UNITED STATES 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

 

 

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER  30, 2017

 

OR

 

 

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM        TO        

 

Commission File Number 0-29889

 

 

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

(650) 624-1100

(Registrant’s 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 ☒  No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes ☒  No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,”  and “emerging growth company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

 

As of November 1, 2017, there were 146,491,092  shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding.

 

 

 

 

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER  30, 2017

 

INDEX

 

 

 

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

Item 1.Financial Statements

 

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

See Accompanying Notes.

 

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

 

 

See Accompanying Notes.

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

(In thousands)

(unaudited)

 

 

See Accompanying Notes.

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(unaudited)

 

 

 

 

 

See Accompanying Notes.

 

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Financial Statements

(unaudited)

 

In this report, “Rigel,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 

1.Nature of Operations

 

We were incorporated in the state of Delaware on June 14, 1996. We are engaged in the discovery and development of novel small molecule drugs that significantly improve the lives of patients with immune and hematological disorders, cancer and rare diseases.  

 

2.Basis of Presentation

 

Our accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), for interim financial information and pursuant to the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act). Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements. These unaudited condensed financial statements include only normal and recurring adjustments that we believe are necessary to fairly state our financial position and the results of our operations and cash flows. Interim-period results are not necessarily indicative of results of operations or cash flows for a full-year or any subsequent interim period. The balance sheet at December 31, 2016 has been derived from audited financial statements at that date, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements. Because all of the disclosures required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements are not included herein, these interim unaudited condensed financial statements and the notes accompanying them should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements and the notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

 

3.Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09—Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements under ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific guidance under the ASC. The core principle of ASU No. 2014-09 is that an entity should recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU No. 2014-09 defines a five step process to achieve this core principle and, in doing so, it is possible more judgment and estimates may be required within the revenue recognition process than required under existing U.S. GAAP including identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. ASU No. 2014-09 also requires additional disclosures to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts. ASU No. 2014-09 allows for either full retrospective or modified retrospective adoption. In July 2015, the FASB deferred by one year the effective date of ASU No. 2014-09 with the new effective date beginning after December 15, 2017, and the interim periods within that year and will allow early adoption for all entities as of the original effective date for public business entities, which was annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. We plan to adopt this new standard on January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective approach. The adoption of ASU No. 2014-09 may have a material effect on our financial statements. To date, our revenues have been derived from license and collaboration agreements. The consideration we are eligible to receive under these agreements includes upfront payments, progress dependent contingent payments on events achieved by our collaboration partners, and royalties on net sales of products sold by such partners under the agreements. Each license and collaboration agreement is unique and will need to be assessed separately under the five-step process of the new standard. ASU No. 2014-09

differs from the current accounting standard in many respects, such as in the accounting for variable consideration, including milestone payments or contingent payments. Under our current accounting policy, we recognize contingent payments as revenue in the period that the payment-triggering event occurred or is achieved.  However, under the new accounting standard, it is possible to start to recognize contingent payments before the payment-triggering event is completely achieved, subject to management’s assessment of whether it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved. We have performed a preliminary assessment of the impact of the new standard on our active license and collaboration agreements and have identified the revenue streams.  Although we are continuing to assess the impact of this new guidance, we believe that the most significant impact may relate to the timing of recognition of certain future milestone payments as revenue depending on the assessed probability of achievement for these milestones as of the date of adoption.

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02—Leases,  which is aimed at making leasing activities more transparent, and requires substantially all leases be recognized by lessees on their balance sheet as a right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability, including leases currently accounted for as operating leases. The guidance is effective for all interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted. We plan to adopt this new standard on January 1, 2019. We are currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of ASU No. 2016-02 on our financial statements and cannot estimate the impact of adoption at this time.

 

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09—Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which is intended to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions, including the income tax consequences, an option to recognize gross stock compensation expense with actual forfeitures recognized as they occur, as well as certain classifications on the statement of cash flows. We adopted ASU No. 2016-09 on January 1, 2017. Under this guidance, on a prospective basis, companies will no longer record excess tax benefits and certain tax deficiencies in additional paid-in capital. Instead, they will record all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement. In addition, the guidance eliminates the requirement that excess tax benefits be realized before companies can recognize them. The ASU requires a cumulative-effect adjustment for previously unrecognized excess tax benefits in opening retained earnings in the annual period of adoption. Upon adoption, we recognized additional excess tax benefit as a deferred tax asset with a corresponding increase to our deferred tax asset valuation allowance, which did not result in a net impact to retained earnings. Additionally, as provided for under this new guidance, we elected to account for forfeitures as they occur. The adoption of this aspect of the guidance did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

4. Stock Award Plans

 

We have four stock option plans, our 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (2011 Plan), 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (2000 Plan), 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan (Directors’ Plan) and the Inducement Plan, that provide for granting to our officers, directors and all other employees and consultants options to purchase shares of our common stock. We also have our Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Purchase Plan), wherein eligible employees can purchase shares of our common stock at a price per share equal to the lesser of 85% of the fair market value on the first day of the offering period or 85% of the fair market value on the purchase date. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model which considered our stock price, as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, volatility, expected term, risk-free interest rate and dividends. We estimate volatility over the expected term of the option using historical share price performance. For expected term, we take into consideration our historical data of options exercised, cancelled and expired. The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury constant maturity rate. We have not paid and do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. We use the straight-line attribution method over the requisite employee service period for the entire award in recognizing stock-based compensation expense. In connection with the adoption of ASU No. 2016-09—Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, on January 1, 2017, we have elected to account for forfeitures as they occur.

