consolidated financial statements starting on
the date of acquisition. Goodwill is recorded at the time of an
acquisition and is calculated as the difference between the
aggregate consideration paid for an acquisition and the fair
value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired.
Accounting for acquisitions requires extensive use of accounting
estimates and judgments to allocate the purchase price to the
fair value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired,
including in-process research and development (IPR&D).
67
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets (Patent and License
Costs)
Goodwill of approximately $1,877,000 at December 31, 2010,
relates to the acquisition of SCS operations. Goodwill and
intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives are not
amortized but are subject to annual impairment tests. If the
assumptions and estimates used to allocate the purchase price
are not correct, or if business conditions change, purchase
price adjustments or future asset impairment charges could be
required. We test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or
more frequently if we believe indicators of impairment exist.
Impairment evaluations involve management estimates of asset
useful lives and future cash flows. Significant management
judgment is required in the forecasts of future operating
results that are used in the evaluations, and it is possible,
even likely, that the plans and estimates used may be incorrect.
If our actual results, or the plans and estimates used in future
impairment analysis are lower than the original estimates used
to assess the recoverability of these assets, we could incur
additional impairment charges in a future period. We completed
our annual impairment testing during the fourth quarter of 2010,
and determined that there was no impairment of goodwill.
Other intangible assets, net were approximately $2,997,000 at
December 31, 2010. Intangible assets with finite useful
lives are amortized generally on a straight-line basis over the
periods benefited. Intangible assets with finite useful lives
are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset may not
be recoverable. Prior to fiscal year 2001, we capitalized
certain patent costs, which are being amortized over the
estimated life of the patent and would be expensed at the time
such patents are deemed to have no continuing value. Since 2001,
all patent costs are expensed as incurred. License costs are
capitalized and amortized over the estimated life of the license
agreement. In 2010, we wrote-off the unamortized amount of
approximately $67,000 for certain license agreements that we
terminated.
Impairment
of Long-Lived Tangible Assets
Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an
asset may not be recoverable. If property, plant, and equipment
are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized
equals the amount by which the carrying value of the assets
exceeds its estimated fair market value. In 2010, we recorded a
charge of approximately $63,000, to adjust the fair value of
certain lab equipment we expect to dispose. No such impairment
was recognized during the years 2009 and 2008.
Warrant
Liability
We account for our warrants in accordance with U.S. GAAP
which defines how freestanding contracts that are indexed to and
potentially settled in a companys own stock should be
measured and classified. Authoritative accounting guidance
prescribes that warrants issued under contracts that could
require net-cash settlement should be classified as liabilities
and contracts that only provide for settlement in shares should
be classified as equity. In order for a contract to be
classified as equity specific conditions must be met; these
conditions are intended to identify situations in which net cash
settlement could be forced upon the issuer. As part of both our
November 2008 and November 2009 financings, we issued warrants
with five year terms to purchase 10,344,828 and
4,000,000 shares of our common stock at $2.30 and $1.50 per
share, respectively. As the warrant agreements did not meet the
specific conditions for equity classification, we are required
to classify the fair value of the warrants issued as a
liability, with subsequent changes in fair value to be recorded
as income (loss) on change in fair value of warrant liability.
The fair value of the warrants is determined using the
Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option pricing model and is
affected by changes in inputs to that model including our stock
price, expected stock price volatility, the contractual term,
and the risk-free interest rate. We will continue to classify
the fair value of the warrants as a liability until the warrants
are exercised, expire or are amended in a way that would no
longer require these warrants to be classified as a liability.
68
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Revenue
Recognition
We currently recognize revenue resulting from licensing
agreements, government grants, and product sales.
Licensing agreements We currently recognize
revenue resulting from the licensing and use of our technology
and intellectual property. Such licensing agreements may contain
multiple elements, such as up-front fees, payments related to
the achievement of particular milestones and royalties. Revenue
from up-front fees for licensing agreements that contain
multiple elements are generally deferred and recognized on a
straight-line basis over the term of the agreement. Fees
associated with substantive at risk performance-based milestones
are recognized as revenue upon completion of the scientific or
regulatory event specified in the agreement, and royalties
received are recognized as earned. Revenue from licensing
agreements is recognized net of a fixed percentage due to
licensors as royalties.
Government grants Grant revenue from
government agencies are funds received to cover specific
expenses and are recognized as earned upon either the incurring
of reimbursable expenses directly related to the particular
research plan or the completion of certain development
milestones as defined within the terms of the relevant
collaborative agreement or grant.
Product sales We currently recognize revenue
from the sale of products when the products are shipped, title
to the products are transferred to the customer, when no further
contingencies or material performance obligations are warranted,
and thereby earning the right to receive reasonably assured
payments for products sold and delivered. Cost of product sales
includes labor, raw materials and shipping supplies. Product
sales are presented net of any sales or value-added taxes.
Research
and Development Costs
Our research and development expenses consist primarily of
salaries and related personnel expenses; costs associated with
clinical trials and regulatory submissions; costs associated
with preclinical activities such as toxicology studies; certain
patent-related costs such as licensing; facilities-related costs
such as depreciation; lab equipment and supplies. Clinical trial
expenses include payments to vendors such as clinical research
organizations, contract manufacturers, clinical trial sites,
laboratories for testing clinical samples and consultants. All
research and development costs are expensed as incurred.
Stock-Based
Compensation
We expense the estimated fair value of our stock-based
compensation awards. The estimated fair value is calculated
using the Black-Scholes model. The compensation cost we record
for these awards are based on their grant-date fair value as
estimated and amortized over their vesting period. At the end of
each reporting period we estimate forfeiture rates based on our
historical experience within separate groups of employees and
adjust stock-based compensation expense accordingly. See
Note 10, Stock-Based Compensation for further
information.
Income
Taxes
When accounting for income taxes, we recognize deferred tax
assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences
of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the
tax bases of assets and liabilities. Income tax receivables and
liabilities and deferred tax assets and liabilities are
recognized based on the amounts that more likely than not will
be sustained upon ultimate settlement with taxing authorities.
Developing our provision for income taxes and analyzing our
uncertain tax positions requires significant judgment and
knowledge of federal and state income tax laws, regulations and
strategies, including the determination of deferred tax assets
and liabilities and, any valuation allowances that may be
required for deferred tax assets.
69
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
We assess the realization of our deferred tax assets to
determine whether an income tax valuation allowance is required.
Based on such evidence that can be objectively verified, we
determine whether it is more likely than not that all or a
portion of the deferred tax assets will be realized. The main
factors that we consider include:
|
|
|
|
|
cumulative losses in recent years;
|
|
|
|
income/losses expected in future years; and
|
|
|
|
the applicable statute of limitations.
|
Tax benefits associated with uncertain tax positions are
recognized in the period in which one of the following
conditions is satisfied: (1) the more likely than not
recognition threshold is satisfied; (2) the position is
ultimately settled through negotiation or litigation; or
(3) the statute of limitations for the taxing authority to
examine and challenge the position has expired. Tax benefits
associated with an uncertain tax position are derecognized in
the period in which the more likely than not recognition
threshold is no longer satisfied.
We concluded that the realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon future earnings, if any, the timing and amount of
which are uncertain. Accordingly, the net deferred tax assets
have been fully offset by a valuation allowance.
Net
Loss per Share
Basic net loss per share is computed based on the
weighted-average number of shares of our common stock
outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is
computed based on the weighted-average number of shares of our
common stock and other dilutive securities.
The following are the basic and dilutive net loss per share
computations for the last three fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(25,243,551
|
)
|
|
$
|
(27,026,411
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,086,777
|
)
|
Weighted average shares outstanding used to compute basic and
diluted net loss per share
|
|
|
123,302,992
|
|
|
|
106,045,961
|
|
|
|
82,716,455
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.25
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.35
|
)
|
Outstanding options, warrants and restricted stock units were
excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share
because the effect would have been anti-dilutive for all periods
presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Outstanding options
|
|
|
10,982,415
|
|
|
|
9,260,812
|
|
|
|
8,340,530
|
|
Restricted stock units
|
|
|
4,695,055
|
|
|
|
2,437,901
|
|
|
|
1,650,000
|
|
Outstanding warrants
|
|
|
14,344,828
|
|
|
|
14,344,828
|
|
|
|
11,599,828
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
30,022,298
|
|
|
|
26,043,541
|
|
|
|
21,590,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Comprehensive income (loss) is comprised of net losses and other
comprehensive income (or OCI). OCI includes certain
changes in stockholders equity that are excluded from net
losses. Specifically, we include in OCI changes in unrealized
gains and losses on our marketable securities and unrealized
gains and losses on foreign currency translations. Comprehensive
loss for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
has been reflected in the Consolidated Statements of
Stockholders Equity.
70
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The components of our accumulated OCI, as of December 31 of each
year shown, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Net unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities
|
|
$
|
116,348
|
|
|
$
|
122,539
|
|
|
$
|
(7,748
|
)
|
Unrealized gain on foreign currency translation
|
|
|
3,374
|
|
|
|
272,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$
|
119,722
|
|
|
$
|
394,723
|
|
|
$
|
(7,748
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The activity in OCI is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized gains and losses on marketable
securities
|
|
$
|
(6,191
|
)
|
|
$
|
130,287
|
|
|
$
|
(1,806,768
|
)
|
Recognition in net loss, other than temporary impairment of
marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,082,894
|
|
Net change in unrealized gains and losses on foreign currency
translations
|
|
|
(268,810
|
)
|
|
|
272,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(275,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
402,471
|
|
|
$
|
276,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB), issued new standards to update and amend existing
standards on Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures. These standards require new disclosures on
the amount and reason for transfers in and out of Level 1
and Level 2 fair value measurements. The standards also
require disclosure of activities in Level 3 fair value
measurements that use significant unobservable inputs, including
purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements. The standards also
clarify existing disclosure requirements on levels of
disaggregation, which requires fair value measurement disclosure
for each class of assets and liabilities, and disclosures about
valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair value of
recurring and non recurring fair value measurements that fall in
ether Level 2 or Level 3. The new disclosures and
clarifications of existing disclosures are effective for our
interim and annual reporting periods beginning January 1,
2010, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales,
issuances and settlements in the roll forward activity in
Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are
effective for our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011. As
this guidance requires only expanded disclosures, the adoption
did not and will not impact our consolidated financial condition
and results of operations.
