As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2021.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of event requiring this shell company report
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 001-39670
PURETECH HEALTH PLC
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)
England and Wales
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
6 Tide Street, Suite 400
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(Address of principal executive offices)
Chief Executive Officer
Tel: (617) 482-2333
(Name, telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile number and address of company contact person)
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class:
Name of each exchange
on which registered:
American Depositary Shares, each representing 10 ordinary shares, par value £0.01 per share
The Nasdaq Global Market
Ordinary shares, par value £0.01 per share*
The Nasdaq Global Market*
Listed not for trading, but only in connection with the registration of the American Depositary Shares on The Nasdaq Global Market.
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.
Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None.
Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report: Ordinary Shares: 285,885,025 outstanding as of December 31, 2020.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes ☐ No ☒
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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files): Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
Emerging growth company
If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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. ☐
The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐
Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:
U.S. GAAP ☐
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued
by the International Accounting Standards Board
If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow. Item 17 ☐ Item 18 ☐
If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
(APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court. Yes ☐ No ☐
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This annual report on Form 20-F contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements contained in this report, other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “potential,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “continue” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. The forward-looking statements in this annual report on Form 20-F include, among other things, statements about:
•our ability to realize value from our Founded Entities, which may be impacted if we reduce our ownership to a minority interest or otherwise cede control to other investors through contractual agreements or otherwise;
•the success, cost and timing of our clinical development of our Wholly Owned Programs, including the progress of, and results from, our preclinical and clinical trials of LYT-100, LYT-200, LYT-210, LYT-300, our discovery programs (Glyph, Orasome and our meningeal lymphatics discovery research program) and other potential product candidates within our Wholly Owned Programs;
•our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of the therapeutic candidates in our Wholly Owned Pipeline, and any related restrictions, limitations or warnings in the label of any of the therapeutic candidates in our Wholly Owned Pipeline, if approved;
•our ability to compete with companies currently marketing or engaged in the development of treatments for indications that the therapeutic candidates in our Wholly Owned Pipeline or those of our Founded Entities are designed to target;
•our plans to pursue research and development of other future product candidates;
•the potential advantages of our Wholly Owned Programs and the therapeutic candidates being developed by our Founded Entities;
•the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of our therapeutic candidates;
•the success of our collaborations and partnerships with third parties;
•our estimates regarding the potential market opportunity for our Wholly Owned Programs and the therapeutic candidates being developed by our Founded Entities;
•our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and strategy;
•our ability to establish and maintain arrangements for manufacture of the therapeutic candidates in our Wholly Owned Pipeline and those being developed by our Founded Entities;
•our intellectual property position;
•our expectations related to the use of capital;
•the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, including mitigation efforts and economic effects, on any of the foregoing or other aspects of our business operations, including but not limited to our preclinical studies and future clinical trials;
•our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;
•the impact of government laws and regulations; and
•our competitive position.
SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS
The risk factors described below are a summary of the principal risk factors associated with our business. These are not the only risks we face. You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with the risk factors incorporated by reference into Item 3D. of this Annual Report on Form 20-F and the other reports and documents filed by us with the SEC.
•As of December 31, 2020, we had never generated revenue from the therapeutic candidates within our Wholly Owned Pipeline, and we may never be operationally profitable.
•We may require substantial additional funding to achieve our business goals. If we are unable to obtain this funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or terminate certain of our therapeutic development efforts. Certain of our Founded Entities will similarly require substantial additional funding to achieve their business goals.
•Our ability to realize value from our Founded Entities may be impacted if we reduce our ownership or otherwise cede control to other investors through contractual agreements or otherwise.
•We have limited information about and limited control or influence over our Non-Controlled Founded Entities.
•The therapeutic candidates within our Wholly Owned Pipeline and most of our Founded Entities’ therapeutic candidates are in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes and the potential for substantial delays. We cannot give any assurance that any of our and our Founded Entities’ therapeutic candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.
•Preclinical development is uncertain. Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.
•Clinical trials of our or our Founded Entities’ therapeutic candidates may be delayed, and certain programs may never advance in the clinic or may be more costly to conduct than we anticipate, any of which can affect our ability to fund our company and would have a material adverse impact on our platform or our business.
•If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.
•Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and potential commercialization.
•Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the potential commercialization of therapeutic candidates.
•If we are unable to obtain regulatory clearance or approval in one or more jurisdictions for any therapeutic candidates that we may identify and develop, our business could be substantially harmed.
•Certain of the therapeutic candidates being developed by us or our Founded Entities are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business.
•If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected.
•We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any therapeutic candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition.
•We are currently party to and may seek to enter into additional collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements and may not be successful in maintaining existing arrangements or entering into new ones, and even if we are, we may not realize the benefits of such relationships.
•If we or our Founded Entities are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our or our Founded Entities’ existing therapeutic candidates or any other therapeutic candidates that we or they may identify, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection we or they currently have or obtain in the future is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could
develop and commercialize therapeutic candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our existing therapeutic candidates and any other therapeutic candidates that we or they may pursue may be impaired.
•We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
•Our or our Founded Entities’ proprietary rights may not adequately protect our technologies and therapeutic candidates, and do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.
•The failure to maintain our licenses and realize their benefits may harm our business.
•If we or our Founded Entities fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or these agreements are terminated or we or our Founded Entities otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
•Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on therapeutic candidates for an adequate amount of time.
•Issued patents covering our Wholly Owned Programs or our Founded Entities’ therapeutic candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in courts or patent offices.
•We and our Founded Entities may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.
•The outbreak of, and the long term effects of the outbreak of, the novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID- 19, could adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials and preclinical studies.
•We may not be successful in our efforts to develop LYT-100 for the treatment of Long COVID respiratory complications and related sequelae.
•Failures in one or more of our programs could adversely impact other programs and have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and ability to fund our business.
•Our business is highly dependent on the clinical advancement of our programs and our success in identifying potential therapeutic candidates across the BIG Axis. Delay or failure to advance our programs could adversely impact our business.
•The market price of our ADSs has been and will likely continue to be highly volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
•Holders of ADSs are not treated as holders of our ordinary shares.
•As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to adopt certain home country practices in relation to corporate governance matters that differ significantly from Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards. These practices may afford less protection to shareholders than they would enjoy if we complied fully with corporate governance listing standards.
•If we are unable to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our ADSs.
•In connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB and U.S. securities laws, a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting was found to exist. If we fail to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we may be unable to accurately report our results of operations, meet our reporting obligations or prevent fraud.
Pursuant to Rule 12b-23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the information for the 2020 Form 20-F of PureTech Health plc (the “Company”) set out below is being incorporated by reference from PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated and submitted on April 15, 2021.
References below to major headings include all information under such major headings, including subheadings, unless such reference is a reference to a subheading, in which case such reference includes only the information contained under such subheading. Unless the context otherwise requires, “PureTech” and “PureTech Health” refer to the Company, which is comprised of PureTech and its Founded Entities (together, the “Group”). “Founded Entities” are comprised of “Controlled Founded Entities” and “Non-Controlled Founded Entities.” References in this Form 20 to “Controlled Founded Entities” refer to Follica, Incorporated, Vedanta Biosciences, Inc., Sonde Health, Inc. Alivio Therapeutics, Inc. and Entrega, Inc. References to “Non-Controlled Founded Entities” refer to Gelesis, Inc., Akili Interactive Labs, Inc., Karuna Therapeutics, Inc. and Vor Biopharma Inc., and, for all periods prior to December 18, 2019, resTORbio, Inc. PureTech formed each of its Founded Entities and has been involved in development efforts in varying degrees. In the case of each of the Company’s Controlled Founded Entities, the Company continues to maintain majority voting control. With respect to Non-Controlled Founded Entities, the Company may benefit from appreciation in its investment as a shareholder of such companies.
Other information contained within PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F, including graphs and tabular data, is not included in this Form 20-F unless specifically identified below. Photographs are also not included. References herein to PureTech websites are textual references only and information on or accessible through such websites does not form part of and is not incorporated into this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021.
|ITEM 1.||IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS.|
|ITEM 2.||OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE|
A. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
B. CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS
C. REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS
D. RISK FACTORS
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the heading “Risk Factor Annex" on pages 191 to 227 of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
|ITEM 4.||INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY|
A. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY
The information set forth under the headings "History and Development of the Company" on page 190 of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) maintains a website at www.sec.gov which contains in electronic form each of the reports and other information that we have filed electronically with the SEC.
B. BUSINESS OVERVIEW
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the following headings is incorporated by reference herein: “Highlights of the Year—2020” (for the years of 2018, 2019 and 2020) on pages 1 to 5, “Components of Value” on pages 6 to 7, “How PureTech is building value for investors” on pages 17 to 26, "PureTech’s Wholly Owned Programs" on pages 27 to 42, “PureTech’s Founded Entities" on page 43 to 59, “ESG Report—Patients” on page 61, “Risk Management—Risks related to regulatory approval" and "Risk Management—Risks related to intellectual property protection" on pages 69 to 70, “Financial Review—Revenue” on page 77, in each case of PureTech's "Annual Report and Accounts 2020" included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021, “Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income/(Loss)” , “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 3.—Revenue”, and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4.—Segment information”, in each case of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report. Seasonality does not materially impact the Company's main business.