 

We granted performance-based stock options to purchase shares of our common stock which will vest upon the achievement of certain corporate performance-based milestones.  We determined the fair values of these performance-based stock options using the Black-Scholes option pricing model at the date of grant. For the portion of the

performance-based stock options of which the performance condition is considered probable of achievement, we recognize stock-based compensation expense on the related estimated fair value of such options on a  straight-line basis from the date of grant up to the date when we expect the performance condition will be achieved. For the performance conditions that are not considered probable of achievement at the grant date or upon quarterly re-evaluation, prior to the event actually occurring, we recognize the related stock-based compensation expense when the event occurs or when we can determine that the performance condition is probable of achievement. In those cases, we recognize the change in estimate at the time we determine the condition is probable of achievement (by recognizing stock-based compensation expense as cumulative catch-up adjustment as if we had estimated at the grant date that the performance condition would have been achieved) and recognize the remaining compensation cost up to the date when we expect the performance condition will be achieved, if any.

 

5.Net Loss Per Share

 

Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period and the number of additional shares of common stock that would have been outstanding if potentially dilutive securities had been issued. Potentially dilutive securities include a warrant to purchase our common shares and stock options and shares issuable under our stock award plans. The dilutive effect of these potentially dilutive securities is reflected in diluted earnings per share by application of the treasury stock method. Under the treasury stock method, an increase in the fair market value of our common stock can result in a greater dilutive effect from potentially dilutive securities.

 

We had securities which could potentially dilute basic loss per share, but were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share, as their effect would have been antidilutive. These securities consist of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

6.Stock-based Compensation

 

Total stock-based compensation expense related to all of our share-based payments that we recognized for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We have segregated option awards into the following three homogenous groups for the purposes of determining fair values of options: officers and directors, all other employees, and consultants.

 

We determined weighted-average valuation assumptions separately for each of these groups as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

In connection with the adoption of ASU No. 2016-09 on January 1, 2017, we have elected to account for forfeitures as they occur and its adoption did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

The following table summarizes the weighted-average assumptions relating to options granted pursuant to our equity incentive plans, including the performance-based stock option awards which will vest upon the achievement of certain corporate performance-based milestones or corporate sales target, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016:

 

 

The exercise price of stock options is at the market price of our common stock on the date immediately preceding the date of grant. Options become exercisable at varying dates and generally expire 10 years from the date of grant.

 

We granted options to purchase 3,485,175 shares of common stock during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 with a grant-date weighted-average fair value of $1.36 per share. As of September 30, 2017, we have 1,385,000 shares related to outstanding performance-based stock option awards with a grant date fair value of $2.0 million which will vest upon achievement of certain corporate performance-based milestones. We did not consider these corporate-based milestones as probable of achievement as of September 30, 2017. Accordingly, no stock-based compensation expense was recognized for these outstanding performance-based stock option awards. 

 

As of September 30, 2017, there was approximately $7.4 million of total unrecognized stock-based compensation cost related to all unvested options granted under our equity incentive plans.

 

At September 30, 2017, there were 11,450,149 shares of common stock available for future grant under our equity incentive plans and 526,281 options to purchase shares were exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2017.

 

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

 

Our Purchase Plan permits eligible employees to purchase common stock at a discount through payroll deductions during defined offering periods. The price at which the stock is purchased is equal to the lesser of 85% of the fair market value of the common stock on the first day of the offering or 85% of the fair market value of our common stock on the purchase date. The initial offering period commenced on the effective date of our initial public offering.

 

The fair value of awards granted under our Purchase Plan is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which uses weighted-average assumptions. Our Purchase Plan provides for a twenty-four month offering period comprised of four six-month purchase periods with a look-back option. A look-back option is a provision in our Purchase Plan under which eligible employees can purchase shares of our common stock at a price per share equal to the lesser of 85% of the fair market value on the first day of the offering period or 85% of the fair market value on the purchase date. Our Purchase Plan also includes a feature that provides for a new offering period to begin when the fair market value of our common stock on any purchase date during an offering period falls below the fair market value of our common stock on the first day of such offering period. This feature is called a “reset.” Participants are automatically enrolled in the new offering period. We had a “reset” on July 1, 2016 because the fair market value of our stock on June 30, 2016 was lower than the fair market value of our stock on January 5, 2015, the first day of the offering period. We applied modification accounting in accordance with ASC Topic No. 718, Stock Compensation, to determine the incremental fair value associated with this Purchase Plan “reset” and will recognize the related stock-based compensation expense according to FASB ASC Subtopic No. 718-50, Employee Share Purchase Plans. The total incremental fair value for this Purchase Plan “reset” was approximately $1.0 million and will be recognized from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018.

 

As of September 30, 2017, there were approximately 2,324,942 shares reserved for future issuance under the Purchase Plan. The following table summarizes the weighted-average assumptions related to our Purchase Plan for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016. Expected volatilities for our Purchase Plan are based on the historical volatility of our stock. Expected term represents the weighted-average of the purchase periods within the offering period. The risk-free interest rate for periods within the expected term is based on U.S. Treasury constant maturity rates.

 

 

 

7.Research and Development Accruals

 

We have various contracts with third parties related to our research and development activities. Costs that are incurred but not billed to us as of the end of the period are accrued. We make estimates of the amounts incurred in each period based on the information available to us and our knowledge of the nature of the contractual activities generating such costs. Clinical trial contract expenses are accrued based on units of activity. Expenses related to other research and development contracts, such as research contracts, toxicology study contracts and manufacturing contracts are estimated to be incurred generally on a straight-line basis over the duration of the contracts. Raw materials and study materials purchased for us by third parties are expensed at the time of purchase.

 

In the first quarter of 2017, we entered into a consulting agreement with a third party, pursuant to which we may be required to pay amounts ranging from $1.5 million to $4.0 million if certain future regulatory milestone events occur.  As of September 30, 2017, we do not consider any of the future regulatory milestone events as probable of occurring. As such, no expense was recognized for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017.