In April 2010, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU)
No. 2010-17,
Revenue Recognition Milestone Method,
which provides guidance on defining a milestone and
determining when it may be appropriate to apply the milestone
method of revenue recognition for research or development
transactions. Research or development arrangements frequently
include payment provisions whereby a portion or all of the
consideration is contingent upon milestone events such as
successful completion of phases in a study or achieving a
specific result from the research or development efforts. The
amendments in this ASU provide guidance on the criteria that
should be met for determining whether the milestone method of
revenue recognition is appropriate. The ASU is effective for
fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning on
or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. This
ASU is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods
beginning January 1, 2011. We adopted this new standard on
January 1, 2011 and it is not expected to have a material
effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.
71
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
Note 2.
|
Financial
Instruments
|
Cash,
cash equivalents and marketable securities
The following table summarizes the fair value of our cash, cash
equivalents and
available-for-sale
securities held in our investment portfolio:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
Gains
|
|
Losses
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
$
|
1,001,868
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,001,868
|
|
Cash equivalents (money market accounts)
|
|
|
18,705,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,705,953
|
|
Marketable equity securities, current
|
|
|
74,456
|
|
|
|
116,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
190,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities
|
|
$
|
19,782,277
|
|
|
$
|
116,348
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,898,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
$
|
1,064,148
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,064,148
|
|
Cash equivalents (money market accounts)
|
|
|
37,553,829
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,553,829
|
|
Marketable equity securities, current
|
|
|
74,456
|
|
|
|
122,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
196,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities
|
|
$
|
38,692,433
|
|
|
$
|
122,539
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
38,814,972
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2010, our investment in marketable debt
securities were in money market accounts composed primarily of
U.S. Treasury debt securities, which are classified as cash
equivalents in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet due
to their short maturities. From time to time, we carry cash
balances in excess of federally insured limits. Our cash balance
at December 31, 2010 includes approximately $40,000 held in
U.K. pounds by our U.K. subsidiary.
Our investment in marketable equity securities consists of
ordinary shares of ReNeuron Group plc, a publicly listed U.K.
corporation (ReNeuron). In July 2005, we entered into an
agreement with ReNeuron. As part of the agreement, we granted
ReNeuron a license that allows ReNeuron to exploit their
c-mycER conditionally immortalized adult human
neural stem cell technology for therapy and other purposes. We
received shares of ReNeuron common stock, as well as a
cross-license to the exclusive use of ReNeurons technology
for certain diseases and conditions, including lysosomal storage
diseases, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple
sclerosis. The agreement also provides for full settlement of
any potential claims that either we or ReNeuron might have had
against the other in connection with any putative infringement
of certain of each partys patent rights prior to the
effective date of the agreement. In July and August 2005 we
received approximately 8,836,000 ordinary shares of ReNeuron
common stock (net of approximately 104,000 shares that were
transferred to NeuroSpheres), and subsequently, as a result of
certain anti-dilution provisions in the agreement, we received
approximately 1,261,000 more shares, net of approximately
18,000 shares that were transferred to NeuroSpheres. In
February 2007, we sold 5,275,000 shares for net proceeds of
approximately $3,077,000, and we recognized a realized gain of
approximately $716,000 from this transaction. In February and
March of 2009, we sold in aggregate, approximately 2,900,000
more shares and received net proceeds of approximately $510,000,
and we recognized a realized gain of approximately $398,000 from
this transaction. As of December 31, 2010, we held
approximately 1,922,000 shares of ReNeuron as marketable
equity securities with a carrying and fair market value of
approximately $191,000.
If the fair value of a security is below its carrying value, we
evaluate whether we have the intent and ability to retain our
investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any
anticipated recovery to the cost of the investment, and whether
evidence indicating that the cost of the investment is
recoverable within a reasonable
72
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
period of time outweighs evidence to the contrary.
Other-than-temporary
declines in estimated fair value of all marketable securities
are charged to other income (expense), net. At
December 31, 2008, after considering various criteria,
including the duration of the impairment and our intent to
liquidate all or part of our investment within a reasonably
short period of time, we determined that the impairment of our
investment in ordinary shares of ReNeuron (marketable equity
securities), was other than temporary. For the year ended
December 31, 2008, we recorded on our Consolidated
Statements of Operations under Other income (expense),
net a loss of $2,082,894, which is the difference between
the investments carrying value and its quoted market price
at that date. No other than temporary impairment was recognized
during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Changes in fair value as a result of changes in market price per
share or the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the
British pound are accounted for under other comprehensive
income (loss) if deemed temporary and are not recorded as
other income or loss until the shares are disposed
of and a gain or loss realized or an impairment is considered
other than temporary.
We do not hold any investments that were in an unrealized loss
position as of December 31, 2010.
Note
Receivable
In December 2007, we committed to make a secured loan of up to
$3.8 million to Progenitor Cell Therapy, LLC (PCT) in
return for a period of exclusivity to allow for due diligence
and negotiation of a possible acquisition transaction. Of this
amount, $1.0 million was lent and outstanding at
December 31, 2007 with the maturity date within twelve
months from the effective date of the loan. In March 2008, we
terminated discussions to acquire PCT. In April 2008, the loan
was repaid in full in accordance with its terms.
In December 2008 and March 2009, we made two secured loans to
SCS in connection with our acquisition of its operations. The
loans accrued interest at 8% per annum and were repayable six
months after the initial funding. At March 31, 2009, the
principal and accrued interest for these two loans together
totaled approximately $709,000. On April 1, 2009, we closed
the acquisition of the operations of SCS, and in connection with
that transaction, we waived the obligation of SCS to repay the
principal and accrued interest of these two loans.
|
|
Note 3.
|
Fair
Value Measurement
|
Fair value is defined as an exit price, representing the amount
that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a
liability in an orderly transaction between market participants.
As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be
determined based on assumptions that market participants would
use in pricing an asset or a liability. As a basis for
considering such assumptions, We are required to apply a
three-tier value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in
the valuation methodologies in measuring fair value. The three
levels of the fair value hierarchy are:
Level 1 Observable inputs that reflect
quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities
in active markets.
Level 2 Directly or indirectly
observable inputs other than in Level 1, that include
quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active
markets or quoted prices for identical or similar assets or
liabilities in markets that are not active.
Level 3 Unobservable inputs which are
supported by little or no market activity that reflects the
reporting entitys own assumptions about the assumptions
that market participants would use in pricing the asset or
liability
The fair value hierarchy also requires an entity to maximize the
use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable
inputs when measuring fair value.
73
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Assets measured at fair value as of December 31, 2010 and
2009 are classified below based on the three fair value
hierarchy tiers described above. Our cash equivalents and
marketable securities are classified within Level 1 or
Level 2. This is because our cash equivalents and
marketable securities are valued primarily using quoted market
prices or alternative pricing sources and models utilizing
market observable inputs. We currently do not have any
Level 3 financial assets or liabilities.
The following table presents our financial assets and
liabilities measured at fair value:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Active Markets for
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Financial Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Equivalents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
468,623
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
468,623
|
|
U.S. Treasury obligations
|
|
|
18,237,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,237,330
|
|
Marketable Securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
190,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
190,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total financial assets
|
|
$
|
18,896,757
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,896,757
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond obligation
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
698,750
|
|
|
$
|
698,750
|
|
Warrant liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,671,929
|
|
|
|
6,671,929
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total financial liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,370,679
|
|
|
$
|
7,370,679
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 4.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
|
Property, plant and equipment balances at December 31 are
summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
$
|
3,557,342
|
|
|
$
|
3,422,002
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
7,586,385
|
|
|
|
7,322,195
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
398,262
|
|
|
|
377,808
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,541,989
|
|
|
|
11,122,005
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(8,915,168
|
)
|
|
|
(8,265,310
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
2,626,821
|
|
|
$
|
2,856,695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense was approximately $1,093,000 in 2010,
$1,364,000 in 2009, and $1,045,000 in 2008.
|
|
Note 5.
|
Acquisition
of SCS Operations
|
On April 1, 2009, we acquired the operations of SCS for an
aggregate purchase price of approximately $5,135,000. The
acquired operations includes proprietary cell technologies
relating to embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem (iPS)
cells, and tissue-derived (adult) stem cells; expertise and
infrastructure for providing cell-based assays for drug
discovery; a media formulation and reagent business; and an
intellectual property portfolio with claims relevant to cell
processing, reprogramming and manipulation, as well as to gene
targeting and insertion. These acquired operations will help us
pursue applications of our cell technologies to develop
cell-based research tools, which we believe represent
nearer-term commercial opportunities.
74
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
As consideration for the acquired operations, we issued to SCS
2,650,000 shares of common stock and waived certain
commitments of SCS to repay approximately $709,000 in principal
and accrued interest owed to us. The closing price of our common
stock on April 1, 2009 was $1.67 per share.
This transaction has been accounted for as a business purchase.
We have evaluated the acquired assets and liabilities and
believe that the book value of the net tangible assets acquired
approximated fair market value. The primary method used to
calculate the fair value of the intangible assets was the
Excess Earnings Method. These intangible assets will
be amortized over their estimated lives. Goodwill and acquired
technology recorded as part of the acquisition will be tested
periodically for impairment.
None of the goodwill is deductible for tax purposes.
At April 1, 2009, the purchase price has been allocated as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocated
|
|
|
Estimated Life of
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Intangible Assets
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
in Years
|
|
Net tangible assets
|
|
$
|
36,000
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer relationships and developed technology
|
|
|
1,310,000
|
|
|
6 to 9
|
In process research and development
|
|
|
1,340,000
|
|
|
13 to 19
|
Trade name
|
|
|
310,000
|
|
|
15
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
2,139,000
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,135,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In-process research and development assets relate to:
1) the acquisition of certain intellectual property rights
not expected to expire until 2027 related to our program focused
on developing genetically engineered rat models of human disease
(our Transgenic Rat Program); and 2) the
acquisition of certain technology related to the
commercialization of our SC Proven cell culture products and the
development and commercialization of cell-based assay platforms
for use in drug discovery and development (our Assay
Development Program).
