e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
|
|
|
For the Fiscal
Year Ended December 31,
2010
|
o
|
|
Transition Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
|
Commission File
No. 001-33637
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Tennessee
State or other jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or organization
|
|
62-1765329
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
2525 West End Avenue,
Suite 950, Nashville, Tennessee
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
|
37203
(Zip
Code)
|
(615) 255-0068
(Registrants telephone
number, Including area code)
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common stock, no par value
|
|
Nasdaq Global Select Market
|
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter time that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated
filer o
|
Accelerated
filer þ
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Act.)
Yes o No þ
The number of shares of the registrants Common Stock, no
par value, outstanding as of March 1, 2011 was 20,411,484.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Certain information required in Part III of
Form 10-K
is incorporated by reference from the registrants Proxy
Statement for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders.
CUMBERLAND
PHARMACEUTICALS INC. INDEX
Part I
Item 1:
Business
BUSINESS
Our
Company
We are a growing specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of branded
prescription products. Our primary target markets are hospital
acute care and gastroenterology, which are characterized by
relatively concentrated physician prescriber bases that we
believe can be penetrated effectively by relatively small,
targeted sales forces. Cumberland is dedicated to providing
innovative products which improve quality of care for patients
and address poorly met medical needs.
Our product portfolio includes
Acetadote®
(acetylcysteine) Injection for the treatment of
acetaminophen poisoning,
Caldolor®
(ibuprofen) Injection, the first injectable treatment for
pain and fever approved in the United States, and
Kristalose®
(lactulose) for Oral Solution, a prescription laxative.
We market and sell our products through our dedicated hospital
and gastroenterology sales forces in the United States, which
together comprised more than 100 sales representatives and
managers as of March 1, 2011. We are also partnering our
products to reach international markets. Net revenues for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 were
$45.9 million, $43.5 million and $35.1 million,
respectively.
We have both product development and commercial capabilities,
and believe we can leverage our existing infrastructure to
support our expected growth. Our management team consists of
pharmaceutical industry veterans experienced in business
development, product development, commercialization and finance.
Our business development team identifies, evaluates and
negotiates product acquisition, in-licensing and out-licensing
opportunities. Our product development team develops proprietary
product formulations, manages our clinical trials, prepares all
regulatory submissions and manages our medical call center. Our
quality and manufacturing professionals oversee the manufacture
of our products. Our marketing and sales professionals are
responsible for our commercial activities, and we work closely
with our third party distribution partner to ensure availability
and delivery of our products.
We have been profitable since 2004, generating sufficient cash
flows to fund our development and marketing programs. In 2009,
we completed an initial public offering of our common stock to
help facilitate our further growth. Our strategy includes
maximizing the potential of our existing products and continuing
to expand our portfolio of differentiated products. Our current
products are approved for sale in the United States, and we are
working with overseas partners to bring them to international
markets. We also look for opportunities to expand into
additional patient populations through new product indications,
whether through our own clinical studies or by supporting
investigator-initiated studies at reputable research
institutions. We actively pursue opportunities to acquire
additional late-stage development product candidates as well as
marketed products in our target medical specialties. Further, we
are supplementing these growth strategies with the early-stage
drug development activities of Cumberland Emerging Technologies
(CET), our majority-owned subsidiary. CET partners with
universities and other research organizations to develop
promising, early-stage product candidates, which Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals has the opportunity to commercialize.
We were incorporated in 1999 and have been headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee since inception. Our website address is
www.cumberlandpharma.com. We make available through our website,
free of charge, our annual reports on
Form 10-K,
our quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
our current reports on
Form 8-K
and any amendments, as well as other documents, as soon as
reasonably practicable after
1
Part I
their filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, or SEC. These filings are also available to the
public at www.sec.gov.
Our
Strategy
Maximize sales of
Acetadote and Kristalose
Since its launch in June 2004, we have consistently grown
product sales for Acetadote, our injectable treatment for
acetaminophen poisoning. Net revenue from Acetadote sales grew
from $18.8 million in 2007 to $35.1 million in 2010, a
compound annual growth rate of 23%. In 2009, we expanded our
hospital sales force in preparation for the launch of Caldolor,
and are also leveraging this expansion to support Acetadote
sales. In early 2011, we received FDA approval for a new
formulation of Acetadote and have subsequently launched that new
product. We are working to secure patent protection for this new
formulation, which we believe could provide us with long term
protection for the product.
Kristalose competes in the high growth U.S. prescription
laxatives market which, based on data from IMS Health, had sales
of approximately $373 million in 2009. After acquiring
exclusive U.S. rights to Kristalose in April 2006, we
assembled an experienced, dedicated sales force and designed a
new marketing program, re-launching the product in September
2006. We inherited this product on a downtrend and have been
successful in halting that decline and moving toward growth by
enhancing brand awareness and highlighting the products
many positive, competitive attributes.
Successfully
commercialize Caldolor
We believe Caldolor, injectable ibuprofen, currently represents
our most significant product opportunity based on the large
potential markets for intravenous treatment of pain and fever,
as well as clinical results for the product to date. In
September 2009, we began marketing the product in the
U.S. through our expanded hospital sales force. During
2010, we focused on obtaining formulary approval and stocking of
the product at U.S. hospitals and other medical facilities.
Beginning in the first quarter of 2011, we began working to
increase that stocking as well as drive use of the product in
those facilities. We hold international patent rights for
Caldolor and, in connection with certain current and potential
future international partners, are working to seek regulatory
approval for and market Caldolor outside of the U.S.
Continue to build
a high-performance sales organization to address our target
markets
We believe that continuing to build our sales infrastructure
will help drive prescription volume and product sales. We
currently utilize two distinct sales teams to address our
primary target markets: a hospital sales force for the acute
care market and a field sales force for the gastroenterology
market.
Hospital market: We promote Acetadote and
Caldolor through our dedicated hospital sales team of
72 representatives and managers. This team addresses
hospitals across the U.S., and is comprised of sales
professionals with substantial experience in the hospital
market. According to IMS Health, U.S. hospitals accounted
for approximately $31 billion, or 10%, of
U.S. pharmaceutical sales in 2009. However, IMS also
reports that only 2% of approximately $21 billion total
pharmaceutical industry promotional spending was focused on
hospital-use drugs in 2009. The majority of promotional spending
is directed toward large, outpatient markets on drugs intended
for chronic use rather than short-term, hospital use. We believe
the hospital market is underserved and highly concentrated, and
that it can be penetrated effectively by a small, dedicated
sales force without large-scale promotional activity.
Gastroenterology market: We promote Kristalose
through a dedicated field sales force addressing a targeted
group of physicians who are responsible for a majority of total
retail Kristalose prescriptions nationally. By investing in our
marketing program, we believe that we will be able to increase
market share for Kristalose and that we will be equipped to
promote any further gastroenterology product
2
Part I
additions as well. Because the market for gastrointestinal
diseases is broad in patient scope, yet relatively narrow in
physician base, we believe it provides product opportunities but
can be penetrated with a modest sales force.
Expand our
product portfolio by acquiring rights to additional products and
late-stage product candidates
In addition to our product development activities, we are also
seeking to acquire products or late-stage development product
candidates to continue to build a portfolio of complementary
products. We focus on under-promoted, FDA-approved drugs as well
as late-stage development products that address poorly met
medical needs, which we believe helps mitigate our exposure to
risk, cost and time associated with drug discovery and research.
We plan to continue to target products that are competitively
differentiated, have valuable trademarks or other intellectual
property, and allow us to leverage our existing infrastructure.
We also plan to explore opportunities to seek approval for new
uses of existing pharmaceutical products.
Develop a
pipeline of early-stage products through CET
In order to build our product pipeline, we are supplementing our
acquisition and late-stage development activities with the
early-stage drug development activities of CET, our
majority-owned subsidiary. CET partners with universities and
other research organizations to develop promising, early-stage
product candidates, and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals has the
opportunity to negotiate rights to further develop and
commercialize them.
Our
Products
Our key products include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product
|
|
Indication
|
|
Delivery
|
|
Status
|
|
|
Acetadote®
|
|
Acetaminophen Poisoning
|
|
Injectable
|
|
Marketed
|
Caldolor®
|
|
Pain and Fever
|
|
Injectable
|
|
Marketed
|
Kristalose®
|
|
Chronic and Acute Constipation
|
|
Oral Solution
|
|
Marketed
|
Acetadote®
Acetadote®
is an intravenous formulation of N-acetylcysteine, or NAC,
indicated for the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning.
Acetadote, which has been available in the United States since
Cumberlands 2004 introduction of the product, is currently
used in hospital emergency departments to prevent or lessen
potential liver damage resulting from an overdose of
acetaminophen, a common ingredient in many
over-the-counter
pain relief and fever-reducing products. Acetaminophen continues
to be the leading cause of poisonings reported by hospital
emergency rooms in the United States, and Acetadote has become a
standard of care for treating this potentially life-threatening
condition.
Originally approved in January 2004, Acetadote received FDA
approval as an orphan drug, which provided seven years of
marketing exclusivity from date of approval. In connection with
the FDAs approval of Acetadote, we committed to certain
post-marketing activities for the product. Our first
Phase IV commitment (pediatric) was completed in 2004 and
resulted in the FDAs 2006 approval of expanded labeling
for Acetadote for use in pediatric patients. Our second
Phase IV commitment (clinical) was completed in 2006 and
resulted in further revised labeling for the product with FDA
approval of additional safety data in 2008. We completed our
third and final Phase IV commitment (manufacturing) for
Acetadote in 2010, which has culminated in the approval and
launch of a new, next generation formulation of the product.
In October 2010, we submitted a supplemental new drug
application (sNDA) to the FDA for approval of a new formulation
of Acetadote designed to replace the original formulation. The
new formulation,
3
Part I
which is the result of the aforementioned Phase IV
commitment made to the FDA, addresses the FDAs safety
concerns and contains no ethylene diamine tetracetic acid or
other stabilization and chelating agents and is
preservative-free. In January 2011, we received FDA approval and
commenced U.S. launch activities for this new Acetadote
product. The original formulation has been removed from FDA
reference materials and we no longer manufacture it. We have
filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office to protect the proprietary new formulation.
In March 2010, we submitted another sNDA to the FDA for the use
of Acetadote in patients with non-acetaminophen acute liver
failure. The sNDA included data from a clinical trial led by
investigators at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center indicating that acute liver failure patients treated with
Acetadote have a significantly improved chance of survival
without a transplant. The study showed that these patients can
also survive a significant number of days longer without
transplant, which would provide patients requiring transplant
increased time for a donor organ to become available.
Acute liver failure is associated with a high mortality rate and
frequent need for liver transplantation. Approximately half of
acute liver failure cases are caused by acetaminophen poisoning
while the other half result from a variety of causes including
hepatitis and alcohol. Currently, transplantation of the liver
is the only treatment for patients with liver failure not caused
by acetaminophen overdose.
In May 2010, the FDA officially accepted the sNDA and granted a
priority review with a response expected in September 2010. In
August 2010, we announced that the FDA extended its review of
the sNDA by three months, resulting in a new Prescription Drug
User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date in December 2010. In December, we
received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA indicating that
the agency had completed its review of the application and had
identified additional items that must be addressed prior to
approving the new indication. We are in discussions with the FDA
to gain clarity on a pathway to approval for this indication to
treat a critically ill patient population with few treatment
alternatives. In addition to expanded labeling for Acetadote, we
have requested additional exclusivity for the product in
association with the potential new indication.
We are also supporting a number of investigator-initiated
studies to explore other potential indications for Acetadote.
Market
for Acetadote
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used drugs for oral
treatment of pain and fever in the U.S. and can be found in
many common
over-the-counter
products and prescription narcotics. Though safe at recommended
doses, the drug can cause liver damage with excessive use.
According to the American Association of Poison Control
Centers National Poison Data System, acetaminophen
poisoning was the leading cause of toxic drug ingestions
reported to U.S. poison control centers in 2008. In a study
published in 2005 that examined acute liver failure, researchers
concluded that acetaminophen poisoning was responsible for acute
liver failure in over half the patients examined in 2003, up
from 28% in 1998. While an estimated 48% of cases were due to
the accidental use over several days, causing chronic liver
failure, an estimated 44% of the cases were intentional
overdoses, causing acute liver failure. According to the FDA,
four grams of acetaminophen is the daily maximum dosage
recommended for adults. Ingesting just eight grams of
acetaminophen a day can cause serious complications, especially
in people, whose livers are stressed by virus, medication or
alcohol. When used in conjunction with opiates, acetaminophen
can offer effective pain relief after surgery or injury;
however, patients taking acetaminophen/opiate combination drugs
on a chronic basis often eventually require increasing amounts
to achieve the same level of pain relief, which can also lead to
liver failure. In January 2011, the FDA initiated a campaign to
heighten awareness of the potential toxicity associated with
acetaminophen and announced that it is asking manufacturers of
prescription
4
Part I
acetaminophen combination products to limit the maximum amount
of acetaminophen in these products to 325 mg per tablet in
an effort to reduce adverse events.
NAC is widely accepted as the standard of care for acetaminophen
overdose. According to The Medical Letter on Drugs and
Therapeutics, NAC is virtually 100% effective in preventing
severe liver damage, renal failure and death if administered
within eight to ten hours of the overdose. Throughout Europe and
much of the rest of the world, NAC has been available in an
injectable formulation for over 25 years. Until the 2004
approval of Acetadote, however, the only FDA-approved form of
NAC available in the U.S. was an oral preparation. Many
U.S. hospitals prepared an off-label, IV form of NAC from
the oral solution to treat patients suffering from acetaminophen
poisoning. For a number of these patients, an IV product is
the only reasonable route of administration due to nausea and
vomiting associated with oral administration. Given this market
dynamic, we concluded that a medical need existed for an
FDA-approved, injectable formulation of NAC for the
U.S. market.
Competitive
Advantages
We believe Acetadote offers clinical benefits relative to oral
NAC including ease of administration, minimizing nausea and
vomiting associated with oral NAC, accurate dosage control,
shorter treatment protocol and reduction in overall cost of
acetaminophen overdose management. Acetadote makes NAC
administration easier to tolerate for patients and easier to
administer for medical providers.
Acetadote also offers a significant cost benefit to both patient
and hospital by reducing treatment regimen, usually from three
days to one day. An independently conducted study of Acetadote
as a cost-saving treatment for acetaminophen poisoning was
published in the December 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed
Journal of Medical Economics. The study concludes that
Acetadote is a less costly treatment regimen than oral NAC in
all evaluated scenarios. The cost differential between the use
of oral NAC and Acetadote was shown to range between $881 and
$2,259, and was primarily attributable to the time required to
complete recommended treatment. Under approved therapeutic
protocols, the oral product requires 72 hours to administer
compared to 21 hours for Acetadote. Consequently, the use
of Acetadote results in shorter hospital stays, resulting in
substantial cost disparity between the treatments.
Caldolor®
Caldolor, our intravenous formulation of ibuprofen, was the
first injectable product approved in the United States for the
treatment of both pain and fever. The FDA approved Caldolor for
marketing in the United States in June 2009 following a priority
review. The product is indicated for use in adults for the
management of mild to moderate pain, for the management of
moderate to severe pain as an adjunct to opioid analgesics, and
for the reduction of fever.
In September 2009, we successfully implemented the
U.S. launch of Caldolor, with more than
100 experienced sales professionals promoting the product
across the country. Caldolor is stocked at the major wholesalers
serving hospitals nationwide, and is available in 400mg and
800mg vials. We are focused on securing formulary approval and
stocking nationally for Caldolor. Our sales group is highly
focused on meeting with members of hospital pharmacy and
therapeutic committees to secure placement on committee agendas
to continue growing widespread formulary approval.
Beginning in 2011, we are reaching out to a wider audience
within hospitals to drive pull-through sales of Caldolor in
facilities that have added the product to formulary. Our sales
professionals are equipped with marketing documents which
highlight key differentiating factors including the
products ability to be safely dosed not only
post-operatively but also at induction of anesthesia. We
supported the publication of Caldolor clinical data in 2010,
with results from those trials appearing in peer-reviewed
journals as well as being presented at appropriate medical
meetings around the country.
5
Part I
We have worldwide commercial rights to Caldolor. We market
Caldolor in the United States through our existing hospital
sales force, and are partnering with third parties to reach
markets outside the United States.
The
Market for Caldolor
Therapeutic agents used to treat pain are known as analgesics.
Physicians prescribe injectable analgesics for hospitalized
patients who have high levels of pain, require rapid pain relief
or cannot take oral analgesics. According to IMS, the
U.S. market for injectable analgesics exceeded
$329 million, or 671 million units, in 2009. This
market consists principally of generic opioids and the NSAID
ketorolac.
Injectable opioids such as morphine, meperidine, hydromorphone
and fentanyl accounted for approximately 622 million units
sold in 2009. While opioids are widely used for acute pain
management, they are associated with a variety of side effects
including sedation, nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache,
cognitive impairment, reduced GI motility and respiratory
depression. Respiratory depression, if not monitored closely,
can be deadly. Opioid-related side effects can warrant dosing
limitations, which may reduce overall effectiveness of pain
relief. Side effects from opioids can cause a need for further
medication or treatment, and can increase lengths of stay in
post-anesthesia care units as well as overall hospital stay,
which can lead to increased costs for hospitals and patients.
Despite a poor safety profile, use of ketorolac, the only
non-opioid injectable analgesic available in the U.S., has grown
from approximately 38 million units in 2004, or 5% of the
market, to approximately 48 million units in 2009, or 7% of
the market, according to IMS Health. The FDA warns that
ketorolac should not be used in various patient populations that
are at-risk for bleeding, as a prophylactic analgesic prior to
major surgery or for intra-operative administration when
stoppage of bleeding is critical.
Caldolor is one of only two
U.S.-approved
injectable treatments for fever, with the other being an
injectable acetaminophen product. Significant fever, generally
defined as a temperature of greater than 102 degrees Fahrenheit,
can cause hallucinations, confusion, convulsions and death.
Hospitalized patients are subject to increased risk for
developing fever, especially from exposure to infectious agents.
Patients with endotracheal intubation, sedation, reduced gastric
motility, nausea or recent surgery are frequently unable to
ingest, digest, absorb, or tolerate oral products to reduce
fever. Treatment for these patients ranges from rectal delivery
of medication to physical cooling measures such as tepid baths,
ice packs and cooling blankets.
Clinical
Development Overview
We acquired from Vanderbilt University an exclusive, worldwide
license to clinical trial data on the use of intravenous
ibuprofen for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe
sepsis syndrome, a complex inflammatory condition often
resulting in high fever due to infection. Published in the
New England Journal of Medicine, this data indicated that
intravenous ibuprofen was effective in reducing high fever in
critically ill patients who were largely unable to receive oral
medication. Based upon data generated from this study, we met
with the FDA to determine the requirements for gaining FDA
approval of intravenous ibuprofen through a 505(b)(2)
application. Following discussion with and recommendations by
the FDA, we implemented a development program for Caldolor that
was designed to obtain approval for a dual indication for the
productmanagement of pain and reduction of fever. We
performed extensive formulation work resulting in a patented,
proprietary product and conducted a number of clinical studies
evaluating the safety and efficacy of Caldolor for treatment of
pain and fever.
6
Part I
More than 1,400 subjects, including over 800 receiving IV
Ibuprofen, were studied in seven clinical trials supporting our
new drug application (NDA) filing. Below is a summary of the
clinical trials that supported the NDA and that are currently
described in our package insert:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study
name
|
|
subjects
|
|
|
Setting
|
|
Study
results
|
|
|
Pharmacokinetic Study
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
Healthy volunteers
|
|
Similar PK parameters between oral and Caldolor
|
Adult Safety Study
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
Healthy volunteers
|
|
Safe and well-tolerated IV infusion of Caldolor
|
Sepsis Study IND
32803(1)
|
|
|
455
|
|
|
Hospitalized patients with severe sepsis
|
|
Significant and sustained reduction of temperature in patients
with high fever
(p<0.01)(3)
|
Adult Malaria Fever Study
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Hospitalized adult malaria patients
|
|
Significant reduction in temperature over 24 hours of
treatment (p=0.002)
|
Phase III Adult Fever
Study(2)
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
Hospitalized adult febrile patients
|
|
Significant, dose-dependent, reduction in temperature supporting
400mg dose (p=0.0003)
|
Phase III Adult Dose Ranging Pain
Study(2)
|
|
|
406
|
|
|
Hospitalized adult abdominal and orthopedic post-operative
patients
|
|
Dose-dependent, morphine sparing effect (22%) supporting 800mg
dose Significant reduction in pain intensity scores
(VAS)(4)
over 24 hours of treatment (p=0.001)
|
Phase III Adult Abdominal Hysterectomy Pain
Study(2)
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
Hospitalized adult abdominal hysterectomy patients
|
|
Significant, morphine-sparing effect (19%, p <0.001)
Significant reduction in pain intensity scores (VAS) over 24 hours of treatment (p=0.011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Study data licensed from Vanderbilt
University; Cumberland report filed 2003
|
|
(2)
|
|
Pivotal Study
|
|
(3)
|
|
P-value <0.05 represents
statistical significance
|
|
(4)
|
|
Visual Analog Scale
|
Additional
Studies
Adult Orthopedic Pain Study: We initiated a Phase III pain
study in post-operative adult patients who had undergone
orthopedic surgical procedures. Patients, all with access to
patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine, were
randomized to also receive either 800mg of Caldolor (multi-modal
therapy) or placebo treatment (standard therapy) four times
daily for up to five days. The first dose in this study
7
Part I
was administered prior (pre-operatively) to the surgical
procedure. The primary endpoint was reduction in patient pain
intensity scores using VAS measured with movement.
We enrolled 185 patients in the safety population. There
was a significant reduction in pain intensity scores using VAS.
Patients receiving Caldolor reported a 26% greater reduction in
pain intensity after 24 hours (p<0.001; with movement
Area Under the Curve of VAS) compared to placebo. 24 hours
after the first dose of Caldolor was administered patients
receiving Caldolor reported a 32% greater reduction in pain at
rest (p<0.001 at rest AUC-VAS) compared to placebo. In this
study, we also investigated the efficacy of Caldolor in reducing
morphine use by patients receiving the 800mg dose. There was a
significant reduction in morphine use by those receiving 800mg
of Caldolor after surgery and through hour 24.
Adult Burn Study: We conducted a multicenter, randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at five U.S. and
international clinical sites, including hospital burn units and
burn centers, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Caldolor in
treating fever and pain in hospitalized burn patients. Patients
were administered 800mg of Caldolor every six hours for five
consecutive days. The study raised no safety concerns and the
medication was well tolerated. There was no difference in
adverse effects between patients who received a placebo and
those receiving Caldolor. The study evaluated 61 adult burn
patients with second or third degree burns covering more than
10 percent total body surface area. Other participant
criteria included an anticipated hospital stay of more than
72 hours and temperatures of 38.0 degrees Celsius (100.4
degrees Fahrenheit) or greater. Statistical significance was
achieved for the primary endpoint of reducing fever in burn
patients over the first 24 hours of treatment.
Adult Pharmacokinetics Study: We conducted a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled, single dose crossover study of
the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of Caldolor in
healthy adult volunteers. Twelve subjects were randomized in
equal proportions to receive a single dose of 800mg Caldolor,
administered over five to seven minutes, and oral placebo
administered concurrently, followed by a wash-out period of a
single dose of 800mg oral ibuprofen and intravenous placebo
given concurrently. There were no serious adverse events nor any
adverse events classified as moderate or severe. The most common
adverse event, which was classified as mild, was infusion site
pain in three subjects. The results of the study indicate that
the mean Cmax of Caldolor was approximately twice that of the
oral dose and the median Tmax for Caldolor was 6.5 minutes
compared to 1.5 hours for the oral product. The AUC was
similar between the two products. Results from the trial
demonstrate the effects of decreasing infusion time for Caldolor
from the current package insert guideline of no less than 30
minutes to an infusion time of five to seven minutes.
Phase IV
Required Pediatric Assessment
The required pediatric assessment for the Caldolor NDA was
deferred until 2011 for the treatment of fever and until 2012
for the management of pain. Two clinical studies are currently
underway to address the Phase IV requirements. By
conducting pediatric clinical studies and supplying requested
data to the FDA, Cumberland has the opportunity to obtain up to
an additional six months of marketing exclusivity for Caldolor.
If results of these trials are not favorable, we would not be
eligible for additional pediatric exclusivity; however,
unfavorable pediatric results would not impact marketing status
for use in adults.
No additional Phase IV commitments were assigned by the FDA.
Safety
Summary
Extensive use and worldwide literature support the strong safety
profile of oral ibuprofen. Building on the oral safety profile,
we have assembled an integrated IV ibuprofen safety
database combining data from our clinical trials as well as
previously published study data. We used this data to support
our
8
Part I
NDA filing and will continue to use and update the data as a
part of our ongoing safety evaluation. In addition, this data
will be used by our sales force and in our marketing materials
to promote Caldolor.
In clinical trials supporting our proposed indications, no
serious adverse events have been directly attributed to
Caldolor. The number and percentage of all patients in pivotal
studies who reported treatment emergent adverse events was
comparable between IV ibuprofen and placebo treatment
groups. Additionally, there have been no safety related
differences between Caldolor and placebo involving side effects
sometimes observed with oral NSAIDs, such as changes in renal
function, bleeding events or gastrointestinal disorders.
Kristalose®
Kristalose is a prescription laxative administered orally for
the treatment of constipation. An innovative, dry powder
crystalline formulation of lactulose, Kristalose is designed to
enhance patient compliance and acceptance. We acquired exclusive
U.S. commercialization rights to Kristalose in 2006,
assembled a new dedicated field sales force and re-launched the
product in September 2006 under the Cumberland brand. We direct
our sales efforts to physicians who are the most prolific
writers of prescription laxatives, including
gastroenterologists, pediatricians, internists and colon and
rectal surgeons.
Market
for Kristalose
Constipation is a common condition in the U.S., affecting
approximately 20% of the population each year. While many
occurrences are non-recurring, a significant number are chronic
in nature and require some treatment to control or resolve.
Constipation treatments are sold in both the
over-the-counter
(OTC) and prescription segments. The prescription laxative
market has historically consisted of a few highly promoted
brands including
MiraLax®
(polyethylene glycol 3350), which is now being sold as an OTC
product, and
Amitiza®,
as well as several generic forms of liquid lactulose. According
to data from IMS Health, the prescription laxative market had
sales of approximately $373 million in 2009.