 

8.Sponsored Research and License Agreements

 

We conduct research and development programs independently and in connection with our corporate collaborators. We are a party to a collaboration agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) for the discovery, development and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies based on our small molecule TGF beta receptor kinase inhibitors, as discussed below. Our participation in the collaboration during the research term was limited to the Joint Research Committee and the performance of research activities based on billable full-time equivalent fees as specified in the collaboration agreement. We do not have ongoing participation obligations under our agreements with Aclaris Therapeutics International Limited (Aclaris) for the development and commercialization of certain janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of alopecia areata and other dermatological conditions, AstraZeneca (AZ) for the development and commercialization of R256, an inhaled JAK inhibitor, BerGenBio AS (BerGenBio) for the development and commercialization of an oncology program, and Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi) to pursue research related to a specific target from a novel class of drug targets called ligases. Under these agreements, which we entered into in the ordinary course of business, we received or may be entitled to receive upfront cash payments, progress dependent contingent payments on events achieved by such partners and royalties on any net sales of products sold by such partners under the agreements. Total future contingent payments to us under all of these current agreements could exceed $532.4 million if all potential product candidates achieved all of the payment triggering events under all of our current agreements (based on a single product candidate under each agreement). Of this amount, up to $145.5 million relates to the achievement of development events, up to $345.6 million relates to the achievement of regulatory events and up to $41.3 million relates to the achievement of certain commercial or launch events. This estimated future contingent amount does not include any estimated royalties that could be due to us if the partners successfully commercialize any of the licensed products.  Future events that may trigger payments to us under the agreements are based solely on our partners’ future efforts and achievements of specified development, regulatory and/or commercial events.

 

In February 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with BMS for the discovery, development and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies based on our extensive portfolio of small molecule TGF beta receptor kinase inhibitors. Under the collaboration agreement, BMS will have exclusive rights and will be solely responsible for the clinical development and commercialization of any products. Pursuant to the collaboration agreement with BMS, we received a noncreditable and non-refundable upfront payment of $30.0 million in March 2015. We are also entitled to receive development and regulatory contingent fees that could exceed $309.0 million for a successful compound  approved in certain indications. In addition, we are also eligible to receive tiered royalties on the net sales of any products from the collaboration. BMS shall also reimburse us for agreed upon costs based on a contractual cost per full-time equivalent employee in connection with the performance of research activities during the research term. Under the collaboration agreement, we were obligated to provide the following deliverables: (i) granting of license rights to our program, (ii) participation in the Joint Research Committee, and (iii) performance of research activities. We concluded that these deliverables were a single unit of accounting as the license did not have stand-alone value apart from the other deliverables. Accordingly, the $30.0 million upfront payment was recognized ratably as revenue from the effective date of the agreement and was fully amortized in September 2016, the end of the research term. We believed that straight-line recognition of this revenue was appropriate as the research was performed ratably over the research period. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we recognized revenue of $3.8 million and $13.4 million, respectively, relating to the upfront payment.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we recognized revenue of $290,000 relating to the research activities we performed. There were no revenues recognized related to research activities during the three months ended September 30, 2016. At the end of the initial research term, we were not notified by BMS of its intention to extend the initial research term under which we would perform research activities. However, BMS does continue to evaluate compounds from the extensive portfolio under the agreement, on its own. As of September 30, 2016, all deliverables under the agreement have been delivered.

 

In June 2011, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with BerGenBio for the development and commercialization of an oncology program. BerGenBio is responsible for all activities it wishes to perform under the license we granted to it. In February 2017, we received $3.3 million from BerGenBio as a result of BerGenBio advancing BGB324, an AXL kinase inhibitor licensed under the agreement, to a Phase 2 clinical study. In June 2016, we received contingent payments of $1.7 million relating to a time-based non-refundable fee and $2.0 million relating to BerGenBio’s exercise of certain option rights before the prescription period to exercise the rights expired. All deliverables under the agreement had been previously delivered, as such, the above payments of $3.3 million in 2017 and $3.7 million in 2016,  triggered by the above time-based and contingent events were recognized as revenue in the first quarter of 2017 and second quarter of 2016, respectively.  

 

9.Cash, Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

 

Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments consisted of the following (in thousands): 

 

 

Cash equivalents and short-term investments include the following securities with gross unrealized gains and losses (in thousands):

 

 

 

As of September 30, 2017, our cash equivalents and short-term investments, which have contractual maturities within one year, had a weighted-average time to maturity of approximately 75 days. We view our short-term investments portfolio as available for use in current operations. We have the ability to hold all investments as of September 30, 2017 through their respective maturity dates. At September 30, 2017, we had no investments that had been in a continuous unrealized loss position for more than 12 months.  As of September 30, 2017, a total of 21 individual securities had been in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or less, and the losses were determined to be temporary. The gross unrealized losses above were caused by interest rate increases. No significant facts or circumstances have arisen to indicate that there has been any significant deterioration in the creditworthiness of the issuers of the securities held by us. Based on our review of these securities, including the assessment of the duration and severity of the unrealized losses

and our ability and intent to hold the investments until maturity, there were no other-than-temporary impairments for these securities at September 30, 2017.

 

The following table shows the fair value and gross unrealized losses of our investments in individual securities that are in an unrealized loss position, aggregated by investment category (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

10.Fair Value

 

Under FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, fair value is defined as the price at which an asset could be exchanged or a liability transferred in a transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability. Where available, fair value is based on observable market prices or parameters or derived from such prices or parameters. Where observable prices or parameters are not available, valuation models are applied.

 

Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in our financial statements are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. Hierarchical levels directly related to the amount of subjectivity associated with the inputs to fair valuation of these assets and liabilities, are as follows:

 

Level 1—Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices in active markets for identical assets at the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.

 

The fair valued assets we hold that are generally included under this Level 1 are money market securities where fair value is based on publicly quoted prices.

 

Level 2—Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, that are either directly or indirectly observable for the asset or liability through correlation with market data at the reporting date and for the duration of the instrument’s anticipated life.