At the time of valuation (April 2009), the technology related to
our Transgenic Rat Program was in its nascent stage, and
therefore we concluded that the remaining 19 years of legal
life of the intellectual property was appropriate as the
remaining useful life for this technology.
As for our Assay Development Program, at the time of valuation
(April 2009), we expected to achieve proof of concept by 2012.
Due to the foundational nature of our Assay Development Program
patents and technologies, we expect the technologies to remain
useful and relevant within the industry for at least
10 years following commercial launch of a product or
service under our Assay Development Program. Because these
technologies are not expected to begin generating revenue until
2011-2012,
we estimated the remaining useful life for these technologies to
be approximately 13 years from the valuation date.
Trade name relates to the SC Proven trademark of our
cell culture products which we expect to market for
15 years from the date of acquisition, based on which, we
estimated a remaining useful life of 15 years from the
valuation date.
In connection with our acquisition of the operations of SCS,
acquisition costs of approximately $693,000, which primarily
consists of legal and other professional fees, were expensed in
2009. These costs are reported in our accompanying Consolidated
Statements of Operations as part of our selling,
general & administrative expense.
75
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
Note 6.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
In December 2009, we recorded approximately $533,000 for an
R&D tax credit due to our wholly owned subsidiary Stem Cell
Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd. The R&D tax credit was due
for the years 2008 and 2009. Approximately $381,000 of the tax
credit was attributable to credits due as of the acquisition
date and, accordingly, the purchase price allocation for the SCS
acquisition was adjusted and the gross carrying amount of
goodwill recorded at the date of acquisition was reduced by that
amount. The remaining $152,000 was attributable to the period
subsequent to the acquisition and is included as part of
Other income (expense), net in our accompanying
Consolidated Statements of Operations. In March 2010, we
received approximately $47,000 for an R&D tax credit due to
our wholly-owned subsidiary Stem Cell Sciences (Australia) Pty
Ltd. The R&D tax credit was due for the year 2007.
Accordingly, the purchase price allocation for the SCS
acquisition was adjusted and the gross carrying amount of
goodwill recorded at the date of acquisition was reduced by that
amount
The following table represents changes in goodwill:
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
Additions (related to the acquisition of SCS operations)
|
|
|
2,138,655
|
|
Reductions (R&D credit as described above)
|
|
|
(381,073
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
262,097
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
2,019,679
|
|
Reductions (R&D credit as described above)
|
|
|
(47,374
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
(94,990
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
1,877,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of our other intangible assets at December 31 are
summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Customer relationships and developed technology
|
|
|
6-9
|
|
|
$
|
1,400,050
|
|
|
$
|
313,794
|
|
|
$
|
1,086,256
|
|
|
$
|
1,470,544
|
|
|
$
|
95,287
|
|
|
$
|
1,375,257
|
|
In-process research and development
|
|
|
13-19
|
|
|
|
1,432,112
|
|
|
|
166,888
|
|
|
|
1,265,224
|
|
|
|
1,504,220
|
|
|
|
97,469
|
|
|
|
1,406,751
|
|
Trade name
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
331,309
|
|
|
|
38,652
|
|
|
|
292,657
|
|
|
|
347,991
|
|
|
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
332,491
|
|
Patents
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
979,612
|
|
|
|
626,861
|
|
|
|
352,751
|
|
|
|
979,612
|
|
|
|
571,058
|
|
|
|
408,554
|
|
License agreements
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
1,533,873
|
|
|
|
1,533,873
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,800,999
|
|
|
|
1,676,456
|
|
|
|
124,543
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,676,956
|
|
|
$
|
2,680,068
|
|
|
$
|
2,996,888
|
|
|
$
|
6,103,366
|
|
|
$
|
2,455,770
|
|
|
$
|
3,647,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense was approximately $427,000 in 2010,
$336,000 in 2009, and $142,000 in 2008.
The expected future annual amortization expense for each of the
next five years based on current balances of our intangible
assets is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
352,565
|
|
2012
|
|
|
352,565
|
|
2013
|
|
|
352,565
|
|
2014
|
|
|
352,565
|
|
2015
|
|
|
352,565
|
|
76
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Other assets at December 31 are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Prepaid royalties
|
|
$
|
772,096
|
|
|
$
|
978,583
|
|
Security deposit (buildings lease)
|
|
|
1,159,775
|
|
|
|
768,523
|
|
Restricted cash (letter of credit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
778,079
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other non-current assets
|
|
$
|
1,931,871
|
|
|
$
|
2,525,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable at December 31 are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
External services
|
|
$
|
516,970
|
|
|
$
|
485,172
|
|
Supplies
|
|
|
301,355
|
|
|
|
192,349
|
|
Other
|
|
|
280,637
|
|
|
|
213,061
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts payable
|
|
$
|
1,098,962
|
|
|
$
|
890,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 9.
|
Accrued
Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
|
Accrued expenses at December 31 are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
External services
|
|
$
|
301,521
|
|
|
$
|
512,621
|
|
Employee compensation
|
|
|
2,153,922
|
|
|
|
2,071,717
|
|
Grant funds to be disbursed(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
576,987
|
|
Other
|
|
|
372,725
|
|
|
|
599,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
2,828,168
|
|
|
$
|
3,760,438
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Relates to funds received from the European Commission by our
subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd., on behalf of various
parties to an EU grant consortium agreement. As co-ordinator for
the consortium, we receive and disburse funds to the various
parties of the consortium. These funds were disbursed in January
2010. |
|
|
Note 10.
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
We currently grant stock-based compensation under three equity
incentive plans. As of December 31, 2010, we had
23,759,050 shares authorized under these three plans. At
our annual stockholders meeting held on June 12, 2007, our
stockholders approved an amendment to our 2006 Equity Incentive
Plan to provide for an annual increase in the number of shares
of common stock available for issuance under the plan each
January 1 (beginning January 1, 2008) equal to 4% of
the outstanding common shares as of that date. The amendment
further provided an aggregate limit of 30,000,000 shares
issuable pursuant to incentive stock option awards under the
plan. Under these three plans we may grant incentive stock
options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights,
restricted stock, restricted stock units, 401(k) Plan employer
match in form of shares and performance-based shares to our
employees, directors and consultants, at prices determined by
our Board of Directors. Incentive stock options may only be
granted to employees under these plans with a grant price not
less than the fair market value on the date of grant.
77
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Generally, stock options and restricted stock units granted to
employees have a maximum term of ten years, and vest over a four
year period from the date of grant; 25% vest at the end of one
year, and 75% vest monthly over the remaining three-year service
period. We may grant options and restricted stock units with
different vesting terms from time to time. Upon employee
termination of service, any unexercised vested option will be
forfeited three months following termination or the expiration
of the option, whichever is earlier.
Our stock-based compensation expense for the last three fiscal
years was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Research and development expense
|
|
$
|
2,034,007
|
|
|
$
|
2,208,440
|
|
|
$
|
1,992,508
|
|
General and administrative expense
|
|
|
1,895,627
|
|
|
|
1,994,830
|
|
|
|
1,953,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense and effect on net loss
|
|
$
|
3,929,634
|
|
|
$
|
4,203,270
|
|
|
$
|
3,946,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010, we have approximately $6,162,000
of total unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested
awards granted under our various share-based plans that we
expect to recognize over a weighted-average period of
2.6 years.
The fair value of options granted is estimated as of the date of
grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and expensed
on a pro-rata straight-line basis over the period in which the
stock options vest. The Black-Scholes option pricing model
requires certain assumptions as of the date of grant. The
weighted-average assumptions used for the last three fiscal
years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Expected term (years)(1)
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
Risk-free interest rate(2)
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
Expected volatility(3)
|
|
|
88.4
|
%
|
|
|
93.1
|
%
|
|
|
94.0
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield(4)
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The expected term represents the period during which our
stock-based awards are expected to be outstanding. In 2010 and
2009 we estimated this amount based on historical experience of
similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of
the awards, vesting requirements, and expectation of future
employee behavior, including post-vesting terminations. |
|
(2) |
|
The risk-free interest rate is based on U.S. Treasury debt
securities with maturities close to the expected term of the
option as of the date of grant. |
|
(3) |
|
Expected volatility is based on historical volatility over the
most recent historical period equal to the length of the
expected term of the option as of the date of grant. |
|
(4) |
|
We have neither declared nor paid dividends on any share of
common stock and we do not expect to do so in the foreseeable
future. |
At the end of each reporting period, we estimate forfeiture
rates based on our historical experience within separate groups
of employees and adjust the stock-based compensation expense
accordingly.
78
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
A summary of our stock option activity and related information
for the last three fiscal years is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Contractual Term
|
|
|
Value(1)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
9,028,810
|
|
|
$
|
2.36
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
$
|
826,558
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
353,000
|
|
|
$
|
1.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(114,700
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
38,563
|
|
Cancelled (forfeited and expired)
|
|
|
(926,580
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
8,340,530
|
|
|
$
|
2.32
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
692,739
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,545,800
|
|
|
$
|
1.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(290,777
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
281,979
|
|
Cancelled (forfeited and expired)
|
|
|
(334,741
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
9,260,812
|
|
|
$
|
2.28
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
$
|
434,092
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
2,578,500
|
|
|
$
|
1.07
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(34,507
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,418
|
|
Cancelled (forfeited and expired)
|
|
|
(822,390
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
10,982,415
|
|
|
$
|
2.02
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
398,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
7,617,254
|
|
|
$
|
2.33
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
$
|
297,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest(2)
|
|
|
10,453,996
|
|
|
$
|
2.05
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
$
|
381,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Aggregate intrinsic value represents the value of the closing
price per share of our common stock on the last trading day of
the fiscal period in excess of the exercise price multiplied by
the number of options outstanding or exercisable, except for the
Exercised line, which uses the closing price on the
date exercised. |
|
(2) |
|
Number of shares include options vested and those expected to
vest net of estimated forfeitures. |
The estimated weighted average fair value per share of options
granted was approximately $0.84 in 2010, $1.37 in 2009, and
$1.00 in 2008, based on the assumptions in the Black-Scholes
model discussed above. Total intrinsic value of options
exercised at time of exercise was approximately $13,418 in 2010,
$282,000 in 2009, and $39,000 in 2008.
