In October 2004, the United States District Court of Massachusetts issued a decision on the remanded issues, finding that certain claims related to four patents held by Amgen are infringed by TKT and Sanofi-Aventis. In December 2004, TKT and Sanofi-Aventis filed a notice of appeal of the decision of the United States District Court of Massachusetts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TKT and Sanofi-Aventis filed an appeal brief in April 2005.
If TKT and Sanofi-Aventis are not successful in the DYNEPO litigation at the appellate level, TKT and Sanofi-Aventis would be precluded from making, using and selling DYNEPO in the United States until the expiration of the relevant patents. TKT is required to reimburse Sanofi-Aventis, which controls the litigation and is paying the litigation expenses, for 50% of the expenses incurred in connection with the litigation from and after March 26, 2004. Sanofi-Aventis is entitled to deduct up to 50% of any royalties that Sanofi-Aventis may otherwise owe to TKT with respect to the sale of DYNEPO until Sanofi-Aventis has recouped the full amount of TKT's share of the litigation expenses. TKT has the right to control any other litigation that might arise outside of the United States and is responsible for all litigation expenses incurred in connection with such litigation from and after March 26, 2004.
In 1996, Applied Research Systems Holding N.V., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Serono S.A. (Serono) and Cell Genesys became involved in a patent interference involving Serono's US Patent No. 5,272,071 (the "071 patent"), which purportedly covers certain methods of gene activation. In June 2004, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) held that both Serono and Cell Genesys were entitled to certain claims in their respective patent and patent application, and Serono and Cell Genesys each appealed the decision of the interference to the US District Court of Massachusetts and the US District Court of the District of Columbia, respectively. TKT was not a party to this interference.
In August 2004, Serono served TKT with an amended complaint in the appeal of the PTO decision that was filed in the US District Court of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges that TKT infringes Serono's '071 patent. In August 2005, the US District Court of Massachusetts severed and stayed the infringement action pending resolution of the interference claim at the District Court level.
In connection with Shire’s merger with TKT, as at September 30, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.7 million shares of TKT common stock submitted written demands for appraisal of their shares and, as a result, elected not to accept the $37 per share merger consideration. On October 10, 2005, at the request of one of the petitioners to tender 365,000 shares at the merger price of $37 per share, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s demand. On October 12, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted this motion, and the petitioner tendered the shares at the merger consideration of $37 per share. Therefore, as at October 28, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.3 million shares of TKT common stock maintain their written demands for appraisal of their shares and have elected not to accept the $37 merger consideration. To the extent that the remaining demands were validly asserted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Delaware law and these holders perfect their rights thereunder, such holders will be entitled to receive the fair value of their shares as determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The determination of fair value of the TKT shares will be made excluding any element of value arising from the transaction, such as cost savings or business synergies. The Delaware Court of Chancery may ascribe a valuation to the shares that is greater than, less than or equal to $37 per share and may award interest on the amount determined in the appraisal process.
Total consideration, including amounts payable in respect of stock options and convertible securities, is approximately $1.6 billion at the merger price of $37 per share. This could change if Shire is required to pay a different amount of consideration in respect of the approximately 11.3 million shares for which holders have exercised appraisal rights. Until such time as the appraisal process is complete the Company is unable to determine the extent of its liability.
In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class action lawsuits against TKT and Richard Selden, TKT's former Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period.
In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiffs' selections of lead plaintiffs' counsel. In April 2003, various plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff Applicants to Consolidate Actions, to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel, Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel. In April 2003, the Court endorsed the Proposed Order, thereby consolidating the various matters under one matter: In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ.
In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against TKT; Dr Selden; Daniel Geffken, TKT's former Chief Financial Officer; Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter, members of TKT's board of directors; William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members of TKT's board of directors; and SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann & Company, underwriters of TKT's common stock in prior public offerings.
The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of REPLAGAL during that period. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against Dr. Selden and TKT under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims based on TKT's public offerings of June 29, 2001, December 18, 2001 and December 26, 2001 against each of the defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Dr. Selden under Section 15 of the Securities Act; and against SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities, Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Company under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2003, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing of the motion occurred in December 2003. In May 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part TKT's motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit. In the Memorandum, the Court found several allegations against TKT arose out of forward-looking statements protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The Court dismissed those statements as falling within the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions. The Court also dismissed claims based on the public offerings of June 29, 2001 and December 18, 2001 because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims. The Court allowed all other allegations to remain.
In June 2004, TKT submitted an unopposed motion seeking clarification from the Court that the Memorandum dismissed claims based on the first two offerings as to all defendants. The Court granted the motion. In July 2004, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims based on the third offering because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking permission to notify certain TKT investors of the dismissal of the claims based on the offerings, and to inform those investors of their opportunity to intervene in the lawsuit. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in July 2004. A hearing on this motion was held in September 2004. The Court denied this motion. TKT filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in July 2004. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification in July 2004. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in March 2005, and the plaintiffs filed a reply in April 2005. A hearing on class certification was held in April 2005. Following that hearing, TKT filed a supplemental brief in opposition to the motion for class certification and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of the motion. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.
On September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case Pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(G), in which they appeared to seek reassignment of a matter filed on September 1, 2005, entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Richard B. Selden, Civil Action No. 05-11805-NMG (D. Mass.) (the SEC Action), to the Court considering this matter. On September 15, 2005, the defendants filed a response to the notice, opposing reassignment of the SEC Action. On October 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the defendants' response.