 

The fair valued assets we hold that are generally assessed under Level 2 included government-sponsored enterprise securities, U.S. treasury bills and corporate bonds and commercial paper. We utilize third party pricing services in developing fair value measurements where fair value is based on valuation methodologies such as models using observable market inputs, including benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, bids, offers and other reference data. We use quotes from external pricing service providers and other on-line quotation systems to verify the fair value of investments provided by our third party pricing service providers. We review independent auditor’s reports from our third party pricing service providers particularly regarding the controls over pricing and valuation of financial instruments and ensure that our internal controls address certain control deficiencies, if any, and complementary user entity controls are in place.

 

Level 3—Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities and which reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability at the reporting date. Consideration is given to the risk inherent in the valuation technique and the risk inherent in the inputs to the model.

 

We do not have fair valued assets classified under Level 3.

 

Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

 

Financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are categorized in the tables below based upon the lowest level of significant input to the valuations (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

11.Lease Agreements

 

We currently lease our research and office space under a noncancelable lease agreement with our landlord, HCP BTC, LLC (formerly known as Slough BTC, LLC) which was set to expire in 2018. The lease term provides for renewal option for up to two additional periods of five years each. In July 2017, we exercised our option to extend the term of our lease for another five years through January 2023 and modified the amount of monthly base rent during such renewal period. We reevaluated our lease classification and continue to classify our lease as operating lease during the renewal period.

 

In December 2014, we entered into a sublease agreement with an unrelated third party to occupy approximately 57,000 square feet of our research and office space. In connection with this sublease, we recognized a loss on sublease of $9.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2014. In February 2017, we entered into an amendment to the sublease agreement to increase the subleased research and office space for an additional 9,328 square feet under the same term of the sublease, and recognized an additional loss on sublease of $495,000. Effective July 2017, the sublease agreement was amended primarily to extend the term of the sublease through January 2023 and modified the monthly base rent to equal the amount we will pay our landlord. Because the future sublease income under the extended sublease agreement is the same as the amount we will pay our landlord, we did not recognize any additional loss on sublease. We expect to receive approximately $23.0 million in future sublease income (excluding our subtenant’s share of facilities operating expenses) through January 2023.  

 

We record rent expense on a straight-line basis for our lease, net of sublease income. For our sublease arrangement which we classified as an operating lease, our loss on the sublease was comprised of the present value of our future payments to our landlord less the present value of our future rent payments expected from our subtenant over the term of the sublease. The liability arising from this sublease agreement was determined using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate to discount the estimated future net cash flows. The changes in the liability related to the sublease agreement for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

12.Equity Offerings

 

In February 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering in which we sold 23,000,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration statement at a price to the public of $2.00 per share. We received proceeds of approximately $43.0 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. In October 2017, we completed another underwritten public offering in which we sold 20,815,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration statement at a price to the public of $3.35 per share. We received proceeds of approximately $65.3 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

 

In August 2015, we entered into a Controlled Equity OfferingSM Sales Agreement (Original Sales Agreement) with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (Cantor), as sales agent, pursuant to which we may sell, through Cantor, up to an aggregate of $30.0 million in shares of our common stock. As of September 30, 2016, all the shares under the Original Sales Agreement have been fully sold. In May 2017,  we entered into an Amendment No. 1 (Amended Sales Agreement) to the Controlled Equity OfferingSM Sales Agreement pursuant to which we may offer and sell, through Cantor, additional shares of our common stock, up to an aggregate offering price of $40.0 million.  These additional shares are in addition to the shares of common stock sold under the Original Sales Agreement. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, 2,166,093 shares of common stock were sold under the Amended Sales Agreement, with an aggregate net proceeds of $5.7 million. In October 2017, we terminated the Amended Sales Agreement with Cantor. All sales of our common stock were made pursuant to a shelf registration statement filed by us in May 2015 and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in July 2015. Cantor acted as our sole sales agent for all sales made under the Amended Sales Agreement for a low single-digit commission on gross proceeds. The common stock was sold at prevailing market prices at the time of the sale.

 

13.Restructuring Charges

 

In September 2016, we announced that we had reduced our workforce by 46 positions, mostly in the research area.  We also announced that effective September 15, 2016, Donald G. Payan, M.D, retired from the board of directors and from his position as Executive Vice President and President of Discovery and Research. We recorded restructuring charges during the third quarter of 2016 of approximately $5.8 million, which included $5.0 million of severance costs paid in cash, $319,000 impairment of certain property and equipment, and $499,000 of non-cash stock-based compensation expense as a result of the modification of our former executive’s stock options. At September 30, 2017,  the remaining accrued restructuring cost of $64,000 related to COBRA benefits is classified under Accrued Compensation in the Condensed Balance Sheet.

 

Item 2.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 

This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and the accompanying notes included in this report and the audited financial statements and accompanying notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of results that may occur in future interim periods or for the full fiscal year.

 

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains statements indicating expectations about future performance and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act, that involve risks and uncertainties. We usually use words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend,” or the negative of these terms or similar expressions to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements appear throughout this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and are statements regarding our current expectation, belief or intent, primarily with respect to our operations and related industry developments. Examples of these statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the following: our business and scientific strategies; the progress of our and our collaborators’ product development programs, including clinical testing, and the timing of results thereof; our corporate collaborations and revenues that may be received from our collaborations and the timing of those potential payments; our expectations with respect to regulatory submissions and approvals; our drug discovery technologies; our research and development expenses; protection of our intellectual property; sufficiency of our cash and capital resources and the need for additional capital; and our operations and legal risks. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including as a result of the risks and uncertainties discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part II of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which factors will arise. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

 

Overview

 

We are a  biotechnology company dedicated to discovering, developing and commercializing novel small molecule drugs that significantly improve the lives of patients with immune and hematological disorders, cancer and rare diseases.  Our pioneering research focuses on signaling pathways that are critical to disease mechanisms. Our current clinical programs include clinical trials of fostamatinib, an oral spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor, in a number of indications. We have submitted and the FDA has accepted for review, an NDA for fostamatinib in patients with chronic or persistent immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). In addition, Rigel has product candidates in development with partners BerGenBio AS, Daiichi Sankyo and Aclaris Therapeutics.