The following is a summary of changes in unvested options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
Unvested Options
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Unvested options at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,613,057
|
|
|
$
|
1.53
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
2,578,500
|
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(1,345,151
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.62
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(481,245
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested options at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
3,365,161
|
|
|
$
|
1.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated fair value of options vested were approximately
$2,179,000 in 2010, $2,606,000 in 2009 and $3,671,000 in 2008.
79
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table presents weighted average exercise price and
remaining term information about significant option groups
outstanding at December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Aggregate Intrinsic
|
|
Range of
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Value at December 31,
|
|
Exercise Prices
|
|
Number Outstanding
|
|
|
Term (Yrs.)
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Less than $2.00
|
|
|
5,452,770
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
$
|
1.27
|
|
|
$
|
398,219
|
|
$2.00 - $3.99
|
|
|
4,904,112
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
$
|
2.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
$4.00 - $5.99
|
|
|
625,533
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
$
|
5.29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,982,415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.02
|
|
|
$
|
398,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested Options Outstanding at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
Range of Exercise Prices
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Less than $2.00
|
|
|
2,341,906
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
$2.00 - $3.99
|
|
|
4,649,815
|
|
|
$
|
2.43
|
|
$4.00 - $5.99
|
|
|
625,533
|
|
|
$
|
5.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,617,254
|
|
|
$
|
2.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted
Stock Units
We have granted restricted stock units (RSUs) to our directors
and to certain employees which entitle the holders to receive
shares of our common stock upon vesting of the RSUs. The fair
value of restricted stock units granted are based upon the
market price of the underlying common stock as if it were vested
and issued on the date of grant.
A summary of our restricted stock unit activity for the year
ended December 31, 2010 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
|
|
RSUs
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2010
|
|
|
2,437,901
|
|
|
$
|
1.49
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
3,425,667
|
|
|
$
|
1.03
|
|
Vested RSUs
|
|
|
(927,846
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.20
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(240,667
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
4,695,055
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
1.51
|
|
Unvested RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2010(1)
|
|
|
4,665,055
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
55,000 of these restricted stock units vest and convert into
shares of our common stock after one year from the date of
grant. 2,380,754 of these restricted stock units vest and
convert into shares of our common stock over a three year period
from the date of grant: one-third of the award will vest on each
grant date anniversary following the grant. 2,069,301 of these
restricted stock units vest and convert into shares of our
common stock over a four year period from the date of grant:
one-fourth of the award will vest on each grant date anniversary
following the grant. 160,000 of these restricted stock units
will vest and convert into shares of our common stock subject to
attainment of certain performance criteria and will be forfeited
if not met. |
80
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Stock
Appreciation Rights
In July 2006, we granted cash-settled Stock Appreciation Rights
(SARs) to certain employees under the 2006 Equity Incentive
Plan. The SARs give the holder the right, upon exercise, to the
difference between the price per share of our common stock at
the time of exercise and the exercise price of the SAR. The
exercise price of the SAR is equal to the market price of our
common stock at the date of grant. The SARs vest 25% on the
first anniversary of the grant date and 75% vest monthly over
the remaining three-year service period. Compensation expense is
based on the fair value of SARs which is calculated using the
Black-Scholes option pricing model. The stock-based compensation
expenses and liability are re-measured at each reporting date
through the date of settlement. The stock-based compensation
liability as re-measured at December 31, 2010 was $264,955.
The following is a summary of the changes in non-vested SARs for
the last three fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at January 1,
|
|
|
1,430,849
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1,430,849
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1,478,219
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(76,761
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47,370
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31,
|
|
|
1,354,088
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1,430,849
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1,430,849
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31,
|
|
|
1,354,088
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1,222,178
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
864,467
|
|
|
$
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total compensation expense related to SARs was approximately
$108,000 in 2009 and $73,000 in 2008. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, we re-measured the liability related to
the SARs and reduced compensation expense by approximately
$344,000. The resulting effect on net loss and net loss per
share attributable to common stockholders is not likely to be
representative of the effects in future periods, due to changes
in the fair value calculation which is dependent on the stock
price, volatility, interest and forfeiture rates, additional
grants and subsequent periods of vesting. We will continue to
recognize compensation cost each period, which will be the
change in fair value from the previous period through the
earlier date of settlement or forfeiture of the SARs.
|
|
Note 11.
|
Wind-down
and exit costs
|
Rhode
Island
In October 1999, we relocated to California from Rhode Island
and established a wind-down reserve for the estimated lease
payments and operating costs of the Rhode Island facilities.
Even though we intend to dispose of the facility at the earliest
possible time, we cannot determine with certainty a fixed date
by which such disposal will occur. In light of this uncertainty,
we periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve. We consider
various factors such as our lease payments through to the end of
the lease, operating expenses, the current real estate market in
Rhode Island, and estimated subtenant income based on actual and
projected occupancy.
81
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The components of our wind-down reserve at December 31 are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down reserve at beginning of period
|
|
$
|
3,572,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,448,000
|
|
Less actual expenses recorded against estimated reserve during
the period
|
|
|
(1,219,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,216,000
|
)
|
Additional expense recorded to revise estimated reserve at
period-end
|
|
|
291,000
|
|
|
|
340,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised reserve at period-end
|
|
|
2,644,000
|
|
|
|
3,572,000
|
|
Add deferred rent at period end
|
|
|
656,000
|
|
|
|
861,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued wind-down expenses at period-end (current and non
current)
|
|
$
|
3,300,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,433,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down expenses, current portion
|
|
$
|
1,311,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,376,000
|
|
Non current portion
|
|
|
1,989,000
|
|
|
|
3,057,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued wind-down expenses
|
|
$
|
3,300,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,433,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
On April 1, 2009, as part of our acquisition of the SCS
operations, we acquired certain operations near Melbourne,
Australia. In order to reduce operating complexity and expenses,
we made the decision to close our site in Australia and
consolidate personnel and programs to our Cambridge, U.K. and
Palo Alto, California sites. At June 30, 2009, we
established a reserve of approximately $310,000 for the
estimated costs to close down and exit our Australia operations.
The reserve reflects the estimated cost to terminate our
facility lease in Australia (which provided for an original
termination date of December 31, 2010), employee
termination benefits and other liabilities associated with the
wind-down and relocation of our operations in Australia. As of
December 31, 2010, the facility lease agreement has been
terminated and our operations in Australia have been relocated
to Cambridge, U.K. and Palo Alto, California. We recorded actual
expenses, net of foreign currency translation changes of
approximately $241,000 against this reserve. At
December 31, 2010, we concluded that all costs related to
the close down and exit of our Australia operations have been
recorded against the reserve and we closed the reserve by
crediting the remaining reserve balance of $69,000 to wind-down
expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down reserve beginning balance
|
|
$
|
74,000
|
|
|
$
|
310,000
|
|
Less actual expenses net of foreign currency translation
recorded against estimated reserve during the period
|
|
|
(5,000
|
)
|
|
|
(236,000
|
)
|
Credit recorded to wind-down expense to close reserve
|
|
|
(69,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued wind-down reserve ending balance
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
74,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 12.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Leases
Bonds
Payable
We entered into direct financing transactions with the State of
Rhode Island and received proceeds from the issuance of
industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to finance the
construction of Rhode Islands pilot manufacturing
facility. The related lease agreements are structured such that
lease payments fully fund all semiannual interest payments and
annual principal payments through maturity in August 2014.
Interest rate for the remaining bond series is 9.5%. The
outstanding principal and interest owed at December 31,
2010 was
82
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
approximately $857,000. The bonds contain certain restrictive
covenants which limit, among other things, the payment of cash
dividends and the sale of the related assets.
Operating
leases
We entered into a fifteen-year lease agreement for a laboratory
facility in Rhode Island in connection with a sale and leaseback
arrangement in 1997. The lease term expires June 30, 2013.
The lease contains escalating rent payments, which we recognize
on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2010, deferred
rent expense was approximately $656,000 for this facility and is
included as part of the wind-down accrual on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets.
We currently lease space in an approximately 68,000 square
foot facility located at the Stanford Research Park in Palo
Alto, California. The facility includes space for animals,
laboratories, offices, and a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices)
suite. Prior to September 2010, we leased approximately
68,000 square feet of the facility, and were required to
provide a letter of credit for approximately $778,000, which
served as a security deposit for the duration of the lease term.
The letter of credit issued by our financial institution is
collateralized by a certificate of deposit for the same amount,
which was reflected as restricted cash in other assets,
non-current on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In
September 2010, we amended our lease to reduce the area leased
to 51,200 square feet, to change the expiry date of the
lease term from August 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011, and
to reduce the letter of credit that serves as a security deposit
to approximately $389,000 from approximately $778,000. The
difference of approximately $389,000 was transferred from our
restricted cash account to our cash and cash equivalents
account. In connection with this September 2010 lease amendment,
we terminated a space-sharing agreement covering approximately
10,451 square feet of this facility. In February 2011, we
amended our lease to extend the term expiry date from
June 30, 2011 to August 31, 2011. For the year 2011,
the aggregate remaining rent payment under the amended lease is
approximately $1,106,000. We recognize operating lease expense
on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2010, we had
prepaid rent balance of approximately $42,000. At
December 31, 2009, we had a deferred rent balance of
approximately $131,000.
In September 2010, we entered into a two-year sublease agreement
with Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., for approximately
13,200 square feet in a facility located in Mountain View,
California. We will pay approximately $695,000 in aggregate as
rent over the term of the lease. The lease contains escalating
rent payments, which we recognize as operating lease expense on
a straight-line basis. Deferred rent was approximately $1,000 as
of December 31, 2010.