Shareholder Derivative Suit
In April 2003, South Shore Gastrointerology UA 6/6/1980 FBO Harold Jacob, and Nancy R. Jacob Ttee filed a Shareholder Derivative Complaint against Dr. Selden; against the following members of TKT's board of directors: Jonathan S. Leff, Walter Gilbert, Wayne P. Yetter, Rodman W. Moorhead, III; against the following former members of
32
TKT's board of directors: James E. Thomas and William Miller; and against TKT as nominal defendant, in Middlesex Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 03-1669. On May 29, 2003, the parties moved to transfer venue to the Business Litigation Session in Suffolk Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The parties' motion was allowed, and in June 2003 the matter was accepted into the Business Litigation Session as Civil Action No. 03-02630-BLS.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to TKT and its shareholders by disseminating materially false and misleading statements to the market and causing or allowing TKT to conduct its business in an unsafe, imprudent and unlawful manner. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, and to assert a claim for contribution and indemnification on behalf of TKT for any liability TKT incurs as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct. The complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In August 2003, the plaintiff filed its Verified Amended Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Derivative Complaint"). The Amended Derivative Complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to TKT and its stockholders by causing TKT to issue materially false and misleading statements to the public, by signing TKT's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2000 and 2001 and by signing a registration statement. The Amended Derivative Complaint also alleges that defendant Dr. Selden sold TKT's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2003, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Derivative Complaint. A hearing of the motion was held in January 2004. In May 2004, the Court granted TKT's motion to dismiss. In June 2004, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the dismissal of the Amended Derivative Complaint to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. There have been no further developments with respect to this action.
SEC Investigation
In May 2003, TKT received a copy of a formal order of investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The order of investigation relates to TKT's disclosures and public filings with regard to REPLAGAL and the status of the approval process of the FDA for REPLAGAL, as well as transactions in TKT's securities.
In July 2004, TKT and Dr. Selden, its former Chief Executive Officer, received "Wells" notices from the staff of the SEC, in connection with the SEC investigation. The Wells notices state that the SEC staff has preliminarily determined to recommend that the Commission bring a civil action for possible violations of the federal securities laws. In September 2005, the Commission filed a suit against Dr. Selden and is seeking an injunction disgorgement, civil penalties and an order barring Dr. Selden from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Also in September 2005, the SEC staff informed the Company that it is no longer recommending any enforcement action against TKT.
33
17. Earnings per share
The following table reconciles income from continuing operations and the weighted average ordinary shares outstanding for basic and diluted earnings per share for the periods presented:
| | 3 months to September 30, 2005 $’000 | | | 3 months to September 30, 2004 $’000 | | | 9 months to September 30, 2005 $’000 | | | 9 months to September 30, 2004 $’000 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Numerator for basic earnings per share | | (624,194 | ) | | 77,040 | | | (487,538 | ) | | 185,621 |
Interest charged on convertible debt, net of | | | | | | | | | | | |
tax | | - | | | 766 | | | - | | | 3,432 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Numerator for diluted earnings per share | | (624,194 | ) | | 77,806 | | | (487,538 | ) | | 189,053 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Weighted average number of shares: | | No. of shares | | | No. of shares | | | No. of shares | | | No. of shares |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Basic | | 500,542,616 | | | 496,474,005 | | | 499,741,042 | | | 496,090,191 |
Effect of dilutive shares: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Stock options | | - | | | 2,474,699 | | | - | | | 3,086,390 |
Warrants | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 55,579 |
Convertible debt | | - | | | 10,828,348 | | | - | | | 15,838,142 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Diluted | | 500,542,616 | | | 509,777,052 | | | 499,741,042 | | | 515,070,302 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, the share options, warrants and convertible debt not included in the calculation of the diluted weighted average number of shares, because the Company made a net loss during the calculation period, are shown below:
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2004, the share options, warrants and convertible debt not included in the calculation of the diluted weighted average number of shares, because the exercise prices exceeded the Company’s average share price during the calculation period, are shown below:
| | 3 months to September 30, 2005 No. of shares | | | 3 months to September 30, 2004 No. of shares | | | 9 months to September 30, 2005 No. of shares | | | 9 months to September 30, 2004 No. of shares |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Stock options | | 23,092,439 | | | 18,866,415 | | | 20,278,370 | | | 17,567,632 |
Warrants | | 1,346,407 | | | 1,346,407 | | | 1,346,407 | | | - |
Convertible debt | | 5,756 | | | - | | | 5,756 | | | - |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
| | 24,444,602 | | | 20,212,822 | | | 21,630,533 | | | 17,567,632 |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
18. Segmental reporting
SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information”(SFAS No. 131) establishes standards for reporting information about operating segments and related disclosures, products and services, geographic areas and major customers. Operating segments are components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available that is evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision-maker in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance.
Shire’s internal management reporting structures show two segments, Pharmaceutical Products and Royalties. The Pharmaceutical Products segment comprises four therapeutic areas, central nervous system (CNS), gastro-intestinal (GI), human genetic therapies (HGT) and general products (GP) and all products have been aggregated for reporting purposes within this segment.
34
The Company evaluates performance based on revenue and operating income. The Company does not have inter-segment transactions. Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the new, current period presentation.
The Pharmaceutical Products segment represents the Company’s commercial operations and costs in respect of products currently promoted and sold together with costs of developing projects for future commercialization. The Royalties segment represents royalties earned from the out-licensing of products to third parties. These projects have been developed and commercialized by the third party and royalties are being received on the sale of the commercialized product. ‘All Other’ has been included in the table below in order to reconcile the segments to the total consolidated figures. Costs have not been allocated to Royalties below as the magnitude of the costs incurred in respect of managing this segment is small and the internal reporting consequently does not allocate costs to this segment. Assets that are directly attributable to the Royalty segment have been separately disclosed from the Pharmaceutical Products reportable segment.
