UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
FORM 10-Q
x
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 | |
|
||
|
For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2004 | |
|
||
o
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 | |
|
||
|
For the transition period from _________ to _________ |
Commission File No. 000-29089
Antigenics Inc.
Delaware
(State of Incorporation) |
06-1562417
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100, New York, New York, 10111
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(212) 994-8200
(Registrants Telephone Number, including Area Code)
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 x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes x No o
Number of shares outstanding of the registrants Common Stock as of April 30, 2004: 45,062,865 shares
Antigenics Inc.
Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2004
Table of Contents
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements
ANTIGENICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS
See accompanying notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements
1
ANTIGENICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
See accompanying notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.
2
ANTIGENICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
See accompanying notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.
3
ANTIGENICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note A
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Antigenics Inc.
and subsidiaries have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial
information and with the instructions to Article 10 of Regulation S-X and
include the accounts of Antigenics Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required
by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for
complete annual consolidated financial statements. In the opinion of
management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation have
been included. All significant intercompany balances have been eliminated in
consolidation. Operating results for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 are not
necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending
December 31, 2004. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial
statements and footnotes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2003 included
in our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on March 15, 2004.
Note B
Equity Offerings
On February 6, 2004, we sold 5,000,000
shares of our common stock, $0.01 par value, and we received net proceeds of
approximately $50 million.
On February 18, 2004, we sold an additional 400,000 shares of our common stock,
$0.01 par value, and we received net proceeds of approximately
$4 million.
Note C
Net Loss Per Share
Basic earnings or loss per common share (EPS) is calculated by dividing net
loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding. Diluted EPS is calculated by dividing net loss
attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average common shares
outstanding plus the dilutive effect of outstanding stock options, stock
warrants and the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. Because we have reported
a net loss attributable to common stockholders for all periods, diluted net
loss attributable to common stockholders per common share is the same as basic
net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share as the effect of
including the outstanding stock options, stock warrants and the convertible
preferred stock in the calculation would have reduced the net loss attributable
to common stockholders per common share. Therefore, the 5,174,000 outstanding stock options,
the 95,000 outstanding stock warrants and the 31,620 issued shares of Series A convertible preferred stock
are not included in the calculation, and basic and diluted net loss per common
share attributable to common stockholders are equal.
Note D
Inventories
Inventories consist of approximately the following at:
Note E
Stock-Based Compensation
We account for options granted to employees and directors in accordance with
Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued
to Employees
, and related interpretations. As such, compensation expense is
recorded on fixed stock option grants only if the current fair value of the
underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of the option at the date of grant
and it is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period.
We account for stock options granted to non-employees on a fair-value basis in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 96-18,
Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than
Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services
. As
a result, any non-cash charge to operations for non-employee options with
vesting or other performance criteria is affected each reporting period by
changes in the fair value of our
common stock.
In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS
No. 148,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation Transition and Disclosure,
an
amendment of SFAS No. 123. This Statement amends SFAS No. 123 to provide
alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair-value
method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, this
Statement amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to require
prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements, which
interim disclosures are included below.
4
The following table illustrates the effect on net loss attributable to common
stockholders and net loss attributable to common stockholders per
common share, basic and diluted had compensation cost for options granted to
employees and directors and sold through our employee stock purchase plan been
determined consistent with the fair value method of SFAS No. 123:
The effects of applying SFAS No. 123, for either recognizing or disclosing
compensation costs under such pronouncement, may not be representative of the
effects on reported net income or loss for future years. The fair value of
each option and employee stock purchase right granted is estimated on the date
of grant using an option-pricing model with the following weighted average
assumptions:
The expected life used to estimate the fair value of non-employee options is
equal to the contractual life of the option granted.
Note F
Comprehensive Loss
The following table provides the calculation of other comprehensive loss for
the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003:
Note G
Commitments and Contingencies
On May 18, 2000, we committed $3,000,000 to become a limited partner in a
limited partnership, called Applied Genomic Technology Capital Fund (AGTC),
which invests principally in companies that apply genomic technologies and
information in their offerings of products and services or that are engaged in
research and development involving genomic technologies. Capital contributions
to the limited partnership are made as authorized by the general partner. As of
March 31, 2004, we have invested $1,875,000, and have included this amount, net
of impairment charges, in non-current other assets. This investment is
accounted for under the cost method as our ownership is approximately 2%. In
order to assess whether or not there has been an other than temporary decline
in the value of this investment, we analyze several factors
including: (1) the
carrying value of the limited partnerships investments in its portfolio
companies, (2) how recently investments in the portfolio companies have been
made, (3) the post-financing valuations of those investments, (4) the level
of un-invested capital held by the limited partnership and (5) the overall
trend in venture capital valuations. Based on these analyses, for the three
months ended March 31, 2004, we concluded that an other than temporary decline
had not occurred. Our investment balance aggregated $1,557,000 at March 31,
2004. The general partner of AGTC is AGTC Partners, L.P. and NewcoGen Group
Inc. is the general partner of AGTC Partners, L.P. Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D., who is
one of our directors, is the Senior Managing Director and CEO of Flagship
Ventures, a partnership of funds including NewcoGen Group Inc. and AGTC. In
addition, Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., our chairman and chief executive officer, is a
director of NewcoGen Group Inc.
Antigenics, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Garo Armen, and two
investment banking firms that served as underwriters in our initial public
offering have been named as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed on
November 5, 2001 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class of purchasers of our stock between February 3, 2000
and December 6, 2000. Similar
5
complaints were filed against about 300 other
issuers, their underwriters, and in many instances their directors and
officers. These cases have been coordinated under the caption
In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation
, Civ. No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), by order dated
August 9, 2001. The suit against Antigenics and Dr. Armen alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our
stock in the offering. The suit also alleges that shares of our stock were
allocated to certain of the investment banking firms customers based upon
agreements by such customers to purchase additional shares of our stock in the
secondary market. The complaint alleges that Antigenics is liable under Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Dr.
Armen is liable under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act because our
registration statement did not disclose these
alleged practices. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended class action complaint, which contains new allegations. Similar
amended complaints were filed with respect to about 300 other companies. In
addition to the claims in the earlier complaint, the amended complaint alleges
that Antigenics and Dr. Armen violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements
and/or omissions in order to inflate our stock price and conceal the investment
banking firms alleged secret arrangements. The claims against Dr. Armen, in
his individual capacity, have been dismissed without prejudice. On July 15,
2002, Antigenics and Dr. Armen joined the Issuer Defendants Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaints. By order of the Court, this motion set
forth all common issues, i.e., all grounds for dismissal common to all or a
significant number of Issuer Defendants. The hearing on the Issuer Defendants
Motion to Dismiss and the other Defendants motions to Dismiss was held on
November 1, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its opinion and order
on the Issuer Defendants Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted Antigenics
motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 claims with leave to amend and
denied our motion to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 15 claims. Currently,
Antigenics, along with numerous other issuer companies, is in settlement
discussions with plaintiffs and anticipates that a settlement will be reached
without incurring significant out-of-pocket costs. At this time, we cannot make
a reliable estimate of possible loss, if any, related to this
litigation, and accordingly, no reserve has been recorded.
On February 19, 2004, Jonathan Lewis, M.D., our former Chief Medical Officer,
filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that we terminated Dr. Lewis
without cause and have failed to pay severance benefits to which Dr. Lewis
believes he is entitled. The complaint seeks relief for breach of contract and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. We intend to vigorously defend
against these claims. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded.
From time to time as a normal incidence of the nature of our business various
claims, charges and litigation are asserted or commenced against us arising
from, or related to, contractual matters, patents, trademarks, personal injury,
environmental matters, product liability, insurance coverage and personnel and
employment disputes. As to such claims and litigation, including those items
discussed above, we may not prevail. We do
not expect the ultimate outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or liquidity. However, litigation is subject to inherent
uncertainty and consumes both cash and management attention.
Note
H Sale of Technology
On
March 17, 2004, we sold our manufacturing rights for feline leukemia virus
(FeLV) vaccine to French veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturer Virbac S.A.
(Virbac). Pursuant to this arrangement, in exchange for
the transfer of our manufacturing rights and related equipment for
FeLV, we will receive $14,250,000 in cash. The carrying value
of the assets sold is $409,000 and liabilities assumed is $15,000. As
the sale was subject to a contingency which has been met subsequent
to March 31, 2004, the assets sold and the
liabilities assumed are reflected in the consolidated
balance sheet and the cash received from Virbac is recorded in other
current liabilities at March 31, 2004. Upon completion of the sale
there will be no further product sales. In addition,
we entered into a sublease agreement with PP Manufacturing, a
subsidiary of Virbac, for a portion of the manufacturing facility in
Framingham, MA.
As
consideration for the sale we received $10,382,000 on or prior to
closing. This amount is included in other current liabilities on the
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2004. An additional
$4,250,000 is due upon the production of Initial Batches
as defined in the asset purchase agreement, provided that Virbac
shall attempt in good faith to manufacture the Initial Batches within
six months of the closing date, and in no case beyond eight months
after the closing.
Virbac has held exclusive perpetual worldwide
marketing rights to the FeLV vaccine since 1983. The supply agreement
was up for renewal in July 2002, at which point we began to supply
product to Virbac through month-to-month supply agreements until the
sale of our FeLV manufacturing rights to them in March.
Item 2
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations
OVERVIEW
We are currently researching and developing products to treat cancers,
infectious diseases and autoimmune disorders. Since our inception in March
1994, our activities have primarily been associated with the development of our
heat shock protein technology and our most advanced product candidate,
Oncophage. Our business activities have included product research and
development, intellectual property prosecution, manufacturing vaccines for clinical trials, regulatory and clinical affairs, corporate
finance and development activities, and integration of our acquisitions.
We have incurred significant losses since our inception. As of March 31, 2004,
we had an accumulated deficit of $296,853,000. We continue to finance the
majority of our operations through the sale of equity. For the three months
ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, we have raised through the sale of equity and
exercises of stock options net proceeds of approximately $54,208,000 and
$59,651,000, respectively.
We expect, as we have in the past, to attempt to raise additional funds
substantially in advance of depleting our current funds. Satisfying long-term
liquidity needs will require the successful commercialization of Oncophage or
other products and may require substantial additional capital. We expect that
we will be able to fund our growing operations and capital expenditures with
our current working capital through the end of
6
2005.
On
March 17, 2004, we sold our manufacturing rights for feline leukemia virus
(FeLV) vaccine to French veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturer Virbac S.A.
(Virbac). Pursuant to this arrangement, in exchange for
the transfer of our manufacturing rights and related equipment for
FeLV, we will receive $14,250,000 in cash. The carrying value
of the assets sold is $409,000 and liabilities assumed is $15,000. As
the sale was subject to a contingency which has been met subsequent
to March 31, 2004, the assets sold and the
liabilities assumed are reflected in the consolidated
balance sheet and the cash received from Virbac is recorded in other
current liabilities at March 31, 2004. In addition,
we entered into a sublease agreement with PP Manufacturing, a
subsidiary of Virbac, for a portion of the manufacturing facility in
Framingham, MA.