In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement
with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (BMR), as landlord,
for approximately 38,000 square feet of office and research
space at BMRs Pacific Research Center in Newark,
California. The initial term of the lease is approximately
eleven and one-half years, and we expect to relocate our
corporate headquarters and core research activities to this
facility in August 2011. Initial base rent is expected to
be approximately $2.20 per rentable square foot, with yearly
increases throughout the term, and subject to certain
adjustments for draws upon the tenant allowances among other
things. We will pay approximately $14,906,000 in aggregate as
rent over the term of the lease. We anticipate that we will be
constructing laboratories, offices and related infrastructure
within the leased space during the first several months of the
lease. As part of the lease, BMR has agreed to provide various
financial allowances so that we can build to suit initial and
future laboratories, offices and other tenant improvements,
subject to customary terms and conditions relating to
landlord-funded tenant improvements. As part of the lease, we
have, until January 2013, an option to lease up to an additional
30,000 square feet in the building.
In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our
wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd,
effectively reducing our leased space from approximately
5,000 square feet to approximately 1,900 square feet
of office and lab space. We expect to pay approximately $85,000
as rental payments for 2011. StemCells, Inc. is the guarantor of
Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltds obligations under the
existing lease.
83
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
On April 1, 2009, as part of our acquisition of the
operations of SCS, we acquired operations near Melbourne,
Australia. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences
(Australia) Pty Ltd, is in a lease agreement with Monash
University for approximately 1,938 square feet of office
and lab space in Victoria, Australia. The lease term ended on
December 31, 2010. In order to reduce operating complexity
and expenses, we made the decision to close our site in
Australia and consolidate personnel and programs to our
Cambridge, U.K. and Palo Alto, California sites. We paid
approximately $86,000 for an early termination of the lease
which cost is included as part of our wind-down expenses in the
accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.
The table below summarizes the components of rent expense for
the fiscal year ended December 31, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Rent expense
|
|
$
|
3,326,862
|
|
|
$
|
3,215,424
|
|
|
$
|
3,077,430
|
|
Sublease income
|
|
|
(622,910
|
)
|
|
|
(770,431
|
)
|
|
|
(809,065
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent expense, net
|
|
$
|
2,703,952
|
|
|
$
|
2,444,993
|
|
|
$
|
2,268,365
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future minimum payments under all leases and bonds payable at
December 31, 2010 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
|
Sublease
|
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
242,321
|
|
|
$
|
73,391
|
|
|
$
|
2,777,319
|
|
|
$
|
363,603
|
|
2012
|
|
|
240,666
|
|
|
|
18,329
|
|
|
|
2,561,875
|
|
|
|
32,208
|
|
2013
|
|
|
237,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,936,422
|
|
|
|
16,104
|
|
2014
|
|
|
136,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,255,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,307,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,702,520
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
857,432
|
|
|
|
91,720
|
|
|
$
|
19,540,936
|
|
|
$
|
411,915
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less amounts representing interest
|
|
|
158,682
|
|
|
|
5,894
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present value of bonds payable and capital lease payments
|
|
|
698,750
|
|
|
|
85,826
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less current maturities
|
|
|
176,250
|
|
|
|
67,847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds payable, less current maturities
|
|
$
|
522,500
|
|
|
$
|
17,979
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingencies
In July 2006, we filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the
Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging
that Neuralstems activities violate claims in four of the
patents we exclusively license from NeuroSpheres. In December
2006, Neuralstem petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) to reexamine two of the patents in our infringement
action against Neuralstem, namely U.S. Patent
No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells
for drug screening) and U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709
(claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening
biological agents). In April 2007, Neuralstem petitioned the PTO
to reexamine the remaining two patents in the suit, namely
U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for
proliferating human neural stem cells) and U.S. Patent
No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human
neural stem cells). These requests were granted by the PTO and,
in June 2007, the parties voluntarily agreed to stay the pending
litigation while the PTO considered these reexamination
requests. In April 2008, the PTO upheld the 832 and
872 patents, as amended, and issued Notices of Intent to
Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for both. In May
2009, the PTO upheld the 346 and 709 patents, as
amended, and issued Notices of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte
Reexamination Certificate for both.
84
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
In May 2008, we filed a second patent infringement suit against
Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In
this suit, which we filed in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of California, we allege that
Neuralstems activities infringe claims in two patents we
exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically
U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of
matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source
material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming
methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition,
we allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem
arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public
about our patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed
suit against us and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court
for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that
the 505 and 418 patents are either invalid or are
not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated
California state law. In August 2008, the California court
transferred our lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for
resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District
Court granted our motion to consolidate these two cases with the
litigation we initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. In August
2009, the Maryland District Court approved a scheduling order
submitted by the parties for discovery and trial.
Effective 2008, as part of an indemnification agreement with
NeuroSpheres, we are entitled to offset all litigation costs
incurred in this patent infringement suit, against amounts that
would otherwise be owed to NeuroSpheres under our exclusive
license agreements with NeuroSpheres, such as annual maintenance
fees, milestones and royalty payments. Under the terms of our
license agreements, we are required to make annual payments of
$50,000 to NeuroSpheres, and we expect to make these annual
payments through the remaining life of the patent which, at
December 31, 2010, was approximately 14 years. We have
therefore capitalized $700,000 (14 years at $50,000 per
year) to offset litigation costs. The amount capitalized is not
dependent on the achievement of any milestones or related to any
other contingent payments which may become due under the
arrangement. We will reduce this asset by $50,000 per year in
lieu of the cash payments due to NeuroSpheres. As the $50,000
annual payments are fully creditable against royalties due to
Neurospheres, we have classified the capitalized amount as
prepaid royalties under Other assets, non-current on
our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have concluded
that the estimated balance of $700,000, as of December 31,
2010, is a fair estimate and realizable against future milestone
and royalty payments to NeuroSpheres, and that litigation costs
incurred above this amount will be expensed as incurred.
Management will reevaluate this estimate on a quarterly basis
based on actual costs and other relevant factors.
|
|
Note 13.
|
Warrant
Liability
|
We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate fair
value of warrants issued. In using this model, we make certain
assumptions about risk-free interest rates, dividend yields,
volatility and expected term of the warrants. Risk-free interest
rates are derived from the yield on U.S. Treasury debt
securities. Dividend yields are based on our historical dividend
payments, which have been zero to date. Volatility is derived
from the historical volatility of our common stock as traded on
NASDAQ. The expected term of the warrants is based on the time
to expiration of the warrants from the date of measurement.
In November 2008, we sold 13,793,104 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.45 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$20,000,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.75 shares of
common stock at an exercise price of $2.30 per share, were
offered as a registered direct offering under an effective shelf
registration statement previously filed with and declared
effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We
received total proceeds, net of offering expenses and placement
agency fees, of approximately $18,637,000. We recorded the fair
value of the warrants to purchase 10,344,828 shares of our
common stock as a liability. The fair value of the warrant
liability will be revalued at the end of each reporting period,
with the change in fair value of the warrant liability recorded
as a gain or loss in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
The fair value of the warrants will continue to be classified as
a liability until such time as the warrants are exercised,
expire or an amendment of the warrant agreement renders these
warrants to be no longer classified as a liability.
85
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The assumptions used for the Black-Scholes option pricing model
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Calculate
|
|
|
Fair Value of
|
|
|
Warrant Liability at
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
83.6
|
%
|
|
|
79.1
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Fair Value
|
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
of Warrant Liability
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
in Year 2010
|
|
Fair value of warrant liability
|
|
$
|
4,408,449
|
|
|
$
|
6,295,448
|
|
|
$
|
(1,887,000
|
)
|
In November 2009, we sold 10,000,000 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.25 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$12,500,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.4 shares of common
stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share, were offered as a
registered direct offering under an effective shelf registration
statement previously filed with and declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. We received total proceeds,
net of offering expenses and placement agency fees, of
approximately $11,985,000. We recorded the fair value of the
warrants to purchase 4,000,000 shares of our common stock
as a liability. The fair value of the warrant liability will be
revalued at the end of each reporting period, with the change in
fair value of the warrant liability recorded as a gain or loss
in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. The fair value of
the warrants will continue to be classified as a liability until
such time as the warrants are exercised, expire or an amendment
of the warrant agreement renders these warrants to be no longer
classified as a liability.
The assumptions used for the Black-Scholes option pricing model
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Calculate
|
|
|
Fair Value of
|
|
|
Warrant Liability at
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
77.5
|
%
|
|
|
85.9
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Fair Value
|
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
of Warrant Liability
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
in Year 2010
|
|
Fair value of warrant liability
|
|
$
|
2,263,480
|
|
|
$
|
3,381,520
|
|
|
$
|
(1,118,040
|
)
|
We have neither declared nor paid dividends on any share of
common stock and do not expect to do so in the foreseeable
future.
86
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Sale
of common stock
Major transactions involving our common stock for the last three
years include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
In 2010, we sold a total of 1,475,200 shares of our common
stock under a sales agreement entered into in June 2009 (the
2009 sales agreement) at an average price per share
of $1.16 for gross proceeds of approximately $1,705,000. The
sales agent is paid compensation equal to 3.0% of the gross
proceeds pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration statement filed
with the SEC on June 25, 2008. Under the terms of the 2009
sales agreement, we may sell up to $30,000,000 of our common
stock, from time to time through a sales agent.
|
|
|
|
On June 29, 2010, we sold 7,000,000 shares of our
common stock to an institutional investor, at a price of $0.865
per share. We received net proceeds, after deducting offering
expenses and fees, of approximately $5,700,000. No warrants were
issued in this transaction. The shares were sold under our
effective shelf registration statement previously filed with the
SEC. As part of the purchase agreement, the institutional
investor agreed to purchase an additional 5,000,000 shares
of common stock approximately 12 weeks after the initial
sale, at our option and at a purchase price to be calculated
using the then-current trading price. We decided not to sell
these additional shares and on September 20, 2010, we
terminated the purchase agreement.
|
|
|
|
In November 2009, we sold 10,000,000 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.25 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$12,500,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.4 shares of common
stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share, were offered as a
registered direct offering under a shelf registration statement
filed with the SEC on June 25, 2008. We received total
proceeds net of offering expenses and placement agency fees of
approximately $11,985,000.
|
|
|
|
In 2009, we sold a total of 1,830,000 shares of our common
stock under the 2009 sales agreement at an average price per
share of $1.80 for gross proceeds of approximately $3,291,000.