3 months to September 30, 2005 | | Pharmaceutical Products $’000 | | | Royalties $’000 | | | Segment Sub-total $’000 | | | All Other $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | | 309,150 | | | - | | | 309,150 | | | - | | | 309,150 | |
Royalties | | - | | | 60,186 | | | 60,186 | | | - | | | 60,186 | |
Licensing and development | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 4,586 | | | 4,586 | |
Other revenues | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 2,155 | | | 2,155 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | | 309,150 | | | 60,186 | | | 369,336 | | | 6,741 | | | 376,077 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | | 60,081 | | | - | | | 60,081 | | | - | | | 60,081 | |
Research and development | | 72,956 | | | - | | | 72,956 | | | 1,355 | | | 74,311 | |
Selling, general and administrative | | 154,912 | | | - | | | 154,912 | | | - | | | 154,912 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | | 16,420 | | | - | | | 16,420 | | | - | | | 16,420 | |
Reorganization costs | | 6,457 | | | - | | | 6,457 | | | - | | | 6,457 | |
Integration costs | | 3,520 | | | - | | | 3,520 | | | - | | | 3,520 | |
In-process R&D write-off | | 673,000 | | | - | | | 673,000 | | | - | | | 673,000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | | 987,346 | | | - | | | 987,346 | | | 1,355 | | | 988,701 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating (loss)/income | | (678,196 | ) | | 60,186 | | | (618,010 | ) | | 5,386 | | | (612,624 | ) |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets | | 2,577,420 | | | 58,759 | | | 2,636,179 | | | - | | | 2,636,179 | |
Long lived assets | | 1,489,172 | | | - | | | 1,489,172 | | | - | | | 1,489,172 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | | 13,723 | | | - | | | 13,723 | | | - | | | 13,723 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1)Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($1.0 million) is included in cost of product sales.
35
3 months to September 30, 2004 | | Pharmaceutical Products $’000 | | | Royalties $’000 | | | Segment Sub-total $’000 | | | All Other $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | | 283,723 | | | - | | | 283,723 | | | - | | | 283,723 | |
Royalties | | - | | | 56,199 | | | 56,199 | | | - | | | 56,199 | |
Licensing and development | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 2,820 | | | 2,820 | |
Other revenues | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 2,167 | | | 2,167 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | | 283,723 | | | 56,199 | | | 339,922 | | | 4,987 | | | 344,909 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | | 38,933 | | | - | | | 38,933 | | | - | | | 38,933 | |
Research and development | | 56,999 | | | - | | | 56,999 | | | 760 | | | 57,759 | |
Selling, general and administrative | | 104,755 | | | - | | | 104,755 | | | - | | | 104,755 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | | 14,891 | | | - | | | 14,891 | | | - | | | 14,891 | |
Intangible asset impairment | | 5,456 | | | - | | | 5,456 | | | - | | | 5,456 | |
Reorganization costs | | 10,061 | | | - | | | 10,061 | | | - | | | 10,061 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | | 231,095 | | | - | | | 231,095 | | | 760 | | | 231,855 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income | | 52,628 | | | 56,199 | | | 108,827 | | | 4,227 | | | 113,054 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing operations | | 2,518,596 | | | 46,691 | | | 2,565,287 | | | - | | | 2,565,287 | |
Long lived assets | | 783,467 | | | - | | | 783,467 | | | - | | | 783,467 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | | 11,470 | | | - | | | 11,470 | | | - | | | 11,470 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
(1) Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($0.7 million) is included in cost of product sales. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
9 months to September 30, 2005 | | Pharmaceutical | | | | | | Segment | | | | | | | |
| | Products | | | Royalties | | | Sub-total | | | All Other | | | Total | |
| | $’000 | | | $’000 | | | $’000 | | | $’000 | | | $’000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | | 930,149 | | | - | | | 930,149 | | | - | | | 930,149 | |
Royalties | | - | | | 181,073 | | | 181,073 | | | - | | | 181,073 | |
Licensing and development | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 11,169 | | | 11,169 | |
Other revenues | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 11,975 | | | 11,975 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | | 930,149 | | | 181,073 | | | 1,111,222 | | | 23,144 | | | 1,134,366 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | | 135,359 | | | - | | | 135,359 | | | - | | | 135,359 | |
Research and development | | 246,928 | | | - | | | 246,928 | | | 4,372 | | | 251,300 | |
Selling, general and administrative | | 465,960 | | | - | | | 465,960 | | | - | | | 465,960 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | | 50,135 | | | - | | | 50,135 | | | - | | | 50,135 | |
Intangible asset impairment | | 3,000 | | | - | | | 3,000 | | | - | | | 3,000 | |
Reorganization costs | | 9,335 | | | - | | | 9,335 | | | - | | | 9,335 | |
Integration costs | | 3,520 | | | - | | | 3,520 | | | - | | | 3,520 | |
In-process R&D write-off | | 673,000 | | | - | | | 673,000 | | | - | | | 673,000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | | 1,587,237 | | | - | | | 1,587,237 | | | 4,372 | | | 1,591,609 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating (loss)/ income | | (657,088 | ) | | 181,073 | | | (476,015 | ) | | 18,772 | | | (457,243 | ) |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing operations | | 2,577,420 | | | 58,759 | | | 2,636,179 | | | - | | | 2,636,179 | |
Long lived assets | | 1,489,172 | | | - | | | 1,489,172 | | | - | | | 1,489,172 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | | 85,380 | | | - | | | 85,380 | | | - | | | 85,380 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1) Included in depreciation and amortization is the write-down of property, plant and equipment of $5.9 million. Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($2.7 million) is included in cost of product sales.