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries utilize rapidly advancing technologies and are characterized by intense competition. There is also a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. We believe that expertise and capabilities across the BIG therapeutic areas, technology, drug discovery and development provide us with a competitive advantage. However, we will continue to face competition from different sources including major pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies, and public and private research institutions. In addition, there are companies that are working on potential medicines targeting the Brain-Immune-Gut and many companies that have approved therapeutics for some of our target indications. For any products that we eventually commercialize, we will not only compete with existing therapies but also compete with new therapies that may become available in the future.
In addition to the competition we will face from the parties described above, we face competition for certain of the product candidates we are developing internally.
We are aware of one current drug product candidate in development for secondary lymphedema. Herantis Pharma is developing Lymfactin, an adenoviral VEGF-C gene therapy used alongside lymph node transfer surgery to treat lymphedema.
The other current treatments for lymphedema include durable medical goods, such as compression sleeves and garments, and surgical options, including liposuction and debulking. A novel investigational surgery, lymph node transfer, is also being tested.
In the field of IPF, there are two approved drugs, pirfenidone (Esbriet), marketed by Roche, and nintedanib (Ofev), marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim. These drugs have unfavorable tolerability profiles, leading to sustained unmet need for novel therapies. Other potential competitive product candidates in various stages of development include, but are not limited to: Fibrogen’s pamrevlumab in Phase 3 clinical trials, Roche/Promedior, Inc.’s PRM-151 in Phase 3 clinical trials, United Therapeutics’ treprostinil which is expected to enter a Phase 3 trial in 2021, Liminal BioSciences’ PBI-4050 is in Phase 2 clinical development, Pliant Therapeutics’ PLN-74809 in Phase 2 clinical development, Boehringer Ingelheim’s BI1015550 in Phase 2 development, Kadmon Holding, Inc.’s KD025 in Phase 2 clinical development, BMS’ BMS-986278 in Phase 2 clinical development, BMS/Celgene’s CC-90001 in Phase 2 clinical development, Galecto’s GB0139 in Phase 2 clinical development, Galapagos’ GLPG-1205 in Phase 2 clinical development, Blade Therapeutics’s BLD-2660 in Phase 1 clinical development and Avalyn’s AP01 in Phase 1 clinical development.
In the field of COVID-19, there are numerous clinical trials for prevention of COVID-19 using vaccines, or for acute treatment of COVID-19 using anti-viral and anti-inflammatory agents. Few trials are underway targeting respiratory complications of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. The other potential competitive product candidates in development include: an investigator-sponsored study of pirfenidone in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, an investigator-sponsored study of nintedanib collaborating with Boehringer Ingelheim, and a pilot study of Treamid sponsored by PHARMENTERPRISES. Several pulmonary rehabilitation studies are also underway.
Although we are not aware of any direct competitors targeting galectin-9, if we are successful in developing LYT-200 as an immuno-oncology treatment we would expect to compete with currently approved IO therapies and those that may be developed in the future. Current marketed IO products include CTLA-4, such as BMS’ Yervoy, and PD-1/PD-L1, such as BMS’ Opdivo, Merck’s Keytruda and Genentech’s Tecentriq, and T cell engager immunotherapies, such as Amgen’s Blincyto. In addition, there are other academic groups and/or companies that may be involved in pre-clinical research centered around galectin-9 as a therapeutic target.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no competitors in the space of immunosuppressive γδ T cells. However, there are other academic groups and/or companies that are involved in pre-clinical and clinical research and development centered around cytotoxic gamma delta T cells.
In the field of GABAA positive allosteric modulators, there is one approved drug, allopregnanolone (Zulresso), marketed by Sage Therapeutics. This drug is administered via a 60 hour IV infusion, leading to sustained unmet need for novel therapies. Other potential competitive product candidates in various stages of development include, but are not limited to, Sage Therapeutics’s SAGE-217 (Zuranolone) in Phase 3 clinical development, Marinus Pharmaceuticals’s Ganaxolone in Phase 3 clinical development, Praxis’s PRAX-114 in Phase 2 clinical development and Eliem Therapeutics’ ETX-155 in Phase 1 clinical development.
We are not aware of any direct competitors to our Glyph, Orasome and meningeal lymphatics platforms, but they may compete with new therapies that become available in the future to target the indications we are focused on. There are several exosome programs being developed but to the best of our knowledge none of them are targeting oral delivery or using milk, thus differentiating our approach. Competitors developing exosomes or engineered exosomes to deliver payloads include Inc AstraZeneca plc, Capricor Therapeutics, Evox Therapeutics Ltd, ArunA Biomedical Inc, ExoCoBio Inc, Codiak Biosciences, Inc. and Exopharm Ltd.
Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of drugs, biological products and medical devices. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
U.S. Government Regulation of Drug and Biological Products
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations, such as those related to competition. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative actions or judicial sanctions. These actions and sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license revocation, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary or mandatory product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal fines or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business, the market acceptance of our products and our reputation.
Product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either a new drug application, or NDA, or a biologics license application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:
•completion of nonclinical, or preclinical, laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s GLP regulations;
•submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must take effect before human clinical trials may begin;
•approval by an independent IRB representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated at that site;
•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication;
•preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA, and payment of user fees;
•a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA or BLA to accept the application for substantive review;
•review of the product by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;
•satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug or biologic will be produced to assess compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug or biologic’s identity, strength, quality and purity;
•satisfactory completion of potential FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data; and
•FDA review and approval of the NDA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug or biologic in the United States.
Before testing any drug or biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations.
The IND and IRB Processes
An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug or biological product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational drug or biological product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of the investigational drug or biological product. In an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive AEs and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.
The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. At any time during this 30-day period, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.
Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial due to safety concerns or non-compliance with specific FDA requirements. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.
A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the FDA may accept data from such study if the sponsor ensures that the study is conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects. The FDA must also be able to validate the data from the study through an on-site inspection if necessary.
In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review of the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, often known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.
Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future frant funds from the federal government. The NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and both NIH and FDA recently signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.
The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:
•Phase 1. The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or, in certain indications such as cancer, patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.
•Phase 2. The drug is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.
•Phase 3. The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.
In August 2018, the FDA released a draft guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which provides information for drug developers regarding the design and conduct of first-in-human clinical trials designed to expedite the clinical development of cancer drugs, including biological products, through multiple expansion cohort trials. Expansion cohort trials are designed to expedite development by seamlessly proceeding from the initial determination of a potentially effective dose to individual cohorts that have trial objectives typical of Phase 2 trials, such as evaluation of anti-tumor activity, or confirming the safety of a RP2D. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA.
Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators 15 days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.
Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.
FDA Review Process
Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The NDA or BLA is a request for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.
The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.
Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, including in connection with an advisory committee meeting, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic
with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require the applicant to obtain additional clinical data, including the potential requirement to conduct additional pivotal clinical trial(s) and/or to complete other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, or to conduct additional preclinical studies or manufacturing activities. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
A sponsor may seek to develop and obtain approval of its product candidates under programs designed to accelerate the development, FDA review and approval of new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. For example, the FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that are intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. For a fast track-designated product, the FDA may consider sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.
A product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development or review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Priority review means that, for a new molecular entity or original BLA, the FDA sets a target date for FDA action on the marketing application at six months after accepting the application for filing as opposed to ten months. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application for a new molecular entity or original BLA is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.
A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates an effect on either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the disease or condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.
Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.
Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval.
Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The
FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.
The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.
FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. Manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including recall.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may issue enforcement letters or withdraw the approval of the product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the drug or biologic reaches the market. Corrective action could delay drug or biologic distribution and require significant time and financial expenditures. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or biologic, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary product recalls;
•fines, warning or untitled letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
•refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
•product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biologics may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.
In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.
Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product, known as a reference listed drug, or RLD. ANDAs are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject’s bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug.
Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, non 505(b)(2) NDA referencing the approved product or ANDA may be filed for substantive review by the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, which states the proposed 505(b)(2) or generic drug will not infringe one or more of the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.
The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity for non-NCE drugs if the NDA or a supplement to the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application or supplement. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication, but it generally would not protect the original, unmodified product from generic competition. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting 505(b)(2) NDAs referencing the approved drug product or ANDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; it only prevents FDA from approving such 505(b)(2) NDAs or ANDAs.
Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay
In seeking approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Upon submission of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the RLD in the Orange Book that:
•no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA;
•such patent has expired;
•the date on which such patent expires; or
•such patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted.
Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification, also known as a paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a paragraph IV certification the applicant must send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the paragraph IV certification. If the paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the paragraph IV certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation. If the drug has NCE exclusivity and the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA is submitted four years after approval, the 30-month stay is extended so that it expires seven and a half years after approval of the innovator drug, unless the patent expires or there is a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant before then.
Patent Term Restoration and Extension
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 200,000 or more individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.
Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.
Pediatric Information and Pediatric Exclusivity
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.
A drug or biologic product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.