The shares were offered under our effective shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC in June 2008.
|
|
|
|
On April 1, 2009, we acquired the operations of SCS. As
consideration, we issued to SCS 2,650,000 shares of common
stock and waived certain commitments of SCS to repay
approximately $709,000 in principal and accrued interest owed to
us. The closing price of our common stock was $1.67 per share on
April 1, 2009.
|
|
|
|
In November 2008, we sold 13,793,104 units to institutional
investors at a price of $1.45 per unit, for gross proceeds of
$20,000,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of
common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.75 shares of
common stock at an exercise price of $2.30 per share, were
offered as a registered direct offering under an effective shelf
registration statement previously filed with and declared
effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We received
total proceeds net of offering expenses and placement agency
fees of approximately $18,637,000.
|
|
|
|
In December 2006, we filed a prospectus supplement announcing
the entry of a sales agreement with a sales agent under which up
to 10,000,000 shares may be sold from time to time under a
shelf registration statement. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, we sold a
total of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock under this
agreement at an average price per share of $2.06 for gross
proceeds of approximately $20,555,000. The sales agent was paid
compensation equal to 5.0% of the gross proceeds pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
|
Stock
Issued For Technology Licenses
Under license agreements with NeuroSpheres, Ltd., we obtained an
exclusive patent license covering all uses of certain neural
stem cell technology. We made up-front payments to NeuroSpheres
of 65,000 shares of our common stock and $50,000, and will
make additional cash payments as stated milestones are achieved.
Effective in 2004, we began making annual $50,000 payments,
creditable against certain royalties. Effective 2008, as part of
an indemnification agreement with NeuroSpheres, we offset the
annual $50,000 obligation against litigation costs
87
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
incurred under that agreement. The estimated balance for future
offsets is included under Other assets, non-current
on our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have
concluded that the estimated balance of $700,000 as of
December 31, 2010 is a fair estimate and realizable against
future milestone and royalty payments to NeuroSpheres, and that
litigation costs incurred after December 31, 2010 will be
expensed as incurred. Management will reevaluate this estimate
on a quarterly basis based on actual costs and other relevant
factors.
Pursuant to the terms of a license agreement with the California
Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) and our acquisition of its
wholly owned subsidiary, StemCells California, we issued
14,513 shares of common stock to Cal Tech. We issued an
additional 12,800 shares of common stock to Cal Tech with a
market value of approximately $40,000 in May 2000, upon
execution of an amendment adding four families of patent
applications to the license agreement. In August 2002, we
acquired an additional license from Cal Tech for a different
technology, pursuant to which we issued 27,535 shares of
our common stock with a market value of approximately $35,000.
Under terms of the license agreement with the Cal Tech, annual
fees of $5,000 were due on each of two patents to which we hold
a license from Cal Tech, payable in cash or common stock at our
choice. We elected to pay the fees in stock and issued
5,900 shares in 2009, 6,924 shares in 2008,
3,865 shares in 2007 and 3,848 shares in 2006. In
September 2010, we terminated all our licensing agreements with
Cal Tech.
Common
Stock Reserved
We reserved the following shares of common stock for the
exercise of options, warrants and other contingent issuances of
common stock, as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reserved for share based compensation
|
|
|
21,752,804
|
|
Shares reserved for warrants related to financing transactions
|
|
|
14,344,828
|
|
Shares reserved for license agreements
|
|
|
79,463
|
|
Shares reserved for possible future issuances under an effective
shelf registration
|
|
|
32,914,296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
69,091,391
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 15.
|
Deferred
Revenue
|
Deferred
Revenue related to Licensing Agreement
In August 2006, we entered an agreement with Stem Cell
Therapeutics (SCT), a Canadian corporation, granting it a
non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license to use several of our
patents for treating specified diseases of the central nervous
system; the grant does not include any rights to cell
transplantation. SCT granted StemCells a royalty-free
non-exclusive license to certain of its patents for research and
development and a royalty-bearing non-exclusive for certain
commercial purposes. SCT paid an up-front license fee; the
license also provides for other payments including annual
maintenance, milestones, and royalties. The up-front license fee
is being amortized and recognized as revenue over a period of
12 years. At December 31, 2010, the unamortized amount
of deferred revenue related to this agreement was approximately
$157,000.
Our 401(k) Plan covers substantially all of our employees.
Participants in the plan are permitted to contribute a fixed
percentage of their total annual cash compensation to the plan
(subject to the maximum employee contribution defined by law).
We match 50% of employee contributions, up to a maximum of 6% of
each employees eligible compensation in the form of shares
of common stock. We recorded an expense of $191,000 in 2010,
$168,000 in 2009, and $181,000 in 2008 for our contributions
under our 401(k) Plan.
88
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
|
|
Note 17.
|
The
Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Grant
|
In October 2010, we were awarded four cash grants totaling
approximately $978,000, in aggregate, for work related to both
our CNS and Liver Programs. These grants were certified under
the federal governments Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery
Projects Program, which was created by Congress as part of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. We were
granted the maximum award of $244,479 for each of our four
applications. The credit is a tax benefit targeted to
therapeutic discovery projects that show a reasonable potential
to:
|
|
|
|
|
Result in new therapies to treat areas of unmet medical need or
prevent, detect or treat chronic or acute diseases and
conditions,
|
|
|
|
reduce the long-term growth of health care costs in the United
States, or
|
|
|
|
significantly advance the goal of curing cancer within
30 years.
|
Allocation of the credit takes into consideration which projects
show the greatest potential to create and sustain high-quality,
high-paying U.S. jobs and to advance
U.S. competitiveness in life, biological and medical
sciences.
We received the funds in full in December 2010, and recognized
these grants as Qualifying therapeutic discovery project
grant under Other income, (expense), net in
the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Loss before income taxes is attributed to the following
geographic locations for the years ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
23,445,403
|
|
|
$
|
25,180,792
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
1,798,148
|
|
|
|
1,845,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss before taxes
|
|
$
|
25,243,551
|
|
|
$
|
27,026,411
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We follow authoritative guidance regarding accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes, which prescribes a recognition
threshold a tax position is required to meet before being
recognized in the financial statements. As of December 31,
2010 and 2009, we have not recorded any unrecognized tax
benefits. Deferred income taxes reflect the tax effects of
temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities for financial reporting
89
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes.
Significant components of our deferred tax assets and
liabilities at December 31 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized research and development costs
|
|
$
|
48,048,000
|
|
|
$
|
44,748,000
|
|
Net operating losses
|
|
|
51,051,000
|
|
|
|
47,979,000
|
|
Research and development credits
|
|
|
7,816,000
|
|
|
|
7,129,000
|
|
Accrued wind down cost
|
|
|
994,000
|
|
|
|
1,429,000
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
688,000
|
|
|
|
723,000
|
|
Impaired asset
|
|
|
312,000
|
|
|
|
332,000
|
|
Capital loss carryover
|
|
|
318,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed assets
|
|
|
370,000
|
|
|
|
190,000
|
|
Other
|
|
|
397,000
|
|
|
|
525,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,994,000
|
|
|
|
103,055,000
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(109,310,000
|
)
|
|
|
(102,280,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
684,000
|
|
|
$
|
775,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liability:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
(684,000
|
)
|
|
|
(775,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liability
|
|
$
|
(684,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(775,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon future
earnings, if any, the timing and amount of which are uncertain.
Accordingly, the net deferred tax assets have been fully offset
by a valuation allowance. The valuation allowance increased by
approximately $7,030,000 in 2010, $11,156,000 in 2009, and
$8,002,000 in 2008.
As of December 31, 2010, we had the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry forwards for federal income tax
purposes of approximately $133,891,000 which expire in the years
2011 through 2030.
|
|
|
|
Federal research and development tax credits of approximately
$5,343,000 which expire in the years 2011 through 2030.
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry forwards for state income tax purposes
of approximately $36,970,000 which expire in the years 2011
through 2030.
|
|
|
|
State research and development tax credits of approximately
$3,746,000 ($2,472,000 net of federal tax effect) which do
not expire.
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry forwards in foreign jurisdictions of
approximately $12,041,000 which do not expire.
|
|
|
|
Capital loss carry forwards for federal and state income tax
purposes of $846,000 which expire in 2014.
|
Utilization of the federal and state net operating loss and
federal and state research and development tax credit carry
forwards may be subject to annual limitations due to the
ownership percentage change provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and similar state provisions. The annual
limitations may result in the inability to fully offset future
annual taxable income and could result in the expiration of the
net operating loss carry forwards before utilization.
Utilization of foreign net operating loss carry forwards may be
limited or disallowed under similar foreign income tax
provisions.
90
StemCells,
Inc.
Notes to
Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The effective tax rate as a percentage of income before income
taxes differs from the statutory federal income tax rate (when
applied to income before income taxes) for the years ended
December 31 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Statutory federal income tax (benefit) rate
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
State income tax (benefit) rate
|
|
|
(3.6
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
Increase resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses not deductible for taxes
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
Increase in valuation allowance
|
|
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
35.1
|
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax (benefit) rate
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We did not have any unrecognized tax benefits at
December 31, 2010. Our policy is to recognize interest and
penalties related to income tax matters in income tax expense.
Because we have no tax liabilities, no tax-related interest and
penalties have been expensed in our consolidated statements of
operations during 2010 or accrued as a liability in our
consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2010. We do not
anticipate any significant changes to total unrecognized tax
benefits as a result of settlement of audits or the expiration
of statute of limitations within the next twelve months.
We file U.S. federal income tax returns, as well as tax
returns with the State of California and the State of Rhode
Island. Due to the carry forward of unutilized net operating
losses and research and development credits, our federal tax
returns from 1996 forward remain subject to examination by the
Internal Revenue Service, and our State of California tax
returns from 2001 forward and our State of Rhode Island tax
returns from 2006 forward remain subject to examination by the
respective state tax authorities. We file income tax returns in
various foreign jurisdictions. Tax years from 2007 forward
remain subject to examination by the appropriate foreign
governmental agencies.
|
|
Note 19.
|
Subsequent
Events
|
In January 2011, we raised gross proceeds of $10,000,000 through
the sale of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock to
selected institutional investors at a price of $1.00 per share.