As
consideration for the sale we received $10,382,000 on or prior to
closing. This amount is included in other current liabilities on the
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2004. An additional
$4,250,000 is due upon the production of Initial Batches
as defined in the asset purchase agreement, provided that Virbac
shall attempt in good faith to manufacture the Initial Batches within
six months of the closing date, and in no case beyond eight months
after the closing.
Virbac has held exclusive perpetual worldwide
marketing rights to the FeLV vaccine since 1983. The supply agreement
was up for renewal in July 2002, at which point we began to supply
product to Virbac through month-to-month supply agreements until the
sale of our FeLV manufacturing rights to them in March.
To
date, we have generated product sales revenues from one product, our feline
leukemia vaccine, the rights to which we sold to Virbac. Our revenues from this product were $338,000 and $885,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2004, and 2003, respectively. During the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, we also had research and development
revenues of $110,000 and $895,000, respectively, representing grant payments
earned, and in 2003, shipments of our adjuvant QS-21 to our QS-21 licensees.
Forward-Looking Statements
This report contains forward-looking
statements, the expected settlement of securities litigation, our
future development activities, our ability to commercialize products,
the timing of completion of clinical trials, the
timing of future regulatory filings, our future financial results,
our ability to satisfy the FDA that our current Phase III
clinical trials should be sufficient to support a biologics license
application, estimated
future payments for clinical trials, estimated future capital expenditures, the impact of
litigation, the impact on our investments of future fluctuations in interest
rates, and other statements expressed in terms of our expectations, plans or
goals. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those indicated in these
forward-looking statements. Our ability to settle the securities litigation,
for example, will depend on decisions made by plaintiffs, insurance companies,
underwriters, and courts, all of which are beyond our control. Our efforts to
develop and commercialize our product candidates, and the timing of regulatory
filings and analysis of clinical trial data, will depend on, among other
matters, our ability to enroll sufficient numbers of patients in clinical
trials and to satisfy regulatory agencies that our product candidates are safe,
effective and adequately characterized and that our trials are
adequately designed, which may require considerable
information and effort and still be unsuccessful and which may
require additional clinical trials with different study designs. Levels of future expenditures
will depend on the activities we are required to undertake to satisfy
regulatory requirements, the timing of our efforts, and inflationary trends.
General financial market conditions will impact the value of our investments.
Our business is subject to substantial risk. Risks and uncertainties, including
the factors identified under Factors That May Impact Future Results will
substantially determine whether we are successful and whether the results
indicated by the forward-looking statements occur. We caution investors not to
place considerable reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this
report. These statements speak only as of the date of this report, and we
undertake no obligation to update or revise the statements.
Historical Results of Operations
Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 Compared To The Three Months Ended March 31,
2003
Revenue:
We generated $338,000 and $885,000 of product revenue during the three
months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Product revenues consist of
sales of our feline leukemia vaccine to our former marketing partner Virbac.
The decrease in product revenue is due to the anticipation of the sale of our
manufacturing rights for FeLV mentioned above, which directly
resulted in Virbac purchasing from us reduced amounts of FeLV during the three months ended March 31, 2004. Additionally,
we had $110,000 and $895,000 of research and development revenue during the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Revenues from
research and development activities include grant payments earned and, in 2003,
shipments of our adjuvant QS-21 product to our QS-21 licensees. The decrease
between the first quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004 is related to the absence of demand for our adjuvant QS-21 during the
three months ended March 31, 2004.
Cost of Sales:
Cost of sales, which is related entirely to product revenue, was
$594,000 and $621,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, cost of sales
was 176% and 70%, respectively, of product sales. The increase is attributable
to the costs of idle capacity in our facility where we manufactured the feline
leukemia vaccine.
Research and Development:
Research and development expenses include the costs
associated with our internal research and development activities, including
salaries and benefits, occupancy costs, clinical manufacturing costs, related
administrative costs, and research and development conducted for us by outside
advisors, such as sponsored university-based research partners, including the
University of Connecticut where we sponsor research, and clinical research
organizations as well as expenses related to grant revenue. Research and
development expense increased 8% to $11,139,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 from $10,316,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The
increase was primarily due to personnel compensation associated with the growth
of our research activities which increased $466,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 over the same period in 2003. Also contributing to the increase
was the cost of simultaneously occupying and maintaining both the Lexington and
Woburn, Massachusetts facilities for the majority of the three months ended
March 31, 2004, which contributed to a $614,000 increase in research and development
facility-related costs when compared to the same period in 2003. Effective March 15, 2004,
we exited our Woburn facility and those manufacturing activities are currently
being conducted in our Lexington facility. Other research and development expenses
decreased $257,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 when compared to the same period in 2003.
7
General and Administrative:
General and administrative expenses consist
primarily of personnel compensation, office expenses and professional fees.
General and administrative expenses increased 29% to $6,294,000 for the three
months ended March 31, 2004 from $4,887,000 for the three months ended March
31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the $772,000 increase in personnel
compensation associated with the growth of our operations since the first
quarter of 2003 and with severance compensation for one of our executives.
Our professional service expenses increased
$314,000 primarily due to costs associated with the sale of our manufacturing
rights for feline leukemia vaccine to Virbac. Other general and
administrative expenses increased $321,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2004 over the same period in 2003.
Non-operating Income:
Non-operating income consists of rental income earned on
the subleases of a number of our facilities. For the three months ended March
31, 2004, we earned $273,000 of rental income, an increase of $55,000 over the
same period for 2003. The increase in rental income is primarily due to the
sublease of our Framingham, Massachusetts manufacturing facilities to PP
Manufacturing in connection with the sale of our manufacturing rights for
feline leukemia vaccine.
Interest Income:
Interest income decreased 12% to $304,000 for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 from $346,000 for the same period in 2003. This decrease
is attributable to lower interest rates during the three months ended March 31,
2004 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2003. Our average interest
rate decreased from approximately 1.3% for the three months ended March 31,
2003, to approximately 1.1% for the three months ended March 31, 2004.
Interest expense:
Interest expense increased 1,069% to $152,000 for the three
months ended March 31, 2004 from $13,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2003. The increase is attributable to our increased debt balance during the
three-month period ended March 31, 2004, as compared to our debt outstanding
during the three-month period ended March 31, 2003.
Research and Development Programs
Prior to 2002, we did not track costs on a per project basis, and therefore
have estimated the allocation of our total research and development costs to
each of our three largest research and development programs. These research
and development programs contain our four lead product candidates, Oncophage®,
AG-858, Aroplatin, and AG-702/707, as indicated in the following table.
* Prior to 2001 costs were incurred by Aronex Pharmaceuticals, a company we
acquired in July 2001.
We have allocated direct and indirect costs to each program based on certain
assumptions and our review of the status of each program, payroll-related
expenses and other overhead costs based on estimated usage by each
program. Each of our lead product candidates is in various stages of completion
as described below. Significant additional expenditures will be required if
we complete our clinical trials, start new trials, apply for regulatory
approvals, continue development of our technologies, expand our operations and
bring our products to market. The eventual total cost of each clinical trial is
dependent on a number of uncertainties such as trial design, the length of the
trial, the number of clinical sites and the number of patients. The process of
obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals for new therapeutic products is
lengthy, expensive and uncertain. Because the successful development of our
most advanced product candidate, Oncophage, is uncertain, and because AG-858,
AG-702/707, and Aroplatin are in early-stage clinical development, we are
unable to reliably estimate the cost of completing our research and development
programs, the timing of bringing such programs to market and, therefore, when
material cash inflows could commence.
Oncophage
We started enrolling patients in our first clinical trial studying Oncophage in
November 1997. To date, over 700 patients have been treated with Oncophage in
our various clinical trials. We have ongoing Phase I and Phase II trials in
several types of cancer as well as a Phase III trial for renal cell carcinoma
and a Phase III trial for melanoma. Oncophage is a novel cancer
therapeutic vaccine that is personalized for each patient, it may experience a
long regulatory review process and high development costs either of which could
delay or prevent our commercialization efforts. For additional information
regarding regulatory risks and uncertainties, please read the factors
identified under Factors That May Impact Future Results.
On September 3, 2003, we announced that the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) placed our Phase III Oncophage clinical trials on partial
clinical hold. With FDA approval, we continued to treat and monitor patients
who were already enrolled in the trials as of that date. On October 23, 2003, we submitted to the FDA additional Oncophage
product characterization information, and on November 23, 2003, the agency
lifted the partial clinical hold. On December 22, 2003, we announced the result
of the planned interim analysis of the data from our ongoing Phase III trial of
Oncophage in renal cell carcinoma. Based on its review of the safety data,
efficacy data, and other information regarding the trial, the independent Data
Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the trial recommended that the trial proceed as
planned and did not require that we change the patient accrual goals for a
successful analysis of the Phase III trial. At the interim analysis,
the DMC also declared the design and conduct of the trial sound and raised no
safety concerns.
8
The FDA has informed us that Oncophage has been insufficiently characterized
and that the results obtained with an inadequately characterized product cannot
be used to provide efficacy data in support of a biologics license application.
Over the next several months we will be providing additional data to the FDA to
support that Oncophage is fully characterized. In addition, the FDA has
provided us with detailed comments regarding both of our Phase III trials. We believe that we will
be able to successfully address the FDAs comments regarding our Phase
III trials. If we successfully address these comments, and the data from our
Phase III trials are significantly positive, we believe we should be able to
convince the FDA to accept the data from these trials to support product
registration. We intend to schedule a formal meeting with the FDA during the
third quarter of 2004 to discuss our approval strategy for Oncophage in renal
cell carcinoma and in melanoma. These expectations regarding FDA approval are
forward-looking statements. Please see the section entitled Forward-Looking
Statements and the
information regarding regulatory risks and uncertainties identified under the
section entitled Factors That May Impact Future Results.
The final analysis for our Phase III trial in renal cell carcinoma, study
C-100-12, will be triggered once a pre-specified number of events occur. An
event is defined as a recurrence of a patients renal cell carcinoma or a death
of a patient. Events are reviewed and confirmed, on a blinded basis, by an
independent Clinical Events Committee comprised of expert radiologists and an
expert oncologist. Based on the overall trend of events in C-100-12 to date, we
believe that the earliest the final analysis for this trial will be triggered
is in early 2005. Our overall manufacturing success rate for our
C-100-12 trial is approximately 92%. If the efficacy data are significantly positive, and if the
FDA accepts the data from C-100-12 as being pivotal and sufficient to support
product registration, we would expect to file a biologics license application,
or BLA, within six months after conducting the final analysis. During 2004, we
plan to initiate a second Phase III, multicenter, international trial for renal
cell carcinoma. We intend to use this additional Phase III trial to support the
approval of Oncophage.