36
9 months to September 30, 2004 | | Pharmaceutical Products $’000 | | | Royalties $’000 | | | Segment Sub-total $’000 | | | All Other $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | | 803,597 | | | - | | | 803,597 | | | - | | | 803,597 | |
Royalties | | - | | | 170,001 | | | 170,001 | | | - | | | 170,001 | |
Licensing and development | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 10,217 | | | 10,217 | |
Other revenues | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 5,654 | | | 5,654 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | | 803,597 | | | 170,001 | | | 973,598 | | | 15,871 | | | 989,469 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | | 100,010 | | | - | | | 100,010 | | | - | | | 100,010 | |
Research and development | | 141,223 | | | - | | | 141,223 | | | 2,537 | | | 143,760 | |
Selling, general and administrative | | 330,230 | | | - | | | 330,230 | | | - | | | 330,230 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | | 40,474 | | | - | | | 40,474 | | | - | | | 40,474 | |
Intangible asset impairment | | 5,456 | | | - | | | 5,456 | | | - | | | 5,456 | |
Reorganization costs | | 32,041 | | | - | | | 32,041 | | | - | | | 32,041 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | | 649,434 | | | - | | | 649,434 | | | 2,537 | | | 651,971 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income | | 154,163 | | | 170,001 | | | 324,164 | | | 13,334 | | | 337,498 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing operations | | 2,518,596 | | | 46,691 | | | 2,565,287 | | | - | | | 2,565,287 | |
Long lived assets | | 783,467 | | | - | | | 783,467 | | | - | | | 783,467 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | | 42,945 | | | - | | | 42,945 | | | - | | | 42,945 | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1) Included in depreciation and amortization are the write-downs of property, plant and equipment of $1.2 million. Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($2.0 million) is included in cost of product sales.
Supplemental information
To improve comparability between periods for investors, the previous reporting format has also been used to report the current period to September 30, 2005 together with the previously reported segmental analysis for the periods to September 30, 2004. Whilst there is no requirement to include this disclosure under SFAS No. 131 as the new internal reporting format has been used for the current and historic period, management believes that during 2005, it may be useful to include the previously reported segmental analysis for comparative purposes. This internal management-reporting format is no longer used as the basis for making decisions within the business.
37
3 months to September 30, 2005 | US $’000 | | | International $’000 | | | Corporate $’000 | | | R&D $’000 | | | TKT $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | 240,377 | | | 52,817 | | | - | | | - | | | 15,956 | | | 309,150 | |
Royalties | 103 | | | 1,883 | | | 58,200 | | | - | | | - | | | 60,186 | |
Licensing and development | 3,937 | | | 649 | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 4,586 | |
Other revenues | 607 | | | 1,333 | | | - | | | - | | | 215 | | | 2,155 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | 245,024 | | | 56,682 | | | 58,200 | | | - | | | 16,171 | | | 376,077 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | 34,316 | | | 6,381 | | | - | | | - | | | 19,384 | | | 60,081 | |
Research and development | - | | | - | | | - | | | 60,114 | | | 14,197 | | | 74,311 | |
Selling, general and administrative | 100,503 | | | 24,925 | | | 22,521 | | | - | | | 6,963 | | | 154,912 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | 4,358 | | | 2,020 | | | 3,531 | | | - | | | 6,511 | | | 16,420 | |
Reorganization costs | 6,457 | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 6,457 | |
Integration costs | 203 | | | - | | | 464 | | | - | | | 2,853 | | | 3,520 | |
In-process R&D write-off | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 673,000 | | | 673,000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | 145,837 | | | 33,326 | | | 26,516 | | | 60,114 | | | 722,908 | | | 988,701 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income/(loss) | 99,187 | | | 23,356 | | | 31,684 | | | (60,114 | ) | | (706,737 | ) | | (612,624 | ) |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing | 793,073 | | | 281,743 | | | 707,236 | | | 59,376 | | | 794,751 | | | 2,636,179 | |
operations | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Long lived assets | 268,315 | | | 121,114 | | | 692,918 | | | 39,472 | | | 367,353 | | | 1,489,172 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
assets | 11,170 | | | 406 | | | 1,281 | | | - | | | 866 | | | 13,723 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1) Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($1.0 million) is included in cost of product sales in the US segment. Depreciation and amortization relating to R&D assets are included in the US and International segments.