Biosimilars and Exclusivity
Certain of our product candidates are regulated as biologics. An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCI Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA. This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to a biologic already licensed by the FDA pursuant to a BLA notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.
A reference biological product is granted four and twelve year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved,
warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.
U.S. Government Regulation of Medical Devices
Under the FDCA, a medical device is an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component part, or accessory which is: (i) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them; (ii) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or (iii) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve any of its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.
In the United States, medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA under the FDCA, and its implementing regulations, and certain other federal and state statutes and regulations. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, the research and development, design, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion, post-approval monitoring and reporting, distribution and import and export of medical devices. Failure to comply with applicable requirements may subject a device and/or its manufacturer to a variety of administrative sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending premarket applications, issuance of warning letters, mandatory product recalls, import detentions, civil monetary penalties, and/or judicial sanctions, such as product seizures, injunctions, and criminal prosecution. Unless an exemption applies, medical devices require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and premarket approval, or PMA approval; however, other devices may be commercialized after the FDA grants a de novo request.
The 510(k) Process
Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes—Class I, Class II or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness.
Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of regulations, referred to as General Controls, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which sets forth cGMP requirements for medical devices, facility registration and product listing, reporting of AEs and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Most Class I products are exempt from the premarket notification requirements.
Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, as well as Special Controls, which can include performance standards, guidelines and post market surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent,” as defined in the statute, to either
•a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, the date upon which the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 were enacted, o
•another commercially available, similar device that was cleared through the 510(k) process.
To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data are sometimes required to support substantial equivalence.
After a 510(k) notice is submitted, the FDA determines whether to accept it for substantive review. If it lacks necessary information for substantive review, the FDA will refuse to accept the 510(k) notification. If it is accepted for filing, the FDA begins a substantive review. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.
The De Novo and PMA Processes
If the FDA determines that the device is not “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, or if the device is classified into Class III by operation of law, the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous premarketing requirements of the PMA process, or seek classification of the device through the de novo process by submitting a de novo request. A manufacturer can also submit a direct de novo request if the manufacturer is unable to identify an appropriate predicate device and the new device or new use of the device presents a moderate or low risk.
In response to a de novo request, FDA may classify the device into class I or II. Under the FDCA, FDA must make a classification determination for the device that is the subject of the de novo request by written order within 120 days of the request. However, in accordance with the performance goals and procedures agreed to by FDA for the medical device user fee program in the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017, or MDUFA IV, FDA has committed to issuing a MDUFA decision within 150 FDA days of receipt of the submission for 65 percent of de novo requests received in fiscal year 2021. During the pendency of FDA’s review, FDA may issue an additional information letter, which places the de novo request on hold and stops the review clock pending receipt of the additional information requested. In the event the de novo requestor does not provide the requested information within 180 calendar days, FDA will consider the de novo request to be withdrawn.
If FDA determines that General Controls or General Controls and Special Controls are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness or the information and/or the data provided in the de novo request are insufficient to determine
whether General Controls or General Controls and Special Controls can provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, FDA will decline the de novo request. If a de novo request is declined, FDA issues a written order to the de novo requestor identifying the reasons for declining the de novo request and the device remains in class III and may not be marketed. The de novo requestor may submit a PMA or collect additional information to address the issues identified by FDA and submit a new de novo request that includes the additional information. Alternatively, in the event FDA determines the data and information submitted demonstrate that General Controls or General and Special Controls are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, FDA will grant the de novo request. When FDA grants a de novo request, the device is granted marketing authorization and further can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s. In December 2018, the FDA issued proposed regulations to govern the de novo classification process, which include requirements beyond what has historically been required in de novo submissions. If finalized, these regulations could further impact this path to market.
Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to those deemed not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by the General Controls and Special Controls described above. Therefore, these devices are subject to the PMA application process, which is generally more costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process. Through the PMA application process, the applicant must submit data and information demonstrating reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use to the FDA’s satisfaction. Accordingly, a PMA application typically includes, but is not limited to, extensive technical information regarding device design and development, preclinical and clinical study data, manufacturing information, labeling and financial disclosure information for the clinical investigators in device studies. The PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence that demonstrates to the FDA’s satisfaction reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. Overall, the FDA review of a PMA application generally takes between one and three years, but may take significantly longer.
If a manufacturer’s device falls into a generic category of Class I or Class II devices that FDA has exempted by regulation, a premarket notification is not required before marketing the device in the United States. Manufacturers of such devices are required to register their establishments and list the generic category or classification name of their devices. Some 510(k)-exempt devices are also exempt from QSR requirements, except for the QSR’s complaint handling and recordkeeping requirements.
The FDA has mechanisms to provide companies with guidance prior to formal submission of either a 510(k), de novo request or PMA. One such mechanism is the pre-submission program in which a company has a “pre-submission” meeting as outlined in the FDA guidance document “Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The Q-Submission Program” that was issued in January 2021. The main purpose of the pre-submission meeting is to provide companies with guidance from the FDA on matters of significance to product development and/or submission preparation. Prior to the pre-submission meeting, the company provides a briefing document to the FDA. The FDA is not obligated to follow the recommendations it provides to companies as a result of a pre-submission meeting.
A clinical trial is almost always required to support a PMA application or de novo request and is sometimes required for a premarket notification. For significant risk devices, the FDA regulations require that human clinical investigations conducted in the United States be approved via an investigational device exemption, or IDE, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a subject and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. A nonsignificant risk device does not require FDA approval of an IDE; however, the clinical trial must still be conducted in compliance with abbreviated IDE regulations, such as those relating to trial monitoring, informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping. In some cases, one or more smaller studies may precede a pivotal clinical trial intended to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the investigational device. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IDE is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE that require modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval. If the FDA disapproves the IDE within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IDE may not begin.
An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must also include a description of product manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. FDA typically grants IDE approval for a specified number of patients to be treated at specified study centers. During the study, the sponsor must comply with the FDA’s IDE requirements for investigator selection, trial monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The investigators must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices, and comply with all reporting and record keeping requirements. Certain IDE requirements apply to all investigational devices, whether such devices are considered significant or nonsignificant risks. Prior to granting PMA approval, the FDA typically inspects the records relating to the conduct of the study and the clinical data supporting the PMA application for compliance with IDE requirements.
Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations, including those related to good clinical practices, or GCPs, which are intended to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, investigators, and monitors; and (ii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Clinical trials are typically conducted at geographically diverse clinical trial sites, and are designed to permit FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the device and to provide adequate information for the
labeling of the device. Clinical trials for both significant and nonsignificant risk devices, must be approved by an IRB for each trial site.
The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial subjects. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.
Although the QSR does not fully apply to investigational devices, the requirement for controls on design and development does apply. The sponsor also must manufacture the investigational device in conformity with the quality controls described in the IDE application and any conditions of IDE approval that FDA may impose with respect to manufacturing. Investigational devices may only be distributed for use in an investigation, and must bear a label with the statement: “CAUTION—Investigational device. Limited by Federal law to investigational use.”
Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.
After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include:
•annual and updated establishment registration and device listing with the FDA;
•the QSR requirements, which require manufacturers to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation, complaint handling and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the design and manufacturing process;
•advertising and promotion requirements;
•restrictions on sale, distribution or use of a device;
•labeling and marketing regulations, which require that promotion is truthful, not misleading, and provide adequate directions for use and that all claims are substantiated, and also prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved or “off-label” uses and impose other restrictions on labeling;
•medical device reporting regulations, which require that a manufacturer report to the FDA if a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned and the device or a similar device that it markets would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, if the malfunction were to recur;
•correction, removal and recall reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections and product recalls or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health; and
•complying with the federal law and regulations requiring Unique Device Identifiers on devices and also requiring the submission of certain information about each device to the FDA’s Global Unique Device Identification Database.
FDA enforces these requirements by inspection and market surveillance. If the FDA finds a violation, it can institute a wide variety of enforcement actions, ranging from a public warning letter to more severe sanctions such as:
•warning letters, untitled letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, and civil penalties;
•recall, withdrawals, or administrative detention or seizure of products;
•operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;
•refusing or delating requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of new products or modified products;
•withdrawing PMA approvals or 510(k) clearances already granted;
•refusal to grant export or import approvals for marketing products; and
Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of products under development.
Some changes to an approved PMA device, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new PMA or PMA supplement, as appropriate, before the change can be implemented. Supplements to a PMA often require the submission of the same type of information required for an original PMA, except that the supplement is generally limited to that information needed to support the proposed change from the product covered by the original PMA. The FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing PMA supplements as it does in reviewing original PMAs.
Modifications to a device that received 510(k) clearance may require a new 510(k) submission if those changes could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, or if the modifications represent a major change in intended use. If the manufacturer determines that a modification could not substantially affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, it should document the changes and rationale for not submitting a new 510(k). Though the manufacturer is responsible for the initial assessment, FDA may disagree, and later require the manufacturer to submit a 510(k) for the modified device. FDA could require the manufacturer to cease marketing the modified device while the 510(k) notification is awaiting clearance.
European Union Drug Development
In the European Union, our future products and product candidates also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.
Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the European Union, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the Member State regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.