We expect to complete enrollment of our ongoing Phase III trial in melanoma,
Study C-100-21 during 2004. We had a meeting with the DMC during the first
quarter of 2004 to review the safety and conduct of our Phase III melanoma
trial of Oncophage. This meeting was not an interim analysis of the efficacy
data from this trial. Our overall manufacturing success rate for our C-100-21
trial is approximately 69%. Our inability to
manufacture adequate amounts of Oncophage for approximately 31% of the
patients randomized to-date in the Oncophage treatment arm may jeopardize the potential
for the trial, as currently designed, to meet its pre-specified clinical
endpoints. We are currently addressing the lower manufacturing
success rate for melanoma and expect to implement changes to improve
the manufacturing success rate in this trial. We are also evaluating whether or not
changes should be made to the design, enrollment targets, or planned conclusion
of C-100-21. If such changes are required, it will substantially delay our efforts to
file a biologics license application for Oncophage in melanoma. We are planning a second phase III trial in melanoma in collaboration with a large
cooperative group in Europe.
We recently initiated a Phase I/II trial of Oncophage in lung cancer and during
2004, we intend to initiate a Phase II trial in breast cancer, as well as
Phase I/II trials of Oncophage in combination with other molecules.
AG-858
In December 2002, interim data were reported from a pilot Phase I clinical
trial conducted at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine using
HSPPC-70 for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia, or CML. In April
2003, we initiated a Phase I/II trial in CML of AG-858 in combination with
Gleevec in patients with CML refractory to Gleevac. We expect to
complete enrollment in this trial by the end of 2004
and to release the data from this trial approximately 6 to 12 months after
completion of enrollment.
AG-702/707
We initiated a pilot Phase I clinical trial of AG-702 in the fourth quarter of
2001 and we expect to complete enrollment of this trial in early 2004. AG-702
is a vaccine formulation containing one peptide antigen, or target, of the herpes
virus. AG-707 is a vaccine formulation containing over 30 HSV-2
peptide antigens. We
expect to file an Investigational New Drug application (IND) for AG-707 for the
treatment of genital herpes in the first half of 2004 and expect to
begin enrolling patients later this year.
Aroplatin
We
initiated Phase I/II clinical trials of Aroplatin for colorectal cancer and
other solid tumors in 2002 and released data from the colorectal cancer trial
in the third quarter of 2003. We completed enrollment of the first cohort of
patients in both trials and at this time do not intend to enroll additional
patients. We are currently conducting non-clinical studies to improve the
formulation of Aroplatin. Subject to the results of these experiments, we may
launch a series of further non-clinical studies to support future clinical
trials with an improved formulation or we may make the decision to suspend or
delay the development of Aroplatin.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We have incurred annual operating losses since inception, and, as of March 31,
2004, we had an accumulated deficit of $296,853,000. We expect to incur
increasing and significant losses over the next several years as we continue
our clinical trials, apply for regulatory approvals, continue development of
our technologies, and expand our operations. Since our inception, we have
financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity, interest income
earned on cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investment balances and debt
provided through secured lines of credit. From our inception through March 31,
2004, we raised aggregate net proceeds of $350,370,000 through the sale of
equity, stock options and warrants and proceeds from our employee stock
purchase plan, and borrowed $20,523,000 under two credit facilities. At March
31, 2004, we have debt outstanding of approximately $14,085,000. In April 2003,
we filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
9
Commission
for the registration and potential issuance of up to $100 million of registered
securities. In September 2003, in a private placement, we sold 31,620 shares of
our newly created Series A Convertible Preferred Stock for net proceeds of
$31,606,000. In February 2004, we sold 5,400,000 shares of our common stock for
net proceeds of approximately $54 million.
We expect that we will be able to fund our capital expenditures and growing
operations with our current working capital through the end of 2005. In order
to fund our needs subsequently, we will need to raise additional money and may
be able to do so by: (1) completing securities
offerings, (2) out-licensing technologies or products to one or more corporate
partners, (3) renegotiating license agreements with current corporate partners,
(4) completing an outright sale of assets and/or (5) securing additional debt
financing. Our ability to successfully enter into any such arrangements is
uncertain and if funds are not available, or not available on terms acceptable
to us, we may be required to revise our planned clinical trials and other
development activities and capital expenditure requirements. We expect to
attempt to raise additional funds substantially in advance of depleting our
current funds; however, we may not be able to raise funds or raise amounts
sufficient to meet the long-term needs of the business. Satisfying long-term
liquidity needs will require the successful commercialization of Oncophage or
other products and, at this time, we cannot reliably estimate if or when that
will occur, and the process may require additional capital as discussed above.
Please see the Forward-Looking Statements section and the factors highlighted
in the Factors That May Impact Future Results section.
Our future cash requirements include, but are not limited to, supporting our
clinical trial efforts and continuing our other research and development
programs. Since inception we have entered into various agreements with
institutions and clinical research organizations to conduct and monitor our
current clinical studies. Under these agreements, subject to the enrollment of
patients and performance by the applicable institution of certain services, we
have estimated our payments to be $46,342,000 over the term of the studies.
Through March 31, 2004, approximately $25,983,000 has been expensed as research
and development expenses and $21,439,000 has been paid related to these clinical studies. The
timing of our expense recognition and future payments related to these
agreements are subject to the enrollment of patients and performance by the
applicable institutions of certain services. We anticipate significant additional expenditures will be required to complete our clinical trials, apply for regulatory approvals, continue development of our technologies and expand our operations to bring our products to market. As we expand our clinical studies
we plan to enter into additional agreements. In addition, we have entered into sponsored research agreements
related to our products that require payments of approximately $9,878,000, of
which $2,489,000 has been paid through March 31, 2004. Part of our strategy is
to develop and commercialize some of our product candidates by continuing our
existing collaborative arrangements with academic and corporate partners and
licensees and by entering into new collaborations. As a result of our
collaborative agreements, we will not completely control the efforts to attempt
to bring those product candidates to market. We have various agreements with
corporate licensees that allow the use of our QS-21 adjuvant in numerous
vaccines. These agreements grant exclusive worldwide rights in some fields of
use, and co-exclusive or non-exclusive rights in others. The agreements call
for royalties to be paid to us by the licensee on future sales of licensed
vaccines that include QS-21, which may not be achieved.
Our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments at March 31, 2004 were
$131,919,000, an increase of $42,441,000 from December 31, 2003. During the
three months ended March 31, 2004, we used cash primarily to finance our
research operations, including our Oncophage clinical trials. Net cash used in
operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 was
$18,198,000 and $12,842,000, respectively. The increase resulted primarily from
the increase in the activity of our Oncophage clinical trials, on-going
development activities and the general expansion of our research and
administrative operations. As we develop our technologies and further our
clinical trial programs, we expect to increase our spending. Our future ability
to generate cash from operations will depend on achieving regulatory approval
of our products, market acceptance of such products, achieving benchmarks as
defined in existing collaborative agreements, and our ability to enter into new
collaborations. Please see the Forward-Looking Statements section and the
matters highlighted in the Factors That May Impact Future Results section.
Net cash used in investing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2004
was $18,971,000 as compared to $8,835,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2003. During the three months ended March 31, 2004, we invested
$40,456,000 of
our available cash in short-term investments and received proceeds from the
maturity of such investments of $13,069,000. Additionally, for the three months
ended March 31, 2004, we invested $986,000 in the purchase of equipment,
furniture and fixtures for the build-out of our Lexington, Massachusetts
facility. We anticipate additional capital expenditures of up to $4,000,000
during 2004. We have also received a $8,382,000 refundable deposit for the
divestiture of our manufacturing and certain intellectual property rights to
the feline leukemia vaccine. In addition, we received $1,021,000 pertaining to
the reduction of our restricted cash balance.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $52,201,000 for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 as compared to $59,385,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2003. Since inception, our primary source of financing has been from
equity sales. During the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, net
proceeds from sales of equity and exercises of stock options totaled
approximately $54,208,000 and $59,651,000, respectively. During the three months
ended March 31, 2004, we repaid $1,783,000 of our debt balance under our
credit facility.
Effective March 17, 2004, we sublet part of our Framingham manufacturing and
office space to PP Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Virbac, in connection with
the sale of our manufacturing rights for feline leukemia vaccine. This
sublease agreement expires on September 30, 2010.
Effective July 19, 2002 we sublet part of our Framingham manufacturing,
research and development, and office space to GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. and we
have leased related leasehold improvements and equipment under agreements which
expire in December 31, 2006. GTC Biotherapeutics has an option to extend this
lease until September 30, 2010. As a result of the PP Manufacturing lease
agreement, we amended our agreement with GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. effective
March 16, 2004. Under the terms of our original lease, we are obligated to pay
our landlord approximately 7% of our rental income.
In addition, we sublet part of our Texas and New York facilities to a number of
small private companies under agreements that expire in 2008 and 2004
respectively. We are contractually entitled to receive rental income of
$1,226,000 in 2004; $1,286,000 in 2005; $1,375,000 in 2006;
10
$753,000 in 2007
and $535,000 in 2008, and $902,000 thereafter; the collection of this income,
however, is subject to uncertainty.
We
are currently involved in certain legal proceedings as described in Note G to
our unaudited consolidated financial statements above. We do not believe these
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity, but litigation is subject to
inherent uncertainty.
Related Parties
As
of March 31, 2004, we had invested $1,875,000 in a limited partnership
Applied Genomic Technology Capital Fund, or AGTC. Our total capital commitment
to AGTC is $3,000,000. One of our directors, Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D., is the
Senior Managing Director and CEO of a partnership of funds that include the
general partner of AGTC. In addition, Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., our chairman and
chief executive officer, is a director of NewcoGen Group Inc. For details,
refer to Note G to our unaudited consolidated financial statements.
As detailed in Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements included in our
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the SEC, our predecessor company,
Founder Holdings, Inc., which, indirectly, remains a significant shareholder,
approved a stock option plan pursuant to which our officers, directors,
employees and consultants may be granted options in the predecessor company.
In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, options granted under this plan are accounted for as
compensation expense by us and treated as a contribution to stockholders
equity.
We currently have a QS-21 license and supply agreement with Neuralab Limited, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Elan Corporation, plc, for use of QS-21 with an
antigen in the field of Alzheimers disease. Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., our Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, is the non-executive Chairman of Elan and a
nominal employee of a different wholly-owned subsidiary of Elan. For the three
months ended March 31, 2004, no revenues were generated under
this agreement and
accordingly, at March 31, 2004, we have no amounts due to us
under this
agreement.
In March 1995, we entered into a consulting agreement with Dr. Pramod
Srivastava, our scientific founder and one of our directors. This agreement
expires in March 2005 but will be automatically extended for additional
one-year periods unless either party decides not to extend the agreement. In
2004, we paid Dr. Srivastava a cash bonus of $135,000 and the compensation
committee approved a stock option grant to purchase 120,000 shares of our
common stock for services performed in 2003.
In February 1998 we entered into a research agreement with the University of
Connecticut Health Center (UConn) to fund research in Dr. Srivastavas
laboratory at Uconn. Dr. Srivastava is a member of the faculty of the
University of Connecticut School of Medicine and one of our directors. The
research agreement was amended on December 30, 2003, to extend the term to
December 31, 2008 and calls for payments to UConn totaling a minimum of
$6,750,000, payable quarterly at the rate of $337,500 (contingent on the
continuing employment of Dr. Srivastava by UConn). In return, we have an option
to obtain an exclusive license to new inventions (as defined in the research
agreement) subject to our payment to UConn of royalties at varying rates upon
commercialization of a product utilizing technology discovered under the
research agreement.