3 months to September 30, 2004 | US $’000 | | | International $’000 | | | Corporate $’000 | | | R&D $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | 237,112 | | | 46,611 | | | - | | | - | | | 283,723 | |
Royalties | - | | | 2,287 | | | 53,912 | | | - | | | 56,199 | |
Licensing and development | 2,163 | | | 657 | | | - | | | - | | | 2,820 | |
Other revenues | 1,198 | | | 969 | | | - | | | - | | | 2,167 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | 240,473 | | | 50,524 | | | 53,912 | | | - | | | 344,909 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | 22,274 | | | 16,659 | | | - | | | - | | | 38,933 | |
Research and development | - | | | - | | | - | | | 57,759 | | | 57,759 | |
Selling, general and administrative | 69,397 | | | 18,947 | | | 16,411 | | | - | | | 104,755 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | 9,988 | | | 3,331 | | | 1,572 | | | - | | | 14,891 | |
Intangible asset impairment | 1,508 | | | 3,948 | | | - | | | - | | | 5,456 | |
Reorganization costs | 6,501 | | | 276 | | | 1,183 | | | 2,101 | | | 10,061 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | 109,668 | | | 43,161 | | | 19,166 | | | 59,860 | | | 231,855 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income/(loss) | 130,805 | | | 7,363 | | | 34,746 | | | (59,860 | ) | | 113,054 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing operations | 975,842 | | | 439,272 | | | 1,092,833 | | | 57,340 | | | 2,565,287 | |
Long-lived assets | 255,944 | | | 241,735 | | | 242,333 | | | 43,455 | | | 783,467 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | 6,550 | | | 385 | | | 4,158 | | | 377 | | | 11,470 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1) Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($0.7 million) is included in cost of product sales in the US segment. Depreciation and amortization relating to R&D assets are included in the US and International segments.
38
9 months to September 30, 2005 | US $’000 | | | International $’000 | | | Corporate $’000 | | | R&D $’000 | | | TKT $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | 765,297 | | | 148,896 | | | - | | | - | | | 15,956 | | | 930,149 | |
Royalties | 637 | | | 6,405 | | | 174,031 | | | - | | | - | | | 181,073 | |
Licensing and development | 9,481 | | | 1,688 | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 11,169 | |
Other revenues | 4,643 | | | 7,117 | | | - | | | - | | | 215 | | | 11,975 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | 780,058 | | | 164,106 | | | 174,031 | | | - | | | 16,171 | | | 1,134,366 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | 80,649 | | | 35,326 | | | - | | | - | | | 19,384 | | | 135,359 | |
Research and development | - | | | - | | | - | | | 237,103 | | | 14,197 | | | 251,300 | |
Selling, general and administrative | 317,465 | | | 83,856 | | | 57,676 | | | - | | | 6,963 | | | 465,960 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | 25,705 | | | 7,266 | | | 10,653 | | | - | | | 6,511 | | | 50,135 | |
Intangible asset impairment | 3,000 | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 3,000 | |
Reorganization costs | 8,685 | | | - | | | 307 | | | 343 | | | - | | | 9,335 | |
Integration costs | 203 | | | - | | | 464 | | | - | | | 2,853 | | | 3,520 | |
In-process R&D write-off | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | 673,000 | | | 673,000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total operating expenses | 435,707 | | | 126,448 | | | 69,100 | | | 237,446 | | | 722,908 | | | 1,591,609 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income/(loss) | 344,351 | | | 37,658 | | | 104,931 | | | (237,446 | ) | | (706,737 | ) | | (457,243 | ) |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing | 793,073 | | | 281,743 | | | 707,236 | | | 59,376 | | | 794,751 | | | 2,636,179 | |
operations | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Long-lived assets | 268,315 | | | 121,114 | | | 692,918 | | | 39,472 | | | 367,353 | | | 1,489,172 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
assets | 48,901 | | | 1,456 | | | 34,157 | | | - | | | 866 | | | 85,380 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
(1) Included in depreciation and amortization are the write-downs of property, plant and equipment of $5.9 million included in the US segment. Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($2.7 million) is included in cost of product sales in the US segment. Depreciation and amortization relating to R&D assets are included in the US and International segments.
9 months to September 30, 2004 | US $’000 | | | International $’000 | | | Corporate $’000 | | | R&D $’000 | | | Total $’000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Product sales | 670,412 | | | 133,185 | | | - | | | - | | | 803,597 | |
Royalties | - | | | 7,922 | | | 162,079 | | | - | | | 170,001 | |
Licensing and development | 8,442 | | | 1,775 | | | - | | | - | | | 10,217 | |
Other revenues | 2,637 | | | 3,017 | | | - | | | - | | | 5,654 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total revenues | 681,491 | | | 145,899 | | | 162,079 | | | - | | | 989,469 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cost of product sales | 64,135 | | | 35,875 | | | - | | | - | | | 100,010 | |
Research and development | - | | | - | | | - | | | 143,760 | | | 143,760 | |
Selling, general and administrative | 214,013 | | | 68,752 | | | 47,465 | | | - | | | 330,230 | |
Depreciation and amortization(1) | 27,097 | | | 8,741 | | | 4,636 | | | - | | | 40,474 | |
Intangible asset impairment | 1,508 | | | 3,948 | | | - | | | - | | | 5,456 | |
Reorganization costs | 18,925 | | | 2,972 | | | 4,083 | | | 6,061 | | | 32,041 | |
Total operating expenses | 325,678 | | | 120,288 | | | 56,184 | | | 149,821 | | | 651,971 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Operating income/(loss) | 355,813 | | | 25,611 | | | 105,895 | | | (149,821 | ) | | 337,498 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Total assets from continuing operations | 975,842 | | | 439,272 | | | 1,092,833 | | | 57,340 | | | 2,565,287 | |
Long-lived assets | 255,944 | | | 241,735 | | | 242,333 | | | 43,455 | | | 783,467 | |
Capital expenditure on long lived assets | 13,428 | | | 2,542 | | | 25,509 | | | 1,466 | | | 42,945 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
39
(1) Included in depreciation and amortization are the write-downs of property, plant and equipment of $1.6 million ($0.5 million in the Corporate segment and $1.1 million in the US segment). Depreciation from manufacturing plants ($2.0 million) is included in cost of product sales in the US segment. Depreciation and amortization relating to R&D assets are included in the US and International segments.