 

Since inception, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, and contract payments under our collaboration agreements. Our research and development activities, including preclinical studies and clinical trials, consume substantial amounts of capital. As of September 30, 2017, we had approximately $68.1 million in cash, cash equivalents and short term investments. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we received an aggregate of $4.5 million payments pursuant to our agreements with our collaborative partners, $5.7 million under the Amended Sales Agreement, and approximately $3.6 million of sublease income and reimbursements under a sublease agreement with an unrelated third party. In February 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering in which we sold 23,000,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration statement at a price to the public of $2.00 per share for net proceeds of approximately $43.0 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. In October 2017, we completed another underwritten public offering in which we sold 20,815,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration statement at a price to the public of $3.35 per share for net proceeds of approximately $65.3 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to support our current and projected funding requirements,

including the potential commercial launch of fostamatinib in ITP in the U.S., through at least the next 12 months. We also continue to evaluate ex-U.S. partnerships for fostamatinib and other partnering opportunities across our pipelines.

 

Our revenues have consisted primarily of revenues from sponsored research and license agreements with our corporate collaborators. We earned contract revenues from collaborations of $4.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017, which is comprised of the $3.3 million payment we received from BerGenBio pursuant to advancing a licensed AXL kinase inhibitor to Phase 2 clinical study and  a $1.2 million payment we earned pursuant to a license agreement with a third party.  

 

Within our product development portfolio, our most advanced program is fostamatinib in ITP. We submitted an NDA for fostamatinib in ITP in April 2017, which was accepted by the FDA in June 2017, with an action date for the FDA to complete its review by April 17, 2018, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). In April 2017, we announced that we received the conditional acceptance by the U.S Food & Drug Administration (FDA) of the proprietary name TAVALISSETM for fostamatinib disodium, our lead investigational product candidate. In October 2017, we announced that the FDA is not currently planning on holding an Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting to discuss the NDA for fostamatinib in ITP. Additionally, the FDA indicated that the review of fostamatinib is proceeding according to the standard internal review timeline as described in the Guidance on Good Review Management Principles and Practices for PDUFA Products.

 

Recent Developments

 

In August 2017 and November 2017, Brian L. Kotzin, M.D. and Gregg Lapointe, respectively, were appointed to the Company’s board of directors. 

 

In October 2017, we announced that the FDA is not currently planning on holding an ODAC meeting to discuss the NDA for fostamatinib in ITP.

 

Fostamatinib—Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura

 

Disease background.  Chronic ITP affects an estimated 65,000 adult patients in the U.S. In patients with ITP, the immune system attacks and destroys the body’s own blood platelets, which play an active role in blood clotting and healing. ITP patients can suffer extraordinary bruising, bleeding and fatigue as a result of low platelet counts. Current therapies for ITP include steroids, blood platelet production boosters that imitate thrombopoietin (TPOs) and splenectomy.

 

Orally-available fostamatinib program.  Taken in tablet form, fostamatinib blocks the activation of SYK inside immune cells. ITP is typically characterized by the body producing antibodies that attach to healthy platelets in the blood stream. Immune cells recognize these antibodies and affix to them, which activates the SYK enzyme inside the immune cell, and triggers the destruction of the antibody and the attached platelet. When SYK is inhibited by fostamatinib, it interrupts this immune cell function and allows the platelets to escape destruction. The results of our Phase 2 clinical trial, in which fostamatinib was orally administered to sixteen adults with chronic ITP, published in Blood, showed that fostamatinib significantly increased the platelet counts of certain ITP patients, including those who had failed other currently available agents.

 

In October 2013, we met with the FDA for an end-of-Phase 2 meeting for fostamatinib in ITP. Based on that meeting, we designed a Phase 3 clinical program, called fostamatinib in thrombocytopenia (FIT), in which a total of 150 ITP patients were randomized into two identical multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The patients were diagnosed with persistent or chronic ITP, and had blood platelet counts consistently below 30,000 per microliter of blood. Two-thirds of the subjects received fostamatinib orally at 100 mg bid (twice daily) and the other third received placebo on the same schedule. Subjects were expected to remain on treatment for up to 24 weeks. At week four of treatment, subjects who failed to meet certain platelet count and met certain tolerability thresholds could have their dosage of fostamatinib (or corresponding placebo) increased to 150 mg bid. The primary efficacy endpoint of this program was a stable platelet response by week 24 with platelet counts at or above 50,000 per microliter of blood for at least four of the final six qualifying blood draws. In August 2015, the FDA granted our request for Orphan Drug

designation for fostamatinib for the treatment of ITP. On April 1, 2016, we announced that we completed enrollment in the FIT Phase 3 clinical program.

 

On August 30, 2016, we announced the results of the first study, reporting that fostamatinib met the study’s primary efficacy endpoint. The study showed that 18% of patients receiving fostamatinib achieved a stable platelet response compared to none receiving a placebo control (p=0.0261). On October 20, 2016, we announced the results of the second study, reporting that the response rate was 18%, consistent with the first study. However, one patient in the placebo group (4%) achieved a stable platelet response, therefore the difference between those on treatment and those on placebo did not reach statistical significance (p=0.152) and the study did not meet its primary endpoint. When the data from both studies are combined, however, this difference is statistically significant (p=0.007). In the combined datasets for the FIT studies, patients who met the primary endpoint had their platelet counts increase from a median of 18,500/uL of blood at baseline to more than 100,000/uL at week 24 of treatment. These patients benefited substantially and typically did so within weeks of initiating treatment, providing early feedback as to whether fostamatinib may be a viable option for treating their ITP. In the combined datasets, the frequency of patients who achieved a stable platelet response was statistically superior in the fostamatinib group versus the placebo group in the following subgroups: prior splenectomy or not; prior exposure to TPO agents or not; platelet counts below or above 15,000/uL of blood at baseline, demonstrating that the effect of fostamatinib is consistent across various clinical and treatment backgrounds.