Factors That May Impact Future Results
Our
future operating results could be negatively impacted by, and the
results contemplated by forward looking statements may differ
materially, due to the risks and uncertainties described below.
Risks Related to our Business
If we incur operating losses for longer than we expect, we may be unable to
continue our operations.
From our inception through March 31, 2004, we have generated net losses
totaling $297 million. Our net losses for the three months ended March 31,
2004, and for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001 were $17.2
million, $65.9 million, $55.9 million, and $73.5 million, respectively. We
expect to incur increasing and significant losses over the next several years
as we continue our clinical trials, apply for regulatory approvals, continue
development of our technologies, and expand our operations. Phase III clinical
trials are particularly expensive to conduct, and we plan to initiate two new
Phase III clinical trials during 2004, one in renal cell carcinoma and one in
melanoma. Furthermore, our ability to generate cash from operations is
dependent on if and when we will be able to commercialize our products and, we
expect that the earliest we may be able to commercialize Oncophage would be in
late 2005. If we incur operating losses for longer than we expect, we may be
unable to continue our operations.
If we fail to obtain the capital necessary to fund our operations, we will be
unable to advance our development programs and complete our clinical trials.
On March 31, 2004, we had approximately $132 million in cash, cash equivalents
and short-term investments. In February 2004, we sold 5,400,000 shares of our
common stock, raising net proceeds of approximately $54 million. With our
current capital we expect that we could fund our development programs, clinical
trials, and other operating expenses through the end of 2005. We plan to raise
additional funds prior to that time. For the three months ended March 31, 2004,
the sum of our average monthly cash used in operating activities plus our
average monthly capital expenditures was approximately $6.4 million. Total
capital expenditures for the three months ended March 31, 2004
were $1.0
million. We anticipate additional capital expenditures of up to $4 million
during the remainder of 2004. Since our inception, we have financed our
operations primarily through the sale of equity. In order to finance our future
operations, we will be required to raise additional funds in the capital
markets, through arrangements with corporate partners, or from other sources.
Additional financing, however, may not be available on favorable terms or at
all. If we are unable to raise additional funds when we need them, we will be
required to delay, reduce or
11
eliminate some or all of our development programs
and some or all of our clinical trials, including the development programs and
clinical trials supporting our most advanced product candidate, Oncophage. We
also may be forced to license technologies to others under agreements that
allocate to third parties substantial portions of the potential value of these
technologies.
The commercial launch of Oncophage will be significantly delayed or prevented
if we are unable to convince the United States Food and Drug Administration
that our current Phase III trials of Oncophage, our most advanced product
candidate, are sufficient to support
licensure of Oncophage.
On September 3, 2003, the FDA placed our Phase III Oncophage clinical trials in
renal cell carcinoma and in melanoma on partial clinical hold. The FDAs
written correspondence instituting the partial clinical hold indicated that
Oncophage was not sufficiently characterized and that based on the then current
level of Oncophage product characterization information provided to the FDA,
the FDA would refuse the filing of a biologics license application, or BLA. On
October 24, 2003,we submitted additional Oncophage product characterization
information to the FDA, and on November 24, 2003, we announced that the FDA had
lifted the partial clinical hold. Even though the FDA lifted the partial
clinical hold, the FDA has informed us that, for purposes of our Phase III
trial in renal cell carcinoma (trial C-100-12) and our Phase III trial in
melanoma (trial C-100-21), Oncophage has been insufficiently characterized and
that the results obtained with an inadequately characterized product could not
be used to provide efficacy data in support of a biologics license application.
We may not be able to convince the FDA that the data from these trials, even
if significantly positive, should be considered pivotal and sufficient to
support licensure of Oncophage. In this event, we will be required to enroll
additional patients in our current Phase III trials and/or to complete
additional Phase III trials in both renal cell carcinoma and melanoma to
support BLA filings for Oncophage. This may significantly delay or prevent the
commercial launch of Oncophage and negatively impact our financial prospects.
If the results from our first Phase III trials of Oncophage do not demonstrate
efficacy, our commercial launch of Oncophage will be delayed or prevented and
our business prospects will be substantially diminished.
In December 2003, we announced that the Data Monitoring Committee, or DMC, had
convened as scheduled for the interim analysis of our ongoing Phase III
clinical trial of Oncophage in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, C-100-12.
The DMC recommended that the trial proceed as planned and did not require that
we change patient accrual goals. These recommendations do not assure either
that the trial will demonstrate statistically significant results or that the
trial will prove adequate to support approval of Oncophage for
commercialization in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma. The
final data from the trial may not sufficiently demonstrate levels of efficacy
and safety necessary to support marketing approval by the FDA and other
regulatory agencies. Data from clinical trials are subject to varying
interpretations.
Inconclusive or negative final data from the current Phase III renal cell
carcinoma trial, C-100-12, or interim or final data from the current Phase III
melanoma trial, C-100-21, would have a significant negative impact on our
prospects and likely would cause a sharp sell-off of our securities. If the
results in our Phase III trials are not sufficiently positive to garner
approval from regulatory agencies, we may abandon development of Oncophage for
the applicable indication or we may expend considerable resources repeating the
trials or starting different trials. These activities would reduce our
prospects for generating revenue in the near term and increase our losses.
The regulatory approval process is uncertain, time-consuming and expensive.
The process of obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals for new
therapeutic products is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It also can vary
substantially, based on the type, complexity and novelty of the product. Our
most advanced product candidate, Oncophage, is a novel cancer therapeutic
vaccine that is personalized for each patient. To date, the FDA has not
approved any cancer therapeutic vaccines for commercial sale, and foreign
regulatory agencies have approved only a limited number. Both the FDA and
foreign regulatory agencies have relatively little experience in reviewing
personalized medicine therapies, and the partial clinical hold that the FDA had
placed on our current Phase III Oncophage clinical trials primarily related to
product characterization issues partially associated with the personalized
nature of Oncophage. Oncophage may experience a long regulatory review process
and high development costs, either of which could delay or prevent our
commercialization efforts.
To obtain regulatory approvals, we must, among other requirements, complete
carefully controlled and well-designed clinical trials demonstrating that a
particular product candidate is safe and effective for the applicable disease.
Several biotechnology companies have failed to obtain regulatory approvals
because regulatory agencies were not satisfied with the structure or conduct of
clinical trials or the ability to interpret the data from the trials; similar
problems could delay or prevent us from obtaining approvals. We plan to
initiate an additional Phase III trial for Oncophage during 2004 in renal cell
carcinoma. We intend to use this Phase III trial to support approval of
Oncophage in renal cell carcinoma. We also intend to initiate a
second Phase III trial in melanoma in collaboration with a large cooperative
group in Europe. Even after reviewing the protocols for our planned Phase III
trials, the FDA may not consider our ongoing trials together with these new
trials to be adequate for registration and may disagree with our overall
strategy to seek approval for Oncophage in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma.
In this event, the potential commercial launch of Oncophage would be
significantly delayed, which would likely have a materially negative impact on
our ability to generate revenue and our need for additional funding.
The timing and success of a clinical trial is dependent on enrolling sufficient
patients in a timely manner, avoiding adverse patient reactions and
demonstrating in a statistically significant manner the safety and efficacy of
the product candidate. Because we rely on third-party clinical investigators
and contract research organizations to conduct our clinical trials, we may
encounter delays outside our control, particularly if our relationships with
any third-party clinical investigators or contract research organizations are
adversarial. The timing and success of our Phase III trials, in particular,
are also dependent on the FDA and other regulatory agencies accepting each
trials protocol, statistical analysis plan, product characterization tests and
clinical data. If we are unable to satisfy the FDA and other regulatory
agencies with such matters, including the specific matters noted above, and/or
our Phase III trials yield inconclusive or negative results, we will be
required to modify or expand the scope of our Phase III studies or conduct
additional Phase III studies to support BLA filings, including additional
studies beyond the two new Phase III trials in renal cell carcinoma and
melanoma that we are planning. In addition, the FDA may
request additional information or data to which we do not have access. Delays
in our ability to respond to such an FDA request would delay, and failure to
12
adequately address all FDA concerns would prevent, our commercialization
efforts.
In addition, we, or the FDA, might further delay or halt our clinical
trials for various reasons, including but not limited to:
Furthermore, regulatory authorities, including the FDA, may have varying
interpretations of our pre-clinical and clinical trial data, which could delay,
limit or prevent regulatory approval or clearance. Any delays or difficulties
in obtaining regulatory approvals or clearances for our product candidates may:
If we do not receive regulatory approval for our products in a timely manner,
we will not be able to commercialize them in the timeframe anticipated, and,
therefore, our business will suffer.
We must receive separate regulatory approvals for each of our product
candidates for each type of disease indication before we can market and sell
them in the United States or internationally.
We and our collaborators cannot sell any drug or vaccine until we receive
regulatory approval from governmental authorities in the United States,
including the FDA, and from similar agencies in other countries. Oncophage and
any other drug candidate could take a significantly longer time to gain
regulatory approval than we expect or may never gain approval or may gain
approval for only limited indications.
Even if we do receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, the FDA
or international regulatory authorities will impose limitations on the
indicated uses for which our products may be marketed or subsequently withdraw
approval, or take other actions against us or our products adverse to our
business.
The FDA and international regulatory authorities generally approve products for
particular indications. If an approval is for a limited indication, this
limitation reduces the size of the potential market for that product. Product
approvals, once granted, may be withdrawn if problems occur after initial
marketing. Failure to comply with applicable FDA and other regulatory
requirements can result in, among other things, warning letters, fines,
injunctions, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial
suspension of production, refusal of the government to renew marketing
applications and criminal prosecution.
We will not generate further product sales revenue from Quilvax-FELV.
To
date, we have generated product sales revenue from only one product, a
feline leukemia vaccine, which we sold in March 2004 to Virbac, S.A., our former
marketing partner. Prior to the sale, our revenues from the feline
vaccine for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002,
and 2001 were $0.3 million, $3.5 million, $2.6 million, $1.6 million,
respectively. We no longer sell that product.
Our business development efforts to partner Oncophage, our most advanced
product candidate, are in very early stages and may not result in a
collaboration agreement within the next 12 months, if at all.
We are engaged in efforts to partner Oncophage, our most advanced product
candidate, with a pharmaceutical or larger biotech company to assist us with
the global commercialization of Oncophage. While we have been pursuing these
business development efforts for several years, we have not negotiated a
definitive agreement relating to the potential commercialization of Oncophage.
Many larger companies may be unwilling to commit to a substantial agreement
prior to receipt of additional clinical data or, in the absence of such data,
may demand economic terms that are unfavorable to us. Even if Oncophage
generates favorable clinical data, we may not be able to negotiate a
transaction that provides us with favorable economic terms. While some other
biotechnology companies have negotiated large collaborations, we may not be
able to negotiate any agreements with terms that replicate the terms negotiated
by those other companies. We may not, for example, obtain significant upfront
payments or substantial royalty rates. Some larger companies are skeptical of
the commercial potential and profitability of a personalized product candidate
like Oncophage.