In April 2014, the EU passed the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are harmonized throughout the European Union, the new EU clinical trials legislation was passed as a Regulation that is directly applicable in all EU Member States. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC until the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 becomes applicable. It is expected that the new Regulation will apply following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS, the centralized European Union portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the regulation, through an independent audit, currently expected to occur in December 2021. The new Regulation will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the European Union, andaims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For instance, the new Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.
European Union Drug Marketing
Much like the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union and in the UK. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is usually governed by national anti-bribery laws of the EU Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU.
Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States and in the UK must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States and in the UK. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.
European Union Drug Review and Approval
In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is comprised of the Member States of the European Union,together with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. There are two main types of marketing authorizations.
•The centralized MA is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the EMA, and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (i.e. gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MA application by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MA application considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of a MA application under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.
•National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this national MA can be recognized in other Member
States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State, or RMS. The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics, or SmPC, and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States, or CMSs) for their approval. If the CMSs raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the CMSs).
Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.
Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized MAs will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized MA were automatically converted to Great Britain MAs on January 1, 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain MA. A separate application will, however, still be required.
European Data and Marketing Exclusivity
In the EEA, innovative medicinal products (including both small molecules and biological medicinal products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization, for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies.
European Orphan Designation and Exclusivity
In the EEA, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions which either affect no more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union, or where it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. In each case, no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition must have been authorized (or, if such a method exists, the product in question would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition).
In the EEA, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following marketing approval for the orphan product. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may only be granted to a “similar medicinal product” for the same indication at any time, if (i) the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan medicinal product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application, (ii) the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan medicinal product cannot supply sufficient quantities of the orphan medicinal product, or (iii) the second applicant can establish that the second medicinal product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized orphan medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
European Pediatric Investigation Plan
In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP (even where such results are negative) are eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval). In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.
European Union Device Development
In the European Union, medical devices are currently regulated under the European Union Directive (93/42/EEC), also known as the Medical Device Directive, or the MDD. Active Implantable Medical Devices are regulated under Directive 90/385/EEC, and In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices under Directive 98/79/EC (the IVDD). All medical devices require a CE mark to be placed on the market in the European Union. In order to obtain a CE mark, an authorized third party called a notified body, must conduct a conformity assessment of the device to confirm whether it complies with the essential safety and efficacy requirements in the medical devices legislation (except some lower risk, or “Class 1”, medical devices). The conformity assessment usually involves an audit of the manufacturer’s quality system and a review of the technical documentation from the manufacturer on the safety and performance of the device. If the notified body considers that the device is in conformity with the regulatory requirements, it will issue a conformity assessment certificate and the manufacturer of the device can place a CE mark on the device, allowing it to be marketed in any EU Member State .Notified bodies also conduct periodic inspections to ensure applicable regulatory requirements are met. The CE mark is contingent upon continued compliance to the applicable regulations and the quality system requirements of the ISO 13485 standard.
The new European Medical Devices Regulation (2017/745), or the EU MDR, and Regulation 2017/746 on In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices, or the EU IVDR, which were adopted in May 2017 with a transition period until May 26, 2021 for the EU MDR and May 26, 2022 for the EU IVDR, replace the MDD and IVDD. Starting May 26, 2021, the new EU MDR will apply and no new applications under the MDD will be permitted. During the transition period, companies need to update their technical documentation and other quality management system processes to meet the new EU MDR (or, as applicable, IVDR) requirements. Under the new EU MDR requirements, CE certificates issued under the MDD or IVDD prior to May 25, 2017 will remain valid in accordance with their term, beyond the expiration of the transition period; however, certain limitations set forth in the EU MDR (or, as applicable, the EU IVDR), such as the need to use classifications that are different from the previous directives, would apply, as well as the requirements of the EU MDR (or, as applicable, EU IVDR) relating to post-market surveillance, vigilance and registration of economic operators and devices will apply in place of the corresponding requirements of the MDD. CE certificates issued under the MDD or IVDD from May 25, 2017 until May 25, 2021 will remain valid in accordance with their term, but shall not exceed five years and shall become void after May 26, 2024. However, devices already placed on the market before May 26, 2024 under the previous directives may continue to be made available until May 26, 2026.
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as “Brexit”. In October 2019, a withdrawal agreement, or the Withdrawal Agreement, setting out the terms of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, and a political declaration on the framework for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union was agreed between the UK and EU governments. Under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom withdrew from membership of the European Union on 31 January 2020 and entered into a ‘transition period’ during which EU pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the UK, which expired on 31 December 2020. Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom, now that the UK legislation has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom in the long term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now that the transition period is over, which will be updated as the United Kingdom’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.
European and United Kingdom Data Collection Regulation
In the event we decide to conduct clinical trials in the European Union and/or the United Kingdom, we may be subject to additional data protection requirements. The collection and use of personal data (which includes health information) in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679, or GDPR. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the European Union. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for controllers of personal data, including requiring controllers to: ensure legal bases they rely on to process personal data are aligned to the legal bases prescribed under the GDPR; individuals are informed as to what personal data is collected from them, how it is used and how they can exercise certain rights in line with the increased disclosures; conduct data protection impact assessments for “high risk” processing; only retain personal data for as long as it is needed in line with the purpose it was obtained; ensure an appropriate level of security in line with the nature and scope of the personal data being processed, and where there has been a personal data breach (i.e. a breach to security which had led to personal data being compromised), notify the relevant supervisory authority and/or individuals affected; embed “privacy by design” practices into new technologies which involve the processing of personal data; enter into data processing terms and carry out appropriate due diligence on any service provider which processes personal data on behalf of the controller (and therefore qualifying as a processor). The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States may result in fines up to 20 million Euros or 4 percent of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim for material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. In addition, further to the United Kingdom's exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law (referred to as the 'UK GDPR'). The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data
protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The UK, however, is now regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR which means that transfers of personal data from the EEA to the UK will be restricted unless an appropriate safeguard, as recognized by the EU’s GDPR, has been put in place. Although, under the EU-UK Trade Cooperation Agreement it is lawful to transfer personal data between the UK and the EEA for a 6 month period following the end of the transition period, with a view to achieving an adequacy decision from the European Commission during that period. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection (this means that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing).
Given the breadth and depth of these data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR and UK GDPR will require significant time, resources and expense, and as an ongoing compliance measure we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms which help to ensure our compliance with the data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Rest of the World Regulation
For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations
If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.
Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.
Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.
The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.
Healthcare and Privacy Laws and Regulation
Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.
Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products and other medical items and services. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare and privacy laws and regulations, include the following:
•the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, or in return for, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. A person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the government may assert that a claim that includes items or
services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. Pursuant to an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the portion of the rule eliminating safe harbor protection for certain rebates related to the sale or purchase of a pharmaceutical product from a manufacturer to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D has been delayed to January 1, 2023. Implementation of the this change and new safe harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and pharmacy benefit manager service fees are currently under review by the Biden administration and may be amended or repealed;
•the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, or FCA, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false, fictitious or fraudulent; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false statement or record material to a false or fraudulent claim or obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government; or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil False Claims Act, the government may impose civil fines and penalties for each false claim, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs;
•the federal civil monetary penalties laws, which impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer or remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies;
•the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes civil and criminal liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
•HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;
•the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the Affordable Care Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. In addition, many states also require the reporting of payments or other transfers of value. In addition, many states also require reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts;
•federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers;
•federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products;
•analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers;
•many state laws govern the privacy of personal information in specified circumstances, for example, in California the California Consumer Protection Act, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope; and
•some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, and pricing information. Certain state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales and medical representatives. State and foreign laws, including for example the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, also govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health information, in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, in the event we obtain regulatory approval for any one of our products, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge and may not comply under one or more of such laws, regulations, and guidance. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Violations of these laws can subject us to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs.
At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug and other medical products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug and other medical products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.
In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic or other studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:
•a covered benefit under its health plan;
•safe, effective and medically necessary;
•appropriate for the specific patient;
•neither experimental nor investigational.
Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, or ASP, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.
The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Current and Future Legislation
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:
•created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic products, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;
•expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;
•expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising the definition of “average manufacturer price,” or AMP, for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices;
•addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;
•expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;
•established the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program by requiring manufacturers to provide a 50 percent point-of-sale-discount (increased to 70% as of January 1, 2019 pursuant to subsequent legislation) off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and
•created a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.
Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2 percent per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CMS has indicated that it is suspending the processing of claims in April 2021 to allow Congress to extend the pause of reductions in Medicare payments. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the previous administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. As a result, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing the previous administration’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. It is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to
determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. It is difficult to predict the future legislative landscape in healthcare and the effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. However, we expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, particularly in light of the new presidential administration.
While some proposed measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.
On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act. Drug manufacturers who provide their investigational product under the Right to Try Act are required to submit to FDA an annual summary of the use of their drug.
Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.
In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.
JOBS Act Exemptions and Foreign Private Issuer Status
We qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. This includes an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We may take advantage of this exemption for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.07 billion in total annual gross revenue, have more than $700.0 million in market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these provisions that allow for reduced reporting and other requirements.