Competitive
Advantages
Kristalose is the only prescription-strength laxative available
in pre-measured powder packets, making it very portable. The
drug dissolves quickly in four ounces of water, offering
patients a virtually tasteless, grit-free and calorie-free
alternative to liquid lactulose treatments. We believe that
Kristalose has competitive advantages over competing
prescription laxatives, such as fewer potential side effects and
contraindications as well as lower cost. There are no age
limitations or length of use restrictions for Kristalose, and it
is the only osmotic prescription laxative still sampled to
physicians.
In 2009, we completed a multicenter, randomized, open label,
crossover patient preference study evaluating Kristalose
compared to similar products in liquid forms. Over a
14-day
period, 50 patients with a recent diagnosis of chronic
constipation were administered both Kristalose and liquid
lactulose in a crossover study. Patient preference was measured
through survey responses collected at the end of the study.
Overall, more patients preferred Kristalose, noting portability
as a key differentiating feature. More patients also preferred
the taste of Kristalose as well as the consistency compared to
the syrup formulations. There was no significant difference in
adverse effects between patients who took Kristalose and those
taking liquid lactulose. We are also exploring opportunities to
expand into new indications with Kristalose.
Early-stage
product candidates
Our pre-clinical product candidates are being developed through
CET, our 85%-owned subsidiary. Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
negotiates rights to develop and commercialize CET product
candidates, and in conjunction with research institutions has
obtained nearly $1 million in grant funding from the
National Institutes of Health to support the development of
these programs.
9
Part I
Four of the more advanced CET development programs are:
|
|
Ø
|
In collaboration with Vanderbilt University, we are currently
developing a new palliative treatment for fluid buildup in the
lungs of cancer patients. The product candidate is a protein
therapeutic being designed to treat pleural
effusion, a condition which occurs when cancer spreads to
the surface of the lung and chest cavity, causing fluid to
accumulate and patients to suffer shortness of breath and chest
pain. An estimated 100,000 patients are affected by this
condition each year. Vanderbilt University researchers believe
they have found a method of treating this condition which may
involve less pain, a higher success rate and faster healing
time, resulting in significantly shorter hospital stays.
|
|
Ø
|
In collaboration with the University of Mississippi, we are
developing a highly purified, injectable anti-infective used to
treat fungal infections in immuno-compromised patients. This
product candidates active ingredient is currently
FDA-approved in a different formulation, and while it is the
therapeutic of choice for infectious disease specialists in
treating such fungal infections, it can produce serious side
effects related to renal toxicity, often resulting in dosage
limitations or discontinued use. University of Mississippi
researchers have developed what they believe is a purer and
safer form of the anti-infective.
|
|
Ø
|
In collaboration with the University of Tennessee, we are
currently developing a novel asthma therapeutic designed to
prevent remodeling of airway smooth muscle to reduce asthmatic
reaction in pediatric patients. Airway remodeling occurs when
the cells or muscles that line the airway become inflamed and
can result in decreased lung function. University of Tennessee
researchers believe they have found a treatment that can reduce,
or even prevent, asthma attacks in children.
|
|
Ø
|
CET previously entered into an agreement with Vanderbilt
University to develop a novel treatment to improve renal
function in patients with hepatorenal syndrome, a condition
where kidneys fail suddenly due to cirrhosis of the liver. The
product candidate may reduce renal blood flow in association
with acute kidney failure. In the third quarter of 2010,
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals entered into an option agreement with
CET to assume the rights and responsibilities associated with
the product candidate. We have commenced product manufacturing
and submitted an investigational new drug application for the
clinical evaluation of this product candidate.
|
BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT
Since inception, we have had an active business development
program focused on acquiring rights to marketed products and
product candidates that fit our strategy and target markets. We
source our business development leads through our senior
executives and our international network of pharmaceutical and
medical industry insiders. These opportunities are reviewed and
considered on a regular basis by a multi-disciplinary team of
our managers against a list of selection criteria. We have
historically focused on product opportunities with relatively
low acquisition, development and commercialization costs,
employing a variety of deal structures.
We intend to continue to build a portfolio of complementary,
niche products largely through product acquisitions and
late-stage product development. Our primary targets are
under-promoted, FDA-approved drugs with existing brand
recognition and late-stage development product candidates that
address unmet medical needs in the hospital acute care and
gastroenterology markets. We believe that by focusing mainly on
approved or late-stage products, we can minimize the significant
risk, cost and time associated with drug development.
Through CET, we are collaborating with a growing list of
reputable research institutions. Our business development team
is responsible for identifying appropriate CET product
candidates and negotiating with our university partners to
secure rights to these candidates. Although we believe that
these collaborations may be important to our business in the
future, they are not material to our business at this time.
10
Part I
CLINICAL AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS
We have in-house capabilities for the management of our
clinical, professional and regulatory affairs. Our team develops
and manages our clinical trials, prepares regulatory
submissions, manages ongoing product-related regulatory
responsibilities and manages our medical information call
center. Team members have been responsible for devising the
regulatory and clinical strategies and obtaining FDA approvals
for Acetadote and Caldolor.
Clinical
development
Our clinical development personnel are responsible for:
|
|
Ø
|
creating clinical development strategies;
|
|
Ø
|
designing and monitoring our clinical trials;
|
|
Ø
|
creating case report forms and other study-related documents;
|
|
Ø
|
overseeing clinical work contracted to third parties; and
|
|
Ø
|
overseeing CET grant funding proposals.
|
Regulatory and
quality affairs
Our internal regulatory and quality affairs team is responsible
for:
|
|
Ø
|
preparing and submitting NDAs and fulfilling post-approval
marketing commitments;
|
|
Ø
|
maintaining investigational and marketing applications through
the submission of appropriate reports;
|
|
Ø
|
submitting supplemental applications for additional label
indications, product line extensions and manufacturing
improvements;
|
|
Ø
|
evaluating regulatory risk profiles for product acquisition
candidates, including compliance with manufacturing, labeling,
distribution and marketing regulations;
|
|
Ø
|
monitoring applicable third-party service providers for quality
and compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, Good
Laboratory Practices, and Good Clinical Practices, and
performing periodic audits of such vendors; and
|
|
Ø
|
maintaining systems for document control, product and process
change control, customer complaint handling, product stability
studies and annual drug product reviews.
|
Professional and
medical affairs
Our clinical and regulatory team provides in-house, medical
information support for our marketed products. This includes
interacting directly with healthcare professionals to address
any product or medical inquiries through our medical information
call center. Prior to the launch of Caldolor, we expanded our
medical affairs staff to support inquiries from medical
professionals regarding the appropriate use of Caldolor as well
as to support the efforts of our expanded hospital sales force.
In addition to coordinating the call center, our
clinical/regulatory group generates medical information letters,
provides informational memos to our sales forces and assists
with ongoing training for the sales forces.
SALES AND
MARKETING
Our sales and marketing team has broad industry experience in
selling branded pharmaceuticals. Our sales and marketing
professionals manage our dedicated hospital and gastroenterology
sales forces, including more than 100 sales representatives and
district managers, direct our national marketing
11
Part I
campaigns and maintain key national account relationships. In
January 2007, we converted our hospital sales force, which had
previously been contracted to us by Cardinal Health Inc., or
Cardinal, to Cumberland employees through our wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cumberland Pharma Sales Corp.
Our gastroenterology-focused team was formed in September 2006
with our re-launch of Kristalose and is a field sales force
addressing high prescribers of laxatives. This gastroenterology
sales force was previously contracted to us by Ventiv Commercial
Services, LLC, or Inventiv. In September 2010, we converted the
field sales force to Cumberland employees as we had previously
done with our hospital force.
Our sales and marketing executives conduct ongoing market
analyses to evaluate marketing campaigns and promotional
programs. The evaluations include development of product
profiles, testing of the profiles against the needs of the
market, determining what additional product information or
development work is needed to effectively market the products
and preparing financial forecasts. We utilize professional
branding and packaging as well as promotional items to support
our products, including direct mail, sales brochures, journal
advertising, educational and reminder leave-behinds, patient
educational pieces and product sampling. We also regularly
attend targeted trade shows to promote broad awareness of our
products. Our National Accounts group is responsible for key
large buyers and related marketing programs. This group supports
sales and marketing efforts by maintaining relationships with
our wholesaler customers as well as with third-party payors such
as Group Purchasing Organizations, Pharmacy Benefit Managers,
Hospital Buying Groups, state and federal government purchasers
and influencers and health insurance companies.
International
sales and marketing
We have licensed to third parties the right to distribute
certain products outside the U.S. We have granted Alveda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., or Alveda, an exclusive license to
distribute Caldolor in Canada subject to receipt of regulatory
approval. Alveda is obligated to make payments to us of up to
$1,000,000 Canadian upon Caldolors achieving specified
regulatory milestones in Canada and to pay us a royalty based on
Canadian sales of Caldolor. This license terminates five years
after regulatory approval is obtained in Canada for the later of
the fever or pain indications.
In December 2009, we announced that we entered into an exclusive
partnership with DB Pharm Korea Co. Ltd., a Korean-based
pharmaceutical company, for the commercialization of Caldolor in
South Korea. Under the terms of the agreement, DB Pharm
Korea is responsible for obtaining any regulatory approval for
the product and handling ongoing regulatory requirements,
product marketing, distribution and sales in Korea. We maintain
responsibility for product formulation, development and
manufacturing. Under the agreement, Cumberland will receive up
to $500,000 in upfront and milestone payments as well as a
transfer price, and we will receive royalties on any future
sales of Caldolor in South Korea.
In October 2009, we announced that we entered into an exclusive
partnership with Phebra Pty Ltd., or Phebra, an Australian-based
specialty pharmaceutical company, for the commercialization of
Caldolor in Australia and New Zealand. Phebra has responsibility
for obtaining any regulatory approval for the product, and for
handling all ongoing regulatory requirements, product marketing,
distribution and sales in the territories. We will maintain
responsibility for product formulation, development and
manufacturing. Under the terms of the agreement, Cumberland will
receive up to $500,000 in upfront and milestone payments as well
as a transfer price, and we will receive royalties on any future
sales of Caldolor in those territories.
We also granted Phebra an exclusive license to market and
distribute Acetadote in Australia, New Zealand, and
Southeast Asia, subject to the receipt of regulatory approval.
Phebra is obligated to make payments to us of up to $325,000
upon Phebras achieving specified milestones as well as
royalty
12
Part I
payments. In April 2010, the Therapeutic Goods Administration
granted approval for the commercialization of Acetadote in
Australia and in October 2010, Phebra commenced with the
Australian launch of the product. This introduction of Acetadote
in Australia marked the introduction of Cumberlands
products into international markets. In addition to Australia,
Phebra has exclusive marketing rights to Acetadote for New
Zealand and has obtained marketing approval in that country.
MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTION
We partner certain non-core, capital-intensive functions,
including manufacturing and distribution. Our executives are
experienced in these areas and manage these third-party
relationships with a focus on quality assurance.
Manufacturing
Our key manufacturing relationships include:
|
|
Ø
|
In July 2000, we established an international manufacturing
alliance with a predecessor to Hospira Australia Pty. Ltd., or
Hospira. Hospira sources active pharmaceutical ingredients, or
APIs, and manufactures Caldolor for us under an agreement that
expires in June 2014, subject to early termination upon
45 days prior notice in the event of uncured material
breach by us or Hospira. The agreement will automatically renew
for successive three-year terms unless Hospira or we provide at
least 12 months prior written notice of non-renewal. Under
the agreement, we pay Hospira a transfer price per unit of
Caldolor supplied. In addition, we reimburse Hospira for
agreed-upon
development, regulatory and inspection and audit costs.
|
|
Ø
|
Bioniche Teoranta, or Bioniche, sources APIs and has
manufactured our Acetadote product for sale in the U.S. at
its FDA-approved manufacturing facility in Ireland. Our
relationship with Bioniche began in January 2002. Bioniche
manufactures and packages Acetadote for us, and we purchase
Acetadote from Bioniche pursuant to an agreement that we are
currently renegotiating.
|
|
Ø
|
Inalco S.p.A. and Inalco Biochemicals, Inc., or collectively
Inalco, from which we licensed exclusive
U.S. commercialization rights to Kristalose in April 2006,
source APIs and supply us with the product under an agreement
that expires in 2021. The agreement renews automatically for
successive three-year terms unless we or Inalco provide written
notice of intent not to renew at least 12 months prior to
expiration of a term. Either we or Inalco may terminate this
agreement upon at least 45 days prior written notice in the
event of uncured material breach. Under the agreement, we are
required to pay Inalco a transfer price per unit of Kristalose
supplied and a percentage royalty in the low to mid
single-digits throughout the term of the agreement based on our
net sales of Kristalose. We are required to purchase minimum
quantities of Kristalose. In 2010, Inalco sold its facility that
manufactured the API for Kristalose, resulting in shipping
delays and possible increases in supply prices. We are currently
in discussions with Inalco regarding these price increases, as
well as an amendment to the Inalco agreement.
|
|
Ø
|
We entered into an agreement with Bayer Healthcare, LLC, or
Bayer, in February 2008 for the manufacture of Caldolor and
Acetadote. The agreement expires in February 2013, subject to
early termination upon 30 days prior written notice in the
event of uncured material breach by us or Bayer. The agreement
will automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless
Bayer or we provide at least six months prior written notice of
non-renewal. Under the agreement, we pay Bayer a transfer price
per each unit of Caldolor or Acetadote supplied. In addition, we
pay Bayer for agreed upon development costs.
|
13
Part I
Distribution
Like many other pharmaceutical companies, we employ an outside
third-party logistics contractor to facilitate our distribution
efforts. Since August 2002, Specialty Pharmaceutical Services,
or SPS, (formerly CORD Logistics, Inc.) has exclusively handled
all aspects of our product logistics efforts, including
warehousing, shipping, customer billing and collections. SPS is
a division of Cardinal. SPSs main facility is located
outside of Nashville, Tennessee, with more than
325,000 square feet of space and a well-established
infrastructure. In 2008, SPS opened a second, distribution-only
facility in Reno, Nevada, with an additional 88,000 square
feet of space. We began utilizing this facility for distribution
to certain locations in the second half of 2008. We maintain
ownership of our finished products until sale to our customers.
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
We seek to protect our products from competition through a
combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, FDA
exclusivity and contractual restrictions on disclosure.
Proprietary rights, including patents, are an important element
of our business. We seek to protect our proprietary information
by requiring our employees, consultants, contractors and other
advisors to execute agreements providing for protection of our
confidential information upon commencement of their employment
or engagement. We also require confidentiality agreements from
entities that receive our confidential data or materials.
Acetadote
Acetadote was approved by the FDA in January 2004 as an orphan
drug for the intravenous treatment of acetaminophen overdose. As
an orphan drug, we were entitled to seven years of marketing
exclusivity for the treatment of this approved indication, which
expired in January 2011. In January 2011, we received FDA
approval for our next generation, new formulation of Acetadote,
for which we have applied for patent protection through
U.S. patent application No. 11/209,804, as well as
through international application No. PCT/US06/20691, both
of which are directed to acetylcysteine compositions, methods of
making the same and methods of using the same. In addition, we
have an exclusive, worldwide license to NAC clinical data from
Newcastle Master Misercordiae Hospital in Australia. We have no
expected outstanding payment obligations pursuant to this
contract.
Caldolor
We are the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,727,286, which
is directed to ibuprofen solution formulations, methods of
making the same, and methods of using the same, and which
expires in 2021. This U.S. patent is associated with our
completed international application No. PCT/US01/42894. We
have filed for international patent protection in association
with this PCT application in various countries, some of which
have been allowed and some of which remain pending.
In 2009, we also filed the first of several new patent
applications for Caldolor. Part of an ongoing initiative to
protect the value of our intellectual property, the new
applications address our proprietary method of dosing
intravenous ibuprofen.
We have an exclusive, worldwide license to clinical data for
intravenous ibuprofen from Vanderbilt University, in
consideration for royalty and other payment obligations related
to Caldolor.
In addition, we received three years marketing exclusivity upon
receipt of FDA approval for Caldolor. We intend to seek further
exclusivity from the FDA upon completion of successful pediatric
clinical trials for the product.
14
Part I
Kristalose
We are the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent
No. 5,480,491 owned by Inalco relating to Kristalose,
directed to a process for preparation of crystalline lactulose.
Related license rights include an exclusive license to use
related Inalco know-how and the Kristalose trademark to
manufacture, market and distribute Kristalose in the
U.S. Under our agreement with Inalco, Inalco is solely
responsible for prosecuting and maintaining both the patents and
know-how that we license from them. Our license expires in 2021
and is subject to earlier termination for material breach. Our
payment obligations under this agreement are described under
Manufacturing and DistributionManufacturing.
COMPETITION
The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense
competition and rapid innovation. Our continued success in
developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products will
depend, in part, upon our ability to compete against existing
and future products in our target markets. Competitive factors
directly affecting our markets include but are not limited to:
|
|
Ø
|
product attributes such as efficacy, safety,
ease-of-use
and cost-effectiveness;
|
|
Ø
|
brand awareness and recognition driven by sales and marketing
and distribution capabilities;
|
|
Ø
|
intellectual property and other exclusivity rights;
|
|
Ø
|
availability of resources to build and maintain developmental
and commercial capabilities;
|
|
Ø
|
successful business development activities;
|
|
Ø
|
extent of third-party reimbursements; and
|
|
Ø
|
establishment of advantageous collaborations to conduct
development, manufacturing or commercialization efforts.
|
A number of our competitors possess research and development and
sales and marketing capabilities as well as financial resources
greater than ours. These competitors, in addition to emerging
companies and academic research institutions, may be developing,
or in the future could develop, new technologies that could
compete with our current and future products or render our
products obsolete.
Acetadote
Acetadote is our injectable formulation of NAC for the treatment
of acetaminophen overdose. NAC is accepted worldwide as the
standard of care for acetaminophen overdose. Despite the
availability of injectable NAC outside the United States,
Acetadote, to our knowledge, is the only injectable NAC product
approved in the U.S. to treat acetaminophen overdose. Our
competitors in the acetaminophen overdose market are those
companies selling orally administered NAC including, but not
limited to, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedford Laboratories
division of Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., Roxane Laboratories,
Inc. and Hospira Inc.
Caldolor
Caldolor is marketed for the treatment of pain and fever,
primarily in a hospital setting. A variety of other products
address the acute pain market:
|
|
Ø
|
Morphine, the most commonly used product for the treatment of
acute, post-operative pain, is manufactured and distributed by
several generic pharmaceutical companies.
|
|
Ø
|
DepoDur®
is an extended release injectable formulation of morphine that
is marketed by EKR Therapeutics, Inc.
|
15
Part I
|
|
Ø
|
Other generic injectable opioids, including fentanyl, meperidine
and hydromorphone, address this market.
|
|
Ø
|
Ketorolac (brand name
Toradol®),
an injectable NSAID, is also manufactured and distributed by
several generic pharmaceutical companies.
|
|
Ø
|
Ofirmev®,
an injectable acetaminophen product, was approved by the FDA in
2010.
|
We are aware of other product candidates in development to treat
acute pain including injectable NSAIDs, novel opioids, new
formulations of existing therapies and extended release
anesthetics. We believe non-narcotic analgesics for the
treatment of post-surgical pain are the primary potential
competitors to Caldolor.
In addition to the injectable analgesic products above, many
companies are developing analgesics for specific indications
such as migraine and neuropathic pain, oral extended-release
forms of existing narcotic and non-narcotic products, and
products with new methods of delivery such as transdermal. We
are not aware of any approved injectable products indicated for
the treatment of fever in the U.S. other than Caldolor and
Ofirmev. There are, however, numerous drugs available to
physicians to reduce fevers in hospital settings via oral
administration to the patient, including ibuprofen,
acetaminophen, and aspirin. These drugs are manufactured by
numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Kristalose
Kristalose is a dry powder crystalline prescription formulation
of lactulose indicated for the treatment of constipation. The
U.S. constipation therapy market includes various
prescription and OTC products. The prescription products which
we believe are our primary competitors are
Amitiza®
and liquid lactuloses. Amitiza is indicated for the treatment of
chronic idiopathic constipation in adults and is marketed by
Sucampo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Limited. Liquid lactulose products are marketed by a number of
pharmaceutical companies.
There are several hundred OTC products used to treat
constipation marketed by numerous pharmaceutical and consumer
health companies.
MiraLax®
(polyethylene glycol 3350), previously a prescription product,
was indicated for the treatment of constipation and manufactured
and marketed by Braintree Laboratories, Inc. Under an agreement
with Braintree, Schering-Plough introduced MiraLax as an OTC
product in February 2007.
GOVERNMENT
REGULATION
Pharmaceutical companies are subject to extensive regulation by
national, state, and local agencies in countries in which they
do business. The manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale
of pharmaceutical products is subject to government regulation
in the U.S. and various foreign countries. Additionally, in
the U.S., we must follow rules and regulations established by
the FDA requiring the presentation of data indicating that our
products are safe and efficacious and are manufactured in
accordance with cGMP regulations. If we do not comply with
applicable requirements, we may be fined, the government may
refuse to approve our marketing applications or allow us to
manufacture or market our products and we may be criminally
prosecuted. We and our manufacturers and clinical research
organizations may also be subject to regulations under other
federal, state and local laws, including the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Clean Air Act and import, export and customs regulations as well
as the laws and regulations of other countries.
16
Part I
FDA Approval
Process
The steps required to be taken before a new prescription drug
may be marketed in the U.S. include:
|
|
Ø
|
completion of pre-clinical laboratory and animal testing;
|
|
Ø
|
the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug
application, or IND, which must be evaluated and found
acceptable by the FDA before human clinical trials may commence;
|
|
Ø
|
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical
trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug
for its intended use; and
|
|
Ø
|
submission and approval of an NDA.
|
The sponsor of the drug typically conducts human clinical trials
in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase
I clinical trials, the product is tested in a small number of
patients or healthy volunteers, primarily for safety at one or
more dosages. In Phase II clinical trials, in addition to
safety, the sponsor evaluates the efficacy of the product on
targeted indications, and identifies possible adverse effects
and safety risks in a patient population. Phase III
clinical trials typically involve testing for safety and
clinical efficacy in an expanded population at
geographically-dispersed test sites.
The FDA requires that clinical trials be conducted in accordance
with the FDAs good clinical practices (GCP) requirements.
The FDA may order the partial, temporary or permanent
discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other
sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial is not being
conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an
unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The
institutional review board (IRB), or ethics committee (outside
of the U.S.), of each clinical site generally must approve the
clinical trial design and patient informed consent and may also
require the clinical trial at that site to be halted, either
temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the
IRBs requirements, or may impose other conditions.
The results of the pre-clinical and clinical trials, together
with, among other things, detailed information on the
manufacture and composition of the product and proposed
labeling, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA for
marketing approval. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it
accepts them for filing and may request additional information
rather than accepting an NDA for filing. Once the submission is
accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the
NDA. Under the policies agreed to by the FDA under the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has ten months
in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and
respond to the applicant. The review process and the PDUFA goal
date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the
NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or
clarification regarding information already provided in the
submission within the last three months of the PDUFA goal date.
If the FDAs evaluations of the NDA and the clinical and
manufacturing procedures and facilities are favorable, the FDA
may issue an approval letter. The FDA may also issue an
approvable letter setting forth further conditions that must be
met in order to secure final approval of the NDA. If and when
those conditions have been met to the FDAs satisfaction,
the FDA will issue an approval letter. An approval letter
authorizes commercial marketing of the drug for certain
indications. According to the FDA, the median total approval
time for NDAs approved during calendar year 2004 was
approximately 13 months for standard applications. If the
FDAs evaluations of the NDA submission and the clinical
and manufacturing procedures and facilities are not favorable,
it may refuse to approve the NDA and issue a not-approvable
letter. The time and cost of completing these steps and
obtaining FDA approval can vary dramatically depending on the
drug. However, to complete these steps for a novel drug can take
many years and cost millions of dollars.
17
Part I
Section 505(b)(2)
New Drug Applications
As an alternate path for FDA approval of new indications or new
formulations of previously-approved products, a company may file
a Section 505(b)(2) NDA, instead of a
stand-alone or full NDA.
Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act was enacted as part of the
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984,
otherwise known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.
Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where at
least some of the information required for approval comes from
studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the
applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Some examples
of products that may be allowed to follow a 505(b)(2) path to
approval are drugs which have a new dosage form, strength, route
of administration, formulation or indication.
We successfully secured FDA approvals for Acetadote in January
2004 and for Caldolor in June 2009 pursuant to the 505(b)(2)
pathway. Upon approval of a full or 505(b)(2) NDA, a
drug may be marketed only for the FDA-approved indications in
the approved dosage forms. Further clinical trials are necessary
to gain approval for the use of the product for any additional
indications or dosage forms. The FDA may also require
post-market reporting and may require surveillance programs to
monitor the side effects of the drug, which may result in
withdrawal of approval after marketing begins.
Special Protocol
Assessment Process
The special protocol assessment, or SPA, process generally
involves FDA evaluation of a proposed Phase III clinical
trial protocol and a commitment from the FDA that the design and
analysis of the trial are adequate to support approval of an
NDA, if the trial is performed according to the SPA and meets
its endpoints. The FDAs guidance on the SPA process
indicates that SPAs are designed to evaluate individual clinical
trial protocols primarily in response to specific questions
posed by the sponsors. In practice, the sponsor of a product
candidate may request an SPA for proposed Phase III trial
objectives, designs, clinical endpoints and analyses. A request
for an SPA is submitted in the form of a separate amendment to
an IND, and the FDAs evaluation generally will be
completed within a
45-day
review period under applicable PDUFA goals, provided that the
trials have been the subject of discussion at an
end-of-Phase II
and pre-Phase III meeting with the FDA, or in other limited
cases.
On June 14, 2004, we submitted a request for SPA of our
Caldolor Phase III clinical study. During a meeting with
the FDA on September 29, 2004, the FDA confirmed that the
efficacy data from our study of post-operative pain with a
positive outcome was considered sufficient to support a
505(b)(2) application for the pain indication. Final
determinations by the FDA with respect to a product candidate,
including as to the scope of its labeling, are made
after a complete review of the applicable NDA and are based on
the entire data in the application.