19. Related parties
In April 2005, Shire BioChem Inc. (BioChem) contributed cash of $4.1 million (CAN$ 5 million) to ViroChem Pharma Inc. in return for an additional equity interest. Dr Bellini, a non-executive director of BioChem had an indirect substantial interest in a company which is a co-investor of ViroChem Pharma Inc.
In October 2005, the Company sub-leased its office premises in Newport to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr James Cavanaugh, the non-executive Chairman of the Company, is the Chairman of Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc.
40
ITEM 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this report.
Overview
Shire’s strategic goal is to become the leading specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on meeting the needs of the specialist physician. Shire focuses its business on central nervous system (CNS), gastrointestinal (GI), general products (GP) and human genetic therapies (HGT) - all being areas in which Shire has a commercial presence. The structure is sufficiently flexible to allow Shire to target new therapeutic areas to the extent opportunities arise through acquisitions. Shire believes that a carefully selected portfolio of products with a strategically aligned and relatively small-scale sales force will deliver strong results.
Shire’s focused strategy is to develop and market products for specialty physicians. This approach aims to deliver increased returns and lower risks. Shire’s in-licensing and merger and acquisition efforts are focused on products in niche markets with strong intellectual property protection either in the US or Europe.
The acquisition of TKT on July 27, 2005 added the HGT business to Shire and Shire views this business as complementary to and consistent with Shire's stated strategy of meeting the needs of the specialist physician.
Significant events in the three months to September 30, 2005
Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.
On July 27, 2005, Shire completed its acquisition of TKT. As consideration, Shire paid to TKT’s stockholders $37 in cash for each share of TKT common stock outstanding at the time of the acquisition.
The total cash consideration for the acquisition of TKT is expected to be approximately $1.6 billion, subject to change as may be required by the appraisal rights process. As at September 30, 2005 shareholders owning approximately 24.4 million TKT shares had accepted the offer and during the period $903 million had been paid to them, $83.4 million was paid in connection with TKT stock options and $170.1 million in connection with convertible notes, outstanding at the date of acquisition.
See note 2 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for further information on the acquisition.
ADDERALL XR
FDA approval of the adolescent indication for ADDERALL XR was received during July.
ADDERALL XR in Canada
On August 24, 2005, Shire announced that Health Canada would reinstate the marketing authorization of ADDERALL XR in Canada effective August 26, 2005. This reinstatement followed the acceptance by Health Canada of the recommendations from the New Drug Committee (NDC), which was appointed by Health Canada at Shire’s request to review the suspension in Canada of ADDERALL XR. The NDC, comprised of three highly qualified, independent experts in the fields of pediatric cardiology, pediatric development and behavioral problems, and pharmacoepidemiology, examined the scientific evidence made available to them by both Shire and Health Canada. The NDC recommended that Health Canada reinstate ADDERALL XR’s marketing authorization.
REMINYL
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales (NICE) is reviewing all existing approved products for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales, which includes a proposal to no longer reimburse these products under the National Health Service (NHS) when used by new patients. NICE’s final recommendation was expected to be published in June 2005. However, on July 18, 2005, NICE announced that it had delayed its decision and asked the pharmaceutical companies that market drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease to identify sub-groups of patients who may get benefit from the treatments. Shire and the other concerned pharmaceutical companies are in on-going discussions with NICE.
North American site consolidation
Shire has completed its North American site consolidation, which commenced in 2004. The remaining costs of $6.5 million were incurred in the three months to September 30, 2005, when Shire closed its Newport site. See note 4 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for further information.
41
Recent developments
ADDERALL XR
(i) Patent litigation
Shire continues to defend its Intellectual Property. In October 2005, Shire announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Barr and Impax with respect to US patent No. 6,913,768 (‘768). Shire believes that both Barr’s and Impax’s generic ADDERALL XR products infringe the ‘768 patent claims. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York. The earlier filed cases against Barr and Impax involving the ‘819 and ‘300 patents are scheduled to go to trial in January 2006 and on February 23, 2006 respectively. There will be no 30 month stay associated with the filing of the ‘768 patent case. The ‘768 patent is directed to pharmaceutical compositions comprising a once-a-day sustained release formulation of at least one amphetamine salt for the treatment of ADHD. Impax has filed for summary judgment in respect to non-infringement of the ‘819 and ‘300 patents in the district court of Delaware. The Court has not yet ruled on Impax’s motion. The schedule in the Barr case provided that summary judgement motions were to be filed and fully briefed by October 14, 2005. Neither Shire nor Barr filed summary judgement motions. Trial in the Barr case is scheduled for January 2006.
Litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s ADDERALL XR patents are in progress. For further information see ITEM 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q: Legal Proceedings. Any decrease in the sales of ADDERALL XR could significantly reduce revenues and earnings.
(ii) Citizen petition
During October 2005, Shire filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA requesting that the FDA require more rigorous bioequivalence testing or additional clinical testing for generic or follow-on drug products that reference ADDERALL XR, before they can be approved. Shire believes that these requested criteria will ensure that generic formulations of ADDERALL XR or follow-on drug products will be clinically effective and safe. The FDA has six months to respond to Shire’s petition, however it does not preclude the FDA from granting approval or tentative approval to generic or follow-on product referencing ADDERALL XR during that time.
Research and development
Shire focuses its resources on projects within its core therapeutic areas in development, which Shire believes are at lower risk.