 

Patients from the FIT studies were given the option to enroll in a long-term open-label extension study and receive treatment with fostamatinib, also a Phase 3 trial. A total of 123 patients had enrolled in this study. All the patients who responded to fostamatinib in the FIT studies and enrolled in the long-term open-label extension study maintained a median platelet count of 106,500/uL at a median of 16 months. In addition, there were 44 placebo non-responders that enrolled in the long-term open-label extension study. 41 of these patients had at least 12 weeks of follow-up.  Of those, 9 patients (22%) have achieved a prospectively defined stable platelet response, which is statistically significant (p=0.0078) and similar to the response rate fostamatinib achieved in the parent studies.

 

In the combined dataset of both stable and intermediate responders for the FIT studies, the response rate was 29% (29/101), compared to 2% (1/49) for placebo (p=<0.0001).  A stable response was defined as a patient achieving platelet counts of greater than 50,000/uL on more than 4 of the 6 visits between weeks 14 and 24. In the post-study analysis performed by the Company, an intermediate response was defined to include patients achieving at least two consecutive median platelet counts over 50,000/uL during the trial without rescue, but who did not otherwise meet the stable response criteria.

 

The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, and the safety profile of the product was consistent with prior clinical experience, with no new or unusual safety issues uncovered. We submitted an NDA for fostamatinib in ITP in April 2017, which was accepted by the FDA in June 2017, with an action date for the FDA to complete its review by April 17, 2018, under the PDUFA. On October 2, 2017, we announced that the FDA is not currently planning on holding an ODAC meeting to discuss the NDA for fostamatinib in ITP. Additionally, the FDA indicated that the review of fostamatinib is proceeding according to the standard internal review timeline as described in the Guidance on Good Review Management Principles and Practices for PDUFA Products.

 

Commercial activities, including sales and marketing

 

We intend to commercialize fostamatinib disodium in ITP in the U.S., in 2018, subject to FDA approval, on our own. We plan to enter into partnerships with third parties to commercialize fostamatinib in Europe and Asia. A significant portion of our operating expenses in the second half of 2017 and 2018 will be related to our commercialization activities. Specifically, our marketing and sales efforts will be focused on targeting approximately 3,000 hematologists and hematologist-oncologists, who treat chronically managed ITP patients. We will continue to hire and recruit experienced commercial professionals, including sales management, marketing, and market access professionals to support these efforts.

 

Competitive Landscape

 

Our industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Many of the drugs that we are attempting to discover will be competing with existing therapies. In addition, a number of companies are pursuing the development of pharmaceuticals that target the same diseases and conditions that we are targeting. For example, there are existing therapies and drug candidates in development for the treatment of ITP that may be alternative therapies to fostamatinib, if it is ultimately approved for commercialization.

 

Currently, corticosteriods remain the most common first line therapy for ITP, occasionally in conjunction with intravenous immuglobulin (IVIg) or anti-Rh(D) as added agents to help further augment platelet count recovery, particularly in emergency situations. However, it has been estimated that frontline agents lead to durable remissions in only a small percentage of newly-diagnosed adults with ITP. Moreover, concerns with steroid-related side effects often restrict therapy to approximately 4 weeks. As such, many patients progress to persistent or chronic ITP, requiring other forms of therapeutic intervention.

 

Other approaches to treat ITP are varied in their mechanism of action, and there is no consensus about the sequence of their use, according to the most recent ITP guideline from the American Society of Hematology. Options include splenectomy, thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-Rs) and various immunosuppressants (such as rituximab). The response rate criteria of the abovementioned options vary, precluding a comparison of response rates for individual therapies.

 

Even with the above treatment options, a significant number of patients remain severely thrombocytopenic for long durations and are subject to risk of spontaneous or trauma-induced hemorrhage. The addition of fostamatinib to the treatment options could theoretically be beneficial since it has a different mechanism of action than the thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists. Fostamatinib is a potent and relatively selective SYK inhibitor, and its inhibition of Fc receptors and B-cell receptors signaling pathways make it a potentially broad immunomodulatory agent. 

 

Other products in the U.S. that are commercially-approved to increase platelet production through binding and TPO receptors on megakaryocyte precursors include PROMACTA® (Novartis) and Nplate® (Amgen, Inc.).

 

Clinical Stage Programs

 

Fostamatinib—IgAN

 

Disease background.    Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy (IgAN) is an autoimmune disease that severely affects the functioning of the kidneys. An estimated 12,000 Americans are diagnosed with this type of glomerulonephritis each year, with 25% of whom will eventually require dialysis and/or kidney transplantation over time. IgAN is characterized by the deposition of IgA immune complexes in the glomeruli of the kidneys leading to an inflammatory response and subsequent tissue damage that ultimately disrupts the normal filtering function of the kidneys. By inhibiting SYK in kidney cells, fostamatinib may block the signaling of IgA immune complex receptors and arrest or slow destruction of the glomeruli.

 

Orally-available fostamatinib program.  Our Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with IgAN, called SIGN (SYK Inhibition for Glomerulonephritis) completed enrollment for the first cohort and is currently enrolling patients for the second cohort. In January 2017, we announced that the first cohort in the Phase 2 study of fostamatinib in IgAN was completed in various centers throughout Asia, the U.S. and Europe. This cohort evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the lower dose of fostamatinib (100mg BID, n=26; placebo n=12) as measured by change in proteinuria, renal function, and histology (comparing the pre- and post-study renal biopsies). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in proteinuria from baseline at 24 weeks. The study found that at 24 weeks, fostamatinib was well tolerated with a good safety profile. The initial data suggest a trend towards a greater reduction in proteinuria in fostamatinib treated patients relative to placebo. In August 2017, we completed the enrollment for the second cohort of the Phase 2 study and we expect results in the first half of 2018.