We may not receive significant payments from collaborators due to unsuccessful
results in existing collaborations or failure to enter into future
collaborations.
Part
of our strategy is to develop and commercialize some of our product
candidates by
continuing our existing arrangements with academic and corporate
collaborators and licensees and by entering into new collaborations. Our
success depends on our ability to negotiate such agreements and on the success
of the other parties in performing research, preclinical and clinical testing.
Our collaborations involving QS-21, for example, depend on our licensees
successfully completing clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals.
These activities frequently fail to
13
produce marketable products. For example,
in March 2002, Elan Corporation and Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories announced a
decision to permanently cease dosing patients in their Phase IIA clinical trial
of their AN-1792 Alzheimers vaccine containing our QS-21 adjuvant. Several of
our agreements also require us to transfer important rights to our
collaborators and licensees. As a result of collaborative agreements, we will
not completely control the nature, timing or cost of bringing these products to
market. These collaborators and licensees could choose not to devote resources
to these arrangements or, under certain circumstances, may terminate these
arrangements early. They may cease pursuing the programs or elect to collaborate
with different companies. In addition, these collaborators and licensees,
outside of their arrangements with us, may develop technologies or products
that are competitive with those that we are developing. From time to time we
may also become involved
in disputes with our collaborators. As a result of these factors, our strategic
collaborations may not yield revenues. In addition, we may be unable to enter
into new collaborations or enter into new collaborations on favorable terms.
Failure to generate significant revenue from collaborations would increase our
need to fund our operations through sales of equity.
If we are unable to purify heat shock proteins from some cancer types, we may
have difficulty successfully completing our clinical trials and, even if we do
successfully complete our clinical trials, the size of our potential market
would decrease.
Heat shock proteins occur naturally in the human body and have the potential to
activate powerful cellular immune responses. Our ability to successfully
develop and commercialize Oncophage or AG-858 for a particular cancer type
depends on our ability to purify heat shock proteins from that type of cancer.
If we experience difficulties in purifying heat shock proteins for a
sufficiently large number of patients in our clinical
trials, including our Phase III clinical trials, it may lower the probability
of a successful analysis of these trials. Our overall manufacturing success
rate to date for our Phase III trial, C-100-12, in renal cell carcinoma is 92%;
for our Phase III trial in metastatic melanoma, C-100-21, it is 69%. Our
inability to manufacture adequate amounts of Oncophage for
approximately 31% of the patients randomized to date in the Oncophage
treatment arm of the melanoma trial may jeopardize the potential for the trial, as currently designed, to meet its
pre-specified clinical endpoints. We are currently addressing the
lower manufacturing success rate for melanoma and expect to implement
changes to improve the manufacturing success rate in this trial. We are also
evaluating whether or not changes should be made to the design, enrollment
target, or planned conclusion of C-100-21. If such changes are
required, it will
substantially delay our efforts to file a biologics license
application for Oncophage in melanoma.
Based on our completed earlier clinical trials and our ongoing clinical trials
conducted in renal cell carcinoma (including our C-100-12 trial), we have been
able to manufacture Oncophage from 93% of the tumors delivered to our
manufacturing facility; for melanoma (including our C-100-21 trial),
78%; for
colorectal cancer, 98%; for gastric cancer, 81%; for lymphoma, 89%; and for
pancreatic cancer, 46%. The relatively low rate for pancreatic cancer is due to
the abundance of proteases in pancreatic tissue. Proteases are enzymes that
break down proteins. These proteases may degrade the heat shock proteins during
the purification process. We have made process development advances that have
improved the manufacture of Oncophage from pancreatic tissue. In an expanded
Phase I pancreatic cancer study, Oncophage was manufactured from five of five
tumor samples (100%), bringing the aggregate success rate for this cancer type,
which was previously 30%, to 46%. We have successfully manufactured AG-858 from
approximately 79% of the patient samples received.
We may encounter problems with other types of cancers as we expand our
research. If we cannot overcome these problems, the number of cancer types that
Oncophage could treat would be limited. In addition, if we commercialize
Oncophage, we may face claims from patients for whom we were unable to produce
a vaccine.
If we fail to sustain and further build our intellectual property rights,
competitors will be able to take advantage of our research and development
efforts to develop competing products.
If we are not able to protect our proprietary technology, trade secrets and
know-how, our competitors may use our inventions to develop competing products.
We currently have exclusive rights to at least 69 issued U.S. patents and 97
foreign patents. We also have rights to at least 48 pending U.S. patent
applications and 140 pending foreign patent applications. However, our patents
may not protect us against our competitors. The standards which the United
States Patent and Trademark Office uses to grant patents, and the standards
which courts use to interpret patents, are not always applied predictably or
uniformly and can change, particularly as new technologies develop.
Consequently, the level of protection, if any, that will be provided by our
patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged in court, is
uncertain. In addition, the type and extent of patent claims that will be
issued to us in the future is uncertain. Any patents that are issued may not
contain claims that permit us to stop competitors from using similar
technology.
In addition to our patented technology, we also rely on unpatented technology,
trade secrets and confidential information. We may not be able to effectively
protect our rights to this technology or information. Other parties may
independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques or
otherwise gain access to or disclose our technology. We generally require each
of our employees, consultants, collaborators and certain contractors to execute
a confidentiality agreement at the commencement of an employment, consulting,
collaborative or contractual relationship with us. However, these agreements
may not provide effective protection of our technology or information or, in
the event of unauthorized use or disclosure, they may not provide adequate
remedies.
We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings
relating to patent and other intellectual property rights, and we may be unable
to protect our rights to, or use, our technology.
If we choose to go to court to stop someone else from using the inventions
claimed in our patents, that individual or company has the right to ask a court
to rule that our patents are invalid and should not be enforced against that
third party. These lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and other
resources even if we were successful in stopping the infringement of our
patents. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that our
patents are not valid and that we do not have the right to stop the other party
from using the inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of
our patents is upheld, the court will refuse to stop the other party on the
grounds that such other partys activities do not infringe our patents.
Furthermore, a third party may claim that we are using inventions covered by
such third partys patents or other intellectual property rights and may go to
court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities. These
lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and
14
other resources. There is a
risk that a court would decide that we are infringing the third partys patents
and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In addition,
there is a risk that a court will order us to pay the other party damages for
having violated the other partys patents. The biotechnology industry has
produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry
participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products. The
coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the
interpretation is not always uniform. We know of patents issued to third
parties relating to heat shock proteins and alleviation of symptoms of cancer,
respectively. We have reviewed these patents, and we believe, as to each claim
in those patents, that we either do not infringe the claim of the patents or
that the claim is invalid. Moreover, patent holders sometimes send
communications to a number of companies in related fields, suggesting possible
infringement, and we, like a number of biotechnology companies, have received
this type of communication, including with respect to the third-party patents
mentioned above. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to
demonstrate that our products either do not infringe the patent claims of the
relevant patent and/or that the patent claims are invalid, which we may not be
able to do. Proving invalidity, in particular, is difficult since it requires a
showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of
validity enjoyed by issued patents. Additionally, two of the patent
applications licensed to us contain claims that are substantially the same as
claims in a third-party patent relating to heat shock proteins. We will ask the
United States Patent and Trademark Office to declare an interference with this
third-party patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,713,608. We believe that the invention
of U.S. Patent No. 6,713,608 is the same as that of earlier-filed U.S. Patents
No. 5,747,332, 6,066,716, and 6,433,141, which we believe are owned by the same
third party, and which were involved in a previous interference proceeding with
one of those two applications. During that interference proceeding, we were
awarded priority based upon our earlier effective filing date. Accordingly, we
believe that the United States Patent and Trademark Office should declare an
interference between our pending patent applications and this latest
third-party patent and that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,713,608 should be
deemed invalid. Although we believe that we should prevail against this
third-party patent in an interference proceeding, there is no guarantee that
such will be the outcome.
Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent
litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater
resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and
continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our
ability to enter into collaborations with other entities.
If we fail to maintain positive relationships with particular individuals, we
may be unable to successfully develop our product candidates, conduct clinical
trials and obtain financing.
Pramod K. Srivastava, Ph.D., a member of our board of directors, the chairman
of our scientific advisory board, and a consultant to us, and Garo H. Armen,
Ph.D., the chairman of our board of directors and our chief executive officer,
who together founded Antigenics in 1994, have been, and continue to be,
integral to building the company and developing our technology. If either of
these individuals decreases his contributions to the company, our business
could be adversely impacted.
Dr. Srivastava is not an employee of Antigenics and has other professional
commitments. We sponsor research in Dr. Srivastavas laboratory at the
University of Connecticut Health Center in exchange for the right to license
discoveries made in that laboratory with our funding. Dr. Srivastava is a
member of the faculty of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine. The
regulations and policies of the University of Connecticut Health Center govern
the relationship between a faculty member and a commercial enterprise. These
regulations and policies prohibit Dr. Srivastava from becoming our employee.
Furthermore, the University of Connecticut may modify these regulations and
policies in the future to further limit Dr. Srivastavas relationship with us.
Dr. Srivastava has a consulting agreement with Antigenics, which includes
financial incentives for him to remain associated with us, but these may not
prove sufficient to prevent him from severing his relationship with Antigenics,
even during the time covered by the consulting agreement. In addition, this
agreement does not restrict Dr. Srivastavas ability to compete against us
after his association with Antigenics is terminated. This agreement expires in
March 2005, but will be automatically extended for additional one-year periods
unless either party decides not to extend the agreement. If Dr. Srivastava were
to terminate his affiliation with us or devote less effort to advancing our
technologies, we may not have access to future discoveries that could advance
our technologies.
We do not have an employment agreement with Dr. Armen. In addition, we do not
carry key employee insurance policies for Dr. Armen or any other employee.
We also rely greatly on employing and retaining other highly trained and
experienced senior management and scientific personnel. Since our manufacturing
process is unique, our manufacturing and quality control personnel are very
important. The competition for these and other qualified personnel in the
biotechnology field is intense. If we are not able to attract and retain
qualified scientific, technical and managerial personnel, we probably will be
unable to achieve our business objectives.
We face litigation that could result in substantial damages and may divert
managements time and attention from our business.
Antigenics, our chairman and chief executive officer, Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., and
two brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering
have been named as defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit. We are currently in settlement discussions with plaintiffs;
however, a failure to finalize a settlement could require us to pay substantial
damages. Regardless of the outcome, participation in a lawsuit may cause a
diversion of our managements time and attention from our business.
In addition, we are involved in other litigation and may become involved in
additional litigation with former employees, our commercial partners, and
others. Any such litigation could be expensive in terms of out-of-pocket costs
and management time, and the outcome of any such litigation will be uncertain.
If we fail to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement for our product
candidates from third-party payers, the commercial potential of our product
candidates will be significantly limited.
15
Our profitability will depend on the extent to which government
authorities, private health insurance providers and other organizations provide
reimbursement for the cost of our product candidates. Many patients will not be
capable of paying for our product candidates themselves. A primary trend in the
United States health care industry is toward cost containment. Large private
payers, managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations and similar
organizations are exerting increasing influence on decisions regarding the use
of particular treatments. Furthermore, many third-party payers limit
reimbursement for newly approved health care products. Cost containment
measures may prevent us from becoming profitable.