We are considering whether we will take advantage of the extended transition period provided under Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Since IFRS makes no distinction between public and private companies for purposes of compliance with new or revised accounting standards, the requirements for our compliance as a private company and as a public company are the same.
We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, as long as we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we will be exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including:
•the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act;
•sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time;
•the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events; and
•Regulation FD, which regulates selective disclosures of material information by issuers.
C. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the headings “Highlights of the Year—Founded Entities” on pages 3 to 5, “How PureTech is building value for investors—Founded Entities” on pages 19 to 23, and “PureTech’s Founded Entities” on pages 43 to 59 in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
D. PROPERTY, PLANTS AND EQUIPMENT
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the headings “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 11. Property and Equipment” and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 21. Leases” in each case of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
|ITEM 4A.||UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS|
|ITEM 5.||OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS|
You should read the following discussion and analysis, including those portions incorporated herein by reference, together with our consolidated financial statements, including the notes thereto, incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 20-F. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or incorporated herein, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section incorporated herein by reference, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by these forward-looking statements.
Our audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 have been prepared in accordance with international accounting standards in conformity with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 as it applies in the European Union. The audited consolidated financial statements also comply fully with IFRSs as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board ("IASB").
The following discussion contains references to the consolidated financial statements of PureTech Health plc and its consolidated subsidiaries, or the Company. These financial statements consolidate the Company’s subsidiaries and include the Company’s interest in associates and investments held at fair value. Subsidiaries are those entities over which the Company maintains control. Associates are those entities in which the Company does not have control for financial accounting purposes but maintains significant influence over the financial and operating policies. Where we have neither control nor significant influence for financial accounting purposes, we recognize our holding in such entity as an investment at fair value. For purposes of our consolidated financial statements, each of our Founded Entities are considered to be either a “subsidiary” or an “associate” depending on whether PureTech Health plc controls or maintains significant influence over the financial and operating policies of the respective entity at the respective period end date. For additional information regarding the accounting treatment of these entities, see Note 1 of our consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference herein.
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the following headings is incorporated by reference herein: “Key Performance Indicators—2020” on page 73 and “Financial Review” on pages 74 to 88, “ of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1. Accounting Policies”, “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4.—Segment Information", “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5.—Investments held at fair value”, “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6.—Investments in Associates”, “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 22.—Capital and Financial Risk Management”, “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 23.—Commitments and Contingencies”, and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 28.—Subsequent Events”, in each case of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
We consider the Group’s working capital to be sufficient for its present requirements.
A. OPERATING RESULTS
2020 Compared with 2019
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the heading “Financial Review” on pages 74 to 88 of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
2019 Compared with 2018
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the heading “Financial Review” on pages 74 to 88 of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
The information (including tabular data) set forth or referenced under the headings “Risk Management—Brexit” on page 71, “Risk Management” on pages 69 to 71, of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 are incorporated by reference.
E. OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
As of December 31, 2020, our off-balance sheet arrangements consist of outstanding standby letters of credit. We have no other off-balance sheet arrangements that have had, or are reasonably likely to have, a material current or future effect on our consolidated financial statements or changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. See “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 13.—Other Financial Assets” included in our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
F. TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
Contractual Obligations and Commitments
The following table summarizes our contractual commitments and obligations as of December 31, 2020:
|(in thousands)||Total||2021||2022 to 2023||2024 to 2025||Thereafter|
|45,348 ||5,422 ||11,884 ||11,590 ||16,452 |
Subsidiary notes payable2
|26,455 ||26,455 ||— ||— ||— |
|15,000 ||— ||6,212 ||8,788 ||— |
|Interest payments and other fees on debt obligations4||7,206 ||3,426 ||2,098 ||1,682 ||— |
|5,061 ||5,061 ||— ||— ||— |
|Total Contractual Obligations||99,070 ||40,364 ||20,194 ||22,060 ||16,452 |
1 Includes future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable leases. See Note 21.
2 Principal commitment only. See Note 17.
3 Principal commitment only. See Note 20.
4 Represents interest and other fees to be paid through maturity date or expiration date of the related instrument. See Notes 17 and 20.
5 Represents estimated noncancellable commitments in respect of our agreements with contract research and manufacturing organizations.
Under various license and collaboration agreements we are required to make milestone payments upon successful completion and achievement of certain intellectual property, clinical, regulatory and sales milestones. We will also be required to make royalty payments in connection with the sale of products developed under these agreements, if and when such sales occur. As of December 31, 2020, these milestone events have not yet occurred and therefore the Company does not have a present obligation to make the related payments in respect of the licenses. We believe that the occurrence of many of these milestones is remote at this time. As of December 31, 2020 payments in respect of contingent developmental milestones that are dependent on events that are outside the control of the Company but are reasonably possible to occur amounted to approximately $5.3 million. These milestone amounts represent an aggregate of multiple milestone payments depending on different milestone events in multiple agreements. The probability that all such milestone events will occur in the aggregate is remote. We have not included these contingent milestone payments in the contractual obligations table as we are not able to predict when and if such milestone events will occur. Payments made to license IP represent the acquisition cost of intangible assets. For more information, see "Note 12 - Intangible Assets" to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
We present the preferred shares issued by our subsidiaries to third parties as liabilities. Such preferred shares are redeemable only upon liquidation or deemed liquidation (as defined in the subsidiaries' incorporation documents) of the respective subsidiaries. These liabilities were not included in the contractual obligations table since we are unable to predict when and if such liquidation or deemed liquidation events will occur, and therefore when and if such shares will be redeemed, if at all.
|ITEM 6.||DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES|
A. DIRECTORS AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT
The information (including tabular data) set forth under the heading “Board of Directors” on pages 90 to 91, “Management team” on pages 93 to 94 and "Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2020” on pages 100 to 103 in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020" included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the following headings is incorporated by reference herein: “Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2020” on pages 100 to 103, “Directors’ Remuneration Report for the year ended December 31, 2020” on pages 107 to 108, “Directors’ Remuneration Policy” on pages 109 to 113, “Annual Report on Remuneration” on pages 114 to 120, in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8.—Share-Based Payments” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
C. BOARD PRACTICES
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the headings “The Board” on pages 95 to 99,“Report of the Nomination Committee” on page 104, “Report of the Audit Committee” on pages 105 to 106, and “Directors’ Remuneration Report for the year ended December 31, 2020” on pages 107 to 108, in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
The information (including tabular data) set forth under the heading “ESG Report—People” on pages 62 to 63 of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
E. SHARE OWNERSHIP
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the headings “Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2020” on pages 100 to 103 and “Annual Report on Remuneration” on pages 114 to 120, in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
|ITEM 7.||MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS|
A. MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS
The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our ordinary shares as of by:
•each of our directors;
•each of our executive officers; and
•each person, or group of affiliated persons, who is known by us to beneficially own more than 3 percent of our outstanding ordinary shares.
The column entitled “Percentage of Shares Beneficially Owned” is based on a total of 285,898,746 ordinary shares outstanding as of March 31, 2021.
Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC and includes voting or investment power with respect to our ordinary shares. Ordinary shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days after March 31, 2021 are considered outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding the options for the purpose of calculating the percentage ownership of that person but not for the purpose of calculating the percentage ownership of any other person. Except as otherwise noted, the persons and entities in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all of the ordinary shares beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws, where applicable. Except as otherwise set forth below, the address of the beneficial owner is c/o PureTech Health, 6 Tide Street, Suite 400, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. The information in the table below is based on information known to us or ascertained by us from public filings made by the shareholders. We have also set forth below information known to us regarding any significant change in the percentage ownership of our ordinary shares by any major shareholders during the past three years. The major shareholders listed below do not have voting rights with respect to their ordinary shares that are different from the voting rights of other holders of our ordinary shares.
|NAME OF BENEFICIAL OWNER||PERCENTAGE OF SHARES|
|3 Percent Stockholders|
Invesco Asset Management Limited1
Baillie Gifford & Co2
Lansdowne Partners Limited3
Miller Value Partners4
M&G Investment Management, LTD5
|Executive Officers and Directors|
Stephen Muniz, J.D.8
|Bharatt Chowrira, Ph.D., J.D.||*|
|Raju Kucherlapati, Ph.D.||*|
|John LaMattina, Ph.D.||*|
Robert Langer, Sc.D.9
|Dame Marjorie Scardino||*|
* Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1 percent of our outstanding ordinary shares.
1 Consists of 67,725,079 shares beneficially held. The address for Invesco Asset Management Limited is c/o 43-45 Portman Square, London W1H GLY, United Kingdom.
2 Consists of 30,735,622 shares beneficially held. The address for Baillie Gifford & Co. is c/o Calton Square, 1 Greenside Row, Edinburgh EH1 3AN, United Kingdom.
3 Consists of 20,490,609 shares beneficially held. The address for Lansdowne Partners Limited is c/o 15 Davies Street, London W1K 3AG, United Kingdom.
4 Consists of 10,035,100 shares beneficially held. The address for Miller Value Partners is c/o 1 South Street #2550, Baltimore, MD 21202.
5 Consists of 9,687,887 shares beneficially held. The address for M&G Investment Management, LTD is c/o 10 Fenchurch Avenue London EC3M 5BM, United Kingdom.