Products in pre-launch at September 30, 2005
DYNEPO: DYNEPO was approved in the EU in March 2002 and is indicated in "treatment of anemia in patients with chronic renal failure. It may be used in patients on dialysis and patients not under dialysis". Shire expects to commence a staged launch in Europe of the product in the second half of 2006. DYNEPO is being evaluated in a controlled Phase 3 (P3) trial for anemia associated with cancer chemotherapy.
Products in registration at September 30, 2005
DAYTRANA (MTS): On October 27, 2005 Shire announced that the amended New Drug Application (NDA) will be reviewed by the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee at their scheduled open session on December 2, 2005. The NDA amendment has been assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of December 28, 2005.
In addition to FDA approval, an application must be made to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for procurement quotas in order to obtain access to methylphenidate. Pursuant to recent legislation, the DEA cannot establish procurement quotas following FDA approval of a NDA for a controlled substance (including methylphenidate) until after the DEA reviews and provides public comment on the labeling, promotion, risk management plan and other documents associated with the product. Any delay by the DEA in establishing Shire's procurement quotas for methylphenidate could delay the launch of DAYTRANA (MTS).
Products in late stage development as at September 30, 2005
- MESAVANCE (SPD476) for ulcerative colitis, which is in P3 development. During the three months toSeptember 30, 2005, activities to support the first regulatory filing (anticipated in late 2005) continued;
- NRP104 for ADHD (P3). Shire is working with New River to support their activities leading to regulatorysubmission, which New River has stated it expects to make in the fourth quarter of 2005;
- SPD503 for ADHD (P3). The FDA filing is anticipated in the first half of 2006;
42
- SPD465 for ADHD (P3). During the three months to September 30, 2005, encouraging data was received fromthe first pivotal P3 study. The FDA filing is anticipated in the first half of 2006; and
- I2S for Hunter Syndrome (P3). Shire expects to file for regulatory approval for I2S in both the US and Europe inthe fourth quarter of 2005.
Products in early stage development as at September 30, 2005
- SPD483 for the treatment of ADHD entered Phase I (P1) / Phase 2 (P2) development with plans to transitioninto P3 during 2006; and
- GA-GCB for Gaucher disease (P1/P2). In April 2004, a clinical trial to evaluate the safety and clinical activity ofGA-GCB was initiated. Results from this study will be announced in the second half of 2005 and, assumingfavourable results, Shire intends to commence a P3 pivotal clinical trial in 2006.
43
Results of operations for the three months to September 30, 2005 and 2004
Overview
On July 27, 2005, Shire completed the acquisition of TKT. This acquisition added the HGT business to Shire. The results for the three months to September 30, 2005 include the results of TKT from the date of acquisition.
Total revenues
The following table provides an analysis of the Company’s total revenues by source:
| | 3 months to | | 3 months to | | |
| | September 30, | | September 30, | | |
| | 2005 | | 2004 | | change |
| | $’000 | | $’000 | | % |
| |
| |
| |
|
Product sales | | 309,150 | | 283,723 | | +9 |
Royalties | | 60,186 | | 56,199 | | +7 |
Licensing and development | | 4,586 | | 2,820 | | +63 |
Other | | 2,155 | | 2,167 | | - |
| |
| |
| |
|
Total | | 376,077 | | 344,909 | | +9 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Product sales | | | | | | |
For the three months to September 30, 2005 product sales increased 9% to $309.2 million (2004: $283.7 million) and represented 82% of total revenues (2004: 82%).
The following table provides an analysis of the Company’s key product sales:
| | 3 months to | | 3 months to | | Product | | US |
| | September 30, | | September 30, | | sales | | prescription |
| | 2005 | | 2004 | | growth | | growth |
| | $’000 | | $’000 | | % | | % |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
CNS | | | | | | | | |
ADDERALL XR | | 165,863 | | 140,051 | | +18 | | +11 |
ADDERALL | | 9,571 | | 11,736 | | -18 | | n/a |
CARBATROL | | 16,129 | | 11,225 | | +44 | | -12 |
| | | | | | | | |
GI | | | | | | | | |
PENTASA | | 36,568 | | 33,025 | | +11 | | +6 |
COLAZIDE | | 2,288 | | 2,126 | | +8 | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
GP | | | | | | | | |
AGRYLIN and XAGRID | | | | | | | | |
North America (US & Canada) | | 4,783 | | 40,993 | | -88 | | -71 |
RoW | | 11,978 | | 8,728 | | +37 | | n/a |
FOSRENOL | | 9,722 | | - | | n/a | | n/a |
CALCICHEW | | 10,124 | | 9,550 | | +6 | | n/a |
SOLARAZE | | 3,343 | | 2,444 | | +37 | | n/a |
REMINYL/REMINYL XL | | 2,327 | | 2,609 | | -11 | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
HGT | | | | | | | | |
REPLAGAL* | | 15,956 | | - | | n/a | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
OTHERS | | 20,498 | | 21,236 | | -3 | | n/a |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | 309,150 | | 283,723 | | +9 | | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
* This represents REPLAGAL sales for the two month period since acquisition.
44
The following discussion includes references to prescription and market share data for the Company’s key products. The source of this data is IMS Health, September 2005. IMS Health is a leading global provider of business intelligence for the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.
ADDERALL XR
US prescriptions for ADDERALL XR for the three months to September 30, 2005 were up 11%. ADDERALL XR enhanced its leading market position with a 1% increase in US market share, in a market that grew 4% overall compared to the same period in 2004.
ADDERALL XR had a 25% share of the total US ADHD market in September 2005 and strengthened its position as the leading brand in the US ADHD market.