It is not clear that public and private insurance programs will determine that
Oncophage or our other product candidates come within a category of items and
services covered by their insurance plans. For example, although the federal
Medicare program covers drugs and biological products, the program takes the
position that the FDAs treatment of a product as a drug or biologic does not
require the Medicare program to treat the product in the same manner.
Accordingly, it is possible that the Medicare program will not cover Oncophage
or our other product candidates if they are approved for commercialization. It
is also possible that there will be substantial delays in obtaining coverage of
Oncophage or our other product candidates and that, if coverage is obtained,
there may be significant restrictions on the circumstances in which there would
be reimbursement. Where insurance coverage is available, there may be limits on
the payment amount. Congress and the Medicare program periodically propose
significant reductions in the Medicare reimbursement amounts for drugs and
biologics. If some of these proposed reductions go into effect, they could have
a material adverse effect on sales of any of our products that receive
marketing approval. In December 2003, the President of the United States signed
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The
future impact of this legislation on our product candidates is uncertain.
Effective January 1, 2004, Medicare payments for many drugs administered in
physicians offices were reduced significantly. This provision impacts many
drugs used in cancer treatment by oncologists and urologists. The payment
methodology changes in future years, and it is unclear how the payment
methodology will impact reimbursement for Oncophage, if it receives regulatory
approval, and incentives for physicians to recommend Oncophage relative to
alternative therapies.
Product liability and other claims against us may reduce demand for our
products or result in substantial damages.
We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to testing our
product candidates in human clinical trials and will face even greater risks if
we sell our product candidates commercially. An individual may bring a product
liability claim against us if one of our product candidates causes, or merely
appears to have caused, an injury. Product liability claims may result in:
We manufacture Oncophage and AG-858 from a patients cancer cells, and a
medical professional must inject Oncophage or AG-858 into that same patient. A
patient may sue us if we, a hospital or a delivery company fails to deliver the
removed cancer tissue or that patients Oncophage or AG-858. We anticipate that
the logistics of shipping will become more complex if the number of patients we
treat increases, and it is possible that all shipments will not be made without
incident. In addition, administration of Oncophage or AG-858 at a hospital
poses another chance for delivery to the wrong patient. Currently, we do not
have insurance that covers loss of or damage to Oncophage or AG-858, and we do
not know whether insurance will be available to us at a reasonable price or at
all. We have limited product liability coverage for clinical research use of
product candidates. Our product liability policy provides $10 million
aggregate coverage and $10 million per occurrence. This limited insurance
coverage may be insufficient to fully compensate us for future claims.
We may incur significant costs complying with environmental laws and
regulations.
We use hazardous, infectious and radioactive materials in our operations, which
have the potential of being harmful to human health and safety or the
environment. We store these hazardous (flammable, corrosive, toxic),
infectious, radioactive materials and various wastes resulting from their use
at our facilities pending use and ultimate disposal. We are subject to a
variety of federal, state and local laws and regulations governing use,
generation, storage, handling and disposal of these materials. We may incur
significant costs complying with both current and future environmental health
and safety laws and regulations. In particular, we are subject to regulation by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Transportation, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health,
the International Air Transportation Association and various state and local
agencies. At any time, one or
more of the aforementioned agencies could adopt regulations that may affect our
operations. We are also subject to regulation under the Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Resource Conservation Development programs.
Although we believe that our current procedures and programs for handling,
storage and disposal of these materials comply with federal, state and local
laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidents involving
contamination from these materials. Although we have limited pollution
liability coverage ($2 million) and a workers compensation liability policy,
in the event of an accident or accidental release, we could be held liable for
resulting damages, which could be substantially in excess of any available
insurance coverage and could substantially disrupt our business.
Our competitors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may have
superior products, manufacturing capability or marketing expertise.
Our business may fail because we face intense competition from major
pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies
16
engaged in the
development of product candidates and other therapeutic products, including
heat shock proteins directed at cancer, infectious diseases, autoimmune
disorders and degenerative disorders. Several of these companies have products
that utilize similar technologies and/or personalized medicine techniques, such
as CancerVaxs Canvaxin, Dendreons Provenge and Mylovenge, Stressgens HspE7,
AVAXs M-Vax and O-Vax, Intracels OncoVax and Cell Genesys GVAX vaccines.
Additionally, many of our competitors, including large pharmaceutical
companies, have greater financial and human resources and more experience than
we do. Our competitors may:
More specifically, if we receive regulatory approvals, some of our product
candidates will compete with well-established, FDA-approved therapies such as
interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha for kidney cancer and melanoma, which have
generated substantial sales over a number of years. We anticipate that we will
face increased competition in the future as new companies enter markets we seek
to address and scientific developments surrounding immunotherapy and other
cancer therapies continue to accelerate.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
Our officers and directors may be able to block proposals for a change in control.
Antigenics Holdings L.L.C. is a holding company that owns shares of our common
stock and as of March 31, 2004, controlled
approximately 25% of our outstanding common stock. Due to this concentration of
ownership, Antigenics Holdings L.L.C. may be able to prevail on all matters
requiring a stockholder vote, including:
Certain of our directors and officers directly and indirectly own approximately
74% of Antigenics Holdings L.L.C. and, if they elect to act together, can
control Antigenics Holdings L.L.C. In addition, several of our directors and
officers directly and indirectly own approximately 4% of our outstanding common
stock.
A single, otherwise unaffiliated, stockholder holds a substantial percentage of our outstanding capital stock.
According to publicly filed documents, Mr. Brad M. Kelley beneficially owns
5,546,240 shares of our outstanding common stock and 31,620 shares of our
Series A convertible preferred stock. The shares of preferred stock are
currently convertible at any time into 2,000,000 shares of common stock
representing an initial conversion price of $15.81. If Mr. Kelley had converted
all of the shares of preferred stock on March 31, 2004, he would have held
approximately 16% of our outstanding common stock.
We have no standstill or other agreements with Mr. Kelley that restrict his
ability to acquire or dispose of shares of our common stock. All of the shares
of our common stock owned by Mr. Kelley are eligible for sale in the public
market subject to compliance with the applicable securities laws. Substantial
sales of common stock by Mr. Kelley would depress the market price of our
common stock.
Mr. Kelleys substantial ownership position provides him with the ability to
substantially influence the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders
for approval. Furthermore, Mr. Kelley and Antigenics Holdings L.L.C. control approximately 37% of
our outstanding common stock, providing substantial ability, if they vote in
the same manner, to determine the outcome of matters submitted to a stockholder
vote. If Mr. Kelley were to convert all of his preferred stock into common
stock, the combined percentage would increase to 41%. Additional purchases of
our common stock by Mr. Kelley also would increase both his own percentage of
outstanding voting rights and the percentage combined with Antigenics Holdings
L.L.C. (Mr. Kelleys shares of preferred stock do not carry voting rights; the
common stock issuable upon conversion, however, carries the same voting rights
as other shares of common stock.)
Provisions in our organizational documents could prevent or frustrate any attempts by stockholders to replace our current management.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could make
it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without consent of our board
of directors. Our certificate of incorporation provides for a staggered board
and removal of directors only for cause. Accordingly, stockholders may elect
only a minority of our board at any annual meeting, which may have the effect
of delaying or preventing changes in
17
management. In addition, under our
certificate of incorporation, our board of directors may issue shares of
preferred stock, and determine the terms of those shares of stock without any
further action by our stockholders. Our issuance of preferred stock could make
it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding
voting stock and thereby effect a change in the composition of our board of
directors. Our certificate of incorporation also provides that our stockholders
may not take action by written consent. Our bylaws require advance notice of
stockholder proposals and nominations, and permit only our president or a
majority of the board of directors to call a special stockholder meeting. These
provisions may have the effect of preventing or hindering attempts by our
stockholders to replace our current management. In addition, Delaware law
prohibits a corporation from engaging in a business combination with any holder
of 15% or more of its capital stock
until the holder has held the stock for three years unless, among other
possibilities, the board of directors approves the transaction. The board may
use this provision to prevent changes in our management. Also, under applicable
Delaware law, our board of directors may adopt additional anti-takeover
measures in the future.
Our stock has low trading volume and its public trading price has been volatile.
Between our initial public offering on February 4, 2000 and April 30, 2004, the
closing price of our common stock has fluctuated between $6.86 and $52.63 per
share, with an average daily trading volume for the three months ended March
31, 2004 of approximately 557,000 shares. The market has experienced
significant price and volume fluctuations that are often unrelated to the
operating performance of individual companies. In addition to general market
volatility, many factors may have a significant adverse effect on the market
price of our stock, including:
The sale of a significant number of shares could cause the market price of our stock to decline.
The sale by us or the resale by stockholders of a significant number of shares
of our common stock could cause the market price of our common stock to
decline. As of March 31, 2004, we had approximately 45,062,000 shares of common
stock outstanding. All of these shares are eligible for sale on the NASDAQ
National Market, although certain of the shares are subject to sales volume and
other limitations.
We have filed registration statements to permit the sale of 6,436,831 shares of
common stock under our equity incentive plan, and certain equity plans that we
assumed in the acquisitions of Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and Aronex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We have also filed a registration statement to permit the
sale of 300,000 shares of common stock under our employee stock purchase plan.
We have also filed a registration statement to permit the sale of 100,000
shares of common stock under our directors deferred compensation plan. As of
March 31, 2004, options to purchase approximately 5,174,000 shares of our
common stock upon exercise of options with a weighted average exercise price
per share of $9.89 were outstanding. Many of these options are subject to
vesting that generally occurs over a period of up to five years following the
date of grant. As of March 31, 2004, warrants to purchase approximately 95,000
shares of our common stock with a weighted average exercise price per share of
$41.52 were outstanding. We have also filed a registration statement to permit
the sale of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, which we may
sell separately or together at any time in any combination, in an aggregate
amount of up to $100 million. The 5,400,000 common shares sold during February
2004 were sold pursuant to that registration statement, thereby reducing the
aggregate amount of securities we may sell pursuant to that registration
statement to $43.3 million.
Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates
The SEC defines critical accounting policies as those that require
application of managements most difficult, subjective, or complex judgments,
often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters
that are inherently uncertain and may change in subsequent periods.
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts
of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. We base those estimates on historical
experience and on various assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under
the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
The following listing is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all of our
accounting policies. Our significant accounting policies are described in Note
2 to our consolidated financial statements included in our Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the SEC. In many cases, the accounting treatment of a
particular transaction is dictated by accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America, with
18
no need for our judgment in their
application. There are also areas in which our judgment in selecting an
available alternative would not produce a materially different result. We have
identified the following as our critical accounting policies:
Research and Development
Research and development expenses include the costs associated with our
internal research and development activities including salaries and
benefits, occupancy costs, clinical manufacturing costs, related administrative
costs, and research and development conducted for us by outside advisors, such
as sponsored university-based research partners, and clinical research
organizations. We account for our clinical study costs by estimating the total
cost to treat a patient in each clinical trial and recognizing this cost as we
estimate when the patient receives treatment, beginning when the patient
enrolls in the trial. This estimated cost includes payments to the trial site
and patient-related costs, including lab costs, related to the conduct of the
trial. Cost per patient varies based on the type of clinical trial, the site of
the clinical trial, and the length of the treatment period for each patient. As
we become aware of the actual costs, we adjust our accrual; such changes in
estimates may be a material change in our clinical study accrual, which could
also materially affect our results of operations. Research and development
costs are expensed as incurred and were $11,139,000, $48,527,000, $39,983,000
and $31,357,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2004, and the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.