6 Consists of 9,544,140 shares beneficially held. The address for Recordati S.p.A. is c/o Via Civitali, 1, 20148 Milano, Italy.
7 Consists of an aggregate of 12,197,307 shares held by (i) the Zohar Family Trust I, a U.S. established trust of which Ms. Zohar is a beneficiary and trustee (ii) the Zohar Family Trust II, a U.S. established trust of which Ms. Zohar is a beneficiary (in the event of her spouse’s death) and trustee; (iii) Zohar LLC, a U.S. established limited liability company and (iv) Ms. Zohar directly. Ms. Zohar owns or has a beneficial interest in 100 percent of the share capital of Zohar LLC.
8 Consists of 2,889,499 shares beneficially held.
9 Consists of an aggregate of 2,944,134 shares held by (i) Langer Family 2020 Trust and (ii) Dr. Langer directly.
We are not aware that the Company is directly owned or controlled by another corporation, any foreign government or any other natural or legal person(s) severally or jointly. We are not aware of any arrangement, the operation of which may result in a change of control of the Company.
The number of record holders in the United States is not representative of the number of beneficial holders nor is it representative of where such beneficial holders are resident since many of these ordinary shares were held by brokers or other nominees. As of March 31, 2021, assuming that all of our ordinary shares represented by ADSs are held by residents of the United States, we
estimate that approximately 27% of our outstanding ordinary shares were held in the United States by approximately 102 holders of record.
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the headings “Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2020—Substantial Shareholders” on page 101 and “Annual Report on Remuneration” on page 118, in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 is incorporated by reference.
Change in Ownership of Major Shareholders
The following ownership changes are based upon the reported ownership of the respective shareholders in each of our annual reports and accounts for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020.
From 2019 to 2020, changes in ownership of major shareholders were approximately as follows: Invesco Asset Management Limited’s decreased from 31.6% to 23.7%, Baillie Gifford & Co.’s ownership increased from 9.1% to 10.8%, Landsdowne Partners International Limited decreased from 8.3% to 7.2%, Jupiter Asset Management Ltd. decreased from 8.2% to less than 3% and Miller Value Partners increased to 3.5%.
From 2018 to 2019, changes in ownership of major shareholders were approximately as follows: Landsdowne Partners International Limited decreased from 9.7% to 8.3% and Jupiter Asset Management Ltd. increased from 6.5% to 8.2%.
B. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The information (including graphs and tabular data) set forth under the following headings is incorporated reference herein: headings “Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2020—Related party transactions” on page 101, “Highlights of the Year – 2020” on pages 1 to 5, and “How PureTech is building value for investors—Founded Entities” on pages 17 to 26. in each case of PureTech’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2020” included as exhibit 15.1 to this Form 20-F dated April 15, 2021 and “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 24—Related Party Transactions” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.
C. INTERESTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL
|ITEM 8.||FINANCIAL INFORMATION|
A. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Consolidated Financial Statements
Please see the information below under the heading Item 18—“Financial Statements.”
Dividend Distribution Policy
We have never declared or paid any dividends on our ordinary shares, and we currently do not plan to declare or pay dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. Under English law, we may only pay dividends if our accumulated realized profits, which have not been previously distributed or capitalized, exceed our accumulated realized losses, so far as such losses have not been previously written off in a reduction or reorganization of capital. Therefore, we must have sufficient distributable profits before issuing a dividend. Distributable profits are determined at the holding company level and not on a consolidated basis. Subject to such restrictions and to any restrictions set out in the Articles of Association, declaration and payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors (the "Board") (and in the case of final dividends, must be approved by our shareholders), and will depend upon such factors as results of operations, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, our overall financial condition or applicable laws and any other factors deemed relevant by the Board.
As of the date of this annual report, we were not party to any material legal matters or claims. In the future, we may become party to legal matters and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Except as otherwise disclosed in this Form 20-F, no significant change has occurred since the date of the most recent financial statements included in this Form 20-F.
|ITEM 9.||THE OFFER AND LISTING|
A. OFFER AND LISTING DETAILS
Our ADSs have been listed on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “PRTC” since November 16, 2020. Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our ADSs. Our ordinary shares have been trading on the main market of the London Stock Exchange since June 2015 under the ticker code “PRTC.” Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our ordinary shares.
B. PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
The ADSs have been listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “PRTC” since November 16, 2020 and our ordinary shares have been listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange since June 2015.
D. SELLING SHAREHOLDERS
F. EXPENSES OF THE ISSUE
|ITEM 10.||ADDITIONAL INFORMATION|
A. SHARE CAPITAL
B. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
Section 31 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that the objects of a company are unrestricted unless any restrictions are set out in the articles. There are no such restrictions in the Articles and our objects are therefore unrestricted.
Subject to any rights or restrictions attached to any shares, on a show of hands:
•every shareholder who is entitled to vote on the resolution and who is present in person has one vote;
•every shareholder who is entitled to vote on the resolution and who is present in person has one vote;
•a proxy has one vote for and one vote against the resolution(s) if he has been duly appointed by more than one shareholder entitled to vote on the resolution and either (i) is instructed by one or more of those shareholders to vote for the resolution and by one or more others to vote against it; or (ii) is instructed by one or more of those shareholders to vote in one way and is given a discretion as to how to vote by one or more others (and wishes to use that discretion to vote in the other way);
•subject to any rights or restrictions attached to any shares, on a poll every shareholder who is entitled to vote on the resolutions and is present in person or by proxy shall have one vote for every share of which he is the holder;
•where there are joint holders of a share, the vote of the senior who tenders a vote, whether in person or by proxy, shall be accepted to the exclusion of the vote or votes of the other joint holder or holders. Seniority is determined by the order in which the names of the holders stand in the register; and
•unless the Board otherwise determines, a shareholder shall not be entitled to vote unless all calls or other sums due and payable from him in respect of shares in our company have been paid.
Subject to the Companies Act 2006 and the Articles, we may by ordinary resolution declare dividends, but no such dividends shall exceed the amount recommended by the Board. Subject to the Companies Act 2006, the Board may declare and pay such interim dividends (including any dividend payable at a fixed rate) as appear to the Board to be justified by the profits of our company available for distribution.
Except as otherwise provided by the rights attached to shares, all dividends shall be declared and paid according to the amounts paid up or credited as paid up (other than amounts paid in advance of calls) on the shares in respect of which the dividend is paid and shall be apportioned and paid proportionately to the amounts paid up on such shares during any portion or portions of the period in respect of which the dividend is paid.
Dividends may be declared or paid in whatever currency the Board decides. Unless otherwise provided by the rights attached to the shares, dividends shall not carry a right to receive interest.
All dividends unclaimed for a period of 12 years after having been declared or becoming due for payment shall be forfeited and cease to remain owing by us.
The Board may, with the authority of an ordinary resolution of our company:
•offer holders of ordinary shares the right to elect to receive further ordinary shares, credited as fully paid, instead of cash in respect of all or part of any dividend or dividends specified by the ordinary resolution; and
•direct that payment of all or part of any dividend declared may be satisfied by the distribution of specific assets.
There are no fixed or specified dates on which entitlements to dividends payable by us arise.
In certain circumstances, shareholders may have statutory pre-emption rights under the Companies Act 2006 in respect of the allotment of new shares in our company. These statutory pre-emption rights would require us to offer new shares for allotment to existing shareholders on a pro rata basis before allotting them to other persons. In such circumstances, the procedure for the exercise of such statutory pre-emption rights would be set out in the documentation by which such shares would be offered to shareholders.
Distribution of Assets on a Winding-Up
On a winding up, a liquidator may, with the authority of a special resolution of our company and any other sanction required by law divide among the shareholders in kind the whole or any part of the assets of our company, whether or not the assets consist of property of one kind or different kinds and may for such purposes set such value as he considers fair upon any one or more class or classes of property and may determine how such division shall be carried out as between the Shareholders or different classes of Shareholders. The liquidator may, with the same authority, transfer any part of the assets to trustees on such trusts for the benefit of shareholders as the liquidator, with the same authority, thinks fit and the liquidation may then be closed and our company dissolved, but so that no Shareholder shall be compelled to accept any shares or other property in respect of which there is a liability.
Transfer of Shares
Every transfer of shares which are in certificated form must be in writing in any usual form or in any form approved by the Board and shall be executed by or on behalf of the transferor and (in the case of a transfer of a share which is not fully paid up) by or on behalf of the transferee.
Every transfer of shares which are in uncertificated form must be made by means of a relevant system (such as CREST).
The Board may, in its absolute discretion and without giving reason, refuse to register any transfer of certificated shares if: (a) it is in respect of a share which is not fully paid up (provided that, if such share is admitted to trading on a recognised investment exchange, the refusal does not prevent dealings in our company’s shares from taking place on an open and proper basis); (b) it is in respect of more than one class of share; (c) it is not duly stamped (if so required)or duly certified or otherwise shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be exempt from stamp duty; or (d) it is not delivered for registration to the registered office of our company or such other place as the Board may from time to time determine, accompanied (except in the case of a transfer by a recognized person (as defined in the Articles) where a certificate has not been issued) by the relevant share certificate and such other evidence as the Board may reasonably require to show the right of the transferor to make the transfer and, if the transfer is signed by some other person on his behalf, the authority of that person to do so.