Orphan Drug
Designation
The Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or Orphan Drug Act, encourages
manufacturers to seek approval of products intended to treat
rare diseases and conditions with a prevalence of
fewer than 200,000 patients in the U.S. or for which
there is no reasonable expectation of recovering the development
costs for the product. For products that receive orphan drug
designation by the FDA, the Orphan Drug Act provides tax credits
for clinical research, FDA assistance with protocol design,
eligibility for FDA grants to fund clinical studies, waiver of
the FDA application fee, and a period of seven years of
marketing exclusivity for the product following FDA marketing
approval. Acetadote received Orphan Drug designation in October
2001 and was approved by the FDA for the intravenous treatment
of moderate to severe acetaminophen overdose in January 2004. As
an orphan drug, Acetadote was entitled to marketing exclusivity
until January 2011 for the treatment of this approved
indication, and we intend to seek additional exclusivity for
this product through new potential indications. This exclusivity
would not prevent a product with a different formulation from
competing with Acetadote, however.
18
Part I
The Hatch-Waxman
Act
The Hatch-Waxman Act provides three years of marketing
exclusivity for the approval of new and supplemental NDAs,
including Section 505(b)(2) NDAs, for, among other things,
new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug, if
new clinical investigations that were conducted or sponsored by
the applicant are essential to the approval of the application.
It is under this provision that we received three years
marketing exclusivity for Caldolor upon receipt of FDA approval
in June 2009.
Recent Health
Care Legislation
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA. On
March 30, 2010, the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010, or HCERA, was enacted into law,
which modified the revenue provisions of the PPACA. The PPACA as
amended by the HCERA constitutes the healthcare reform
legislation. The following highlights certain provisions of the
legislation that may affect us.
Pharmaceutical
Industry Fee
Beginning in calendar-year 2011, an annual fee will be imposed
on pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers that sell branded
prescription drugs to specified government programs (e.g.,
Medicare Part D, Medicare Part B, Medicaid, Department
of Veterans Affairs programs, Department of Defense programs and
TRICARE). The annual fee will be allocated to companies based on
their previous calendar-year market share using sales data that
the government agencies that purchase the pharmaceuticals will
provide to the Treasury Department. Although we participate in
governmental programs that would subject us to this fee, our
sales volume in such programs is less than $10 million,
with the first $5 million of sales being exempt from the
fee. We do not anticipate this fee will have a material impact
on our results of operations.
Medicaid
Rebate Rate
We currently provide rebates for Kristalose sold to Medicaid
beneficiaries. Effective January 1, 2010, the rebate
increased from eleven percent to thirteen percent of the average
manufacturer price. Our sales of Kristalose under the Medicaid
program have been increasing. We expect the increased rebate
percentage will impact our net revenue for Kristalose by less
than $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Federal Grant
Funding
The legislation established a fifty-percent nonrefundable
investment tax credit or grant for qualified investments in
qualifying therapeutic discovery projects. The provision
allocated $1 billion during the two-year period
(2009-2010)
for the program. The credit is available only to companies with
250 or fewer employees. The qualified investment for any tax
year is the aggregate amount of the costs paid or incurred in
that year for expenses necessary for and directly related to the
conduct of the qualifying therapeutic discovery project. We
submitted applications for four of our research projects prior
to the deadline of July 21, 2010. In November 2010, we
received a response from the Internal Revenue Service indicating
approval for funding. We received grants of approximately
$0.9 million based on actual 2009 and 2010 expenditures.
Other Regulatory
Requirements
Regulations continue to apply to pharmaceutical products after
FDA approval occurs. Post-marketing safety surveillance is
required in order to continue to market an approved product. The
FDA also may, in its discretion, require post-marketing testing
and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved
19
Part I
products or place conditions on any approvals that could
restrict the commercial applications of these products.
If we seek to make certain changes to an FDA-approved product,
such as promoting or labeling a product for a new indication,
making certain manufacturing changes or product enhancements or
adding labeling claims, we will need FDA review and approval
before the change can be implemented. While physicians may use
products for indications that have not been approved by the FDA,
we may not label or promote the product for an indication that
has not been approved. Securing FDA approval for new indications
or product enhancements and, in some cases, for manufacturing
and labeling claims, is generally a time-consuming and expensive
process that may require us to conduct clinical trials under the
FDAs IND regulations. Even if such studies are conducted,
the FDA may not approve any change in a timely fashion, or at
all. In addition, adverse experiences associated with use of the
products must be reported to the FDA, and FDA rules govern how
we can label, advertise or otherwise commercialize our products.
In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical
products, several other types of state and federal laws have
been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the
pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include
anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes. The federal
health care program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other
things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or
receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing,
leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order
of any health care item or service reimbursable under Medicare,
Medicaid or other federally financed health care programs. This
statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between
pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers,
purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Violations of
the anti-kickback statute are punishable by imprisonment,
criminal fines, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from
participation in federal health care programs. Federal false
claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or
causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the
federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made,
a false statement to have a false claim paid. Recently, several
pharmaceutical and other health care companies have been
prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices
they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the
government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and
for allegedly providing free product to customers with the
expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for
the product.
Outside of the U.S., our ability to market our products will
also depend on receiving marketing authorizations from the
appropriate regulatory authorities. The foreign regulatory
approval process includes all of the risks associated with the
FDA approval process described above. The requirements governing
the conduct of clinical trials and marketing authorization vary
widely from country to country.
ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS
We are subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws
and regulations and we believe that our operations comply with
such regulations. We anticipate that the effects of compliance
with federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to
the discharge of materials into the environment will not have
any material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings or
competitive position.
SEASONALITY
There are no significant seasonal aspects to our business.
BACKLOG
Due to the relatively short lead-time required to fill orders
for our products, backlog of orders is not considered material
to our business.
20
Part I
EMPLOYEES
As of March 1, 2011, we had 131 full-time employees.
In addition, we believe that utilizing experienced, independent
contractors and consultants is a cost-efficient and effective
way to accomplish our goals and a number of individuals have
provided or are currently providing services to us pursuant to
agreements between the individuals or their employers and us.
None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining
unit. We believe that we have positive relationships with our
employees.
21
Part I
Item 1A:
Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the risk factors described
below and throughout this report, which could materially affect
our business. There are also risks that are not presently known
or not presently material, as well as the other information set
forth in this report that could materially affect our business.
In addition, in our periodic filings with the SEC, press
releases and other statements, we discuss estimates and
projections regarding our future performance and business
outlook. By their nature, such forward-looking
statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties
and other factors that in some cases are out of our control. For
a further discussion of forward-looking statements, please refer
to the section entitled Special Note Regarding
Forward-Looking Statements. These factors could cause our
actual results to differ materially from our historical results
or our present expectations and projections. These risk factors
and uncertainties include, but are not limited to the
following:
RISKS RELATED TO
OUR BUSINESS
An adverse
development regarding our products could have a material and
adverse impact on our future revenues and
profitability.
A number of factors may impact the effectiveness of our
marketing and sales activities and the demand for our products,
including:
|
|
Ø
|
The prices of our products relative to other drugs or competing
treatments;
|
|
Ø
|
Any unfavorable publicity concerning us, our products, or the
markets for these products such as information concerning
product contamination or other safety issues in either of our
product markets, whether or not directly involving our products;
|
|
Ø
|
Perception by physicians and other members of the healthcare
community of the safety or efficacy of our products or competing
products;
|
|
Ø
|
Regulatory developments related to our marketing and promotional
practices or the manufacture or continued use of our products;
|
|
Ø
|
Changes in intellectual property protection available for our
products or competing treatments;
|
|
Ø
|
The availability and level of third-party reimbursement for
sales of our products; and
|
|
Ø
|
The continued availability of adequate supplies of our products
to meet demand.
|
If demand for our products weaken, our revenues and
profitability will likely decline. Known adverse effects of our
marketed products are documented in product labeling, including
the product package inserts, medical information disclosed to
medical professionals and all marketing-related materials. At
this time, no unforeseen or serious adverse effects outside of
those specified in current product labeling have been directly
attributed to our approved products.
If any
manufacturer we rely upon fails to produce our products in the
amounts we require on a timely basis, or fails to comply with
stringent regulations applicable to pharmaceutical drug
manufacturers, we may be unable to meet demand for our products
and may lose potential revenues.
We do not manufacture any of our products, and we do not
currently plan to develop any capacity to do so. Our dependence
upon third parties for the manufacture of products could
adversely affect our profit margins or our ability to develop
and deliver products on a timely and competitive basis. If for
any reason we are unable to obtain or retain third-party
manufacturers on commercially acceptable terms, we may not be
able to sell our products as planned. Furthermore, if we
encounter delays or
22
Part I
difficulties with contract manufacturers in producing our
products, the distribution, marketing and subsequent sales of
these products could be adversely affected.
Caldolor is manufactured at Hospira Australia Pty. Ltd.s
facility in Australia and Bayers facility in Kansas.
Beginning in early 2011, Acetadote is manufactured primarily at
Bayers facility in Kansas and Bioniches
manufacturing plant in Ireland is an alternative manufacturing
source for Acetadote. The active pharmaceutical ingredient for
Kristalose is manufactured at a single facility in Italy. If any
one of these facilities is damaged or destroyed, or if local
conditions result in a work stoppage, we could suffer an
inability to meet demand for our products. Kristalose is
manufactured through a complex process involving trade secrets
of the manufacturer; therefore, it would be particularly
difficult to find a new manufacturer of Kristalose on an
expedited basis. As a result of these factors, our ability to
manufacture Kristalose may be substantially impaired if the
manufacturer is unable or unwilling to supply sufficient
quantities of the product.
In addition, all manufacturers of our products and product
candidates must comply with current good manufacturing
practices, referred to as cGMP, enforced by the FDA through its
facilities inspection program. These requirements include
quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of
records and documentation. Manufacturers of our products may be
unable to comply with cGMP requirements and with other FDA,
state and foreign regulatory requirements.
We have no control over our manufacturers compliance with
these regulations and standards. If our third-party
manufacturers do not comply with these requirements, we could be
subject to:
|
|
Ø
|
fines and civil penalties;
|
|
Ø
|
suspension of production or distribution;
|
|
Ø
|
suspension or delay in product approval;
|
|
Ø
|
product seizure or recall; and
|
|
Ø
|
withdrawal of product approval.
|
We are dependent
on a variety of other third parties. If these third parties fail
to perform as we expect, our operations could be disrupted and
our financial results could suffer.
We have a relatively small internal infrastructure. We rely on a
variety of third parties, other than our third-party
manufacturers, to help us operate our business. Other third
parties on which we rely include:
|
|
Ø
|
Cardinal Health Specialty Pharmaceutical Services, a logistics
and fulfillment company and business unit of Cardinal, which
warehouses and ships our marketed products; and
|
|
Ø
|
Vanderbilt University and the Tennessee Technology Development
Corporation, co-owners with us of CET, and the universities that
collaborate with us in connection with CETs research and
development programs.
|
If these third parties do not continue to provide services to
us, or collaborate with us, we might not be able to obtain
others who can serve these functions. This could disrupt our
business operations, increase our operating expenses or
otherwise adversely affect our operating results.
Competitive
pressures could reduce our revenues and profits.
The pharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive. Our
strategy is to target differentiated products in specialized
markets. However, this strategy does not relieve us from
competitive pressures, and can entail distinct competitive
risks. Certain of our competitors do not aggressively promote
their products in our markets. An increase in promotional
activity in our markets could result in large shifts in market
share, adversely affecting us.
23
Part I
Our competitors may sell or develop drugs that are more
effective and useful and less costly than ours, and they may be
more successful in manufacturing and marketing their products.
Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and
marketing resources than we do. Additional competitors may enter
our markets.
The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by constant and
significant investment in new product development, which can
result in rapid technological change. The introduction of new
products could substantially reduce our market share or render
our products obsolete. The selling prices of pharmaceutical
products tend to decline as competition increases, through new
product introduction or otherwise, which could reduce our
revenues and profitability.
Governmental and private health care payors have recently
emphasized substitution of branded pharmaceuticals with less
expensive generic equivalents. An increase in the sales of
generic pharmaceutical products could result in a decrease in
revenues of branded pharmaceuticals. While there are no generic
equivalents competing with our products at this time, in the
future we could face generic competition.
The commercial
launch of Caldolor is subject to many internal and external
challenges and if we cannot overcome these challenges in a
timely manner, our future revenues and profits could be
materially and adversely impacted.
Caldolor represents a substantial portion of our future growth.
Caldolor was approved by the FDA in June 2009, and we started
commercializing Caldolor in the United States in September 2009.
The commercial success of Caldolor is dependent on many
third-parties, including physicians, pharmacists, hospital
pharmacy and therapeutics committees, or P&T committees,
suppliers and distributors, all of whom we have little or no
control over. We expect Caldolor to be administered primarily to
hospitalized patients who are unable to receive oral therapies
for the treatment of pain or fever. Before we can distribute
Caldolor to any new hospital customers, Caldolor must be
approved for addition to the hospitals formulary lists by
their P&T committees. A hospitals P&T committee
generally governs all matters pertaining to the use of
medications within the institution, including review of
medication formulary data and recommendations of drugs to the
medical staff. We cannot guarantee that we will be successful in
getting the approvals we need from enough P&T committees to
be able to optimize hospital sales of Caldolor. Even if we
obtain hospital approval for Caldolor, we must still convince
individual hospital physicians to prescribe Caldolor repeatedly.
Because Caldolor is a new drug with little track record, any
mistakes made in the timely supply of Caldolor, education about
how to properly administer Caldolor or any unexpected side
effects that develop from use of the drug, may lead physicians
to not accept Caldolor as a viable treatment alternative.
In addition to the extensive external efforts required, the
commercial success of Caldolor also depends on our ability to
coordinate supply, distribution, marketing, sales and education
efforts. Internally, the successful commercialization of
Caldolor depends on our ability to maintain a well-trained,
qualified sales force, to equip our sales force with effective
supportive materials, to target appropriate markets and to
accurately price Caldolor. In addition, as Caldolor is a newly
marketed drug, our sales force will need to be credible and
persuasive in order to convince physicians and pharmacists in
target markets to use Caldolor. If we are unable to provide our
sales force with convincing supportive materials, such as
clinical papers, sales literature and formulary kits, they may
not be able to sell Caldolor in sufficient quantities. We must
also target the right hospitals across the United States. Any
failure in sales force coverage could limit our ability to
generate market acceptance for Caldolor. We also have set a
price for Caldolor that we believe hospitals and other
purchasers are willing to pay, but that will also generate
sufficient profits. If we have set a price for Caldolor that
hospitals consider too high, we may need to subsequently reduce
the price for Caldolor. If we have set the initial price for
Caldolor too low, we may not generate adequate profits and may
not be able to raise the price of the drug in the future.
24
Part I
Any attempt by us
to expand the potential market for Caldolor is subject to
limitations.
In its June 2009 Caldolor approval letter, the FDA required us
to conduct two additional Phase IV pediatric studies by
2011 and 2012, respectively. If the results of these
Phase IV clinical studies are not favorable, we may not be
able to expand the market for Caldolor to children
ages 1-16.
We may also experience delays associated with these required
Phase IV clinical studies potentially resulting from, among
other factors, difficulty enrolling pediatric patients. Such
delays could impact our ability to obtain an additional six
months of FDA exclusivity.
In addition, we have only obtained regulatory approval to market
Caldolor in the United States. In foreign jurisdictions such as
Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, Southeast Asia and Australia
we have licensed the right to market Caldolor to third parties.
These third parties are responsible for seeking regulatory
approval for Caldolor in their respective jurisdictions. We have
no control over these third parties and cannot be sure that
marketing approval for Caldolor will be obtained outside the
United States.
Our future growth
depends on our ability to identify and acquire rights to
products. If we do not successfully identify and acquire rights
to products and successfully integrate them into our operations,
our growth opportunities may be limited.
We acquired rights to Caldolor, Acetadote and Kristalose. Our
business strategy is to continue to acquire rights to
FDA-approved products as well as pharmaceutical product
candidates in the late stages of development. We do not plan to
conduct basic research or pre-clinical product development,
except to the extent of our investment in CET. As compared to
large multi-national pharmaceutical companies, we have limited
resources to acquire third-party products, businesses and
technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure.
Many acquisition opportunities involve competition among several
potential purchasers including large multi-national
pharmaceutical companies and other competitors that have access
to greater financial resources than we do. With future
acquisitions, we may face financial and operational risks and
uncertainties. We may not be able to engage in future product
acquisitions, and those we do complete may not be beneficial to
us in the long term.
If we are unable
to maintain and build an effective sales and marketing
infrastructure, we will not be able to commercialize and grow
our products and product candidates successfully.
As we grow, we may not be able to secure sales personnel or
organizations that are adequate in number or expertise to
successfully market and sell our products. This risk would be
accentuated if we acquire products in areas outside of hospital
acute care and gastroenterology, since our sales forces
specialize in these areas. If we are unable to expand our sales
and marketing capability or any other capabilities necessary to
commercialize our products and product candidates, we will need
to contract with third parties to market and sell our products.
If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales and
marketing capabilities, we may not be able to increase our
product revenue, may generate increased expenses and may not
continue to be profitable.
If governmental
or third-party payors do not provide adequate reimbursement for
our products, our revenue and prospects for continued
profitability may be limited.
Our financial success depends, in part, on the availability of
adequate reimbursement from third-party healthcare payors. Such
third-party payors include governmental health programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers and private health
insurers. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the
pricing of medical products and services, while governments
continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the
cost of healthcare. Adoption of such legislation could further
limit reimbursement for pharmaceuticals.
25
Part I
For example, in March 2010, the U.S. government passed into
law and enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act (collectively, Health Care Reform
Act). Among other provisions, the Health Care Reform Act
calls for an increase in certain Medicare drug rebates paid by
pharmaceutical manufacturers and an industry fee imposed on
pharmaceutical manufacturers according to the individual
manufacturers relative percentage of total industry sales
to specified government programs. At this time no assurances can
be given that these measures, or any other measures included in
the Health Care Reform Act, will not have an adverse effect on
our revenues in the future. Furthermore, future cost control
initiatives, legislation, and regulations could decrease the
price that we would receive for any products, which would limit
our revenue and profitability.
Also, reimbursement practices of third-party payors might
preclude us from achieving market acceptance for our products or
maintaining price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate
return on our investment in product acquisition and development.
If we cannot obtain adequate reimbursement levels, our business,
financial condition and results of operations would be
materially and adversely affected.
Formulary
practices of third-party payors could adversely affect our
competitive position.
Many managed health care organizations are now controlling the
pharmaceutical products listed on their formulary lists. Having
products listed on these formulary lists creates competition
among pharmaceutical companies which, in turn, has created a
trend of downward pricing pressure in our industry. In addition,
many managed care organizations are pursuing various ways to
reduce pharmaceutical costs and are considering formulary
contracts primarily with those pharmaceutical companies that can
offer a full line of products for a given therapy sector or
disease state. Our products might not be included on the
formulary lists of managed care organizations, and downward
pricing pressure in our industry generally could negatively
impact our operations.
Continued
consolidation of distributor networks in the pharmaceutical
industry as well as increases in retailer concentration may
limit our ability to profitably sell our products.
We sell most of our products to large pharmaceutical
wholesalers, who in turn sell to, thereby supplying, hospitals
and retail pharmacies. The distribution network for
pharmaceutical products has become increasingly consolidated in
recent years. Further consolidation or financial difficulties
could also cause our customers to reduce the amounts of our
products that they purchase, which would materially and
adversely affect our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
Our CET joint
initiative may not result in our gaining access to commercially
viable products.
Our CET joint initiative with Vanderbilt University and
Tennessee Technology Development Corporation is designed to help
us investigate, in a cost-effective manner, early-stage products
and technologies. However, we may never gain access to
commercially viable products from CET for a variety of reasons,
including:
|
|
Ø
|
CET investigates early-stage products, which have the greatest
risk of failure prior to FDA approval and commercialization;
|
|
Ø
|
In some programs, we do not have pre-set rights to product
candidates developed by CET. We would need to agree with CET and
its collaborators on the terms of any product licensed to, or
acquired by, us;
|
|
Ø
|
We rely principally on government grants to fund CETs
research and development programs. If these grants were no
longer available, we or our co-owners might be unable or
unwilling to fund CET operations at current levels or at
all;
|
26
Part I
|
|
Ø
|
We may become involved in disputes with our co-owners regarding
CET policy or operations, such as how best to deploy CET assets
or which product opportunities to pursue. Disagreement could
disrupt or halt product development; and
|
|
Ø
|
CET may disagree with one of the various universities with which
CET is collaborating on research. A disagreement could disrupt
or halt product development.
|
We depend on our
key personnel, the loss of whom would adversely affect our
operations. If we fail to attract and retain the talent required
for our business, our business will be materially
harmed.
We are a relatively small company, and we depend to a great
extent on principal members of our management and scientific
staff. If we lose the services of any key personnel, in
particular, A.J. Kazimi, our Chief Executive Officer, it could
have a material adverse effect on our business prospects. We
currently have a key man life insurance policy covering the life
of Mr. Kazimi. We have entered into agreements with each of
our employees that contain restrictive covenants relating to
non-competition and non-solicitation of our customers and
suppliers for one year after termination of employment.
Nevertheless, each of our officers and key employees may
terminate his or her employment at any time without notice and
without cause or good reason, and so as a practical matter these
agreements do not guarantee the continued service of these
employees. Our success depends on our ability to attract and
retain highly qualified scientific, technical and managerial
personnel and research partners. Competition among
pharmaceutical companies for qualified employees is intense, and
we may not be able to retain existing personnel or attract and
retain qualified staff in the future. If we experience
difficulties in hiring and retaining personnel in key positions,
we could suffer from delays in product development, loss of
customers and sales and diversion of management resources, which
could adversely affect operating results.
We face potential
product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought
against us, we may incur substantial liability for a product or
product candidate and may have to limit its
commercialization.
We face an inherent risk of product liability lawsuits related
to the testing of our product candidates and the commercial sale
of our products. An individual may bring a liability claim
against us if one of our product candidates or products causes,
or appears to have caused, an injury. If we cannot successfully
defend ourselves against the product liability claim, we may
incur substantial liabilities. Liability claims may result in:
|
|
Ø
|
decreased demand for our products;
|
|
Ø
|
injury to our reputation;
|
|
Ø
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
Ø
|
significant litigation costs;
|
|
Ø
|
substantial monetary awards to or costly settlement with
patients;
|
|
Ø
|
product recalls;
|
|
Ø
|
loss of revenue; and
|
|
Ø
|
the inability to commercialize our product candidates.
|
We are highly dependent upon medical and patient perceptions of
us and the safety and quality of our products. We could be
adversely affected if we or our products are subject to negative
publicity. We could also be adversely affected if any of our
products or any similar products sold by other companies prove
to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Also, because
of our dependence upon medical and patient perceptions, any
adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse
effects resulting
27
Part I
from the use or misuse of our products or any similar products
sold by other companies could have a material adverse impact on
our results of operations.
We have product liability insurance that covers our clinical
trials and the marketing and sale of our products up to a
$10 million annual aggregate limit, subject to specified
deductibles. Our current or future insurance coverage may prove
insufficient to cover any liability claims brought against us.
Because of the increasing costs of insurance coverage, we may
not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost
or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy
any liability that may arise.
Regulatory
approval for any approved product is limited by the FDA to those
specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety
and efficacy have been demonstrated.
Any regulatory approval is limited to those specific diseases
and indications for which a product is deemed to be safe and
effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required
for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product
also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain FDA
approval for any desired future indications for our products,
our ability to effectively market and sell our products may be
reduced and our business may be adversely affected.
While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are
not described in the products labeling and for uses that
differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the
regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is
limited to those indications that are specifically approved by
the FDA. These off-label uses are common across
medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment
for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory
authorities in the U.S. generally do not regulate the
behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory
authorities do, however, restrict communications by
pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use. If our
promotional activities fail to comply with these regulations or
guidelines, we may be subject to warnings from, or enforcement
action by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow
FDA rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising
may cause the FDA to suspend or withdraw an approved product
from the market, require a recall or institute fines, or could
result in disgorgement of money, operating restrictions,
injunctions or criminal prosecution, any of which could harm our
business.
Our business and
operations would suffer in the event of system
failures.
Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal
computer systems are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses,
unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and
telecommunication and electrical failures. Any system failure,
accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our
operations could result in a material disruption of our drug
development programs. To the extent that any disruption or
security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or
applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or
proprietary information, we may incur liability and the further
development of our products or product candidates may be delayed.
RISKS RELATING TO
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
We are subject to
stringent government regulation. All of our products face
regulatory challenges.
Virtually all aspects of our business activities are regulated
by government agencies. The manufacturing, processing,
formulation, packaging, labeling, distribution, promotion and
sampling, and advertising of our products, and disposal of waste
products arising from such activities, are subject to
governmental regulation. These activities are regulated by one
or more of the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the
28
Part I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as by
comparable agencies in foreign countries. These activities are
also regulated by various agencies of the states and localities
in which our products are sold. For more information, see
BusinessGovernment Regulation.
Like all pharmaceutical manufacturers, we are subject to
regulation by the FDA under the authority of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). All new drugs must
be the subject of an FDA-approved NDA before they may be
marketed in the United States. The FDA has the authority to
withdraw existing NDA approvals and to review the regulatory
status of products marketed under the enforcement policy. The
FDA may require an approved NDA for any drug product marketed
under the enforcement policy if new information reveals
questions about the drugs safety and effectiveness. All
drugs must be manufactured in conformity with cGMP, and drug
products subject to an approved NDA must be manufactured,
processed, packaged, held and labeled in accordance with
information contained in the NDA. Since we rely on third parties
to manufacture our products, cGMP requirements directly affect
our third party manufacturers and indirectly affect us. The
manufacturing facilities of our third-party manufacturers are
continually subject to inspection by such governmental agencies,
and manufacturing operations could be interrupted or halted in
any such facilities if such inspections prove unsatisfactory.
Our third-party manufacturers are subject to periodic inspection
by the FDA to assure such compliance.