Investments
We classify investments in marketable securities at the time of purchase. At
March 31, 2004, all marketable securities were classified as available-for-sale
and as such, changes in the fair value of the available-for-sale securities are
reported as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive income
(loss) until realized. If we were to classify future investments as trading
securities rather than available-for-sale, our financial results would be
subject to greater volatility. If declines in the fair value of
available-for-sale securities are determined to be other than temporary,
accumulated other comprehensive income is reduced and the impairment is charged
to operations. Investments of less than 20% of the voting control of entities
over whose operating and financial policies we do not have the power to
exercise significant influence are accounted for by the cost method.
We currently account for our investment in AGTC under the cost
method and, as of March 31, 2004, we have included it in non-current other
assets on the consolidated balance sheet, as more fully disclosed in Note G to
our unaudited consolidated financial statements included in this report. The general
partner of AGTC determines the timing of our additional contributions. Our
investment represents an approximate ownership of 2%. We continue to assess the
realizability of this investment. In order to assess whether or not there has
been an other than temporary decline in the value of this investment, we
analyze several factors including: (1) the carrying value of the limited
partnerships investments in its portfolio companies, (2) how recently the
investments in the portfolio companies had been made, (3) the post-financing
valuations of those investments, (4) the level of un-invested capital held by
the limited partnership, and (5) the overall trend in venture capital
valuations. Based on this analysis, during the three months ended March 31,
2004, we concluded that an other than temporary decline has not occurred. Our
investment balance aggregated $1,557,000 at March 31, 2004.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue from product sales is recognized at the time of product shipment.
Revenue for services under research and development grants and contracts are
recognized as the services are performed, milestones are achieved, or clinical
trial materials are provided.
Stock Option Accounting
We account for options granted to employees and directors in accordance with
Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued
to Employees,
and related interpretations. As such, compensation expense is
recorded on fixed stock option grants only if the current fair value of the
underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of the option at the date of grant
and it is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. We
account for stock options granted to non-employees on a fair-value basis in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
(EITF) No. 96-18,
Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other
Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or
Services.
As a result, the non-cash charge to operations for non-employee
options with vesting or other performance criteria is affected each reporting
period by changes in the fair value of our common stock. As required, we also
provide pro forma net loss attributable to common stockholders and pro forma
net loss attributable to common stockholders per common share disclosures for
employee and director stock option grants as if the fair-value-based method
defined in SFAS No. 123 had been applied (see Note E to our unaudited
consolidated financial statements included in this report).
Item 3
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
In the normal course of business, we are exposed to fluctuations in interest
rates as we seek debt financing to make capital expenditures, and foreign
currency exchange risk related to our transactions denominated in foreign
currencies. We do not employ specific strategies, such as the use of derivative
instruments or hedging, to manage these exposures. Our currency exposures vary,
but are primarily concentrated in the Euro. Since the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, there has been no material change with respect to our
interest rate and foreign currency exposures or our approach toward those
exposures. Further, we do not expect our market risk exposures to change in the
near term.
We had cash equivalents and short-term investments at March 31, 2004 of
approximately $132 million, which are exposed to the impact of interest rate
changes and our interest income fluctuates as our interest rate changes. Due to
the short-term nature of our investments in money market funds, corporate debt
securities, taxable auction preferreds, and government-backed securities, our
carrying value approximates the fair value of these investments at March 31, 2004.
We maintain an investment portfolio in accordance with our Investment Policy.
The primary objectives of our Investment Policy are to preserve principal,
maintain proper liquidity to meet operating needs and maximize yields. Although
our investments are subject to credit risk, our Investment Policy specifies
credit quality standards for our investments and limits the amount of credit
exposure from any single issue, issuer or type of investment. Our investments
are also subject to interest rate risk and will decrease in value if market
interest rates increase. However, due to the conservative nature of our
investments and relatively short duration, interest rate risk is mitigated. We
do not own derivative financial instruments in our investment portfolio. Accordingly, we do not believe that there is any material risk exposure with respect to derivative or other financial instruments that would require disclosure under this item.
19
Item 4
Controls and Procedures
Antigenics has established and maintains disclosure controls and procedures
that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that material
information is made known to our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer by others within the company. We have established a Management
Disclosure Committee that is made up of key management employees and
executives, which includes the Chief Financial Officer, and reports directly to
the Chief Executive Officer, to monitor and evaluate these disclosure controls
and procedures. We carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with
the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of
our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). Based upon
that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in
providing reasonable assurance as of the end of the period covered in this
report.
During the first quarter of 2004, there was no significant change in our
internal controls over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect our internal controls over financial
reporting.
PART II OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1
Legal Proceedings
Antigenics, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Garo Armen, and two
investment banking firms that served as underwriters in our initial public
offering have been named as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed on
November 5, 2001 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class of purchasers of our stock between February 3, 2000
and December 6, 2000. Similar complaints were filed against about 300 other
issuers, their underwriters, and in many instances their directors and
officers. These cases have been coordinated under the caption
In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation
, Civ. No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), by order dated
August 9, 2001. The suit against Antigenics and Dr. Armen alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our
stock in the offering. The suit also alleges that shares of our stock were
allocated to certain of the investment banking firms customers based upon
agreements by such customers to purchase additional shares of our stock in the
secondary market. The complaint alleges that Antigenics is liable under Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Dr.
Armen is liable under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act because our
registration statement did not disclose these alleged practices. On April 19,
2002, the plaintiffs in this action filed an amended class action complaint,
which contains new allegations. Similar amended complaints were filed with
respect to about 300 companies. In addition to the claims in the earlier
complaint, the amended complaint alleges that Antigenics and Dr. Armen violated
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
making false and misleading statements and/or omissions in order to inflate our
stock price and conceal the investment banking firms alleged secret
arrangements. The claims against Dr. Armen, in his individual capacity, have
been dismissed without prejudice. On July 15, 2002, Antigenics and Dr. Armen
joined the Issuer Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaints. By order of the Court, this motion set forth all common issues,
i.e., all grounds for dismissal common to all or a significant number of Issuer
Defendants. The hearing on the Issuer Defendants Motion to Dismiss and the
other Defendants motions to Dismiss was held on November 1, 2002. On February
19, 2003, the Court issued its opinion and order on the Issuer Defendants
Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted Antigenics motion to dismiss the Rule
10b-5 and Section 20 claims with leave to amend and denied our motion to
dismiss the Section 11 and Section 15 claims. Currently, Antigenics, along with
numerous other issuer companies, is in settlement discussions with plaintiffs
and anticipates that a settlement will be reached without incurring significant
out-of-pocket costs. At this time, we cannot make a reliable estimate of
possible loss, if any, related to this litigation.
On February 19, 2004, Jonathan Lewis, M.D., our former Chief Medical Officer,
filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that we terminated Dr. Lewis
without cause and have failed to pay severance benefits to which Dr. Lewis
believes he is entitled. The complaint seeks relief for breach of contract and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. We intend to vigorously defend
against these claims.
We currently are a party to other legal proceedings as well. While our
management currently believes that the ultimate outcome of any of these
proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity, litigation is subject
to inherent uncertainty. Furthermore, litigation consumes both cash and
management attention.
Item 6
Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
(a) Exhibits
20
(b) Current Reports on Form 8-K
The following Forms 8-K were filed with or furnished to the SEC:
On February 4, 2004, pursuant to which we filed (1) an underwriting
agreement dated February 3, 2004 by and among Antigenics Inc. and UBS
Securities LLC, Needham & Company, Inc. and Ryan Beck & Co., Inc. and (2) an
opinion from our legal counsel.
On February 18, 2004, pursuant to which we announced the sale of 400,000
shares of common stock in connection with a partial exercise of an
over-allotment option.
On February 19, 2004, pursuant to which we furnished our press release
dated February 19, 2004 announcing our financial results for the year ended
December 31, 2003.
On April 1, 2004, pursuant to which we announced the sale our
manufacturing rights for feline leukemia virus (FeLV) vaccine and filed
agreements related to that transaction.
On April 20, 2004, we furnished a Current Report on Form 8-K, pursuant to
which we furnished our press release dated April 20, 2004 announcing our
financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
21
ANTIGENICS INC.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements 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.
22
EXHIBIT INDEX
23
(unaudited)
March 31, 2004
December 31, 2003
$
72,244,085
$
57,211,895
59,675,256
32,266,347
324,448
589,698
464,735
871,256
2,369,970
1,899,558
110,934
3,083,636
691,149
372,296
138,853,279
93,321,984
24,877,307
25,032,838
3,081,703
3,081,703
7,688,118
7,964,666
4,416,718
8,521,049
1,987,946
2,157,295
$
180,905,071
$
140,079,535
$
1,015,529
$
3,179,567
10,804,414
11,302,367
10,417,577
2,000,000
5,687,318
5,622,736
27,924,838
22,104,670
8,397,611
10,244,796
2,567,464
2,484,317
316
316
450,621
395,226
438,476,327
384,457,557
(60,281
)
(72,081
)
1,490
162,802
(296,853,315
)
(279,698,068
)
142,015,158
105,245,752
$
180,905,071
$
140,079,535
Table of Contents
Three months ended March 31,
2004
2003
$
337,891
$
885,158
109,515
895,134
447,406
1,780,292
(594,324
)
(620,525
)
(11,138,842
)
(10,315,858
)
(6,294,079
)
(4,886,513
)
(17,579,839
)
(14,042,604
)
272,842
217,655
303,900
345,886
(152,150
)
(12,698
)
(17,155,247
)
(13,491,761
)
(197,625
)
$(17,352,872
)
$(13,491,761
)
$(0.41
)
$(0.36
)
42,778,105
37,575,317
Table of Contents
March 31,
2004
2003
$
(17,155,247
)
$
(13,491,761
)
1,400,342
1,195,309
186,283
84,149
252,119
7,431
265,250
(103,053
)
406,521
209,214
(470,412
)
(543,250
)
(2,164,038
)
(636,300
)
(388,292
)
137,634
(286,015
)
53,762
(18,198,177
)
(12,842,177
)
13,068,528
9,881,860
(40,456,462
)
(16,531,564
)
(300,000
)
(985,694
)
(1,885,092
)
1,020,695
8,381,801
(18,971,132
)
(8,834,796
)
53,631,418
59,602,118
576,824
48,519
(224,140
)
(1,782,603
)
(265,673
)
52,201,499
59,384,964
15,032,190
37,707,991
57,211,895
33,130,176
$
72,244,085
$
70,838,167
$
223,158
$
10,142
$
567,010
$
819,129
Table of Contents
March 31, 2004
December 31, 2003
$
365,000
$
765,000
27,000
17,000
73,000
89,000
$
465,000
$
871,000
Table of Contents
Three months ended March 31,
2004
2003
$
(17,353,000
)
$
(13,492,000
)
35,000
60,000
(1,421,000
)
(979,000
)
$
(18,739,000
)
$
(14,411,000
)
$
(0.41
)
$
(0.36
)
$
(0.44
)
$
(0.38
)
2004
2003
73
%
63
%
6
6
1
1
1.21
%
1.23
%
0
%
0
%
Three months ended March 31,
2004
2003
$
(17,353,000
)
$
(13,492,000
)
(161,000
)
(65,000
)
$
(17,514,000
)
$
(13,557,000
)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Year ended December 31,
Three Months Ended
Research and Development Program
Lead Product
March 31, 2004
2003
2002
2001
Prior to 2001
Oncophage & AG-858
$
8,947,000
$
41,335,000
$
32,367,000
$
23,277,000
$
36,798,000
AG-702/707
676,000
2,447,000
1,301,000
735,000
2,085,000
Aroplatin
173,000
1,263,000
2,149,000
1,442,000
1,343,000
3,482,000
4,166,000
5,903,000
2,590,000
$
11,139,000
$
48,527,000
$
39,983,000
$
31,357,000
$
41,473,000
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
we may fail to comply with extensive FDA regulations;
a product candidate may not appear to be effective;
a product candidate may have unforeseen or significant adverse side effects or other safety issues;
the time required to determine whether a product candidate is effective may be longer than expected;
we may be unable to adequately follow or evaluate patients after treatment with a product candidate;
patients may die during a clinical trial because their
disease is too advanced or because they experience medical
problems that may not be related to the product candidate;
sufficient numbers of patients may not enroll in our clinical trials; or
we may be unable to produce sufficient quantities of a product candidate to complete the trial.