The Board may, in its absolute discretion and without giving reason, refuse to register any transfer or allotment of shares which is in favor of: (a) a child, bankrupt or person of unsound mind; or (b) more than four joint transferees
Restrictions on Voting Rights
If a member or any person appearing to be interested in shares held by such a member has been duly served with a notice under section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 and has failed in relation to any shares (“default shares”)
Variation of Class Rights
Subject to the Companies Act 2006, all or any of the rights or privileges attached to any class of shares in our company may be varied or abrogated in such manner (if any) as may be provided by such rights, or, in the absence of any such provision, either with the consent in writing of the holders of at least three-fourths of the nominal amount of the issued shares of that class or with the sanction of a special resolution passed at a separate meeting of such holders of shares of that class, but not otherwise. The quorum at any such meeting (other than an adjourned meeting) is two persons holding or representing by proxy at least one third in nominal amount of the issued shares of the class in question.
The rights attached to any class of shares shall not, unless otherwise expressly provided in the rights attaching to such shares, be deemed to be varied or abrogated by the creation or issue of shares ranking pari passu with or subsequent to them or by the purchase or redemption by us of any of our own shares.
Share Capital, Changes in Capital and Purchase of Own Shares
Subject to the Companies Act 2006 and to the Articles, the power to allot and issue shares shall be exercised by the Board at such times and on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine.
Subject to the Articles and to any rights attached to any existing shares, any share may be issued with such rights or restrictions as we may from time to time determine by ordinary resolution.
We may issue redeemable shares and the Board may determine the terms, conditions and manner of redemption of such shares, provided it does so before the shares are allotted.
The Board may convene a general meeting whenever it thinks fit.
Pursuant to the Companies Act 2006, an annual general meeting shall be called on not less than 21 clear days’ notice. All other general meetings shall be called by not less than 14 clear days’ notice.
The quorum for a general meeting is two shareholders present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote.
The Board and, at any general meeting, the chairman of the meeting may make any arrangement and impose any requirement or restriction which it or he considers appropriate to ensure the security or orderly conduct of the meeting. This may include requirements for evidence of identity to be produced by those attending, the searching of their personal property and the restriction of items which may be taken into the meeting place.
Appointment of Directors
Unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution, there shall be no maximum number of directors, but the number of directors shall not be less than two. Subject to the Companies Act 2006 and the Articles, we may by ordinary resolution appoint any person who is willing to act as a director either as an additional director or to fill a vacancy. The Board may also appoint any person who is willing to act as a director, subject to the Companies Act 2006 and the Articles. Any person appointed by the Board as a director will hold office only until conclusion of the next annual general meeting, unless he is re-elected during such meeting.
The Board may appoint any director to hold any employment or executive office in our company and may also revoke or terminate any such appointment (without prejudice to any claim for damages for breach of any service contract between the director and our company). ordinary resolution appoint any person who is willing to act as a director either as an additional director or to fill a vacancy. The Board may also appoint any person who is willing to act as a director, subject to the Companies Act 2006 and the Articles. Any person appointed by the Board as a director will hold office only until conclusion of the next annual general meeting, unless he is re-elected during such meeting.
The Board may appoint any director to hold any employment or executive office in our company and may also revoke or terminate any such appointment (without prejudice to any claim for damages for breach of any service contract between the director and our company).
Retirement and Removal of Directors
Our Articles provide that at each annual general meeting of our company, one-third of the directors who are subject to retirement by rotation or, if their number is not three, the number nearest to but not exceeding one third shall retire from office unless there are fewer than three directors who are subject to retirement by rotation, in which case only one shall retire from office. However, in accordance with the U.K. Corporate Governance Code and best practice, at each annual general meeting all of our directors retire from office and put themselves forward for re-election. In addition, any director who has been a director at each of the preceding two annual general meetings shall also retire. Each such director may, if eligible, offer himself for re-election. If our company, at the meeting at which a director retires, does not fill the vacancy the retiring director shall, if willing, be deemed to have been reappointed unless it is expressly resolved not to fill the vacancy or a resolution for the reappointment of the director is put to the meeting and lost.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, our company may by ordinary resolution remove any director before the expiration of his period of office and may by ordinary resolution appoint another director in his place.
Subject to the Companies Act 2006 and provided that he has disclosed to the directors the nature and extent of any interest, a director is able to enter into contracts or other arrangements with us, hold any other office (except auditor) with us or be a director, employee or otherwise interested in any company in which our company is interested. Such a director shall not be liable to account to us for any profit, remuneration or other benefit realized by any such office, employment, contract, arrangement or proposal.
Save as otherwise provided by the Articles, a director shall not vote on, or be counted in the quorum in relation to, any resolution of the Board concerning any contract, arrangement, transaction or proposal to which our company is or is to be a party and in which he (together with any person connected with him) is to his knowledge materially interested, directly or indirectly. Interests of which the director is not aware, interests which cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest and interests arising purely as a result of an interest in our company’s shares, debentures or other securities are disregarded. However, a director can vote and be counted in the quorum where the resolution relates to any of the following:
•the giving of any guarantee, security or indemnity in respect of (i) money lent or obligations incurred by him or by any other person at the request of or for the benefit of our company or any of its subsidiary undertakings or (ii) a debt or obligation of our company or any of its subsidiary undertakings for which the director himself has assumed responsibility in whole or in part under a guarantee or indemnity or by the giving of security;
•the participation of the director, in an offer of securities of our company or any of its subsidiary undertakings, including participation in the underwriting or sub-underwriting of the offer;
•a proposal involving another company in which he and any persons connected with him has a direct or indirect interest of any kind, unless he and any persons connected with him hold an interest in shares representing one percent or more of either any class of equity share capital, or the voting rights, in such company;
•any arrangement for the benefit of employees of our company or of any of its subsidiary undertakings which does not award the director any privilege or benefit not generally awarded to the employees to whom such arrangement relates;
•any proposal concerning the purchase or maintenance of any insurance policy under which he may benefit;
•any proposal concerning indemnities in favor of directors or the funding of expenditure by one or more directors on defending proceedings against such director(s).
A director shall not vote or be counted in the quorum on any resolution of the Board concerning his own appointment (including fixing or varying the terms of his appointment or its termination) as the holder of any office or place of profit with our company or any company in which our company is interested.
The Board may authorize any matter that would otherwise involve a Director breaching his duty under the Companies Act 2006 to avoid conflicts of interest, provided that the interested director(s) do not vote or count in the quorum in relation to any resolution authorizing the matter. The Board may authorize the relevant matter on such terms as it may determine including:
•whether the interested director(s) may vote or be counted in the quorum in relation to any resolution relating to the relevant matter;
•the exclusion of the interested director(s) from all information and discussion by our company of the relevant matter; and
•the imposition of confidentiality obligations on the interested director(s).
An interested director must act in accordance with any terms determined by the Board. An authorization of a relevant matter may also provide that where the interested director obtains information that is confidential to a third party (other than through his position as director) he will not be obliged to disclose it to our company or to use it in relation to our company’s affairs, if to do so would amount to a breach of that confidence.
Powers of the Directors
Subject to the Articles and to any directions given by special resolution of the Company, the business of the Company shall be managed by the Board, which may exercise all the powers of the Company whether relating to the management of the business or not.
Differences in Corporate Law
The applicable provisions of the Companies Act 2006 differ from laws applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. Set forth below is a summary of certain differences between the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 applicable to us and the
Delaware General Corporation Law relating to shareholders’ rights and protections. This summary is not intended to be a complete discussion of the respective rights and it is qualified in its entirety by reference to Delaware law and English law.
| || ||ENGLAND AND WALES|| ||DELAWARE|
|Number of Directors|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, a public limited company must have at least two directors and the number of directors may be fixed by or in the manner provided in a company’s articles of association.|| ||Under Delaware law, a corporation must have at least one director and the number of directors shall be fixed by or in the manner provided in the bylaws.|
|Removal of Directors|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, shareholders may remove a director without cause by an ordinary resolution (which is passed by a simple majority of those voting in person or by proxy at a general meeting) irrespective of any provisions of any service contract the director has with the company, provided 28 clear days’ notice of the resolution has been given to the company and its shareholders. On receipt of notice of an intended resolution to remove a director, the company must forthwith send a copy of the notice to the director concerned. Certain other procedural requirements under the Companies Act 2006 must also be followed such as allowing the director to make representations against his or her removal either at the meeting or in writing.|| ||Under Delaware law, any director or the entire board of directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the holders of a majority of the shares then entitled to vote at an election of directors, except (a) unless the certificate of incorporation provides otherwise, in the case of a corporation whose board of directors is classified, shareholders may effect such removal only for cause, or (b) in the case of a corporation having cumulative voting, if less than the entire board of directors is to be removed, no director may be removed without cause if the votes cast against his removal would be sufficient to elect him if then cumulatively voted at an election of the entire board of directors, or, if there are classes of directors, at an election of the class of directors of which he is a part.|
|Vacancies on the Board of Directors|| ||Under English law, the procedure by which directors, other than a company’s initial directors, are appointed is generally set out in a company’s articles of association, provided that where two or more persons are appointed as directors of a public limited company by resolution of the shareholders, resolutions appointing each director must be voted on individually.|| ||Under Delaware law, vacancies and newly created directorships may be filled by a majority of the directors then in office (even though less than a quorum) or by a sole remaining director unless (a) otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation or by-laws of the corporation or (b) the certificate of incorporation directs that a particular class of stock is to elect such director, in which case a majority of the other directors elected by such class, or a sole remaining director elected by such class, will fill such vacancy.|
|Annual General Meeting|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, a public limited company must hold an annual general meeting within the six-month period following the company’s annual accounting reference date.|| ||Under Delaware law, the annual meeting of stockholders shall be held at such place, on such date and at such time as may be designated from time to time by the board of directors or as provided in the certificate of incorporation or by the bylaws.|
|General Meeting|| |
Under the Companies Act 2006, a general meeting of the shareholders of a public limited company may be called by the directors.