Pharmaceutical products must be distributed, sampled and
promoted in accordance with FDA requirements. The FDA also
regulates the advertising of prescription drugs. The FDA has the
authority to request post-approval commitments that can be
time-consuming and expensive.
Under the FDC Act, the federal government has extensive
enforcement powers over the activities of pharmaceutical
manufacturers to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. Those
powers include, but are not limited to, the authority to
initiate court action to seize unapproved or non-complying
products, to enjoin non-complying activities, to halt
manufacturing operations that are not in compliance with cGMP,
and to seek civil monetary and criminal penalties. The
initiation of any of these enforcement activities, including the
restriction or prohibition on sales of our products, could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
Any change in the FDAs enforcement policy could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations or
statutes or legal interpretation, when and if promulgated or
enacted, may have on our business in the future. Such changes,
or new legislation, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Proposed
legislation may permit re-importation of drugs from other
countries into the U.S., including foreign countries where the
drugs are sold at lower prices than in the U.S., which could
materially adversely affect our operating results and our
overall financial condition.
Legislation has been introduced in Congress that if enacted
would permit more widespread re-importation of drugs from
foreign countries into the U.S. which may include
re-importation from foreign countries where the drugs are sold
at lower prices than in the U.S. Such legislation, or
similar regulatory changes, could decrease the price we receive
for any approved products which, in turn could materially
adversely affect our operating results and our overall financial
condition.
29
Part I
RISKS RELATING TO
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Our strategy to
secure and extend marketing exclusivity or patent rights may
provide only limited protection from competition.
We seek to secure and extend marketing exclusivity for our
products through a variety of means, including FDA exclusivity
and patent rights. Acetadote is indicated to prevent or lessen
hepatic (liver) injury when administered intravenously within
eight to ten hours after ingesting quantities of acetaminophen
that are potentially toxic to the liver. Although a patent
application and other applications relating to uses of Acetadote
are in prosecution, they have not yet been issued. Barriers to
competitive market entry include the time and cost associated
with the development, regulatory approval and manufacturing of a
similar formulation.
We do not have composition of matter or
use patents for our marketed products. We do have a
U.S. patent, No. 6,727,286 for Caldolor, and some
related international patents, which are directed to ibuprofen
solution formulations, methods of making the same, and methods
of using the same, and which are related to our formulation and
manufacture of Caldolor. Additionally, the active ingredient in
Caldoloribuprofenis in the public domain, and if a
competitor were to develop a sufficiently distinct formulation,
it could develop and seek FDA approval for another ibuprofen
product that competes with Caldolor. Upon receipt of FDA
approval in June 2009, we received three years of marketing
exclusivity for Caldolor.
Kristalose is manufactured under a contract with Inalco, which
owns U.S. Patent No. 5,480,491, related to the
manufacture of Kristalose. This patent is not directed to the
composition or use of Kristalose and does not prevent a
competitor from developing a formulation and developing and
seeking FDA approval for a product that competes with Kristalose.
While we consider patent protection when evaluating product
acquisition opportunities, any products we acquire in the future
may not have significant patent protection. Neither the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office nor the courts have a
consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed or the
degree of protection afforded under many pharmaceutical patents.
Patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign
jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months
following the filing date of the first related application, and
in some cases not at all. In addition, publication of
discoveries in scientific literature often lags significantly
behind actual discoveries. Therefore, neither we nor our
licensors can be certain that we or they were the first to make
the inventions claimed in our issued patents or pending patent
applications, or that we or they were the first to file for
protection of the inventions set forth in these patent
applications. In addition, changes in either patent laws or in
interpretations of patent laws in the U.S. and other
countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or
narrow the scope of our patent protection. Furthermore, our
competitors may independently develop similar technologies or
duplicate technology developed by us in a manner that does not
infringe our patents or other intellectual property. As a result
of these factors, our patent rights may not provide any
commercially valuable protection from competing products.
If we are unable
to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information
and know-how, the value of our technology and products could be
adversely affected.
In addition to patents, we rely upon trade secrets, unpatented
proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation
where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or
attainable. For example, the manufacturing process for
Kristalose involves substantial trade secrets and proprietary
know-how. We have entered into confidentiality agreements with
certain key employees and consultants pursuant to which such
employees and consultants must assign to us any inventions
relating to our business if made by them while they are our
employees, as well as certain confidentiality agreements
relating to the acquisition of rights to products.
Confidentiality agreements can be breached, though,
30
Part I
and we might not have adequate remedies for any breach. Also,
others could acquire or independently develop similar technology.
We depend on our
licensors for the maintenance and enforcement of our
intellectual property and have limited, if any, control over the
amount or timing of resources that our licensors devote on our
behalf.
When we license products, we often depend on our licensors to
protect the proprietary rights covering those products. We have
limited, if any, control over the amount or timing of resources
that our licensors devote on our behalf or the priority they
place on maintaining patent or other rights and prosecuting
patent applications to our advantage. While any such licensor is
expected to be under contractual obligations to us to diligently
prosecute its patent applications and allow us the opportunity
to consult, review and comment on patent office communications,
we cannot be sure that it will perform as required. If a
licensor does not perform and if we do not assume the
maintenance of the licensed patents in sufficient time to make
required payments or filings with the appropriate governmental
agencies, we risk losing the benefit of all or some of those
patent rights.
If the use of our
technology conflicts with the intellectual property rights of
third parties, we may incur substantial liabilities, and we may
be unable to commercialize products based on this technology in
a profitable manner or at all.
If our products conflict with the intellectual property rights
of others, they could bring legal action against us or our
licensors, licensees, manufacturers, customers or collaborators.
If we were found to be infringing a patent or other intellectual
property rights held by a third party, we could be forced to
seek a license to use the patented or otherwise protected
technology. We might not be able to obtain such a license on
terms acceptable to us or at all. If an infringement or
misappropriation legal action were to be brought against us or
our licensors, we would incur substantial costs in defending the
action. If such a dispute were to be resolved against us, we
could be subject to significant damages, and the manufacturing
or sale of one or more of our products could be enjoined.
We may be
involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the
patents of our collaborators or licensors, which could be
expensive and time consuming.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our
collaborators or licensors. To counter infringement or
unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement
claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition,
in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent
of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop
the other party from using the technology at issue on the
grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in
question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense
proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being
invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent
applications at risk of not issuing.
Interference proceedings brought by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office may be necessary to determine the priority of
inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of
our collaborators or licensors. Litigation or interference
proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in
substantial costs and distract our management. We may not be
able, alone or with our collaborators and licensors, to prevent
misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in
countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as
in the United States.
Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery
required in connection with intellectual property litigation,
some of our confidential information could be disclosed during
this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public
announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other
interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or
investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a
substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
31
Part I
If we breach any
of the agreements under which we license rights to our products
and product candidates from others, we could lose the ability to
continue commercialization of our products and development and
commercialization of our product candidates.
We have exclusive licenses for the marketing and sale of certain
products and may acquire additional licenses. Such licenses may
terminate prior to expiration if we breach our obligations under
the license agreement related to these pharmaceutical products.
For example, the licenses may terminate if we fail to meet
specified quality control standards, including cGMP with respect
to the products, or commit a material breach of other terms and
conditions of the licenses. Such early termination could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
We may be subject
to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed
alleged trade secrets of their former employers.
As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry,
we employ individuals who were previously employed at other
biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our
competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against
us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these
employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or
disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of
their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend
against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending
against these claims, litigation could result in substantial
costs and be a distraction to management.
RISKS RELATED TO
OUR FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Our operating
results are likely to fluctuate from period to period.
We are a relatively new company seeking to capture significant
growth. While our revenues and operating income have increased
over time, we anticipate that there may be fluctuations in our
future operating results. We may not be able to maintain or
improve our current levels of revenue or income. Potential
causes of future fluctuations in our operating results may
include:
|
|
Ø
|
new product launches, which could increase revenues but also
increase sales and marketing expenses;
|
|
Ø
|
acquisition activity and other charges (such as for inventory
expiration);
|
|
Ø
|
increases in research and development expenses resulting from
the acquisition of a product candidate that requires significant
additional development;
|
|
Ø
|
changes in the competitive, regulatory or reimbursement
environment, which could drive down revenues or drive up sales
and marketing or compliance costs; and
|
|
Ø
|
unexpected product liability or intellectual property claims and
lawsuits.
|
See also Managements discussion and analysis of
financial condition and results of operationsLiquidity and
capital resources. Fluctuation in operating results,
particularly if not anticipated by investors and other members
of the financial community, could add to volatility in our stock
price.
Our focus on
acquisitions as a growth strategy has created a large amount of
intangible assets whose amortization could negatively affect our
results of operations.
Our total assets include intangible assets related to our
acquisitions. As of December 31, 2010, intangible assets
relating to product and data acquisitions represented
approximately 8% of our total assets. We may never realize the
value of these assets. Generally accepted accounting principles
require that we evaluate on a regular basis whether events and
circumstances have occurred that indicate that all or a portion
of the carrying amount of the asset may no longer be
recoverable, in which case we would write down the value of the
asset and take a corresponding charge to earnings. Any
32
Part I
determination requiring the write-off of a significant portion
of unamortized intangible assets would adversely affect our
results of operations.
We may need
additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when
needed, which could force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our
product development or commercialization and marketing
efforts.
We may need to raise additional funds in order to meet the
capital requirements of running our business and acquiring and
developing new pharmaceutical products. If we require additional
funding, we may seek to sell common stock or other equity or
equity-linked securities, which could result in dilution to our
shareholders. We may also seek to raise capital through a debt
financing, which would result in ongoing debt-service payments
and increased interest expense. Any financings would also likely
involve operational and financial restrictions being imposed on
us. We might also seek to sell assets or rights in one or more
commercial products or product development programs. Additional
capital might not be available to us when we need it on
acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to raise additional
capital when needed, we could be forced to scale back our
operations to conserve cash.
RISKS RELATED TO
OWNING OUR STOCK
The market price
of our common stock may fluctuate substantially.
The price for the shares of our common stock sold in our initial
public offering was determined by negotiation between the
representatives of the underwriters and us. This price may not
have reflected the market price of our common stock following
our initial public offering. Through March 1, 2011, the
closing price of our common stock has ranged from a low of $4.70
to a high of $17.05 per share. Moreover, the market price of our
common stock might decline below current levels. In addition,
the market price of our common stock is likely to be highly
volatile and may fluctuate substantially. Sales of a substantial
number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the
perception that these sales may occur could cause the market
price of our common stock to decline.
The realization of any of the risks described in these
Risk Factors could have a dramatic and material
adverse impact on the market price of our common stock. In
addition, securities class action litigation has often been
instituted against companies whose securities have experienced
periods of volatility in market price. Any such securities
litigation brought against us could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of managements attention and resources,
which could negatively impact our business, operating results
and financial condition. Sales of a substantial number of shares
of our common stock in the public market or the perception that
these sales may occur could cause the market price of our common
stock to decline.
Unstable market
conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our
business.
The recent economic downturn and market instability has made the
business climate more volatile and more costly. Our general
business strategy may be adversely affected by unpredictable and
unstable market conditions. While we believe we have adequate
capital resources to meet current working capital and capital
expenditure requirements, a radical economic downturn or
increase in our expenses could require additional financing on
less than attractive rates or on terms that are dilutive to
existing shareholders. Failure to secure any necessary financing
in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material
adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and
stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical
developments plans. There is a risk that one or more of our
current service providers, manufacturers and other partners may
encounter difficulties during challenging economic times, which
would directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals
on schedule and on budget.
33
Part I
We are
experiencing increased costs as a result of operating as a
public company, and our management will be required to devote
additional time to new compliance initiatives.
We have and will continue to incur increased costs as a result
of operating as a public company, and our management is required
to devote additional time to new compliance initiatives. As a
public company, we have and will continue to incur legal,
accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private
company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Sarbanes-Oxley Act), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010, and other rules subsequently implemented
by the SEC and Nasdaq, have imposed various requirements on
public companies, including requiring establishment and
maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and
changes in corporate governance practices. These rules and
regulations have and will continue to increase our legal and
financial compliance costs and will render some activities more
time-consuming and costly.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we
maintain effective internal controls for financial reporting and
disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, we must
perform system and process evaluation and testing of our
internal controls over financial reporting to allow management
and our independent registered public accounting firm to report
on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial
reporting, beginning with our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010, as required
by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our testing, or
the subsequent testing by our independent registered public
accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal
controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material
weaknesses.
Our compliance with Section 404 requires that we incur
substantial accounting expense and expend significant management
efforts. Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the
requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, or if we or
our independent registered public accounting firm identifies
deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting
that are deemed to be material weaknesses, the market price of
our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or
investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory
authorities, which would require additional financial and
management resources.
Some provisions
of our third amended and restated charter, bylaws, credit
facility and Tennessee law may inhibit potential acquisition
bids that you may consider favorable.
Our corporate documents contain provisions that may enable our
board of directors to resist a change in control of our company
even if a change in control were to be considered favorable by
you and other shareholders. These provisions include:
|
|
Ø
|
the authorization of undesignated preferred stock, the terms of
which may be established and shares of which may be issued
without shareholder approval;
|
|
Ø
|
advance notice procedures required for shareholders to nominate
candidates for election as directors or to bring matters before
an annual meeting of shareholders;
|
|
Ø
|
limitations on persons authorized to call a special meeting of
shareholders;
|
|
Ø
|
a staggered board of directors;
|
|
Ø
|
a restriction prohibiting shareholders from removing directors
without cause;
|
|
Ø
|
a requirement that vacancies in directorships are to be filled
by a majority of the directors then in office and the number of
directors is to be fixed by the board of directors; and
|
|
Ø
|
no cumulative voting.
|
These and other provisions contained in our third amended and
restated charter and bylaws could delay or discourage
transactions involving an actual or potential change in control
of us or our management, including transactions in which our
shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares
34
Part I
over then current prices, and may limit the ability of
shareholders to remove our current management or approve
transactions that our shareholders may deem to be in their best
interests and, therefore, could adversely affect the price of
our common stock.
Under our bank credit agreement, it is an event of default if
any person or entity obtains ownership or control, in one or a
series of transactions, of more than 30% of our common stock or
30% of the voting power entitled to vote in the election of
members of our board of directors.
In addition, we are subject to control share acquisitions
provisions and affiliated transaction provisions of the
Tennessee Business Corporation Act, the applications of which
may have the effect of delaying or preventing a merger, takeover
or other change in control of us and therefore could discourage
attempts to acquire our company.
We have never
paid cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not
anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable
future.
We have never paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We do
not anticipate paying cash dividends to our shareholders in the
foreseeable future. The availability of funds for distributions
to shareholders will depend substantially on our earnings. Even
if we become able to pay dividends in the future, we expect that
we would retain such earnings to enhance capital
and/or
reduce long-term debt.
SPECIAL
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Statements in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
that are not historical factual statements are
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking
statements include, among other things, statements regarding our
intent, belief or expectations, and can be identified by the use
of terminology such as may, will,
expect, believe, intend,
plan, estimate, should,
seek, anticipate and other comparable
terms or the negative thereof. In addition, we, through our
senior management, from time to time make forward-looking oral
and written public statements concerning our expected future
operations and other developments. While forward-looking
statements reflect our good-faith beliefs and best judgment
based upon current information, they are not guarantees of
future performance and are subject to known and unknown risks
and uncertainties, including those mentioned in Risk
factors, Managements discussion and analysis
of financial condition and results of operations and
elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
Actual results may differ materially from the expectations
contained in the forward-looking statements as a result of
various factors. Such factors include, without limitation:
|
|
Ø
|
legislative, regulatory or other changes in the healthcare
industry at the local, state or federal level which increase the
costs of, or otherwise affect our operations;
|
|
Ø
|
changes in reimbursement available to us by government or
private payers, including changes in Medicare and Medicaid
payment levels and availability of third-party insurance
coverage;
|
|
Ø
|
competition; and
|
|
Ø
|
changes in national or regional economic conditions, including
changes in interest rates and availability and cost of capital
to us.
|
35
Part I
Item 1B:
Unresolved Staff Comments
None
Item 2:
Properties
As of December 31, 2010, we leased approximately
25,500 square feet of office space in Nashville, Tennessee
for our corporate headquarters. The lease expires in October
2016. Of the 25,500 square feet of leased office space, we
have subleased to others approximately 9,900 square feet.
We believe these facilities are adequate to meet our current
needs for office space. We currently do not plan to purchase or
lease facilities for manufacturing, packaging or warehousing, as
such services are provided to us by third-party contract groups.
Under an agreement expiring in July 2011, CET leases
approximately 6,900 square feet of office and wet
laboratory space in Nashville, Tennessee. CET uses this space to
operate the CET Life Sciences Center for product development
work to be carried out in collaboration with universities,
research institutions and entrepreneurs. The CET Life Sciences
Center provides laboratory and office space, equipment and
infrastructure to early-stage life sciences companies and
university spin-outs. In January 2011, we notified the landlord
of our intent to renew CETs lease for five years.
Item 3:
Legal Proceedings
We are not currently engaged in any legal proceedings.
36
Part II
|
|
Item 5:
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
MARKET
INFORMATION
Our common stock, no par value, has been traded on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market since August 11, 2009 under the symbol
CPIX. Prior to that time, there was no public market
for our common stock. As of March 1, 2011, there were
134 shareholders of record, which excludes shareholders
whose shares are held in nominee or street name by brokers. The
closing price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market on March 1, 2011 was $5.75 per share. The following
table sets forth the high and low trading sales prices for our
common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market for
the full quarterly periods since the completion of our initial
public offering and through December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
16.77
|
|
|
$
|
11.78
|
|
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
|
14.52
|
|
|
|
10.26
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
|
11.11
|
|
|
|
6.16
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
|
6.90
|
|
|
|
4.70
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
|
8.18
|
|
|
|
5.63
|
|
DIVIDEND
POLICY
We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common
stock nor do we anticipate paying dividends for the foreseeable
future. We currently intend to retain any future earnings for
use in the operation of our business and to fund future growth.
The payment of dividends by us on our common stock is limited by
our loan agreement with Bank of America. Any future decision to
declare or pay dividends will be at the sole discretion of our
Board of Directors.
SECURITIES
AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY COMPENSATION
PLANS
The information required by this section is incorporated by
reference to Note 10 to the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 beginning
on
page F-22
of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
37
Part II
PERFORMANCE
GRAPH
The following stock performance graph illustrates a comparison
of the total cumulative stockholder return on our common stock
since August 10, 2009, which is the date of our initial
public offering on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, to the
Nasdaq Composite and Nasdaq Pharmaceutical Stocks. The graph
assumes an initial investment of $100 on August 10, 2009,
and that all dividends were reinvested.
Comparison
of Cumulative Total Return
USE OF PROCEEDS
FROM INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF COMMON STOCK
On August 10, 2009, our Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
was declared effective for our initial public offering. The use
of our proceeds from our initial public offering since
December 31, 2009 has been reflected in the periodic
reports filed during the year ending December 31, 2010. The
remaining funds are expected to be used for general corporate
purposes and acquisitions of product candidates, new products
and intellectual property rights to products or companies that
complement our business.
PURCHASES OF
EQUITY SECURITIES
The following table summarizes the activity, by month, during
the fourth quarter of 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of
shares
|
|
|
(or
approximate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(or units)
|
|
|
dollar value)
of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
purchased as
|
|
|
shares (or
units)
|
|
|
|
Total number
of
|
|
|
price paid
|
|
|
part of
publicly
|
|
|
that may yet
be
|
|
|
|
shares (or
units)
|
|
|
per share
|
|
|
announced plans
or
|
|
|
purchased under
the
|
|
Period
|
|
purchased
|
|
|
(or
unit)
|
|
|
programs
|
|
|
plans or
programs
|
|
|
|
|
October 1October 31
|
|
|
39,751
|
|
|
$
|
6.38
|
|
|
|
381,796
|
|
|
$
|
7,531,094
|
(1)
|
November 1November 30
|
|
|
18,035
|
|
|
|
6.69
|
|
|
|
399,831
|
|
|
|
7,410,516
|
|
December 1December 31
|
|
|
52,602
|
|
|
|
6.87
|
|
|
|
452,433
|
|
|
|
7,049,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
110,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
On May 13, 2010, we announced
a share repurchase program to purchase up to $10 million of
our common stock pursuant to
Rule 10b-18
of the Securities Act. In January 2011, our Board of Directors
modified the existing repurchase program to provide for the
repurchase of $10 million of our outstanding common stock,
in addition to the amount repurchased in 2010.
|
38
Part II
|
|
Item 6:
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The selected consolidated financial data set forth below should
be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial
statements and related notes and Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and other financial information appearing
elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
The historical results are not necessarily indicative of the
results to be expected for any future periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended
December 31,
|
|
Statement of
income data:
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands,
except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
$
|
45,876
|
|
|
$
|
43,537
|
|
|
$
|
35,075
|
|
|
$
|
28,064
|
|
|
$
|
17,815
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
3,587
|
|
|
|
4,137
|
|
|
|
3,046
|
|
|
|
2,670
|
|
|
|
2,399
|
|
Selling and marketing
|
|
|
22,675
|
|
|
|
20,194
|
|
|
|
14,387
|
|
|
|
10,053
|
|
|
|
7,349
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
4,327
|
|
|
|
4,993
|
|
|
|
4,429
|
|
|
|
3,694
|
|
|
|
2,233
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
7,990
|
|
|
|
7,643
|
|
|
|
5,140
|
|
|
|
4,138
|
|
|
|
2,999
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
794
|
|
|
|
791
|
|
|
|
783
|
|
|
|
612
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
6,502
|
|
|
|
5,777
|
|
|
|
7,282
|
|
|
|
6,725
|
|
|
|
2,224
|
|
Earnings per sharebasic
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
$
|
0.40
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Earnings per sharediluted
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
|
$
|
0.24
|
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
December 31,
|
|
Balance sheet
data:
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
65,894
|
|
|
$
|
78,702
|
|
|
$
|
11,830
|
|
|
$
|
10,815
|
|
|
$
|
6,255
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
71,811
|
|
|
|
74,549
|
|
|
|
10,104
|
|
|
|
6,669
|
|
|
|
3,945
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
92,054
|
|
|
|
103,724
|
|
|
|
31,119
|
|
|
|
28,919
|
|
|
|
26,481
|
|
Total long-term debt and other long-term
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
obligations (including current portion)
|
|
|
7,802
|
|
|
|
20,155
|
|
|
|
7,666
|
|
|
|
7,623
|
|
|
|
10,543
|
|
Convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,604
|
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)
|
|
|
6,999
|
|
|
|
4,542
|
|
|
|
1,451
|
|
|
|
(3,316
|
)
|
|
|
(7,360
|
)
|
Total equity
|
|
|
77,715
|
|
|
|
72,221
|
|
|
|
17,555
|
|
|
|
16,746
|
|
|
|
11,126
|
|
|
|
Item 7:
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The following discussion and analysis of our financial
position and results of operations should be read together with
our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes
appearing elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
This discussion and analysis may contain forward-looking
statements that involve risks and uncertaintiesplease
refer to the section entitled Special Note Regarding
Forward-Looking Statements. You should review the
Risk Factors section of this
Form 10-K
for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from the results described in or
implied by the forward-looking statements described in the
following discussion and analysis.
OVERVIEW
We are a profitable and growing specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of
branded prescription products. Cumberland is dedicated to
providing innovative products which improve quality of care for
patients. Our primary target markets are hospital acute care and
gastroenterology, which are characterized by relatively
concentrated
39
Part II
physician prescriber bases that we believe can be penetrated
effectively with relatively small, targeted sales forces.
Our product portfolio includes
Caldolor®
(ibuprofen) Injection, the first injectable treatment for
pain and fever approved in the United States,
Acetadote®
(acetylcysteine) Injection for the treatment of
acetaminophen poisoning and
Kristalose®
(lactulose) for Oral Solution, a prescription laxative.
We market our products through our dedicated hospital and
gastroenterology sales forces in the United States, and
work to partner our products to reach international markets.
We have both product development and commercial capabilities,
and believe we can leverage our existing infrastructure to
support our expected growth. Our management team consists of
pharmaceutical industry veterans experienced in business
development, clinical and regulatory affairs, and sales and
marketing. Our internal product development and regulatory
executives develop proprietary product formulations, design and
manage our clinical trials, prepare all regulatory submissions
and manage our medical call center. Our products are
manufactured by third parties, which are overseen and managed by
Cumberlands quality control and manufacturing group. All
aspects of commercialization are handled by our sales and
marketing professionals, and we work closely with our
distribution partner to make our products available across the
United States.
Our strategy to grow our company includes maximizing the
potential of our existing products and continuing to build a
portfolio of new, differentiated products. All of our current
products are approved for sale in the United States, and
Acetadote is approved for sale in Australia. We are expanding
our partner base outside of the U.S. to bring our products
to select international markets. We also look for opportunities
to expand into additional patient populations through new
product indications, whether through proprietary clinical
studies or by supporting investigator-initiated studies at
reputable research institutions. We are actively pursuing
opportunities to acquire additional late-stage development
product candidates as well as marketed products in our target
medical specialties. Further, we are supplementing the
aforementioned growth strategies with the early-stage drug
development activities of CET, our majority-owned subsidiary.
CET partners with universities and other research organizations
to cost-effectively develop promising, early-stage product
candidates, which Cumberland has the opportunity to
commercialize.
Our operating results have fluctuated in the past and are likely
to fluctuate in the future. These fluctuations can result from
competitive factors, new product acquisitions or introductions,
the nature, scope and result of our research and development
programs, execution of our growth strategy and other factors. As
a result of these fluctuations, our historical financial results
are not necessarily indicative of future results.
2010 HIGHLIGHTS
AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Acetadote®
Submission of
Application for New Formulation of Acetadote
In October 2010, we submitted a supplemental New Drug
Application (sNDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for approval of a new formulation of Acetadote, which was
the result of a Phase IV commitment Cumberland made to the
FDA upon receipt of initial marketing approval of the product.
In January 2011, the FDA approved the new formulation, which
does not contain ethylene diamine tetracetic acid or any other
stabilization and chelating agents and is free of preservatives.