 

Fostamatinib—AIHA

 

Disease background.  AIHA is a rare, serious blood disorder where the immune system produces antibodies that result in the destruction of the body's own red blood cells. Symptoms can include fatigue, shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, jaundice or enlarged spleen. While no medical treatments are currently approved for AIHA, physicians generally treat acute and chronic cases of the disorder with corticosteroids, other immuno-suppressants, or splenectomy. Research has shown that inhibiting SYK with fostamatinib may reduce the destruction of red blood cells. This disorder affects an estimated 40,000 Americans, for whom no approved treatment options currently exist.

 

Orally available fostamatinib program.  Our Phase 2 clinical trial, also known as SOAR study, is currently enrolling patients with warm AIHA in the second stage of the trial. The trial is an open-label, multi-center, two-stage study that will evaluate the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib in patients with warm AIHA who have previously received treatment for the disorder, but have relapsed. Stage 1 recently completed enrollment for 17 patients who will receive 150 mg of fostamatinib orally twice a day for a period of 12 weeks.  The patients will return to the clinic every two weeks for blood draws and medical assessment. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study is to achieve increased hemoglobin levels by week 12 of greater than 10 g/dL, and greater than or equal to 2 g/dL higher than baseline.

 

In October 2017, we announced that, on a top-line, preliminary basis, Stage 1 of the AIHA study has enrolled 17 patients who have had at least one post-baseline hemoglobin measure. Of the 17 patients, four responded during the 12-week evaluation period and an additional two patients met the response criteria in the extension study after 12 weeks of dosing. This provides a response rate of 35% (6 of 17) on fostamatinib (these data are preliminary and require further verification). During the trial, two of the 17 patients withdrew early from the study due to non-safety-related reasons and will be replaced per the study protocol.  A comprehensive analysis of the Phase 2 data will continue and will be presented at a future scientific conference. Given that the Stage 1 of the study met its primary efficacy endpoint, we intend to begin enrollment of Stage 2 of this study, in which 20 patients will be enrolled under the same protocol. 

 

Research/Preclinical Programs

 

We are conducting proprietary research in the broad disease areas of inflammation/immunology, immuno-oncology, cancers and muscle wasting/muscle endurance. Within each disease area, our researchers are investigating mechanisms of action as well as screening compounds against potential novel targets and optimizing those leads that appear to have the greatest potential.

 

During the second quarter of 2017,  we selected a molecule from our IRAK program for preclinical development. The molecule is differentiated in that it inhibits both the IRAK 1 and IRAK 4 signaling pathways, with potential to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases such as lupus, gout, psoriatic arthritis and multiple sclerosis. We expect to initiate clinical trials in the first half of 2018. 

 

Sponsored Research and License Agreements

 

We conduct research and development programs independently and in connection with our corporate collaborators. We are a party to a collaboration agreement with BMS for the discovery, development and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies based on our small molecule TGF beta receptor kinase inhibitors, as discussed below. Our participation in the collaboration during the research term was limited to the Joint Research Committee and the performance of research activities based on billable full-time equivalent fees as specified in the collaboration agreement. We do not have ongoing participation obligations under our agreements with Aclaris for the development and commercialization of certain JAK inhibitors for the treatment of alopecia areata and other dermatological conditions, AZ for the development and commercialization of R256, an inhaled JAK inhibitor, BerGenBio for the development and commercialization of an oncology program, and Daiichi to pursue research related to a specific target from a novel class of drug targets called ligases. Under these agreements, which we entered into in the ordinary course of business, we received or may be entitled to receive upfront cash payments, progress dependent contingent payments on events achieved by such partners and royalties on any net sales of products sold by such partners under the agreements. Total future contingent payments to us under all of these current agreements could exceed $532.4 million if all potential product candidates achieved all of the payment triggering events under all of our current

agreements (based on a single product candidate under each agreement). Of this amount, up to $145.5 million relates to the achievement of development events, up to $345.6 million relates to the achievement of regulatory events and up to $41.3 million relates to the achievement of certain commercial or launch events. This estimated future contingent amount does not include any estimated royalties that could be due to us if the partners successfully commercialize any of the licensed products.  Future events that may trigger payments to us under the agreements are based solely on our partners’ future efforts and achievements of specified development, regulatory and/or commercial events. Because we do not control the research, development or commercialization of the product candidates generated under these agreements, we are not able to reasonably estimate when, if at all, any contingent payments would become payable to us. As such, the contingent payments we could receive thereunder involve a substantial degree of risk to achieve and may never be received in the next 12 months or thereafter. Accordingly, we do not expect, and investors should not assume, that we will receive all of the potential contingent payments provided for under these agreements and it is possible that we may never receive any additional significant contingent payments or royalties under these agreements.

 

In February 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with BMS for the discovery, development and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies based on our extensive portfolio of small molecule TGF beta receptor kinase inhibitors. Under the collaboration agreement, BMS will have exclusive rights and will be solely responsible for the clinical development and commercialization of any products. Pursuant to the collaboration agreement with BMS, we received a noncreditable and non-refundable upfront payment of $30.0 million in March 2015. We are also entitled to receive development and regulatory contingent fees that could exceed $309.0 million for a successful compound approved in certain indications. In addition, we are also eligible to receive tiered royalties on the net sales of any products from the collaboration. BMS shall also reimburse us for agreed upon costs based on a contractual cost per full-time equivalent employee in connection with the performance of research activities during the research term. Under the collaboration agreement, we were obligated to provide the following deliverables: (i) granting of license rights to our program, (ii) participation in the Joint Research Committee, and (iii) performance of research activities. We concluded that these deliverables were a single unit of accounting as the license did not have stand-alone value apart from the other deliverables. Accordingly, the $30.0 million upfront payment was recognized ratably as revenue from the effective date of the agreement and was fully amortized in September 2016, the end of the research term. We believed that straight-line recognition of this revenue was appropriate as the research was performed ratably over the research period. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we recognized revenue of $3.8 million and $13.4 million, respectively, relating to the upfront payment. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we recognized revenue of $290,000 relating to the research activities we performed. At the end of the initial research term, we were not notified by BMS of its intention to extend the initial research term under which we would perform research activities. However, BMS does continue to evaluate compounds from the extensive portfolio under the agreement, on its own. As of September 30, 2016, all deliverables under the agreement have been delivered.