We received net proceeds, after deducting offering expenses and
fees, of approximately $9,400,000. The investors were also
granted an option to purchase an additional
6,000,000 shares at $1.00 per share. The option was not
exercised and expired on February 18, 2011. The shares were
offered under our effective shelf registration statement
previously filed with the SEC.
*****
91
QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL DATA (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Quarter Ended
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
September 30
|
|
June 30
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
Total revenue(1)
|
|
$
|
700
|
|
|
$
|
253
|
|
|
$
|
244
|
|
|
$
|
230
|
|
Cost of Sales(1)
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
8,343
|
|
|
|
7,218
|
|
|
|
7,270
|
|
|
|
7,787
|
|
Other income (expense), net(2)
|
|
|
(1,251
|
)
|
|
|
1,449
|
|
|
|
2,441
|
|
|
|
1,477
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(8,957
|
)
|
|
|
(5,552
|
)
|
|
|
(4,610
|
)
|
|
|
(6,124
|
)
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Quarter Ended
|
|
|
December 31
|
|
September 30
|
|
June 30
|
|
March 31
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
Total revenue(1)
|
|
$
|
418
|
|
|
$
|
253
|
|
|
$
|
265
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
Cost of Sales(1)
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
8,438
|
|
|
|
7,095
|
|
|
|
7,597
|
|
|
|
6,980
|
|
Other income (expense), net(2)
|
|
|
2,847
|
|
|
|
1,838
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
(2,358
|
)
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(5,234
|
)
|
|
|
(5,145
|
)
|
|
|
(7,366
|
)
|
|
|
(9,282
|
)
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As of April 1, 2009, includes product sales derived from
the media and reagent technology owned through our acquisition
of SCS operations see Note 5. |
|
(2) |
|
Other expense, net, for 2010 and 2009, includes the change in
fair value of our warrant liability see
Note 13. Other expense, net, for 2010 includes $977,917
received as a grant under the federal governments
Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Projects Program
see Note 17. |
92
|
|
Item 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Companys management, with the participation of its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, evaluated
the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of the
end of the period covered by this annual report. Based on this
evaluation, the Companys principal executive officer and
principal financial officer concluded that these disclosure
controls and procedures are effective to ensure that the
information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or
submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported within the requisite time
periods, and to provide reasonable assurance that information
required to be disclosed by the Company in such reports is
accumulated and communicated to the Companys management,
including its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure.
Changes
in Internal Controls
There have been no changes in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting during the quarter ended
December 31, 2010, that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting.
The Companys management, including its principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, assessed the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting
based on the framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The evaluation
of the design and operating effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting include among others those policies and
procedures that:
|
|
|
|
|
pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the assets of the Company;
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made
only in accordance with authorizations of management and
directors of the Company; and
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
Companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
|
During the fiscal year 2010, the Company periodically tested the
design and operating effectiveness of its internal control over
financial reporting. Among other matters, the Company sought in
its evaluation to determine whether there were any
significant deficiencies or material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting,
or whether it had identified any acts of fraud involving
management or other employees.
Based on the above evaluation, the Companys chief
executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded
that as of December 31, 2010, the Companys internal
control over financial reporting were effective. Nonetheless, it
is important to acknowledge that due to its inherent
limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even systems
determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance
with respect to financial statement preparation and
presentation. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to
future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
The Companys internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2010 has been audited by Grant Thornton
LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated
in their report below.
93
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Board of Directors and Stockholders
StemCells, Inc.
We have audited StemCells, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and
subsidiaries (collectively, the Company)
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). The Companys management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial
reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on the Companys internal control over financial reporting
based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, StemCells, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained, in
all material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2010 based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of StemCells, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2010 and our report
dated March 11, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion
thereon.
San Francisco, California
March 11, 2011
94
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None
|
|
Item 10.
|
DIRECTORS
AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
|
Executive
Officers
Below are the name, age and principal occupations for the last
five years of each executive officer of StemCells, Inc., as of
February 28, 2011. All such persons have been elected to
serve until their successors are elected and qualified or until
their earlier resignation or removal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin M. McGlynn,
President and Chief
Executive Officer
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
Martin M. McGlynn joined the company on January 2001, when he
was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the
company and of its wholly-owned subsidiary, StemCells
California, Inc. He was elected to the Board of Directors in
February 2001.
|
Ann Tsukamoto, Ph.D.
Executive Vice President,
Research and Development
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Ann Tsukamoto, Ph.D., joined the company in November 1997
as Senior Director of Scientific Operations; was appointed Vice
President, Scientific Operations in June 1998; Vice President,
Research and Development in February 2002; and Chief Operating
Officer, with responsibility for the companys research and
development efforts, in November 2006. In October 2008,
Dr. Tsukamoto was appointed to the newly created position
of Executive Vice President, Research and Development with
responsibility for the Companys scientific and clinical
development programs.
|
Rodney K.B. Young,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance and
Administration
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Rodney K.B. Young joined the company in September 2005 as Chief
Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance. In November 2006
he became CFO and Vice President, Finance and Administration. He
is responsible for functions that include Finance, Information
Technology and Investor Relations. From 2003 to 2005, Mr. Young
was Chief Financial Officer and a director of Extropy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a private biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing drugs for pediatric indications.
|
Stewart Craig, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Development and Operations
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
Stewart Craig, Ph.D., joined the company in September 2008
with responsibilities for Development, Manufacturing,
Regulatory, Quality Systems and Facilities. From 2005 to 2008,
Dr. Craig was Chief Technology Officer and Vice President
of Progenitor Cell Therapy, a contract services provider for
research, development, manufacture and commercialization of
cell-based therapies, prior to which he has held executive
positions at Xcyte Therapies, Osiris Therapeutics and SyStemix.
|
Kenneth Stratton
General Counsel
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Kenneth Stratton joined the company in February 2007 as General
Counsel, with responsibility for corporate compliance and legal
affairs. In March 2008, he assumed responsibilities for the
Human Resources function. Prior to StemCells, Mr. Stratton
served as Deputy General Counsel for Threshold Pharmaceuticals
and as Senior Legal Counsel for Medtronics Vascular
business unit.
|
95
Directors
Below are the name, age and principal occupations for the last
five years of each Director of StemCells, Inc., as of
February 28, 2011. Directors are elected to staggered three
year terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric H. Bjerkholt
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Eric H. Bjerkholt was elected to the Board of Directors in March
2004. Mr. Bjerkholt joined Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in
2004 as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Since
February 2007, he has served as Senior Vice President, Corporate
Development and Finance, and Chief Financial Officer. From 2002
to 2004, Mr. Bjerkholt was Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer at IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
|
R. Scott Greer
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Mr. Greer was elected to the Board of Directors in June 2010. He
is currently a Principal and Managing Director of Numenor
Ventures LLC which he founded in 2002.
|
Ricardo B. Levy, Ph.D.
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
Ricardo B. Levy, Ph.D. was elected to the Board of
Directors in September 2001. He currently serves on several
boards of directors.
|
Martin M. McGlynn
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
Martin M. McGlynn was elected to the Board of Directors in
February 2001. He is President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, a position he has held since January 2001.
|
Roger Perlmutter, M.D., Ph.D.
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Roger M. Perlmutter, M.D., Ph.D., was elected to the
Board of Directors in December 2000. He is Executive Vice
President, Research and Development, of Amgen, Inc., a position
he has held since January 2001.
|
John J. Schwartz, Ph.D.
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
John J. Schwartz, Ph.D., was elected to the Board of
Directors in December 1998 and was elected Chairman of the Board
at the same time. He is currently President of Quantum
Strategies Management Company.
|
Irving Weissman, M.D.
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
Irving L. Weissman, M.D., was elected to the Board of
Directors in September 1997. He is the Virginia and Daniel K.
Ludwig Professor of Cancer Research, Professor of Pathology and
Professor of Developmental Biology at Stanford. Director,
Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine,
|
Certain other information required by this Item regarding our
officers, directors, and corporate governance is incorporated
herein by reference to the information appearing under the
headings Information About Our Directors and
Information About Ownership of Our Common Stock in
our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission within 120 days of
December 31, 2010 (the 2010 Proxy Statement).
|
|
Item 11.
|
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from Item 5 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and our Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
|
|
Item 12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from Item 5 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and from our Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
|
|
Item 13.
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders.
96
|
|
Item 14.
|
PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
|
The information required by this Item is incorporated by
reference from our Proxy Statement for the 2011. Annual Meeting
of Stockholders.
|
|
Item 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) The following documents are included as part of this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
(1) Financial Statements.
The financial statements filed as part of this Report are listed
and indexed under Item 8 above.
(2) Financial Statement Schedules.
Schedules are not included herein because they are not
applicable or the required information appears in the Financial
Statements or Notes thereto.
(3) Exhibits.
The documents set forth below are filed herewith or incorporated
by reference to the location indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant(1)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Registrant(2)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate(3)
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued to certain purchasers of the
Registrants common stock in November 2008(4)
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued to certain purchasers of the
Registrants common stock in November 2009(5)
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Form of at-will Employment Agreement between the Registrant and
most of its employees(6)
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Form of Agreement for Consulting Services between the Registrant
and the members of its Scientific Advisory Board(7)
|
|
10
|
.3 #
|
|
Cytotherapeutics, Inc. 1992 Equity Incentive Plan(7)
|
|
10
|
.4 #
|
|
1992 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors(7)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lease Agreement, dated as of August 1, 1992, between the
Registrant and the Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation(8)
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated as of
September 15, 1994, between Registrant and the Rhode Island
Industrial Facilities Corporation(8)
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Lease Agreement, dated as of November 21, 1997, by and
between Hub RI Properties Trust, as Landlord, and
CytoTherapeutics, Inc., as Tenant(9)
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Consulting Agreement, dated as of September 25, 1997,
between Dr. Irving Weissman and the Registrant(10)
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
StemCells, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan(11)
|
|
10
|
.10 #
|
|
1997 StemCells Research Stock Option Plan (the 1997
Plan)(11)
|
|
10
|
.11 #
|
|
Form of Performance-Based Incentive Option Agreement issued
under the 1997 Plan(11)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
License Agreement, dated April 1, 1997, by and among
Registrant, NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd.