Shareholders holding at least 5 percent of the paid-up capital of the company carrying voting rights at general meetings can require the directors to call a general meeting and, if the directors fail to do so within 21 days (with the meeting to be held not more than 28 days after the date of the notice),, may themselves convene a general meeting.
| ||Under Delaware law, special meetings of the stockholders may be called by the board of directors or by such person or persons as may be authorized by the certificate of incorporation or by the bylaws.|
|Notice of General Meetings|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, 21 clear days’ notice must be given for an annual general meeting and any resolutions to be proposed at the meeting. Subject to a company’s articles of association providing for a longer period, at least 14 clear days’ notice is required for any other general meeting. In addition, certain matters, such as the removal of directors or auditors, require special notice, which is 28 clear days’ notice. The shareholders of a company may in all cases consent to a shorter notice period, the proportion of shareholders’ consent required being 100 percent of those entitled to attend and vote in the case of an annual general meeting and, in the case of any other general meeting, a majority in number of the members having a right to attend and vote at the meeting, being a majority who together hold not less than 95 percent in nominal value of the shares giving a right to attend and vote at the meeting.|| ||Under Delaware law, unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, written notice of any meeting of the stockholders must be given to each stockholder entitled to vote at the meeting not less than ten nor more than 60 days before the date of the meeting and shall specify the place, date, hour, and purpose or purposes of the meeting.|
|Proxy|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, at any meeting of shareholders, a shareholder may designate another person to attend, speak and vote at the meeting on their behalf by proxy.|| |
Under Delaware law, at any meeting of stockholders, a stockholder may designate another person to act for such stockholder by proxy, but no such proxy shall be voted or acted upon after three years from its date, unless the proxy provides for a longer period. A director of a Delaware corporation may not issue a proxy representing the director’s voting rights as a director.
|Pre-emptive Rights|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006, “equity securities”, being (i) shares in the company other than shares that, with respect to dividends and capital, carry a right to participate only up to a specified amount in a distribution (“ordinary shares”) or (ii) rights to subscribe for, or to convert securities into, ordinary shares, proposed to be allotted for cash must be offered first to the existing equity shareholders in the company in proportion to the respective nominal value of their holdings, unless an exception applies or a special resolution to the contrary has been passed by shareholders in a general meeting or the articles of association provide otherwise in each case in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006.|| ||Under Delaware law, shareholders have no preemptive rights to subscribe to additional issues of stock or to any security convertible into such stock unless, and except to the extent that, such rights are expressly provided for in the certificate of incorporation.|
|Authority to Allot|| ||Under the Companies Act 2006 the directors of a company must not allot shares or grant of rights to subscribe for or to convert any security into shares unless an exception applies or an ordinary resolution to the contrary has been passed by shareholders in a general meeting or the articles of association provide otherwise in each case in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006.|| ||Under Delaware law, if the corporation’s charter or certificate of incorporation so provides, the board of directors has the power to authorize the issuance of stock. It may authorize capital stock to be issued for consideration consisting of cash, any tangible or intangible property or any benefit to the corporation or any combination thereof. It may determine the amount of such consideration by approving a formula. In the absence of actual fraud in the transaction, the judgment of the directors as to the value of such consideration is conclusive.|
|Liability of Directors and Officers|| |
Under the Companies Act 2006, any provision, whether contained in a company’s articles of association or any contract or otherwise, that purports to exempt a director of a company, to any extent, from any liability that would otherwise attach to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company is void.
Any provision by which a company directly or indirectly provides an indemnity, to any extent, for a director of the company or of an associated company against any liability attaching to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company of which he is a director is also void except as permitted by the Companies Act 2006, which provides exceptions for the company to (a) purchase and maintain insurance against such liability; (b) provide a “qualifying third party indemnity” (being an indemnity against liability incurred by the director to a person other than the company or an associated company or criminal proceedings in which he is not convicted); and (c) provide a “qualifying pension scheme indemnity” (being an indemnity against liability incurred in connection with the company’s activities as trustee of an occupational pension plan).
Under Delaware law, a corporation’s certificate of incorporation may include a provision eliminating or limiting the personal liability of a director to the corporation and its stockholders for damages arising from a breach of fiduciary duty as a director. However, no provision can limit the liability of a director for::
• any breach of the director’s duty of loyalty to the corporation or its stockholders;
• acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;
• intentional or negligent payment of unlawful dividends or stock purchases or redemptions; or
• any transaction from which the director derives an improper personal benefit.
|Voting Rights|| |
Under English law, unless a poll is demanded by the shareholders of a company or is required by the chairman of the meeting or the company’s articles of association, shareholders shall vote on all resolutions on a show of hands. Under the Companies Act 2006, a poll may be demanded by (a) not fewer than five shareholders having the right to vote on the resolution; (b) any shareholder(s) representing not less than 10 percent of the total voting rights of all the shareholders having the right to vote on the resolution; or (c) any shareholder(s) holding shares in the company conferring a right to vote on the resolution being shares on which an aggregate sum has been paid up equal to not less than 10 percent of the total sum paid up on all the shares conferring that right. A company’s articles of association may provide more extensive rights for shareholders to call a poll.
Under English law, an ordinary resolution is passed on a show of hands if it is approved by a simple majority (more than 50 percent) of the votes cast by shareholders present (in person or by proxy) and entitled to vote. If a poll is demanded, an ordinary resolution is passed if it is approved by holders representing a simple majority of the total voting rights of shareholders present, in person or by proxy, who, being entitled to vote, vote on the resolution. Special resolutions require the affirmative vote of not less than 75 percent of the votes cast by shareholders present, in person or by proxy, at the meeting and entitled to vote.
| ||Delaware law provides that, unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, each stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of capital stock held by such stockholder.|
|Shareholder Vote on Certain Transactions|| |
The Companies Act 2006 provides for schemes of arrangement, which are arrangements or compromises between a company and any class of shareholders or creditors and used in certain types of reconstructions, amalgamations, capital reorganizations or takeovers. These arrangements require:
• the approval at a shareholders’ or creditors’ meeting convened by order of the court, of a majority in number of shareholders or creditors representing 75 percent in value of the capital held by, or debt owed to, the class of shareholders or creditors, or class thereof present and voting, either in person or by proxy; and
• the approval of the court.
Generally, under Delaware law, unless the certificate of incorporation provides for the vote of a larger portion of the stock, completion of a merger, consolidation, sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all of a corporation’s assets or dissolution requires:
• the approval of the board of directors; and
• approval by the vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding stock or, if the certificate of incorporation provides for more or less than one vote per share, a majority of the votes of the outstanding stock of a corporation entitled to vote on the matter
|Standard of Conduct for Directors|| |
Under English law, a director owes various statutory and fiduciary duties to the company, including:
• to act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole;
• to avoid a situation in which he has, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly conflicts, with the interests of the company;
• to act in accordance with the company’s constitution and only exercise his powers for the purposes for which they are conferred;
• to exercise independent judgment;
• to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence;
• not to accept benefits from a third party conferred by reason of his being a director or doing, or not doing, anything as a director; and
• a duty to declare any interest that he has, whether directly or indirectly, in a proposed or existing transaction or arrangement with the company.
Delaware law does not contain specific provisions setting forth the standard of conduct of a director. The scope of the fiduciary duties of directors is generally determined by the courts of the State of Delaware. In general, directors have a duty to act without self-interest, on a well-informed basis and in a manner they reasonably believe to be in the best interest of the stockholders.
Directors of a Delaware corporation owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the corporation and to its shareholders. The duty of care generally requires that a director act in good faith, with the care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. Under this duty, a director must inform himself of all material information reasonably available regarding a significant transaction. The duty of loyalty requires that a director act in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation. He must not use his corporate position for personal gain or advantage. In general, but subject to certain exceptions, actions of a director are presumed to have been made on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the corporation. However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence of a breach of one of the fiduciary duties. Delaware courts have also imposed a heightened standard of conduct upon directors of a Delaware corporation who take any action designed to defeat a threatened change in control of the corporation.
In addition, under Delaware law, when the boar