 

In June 2011, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with BerGenBio for the development and commercialization of an oncology program. BerGenBio is responsible for all activities it wishes to perform under the license we granted to it.  In February 2017, we received $3.3 million from BerGenBio as a result of BerGenBio advancing BGB324, an AXL kinase inhibitor licensed under the agreement, to a Phase 2 clinical study. In June 2016, we received contingent payments of $1.7 million relating to a time-based non-refundable fee and $2.0 million relating to BerGenBio’s exercise of certain option rights before the prescription period to exercise the rights expired. All deliverables under the agreement had been previously delivered, as such, the above payments of $3.3 million in 2017 and $3.7 million in 2016, triggered by the above time-based and contingent events were recognized as revenue in the first quarter of 2017 and second quarter of 2016, respectively.

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Our research and development expenditures include costs related to preclinical and clinical trials, scientific personnel, supplies, equipment, consultants, sponsored research, stock based compensation, and allocated facility costs.

 

We do not track fully burdened research and development costs separately for each of our drug candidates. We review our research and development expenses by focusing on three categories: research, development, and other. Our research team is focused on creating a portfolio of product candidates that can be developed into small molecule therapeutics in our own proprietary programs or with potential collaborative partners and utilizes our robust discovery

engine to rapidly discover and validate new product candidates in our focused range of therapeutic indications. “Research” expenses relate primarily to personnel expenses, lab supplies, fees to third party research consultants and compounds. Our development group leads the implementation of our clinical and regulatory strategies and prioritizes disease indications in which our compounds may be studied in clinical trials. “Development” expenses relate primarily to clinical trials, personnel expenses, costs related to the submission and management of our NDA, lab supplies and fees to third party research consultants. “Other” expenses primarily consist of allocated facilities costs and allocated stock based compensation expense relating to personnel in research and development groups.

 

In addition to reviewing the three categories of research and development expenses described in the preceding paragraph, we principally consider qualitative factors in making decisions regarding our research and development programs, which include enrollment in clinical trials and the results thereof, the clinical and commercial potential for our drug candidates and competitive dynamics. We also make our research and development decisions in the context of our overall business strategy, which includes the evaluation of potential collaborations for the development of our drug candidates.

 

We do not have reliable estimates regarding the timing of our clinical trials. Preclinical testing and clinical development are long, expensive and uncertain processes. In general, biopharmaceutical development involves a series of steps, beginning with identification of a potential target and including, among others, proof of concept in animals and Phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials in humans. Significant delays in clinical testing could materially impact our product development costs and timing of completion of the clinical trials. We do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, will need to be halted or revamped or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in obtaining regulatory approval to commence a trial, delays from scale up, delays in reaching agreement on acceptable clinical trial agreement terms with prospective clinical sites, delays in obtaining institutional review board approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective clinical site or delays in recruiting subjects to participate in a clinical trial.

 

We currently do not have reliable estimates of total costs for a particular drug candidate to reach the market. Our potential products are subject to a lengthy and uncertain regulatory process that may involve unanticipated additional clinical trials and may not result in receipt of the necessary regulatory approvals. Failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing the product candidates affected. In addition, clinical trials of our potential products may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy, which could prevent or significantly delay regulatory approval. 

 

The following table presents our total research and development expense by category (in thousands).

 

*We started tracking research and development expense by category on January 1, 2007.

 

“Other” expenses mainly represent allocated facilities costs of approximately $1.6 million and $2.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and allocated stock-based compensation expenses of approximately $282,000 and $643,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, allocated facilities costs were approximately $5.2 million and $7.4 million, respectively, and allocated stock-based compensation expenses were approximately $978,000 and $2.7 million, respectively.

 

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, a major portion of our total research and development expense was associated with salaries of our research and development personnel, our ITP, IRAK and IgAN programs, and allocated facilities costs.

 

For further discussion on research and development activities, see “Research and Development Expense” under “Results of Operations” below.

 

Results of Operations

 

Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2017 and 2016

 

Revenues

 

 

Contract revenues from collaborations of $900,000 during the three months ended September 30, 2017 were related to a payment received pursuant to a license agreement with a third party. Contract revenues from collaborations of $3.8 million during the three months ended September 30, 2016 represent the remaining amortization of the $30.0 million upfront payment we earned from BMS.

 

Contract revenues from collaborations of $4.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 is comprised of the $3.3 million payment we received from BerGenBio pursuant to advancing a licensed AXL kinase inhibitor to Phase 2 clinical study and a  $1.2 million payment we earned pursuant to a license agreement with a third party.  Contract revenues from collaborations of $17.4 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 were comprised of the amortization of the upfront payment and FTE fees we earned from BMS of $13.4 million and $290,000, respectively, as well as the $3.7 million payments we received from BerGenBio.

 

Our potential future revenues may include payments from our current partners and from new partners with whom we enter into agreements in the future, if any, the timing and amount of which is unknown at this time.

 

Research and Development Expense

 

 

The decreases in research and development expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, compared to the same periods in 2016, were primarily due to the decreases in personnel costs, stock‑based compensation expense and facility costs as a result of the reduction in workforce in September 2016, and clinical trial costs primarily due to the completion of the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials in ITP, partially offset by the increase in costs related to the submission of our NDA for fostamatinib in ITP.

 

We expect that our research and development expense in the fourth quarter of 2017 to remain relatively consistent with prior quarters.