(the 1997 NeuroSpheres license agreement)(12)
|
|
10
|
.13 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2000, between
the Registrant and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. (the 2000
NeuroSpheres license agreement)(13)
|
|
10
|
.14 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated January 2, 2001, between the
Registrant and Martin McGlynn(13)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Lease, dated February 1, 2001, between the Board of
Trustees of Stanford University and the Registrant(13)
|
97
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Third Amendment to Lease, dated October 12, 2009, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University(14)
|
|
10
|
.17 #
|
|
2001 Equity Incentive Plan(15)
|
|
10
|
.18 #
|
|
StemCells, Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan(16)
|
|
10
|
.19 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2005, between the
Registrant and ReNeuron Limited(17)
|
|
10
|
.20 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of September 6, 2005,
between the Registrant and Rodney K.B. Young(18)
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Side Letter, dated October 30, 2000, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. regarding the 1997 and 2000 NeuroSpheres
license agreements(13)
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 21, 2002, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding
the 2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
Side Letter, dated July 2, 2003, between the Registrant and
NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding the
2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.24 &
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 9, 2005, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding
the 2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Indemnification Agreement, dated July 9, 2008, between the
Registrant and NeuroSpheres Holdings, Ltd.(19)
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 1, 2009, between the
Registrant and Stem Cell Sciences Plc(20)
|
|
10
|
.27 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of February 2, 1998, between
the Registrant and Ann Tsukamoto(21)
|
|
10
|
.28 #
|
|
Memorandum of Agreement, effective as of July 17, 2000,
between the Registrant and Ann Tsukamoto(21)
|
|
10
|
.29 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of July 24, 2008, between
the Registrant and Stewart Craig(21)
|
|
10
|
.30 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of February 2, 2007, between
the Registrant and Kenneth B. Stratton(21)
|
|
10
|
.31 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of August 6, 2009, between
the Registrant and Kenneth B. Stratton(21)
|
|
10
|
.32 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of January 31, 2006, between
Stem Cell Sciences (Australia) Pty Limited and The University of
Edinburgh(21)
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Lease, dated August 25, 2010, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University(22)
|
|
10
|
.34*
|
|
Lease agreement, dated December 2, 2010, between the
Registrant and BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC
|
|
10
|
.35*
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Lease, dated February 28, 2010, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University
|
|
21
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant(21)
|
|
23
|
.1*
|
|
Consent of Grant Thornton, LLP, Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
|
|
31
|
.1*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rule 13(a)-14(a),
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
31
|
.2*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rule 13(a)-14(a),
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
32
|
.2*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
# |
|
Indicates management compensatory plan, contract or arrangement. |
|
& |
|
Confidential treatment requested as to certain portions.
Material has been omitted and separately filed with the
Commission. |
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
98
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and filed on
March 15, 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on May 7, 2007. |
|
(3) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-151891. |
|
(4) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on November 12, 2008. |
|
(5) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on October 28, 2009. |
|
(6) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and filed on
March 16, 2009. |
|
(7) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-45739. |
|
(8) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-85494. |
|
(9) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and filed on
March 30, 1998. |
|
(10) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 and filed on
November 14, 1997. |
|
(11) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-37313. |
|
(12) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 and filed on
March 22, 2006. |
|
(13) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and filed on
April 2, 2001. |
|
(14) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009. |
|
(15) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants definitive
proxy statement filed May 1, 2001. |
|
(16) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-118263. |
|
(17) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. |
|
(18) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
filed on September 7, 2005. |
|
(19) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008. |
|
(20) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and filed on
March 16, 2009. |
|
(21) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and filed on
March 11, 2010. |
|
(22) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. |
99
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
STEMCELLS, INC.
Martin McGlynn
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Dated: March 11, 2011
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Martin
McGlynn
Martin
McGlynn
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer and Director (principal
executive officer)
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Rodney
K.B. Young
Rodney
K.B. Young
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ George
Koshy
George
Koshy
|
|
Chief Accounting Officer
(principal accounting officer)
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Eric
Bjerkholt
Eric
Bjerkholt
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ R.Scott
Greer
R.Scott
Greer
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ricardo
B. Levy, Ph.D.
Ricardo
B. Levy, Ph.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Roger
M. Perlmutter, M.D.
Roger
M. Perlmutter, M.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
J. Schwartz, Ph. D.
John
J. Schwartz, Ph. D.
|
|
Director, Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Irving
L. Weissman, M.D.
Irving
L. Weissman, M.D.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
100
Exhibit Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant(1)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Registrant(2)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate(3)
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued to certain purchasers of the
Registrants common stock in November 2008(4)
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Form of Warrant Certificate issued to certain purchasers of the
Registrants common stock in November 2009(5)
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Form of at-will Employment Agreement between the Registrant and
most of its employees(6)
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Form of Agreement for Consulting Services between the Registrant
and the members of its Scientific Advisory Board(7)
|
|
10
|
.3 #
|
|
Cytotherapeutics, Inc. 1992 Equity Incentive Plan(7)
|
|
10
|
.4 #
|
|
1992 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors(7)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lease Agreement, dated as of August 1, 1992, between the
Registrant and the Rhode Island Industrial Facilities
Corporation(8)
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated as of
September 15, 1994, between Registrant and the Rhode Island
Industrial Facilities Corporation(8)
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Lease Agreement, dated as of November 21, 1997, by and
between Hub RI Properties Trust, as Landlord, and
CytoTherapeutics, Inc., as Tenant(9)
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Consulting Agreement, dated as of September 25, 1997,
between Dr. Irving Weissman and the Registrant(10)
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
StemCells, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan(11)
|
|
10
|
.10 #
|
|
1997 StemCells Research Stock Option Plan (the 1997
Plan)(11)
|
|
10
|
.11 #
|
|
Form of Performance-Based Incentive Option Agreement issued
under the 1997 Plan(11)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
License Agreement, dated April 1, 1997, by and among
Registrant, NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd.
(the 1997 NeuroSpheres license agreement)(12)
|
|
10
|
.13 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2000, between
the Registrant and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. (the 2000
NeuroSpheres license agreement)(13)
|
|
10
|
.14 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated January 2, 2001, between the
Registrant and Martin McGlynn(13)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Lease, dated February 1, 2001, between the Board of
Trustees of Stanford University and the Registrant(13)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Third Amendment to Lease, dated October 12, 2009, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University(14)
|
|
10
|
.17 #
|
|
2001 Equity Incentive Plan(15)
|
|
10
|
.18 #
|
|
StemCells, Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan(16)
|
|
10
|
.19 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2005, between the
Registrant and ReNeuron Limited(17)
|
|
10
|
.20 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of September 6, 2005,
between the Registrant and Rodney K.B. Young(18)
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Side Letter, dated October 30, 2000, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. regarding the 1997 and 2000 NeuroSpheres
license agreements(13)
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 21, 2002, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding
the 2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
Side Letter, dated July 2, 2003, between the Registrant and
NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding the
2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.24 &
|
|
Side Letter, dated March 9, 2005, between the Registrant
and NeuroSpheres Ltd. and NeuroSpheres Holdings Ltd. regarding
the 2000 NeuroSpheres license agreement(21)
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Indemnification Agreement, dated July 9, 2008, between the
Registrant and NeuroSpheres Holdings, Ltd.(19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Title or Description
|
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 1, 2009, between the
Registrant and Stem Cell Sciences Plc(20)
|
|
10
|
.27 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of February 2, 1998, between
the Registrant and Ann Tsukamoto(21)
|
|
10
|
.28 #
|
|
Memorandum of Agreement, effective as of July 17, 2000,
between the Registrant and Ann Tsukamoto(21)
|
|
10
|
.29 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of July 24, 2008, between
the Registrant and Stewart Craig(21)
|
|
10
|
.30 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of February 2, 2007, between
the Registrant and Kenneth B. Stratton(21)
|
|
10
|
.31 #
|
|
Letter Agreement, effective as of August 6, 2009, between
the Registrant and Kenneth B. Stratton(21)
|
|
10
|
.32 &
|
|
License Agreement, dated as of January 31, 2006, between
Stem Cell Sciences (Australia) Pty Limited and The University of
Edinburgh(21)
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Lease, dated August 25, 2010, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University(22)
|
|
10
|
.34*
|
|
Lease agreement, dated December 2, 2010, between the
Registrant and BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC
|
|
10
|
.35*
|
|
Fifth Amendment to Lease, dated February 28, 2010, between
Registrant and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University
|
|
21
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant(21)
|
|
23
|
.1*
|
|
Consent of Grant Thornton, LLP, Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
|
|
31
|
.1*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rule 13(a)-14(a),
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
31
|
.2*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rule 13(a)-14(a),
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Martin McGlynn, Chief Executive Officer)
|
|
32
|
.2*
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Rodney K.B. Young, Chief Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
# |
|
Indicates management compensatory plan, contract or arrangement. |
|
& |
|
Confidential treatment requested as to certain portions.
Material has been omitted and separately filed with the
Commission. |
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and filed on
March 15, 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on May 7, 2007. |
|
(3) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-3,
File
No. 333-151891. |
|
(4) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on November 12, 2008. |
|
(5) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
on October 28, 2009. |
|
(6) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and filed on
March 16, 2009. |
|
(7) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-45739. |
|
(8) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1,
File
No. 33-85494. |
|
(9) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and filed on
March 30, 1998. |
|
(10) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 and filed on
November 14, 1997. |
|
(11) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-37313. |
|
(12) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 and filed on
March 22, 2006. |
|
|
|
(13) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and filed on
April 2, 2001. |
|
(14) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009. |
|
(15) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants definitive
proxy statement filed May 1, 2001. |
|
(16) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-8,
File
No. 333-118263. |
|
(17) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. |
|
(18) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants current
report on
Form 8-K
filed on September 7, 2005. |
|
(19) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008. |
|
(20) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and filed on
March 16, 2009. |
|
(21) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and filed on
March 11, 2010. |
|
(22) |
|
Incorporated by reference to the Registrants Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. |