We have commenced U.S. launch activities for this next
generation product, which will replace the currently marketed
product. We will no longer manufacture the previously approved
formulation for the U.S. market and the original
formulation has been delisted. We have provided a request to the
FDA that they not approve a generic to the previous formulation
and documented that the new formulation was developed based on
their Phase IV requirement. We have also filed a patent
application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to
protect the proprietary new formulation.
40
Part II
Supplemental New
Drug Application for Acetadote
In March 2010, we submitted a sNDA to the FDA for the use of
Acetadote in patients with non-acetaminophen acute liver
failure. The sNDA includes data from a clinical trial led by
investigators at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center indicating that acute liver failure patients treated with
Acetadote have a significantly improved chance of survival
without a transplant. The study showed that these patients can
also survive a significant number of days longer without
transplant, which would provide patients requiring transplant
increased time for a donor organ to become available.
In May 2010, the FDA officially accepted the sNDA and granted a
priority review with a response expected in September 2010. In
August 2010, we announced that the FDA extended its review of
the sNDA by three months, resulting in a new Prescription Drug
User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date in December 2010. In December,
the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter indicating that it had
completed its review of the application and had identified
additional work required or items that must be addressed prior
to approval of the potential new indication. We are currently in
discussion with the FDA to gain clarity on the pathway to
approval for this important indication.
Launch of
Acetadote in Australia
In April 2010, the Therapeutic Goods Administration granted
approval to our partner Phebra Pty Ltd., an Australian-based
specialty pharmaceutical company, for the commercialization of
Acetadote in Australia. In October 2010, Phebra commenced with
the Australian launch of Acetadote and began promoting wide
distribution of the product. This introduction of Acetadote in
Australia marked Cumberlands entry into international
markets. In addition to Australia, Phebra has exclusive
marketing rights to Acetadote for New Zealand and has obtained
marketing approval in that country. Phebra is also our marketing
partner for Acetadote in certain Asia Pacific markets, and
continues to work toward obtaining approval for the product in
those areas.
Caldolor®
In June 2009, the FDA approved Caldolor, our intravenous
formulation of ibuprofen, for marketing in the United States
through a priority review. In September 2009, we implemented the
U.S. launch of Caldolor with our experienced sales
professionals promoting the product across the country. Caldolor
is fully stocked at the wholesalers serving hospitals
nationwide, available in both 400mg and 800mg vials.
In 2010, we focused our sales and marketing efforts primarily on
securing formulary approval nationally for Caldolor, and the
product is now stocked at a growing number of U.S. medical
facilities. In early 2011, we began transitioning some of our
sales and marketing resources to also drive pull-through sales
for the product. We expect those activities to generate greater
use of the product in 2011.
Submission of
Marketing Application in South Korea
In December 2009, we entered into an exclusive partnership with
DB Pharm Korea Co. Ltd., a Korean-based pharmaceutical company,
for the commercialization of Caldolor in South Korea. Under the
terms of the agreement, DB Pharm Korea is responsible for
obtaining any regulatory approval for the product and handling
ongoing regulatory requirements, product marketing, distribution
and sales in Korea. We maintain responsibility for product
formulation, development and manufacturing. DB Pharm Korea has
submitted its application for regulatory approval of Caldolor in
South Korea, and is preparing for the launch of the product in
that territory.
License Agreement
for Canada
In April 2010, we entered into an exclusive agreement with
Alveda Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Toronto-based specialty
pharmaceutical company, for the commercialization of Caldolor in
Canada. Under the agreement, Alveda will seek Canadian
regulatory approval for Caldolor and, upon approval, will handle
ongoing regulatory requirements as well as product marketing,
distribution and sales throughout Canada. Cumberland will
maintain responsibility for product formulation, development and
41
Part II
manufacturing. In exchange for the license to the product,
Cumberland will receive royalties on future sales of Caldolor in
addition to upfront and milestone payments as well as a transfer
price.
Compassionate Use
in Australia
In December 2009, we entered into an exclusive agreement with
Phebra Pty Ltd. for distribution of Caldolor in Australia and
New Zealand. In April 2010, Phebra made the product available in
Australia on a limited, compassionate use basis. The TGA, which
regulates drugs and medical devices in Australia, operates
compassionate use programs that allow patients with critical
clinical needs to access products not yet approved through their
medical practitioner. Phebra is also pursuing full regulatory
approval of Caldolor for these territories.
Other
Developments
New Board of
Directors Appointments
In April 2010, we added three new members to our Board of
Directors when Cumberland shareholders elected Gordon R.
Bernard, M.D., Jonathan Griggs and James Jones at our
annual meeting. In January 2011, Joey Jacobs also joined our
Board of Directors. We believe each new director brings
significant experience in an area critical to our companys
continued growth and success.
Amendment of
Senior Credit Facility
In September 2010, we amended our senior credit facility with
Bank of America. With this amendment, we reduced the outstanding
balance on our term loan from $12 million to
$6 million on an original term loan of $18 million. We
also expanded our line of credit to $6 million, which
increases our access to funding for future growth. We expect to
achieve a net interest savings by retiring debt with cash that
would have earned a much lower yield. The debt repayment, which
was funded with excess cash flow, is consistent with our efforts
to efficiently manage our capital resources.
Share Repurchase
Program
In May 2010, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of
up to $10 million of Cumberlands outstanding common
stock. Pursuant to the share repurchase program, we are
purchasing shares of our common stock from
time-to-time
on the open market. The timing and amount of purchases are
determined by us based on evaluation of market conditions, stock
price and other factors. For the period from January 1,
2011 to March 1, 2011, we had repurchased an additional
94,662 shares, or $0.6 million, of our common stock
under this program.
In January 2011, our Board of Directors modified the existing
repurchase program to provide for the repurchase of
$10 million of our outstanding common stock, in addition to
the amount repurchased in 2010.
Federal Grant
Funding
In November 2010, Cumberland was awarded $860,000 in federal
grant funding under the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery
Project, a U.S. healthcare reform initiative designed to
support promising research and development programs at small
life sciences firms.
Transfer of
License Rights
As previously reported, CET has entered into an agreement with
Vanderbilt University to in-license rights to a new product
candidate. In the third quarter of 2010, Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals entered into an option agreement with CET to
assume the rights and responsibilities associated with that
product
42
Part II
candidate. Since then, we have commenced product manufacturing
and submitted an investigational new drug application for the
clinical evaluation of this product candidate. This transferring
of product rights from CET to Cumberland is consistent with our
goals in establishing CET to give us access to an early-stage
development product pipeline.
CRITICAL
ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS AND
ESTIMATES
Accounting
Estimates and Judgments
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles requires management to make estimates, judgments and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date
of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the period. We base our estimates on past
experience and on other factors we deem reasonable given the
circumstances. Past results help form the basis of our judgments
about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not
determined from other sources. Actual results could differ from
these estimates. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are
most critical with respect to our accounting for revenue
recognition, provision for income taxes, stock-based
compensation, research and development accounting, and
intangible assets.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue in accordance with the SECs Staff
Accounting Bulletin No. 101, Revenue Recognition in
Financial Statements, as amended by Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 104 (together, SAB 101), and Topic
605-15 of
the Accounting Standards Codification.
Our revenue is derived primarily from the product sales of
Acetadote, Caldolor and Kristalose. Revenue is recognized when
persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has
occurred, the fee is fixed and determinable and collectability
is probable. Delivery is considered to have occurred upon either
shipment of the product or arrival at its destination based on
the shipping terms of the transaction. When these conditions are
satisfied, we recognize gross product revenue, which is the
price we charge generally to our wholesalers for a particular
product. Other income, which is a component of net revenues,
includes rental and grant income. Other income was less than
three percent of net revenues in 2010, and less than one percent
in 2009 and 2008.
Our net product revenue reflects the reduction of gross product
revenue at the time of initial sales recognition for estimated
accounts receivable allowances for chargebacks, discounts and
damaged product as well as provisions for sales related accruals
of rebates, product returns and administrative fees and fee for
services. Our financial statements reflect accounts receivable
allowances of $0.2 million, $0.2 million and
$0.1 million as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, for chargebacks, discounts and allowances for
product damaged in shipment. We had accrued liabilities of
$2.6 million, $1.9 million and $1.0 million as of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, for
rebates, product returns, service fees, and administrative fees.
The following table reflects our sales-related accrual activity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1
|
|
$
|
1,863,012
|
|
|
$
|
1,040,203
|
|
|
$
|
738,362
|
|
Current Provision
|
|
|
4,933,553
|
|
|
|
3,436,208
|
|
|
|
1,690,134
|
|
Current Provision for Prior Period Sales
|
|
|
306,706
|
|
|
|
75,589
|
|
|
|
(73,960
|
)
|
Actual Returns/Credits
|
|
|
(4,476,958
|
)
|
|
|
(2,688,988
|
)
|
|
|
(1,314,333
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31
|
|
$
|
2,626,313
|
|
|
$
|
1,863,012
|
|
|
$
|
1,040,203
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
Part II
The allowances for chargebacks, discounts, and damaged products
and sales related accruals for rebates and product returns are
determined on a
product-by-product
basis and are established by management as our best estimate at
the time of sale based on each products historical
experience, adjusted to reflect known changes in the factors
that impact such allowances and accruals. Additionally, these
allowances and accruals are established based on the following:
|
|
Ø
|
the contractual terms with customers;
|
|
Ø
|
analysis of historical levels of discounts, returns, chargebacks
and rebates;
|
|
Ø
|
communications with customers;
|
|
Ø
|
purchased information about the rate of prescriptions being
written and the level of inventory remaining in the distribution
channel, if known; and
|
|
Ø
|
expectations about the market for each product, including any
anticipated introduction of competitive products.
|
The allowances for chargebacks and accruals for rebates and
product returns are the most significant estimates used in the
recognition of our revenue from product sales. Of the accounts
receivable allowances and our sales related accruals, our
accrual for fee for services and product returns represent the
majority of the balance. Sales related accrued liabilities
totaled $2.6 million, $1.9 million and
$1.0 million as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Of these amounts, our estimated liability for fee
for services represented $0.8 million, $0.7 million
and $0.3 million, respectively, while our accrual for
product returns totaled $1.4 million, $1.0 million and
$0.6 million, respectively. If the actual amount of cash
discounts, chargebacks, rebates, and product returns differ from
the amounts estimated by management, material differences may
result from the amount of our revenue recognized from product
sales. A change in our rebate estimate of one percentage point
would have impacted net sales by approximately $0.1 million
in each of the three years ended December 31, 2010. A
change in our product return estimate of one percentage point
would have impacted net sales by $0.5 million,
$0.5 million and $0.4 million for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Any expired
product return would be from a prior period, given the
shelf-life of the products.
As a general rule, we do not allow customers to purchase
additional product prior to a scheduled price increase. We
occasionally make an exception to this policy when we offer
odd-lot quantities at a slightly reduced price or when a
customer opens a new facility and requests special terms on
their initial purchase. To date, we believe these types of
transactions have not been material. Moreover, when we offer
special terms, we review the transaction against our revenue
recognition policy for proper treatment. If we determine such
transactions become material, we will disclose the impact in the
notes to our financial statements.
While we do not have regular access to our customers
inventory levels, we review each order from all of our
customers. To the extent that an order reflects more than a
normal purchasing pattern, management discusses the order with
the customer prior to agreeing to process the order.
Income
Taxes
We provide for deferred taxes using the asset and liability
approach. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities
are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to
operating loss and tax credit carry-forwards and differences
between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing
assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Our
principal differences are related to the timing of deductibility
of certain items such as depreciation, amortization and expense
for options issued to nonemployees. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are measured using managements estimate of tax
rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which
management believes those temporary differences are expected to
be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and
liabilities of a
44
Part II
change in tax rates is recognized in our results of operations
in the period that includes the enactment date.
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during
the periods in which those temporary differences become
deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of
deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and
tax planning strategies in making this assessment.
The tax benefit associated with the exercise of nonqualified
stock options is recognized when the benefit is used to offset
income taxes payable. As of December 31, 2010, we have
unrecognized federal net operating loss carryforwards associated
with the exercise of nonqualified options of $63.1 million.
Stock-Based
Compensation
We recognize compensation expense for all share-based payments
based on the fair value of the award on the date of grant. In
addition, incremental compensation expense is recognized upon
the modification, cancellation or repurchase of equity awards.
The fair value of stock options and warrants are calculated
using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model on the date of
grant. We estimate volatility in accordance with SEC Staff
Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 107, as amended by
SAB No. 110. As there was no public market for our
common stock prior to our initial public offering and,
therefore, a lack of company-specific historical or implied
volatility data, we have determined the share-price volatility
based on an analysis of certain publicly-traded companies that
we consider to be our peers. The comparable peer companies used
for our estimated volatility are publicly-traded companies with
operations which we believe to be similar to ours. When
identifying companies as peers, we consider such characteristics
as the type of industry, size
and/or type
of product(s), research
and/or
product development capabilities, and stock-based transactions.
We intend to continue to consistently estimate our volatility in
this manner until sufficient historical information regarding
the volatility of our own shares becomes available, or
circumstances change such that the identified entities are no
longer similar to us. In this latter case, we would utilize
other similar entities whose share prices are publicly
available. We estimate the expected life of employee share
options based on the simplified method allowed by
SAB No. 107, as amended by SAB No. 110.
Under this approach, the expected term is presumed to be the
average between the weighted-average vesting period and the
contractual term. The expected term for options granted to
nonemployees is generally the contractual term of the option.
The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury
Note, Stripped Principal, on the date of grant with a term
substantially equal to the corresponding options expected
term. We have never declared or paid any cash dividends nor do
we plan to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
The following assumptions were used in calculating the fair
value of employee options granted during 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
|
2.5-6.0
|
|
|
|
3.7-6.2
|
|
|
|
3.5-6.0
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
49%-53%
|
|
|
|
50%-52%
|
|
|
|
49%-51%
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
0.8%-2.8%
|
|
|
|
1.4%-2.7%
|
|
|
|
3.1%
|
|
45
Part II
The following assumptions were used in calculating the fair
value of nonemployee options granted during 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
Expected term (in years)
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
2.3-10.0
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
52%-53%
|
|
|
|
51%-67%
|
|
|
|
68%
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
2.2%-2.4%
|
|
|
|
1.1%-2.7%
|
|
|
|
3.7%
|
|
Research and
Development
We account for research and development costs and accrue
expenses based on estimates of work performed, patient
enrollment or fixed-fee-for-services. As work is performed
and/or
invoices are received, we adjust our estimates and accruals. To
date, our accruals have been within our estimates. Total
research and development costs are a function of studies being
conducted and will increase or decrease depending on the level
of activity in any particular year.
Intangible
Assets
Intangible assets include license agreements, product rights and
other identifiable intangible assets. We assess the impairment
of identifiable intangible assets whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be
recoverable. In determining the recoverability of our intangible
assets, we must make assumptions regarding estimated future cash
flows and other factors. If the estimated undiscounted future
cash flows do not exceed the carrying value of the intangible
assets, we must determine the fair value of the intangible
assets. If the fair value of the intangible assets is less than
the carrying value, an impairment loss will be recognized in an
amount equal to the difference. Fair value is determined through
various valuation techniques including quoted market prices,
third-party independent appraisals and discounted cash flow
models, as considered necessary.
RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
Description of
Operating Accounts
Net revenues consist of net product revenue and other
revenue. Net product revenue consists primarily of gross revenue
less discounts and allowances, such as cash discounts, rebates,
chargebacks and returns. Other revenue includes rental and grant
income.
Cost of products sold consists principally of the cost to
acquire each unit of product sold. Cost of products sold also
includes expense associated with the write-off of slow moving or
expired product.
Selling and marketing expense consists primarily of
expense relating to the promotion, distribution and sale of
products, including royalty expense, salaries and related costs.
Research and development expense consists primarily of
clinical trial expenses, salary and wages and related costs of
materials and supplies, and certain activities of third-party
providers participating in our clinical studies.
General and administrative expense includes finance and
accounting expenses, executive expenses, office expenses and
business development expenses, including salaries and related
costs.
Amortization of product license right resulted from our
acquisition of the exclusive U.S. commercialization rights
to Kristalose.
Interest income consists primarily of interest income
earned on cash deposits.
Interest expense consists primarily of interest incurred
on debt and other long-term obligations.
46
Part II
Income tax expense consists primarily of current and
deferred income taxes on our taxable income for financial
reporting purposes.
Year ended
December 31, 2010 compared to year ended December 31,
2009
Net revenues. Net revenues for 2010 totaled
approximately $45.9 million, representing an increase of
approximately $2.3 million, or 5%, over the same period in
2009. Net revenue increased $4.9 million for Acetadote and
decreased $0.2 million and $3.2 million for Kristalose
and Caldolor, respectively. The increase in Acetadote revenue
was positively impacted by a 4% increase in volume and an
increase in the average selling price, offset by an increase in
fee-for-service
deductions due to additional arrangements with our wholesalers.
While Kristalose gross revenue increased, net revenue was
impacted by an increase in the
gross-to-net
revenue deductions primarily associated with rebates and expired
product returns. Additionally, in the third quarter of 2009, we
completed the commercial launch of Caldolor, and recognized
$3.3 million of net revenue in 2009. Our sales forces
continue to maintain a consistent level of focus on Acetadote
and Kristalose while they progress the promotion of Caldolor.
In 2010, we focused our sales and marketing efforts primarily on
securing formulary approval and stocking nationally for
Caldolor. During the first quarter of 2011, we initiated a shift
in focus and began transitioning part of our sales and marketing
resources to driving pull-through use of Caldolor in facilities
stocking the product.
In 2010, we recognized approximately $0.9 million in
federal grant funding from the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery
Project, a component of the healthcare reform legislation
enacted in 2010.
Cost of products sold. Cost of products sold
as a percentage of net revenues decreased from 9.5% for 2009 to
7.8% for the same period in 2010. This decrease was primarily
due to the sales mix in the periods.
Kristalose is manufactured by Inalco. In 2010, Inalco sold its
facility that manufactured the API for Kristalose. We are
currently in discussions with Inalco regarding supply prices for
2011. We expect cost of products sold for Kristalose to increase.
Selling and marketing. Selling and marketing
expense for 2010 totaled approximately $22.7 million,
representing an increase of approximately $2.5 million, or
12%, over the same period in 2009. The increase was primarily
due to the expansion of our hospital sales force during the
third quarter of 2009, and the resulting increases in payroll
and related taxes, travel, meals and promotional activities.
These increases were offset by a decrease in marketing,
advertising and hiring expenses related to Caldolor in 2010 as
compared to the significant investment made in 2009 related to
the launch.
Research and development. Research and
development expense for 2010 totaled approximately
$4.3 million, representing a decrease of approximately
$0.7 million, or 13%, over the same period in 2009. The
decrease was primarily due to the inclusion in 2009 of
approximately $2.0 million of milestone expenses incurred
upon the FDA approval of Caldolor in June 2009. This decrease
was offset by additional costs incurred in 2010 related to
annual FDA product and establishment fees, increased salary and
related expenses resulting from an increase in personnel and
increased costs related to furthering our development efforts
for our products and product candidates. Research and
development expense is expected to increase in 2011 as we pursue
more clinical studies for our products and product candidates.
As a part of our Phase IV commitments to the FDA, we have
initiated two multi-center trials evaluating Caldolor for
treatment of pain and fever in pediatric patients. In addition,
we have initiated two new registry studies related to the
administration of Caldolor, primarily related to the rapid
infusion of Caldolor to patients.
General and administrative. General and
administrative expense for 2010 totaled approximately
$8.0 million, representing an increase of approximately
$0.3 million, or 5%, over the same period in
47
Part II
2009. The increase is primarily due to additional expenses
associated with being an SEC registrant, including legal,
accounting and insurance costs.
Interest income. Interest income for 2010
totaled approximately $0.2 million, representing an
increase of approximately $0.1 million, or 152%, over the
same period in 2009. The increase was primarily due to the
higher cash balances maintained in 2010 as a result of the
proceeds received from the initial public offering in the third
quarter of 2009.
Interest expense. Interest expense for 2010
totaled approximately $1.4 million, representing an
increase of approximately $0.7 million as compared to the
same period in 2009. The increase is primarily attributable to
(1) an average higher outstanding debt balance in 2010 as
compared to 2009 and (2) the inclusion of approximately
$0.1 million of deferred financing costs and approximately
$0.2 million of prepayment fees associated with the early
extinguishment and amendment of our term debt facility in
September 2010.
Income tax expense. Income tax expense for
2010 totaled approximately $2.9 million, representing an
increase of approximately $0.8 million, over the same
period in 2009. As a percentage of income before income taxes,
income tax expense increased from 39.8% for the year ended
December 31, 2009 to 54.0% for the same period in 2010. The
increase in the percentage was primarily due to
(1) research and development expenses utilized in the
Therapeutic Discovery Tax Credit not being deductible for
federal income tax purposes, (2) an increase in stock
compensation expense that is not deductible for income tax
purposes and (3) an increase in nondeductible meals and
entertainment expenses associated with the expansion of our
sales force.
Year ended
December 31, 2009 compared to year ended December 31,
2008
Net revenues. Net revenues for 2009 totaled
$43.5 million, representing an increase of
$8.5 million, or 24%, over the same period in 2008. Of this
increase, approximately $4.7 million related to Acetadote,
$3.3 related to the launch of Caldolor and $0.2 million
related to Kristalose. The remaining increase was due to
increased grant and rental revenue. The increase in revenues for
Acetadote was primarily due to increased volume as our products
continued to grow in our target markets.
Gross product sales were reduced by $5.2 million and
$2.8 million in 2009 and 2008, respectively. In 2009, this
reduction included $1.6 million for damaged and expired
product returns, $1.0 million for cash discounts,
$1.7 million related to
fee-for-service
costs and $0.9 million for estimated rebates, chargebacks
and discounts related to our products. For 2008 this reduction
included $1.1 million for damaged and expired product
returns, $0.7 million for cash discounts, $0.7 million
related to
fee-for-service
costs and $0.3 million for estimated rebates, chargebacks
and discounts related to Kristalose.
Cost of products sold. Cost of products sold
totaled $4.1 million, representing an increase of
$1.1 million, or 36%, over cost of products sold in 2008 of
$3.0 million. Of this increase, approximately
$1.0 million related to Caldolor which was launched during
the second half of 2009. As a percentage of net revenues, cost
of products sold increased from 8.7% in 2008 to 9.5% for 2009.
The increase in cost of products sold, as a percentage of net
revenues, was primarily due to a shift in the sales mix between
the periods.
Selling and marketing. Selling and marketing
expense for 2009 totaled $20.2 million, representing an
increase of $5.8 million, or 40%, over 2008. The increase
was primarily due to $1.9 million for the expansion and
ongoing costs of our sales forces as we launched our new product
Caldolor, continued to grow our products in our target markets
and expanded our territories. Our marketing and advertising
expense increased $1.7 million due to our marketing
campaign for the commercial introduction of Caldolor. In
addition, our field promotions expense increased
$0.9 million primarily due to our launch of Caldolor,
royalty expense increased $0.3 million, sales meeting
expense increased $0.2 million, and
48
Part II
hiring expense increased $0.3 million. We expect selling
and marketing expense to increase in 2010 as we continue our
efforts to promote our products.
Research and development. Research and
development expense for 2009 totaled $5.0 million,
representing an increase of $0.6 million, or 13%, over
2008. The increase was primarily due to approximately
$2.0 million in milestone expenses associated with the FDA
approval of Caldolor. This expense was partially offset by
reduced studies costs in 2009 as compared to 2008 noting 2008
included $1.2 million for the new drug application fee
associated with Caldolor.
General and administrative. General and
administrative expense for 2009 totaled $7.6 million,
representing an increase of $2.5 million, or 49%, over the
same period in 2008. The increase was primarily due to increased
payroll tax expense of $1.1 million associated with the
employers portion of payroll taxes that resulted from the
exercise of nonqualified options. Additionally, we incurred
increased salary and bonus expense of $0.5 million as we
continue to increase our infrastructure, increased stock
compensation expense of $0.2 million, increased D&O
insurance expense of $0.1 million for additional
public-company coverage, increased consulting expense of
$0.2 million and increased bank service charges of
$0.1 million. The additional payroll tax expense of
$1.1 million noted above resulted from the exercise of
approximately 4.7 million nonqualified options held by
employees. As of December 31, 2009, employees held 201,000
nonqualified options with a weighted-average exercise price of
$6.68 per share for which we are required to pay payroll-related
taxes upon exercise, provided the holder is still an employee at
the time of exercise. If all outstanding nonqualified options
held by employees were exercised at December 31, 2009, the
maximum exposure to us would have been approximately
$0.1 million.
Interest income. Interest income totaled
$0.1 million for 2009, representing a decrease of
$0.2 million, or 67%, over 2008. The decrease was primarily
due to lower interest rates throughout 2009.
Interest expense. Interest expense totaled
$0.8 million for 2009, representing an increase of
$0.6 million, or 262%, over 2008. The increase was
primarily due to additional borrowings during 2009. In July
2009, we amended our loan agreement to provide for an
$18 million term loan and a $4 million line of credit.
Income tax expense. Income tax expense for
2009 totaled $2.0 million, representing a decrease of
$0.5 million, or 20%, over 2008. As a percentage of net
income before income taxes, income tax expense increased from
34.8% for 2008 to 39.8% for 2009. The increase in the tax rate
was primarily due to the recognition in 2008 of previously
unrecognized tax benefits.
LIQUIDITY AND
CAPITAL RESOURCES
Our primary sources of liquidity are cash flows provided by our
operations, our borrowings and the cash proceeds from our
initial public offering of common stock. We believe that our
internally generated cash flows and amounts available under our
debt agreements will be adequate to service existing debt,
finance internal growth and fund capital expenditures. As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, our cash and cash equivalents
was $65.9 million and $78.7 million, respectively,
working capital (current assets minus current liabilities) was
$71.8 million and $74.5 million, respectively, and our
current ratio (current assets to current liabilities) was 8.8x
and 5.0x. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we also had the
ability to make additional draws of up to approximately
$4.2 million and $2.2 million, respectively, on our
line of credit.
The information included in footnote 6 to the consolidated
financial statements included in this annual report on
Form 10-K
is hereby incorporated by reference into this Item.
49
Part II
The following table summarizes our net changes in cash and cash
equivalents for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
347
|
|
|
$
|
405
|
|
|
$
|
6,397
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(769
|
)
|
|
|
(712
|
)
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
(12,386
|
)
|
|
|
67,180
|
|
|
|
(5,248
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash
equivalents(1)
|
|
$
|
(12,808
|
)
|
|
$
|
66,872
|
|
|
$
|
1,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The sum of the individual amounts
may not agree due to rounding.
|
The net decrease in cash and cash equivalents of
$12.8 million for year ended December 31, 2010 was
primarily due to cash used in financing activities, which
included principal payments on our term debt of
$12.7 million and the repurchase of common stock of
approximately $4.8 million. These expenditures were offset
by proceeds from the exercise of stock options of approximately
$1.4 million and the excess tax benefit derived from the
exercise of nonqualified options of approximately
$3.9 million. Cash provided by operating activities for the
year ended December 31, 2010 was primarily due to net
income for the period and the collection of accounts receivable
offset by (1) the purchase of inventory, (2) the
decrease in accounts payable and (3) the excess tax benefit
derived from the exercise of stock options. The excess tax
benefit represents the income taxes that would have been paid if
not for the tax deductions created upon the exercise of
nonqualified stock options. We expect to pay minimal income
taxes in 2011 due to the continued usage of the unrecognized tax
benefit related to the excess tax deduction described in
footnote 8 to the consolidated financial statements included in
this annual report on
Form 10-K.
The net increase in cash and cash equivalents of
$66.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 was
primarily due to the net cash proceeds from our initial public
offering in August 2009 of $77.5 million and additional
debt proceeds of $13.0 million, offset by the repurchase of
common shares of $27.3 million associated with the
tendering of shares to settle the minimum statutory tax
withholding requirement resulting from the exercise of
nonqualified options by an employee. In addition, we received a
tax benefit of approximately $4.0 million related to
nonqualified options exercised in 2009.
The net increase in cash and cash equivalents of
$1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 was
primarily due to cash generated from operations offset by cash
paid for our $5.0 million share repurchase.
In July 2009, we amended our debt agreement with Bank of
America, N.A. (the Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement)
to provide for $18.0 million in term debt and a
$4.0 million revolving credit facility, both with an
interest rate of LIBOR plus an applicable margin based on the
Companys Leverage Ratio, as defined in the agreement. The
interest rate at December 31, 2009 was 5.73% per annum. In
addition, we were required to pay a commitment fee of 0.75% per
annum on the unused portion of the commitment. The term debt was
payable in quarterly installments of $1.5 million beginning
on March 31, 2010 and continuing until December 31,
2012. The revolving credit facility was due on December 31,
2012. We may be required to make additional principal payments
on the term debt if the Leverage Ratio, as defined, exceeds 1.75
to 1.0 on an annual basis. The borrowings were collateralized by
a first lien against all of the Companys assets. The
proceeds from the term debt were restricted for the payment, in
part, of the minimum statutory tax withholding requirements of
approximately $24.6 million due from option holders who
exercised options to purchase shares of our common stock at the
pricing of the Companys initial public offering. The
consideration for that
50
Part II
payment was the transfer to the Company of shares acquired upon
exercise at the then-current fair market value of the
Companys common stock. In connection with the amendment of
the debt agreement, we capitalized approximately
$0.5 million of debt issue costs, of which
$0.1 million related to the fair value of common stock and
$0.1 million related to the fair value of warrants issued
to the lender. Deferred financing costs were being expensed to
interest expense using the effective-interest method over the
term of the debt agreement.
The Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement contained
restrictive covenants, which we were in compliance with during
2010 and 2009.
The Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement required us to
make an additional principal payment within 120 days after
the end of the fiscal year in an amount equal to its Excess Cash
Flow, as defined in the agreement. The additional principal
payment of $3.1 million, which was included as a current
portion of long-term debt in the consolidated balance sheet at
December 31, 2009, was paid during the first quarter of
2010.
In September 2010, we further amended our loan agreement with
Bank of America, N.A. (the Agreement). The amendment provided
for an increase in the availability under the existing line of
credit from $4.0 million to $6.0 million, with
interest payable monthly at LIBOR plus an Applicable Margin, as
defined in the Agreement (4.76% at December 31, 2010). In
addition, the term debt was reduced to $6.0 million, with
quarterly payments under the term debt reduced to $666,667, plus
interest at the same rate as the line of credit, beginning
December 31, 2010. We reduced the commitment fee from
three-quarters of one percent (0.75%) to one-half of one percent
(0.50%) per annum on the unused line of credit. The borrowings
are collateralized by a first priority lien on all of our
assets. Concurrent with the amendment of the Agreement, we
elected to prepay approximately $5.9 million of its term
debt, incurring a prepayment penalty of approximately
$0.2 million. At December 31, 2010, the outstanding
term loan and line of credit balances were $5.3 million and
$1.8 million, respectively.
The Agreements covenants include a Leverage Ratio, as
defined in the Agreement, of 2.00 to 1.00 for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010, 1.75 to 1.00 for each of the three
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011 and
September 30, 2011 and 1.25 to 1.00 for quarter ending
December 31, 2011 and thereafter, as well as a Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio, as defined in the Agreement, of at least 1.25 to
1.00 at each quarter-annual reporting period. In addition, we
must maintain deposits with Bank of America, N.A. at amounts
equal to at least the sum of (a) the maximum amount of the
line of credit plus (b) the aggregate principal amount then
outstanding under the term debt. We were in compliance with all
restrictive covenants at December 31, 2010.
We are subject to additional loan fees if certain performance
metrics measured at March 31, 2011 and September 30,
2011 are not met. If required, the additional loan fee amounts
of $102,000 each are due within 45 days of the end of the
respective period. As of December 31, 2010, we have not
recognized any additional loan fees.
Our manufacturing and supply agreement with one manufacturer,
which expires in 2021, contains a minimum purchase obligation
which requires us to purchase 25% of its prior year purchases,
or $0.5 million, during 2011. We expect our normal
inventory purchasing levels to be above the required minimum
amounts. As of December 31, 2010, we had met our purchase
obligations for 2010 under this agreement.
During 2001, we signed an agreement with Cato Research Ltd., or
Cato, to cover a variety of development efforts related to
Caldolor, including preparation of submissions to the FDA. Under
the terms of the agreement, we deferred a portion of each bill
from Cato. One-third of the deferred amount accrued interest at
an annual rate of 12.5% and was due after eighteen months. The
remaining two-thirds were due upon specific milestone events,
one of which was Caldolor obtaining marketing approval from the
FDA. We received such approval in June 2009, triggering a
milestone obligation of
51
Part II
approximately $1.0 million. The milestone was payable as
follows: approximately $0.8 million was paid in the third
quarter of 2009 and the remaining $0.2 million was paid in
equal monthly installments through July 2010. In addition to the
milestone payments, Cato vested in options to purchase
60,000 shares of our common stock with an exercise price of
$1.625 per share.
The following table sets forth a summary of our contractual cash
obligations as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by
year
|
|
Contractual
obligations
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts reflected in the balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
loan(2)
|
|
$
|
5,333
|
|
|
$
|
2,667
|
|
|
$
|
2,667
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Line of credit
|
|
|
1,826
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,826
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated interest on
debt(3)
|
|
|
459
|
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other cash obligations not reflected on the balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
leases(4)
|
|
|
5,204
|
|
|
|
833
|
|
|
|
860
|
|
|
|
886
|
|
|
|
913
|
|
|
|
1,712
|
|
Purchase
obligations(5)
|
|
|
689
|
|
|
|
517
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
$
|
13,512
|
|
|
$
|
4,309
|
|
|
$
|
5,648
|
|
|
$
|
918
|
|
|
$
|
921
|
|
|
$
|
1,715
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The sum of the individual amounts
may not agree due to rounding.
|
|
(2)
|
|
The term debt is payable in
quarterly installments of $666,667.
|
|
(3)
|
|
Represents the estimated interest
payments on our line of credit and term loan based on the
December 31, 2010 interest rate of LIBOR plus an applicable
margin, or 4.76%. Interest payments are due and payable
quarterly in arrears. The line of credit becomes due and payable
in December 2012. Estimated interest for the line of credit is
based on the assumption of a consistent outstanding balance.
|
|
(4)
|
|
Includes minimum lease commitments
for the CET facility for the five-year option renewal beginning
in July 2011 for which we have notified the landlord in January
2011 of our intent to exercise.
|
|
(5)
|
|
Represents minimum purchase
obligations under our manufacturing agreements. The agreement
requires us to purchase 25% of our prior year purchases.
|
OFF-BALANCE SHEET
ARRANGEMENTS
During 2010, 2009 and 2008, we did not engage in any off-balance
sheet arrangements.
RECENTLY ISSUED
BUT NOT YET ADOPTED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued guidance setting forth requirements that must be met for
an entity to recognize revenue from the sale of a delivered item
that is part of a multiple-element arrangement when other items
have not yet been delivered. The overall arrangement fee will be
allocated to each element based on their relative selling
prices. If an entity does not have a selling price for an
element, then management must estimate the selling price. This
guidance is effective for us for all revenue arrangements
entered into or materially modified after January 1, 2011.
Early adoption is permitted. The future impact of adopting this
standard will depend on the nature and extent of transaction
covered by this standard. This standard would not have
materially impacted the consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2010.
52
Part II
|
|
Item 7A:
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
INTEREST RATE
RISK
We are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest
rates on our cash on deposit in highly-liquid money market
accounts, our revolving credit facility and our term note
payable. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments or
other market risk-sensitive instruments to manage exposure to
interest rate changes. The main objective of our cash investment
activities is to preserve principal while maximizing interest
income through low-risk investments. Our investment policy
focuses on principal preservation and liquidity.
We believe that our interest rate risk related to our portfolio
of money market accounts is not material. Additionally, we have
immediate access to these funds and could shift these funds to
certificates of deposits with guaranteed rates. The risk related
to interest rates for our money market accounts is that these
accounts would produce less income than expected if market
interest rates fall. Based on current interest rates, we do not
believe we are exposed to significant downside risk related to
interest on our money market accounts.
The interest rate risk related to borrowings under our line of
credit and term debt is a variable rate of LIBOR plus an
applicable margin, as defined in the loan agreement (4.76% at
December 31, 2010). As of December 31, 2010, we had
outstanding borrowings of $7.2 million under our line of
credit and term debt combined. If interest rates increased by
1.0%, the impact on interest expense in future periods would be
less than $0.1 million.
EXCHANGE RATE
RISK
While we operate primarily in the U.S., we are exposed to
foreign currency risk. During 2010, our primary manufacturer of
Acetadote denominated supply prices in Canadian dollars. In
2011, our primary supplier of Acetadote will be denominating the
prices in U.S. dollars. One of our supply agreements for
Caldolor is denominated in Australian dollars. Additionally, a
portion of our research and development is performed abroad. As
of December 31, 2010, our outstanding payables denominated
in a foreign currency totaled approximately $0.2 million.
Currently, we do not utilize financial instruments to hedge
exposure to foreign currency fluctuations. We believe our
exposure to foreign currency fluctuation is minimal as our
purchases in foreign currency have a maximum exposure of
90 days based on invoice terms with a portion of the
exposure being limited to 30 days based on the due date of
the invoice. Foreign currency exchange losses were immaterial
for 2010 and 2009. Neither a 5% increase nor decrease from
current exchange rates would have had a material effect on our
operating results or financial condition.
|
|
Item 8:
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
See consolidated financial statements, including the report of
the independent registered public accounting firm, starting on
page F-1.
|
|
Item 9:
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
53
Part II
|
|
Item 9A:
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Cumberlands Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of
December 31, 2010. Based on that evaluation, they have
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are
effective to ensure that material information relating to
Cumberland and our consolidated subsidiaries is made known to
officers within these entities in order to allow for timely
decisions regarding required disclosure.
Managements report on internal control over financial
reporting and the related attestation report of KPMG LLP, our
independent registered public accounting firm, are included on
page F-1
and F-3, respectively, of this annual report on
Form 10-K.
During our fourth quarter of 2010, there were no changes in our
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
or
15d-15(f)).
|
|
Item 9B:
|
Other
Information
|
None
54
Part III
The information called for by Part III of
Form 10-K
(Item 10Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance, Item 11Executive Compensation,
Item 12Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters,
Item 13Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence,
Item 14Principal Accounting Fees and Services), is
incorporated by reference from our proxy statement related to
our 2011 annual meeting of shareholders, which will be filed
with the SEC not later than April 30, 2011 (120 days
after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report).
55
Part IV
|
|
Item 15:
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) Documents filed as part of this report:
(1) Financial Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-1
|
|
|
|
|
F-2
|
|
|
|
|
F-3
|
|
|
|
|
F-4
|
|
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
|
|
F-6
|
|
|
|
|
F-7
|
|
|
|
|
F-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Financial Statement Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-27
|
|
(b) Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Third Amended and Restated Charter of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding
exhibit to Amendment No. 19 of the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 17, 2009
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding
exhibit to Amendment No. 19 of the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 17, 2009
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding
exhibit to Amendment No. 5 of the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on August 6, 2007
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common Stock of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., issued to Bank of America, N.A. on October 21, 2003,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
56
Part IV
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Stock Purchase Warrant, issued to S.C.O.U.T. Healthcare
Fund L.P. on April 15, 2004, incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 1
of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on June 22, 2007
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common Stock of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., issued to Bank of America, N.A. on April 6, 2006,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
4
|
.5#
|
|
Form of Option Agreement under 1999 Stock Option Plan of
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
4
|
.6.1#
|
|
Form of Incentive Stock Option Agreement under 2007 Long-Term
Incentive Compensation Plan of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
4
|
.6.2#
|
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement under 2007 Long-Term
Incentive Compensation Plan of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
4
|
.7#
|
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement under
2007 Directors Compensation Plan of Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
4
|
.8
|
|
Warrant to Purchase Common Stock of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., issued to Bank of America, N.A. on July 22, 2009,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Annual Report on
Form 10-K
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on March 19, 2010
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Manufacturing and Supply Agreement for N-Acetylcysteine, dated
January 15, 2002, by and between Bioniche Life Sciences,
Inc. and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 5
of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on August 6, 2007
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Novation Agreement, dated January 27, 2006, by and among
Bioniche Life Sciences, Inc., Bioniche Pharma Group Ltd., and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
First Amendment to Manufacturing and Supply Agreement for
N-Acetylcysteine, dated November 16, 2006, by and between
Bioniche Teoranta and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
Amendment No. 3 of the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 11, 2007
|
|
10
|
.3.1
|
|
Second Amendment to Manufacturing and Supply Agreement for
N-Acetylcysteine, dated March 25, 2008, by and between
Bioniche Teoranta and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
Amendment No. 10 of the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 21, 2008
|
57
Part IV
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Exclusive Distribution Agreement, effective as of July 1,
2010, by and between Cardinal Health 105, Inc. and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit of the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on August 13, 2010
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Strategic Alliance Agreement, dated July 21, 2000, by and
between F.H. Faulding & Co. Limited and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., including notification of assignment from
F.H. Faulding & Co. Limited to Mayne Pharma Pty Ltd.,
dated April 16, 2002, incorporated herein by reference to
the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 4 of the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 23, 2007
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
Kristalose Agreement, dated April 7, 2006, by and among
Inalco Biochemicals, Inc., Inalco S.p.A., and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 3 of the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 11, 2007
|
|
10
|
.9.1
|
|
Amendment to Kristalose Agreement, dated April 3, 2008, by
and between Inalco S.p.A., Inalco Biochemicals, Inc., and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 10
of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 21, 2008
|
|
10
|
.9.2
|
|
Second Amendment to Kristalose Agreement, dated July 1,
2008, by and among Inalco Biochemicals, Inc., Inalco S.p.A., and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 13
of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on August 12, 2008
|
|
10
|
.9.3
|
|
Third Amendment to Kristalose Agreement, dated April 6,
2009, by and between Inalco S.p.A., Inalco Biochemicals, Inc.,
and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by
reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 18
of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 12, 2009
|
|
10
|
.9.4
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Kristalose Agreement, effective
January 1, 2010, by and between Inalco S.p.A., Inalco
Biochemicals, Inc., and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
License Agreement, dated May 28, 1999, by and between
Vanderbilt University and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
Amendment No. 3 of the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 11, 2007
|
|
10
|
.11#
|
|
Employment Agreement dated March 9, 2011, effective as of
January 1, 2011, by and between A.J. Kazimi and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc.
|
|
10
|
.12#
|
|
Employment Agreement dated March 9, 2011, effective as of
January 1, 2011, by and between Jean W. Marstiller and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.
|
|
10
|
.13#
|
|
Employment Agreement dated March 9, 2011, effective as of
January 1, 2011, by and between Leo Pavliv and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc.
|
|
10
|
.15#
|
|
Employment Agreement dated March 9, 2011, effective as of
January 1, 2011, by and between David L. Lowrance and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.
|
58
Part IV
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement by and between
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bank of America, N.A., dated
July 22, 2009, incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 20 of the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 29, 2009
|
|
10
|
.16.1
|
|
Third Amendment to Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement
dated as of September 29, 2010 by and between Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A., incorporated
herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on October 5, 2010
|
|
10
|
.17#
|
|
1999 Stock Option Plan of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
10
|
.18#
|
|
2007 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan of Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., as amended on November 4, 2010,
incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to
the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on November 15, 2010
|
|
10
|
.19#
|
|
2007 Directors Compensation Plan of Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement between Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and all members of its Board of Directors,
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Lease Agreement, dated September 10, 2005, by and between
Nashville Hines Development, LLC and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding
exhibit to Amendment No. 3 of the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on July 11, 2007
|
|
10
|
.21.1
|
|
First Amendment to Office Lease Agreement, dated April 25,
2008, by and between 2525 West End, LLC (successor in
interest to Nashville Hines Development LLC) and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to Amendment No. 10 of the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 21, 2008
|
|
10
|
.21.2
|
|
Second Amendment to Office Lease Agreement, dated March 2,
2010, by and between 2525 West End, LLC (successor in
interest to Nashville Hines Development LLC) and Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. incorporated herein by reference to the
corresponding exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q
(File
No. 001-33637)
as filed with the SEC on May 17, 2010
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
Amended and Restated Lease Agreement, dated November 11,
2004, by and between The Gateway to Nashville LLC and Cumberland
Emerging Technologies, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to
the corresponding exhibit to the Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement, dated
August 23, 2005, by and between The Gateway to Nashville
LLC and Cumberland Emerging Technologies, Inc., incorporated
herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
59
Part IV
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
10
|
.24.1
|
|
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement, dated
January 9, 2006, by and between The Gateway to Nashville
LLC and Cumberland Emerging Technologies, Inc., incorporated
herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to Amendment
No. 10 of the Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 21, 2008
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Manufacturing Agreement, dated February 6, 2008, by and
between Bayer HealthCare, LLC, and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Inc., incorporated herein by reference to the corresponding
exhibit to Amendment No. 12 of the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on June 20, 2008
|
|
10
|
.26#
|
|
Employment Agreement dated March 9, 2011, effective as of
January 1, 2011, by and between Martin E. Cearnal and
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.
|
|
21
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated
herein by reference to the corresponding exhibit to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-142535)
as filed with the SEC on May 1, 2007
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of KPMG LLP
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Rule 13-14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Rule 13-14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
Indicates a management contract or
compensatory plan.
|
|
|
|
Confidential treatment has been
granted for portions of this exhibit. These portions have been
omitted from the Registration Statement and submitted separately
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
|
|
|
Confidential treatment has been
requested for portions of this exhibit. These portions have been
omitted from the Registration Statement and submitted separately
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
60
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, on the 11th day of March 2011.
CUMBERLAND PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
A. J. Kazimi
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ A.J.
KazimiA.J.
Kazimi
|
|
Chairman and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer and Director)
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David L.
LowranceDavid
L. Lowrance
|
|
Vice President and CFO
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert G.
EdwardsRobert
G. Edwards
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas R.
LawrenceThomas
R. Lawrence
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Lawrence W.
GreerLawrence
W. Greer
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Martin E.
CearnalMartin
E. Cearnal
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Gordon
BernardGordon
Bernard
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jonathan
GriggsJonathan
Griggs
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
JonesJames
Jones
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Joey
JacobsJoey
Jacobs
|
|
Director
|
|
March 11, 2011
|
61
Management report on
internal control over financial reporting
The management of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. is responsible
for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting. Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.s
internal control system was designed to provide reasonable
assurance to the Companys management and board of
directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of
published financial statements. All internal control systems, no
matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore,
even those systems determined to be effective can provide only
reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement
preparation and presentation.
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.s management assessed the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2010. In making this
assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework.
Based on our assessment we believe that, as of December 31,
2010, the Companys internal control over financial
reporting is effective based on those criteria.
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.s independent registered
public accounting firm has issued an audit report on Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc.s internal control over financial
reporting. This report appears on
page F-3
of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
/s/ A. J. Kazimi
A.J. Kazimi
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2011
/s/ David L. Lowrance
David L. Lowrance
Chief Financial Officer
March 11, 2011
F-1
Report of
independent registered public accounting firm
The Board of Directors
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company)
as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related
consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and equity and
comprehensive income for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2010. In connection with our
audits of the consolidated financial statements, we have also
audited the financial statement Schedule IIValuation
and Qualifying Accounts for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2010. These consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on
our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also,
in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth herein.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO), and our report dated March 11, 2011 expressed an
unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
Nashville, Tennessee
March 11, 2011
F-2
Report of
independent registered public accounting firm
The Board of Directors
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.:
We have audited Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.s (the
Company) internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO). The Companys management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, included in the accompanying
Management Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the
related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and
equity and comprehensive income for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and our report
dated March 11, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on
those consolidated financial statements.
Nashville, Tennessee
March 11, 2011
F-3
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated
balance sheets
December 31,
2010 and 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
65,893,970
|
|
|
$
|
78,701,682
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowances
|
|
|
5,145,494
|
|
|
|
6,176,585
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
7,683,842
|
|
|
|
4,822,873
|
|
Prepaid and other current assets
|
|
|
1,336,765
|
|
|
|
2,746,259
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
978,771
|
|
|
|
726,196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
81,038,842
|
|
|
|
93,173,595
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,220,010
|
|
|
|
918,412
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
7,427,223
|
|
|
|
7,956,009
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
2,265,192
|
|
|
|
1,306,514
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
102,787
|
|
|
|
369,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
92,054,054
|
|
|
$
|
103,724,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
2,666,668
|
|
|
$
|
9,061,973
|
|
Current portion of other long-term obligations
|
|
|
24,692
|
|
|
|
144,828
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
2,124,654
|
|
|
|
5,632,796
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
4,411,606
|
|
|
|
3,784,777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
9,227,620
|
|
|
|
18,624,374
|
|
Revolving line of credit
|
|
|
1,825,951
|
|
|
|
1,825,951
|
|
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
|
|
|
2,666,665
|
|
|
|
8,938,027
|
|
Other long-term obligations, excluding current portion
|
|
|
618,343
|
|
|
|
184,632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
14,338,579
|
|
|
|
29,572,984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,930,000
|
|
Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockno par value; 100,000,000 shares
authorized; 20,338,461 and
20,180,486(1)
shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively
|
|
|
70,778,874
|
|
|
|
67,711,746
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
6,998,806
|
|
|
|
4,542,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
77,777,680
|
|
|
|
72,253,872
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(62,205
|
)
|
|
|
(32,536
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity
|
|
|
77,715,475
|
|
|
|
72,221,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
92,054,054
|
|
|
$
|
103,724,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Number of shares issued and
outstanding represents total shares of common stock regardless
of classification on the consolidated balance sheet. The number
of shares of redeemable common stock as of December 31,
2009 was 142,016.
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-4
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated
statements of income
Years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net product revenue
|
|
$
|
44,704,570
|
|
|
$
|
43,142,350
|
|
|
$
|
34,889,967
|
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
1,171,801
|
|
|
|
394,928
|
|
|
|
185,193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
|
45,876,371
|
|
|
|
43,537,278
|
|
|
|
35,075,160
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
3,586,646
|
|
|
|
4,136,541
|
|
|
|
3,045,672
|
|
Selling and marketing
|
|
|
22,674,505
|
|
|
|
20,194,074
|
|
|
|
14,387,153
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
4,327,485
|
|
|
|
4,993,278
|
|
|
|
4,429,064
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
7,990,222
|
|
|
|
7,643,070
|
|
|
|
5,139,937
|
|
Amortization of product license right
|
|
|
686,911
|
|
|
|
686,904
|
|
|
|
686,904
|
|
Other
|
|
|
108,855
|
|
|
|
106,776
|
|
|
|
104,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
39,374,624
|
|
|
|
37,760,643
|
|
|
|
27,792,939
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
6,501,747
|
|
|
|
5,776,635
|
|
|
|
7,282,221
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
200,207
|
|
|
|
79,363
|
|
|
|
241,282
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(1,423,523
|
)
|
|
|
(772,927
|
)
|
|
|
(213,303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
5,278,431
|
|
|
|
5,083,071
|
|
|
|
7,310,200
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(2,851,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2,024,192
|
)
|
|
|
(2,543,951
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
2,427,011
|
|
|
|
3,058,879
|
|
|
|
4,766,249
|
|
Net loss at subsidiary attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
29,669
|
|
|
|
32,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$
|
2,456,680
|
|
|
$
|
3,091,415
|
|
|
$
|
4,766,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share attributable to common shareholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
Weighted-average shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
20,333,932
|
|
|
|
14,199,479
|
|
|
|
10,142,807
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
21,058,577
|
|
|
|
18,234,171
|
|
|
|
16,539,662
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-5
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated
statements of cash flows
Years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
2,427,011
|
|
|
$
|
3,058,879
|
|
|
$
|
4,766,249
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on early extinguishment of other long-term obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38,577
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
978,398
|
|
|
|
816,499
|
|
|
|
786,597
|
|
Deferred tax (benefit) expense
|
|
|
(332,349
|
)
|
|
|
(525,467
|
)
|
|
|
683,914
|
|
Nonemployee stock granted for services received
|
|
|
37,121
|
|
|
|
210,740
|
|
|
|
106,558
|
|
Nonemployee stock option grant expense
|
|
|
43,101
|
|
|
|
845,661
|
|
|
|
58,646
|
|
Stock-based compensationemployee stock options
|
|
|
688,408
|
|
|
|
606,395
|
|
|
|
397,500
|
|
Excess tax benefit derived from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
(3,874,966
|
)
|
|
|
(3,968,894
|
)
|
|
|
(398,529
|
)
|
Noncash interest expense
|
|
|
352,484
|
|
|
|
128,800
|
|
|
|
71,933
|
|
Net changes in assets and liabilities affecting operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
1,031,091
|
|
|
|
(3,047,238
|
)
|
|
|
(755,810
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(2,860,969
|
)
|
|
|
(3,060,097
|
)
|
|
|
(813,667
|
)
|
Prepaid, other current assets and other assets
|
|
|
1,342,032
|
|
|
|
(721,464
|
)
|
|
|
(163,274
|
)
|
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
201,725
|
|
|
|
6,572,098
|
|
|
|
1,652,911
|
|
Other long-term obligations
|
|
|
313,575
|
|
|
|
(510,942
|
)
|
|
|
42,501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
346,662
|
|
|
|
404,970
|
|
|
|
6,396,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property and equipment
|
|
|
(577,159
|
)
|
|
|
(601,802
|
)
|
|
|
(67,572
|
)
|
Additions to trademarks and patents
|
|
|
(191,483
|
)
|
|
|
(110,541
|
)
|
|
|
(66,576
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(768,642
|
)
|
|
|
(712,343
|
)
|
|
|
(134,148
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from initial public offering of common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs of initial public offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,479,011
|
)
|
|
|
(687,977
|
)
|
Proceeds from borrowings on long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,083,340
|
|
Principal payments on note payable
|
|
|
(12,666,667
|
)
|
|
|
(5,000,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,833,336
|
)
|
Net borrowings on line of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Payment of other long-term obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,760,000
|
)
|
Costs of financing for long-term debt and credit facility
|
|
|
(110,000
|
)
|
|
|
(189,660
|
)
|
|
|
(29,491
|
)
|
Payments made in connection with repurchase of common shares
|
|
|
(4,846,791
|
)
|
|
|
(27,295,808
|
)
|
|
|
(4,999,995
|
)
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
1,362,760
|
|
|
|
175,089
|
|
|
|
81,159
|
|
Excess tax benefit derived from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
3,874,966
|
|
|
|
3,968,894
|
|
|
|
398,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities
|
|
|
(12,385,732
|
)
|
|
|
67,179,504
|
|
|
|
(5,247,771
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(12,807,712
|
)
|
|
|
66,872,131
|
|
|
|
1,015,033
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year
|
|
|
78,701,682
|
|
|
|
11,829,551
|
|
|
|
10,814,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year
|
|
$
|
65,893,970
|
|
|
$
|
78,701,682
|
|
|
$
|
11,829,551
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
814,373
|
|
|
$
|
677,387
|
|
|
$
|
221,000
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
52,136
|
|
|
|
196,187
|
|
|
|
1,486,991
|
|
Noncash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclass of redeemable common stock to (from) equity
|
|
|
1,930,000
|
|
|
|
(1,930,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
335,075
|
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-6
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated
statements of equity and comprehensive income
Years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Shareholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
earnings
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred
stock
|
|
|
Common
stock
|
|
|
(accumulated
|
|
|
controlling
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
deficit)
|
|
|
interests
|
|
|
equity
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2007
|
|
|
855,495
|
|
|
$
|
2,742,994
|
|
|
|
10,091,260
|
|
|
$
|
17,318,713
|
|
|
$
|
(3,315,538
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,746,169
|
|
Stock-based compensationemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
397,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
397,500
|
|
Issuance of common stock for services received
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,961
|
|
|
|
106,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106,558
|
|
Stock-based compensationnonemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,646
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,646
|
|
Conversion of preferred stock into common stock
|
|
|
(42,746
|
)
|
|
|
(138,924
|
)
|
|
|
85,492
|
|
|
|
138,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(384,615
|
)
|
|
|
(4,999,995
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,999,995
|
)
|
Exercise of options and related tax benefit, net of mature
shares redeemed for the exercise price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,949
|
|
|
|
479,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
479,688
|
|
Net and comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,766,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,766,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2008
|
|
|
812,749
|
|
|
|
2,604,070
|
|
|
|
9,903,047
|
|
|
|
13,500,034
|
|
|
|
1,450,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,554,815
|
|
Initial public offering of common stock, net of offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000,000
|
|
|
|
74,801,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,801,596
|
|
Stock-based compensationemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
606,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
606,395
|
|
Issuance of common stock for services received
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,250
|
|
|
|
338,240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
338,240
|
|
Stock-based compensationnonemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
845,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
845,661
|
|
Conversion of preferred stock into common stock
|
|
|
(812,749
|
)
|
|
|
(2,604,070
|
)
|
|
|
1,625,498
|
|
|
|
2,604,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,018
|
)
|
|
|
(52,234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52,234
|
)
|
Issuance of common stock warrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,575
|
|
Exercise of options and related tax benefit, net of mature
shares redeemed for the exercise price and statutory tax
withholdings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,635,709
|
|
|
|
(23,099,591
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,099,591
|
)
|
Net and comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,091,415
|
|
|
|
(32,536
|
)
|
|
|
3,058,879
|
|
Reclass of redeemable common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,930,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,930,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,180,486
|
|
|
|
67,711,746
|
|
|
|
4,542,126
|
|
|
|
(32,536
|
)
|
|
|
72,221,336
|
|
Stock-based compensationemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
688,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
688,408
|
|
Issuance of common stock for services received
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,636
|
|
|
|
55,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,140
|
|
Stock-based compensationnonemployee stock option grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,101
|
|
Repurchase of common shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(615,455
|
)
|
|
|
(4,887,247
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,887,247
|
)
|
Exercise of options and related tax benefit, net of mature
shares redeemed for the exercise price and statutory tax
withholdings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
767,794
|
|
|
|
5,237,726
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,237,726
|
|
Net and comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,456,680
|
|
|
|
(29,669
|
)
|
|
|
2,427,011
|
|
Reclass of redeemable common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,930,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,930,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
20,338,461
|
|
|
$
|
70,778,874
|
|
|
$
|
6,998,806
|
|
|
$
|
(62,205
|
)
|
|
$
|
77,715,475
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-7
CUMBERLAND
PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its subsidiaries (the
Company or Cumberland) is a specialty pharmaceutical company
incorporated in Tennessee on January 6, 1999. Its mission
is to provide high-quality products to address underserved
medical needs. Cumberland is focused on acquiring rights to,
developing and commercializing branded prescription products for
the hospital acute care and gastroenterology markets.
The Companys corporate operations and product acquisitions
have been funded by a combination of equity and debt financings.
Cumberland focuses its resources on maximizing the commercial
potential of its products, as well as developing new product
candidates, and has both internal development and commercial
capabilities. The Companys products are manufactured by
third parties, which are overseen by Cumberlands quality
control and manufacturing professionals. The Company works
closely with its third-party distribution partner to make its
products available in the United States.
In order to create access to a pipeline of early-stage product
candidates, the Company formed a subsidiary, Cumberland Emerging
Technologies, Inc. (CET), which assists universities and other
research organizations to help bring biomedical projects from
the laboratory to the marketplace. The Companys ownership
in CET is 85%. The remaining interest is owned by Vanderbilt
University and the Tennessee Technology Development Corporation.
During 2002, CETs losses reduced its equity to a deficit
position. Accordingly, the Company reduced the noncontrolling
interest balance to zero and recorded 100% of the losses
associated with the joint venture until January 1, 2009.
Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted a new
accounting standard that required the allocation of operating
results, including losses, to the noncontrolling interests.
During 2010 and 2009, approximately $30,000 and $33,000,
respectively, of losses from CET were allocated to the
noncontrolling interests.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company formed a
wholly-owned subsidiary, Cumberland Pharma Sales Corp. (CPSC),
for the purpose of employing the hospital sales force that
promotes the Companys products,
Acetadote®
and
Caldolor®,
in the acute care market. In September 2010, the Company
converted its field sales force, which promotes Caldolor and
Kristalose®,
to Cumberland employees. Previously, these sales forces were
contracted through a third-party contract sales organization.
The Company operates in a single operating segment of specialty
pharmaceutical products. Management has chosen to organize the
Company based on the type of products sold. All of the
Companys assets are located in the United States. Total
revenues are primarily attributable to U.S. customers. Net
revenues from
non-U.S. customers
were approximately $0.1 million, $0.7 million and
$0.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
|
|
(2)
|
SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
|
|
|
(a)
|
Principles of
Consolidation
|
These consolidated financial statements are stated in
U.S. dollars and are prepared under U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles. The consolidated financial
statements include the accounts of the Company and its
majority-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany
transactions and accounts have been eliminated.
|
|
(b)
|
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
Cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments with
an original maturity of three months or less when purchased.
F-8
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Trade accounts receivable are recorded at the invoiced amount
and do not bear interest. The Company records allowances for
uncollectible amounts, cash discounts, chargebacks and credits
to be taken by customers for product damaged in shipments based
on historical experience. The Company reviews each customer
balance for collectibility.
Discounts are reductions to invoiced amounts offered to
customers for payment within a specified period of time from the
date of the invoice.
The majority of the Companys products are distributed
through independent pharmaceutical wholesalers. Net product
revenue and accounts receivable take into account the sale of
the product at the wholesale acquisition cost, and an accrual is
recorded to reflect the difference between the wholesale
acquisition cost and the estimated average end-user contract
price. This accrual is calculated on a product-specific basis
and is based on the estimated number of outstanding units sold
to wholesalers that will ultimately be sold under end-user
contracts. When the wholesaler sells the product to the end-user
at the agreed upon end-user contract price, the wholesaler
charges the Company for the difference between the wholesale
acquisition price and the end-user contract price and that
chargeback is offset against the initial accrual balance.
The Companys estimate of the allowance for damaged product
is based upon historical experience of claims made for damaged
product. At the time the transaction is recognized as a sale,
the Company records a reduction in revenue for the estimate of
product damaged in shipment.
The Company works closely with third parties to manufacture and
package finished goods for sale, takes title to the finished
goods at the time of shipment from the manufacturer and
warehouses such goods until distribution and sale. Inventories
are stated at the lower of cost or market with cost determined
using the
first-in,
first-out method.
In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company purchased certain
packaging materials related to the manufacture of Caldolor. As
these materials are consumed as part of the manufacturing
process, the costs associated with these materials will be used
to offset the finished goods price from the manufacturer. As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, inventory was comprised of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
356,676
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
7,327,166
|
|
|
|
4,822,873
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,683,842
|
|
|
$
|
4,822,873
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
Prepaids and
Other Current Assets
|
Prepaid and other current assets consist of unamortized deferred
financing costs, prepaid insurance premiums, prepaid consulting
services, prepaid royalties and annual fees to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Company
expenses all prepaid amounts as used or over the period of
benefit on a straight-line basis, as applicable. In addition,
the Company recognized an income tax receivable of approximately
$1.4 million at December 31, 2009 related to the
utilization of net operating losses that was carried back to
recover income taxes that were paid in prior years. In 2010, the
Company received approximately $1.3 million related to
these operating losses. The difference
F-9
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
reduced equity as an adjustment of the excess tax benefit
associated with the underlying exercise of nonqualified stock
options.
|
|
(f)
|
Property and
Equipment
|
Property and equipment, including leasehold improvements, are
stated at cost. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Leasehold
improvements are amortized over the shorter of the initial lease
term plus its renewal options, if renewal is reasonably assured,
or the remaining useful life of the asset. Upon retirement or
disposal of assets, the asset and accumulated depreciation or
amortization accounts are adjusted accordingly and any gain or
loss is reflected as a component of operating income in the
consolidated statement of income. Repairs and maintenance costs
are expensed as incurred. Improvements that extend an
assets useful life are capitalized.
The Companys intangible assets consist of costs incurred
related to licenses, trademarks and patents.
In 2006, the Company acquired the exclusive
U.S. commercialization rights (license) to
Kristalose®.
The cost of acquiring the licenses of products that are approved
for commercial use are capitalized and amortized ratably over
the estimated economic life of the products. At the time of
acquisition, the product life is estimated based upon the term
of the license agreement, patent life or market exclusivity of
the products and our assessment of future sales and
profitability of the product. We assess this estimate regularly
during the amortization period and adjust the asset value or
useful life when appropriate. The total purchase price for
Kristalose, which included the cost of the
U.S. commercialization rights and other related costs of
obtaining the licenses, is being amortized on a straight-line
basis over 15 years, which is managements estimate of
the assets useful life.
Trademarks are amortized on a straight-line basis over
10 years, which is managements estimate of the
assets useful life.
Patents consist of outside legal costs associated with obtaining
patents for products that have already been approved for
marketing by the FDA. Upon issuance of a patent, the finite
useful economic life of the patent (or family of patents) is
determined, and the patent is amortized on a straight-line basis
over such useful life. If it becomes probable that a patent will
not be issued, related costs associated with the patent
application will be expensed at the time such determination is
made. All costs associated with obtaining patents for products
that have not been approved for marketing by the FDA are
expensed as incurred.
When the Company acquires license agreements, product rights and
other identifiable intangible assets, it records the aggregate
purchase price as an intangible asset. The Company allocates the
purchase price to the fair value of the various intangible
assets in order to amortize their cost as an expense in its
consolidated statements of income over the estimated useful
lives of the related assets.
|
|
(h)
|
Impairment of
Long-Lived Assets
|
Long-lived assets, such as property and equipment and purchased
intangible assets subject to amortization, are reviewed for
impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. If
circumstances require a long-lived asset to be tested for
possible impairment, the Company first compares undiscounted
cash flows expected to be generated by an asset to the carrying
value of the asset. If the carrying amount of the long-lived
asset is not recoverable on an undiscounted cash flow basis, an
impairment charge is recognized to the extent
F-10
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
that the carrying value exceeds its fair value. Fair value is
determined through various valuation techniques including quoted
market prices, third-party independent appraisals and discounted
cash flow models, as considered necessary. Assets to be disposed
of would be separately presented in the consolidated balance
sheet and reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair
value less costs to sell, and would no longer be depreciated.
The assets and liabilities of a disposed group classified as
held-for-sale
would be presented separately in the appropriate asset and
liability sections of the consolidated balance sheet. The
Company recorded no impairment charges during the three-year
period ended December 31, 2010.
Revenue is realized or realizable and earned when all of the
following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or services
have been rendered; (3) the sellers price to the
buyer is fixed and determinable; and (4) collectibility is
reasonably assured. Delivery is considered to have occurred upon
either shipment of the product or arrival at its destination,
depending upon the shipping terms of the transaction.
The Companys net product revenue reflects reduction from
gross product revenue for estimated allowances for chargebacks,
discounts, and damaged goods and for accruals for rebates,
product returns, certain administrative fees and fee for
services. Allowances of $0.2 million as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 for chargebacks, discounts and
product damaged in shipment are recorded as a reduction of
accounts receivable, and liabilities of $2.6 million and
$1.9 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively, for rebates, product returns and administrative
fees are included in other accrued liabilities.
As discussed in 2(c) above, the allowances for chargebacks,
discounts and damaged goods are determined on a
product-by-product
basis, and are established by management as the Companys
best estimate at the time of sale based on each products
historical experience adjusted to reflect known changes in the
factors that impact such allowances. These allowances are
established based on the contractual terms with direct and
indirect customers and analyses of historical levels of
chargebacks, discounts and credits claimed for damaged product.
Other organizations, such as managed care providers, pharmacy
benefit management companies and government agencies, may
receive rebates from the Company based on either negotiated
contracts to carry the Companys product or reimbursements
for filled prescriptions. These entities represent indirect
customers of the Company. In addition, the Company may provide
rebates to the end-user. In conjunction with recognizing a sale
to a wholesaler, sales revenues are reduced and accrued
liabilities are increased by the Companys estimates of the
rebates that will be owed.
Consistent with industry practice, the Company maintains a
return policy that allows customers to return product within a
specified period prior to and subsequent to the expiration date.
The Companys estimate of the provision for returns is
based upon historical experience. Any changes in the assumptions
used to estimate the provision for returns is recognized in the
period those assumptions were changed.
The Company has agreements with certain key wholesalers that
include fee for service costs. These costs have been netted
against product revenues.
F-11
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
The Companys net product revenue consisted of the
following as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net product
revenue
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Acetadote
|
|
$
|
35,092,796
|
|
|
$
|
30,176,981
|
|
|
$
|
25,438,774
|
|
Kristalose
|
|
|
9,510,275
|
|
|
|
9,688,998
|
|
|
|
9,468,562
|
|
Caldolor(1)
|
|
|
101,499
|
|
|
|
3,276,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
44,704,570
|
|
|
$
|
43,142,350
|
|
|
$
|
34,889,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The Company obtained FDA approval
for Caldolor in June 2009 and launched the product in September
2009.
|
Other revenue is comprised of revenue generated by CET through
grant funding from federal Small Business (SBIR/STTR) grant
programs, lease income generated by CETs Life Sciences
Center and contract services. The Life Sciences Center is a
research center that provides scientists with access to flexible
lab space and other resources to develop biomedical products.
Revenue related to grants is recognized when all conditions
related to such grants have been met. Grant revenue from
SBIR/STTR programs totaled approximately $133,000, $228,000 and
$7,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008, respectively.
In addition to the items identified above, other revenue in 2010
includes approximately $0.9 million of federal grants
associated with the Therapeutic Discovery Project Credit, a
component of the U.S. health care reform act enacted in
March 2010. The Therapeutic Discovery Project Credit allowed
entities to apply for funding based on qualified research
activities. Funds were then granted to entities based on their
qualified research expenses. Revenue was recognized after the
application was approved and as qualified research expenses were
incurred.
The Company provides for deferred taxes using the asset and
liability approach. Under this method, deferred tax assets and
liabilities are recognized for future tax consequences
attributable to operating loss and tax credit carryforwards, as
well as differences between the carrying amounts of existing
assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. The
Companys principal differences are related to the timing
of deductibility of certain items, such as depreciation,
amortization and expense for nonqualified stock options.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted
tax rates that are expected to apply to taxable income in the
years such temporary differences are expected to be recovered or
settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a
change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period of
enactment. The Company does not recognize income tax benefits
associated with any income tax position where it is not
more likely than not that the position would be
sustained upon examination by the taxing authorities.
The tax benefit associated with the exercise of nonqualified
stock options is recognized when the benefit is used to offset
income taxes payable.
The Companys accounting policy with respect to interest
and penalties arising from income tax settlements is to
recognize them as part of the provision for income taxes.
The Company recognizes compensation cost for all share-based
payments issued, modified, repurchased or cancelled. The cost of
stock options is measured based on the grant-date fair value
using the Black-
F-12
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Scholes option-pricing model, and the expense is recognized over
the employees requisite service period. Depending on the
nature of the vesting provisions, restricted stock awards are
measured using either the fair value on the grant date or the
fair value of common stock on the date the vesting provisions
lapse. Prior to the lapse, the fair value is measured on the
last day of the reporting period.
|
|
(l)
|
Research and
Development
|
Research and development costs are expensed in the period
incurred. Research and development costs are comprised mainly of
clinical trial expenses, salary and wages and other related
costs such as materials and supplies. Development expense
includes activities performed by third-party providers
participating in the Companys clinical studies. The
Company accounts for these costs based on estimates of work
performed, patients enrolled or fixed fee for services.
Advertising costs are expensed as incurred and amounted to
$0.8 million, $1.4 million and $0.7 million in
2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
|
|
(n)
|
Selling and
Marketing Expense
|
Selling and marketing expense consists primarily of expense
relating to the promotion, distribution and sale of products,
including royalty expense, salaries and related costs.
The Company expenses distribution costs as incurred.
Distribution costs included in selling and marketing expenses
amounted to $1.2 million, $1.1 million and
$1.0 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
|
|
(p)
|
Cost of Products
Sold
|
Cost of products sold consists principally of the cost to
acquire each unit of product sold, including in-bound freight
expense. Cost of products sold also includes expenses associated
with the write-off of slow-moving or expired product.
Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by
the weighted-average number of shares outstanding. Except where
the result would be antidilutive to income from continuing
operations, diluted earnings per share is calculated by assuming
the vesting of unvested restricted stock and the
F-13
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
exercise of stock options and warrants, as well as their related
income tax benefits. The following table reconciles the
numerator and the denominator used to calculate diluted earnings
per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$
|
2,456,680
|
|
|
$
|
3,091,415
|
|
|
$
|
4,766,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares outstandingbasic
|
|
|
20,333,932
|
|
|
|
14,199,479
|
|
|
|
10,142,807
|
|
Convertible preferred stock shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
986,840
|
|
|
|
1,710,990
|
|
Dilutive effect of other securities
|
|
|
724,645
|
|
|
|
3,047,852
|
|
|
|
4,685,865
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares outstandingdiluted
|
|
|
21,058,577
|
|
|
|
18,234,171
|
|
|
|
16,539,662
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The calculation of diluted earnings per share excludes 640,718,
246,332 and 206,670 outstanding options and warrants as of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, because the
effect would be antidilutive.
Total comprehensive income was comprised solely of net income
for all periods presented.
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles requires management of the Company to make estimates
and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date
of the consolidated financial statements and the reported
amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. Significant
items subject to estimates and assumptions include those related
to chargebacks, rebates, discounts, credits for damaged product
and returns, the valuation and determination of useful lives of
intangible assets and the rate such assets are amortized, the
realization of deferred tax assets and stock-based compensation.
Actual results could differ from those estimates.
|
|
(t)
|
Fair Value of
Financial Instruments
|
The Companys financial instruments include cash and cash
equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued
liabilities, revolving line of credit and long-term debt. The
carrying values for cash and cash equivalents, accounts
receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate
fair value due to their short-term nature. The terms of the
revolving line of credit and term debt include variable interest
rates, which approximate current market rates.
|
|
(u)
|
Recently Adopted
Accounting Standards
|
In March 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or
FASB, issued guidance providing for the recognition of revenue
using the milestone method. Under this new guidance, an entity
can recognize revenue associated with milestones if the
milestones are substantive and there is substantive uncertainty
about whether the milestone will be achieved. To meet the
definition of a substantive milestone, the consideration earned
by achieving the milestone (1) would have to be
commensurate with either the level of effort required to achieve
the milestone or the enhancement in the value of the item
delivered, (2) would have to relate solely to past
performance and (3) should be reasonable relative to all
F-14
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement. The new
guidance was effective for our third quarter ended
September 30, 2010. The adoption of this guidance did not
have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or
results of operations.
|
|
(3)
|
PROPERTY AND
EQUIPMENT
|
Property and equipment consisted of the following at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Range of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
useful
lives
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Computer hardware and software
|
|
|
3-5 years
|
|
|
$
|
417,681
|
|
|
$
|
343,494
|
|
Office equipment
|
|
|
3-15 years
|
|
|
|
108,140
|
|
|
|
62,447
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
5-15 years
|
|
|
|
488,982
|
|
|
|
364,158
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
3-15 years, or remaining lease term
|
|
|
|
931,097
|
|
|
|
607,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,945,900
|
|
|
|
1,377,543
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(725,890
|
)
|
|
|
(459,131
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,220,010
|
|
|
$
|
918,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense, including amortization expense related to
leasehold improvements, during 2010, 2009 and 2008 was
approximately $0.3 million, $0.1 million and
$0.1 million, respectively, and is included in general and
administrative expense in the consolidated statements of income.
Intangible assets consisted of the following at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
$
|
9,020
|
|
|
$
|
9,020
|
|
Less accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(8,123
|
)
|
|
|
(7,396
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total trademarks
|
|
|
897
|
|
|
|
1,624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
10,303,595
|
|
|
|
10,303,595
|
|
Less accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(3,262,805
|
)
|
|
|
(2,575,895
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total license
|
|
|
7,040,790
|
|
|
|
7,727,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patents
|
|
|
409,536
|
|
|
|
226,685
|
|
Less accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(24,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total patents
|
|
|
385,536
|
|
|
|
226,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,427,223
|
|
|
$
|
7,956,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense related to trademarks and license rights
totaled approximately $0.7 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008,
and is expected to be approximately $0.8 million in each of
the years 2012 through 2016.
In April 2006, the Company acquired the exclusive
U.S. commercialization rights (product license) for
Kristalose from Inalco Biochemicals, Inc. and Inalco S.p.A.
(collectively Inalco) for $10,303,595. This amount included cash
paid on the effective date of the agreement of $6,500,000,
discounted future obligations totaling $3,823,937 due in April
2007 and April 2009, and acquisition costs of $13,775,
F-15
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
and was net of the fair value of services received by the
Company in 2006 of $34,117 under a transition service agreement.
The fair value of these services was expensed over the
transition period in 2006. In April 2007, the Company made an
installment payment of $1,500,000 (inclusive of $102,440 of
imputed interest). In April 2008, the Company amended its
agreement and paid the remaining obligation related to the
purchase of the Kristalose rights. The terms of the amendment
provided for an 8% discount on the $3,000,000 face value of the
obligation for a net payment of $2,760,000. The gain of
approximately $39,000 was recognized as a component of interest
expense in the consolidated income statement for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
|
|
(5)
|
OTHER ACCRUED
LIABILITIES
|
Other accrued liabilities consisted of the following at December
31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Rebates, fee for services, and product returns
|
|
$
|
2,626,383
|
|
|
$
|
1,863,012
|
|
Employee wages and benefits
|
|
|
1,078,367
|
|
|
|
919,913
|
|
Outside sales force and related expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,711
|
|
Other
|
|
|
706,856
|
|
|
|
809,141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,411,606
|
|
|
$
|
3,784,777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In July 2009, the Company amended its debt agreement with Bank
of America, N.A. (the Fourth Amended and Restated Loan
Agreement) to provide for $18.0 million in term debt and a
$4.0 million revolving credit facility, both with an
interest rate of LIBOR plus an applicable margin based on the
Companys Leverage Ratio, as defined in the agreement. The
interest rate at December 31, 2009 was 5.73% per annum. In
addition, the Company was required to pay a commitment fee of
0.75% per annum on the unused portion of the commitment. The
term debt was payable in quarterly installments of
$1.5 million beginning on March 31, 2010 and
continuing until December 31, 2012. The revolving credit
facility was due on December 31, 2012. The Company may be
required to make additional principal payments on the term debt
if the Leverage Ratio, as defined, exceeds 1.75 to 1.0 on an
annual basis. The borrowings were collateralized by a first lien
against all of the Companys assets. The proceeds from the
term debt were restricted for the payment, in part, of the
minimum statutory tax withholding requirements of approximately
$24.6 million due from option holders who exercised options
to purchase shares of our common stock at the pricing of the
Companys initial public offering. The consideration for
that payment was the transfer to the Company of shares acquired
upon exercise at the then-current fair market value of the
Companys common stock. In connection with the amendment of
the debt agreement, the Company capitalized approximately
$0.5 million of debt issue costs, of which
$0.1 million related to the fair value of common stock and
$0.1 million related to the fair value of warrants issued
to the lender. Deferred financing costs were being expensed to
interest expense using the effective-interest method over the
term of the debt agreement.
The Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement contained
restrictive covenants, which the Company was in compliance with
during 2010 and 2009.
The Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement required the
Company to make an additional principal payment within
120 days after the end of the fiscal year in an amount
equal to its Excess Cash Flow, as defined in the agreement. The
additional principal payment of $3.1 million, which was
included as a current portion of long-term debt in the
consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2009, was paid
during the first quarter of 2010.
F-16
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
On September 29, 2010, the Company further amended its loan
agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (the Agreement). The
amendment provided for an increase in the availability under the
existing line of credit from $4.0 million to
$6.0 million, with interest payable monthly at LIBOR plus
an Applicable Margin, as defined in the Agreement (4.76% at
December 31, 2010). In addition, the term debt was reduced
to $6.0 million, with quarterly payments under the term
debt reduced to $666,667, plus interest at the same rate as the
line of credit, beginning December 31, 2010. The Company
reduced its commitment fee from three-quarters of one percent
(0.75%) to one-half of one percent (0.50%) per annum on the
unused line of credit. The borrowings are collateralized by a
first priority lien on all of the Companys assets.
The Agreements covenants include a Leverage Ratio, as
defined in the Agreement, of 2.00 to 1.00 for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010, 1.75 to 1.00 for each of the three
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011 and
September 30, 2011 and 1.25 to 1.00 for quarter ending
December 31, 2011 and thereafter, as well as a Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio, as defined in the Agreement, of at least 1.25 to
1.00 at each quarter-annual reporting period. In addition, the
Company must maintain deposits with Bank of America, N.A. at
amounts equal to at least the sum of (a) the maximum amount
of the line of credit plus (b) the aggregate principal
amount then outstanding under the term debt. The Company was in
compliance with all restrictive covenants at December 31,
2010.
The Company is subject to additional loan fees if certain
performance metrics measured at March 31, 2011 and
September 30, 2011 are not met. If required, the additional
loan fee amounts of $102,000 each are due within 45 days of
the end of the respective period. As of December 31, 2010,
the Company has not recognized any additional loan fees.
Concurrent with the amendment of the Agreement, the Company
elected to prepay approximately $5.9 million of its term
debt, incurring a prepayment penalty of approximately
$0.2 million. The prepayment penalty is included as a
component of interest expense for the year ended
December 31, 2010.
The scheduled debt payments are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
2,666,668
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,492,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,159,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7)
|
OTHER LONG-TERM
OBLIGATIONS
|
Other long-term obligations consisted of the following
components at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Third-party development costs
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
101,369
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
558,035
|
|
|
|
168,091
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
85,000
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
643,035
|
|
|
|
329,460
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
(24,692
|
)
|
|
|
(144,828
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
618,343
|
|
|
$
|
184,632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 2009, the Company received marketing approval for
Caldolor from the FDA. The approval triggered a milestone
obligation of approximately $1.0 million to a third party
who assisted in a variety
F-17
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
of development efforts related to Caldolor and was payable as
follows: approximately $0.8 million was paid in the third
quarter of 2009 and the remaining $0.2 million was paid in
equal monthly installments through July 2010. The remaining
balance of $0.1 million at December 31, 2009 was
included in the current portion of other long-term obligations
in the consolidated balance sheet. The milestone expense was
included in research and development expenses in the
consolidated statement of income for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
In addition to the milestone obligation discussed above, the
third party immediately vested in performance-based options to
acquire 60,000 common shares with an exercise price of $1.63 per
share. The Company calculated the fair value of this award to be
$13.41 per share using the Black-Scholes methodology and the
following assumptions: expected term of 2.3 years,
risk-free interest rate of 1.1%, volatility of 51% and an
expected dividend yield of 0%. For the year ended
December 31, 2009, the Company recognized approximately
$0.8 million of research and development expense associated
with this award.
The Company recognizes lease expense on a straight-line basis
over the term of the lease, including any renewal option
periods. For leases with increasing payments, the difference
between the straight-line expense and the amount paid is
recognized as deferred rent. In addition, any tenant improvement
allowances are deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis
as a reduction of rent expense.
Income tax benefit (expense) includes the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
(2,665,404
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,240,827
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,593,865
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
(518,365
|
)
|
|
|
(308,832
|
)
|
|
|
(266,172
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,183,769
|
)
|
|
|
(2,549,659
|
)
|
|
|
(1,860,037
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
268,563
|
|
|
|
528,602
|
|
|
|
(571,114
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
63,786
|
|
|
|
(3,135
|
)
|
|
|
(112,800
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
332,349
|
|
|
|
525,467
|
|
|
|
(683,914
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,851,420
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,024,192
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,543,951
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys deferred tax expense in 2008 was primarily
due to the utilization of deferred tax assets from federal tax
credit carryforwards. The deferred tax benefit for 2009 was
primarily due to the expense for nonqualified stock options
issued to employees. The deferred tax benefit for 2010 was
primarily due to rent and expired product expenses recognized
for book purposes in 2010 that will not be deductible for tax
purposes until the future.
F-18
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
The deferred income tax benefit (expense) is comprised of the
following components for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax benefit exclusive of components listed below
|
|
$
|
468,840
|
|
|
$
|
170,648
|
|
|
$
|
158,864
|
|
Creation (utilization) of operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
9,567
|
|
|
|
(60,266
|
)
|
|
|
(248,651
|
)
|
Creation (utilization) of tax credit carryforwards
|
|
|
(3,115
|
)
|
|
|
7,172
|
|
|
|
(626,956
|
)
|
Change in valuation allowance due to changes in net deferred tax
asset balances
|
|
|
(10,750
|
)
|
|
|
(11,342
|
)
|
|
|
(11,291
|
)
|
Non-qualified stock options
|
|
|
(132,193
|
)
|
|
|
419,255
|
|
|
|
44,120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax benefit (expense)
|
|
$
|
332,349
|
|
|
$
|
525,467
|
|
|
$
|
(683,914
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The valuation allowance at December 31, 2010 and 2009 is
primarily related to state tax benefits at CET that will likely
not be realized.
The Companys effective income tax rate for 2010, 2009 and
2008 reconciles with the federal statutory tax rate as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Federal tax expense at statutory rate
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
State income tax expense (net of federal income tax benefit)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Permanent differences associated with tax grants
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permanent differences associated with stock options
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Other permanent differences
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of previously unrecognized tax benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Net income tax expense
|
|
|
54
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During 2010, the Company applied for and received tax-free
grants under the Therapeutic Discovery Project. Qualifying
expenses certified under this program are nondeductible for
federal income tax purposes. Approximately $0.4 million of
qualifying expenses relate to 2009 for which the Company is
filing an amended tax return in 2011. The Company also incurred
expenses in 2010, 2009 and 2008 associated with the grant of
incentive stock options. These expenses are nondeductible for
federal income tax purposes.
F-19
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Components of the net deferred tax assets at December 31 are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss and tax credits
|
|
$
|
957,888
|
|
|
$
|
72,532
|
|
Property and equipment
|
|
|
181,156
|
|
|
|
169,852
|
|
Allowance for accounts receivable
|
|
|
62,951
|
|
|
|
89,160
|
|
Reserve for expired product
|
|
|
559,492
|
|
|
|
386,669
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
141,492
|
|
|
|
80,462
|
|
Deferred charges
|
|
|
507,306
|
|
|
|
257,413
|
|
Cumulative compensation costs incurred on nonqualified options
|
|
|
914,540
|
|
|
|
1,046,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
|
3,324,825
|
|
|
|
2,102,822
|
|
Less deferred tax asset valuation allowance
|
|
|
(80,862
|
)
|
|
|
(70,112
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
3,243,963
|
|
|
$
|
2,032,710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during
the periods in which those temporary differences become
deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of
deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and
tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Excluding the
AMT tax credits, the Company will need to generate future
taxable income of approximately $8.5 million in order to
fully realize the deferred tax assets. Taxable income, excluding
tax deductions generated by the exercise of nonqualified
options, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008 was approximately $7.3 million, $7.0 million and
$7.9 million, respectively. Based upon the level of taxable
income over the last three years and projections for future
taxable income over the periods in which the deferred tax assets
are deductible, management believes it is more likely than not
that the Company will realize the benefits of these deductible
differences, net of the existing valuation allowances, at
December 31, 2010. The amount of the deferred tax assets
considered realizable, however, could be reduced in the near
term if estimates of future taxable income during the
carryforward period are reduced.
At December 31, 2010, the Company had $63.1 million of
federal net operating loss carryforwards that expire in 2029.
All of the federal net operating loss originated from the
exercise of nonqualified options in 2009. These benefits will be
recognized in the year in which they are able to reduce current
taxes payable. As a result of using these carryforwards in 2010,
the Company paid minimal state and federal income taxes.
At December 31, 2010, the Company has $63.5 million of
state net operating loss carryforwards. This amount includes
$61.7 million from the exercise of nonqualified stock
options in 2009, of which $2.9 million will expire in 2014.
The remaining carryforwards begin to expire in 2018. The
remaining state net operating loss carryforward of
$1.7 million is subject to a full valuation allowance.
Approximately $0.5 million of these state net operating
losses are set to expire between 2015 and 2017. The remaining
state net operating losses will begin expiring in 2018.
Federal tax years that remain open to examination are 2009 to
2010. State tax years that remain open to examination are 2005
to 2010.
F-20
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
|
|
(a)
|
Initial Public
Offering
|
On August 10, 2009, the Company completed its initial
public offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at a
price of $17.00 per share, raising gross proceeds of
$85.0 million. After deducting underwriting discounts of
approximately $6.0 million and offering costs incurred of
approximately $4.2 million, the net proceeds to the Company
were approximately $74.8 million. Contemporaneously with
the offering, each outstanding share of preferred stock was
automatically converted into two shares of common stock.
The Company is authorized to issue 20,000,000 shares of
preferred stock. The Board of Directors is authorized to divide
these shares into classes or series, and to fix and determine
the relative rights, preferences, qualifications and limitations
of the shares of any class or series so established. At
December 31, 2010 and 2009, there was no preferred stock
outstanding.
During 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company issued 5,636, 2,750 and
7,961 shares of common stock, respectively, valued at
$56,000, $39,750 and $107,000, respectively, to executives,
related parties, and advisors as compensation for services, and
is included in general and administrative expenses in the
consolidated statements of income. Included in these amounts are
3,461 shares of common stock granted to board members in
2008 for services rendered. The expense associated with these
grants to board members was approximately $45,000 in 2008. In
addition, the Company issued 2,924,202 and 87,142 net
shares of common stock to a key executive and an advisor upon
exercise of options in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The payment of dividends is restricted by the Agreement with
Bank of America, N.A.
In 2003, the Company issued warrants to purchase
25,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $6.00
per share as partial consideration for a modification to its
line of credit. The warrants expire 10 years from the date
of issuance. All of these warrants were outstanding and
exercisable as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.
In connection with the issuance of shares of stock to a related
party in 2004, the Company issued warrants to purchase
40,000 shares of stock at $6.00 per share at any time
within ten years of issuance. All of these warrants were
outstanding and exercisable as of December 31, 2010 and
2009.
In 2006, the Company signed a new line of credit agreement along
with a term loan agreement with a financial institution. In
conjunction with these agreements, the Company issued warrants
to purchase up to 3,958 shares of common stock at $9.00 per
share, which expire in April 2016, and which were outstanding
and exercisable as of December 31, 2010 and 2009. In
connection with the Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement,
the Company issued warrants to purchase up to 7,500 shares
of common stock at $17.00 per share, which expire in July 2019.
The fair value of these warrants of $97,575, as determined using
the Black-Scholes methodology and utilizing an expected term of
10 years, risk-free interest rate of 4.0%, volatility of
67% and an expected dividend yield of 0%, was recorded in the
consolidated balance sheet as equity and deferred financing
costs.
F-21
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
On December 12, 2008, the Board of Directors authorized the
Company to repurchase up to 384,615 shares of common stock
at $13.00 per share. On December 30, 2008, the Company
completed its $5.0 million repurchase of common stock. In
connection with the repurchase, 42,746 shares of preferred
stock were converted into 85,492 shares of common stock.
The repurchase was financed, in part, by additional borrowings
under its term debt with Bank of America.
In February and April 2010, the Company repurchased
163,022 shares of common stock totaling approximately
$1.9 million for the settlement of tax liabilities
associated with the exercise of certain options in 2009. As of
December 31, 2009, this amount was included in redeemable
common stock in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The
repurchase amount was based on the fair-market value of common
stock on the date of settlement.
In May 2010, the Company announced a share repurchase program to
repurchase up to $10.0 million of its outstanding common
shares. Pursuant to the plan, the Company repurchased
452,433 shares for approximately $3.0 million through
December 31, 2010.
The Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan (the
1999 Plan), which allowed for both incentive stock options and
nonqualified stock options to be granted to employees, officers,
consultants, directors and affiliates of the Company, was
superseded and replaced by the 2007 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation Plan (the 2007 Plan) and 2007 Directors
Incentive Plan (the Directors Plan). The new plans were
approved by the Companys Board of Directors and
shareholders in April 2007. The implementation of the new plans
did not result in a modification of the terms and conditions of
the outstanding awards granted under the 1999 Plan that would
result in the awards being treated as an exchange of the
original award for a new award.
The purposes of the 2007 Plan are to encourage the
Companys employees and consultants to acquire stock and
other equity-based interests and to replace the 1999 Plan. The
Company has reserved 2.4 million shares of common stock for
issuance under the 2007 Plan.
The purposes of the Directors Plan are to strengthen the
Companys ability to attract, motivate, and retain
Directors with experience and ability, and to encourage the
highest level of performance by providing Directors with a
proprietary interest in the Companys financial success and
growth. The Directors Plan supersedes and replaces the
provisions pertaining to grants of stock options to Directors in
the 1999 Plan, but does not impair the vesting or exercise of
any options granted under the 1999 Plan. The Company has
reserved 250,000 shares of common stock under the
Directors Plan.
Incentive stock options must be granted at an exercise price not
less than the fair market value of the common stock on the grant
date. Options granted to shareholders owning more than 10% of
the common stock on the grant date must be granted at an
exercise price not less than 110% of fair market value of the
common stock on the grant date.
The options are exercisable on the dates established by each
grant; however, options granted to officers or directors are not
exercisable until at least six months after grant date. The
maximum exercise life of an option is ten years from grant date
and is five years for stock options issued to shareholders who
own 10% or more of the Companys common stock. Vesting is
determined on a
grant-by-grant
basis in accordance with the terms of the plans and the related
grant agreements. Upon exercise, the Company issues new shares
of common stock.
F-22
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Stock option activity for the year ended December 31, 2010
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
average
|
|
|
average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exercise
|
|
|
remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
price
|
|
|
contractual
|
|
|
intrinsic
|
|
|
|
shares
|
|
|
per
share
|
|
|
term
(years)
|
|
|
value
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,509,585
|
|
|
$
|
4.65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
223,607
|
|
|
|
11.36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(785,740
|
)
|
|
|
1.94
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options forfeited/expired
|
|
|
(41,982
|
)
|
|
|
9.62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2010
|
|
|
1,905,470
|
|
|
|
6.45
|
|
|
|
3.28
|
|
|
$
|
2,853,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
1,658,479
|
|
|
$
|
5.59
|
|
|
|
2.93
|
|
|
$
|
2,851,950
|
|
Information related to the stock option plans during 2010, 2009
and 2008 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Intrinsic value of options exercised
|
|
$
|
5,519,588
|
|
|
$
|
86,155,328
|
|
|
$
|
1,162,796
|
|
Weighted-average fair value of options granted
|
|
$
|
4.13
|
|
|
$
|
6.42
|
|
|
$
|
6.27
|
|
Of the options outstanding at December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008, 136,930, 86,930 and 4,795,420, respectively, were options
issued to a key executive.
The fair value of employee options granted during 2010, 2009 and
2008 were estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model
and the following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected term (years)
|
|
2.5-6.0
|
|
3.7-6.2
|
|
3.5-6.0
|
Expected volatility
|
|
49%-53%
|
|
50%-52%
|
|
49%-51%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
0.8%-2.8%
|
|
1.4%-2.7%
|
|
3.1%
|
The fair value of nonemployee options granted during 2010, 2009
and 2008 were estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing
model and the following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected term (years)
|
|
5
|
|
2.3-10.0
|
|
10.0
|
Expected volatility
|
|
52%-53%
|
|
51%-67%
|
|
68%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
2.2%-2.4%
|
|
1.1%-2.7%
|
|
3.7%
|
The Company determined the expected life of employee share
options based on the simplified method allowed by SEC Staff
Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 107, as amended by
SAB No. 110. Under this approach, the expected term is
presumed to be the average between the weighted-average vesting
period and the contractual term. The expected term for options
granted to nonemployees is generally the contractual term of the
option. The expected volatility over the term of the respective
option was based on the volatility of similar publicly-traded
entities. In evaluating similarity, the Company considered
factors such as industry, stage of life cycle, size, and
financial leverage. The risk-free interest rate is based on the
U.S. Treasury Note, Stripped Principal, on the date of
grant with a term substantially equal to the corresponding
options expected term. The Company has never declared or
paid any cash dividends and does not presently plan to pay cash
dividends in the foreseeable future.
F-23
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
Stock compensation expense is presented as a component of
general and administrative expenses in the accompanying
consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2010,
there was approximately $1.2 million of unrecognized
compensation cost related to share-based payments, which is
expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of
2.3 years. This amount relates primarily to unrecognized
compensation cost for employees.
In the first quarter of 2009, options to purchase
773,556 shares of common stock were exercised with a
weighted-average exercise price of $0.11 per share. A portion of
the options were exercised using a net-share settlement feature
that provided for the option holder to use 204,245 shares
acquired upon exercise to settle the minimum statutory tax
withholding requirements of approximately $2.7 million.
During the third quarter of 2009, options to purchase
4,605,962 shares of common stock were exercised with a
weighted-average exercise price of $0.55 per share. A portion of
the options were exercised using a net-share settlement feature
that provided for the option holder to use 1,445,074 shares
acquired upon exercise to settle the minimum statutory tax
withholding requirements of approximately $24.6 million.
The payment of the exercise price for these options of
approximately $2.6 million was settled by cash and the
tendering of 140,788 shares of common stock by the
optionees. In connection with these exercises, the Company
agreed to repurchase up to $1.9 million in common stock
during the first quarter of 2010 to provide for the settlement
of the remaining tax liabilities associated with the exercise.
The estimated repurchase amount is presented as redeemable
common stock in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2009. The repurchase of these shares was
completed in 2010.
The Company is obligated under long-term real estate leases for
corporate office space expiring in October 2016. In addition,
the research lab space at CET is leased through July 2011, with
options to extend the lease through July 2021. The Company also
subleases a portion of the space under these leases. Rent
expense is recognized over the expected term of the lease,
including renewal option periods, if applicable, on a
straight-line basis. Rent expense for 2010, 2009 and 2008 was
approximately $626,000, $575,000 and $526,000, respectively, and
sublease income was approximately $274,000, $203,000 and
$170,000, respectively. Future minimum sublease income under
noncancelable sublease operating leases is approximately
$0.9 million through October 2016. Future minimum lease
payments under noncancelable operating leases (with initial or
remaining lease terms in excess of one year) are:
|
|
|
|
|
Year ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
740,167
|
|
2012
|
|
|
762,372
|
|
2013
|
|
|
785,343
|
|
2014
|
|
|
808,824
|
|
2015 and thereafter
|
|
|
1,548,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
$
|
4,644,846
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12)
|
MANUFACTURING AND
SUPPLY AGREEMENTS
|
The Company utilizes one primary supplier to manufacture each of
its respective products and product candidates. In February
2008, the Company entered into an agreement with a second
supplier of Acetadote. The agreement for the second supplier
expires in February 2013. Although there are a limited number of
manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, the Company believes
it could utilize other suppliers to manufacture its prescription
products on comparable terms. A change in suppliers,
F-24
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
any problems with such manufacturing operations or capacity, or
contract disputes with the suppliers, however, could cause a
delay in manufacturing and a possible loss of sales, which would
adversely affect operating results.
The Companys manufacturing and supply agreement with one
manufacturer, which expires in 2021, contains minimum purchase
obligations which requires the Company to purchase 25% of its
prior year purchases, or $0.5 million, during 2011.
|
|
(13)
|
COMMITMENTS AND
CONTINGENCIES
|
Prior to September 2010, the Company outsourced a portion of its
sales force activities through an agreement with a third party.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Company made monthly
payments to the third party of approximately $393,000 for these
activities. In September 2010, the Company converted this
portion of its sales force into Cumberland employees.
In connection with its manufacturing and supply agreement for
Acetadote and its licensing agreements for Kristalose and
Caldolor, the Company is required to pay a royalty based on net
sales over the life of the contracts. Royalty expense is
recognized as a component of selling and marketing expense in
the period that revenue is recognized.
|
|
(14)
|
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTS
|
The Company has entered into employment agreements with its
full-time and part-time employees. Each employment agreement
provides for a salary for services performed, a potential annual
bonus and, if applicable, a grant of incentive options to
purchase the Companys common shares pursuant to an option
agreement. Two of the employment agreements address expense
reimbursements for relevant and applicable licenses and
continuing education. Employment agreements are amended each
successive one-year period, unless terminated. In 2011,
restricted shares will replace the award of stock options as
part of the compensation package.
|
|
(15)
|
MARKET
CONCENTRATIONS
|
The Company currently focuses on acquiring, developing, and
commercializing branded prescription products for the acute care
and gastroenterology markets. The Companys principal
financial instruments subject to potential concentration of
credit risk are accounts receivable, which are unsecured, and
cash equivalents. The Companys cash equivalents consist
primarily of money market funds. Certain bank deposits may at
times be in excess of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) insurance limits.
The Companys primary customers are wholesale
pharmaceutical distributors in the U.S. Total revenues from
customers representing 10% or more of total revenues for the
respective years are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Customer 1
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
37
|
%
|
|
|
37
|
%
|
Customer 2
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Customer 3
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Additionally, 80% and 96% of the Companys accounts
receivable balances were due from these three customers at
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
F-25
Notes to
consolidated financial statements
|
|
(16)
|
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
PLAN
|
The Company sponsors an employee benefit plan that was
established on January 1, 2006, the Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals 401(k) Plan (the Plan), under
Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, for the benefit of all employees over the age of 21,
having been employed by the Company for at least six months. The
Plan provides that participants may contribute up to the maximum
amount of their compensation as set forth by the Internal
Revenue Service each year. Employee contributions are invested
in various investment funds based upon elections made by the
employees. During 2010 and 2009, the Company contributed $16,000
and $13,800 to the Plan as an employer match of participant
contributions.
Pursuant to the share repurchase plan announced in May 2010, the
Company repurchased an additional 94,662 shares for
approximately $0.6 million for the period from
January 1, 2011 to March 1, 2011. The weighted-average
repurchase price was $6.06 per share.
In January 2011, the Company exercised its option to renew its
lease at CET for five years. The lease will expire in July 2016,
with a second five-year renewal option available to the Company.
|
|
(18)
|
QUARTER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION (Unaudited)
|
The following table sets forth the unaudited operating results
for each fiscal quarter of 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
$
|
10,130,652
|
|
|
$
|
10,739,935
|
|
|
$
|
12,190,870
|
|
|
$
|
12,814,914
|
|
|
$
|
45,876,371
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
810,508
|
|
|
|
1,009,860
|
|
|
|
2,443,857
|
|
|
|
2,237,522
|
|
|
|
6,501,747
|
|
Net income attributable to common shareholders
|
|
|
323,578
|
|
|
|
287,304
|
|
|
|
1,008,244
|
|
|
|
837,554
|
|
|
|
2,456,680
|
|
Earnings per share attributable to common
shareholders(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
$
|
9,404,599
|
|
|
$
|
9,820,613
|
|
|
$
|
13,597,760
|
(2)
|
|
$
|
10,714,306
|
|
|
$
|
43,537,278
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
2,117,025
|
|
|
|
594,116
|
|
|
|
2,372,059
|
|
|
|
693,435
|
|
|
|
5,776,635
|
|
Net income attributable to common shareholders
|
|
|
1,218,090
|
|
|
|
295,871
|
|
|
|
1,288,137
|
|
|
|
289,317
|
|
|
|
3,091,415
|
|
Earnings per share attributable to common
shareholders(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.08
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.08
|
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Due to the nature of interim earnings per share calculations,
the sum of the quarterly earnings per share amounts may not
equal the reported earnings per share for the year. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $3.3 million of net revenue associated with the
launch of Caldolor in September 2009. |
F-26
Cumberland
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries
Schedule II
valuation and qualifying accounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Column A
|
|
|
Column B
|
|
|
Column C
|
|
|
Column D
|
|
|
Column E
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beginning of
|
|
|
costs and
|
|
|
other accounts
|
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
Description
|
|
period
|
|
|
expenses
|
|
|
describe
|
|
|
describe(1)
|
|
|
end of period
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
Allowance for uncollectible amounts, cash discounts,
chargebacks, and credits issued for damaged products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the period ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
146,972
|
|
|
$
|
1,242,300
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,242,226
|
)
|
|
$
|
147,046
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
147,046
|
|
|
|
1,734,521
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,646,287
|
)
|
|
|
235,280
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
235,280
|
|
|
|
1,494,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,566,366
|
)
|
|
|
163,748
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the period ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
47,479
|
|
|
$
|
11,291
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
58,770
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
58,770
|
|
|
|
11,342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70,112
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
70,112
|
|
|
|
10,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,862
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Actual discounts, chargebacks, and credits taken by customers. |
See accompanying report of independent registered public
accounting firm.
F-27