adversely affect the marketing of any products we or our collaborators develop;
impose significant additional costs on us or our collaborators;
diminish any competitive advantages that we or our collaborators may attain; and
limit our ability to receive royalties and generate revenue and profits.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
decreased demand for our product candidates;
injury to our reputation;
withdrawal of clinical trial volunteers;
costs of related litigation; and
substantial monetary awards to plaintiffs.
Table of Contents
commercialize their products sooner than we commercialize our own;
develop safer or more effective therapeutic drugs or preventive vaccines and other therapeutic products;
implement more effective approaches to sales and marketing;
establish superior intellectual property positions; or
discover technologies that may result in medical insights or
breakthroughs, which may render our drugs or vaccines obsolete even
before they generate any revenue.
the election of directors;
the amendment of our organizational documents; or
the approval of a merger, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction.
Table of Contents
announcements of decisions made by public officials;
results of our preclinical and clinical trials;
announcements of technological innovations or new commercial products by us or our competitors;
developments concerning proprietary rights, including patent and litigation matters;
publicity regarding actual or potential results with respect to products under development by us or by our competitors;
regulatory developments; and
quarterly fluctuations in our financial results.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
First Amendment of Lease dated as
of August 15, 2003 from BHX, LLC as
trustee of 3 Forbes Realty, to
Antigenics Inc. Filed herewith.
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Table of Contents
ANTIGENICS INC.
/s/ Garo H. Armen
Garo H. Armen Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Jeff D. Clark
Jeff D. Clark, Chief Financial Officer
Table of Contents
Exhibit No.
Description
First Amendment of Lease dated as of August 15, 2003 from
BHX, LLC as trustee of 3 Forbes Realty, to Antigenics
Inc. Filed herewith.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002
Exhibit 10.1
FIRST AMENDMENT OF LEASE
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT OF LEASE (this "Amendment") is made as of the 15th day of August, 2003, by BHX, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, as Trustee of 3 Forbes Realty Trust, a Massachusetts nominee trust ("Landlord"), and ANTIGENICS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Tenant").
Recitals
A. Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease (the "Lease") dated as of December 6, 2002, pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant space in the building commonly known as 3 Forbes Road, Lexington, Massachusetts. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Lease and not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given in the Lease.
B. Landlord achieved Substantial Completion of Landlord's Work as of August 1, 2003 and delivered possession of the Original Premises to Tenant as of the Commencement Date.
C. The parties have confirmed the Leasable Square Footage of the Original Premises, the First Additional Premises, the Second Additional Premises and the Premises to be, respectively, 93,894 square feet, 37,850 square feet, 29,786 square feet and 161,530 square feet.
D. The parties desire to enter into this Amendment to adjust the
Leasable Square Footage of the Original Premises, the First Additional Premises,
the Second Additional Premises and the Premises as provided above, to eliminate
Section 2.6 of the Lease providing for remeasurement of the Premises, to confirm
that Landlord achieved Substantial Completion of Landlord's Work by August 1,
2003, to confirm that Landlord has delivered, and Tenant has accepted,
possession of the Original Premises by the Commencement Date, and to confirm
that Landlord has completed the punch list items with respect to Landlord's Work
in accordance with Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2 of the Lease.
Statement of Amendment
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows:
1. Leasable Square Footage of Original Premises, First Additional Premises, Second Additional Premises and Premises. The Leasable Square Footage of the Original Premises is adjusted from 88,510 square feet to 93,894 square feet. The Leasable Square Footage of the First Additional Premises is adjusted from 40,000 square feet to 37,850 square feet. The Leasable Square Footage of the Second Additional Premises is adjusted from 31,490 square feet to 29,786 square feet. The aggregate Leasable Square Footage of the Premises is adjusted from 160,000 square feet to 161,530 square feet. The adjusted Original Premises, First Additional Premises and Second Additional Premises are depicted on Exhibit C hereto. Section 2.6 of the Lease, providing for remeasurement of the Premises, is eliminated. In furtherance of the above provisions of this Section 1, the Lease is amended as follows:
a. Item 3C of Summary of Basic Terms. Item 3C of the Summary of Basic Terms is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in place thereof:
"3C. Leasable Square Footage of the Premises: From the Commencement Date until the First Expansion Date, 93,894 square feet (the Original Premises); from the First Expansion Date until the Second Expansion Delivery Date, 131,744 square feet (the Original Premises and the First Additional Premises); and from
and after the Second Expansion Delivery Date, 161,530 square feet (the Original Premises, the First Additional Premises and the Second Additional Premises)."
b. Item 9 of Summary of Basic Terms. Item 9 of the Summary of Basic Terms is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in place thereof:
"9. Base Rent: Base Rent for the first Lease Year is $938,940.00 ($78,245.00 per month), determined on the basis of an annual rate of $10.00 per square foot. The annual per square foot Base Rent shall be adjusted as of the beginning of each Lease Year during the Lease Term to be one hundred three percent (103%) of the annual per square foot Base Rent for the immediately preceding Lease Year, rounded to the nearest cent. Therefore, the Base Rent for the Initial Term shall be as follows:
ANNUAL MONTHLY PSF PERIOD RATE RATE RATE ------ ---- ---- ---- First (1st) Lease Year (8/15/03- 8/31/04): $ 938,940.00 $78,245.00 $10.00 Second (2nd) Lease Year until First Expansion Date (9/1/04-8/15/05 (anticipated)) $ 967,108.20 $80,592.35 $10.30 First Expansion Date until end of second (2nd) Lease Year (8/15/05 (anticipated)-8/31/05 $1,356,963.20 $113,080.26 $10.30 Third (3rd) Lease Year until Second Expansion Rent Commencement Date (9/1/05-3/31/06 (anticipated)) $1,397,803.80 $116,483.65 $10.61 Second Expansion Rent Commencement Date until end of third (3rd) Lease Year (3/31/06 (anticipated)-8/31/06) $1,713,833.30 $142,819.44 $10.61 Fourth (4th) Lease Year (9/1/06-8/31/07) $1,765,522.90 $147,126.90 $10.93 Fifth (5th) Lease Year (9/1/07-8/31/08) $1,818,827.80 $151,568.98 $11.26 Sixth (6th) Lease Year (9/1/08-8/31/09) $1,873,748.00 $156,145.66 $11.60 Seventh (7th) Lease Year (9/1/09- 8/31/10) $1,930,283.50 $160,856.95 $11.95 Eighth (8th) Lease Year (9/1/10-8/31/11) $1,988,434.30 $165,702.85 $12.31 Ninth (9th) Lease Year (9/1/11-8/31/12) $2,048,200.40 $170,683.36 $12.68 Tenth (10th) Lease Year (9/1/12-8/31/13) $2,109,581.80 $175,798.48 $13.06 |
During any Extension Term, the annual per square foot Base Rent shall continue to be adjusted as of the beginning of each Lease Year to be one hundred three percent (103%) of the annual per square foot Base Rent for the immediately preceding Lease Year, rounded to the nearest cent."
c. Definition of Tenant's Share. The third sentence in the definition of Tenant's Share in Section 1.1 of the Lease is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in place thereof:
From the Commencement Date until the Second Expansion Rent Commencement Date, Tenant's Share is 81.6%, subject to increase or decrease, as applicable, in the event of an increase or decrease in the Leasable Square Footage of the Premises.
d. Section 2.6. Section 2.6 the Lease is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in place thereof:
"2.6 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED."
e. Exhibit C. Exhibit C to the Lease is deleted in its entirety and Exhibit C to this Amendment is substituted in place thereof.
2. Confirmation of Substantial Completion and Delivery. Tenant acknowledges and confirms that Landlord achieved Substantial Completion of Landlord's Work by August 1, 2003, and that Landlord has delivered, and Tenant has accepted, possession of the Original Premises by the Commencement Date as contemplated by the Lease. Tenant confirms that Landlord has completed the punch list items with respect to Landlord's Work in accordance with Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2 of the Lease.
3. Inconsistencies; Continuing Effect of Lease. To the extent that the provisions of this Amendment are inconsistent with the provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this Amendment will control and the Lease will be deemed to be amended hereby. Except as amended by this Amendment, the provisions of the Lease remain in full force and effect.
4. Multiple Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which, taken together, will constitute one and the same Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.
BXH, LLC, as Trustee of 3 Forbes Realty Trust
By: /s/ Robert A. Schlager ------------------------------------------ Name: Robert A. Schlager ---------------------------------------- Title: member --------------------------------------- |
ANTIGENICS, INC.
By: /s/ Garo H. Armen ------------------------------------------ Name: Garo Armen ---------------------------------------- Title: Chairman and CEO --------------------------------------- |
Attachment: EXHIBIT C - Building Floor Plans
Exhibit 31.1
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Garo H. Armen, certify that:
1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Antigenics Inc.;
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;
4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting:
and
5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
/s/ Garo H. Armen
Garo H. Armen Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Jeff D. Clark, certify that:
1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Antigenics Inc.;
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:
a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;
b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Jeff D. Clark
Jeff D. Clark, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1
Certification
In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Antigenics Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
/s/ Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.
/s/ Jeff D. Clark
Date : May 7, 2004
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Antigenics Inc. and will be retained by Antigenics Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(ii)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer