A.Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 and for the three and six months ended December 30, 2015 and 2014 include the accounts of ImmunoGen, Inc., or the Company, and its wholly owned subsidiaries, ImmunoGen Securities Corp., ImmunoGen Europe Limited and Hurricane, LLC. The consolidated financial statements include all of the adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which management considers necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s financial position in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. for interim financial information. The June 30, 2015 condensed consolidated balance sheet data presented for comparative purposes was derived from our audited financial statements but certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in the Company’s annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted. The preparation of interim financial statements requires the use of management’s estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the interim financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reported periods. The results of the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results for the entire year. Accordingly, the interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2015.

 

Subsequent Events

 

The Company has evaluated all events or transactions that occurred after December 31, 2015 up through the date the Company issued these financial statements. In January 2016, Bayer initiated a Phase II clinical study designed to support registration of its ADC product candidate, anetumab ravtansine, triggering a $10 million development milestone payment to the Company. The Company did not have any other material recognizable or unrecognizable subsequent events during this period.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

The Company enters into licensing and development agreements with collaborative partners for the development of monoclonal antibody-based anticancer therapeutics. The terms of these agreements contain multiple deliverables which may include (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to the Company’s antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, technology, (ii) rights to future technological improvements, (iii) research activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner, (iv) delivery of cytotoxic agents and (v) the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials for the collaborative partner. Payments to the Company under these agreements may include upfront fees, option fees, exercise fees, payments for research activities, payments for the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials, payments based upon the achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. The Company follows the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 605-25, “Revenue Recognition—Multiple-Element Arrangements,” and ASC Topic 605-28, “Revenue Recognition-Milestone Method,” in accounting for these agreements. In order to account for these agreements, the Company must identify the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluate which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered element has stand-alone value to the collaborator. The consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of the separate units.

 

At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following two types of agreements with the parties identified below:

 

Development and commercialization licenses, which provide the party with the right to use the Company’s ADC technology and/or certain other intellectual property to develop compounds to a specified antigen target:

 

Amgen (four exclusive single-target licenses(1))

 

Bayer (one exclusive single-target license)

 

Biotest (one exclusive single-target license)

 

Lilly (three exclusive single-target licenses)

 

(1) Amgen has sublicensed one of its exclusive single-target licenses to Oxford BioTherapeutics Ltd.

 

Novartis (five exclusive single-target licenses and one license to two related targets: one target on an exclusive basis and the second target on a non-exclusive basis)

 

Roche, through its Genentech unit (five exclusive single-target licenses)

 

Sanofi (one exclusive single-target license and one exclusive license to multiple individual targets)

 

Takeda, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (one exclusive single-target license)

 

Research license/option agreement for a defined period of time to secure development and commercialization licenses to use the Company’s ADC technology to develop anticancer compounds to specified targets on established terms (referred to herein as right-to-test agreements):

 

Sanofi

 

CytomX

 

Takeda

 

There are no performance, cancellation, termination or refund provisions in any of the arrangements that contain material financial consequences to the Company.

 

Development and Commercialization Licenses

 

The deliverables under a development and commercialization license agreement generally include the license to the Company’s ADC technology with respect to a specified antigen target, and may also include deliverables related to rights to future technological improvements, research activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborative partner and the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials for the collaborative partner.

 

Generally, development and commercialization licenses contain non-refundable terms for payments and, depending on the terms of the agreement, provide that the Company will (i) at the collaborator’s request, provide research services at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge, (ii) at the collaborator’s request, manufacture and provide to it preclinical and clinical materials or deliver cytotoxic agents at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge, (iii) earn payments upon the achievement of certain milestones and (iv) earn royalty payments, generally until the later of the last applicable patent expiration or 10 to 12 years after product launch. In the case of Kadcyla, however, the minimum royalty term is 10 years and the maximum royalty term is 12 years on a country by country basis, regardless of patent protection.  Royalty rates may vary over the royalty term depending on the Company’s intellectual property rights and/or the presence of comparable competing products. The Company may provide technical assistance and share any technology improvements with its collaborators during the term of the collaboration agreements. The Company does not directly control when or whether any collaborator will request research or manufacturing services, achieve milestones or become liable for royalty payments. As a result, the Company cannot predict when or if it will recognize revenues in connection with any of the foregoing.

 

In determining the units of accounting, management evaluates whether the license has stand-alone value from the undelivered elements to the collaborative partner based on the consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances for each arrangement. Factors considered in this determination include the research capabilities of the partner and the availability of ADC technology research expertise in the general marketplace. If the Company concludes that the license has stand-alone value and therefore will be accounted for as a separate unit of accounting, the Company then determines the estimated selling prices of the license and all other units of accounting based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, and entity-specific factors such as the terms of the Company’s previous collaborative agreements, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic products that use the Company’s ADC technology, the Company’s pricing practices and pricing objectives, the likelihood that technological improvements will be made, and, if made, will be used by the Company’s collaborators and the nature of the research services to be performed on behalf of its collaborators and market rates for similar services.

 

Upfront payments on development and commercialization licenses are deferred if facts and circumstances dictate that the license does not have stand-alone value. Prior to the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2009-13, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables” on July 1, 2010, the Company determined that its licenses lacked stand-alone value and were combined with other elements of the arrangement and any amounts associated with the license were deferred and amortized over a certain period, which the Company refers to as the Company’s period of substantial involvement. The determination of the length of the period over which to defer revenue is subject to judgment and estimation and can have an impact on the amount of revenue recognized in a given period. Historically the Company’s involvement with the development of a collaborator’s product candidate has been significant at the early stages of development, and lessens as it progresses into clinical trials. Also, as a drug candidate gets closer to commencing pivotal testing the Company’s collaborators have sought an alternative site to manufacture their products, as the Company’s facility does not produce pivotal or commercial drug product. Accordingly, the Company generally estimates this period of substantial involvement to begin at the inception of the collaboration agreement and conclude at the end of non-pivotal Phase II testing. The Company believes this period of substantial involvement is, depending on the nature of the license, on average six and one-half years. Quarterly, the Company reassesses its periods of substantial involvement over which the Company amortizes its upfront license fees and makes adjustments as appropriate. In the event a collaborator elects to discontinue development of a specific product candidate under a development and commercialization license, but retains its right to use the Company’s technology to develop an alternative product candidate to the same target or a target substitute, the Company would cease amortization of any remaining portion of the upfront fee until there is substantial preclinical activity on another product candidate and its remaining period of substantial involvement can be estimated. In the event that a development and commercialization license were to be terminated, the Company would recognize as revenue any portion of the upfront fee that had not previously been recorded as revenue, but was classified as deferred revenue, at the date of such termination.

 

Subsequent to the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13, the Company determined that its research licenses lack stand-alone value and are considered for aggregation with the other elements of the arrangement and accounted for as one unit of accounting.

 

Upfront payments on development and commercialization licenses may be recognized upon delivery of the license if facts and circumstances dictate that the license has stand-alone value from the undelivered elements, which generally include rights to future technological improvements, research services, delivery of cytotoxic agents and the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials.

 

The Company recognizes revenue related to research services that represent separate units of accounting as they are performed, as long as there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the fee is fixed or determinable, and collection of the related receivable is probable. The Company recognizes revenue related to the rights to future technological improvements over the estimated term of the applicable license.

 

The Company may also provide cytotoxic agents to its collaborators or produce preclinical and clinical materials at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge. The Company recognizes revenue on cytotoxic agents and on preclinical and clinical materials when the materials have passed all quality testing required for collaborator acceptance and title and risk of loss have transferred to the collaborator. Arrangement consideration allocated to the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials in a multiple-deliverable arrangement is below the Company’s full cost, and the Company’s full cost is not expected to ever be below its contract selling prices for its existing collaborations. During each of the six months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the difference between the Company’s full cost to manufacture preclinical and clinical materials on behalf of its collaborators as compared to total amounts received from collaborators for the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials was $5.5 million. The majority of the Company’s costs to produce these preclinical and clinical materials are fixed and then allocated to each batch based on the number of batches produced during the period. Therefore, the Company’s costs to produce these materials are significantly impacted by the number of batches produced during the period. The volume of preclinical and clinical materials the Company produces is directly related to the number of clinical trials the Company and its collaborators are preparing for or currently have underway, the speed of enrollment in those trials, the dosage schedule of each clinical trial and the time period such trials last. Accordingly, the volume of preclinical and clinical materials produced, and therefore the Company’s per-batch costs to manufacture these preclinical and clinical materials, may vary significantly from period to period.

 

The Company may also produce research material for potential collaborators under material transfer agreements. Additionally, the Company performs research activities, including developing antibody specific conjugation processes, on behalf of its collaborators and potential collaborators during the early evaluation and preclinical testing stages of drug development. The Company records amounts received for research materials produced or services performed as a component of research and development support revenue. The Company also develops conjugation processes for materials for later-stage testing and commercialization for certain collaborators. The Company is compensated at negotiated rates and may receive milestone payments for developing these processes which are recorded as a component of research and development support revenue.

 

The Company’s development and commercialization license agreements have milestone payments which for reporting purposes are aggregated into three categories: (i) development milestones, (ii) regulatory milestones, and (iii) sales milestones. Development milestones are typically payable when a product candidate initiates or advances into different clinical trial phases. Regulatory milestones are typically payable upon submission for marketing approval with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other countries’ regulatory authorities or on receipt of actual marketing approvals for the compound or for additional indications. Sales milestones are typically payable when annual sales reach certain levels.

 

At the inception of each agreement that includes milestone payments, the Company evaluates whether each milestone is substantive and at risk to both parties on the basis of the contingent nature of the milestone. This evaluation includes an assessment of whether (a) the consideration is commensurate with either (1) the entity’s performance to achieve the milestone, or (2) the enhancement of the value of the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the entity’s performance to achieve the milestone, (b) the consideration relates solely to past performance and (c) the consideration is reasonable relative to all of the deliverables and payment terms within the arrangement. The Company evaluates factors such as the scientific, regulatory, commercial and other risks that must be overcome to achieve the respective milestone, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the respective milestone and whether the milestone consideration is reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement in making this assessment.

 

Non-refundable development and regulatory milestones that are expected to be achieved as a result of the Company’s efforts during the period of substantial involvement are considered substantive and are recognized as revenue upon the achievement of the milestone, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met. Milestones that are not considered substantive because the Company does not contribute effort to the achievement of such milestones are generally achieved after the period of substantial involvement and are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone, as there are no undelivered elements remaining and no continuing performance obligations, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

 

Under the Company’s development and commercialization license agreements, the Company receives royalty payments based upon its licensees’ net sales of covered products. Generally, under these agreements the Company is to receive royalty reports and payments from its licensees approximately one quarter in arrears, that is, generally in the third month of the quarter after the licensee has sold the royalty-bearing product or products. The Company recognizes royalty revenues when it can reliably estimate such amounts and collectability is reasonably assured. As such, the Company generally recognizes royalty revenues in the quarter reported to the Company by its licensees, or one quarter following the quarter in which sales by the Company’s licensees occurred.

 

Right-to-Test Agreements

 

The Company’s right-to-test agreements provide collaborators the right to (a) test the Company’s ADC technology for a defined period of time through a research, or right-to-test, license, (b) take options, for a defined period of time, to specified targets and (c) upon exercise of those options, secure or “take” licenses to develop and commercialize products for the specified targets on established terms. Under these agreements, fees may be due to the Company (i) at the inception of the arrangement (referred to as “upfront” fees or payments), (ii) upon taking an option with respect to a specific target (referred to as option fees or payments earned, if any, when the option is “taken”), (iii) upon the exercise of a previously taken option to acquire a development and commercialization license(s) (referred to as exercise fees or payments earned, if any, when the development and commercialization license is “taken”), or (iv) some combination of all of these fees.

 

The accounting for right-to-test agreements is dependent on the nature of the options granted to the collaborative partner. Options are considered substantive if, at the inception of a right-to-test agreement, the Company is at risk as to whether the collaborative partner will choose to exercise the options to secure development and commercialization licenses. Factors that are considered in evaluating whether options are substantive include the overall objective of the arrangement, the benefit the collaborator might obtain from the agreement without exercising the options, the cost to exercise the options relative to the total upfront consideration, and the additional financial commitments or economic penalties imposed on the collaborator as a result of exercising the options.

 

For right-to-test agreements where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses to the Company’s ADC technology are considered substantive, the Company does not consider the development and commercialization licenses to be a deliverable at the inception of the agreement. For those right-to-test agreements entered into prior to the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13 where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses are considered substantive, the Company has deferred the upfront payments received and recognizes this revenue over the period during which the collaborator could elect to take options for development and commercialization licenses. These periods are specific to each collaboration agreement. If a collaborator takes an option to acquire a development and commercialization license under these agreements, any substantive option fee is deferred and recognized over the life of the option, generally 12 to 18 months. If a collaborator exercises an option and takes a development and commercialization license to a specific target, the Company attributes the exercise fee to the development and commercialization license. Upon exercise of an option to acquire a development and commercialization license, the Company would also attribute any remaining deferred option fee to the development and commercialization license and apply the multiple-element revenue recognition criteria to the development and commercialization license and any other deliverables to determine the appropriate revenue recognition, which will be consistent with the Company’s accounting policy for upfront payments on single-target licenses. In the event a right-to-test agreement were to be terminated, the Company would recognize as revenue any portion of the upfront fee that had not previously been recorded as revenue, but was classified as deferred revenue, at the date of such termination. None of the Company’s right-to-test agreements entered into subsequent to the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13 has been determined to contain substantive options.

 

For right-to-test agreements where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses to the Company’s ADC technology are not considered substantive, the Company considers the development and commercialization licenses to be a deliverable at the inception of the agreement and applies the multiple-element revenue recognition criteria to determine the appropriate revenue recognition. None of the Company’s right-to-test agreements entered into prior to the adoption of ASU No. 2009-13 has been determined to contain non-substantive options.

 

The Company does not directly control when or if any collaborator will exercise its options for development and commercialization licenses. As a result, the Company cannot predict when or if it will recognize revenues in connection with any of the foregoing.

 

Financial Instruments and Concentration of Credit Risk

 

Cash and cash equivalents are primarily maintained with three financial institutions in the U.S. Deposits with banks may exceed the amount of insurance provided on such deposits. Generally, these deposits may be redeemed upon demand and, therefore, bear minimal risk. The Company’s cash equivalents consist of money market funds with underlying investments primarily being U.S. Government issued securities and high quality, short term commercial paper. Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. The Company held no marketable securities as of December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015. The Company’s investment policy, approved by the Board of Directors, limits the amount it may invest in any one type of investment, thereby reducing credit risk concentrations.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

All highly liquid financial instruments with maturities of three months or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. As of December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, the Company held $212.3 million and $278.1 million, respectively, in cash and money market funds consisting principally of U.S. Government-issued securities and high quality, short-term commercial paper which were classified as cash and cash equivalents.

 

Non-cash Investing Activities

 

The Company had $2.5 million of accrued capital expenditures as of December 31, 2015 which have been treated as a non-cash investing activity and, accordingly, are not reflected in the consolidated statement of cash flows.  Accrued capital expenditures as of December 31, 2014 were not material and are included in the consolidated statement of cash flows.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

Fair value is defined under ASC Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date.  Valuation techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.  The standard describes a fair value hierarchy to measure fair value which is based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, as follows:

 

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2015, the Company held certain assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis.  The following table represents the fair value hierarchy for the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2015 (in thousands):

 

 

As of June 30, 2015, the Company held certain assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. The following table represents the fair value hierarchy for the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2015 (in thousands):

 

 

The fair value of the Company’s cash equivalents is based on quoted prices from active markets.

 

Unbilled Revenue

 

The majority of the Company’s unbilled revenue at December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 represents research funding earned prior to those dates based on actual resources utilized under the Company’s agreements with various collaborators.

 

Inventory

 

Inventory costs relate to clinical trial materials being manufactured for sale to the Company’s collaborators. Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market as determined on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis.

 

Inventory at December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 is summarized below (in thousands):

 

 

Raw materials inventory consists entirely of DM1 and DM4, proprietary cell-killing agents the Company developed as part of its ADC technology. The Company considers more than a twelve month supply of raw materials that is not supported by firm, fixed orders and/or projections from its collaborators to be excess and establishes a reserve to reduce to zero the value of any such excess raw material inventory with a corresponding charge to research and development expense. In accordance with this policy, the Company recorded $966,000 of expense related to excess inventory during the three and six-months ended December 31, 2015 compared to $55,000 and $392,000 of expense related to excess inventory  recorded during the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2014, respectively.

 

Work in process inventory consists of conjugate manufactured for sale to the Company’s collaborators to be used in preclinical and clinical studies.  All conjugate is made to order at the request of the collaborators and subject to the terms and conditions of respective supply agreements.  As such, no reserve for work in process inventory is required.

 

Computation of Net Loss per Common Share

 

Basic and diluted net loss per share is calculated based upon the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. During periods of income, participating securities are allocated a proportional share of income determined by dividing total weighted average participating securities by the sum of the total weighted average common shares and participating securities (the “two-class method”). Shares of the Company’s restricted stock participate in any dividends declared by the Company and are therefore considered to be participating securities. Participating securities have the effect of diluting both basic and diluted earnings per share during periods of income. During periods of loss, no loss is allocated to participating securities since they have no contractual obligation to share in the losses of the Company. The impact of applying the two-class method was not material. Diluted (loss) income per share is computed after giving consideration to the dilutive effect of stock options and restricted stock that are outstanding during the period, except where such non-participating securities would be anti-dilutive.

 

 

Potentially dilutive securities representing 7.9 and 7.1 million shares of common stock for the three and six-month periods ended December 31, 2014, respectively, were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share because their effect would have been anti-dilutive. The Company’s common stock equivalents have not been included in any net loss per share calculation because their effect is anti-dilutive due to the Company’s net loss position.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

As of December 31, 2015, the Company is authorized to grant future awards under one employee share-based compensation plan, which is the ImmunoGen, Inc. 2006 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2006 Plan. At the annual meeting of shareholders on November 11, 2014, an amendment to the 2006 Plan was approved and an additional 5,500,000 shares were authorized for issuance under this plan.  As amended, the 2006 Plan provides for the issuance of Stock Grants, the grant of Options and the grant of Stock-Based Awards for up to 17,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, as well as 1,676,599 shares of common stock which represent awards granted under the previous stock option plan, the ImmunoGen, Inc. Restated Stock Option Plan, or the Former Plan, that were forfeited, expired or were cancelled without delivery of shares of common stock or which resulted in the forfeiture of shares of common stock back to the Company between November 11, 2006 and June 30, 2014. Option awards are granted with an exercise price equal to the market price of the Company’s stock at the date of grant. Options vest at various periods of up to four years and may be exercised within ten years of the date of grant.

 

The stock-based awards are accounted for under ASC Topic 718, “Compensation—Stock Compensation.” Pursuant to Topic 718, the estimated grant date fair value of awards is charged to the statement of operations and comprehensive loss over the requisite service period, which is the vesting period. Such amounts have been reduced by an estimate of forfeitures of all unvested awards. The fair value of each stock option is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the assumptions noted in the following table. As the Company has not paid dividends since inception, nor does it expect to pay any dividends for the foreseeable future, the expected dividend yield assumption is zero. Expected volatility is based exclusively on historical volatility data of the Company’s stock. The expected term of stock options granted is based exclusively on historical data and represents the period of time that stock options granted are expected to be outstanding. The expected term is calculated for and applied to one group of stock options as the Company does not expect substantially different exercise or post-vesting termination behavior among its option recipients. The risk-free rate of the stock options is based on the U.S. Treasury rate in effect at the time of grant for the expected term of the stock options.

 

 

Using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, the weighted average grant date fair values of options granted during the three months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $7.49 and $5.77 per share, respectively, and $9.99 and $6.24 per share for options granted during the six months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

 

Stock compensation expense related to stock options and restricted stock awards granted under the 2006 Plan was $4.5 million and $10.2 million during the three and six months ended December 31, 2015, respectively, compared to stock compensation expense of $3.6 million and $8.9 million for the three and six months ended December 31, 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2015, the estimated fair value of unvested employee awards was $32.8 million, net of estimated forfeitures. The weighted-average remaining vesting period for these awards is approximately two years.

 

During the six months ended December 31, 2015, holders of options issued under the Company’s equity plans exercised their rights to acquire an aggregate of approximately 461,000 shares of common stock at prices ranging from $3.19 to $17.00 per share.  The total proceeds to the Company from these option exercises were approximately $4.8 million.

 

Segment Information

 

During the six months ended December 31, 2015, the Company continued to operate in one operating segment which is the business of discovery of monoclonal antibody-based anticancer therapeutics.

 

The percentages of revenues recognized from significant customers of the Company in the three and six months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 are included in the following table:

 

 

There were no other customers of the Company with significant revenues in the three and six months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2014-9, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue. This update provides a comprehensive new revenue recognition model that requires revenue to be recognized in a manner to depict the transfer of goods or services to a customer at an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be received in exchange for those goods or services. The original effective date would have required the Company to adopt beginning in its first quarter of fiscal 2018. In July 2015, the FASB voted to amend ASU 2014-09 by approving a one-year deferral of the effective date as well as providing the option to early adopt the standard on the original effective date.  Accordingly, the Company may adopt the standard in either its first quarter of fiscal 2018 or 2019. The new revenue standard allows for either full retrospective or modified retrospective application. The Company is currently evaluating the timing of its adoption, the transition method to apply and the impact that this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

 

In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This new standard gives a company’s management the final responsibilities to decide whether there’s substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. The standard provides guidance to management, with principles and definitions that are intended to reduce diversity in the timing and content of disclosures that companies commonly provide in their footnotes. Under the new standard, management must decide whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued, or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on July 1, 2017. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

In April 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-03, Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. To simplify presentation of debt issuance costs, this new standard requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts.  The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs are not affected by this update.  This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for retrospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on July 1, 2016. The Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2015 includes in assets $5 million of debt issuance costs classified as deferred financing costs.

 

In July 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-11, Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory (Topic 330). To simplify the principles for subsequent measurement of inventory, this new standard requires inventory measured using any method other than LIFO or the retail method shall be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value, rather than lower of cost or market. This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for prospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on July 1, 2017. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

In November 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic 740). To simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes, the amendments in this Update require that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position.  This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within the year of adoption, with early application permitted. The Company implemented the recommendations of this Update prospectively, resulting in a reduction of long-term assets and current liabilities of approximately $843,000 as of December 31, 2015. The prior period balances were not retrospectively adjusted.

 

In January 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2016-1, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Topic 825). The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income.  The amendments allow equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values to be remeasured at fair value either upon the occurrence of an observable price change or upon identification of an impairment. The amendments also require enhanced disclosures about those investments. The amendments improve financial reporting by providing relevant information about an entity’s equity investments and reducing the number of items that are recognized in other comprehensive income.  This guidance is effective for annual reporting beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within the year of adoption, and calls for prospective application, with early application permitted. Accordingly, the standard is effective for the Company on July 1, 2018. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

 

B.Collaborative Agreements

 

Roche

 

In May 2000, the Company granted Genentech, now a unit of Roche, an exclusive license to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology with antibodies, such as trastuzumab, or other proteins that target HER2. Pursuant to this agreement, Roche developed and received marketing approval for its HER2-targeting ADC compound, Kadcyla, in the U.S., Europe, Japan and numerous other countries. The Company receives royalty reports and payments related to sales of Kadcyla from Roche one quarter in arrears. In accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy, $12 million of non-cash royalties on net sales of Kadcyla for the six-month period ended September 30, 2015 were recorded and included in revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2015 and $8.8 million of royalties on net sales of Kadcyla for the six-month period ended September 30, 2014 were included in royalty revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2014. In April 2015, the Company consummated a royalty purchase transaction — see Note C below for further details. Included in the three and six months ended December 31, 2015 is $195,000 of cash royalties resulting from an adjustment recorded in the current period related to net sales of Kadcyla  prior to the effective date of the royalty purchase transaction.

 

Amgen

 

Under a now-expired right-to-test agreement, in September 2009, November 2009 and December 2012, Amgen took three exclusive development and commercialization licenses, for which the Company received an exercise fee of $1 million for each license taken. In May 2013, Amgen took one non-exclusive development and commercialization license, for which the Company received an exercise fee of $500,000. In October 2013, the non-exclusive license was amended and converted to an exclusive license, for which Amgen paid an additional $500,000 fee to the Company. Amgen has sublicensed its rights under this license to Oxford BioTherapeutics Ltd. In December 2015, Amgen advised the Company that it had discontinued development of two product candidates, AMG 595 and AMG 172 that had been covered by two of Amgen’s four exclusive licenses. For the two remaining development and commercialization licenses taken, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $34 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones per license are categorized as follows: development milestones—$9 million; regulatory milestones—$20 million; and sales milestones—$5 million. Amgen (or its sublicensee(s)) is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from these development and commercialization licenses.

 

In September 2015, the IND application for its third ADC product candidate became effective, triggering a $1 million milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2015. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive under this license will be a development milestone for the first dosing of a patient in a Phase II clinical trial, which will result in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive under the May 2013 license will be a $1 million development milestone for an IND becoming effective. At the time of execution of each of these development and commercialization licenses, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive.

 

Sanofi

 

In July 2003, the Company entered into a broad collaboration agreement with Sanofi (formerly Aventis) to discover, develop and commercialize antibody-based products. The collaboration agreement provides Sanofi with worldwide development and commercialization rights to new antibody-based products directed to targets that are included in the collaboration, including the exclusive right to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology in the creation of products developed to these targets. The product candidates (targets) as of December 31, 2015 in the collaboration include isatuximab (CD38), SAR566658 (CA6), SAR408701 (CEACAM5) and one earlier-stage compound that has yet to be disclosed.

 

We are entitled to receive milestone payments potentially totaling $21.5 million, per target, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$7.5 million; and regulatory milestones—$14 million. Through December 31, 2015, the Company has received and recognized an aggregate of $20.5 million in milestone payments for compounds covered under this agreement now or in the past, including a $3 million development milestone related to initiation of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement) for isatuximab and a $1 million development milestone related to initiation of a Phase I clinical trial for SAR408701 which are included in license and milestone fee revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2014. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive for each of SAR566658 and SAR408701 will be a development milestone for initiation of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement), which will result in each case in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive with respect to isatuximab will be a development milestone for initiation of a Phase III clinical trial, which will result in a $3 million payment being due. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive for the unidentified target will be a development milestone for commencement of a Phase I clinical trial, which will result in a $1 million payment being due. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive.

 

In December 2006, we entered into a right-to-test agreement with Sanofi. The agreement provides Sanofi with the right to (a) test the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology with Sanofi’s antibodies to targets under a right-to-test, or research, license, (b) take exclusive options, with certain restrictions, to specified targets for specified option periods and (c) upon exercise of those options, take exclusive licenses to use the Company’s maytansinoid ADC technology to develop and commercialize products directed to the specified targets on terms agreed upon at the inception of the right-to-test agreement. Sanofi no longer has the right to take additional options under the agreement, although multiple outstanding options remain in effect for the remainder of their respective option periods. For each development and commercialization license taken, the Company is entitled to receive an exercise fee of $2 million and up to a total of $30 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$10 million; and regulatory milestones—$20 million.

 

In December 2013, Sanofi took its first exclusive development and commercialization license under the right-to-test agreement, for which the Company received an exercise fee of $2 million and was recognizing this amount as revenue ratably over the Company’s estimated period of its substantial involvement. The Company had previously estimated this development period would conclude at the end of non-pivotal Phase II testing.  During the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company determined it will not be substantially involved in the development and commercialization of the product based on Sanofi’s current plans to develop and manufacture the product without the Company’s assistance. As a result of this determination, we recognized the balance of the upfront exercise fee during the prior period.  This change in estimate resulted in an increase to license and milestone fees of $1.7 million for the six months ended December 31, 2014 compared to amounts that would have been recognized pursuant to the Company’s previous estimate.

 

Pursuant to the license agreement noted above, in October 2015, Sanofi initiated Phase I, first-in-human clinical testing of its ADC product candidate, SAR428926 (LAMP1), triggering a $2 million development milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the three and six months ended December 31, 2015. The next milestone payment the Company could receive would be a $4 million development milestone for commencement of a Phase IIb clinical trial (as defined in the agreement) under this license. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and manufacturing of Sanofi’s product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive.

 

Bayer

 

In October 2008, the Company granted Bayer an exclusive development and commercialization license to the Company’s ADC technology for use with antibodies or other proteins that target mesothelin. The Company received a $4 million upfront payment upon execution of the agreement, and—for each compound developed and marketed by Bayer under this collaboration—the Company is entitled to receive a total of $170.5 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$16 million; regulatory milestones—$44.5 million; and sales milestones—$110 million. Through December 31, 2015, the Company has received and recognized an aggregate of $3 million in milestone payments under this agreement. In January 2016, Bayer initiated a Phase II clinical study designed to support registration of its ADC product candidate, anetumab ravtansine, triggering a $10 million milestone payment being due to the Company. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these received and recognized milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and supply of cytotoxic agent for this product candidate, these milestones were deemed substantive. The next potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be either a $2 million development milestone for commencement of a pivotal clinical trial for a second indication for anetumab ravtansine or a $6 million regulatory milestone for filing of regulatory approval for its first indication for anetumab ravtansine. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s past involvement in the research and supply of cytotoxic agent for this product candidate, these milestones were deemed substantive.

 

Lilly

 

Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) had the right to take three exclusive development and commercialization licenses under a right-to-test agreement established in December 2011, and took these licenses prior to the expiration of the agreement in December 2014. The Company received a $20 million upfront payment in connection with the execution of the right-to-test agreement in 2011.  Under the terms of this right-to-test agreement, the first license had no associated exercise fee, and the second and third licenses each had a $2 million exercise fee. The first development and commercialization license was taken in August 2013 and the agreement was amended in December 2013 to provide Lilly with an extension provision and retrospectively include a $2 million exercise fee for the first license in lieu of the fee due for either the second or third license. The second and third licenses were taken in December 2014, with one including the $2 million exercise fee and the other not. Upon execution of the two licenses in December 2014, the Company recognized the remaining $15.6 million of the $23.5 million of arrangement consideration allocated to the development and commercialization licenses, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the three and six months ended December 31, 2014. Under the two licenses with the $2 million exercise fee, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $199 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products.  Under the license taken in December 2014 without the exercise fee, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $200.5 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$29 million for the two development and commercialization licenses with the $2 million exercise fee, and $30.5 million for the one development and commercialization license with no exercise fee; regulatory milestones—$70 million in all cases; and sales milestones—$100 million in all cases.

 

In September 2015, Lilly initiated Phase I, first-in-human clinical testing of its ADC product candidate, LY3076226, triggering a $5 million milestone payment to the Company which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2015.  The next payment the Company could receive would be either a $9 million milestone for commencement of a Phase II clinical trial under this license or a $5 million development milestone payment with the commencement of a Phase I clinical trial under either of its other two licenses.  At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether these milestones would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, these milestones were deemed substantive. The Company also is entitled to receive payments for delivery of cytotoxic agents to Lilly and research and development activities performed on behalf of Lilly. Lilly is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from this collaboration.

 

Takeda

 

In March 2015, the Company entered into a right-to-test agreement with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Takeda) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The agreement provides Takeda with the right to (a) take exclusive options, with certain restrictions, to individual targets selected by Takeda for specified option periods, (b) test the Company’s ADC technology with Takeda’s antibodies directed to the targets optioned under a right-to-test, or research, license, and (c)  take exclusive licenses to use the Company’s ADC technology to develop and commercialize products to targets optioned for up to two individual targets on terms specified in the right-to-test agreement.  The Company received a $20 million upfront payment in connection with the execution of the right-to-test agreement. Takeda must exercise its options for the development and commercialization licenses by the end of the three-year term of the right-to-test agreement, after which any then outstanding options will lapse.  Takeda has the right to extend the three-year right-to-test period for one additional year by payment to the Company of $4 million.  Alternatively, Takeda has the right to expand the scope of the right-to-test agreement by payment to the Company of $8 million.  If Takeda opts to expand the scope of the right-to-test agreement, it will be entitled to take additional exclusive options, one of which may be exercised for an additional development and commercialization license, and the right-to test period will be extended until the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the right-to-test agreement. The first exclusive license was taken by Takeda in December 2015, and as a result, the Company recognized $8.6 million of the $25.9 million of arrangement consideration allocated to the development and commercialization licenses, which is included in license and milestone fee revenue for the three and six months ended December 31, 2015. Takeda is responsible for the manufacturing, product development and marketing of any products resulting from this collaboration.

 

For each development and commercialization license taken, the Company is entitled to receive up to a total of $210 million in milestone payments, plus royalties on the commercial sales of any resulting products. The total milestones are categorized as follows: development milestones—$30 million; regulatory milestones—$85 million; and sales milestones—$95 million. The first potential milestone the Company will be entitled to receive will be a $5 million development milestone payment with the initiation of a Phase I clinical trial under the first development and commercialization license taken. At the time of execution of this agreement, there was significant uncertainty as to whether the milestone related to initiation of a Phase I clinical trial under the first development and commercialization license would be achieved. In consideration of this, as well as the Company’s expected involvement in the research and manufacturing of these product candidates, this milestone was deemed substantive. The Company also is entitled to receive payments for delivery of cytotoxic agents to Takeda and research and development activities performed on behalf of Takeda.

 

For additional information related to these agreements, as well as the Company’s other significant collaborative agreements, please read Note C, Agreements to our consolidated financial statements included within the Company’s 2015 Form 10-K.

 

C.Liability Related to Sale of Future Royalties

 

In April 2015, Immunity Royalty Holdings, L.P. (IRH) purchased the right to receive 100% of the royalty payments on commercial sales of Kadcyla subsequent to December 31, 2014, arising under the Company’s development and commercialization license with Genentech, until IRH has received aggregate royalties equal to $235 million or $260 million, depending on when the aggregate royalties received by IRH reach a specified milestone.  Once the applicable threshold is met, if ever, the Company will thereafter receive 85% and IRH will receive 15% of the Kadcyla royalties for the remaining royalty term.  At consummation of the transaction in April 2015, the Company received cash proceeds of $200 million.  As part of this sale, the Company incurred $5.9 million of transaction costs, which are presented in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as deferred financing costs and will be amortized to interest expense over the estimated life of the royalty purchase agreement.  Although the Company sold its rights to receive royalties from the sales of Kadcyla, as a result of its ongoing involvement in the cash flows related to these royalties, the Company will continue to account for these royalties as revenue and recorded the $200 million in proceeds from this transaction as a liability related to sale of future royalties (Royalty Obligation) that will be amortized using the interest method over the estimated life of the royalty purchase agreement.

 

The following table shows the activity within the liability account during the six-month period ended December 31, 2015 (in thousands):

 

 

As royalties are remitted to IRH, the balance of the Royalty Obligation will be effectively repaid over the life of the agreement.  In order to determine the amortization of the Royalty Obligation, the Company is required to estimate the total amount of future royalty payments to be received and remitted to IRH as noted above over the life of the agreement. The sum of these amounts less the $200 million proceeds the Company received will be recorded as interest expense over the life of the Royalty Obligation. Since inception, the Company’s estimate of this total interest expense resulted in an effective annual interest rate of 9.7%. The Company periodically assesses the estimated royalty payments to IRH and to the extent such payments are greater or less than its initial estimates, or the timing of such payments is materially different than its original estimates, the Company will prospectively adjust the amortization of the Royalty Obligation. There are a number of factors that could materially affect the amount and timing of royalty payments from Genentech, most of which are not within the Company’s control. Such factors include, but are not limited to, changing standards of care, the introduction of competing products, manufacturing or other delays, biosimilar competition, patent protection, adverse events that result in governmental health authority imposed restrictions on the use of the drug products, significant changes in foreign exchange rates as the royalties remitted to IRH are made in U.S. dollars (USD) while significant portions of the underlying sales of Kadcyla are made in currencies other than USD, and other events or circumstances that could result in reduced royalty payments from Kadcyla, all of which would result in a reduction of non-cash royalty revenues and the non-cash interest expense over the life of the Royalty Obligation. Conversely, if sales of Kadcyla are more than expected, the non-cash royalty revenues and the non-cash interest expense recorded by the Company would be greater over the term of the Royalty Obligation.

 

In addition, the royalty purchase agreement grants IRH the right to receive certain reports and other information relating to the royalties and contains other representations and warranties, covenants and indemnification obligations that are customary for a transaction of this nature.