Product sales growth was higher than prescription growth for the quarter due mainly to the impact of price increases in December 2004 and August 2005 and lower sales deductions.
FDA approval of the adolescent indication for ADDERALL XR was received during July 2005.
On August 24, 2005, Shire announced that Health Canada would reinstate the marketing authorization of ADDERALL XR in Canada effective August 26, 2005. This reinstatement follows the acceptance by Health Canada of the recommendations from the NDC, which was appointed by Health Canada at Shire’s request to review the suspension in Canada of ADDERALL XR. The NDC, comprised of three highly qualified, independent experts in the fields of pediatric cardiology, pediatric development and behavioral problems, and pharmacoepidemiology, examined the scientific evidence made available to them by both Shire and Health Canada. The NDC recommended that Health Canada reinstate ADDERALL XR.
During October 2005, Shire filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA requesting that the FDA require more rigorous bioequivalence testing or additional clinical testing for generic or follow-on drug products that reference ADDERALL XR, before they can be approved. Shire believes that these requested criteria will ensure that generic formulations of ADDERALL XR or follow-on drug products will be clinically effective and safe. The FDA has six months to respond to Shire’s petition, however it does not preclude the FDA from granting approval or tentative approval to generic or follow-on products referencing ADDERALL XR during that time.
Shire continues to defend its intellectual property. In October 2005, Shire announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Barr and Impax with respect to US patent No. 6,913,768 (‘768). Shire believes that both Barr’s and Impax’s generic ADDERALL XR products infringe the ‘768 patent claims. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York. The earlier filed cases against Barr and Impax involving the ‘819 and ‘300 patents are scheduled to go to trial in January 2006 and on February 23, 2006 respectively. There will be no 30 month stay associated with the filing of the ‘768 patent case. The ‘768 patent is directed to pharmaceutical compositions comprising a once-a-day sustained release formulation of at least one amphetamine salt for the treatment of ADHD. Impax has filed for summary judgment in respect to non-infringement of the ‘819 and ‘300 patents in the district court of Delaware. The Court has not yet ruled on Impax’s motion. The schedule in the Barr case provided that summary judgement motions were to be filed and fully briefed by October 14, 2005. Neither Shire nor Barr filed any summary judgement motions. Trial in the Barr case is scheduled for January 2006.
For further information about the litigation proceedings relating to the Company‘s ADDERALL XR patents see ITEM 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q: Legal Proceedings. Any decrease in the sales of ADDERALL XR could significantly reduce revenues and earnings.
CARBATROL
US prescriptions for the three months to September 30, 2005 were down 12%, compared to the same period in 2004. This was due primarily to supply constraints and a 6% decrease in the total US carbamazepine prescription market. The supply constraints have now been resolved.
Product sales for the three months to September 30, 2005 were up 44%, compared to the same period in 2004. The difference between sales growth and the lower level of prescriptions is due to a December 2004 price increase and lower sales deductions in comparison to the high levels in the same period in 2004.
CARBATROL had a 43% share of the total US extended release carbamazepine prescription market in September 2005 (September 2004: 45%).
Patent litigation proceedings with Nostrum relating to CARBATROL are in progress. On July 18, 2005, the United States Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey denied Nostrum’s motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the lawsuit between Shire and Nostrum will continue to move toward trial. No trial date has been set by the Court. For further information see ITEM 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q: Legal Proceedings.
45
PENTASA
US prescriptions for the three months to September 30, 2005 were up 6%, compared to the same period in 2004. The increase was due to the success of the co-promotional agreement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the impact of the 500mg dosage form launched in the third quarter of 2004, in conjunction with a 2% increase in the total US oral mesalamine prescription market.
Product sales for the three months to September 30, 2005 were up 11%, compared to the same period in 2004. The difference between sales growth and prescription growth is due to the impact of the September 2004 price increase.
PENTASA had an 18% share of the total US oral mesalamine prescription market in September 2005 (September 2004: 17%).
AGRYLIN and XAGRID
AGRYLIN/XAGRID sales worldwide for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $16.8 million, down 66% compared to the same period in 2004 (Q3 2004: $49.7 million).
As expected, North American sales were down 88% due to the impact of generic versions of AGRYLIN being approved in the US market in April 2005.
Rest of the World sales (all sales outside North America) were up 37%, due to the successful launch of XAGRID in the UK, Germany and France in the first quarter of 2005. In accordance with current orphan drug legislation in the EU, XAGRID will have up to 10 years of marketing exclusivity in the EU.
FOSRENOL
US prescriptions for the three months to September 30, 2005 were up 19%, to 43,000 prescriptions, compared to the previous quarter (Q2 2005: 36,000). FOSRENOL was launched in the US in January 2005.
Product sales for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $9.7 million (Q2 2005: $9.9 million). The difference between sales and prescription growth is due to pipeline inventories declining from a comparatively high level of stocking in the prior quarter after the initial launch of FOSRENOL in the first quarter.
FOSRENOL had an 8% share of the total US phosphate binding market in September 2005.
Shire continues its discussions relating to FOSRENOL with regulatory authorities across Europe and other regions. Launches are anticipated to begin in Europe shortly, subject to obtaining national approvals and concluding pricing and reimbursement negotiations.
REPLAGAL
REPLAGAL was acquired by Shire as part of the TKT acquisition, which completed on July 27, 2005. Product sales for the period since acquisition were $16 million. The majority of REPLAGAL sales are in Europe.
Royalties
Royalty revenue increased 7% to $60.2 million for the three months to September 30, 2005 (2004: $56.2 million) and represented 16% of total revenues (2004: 16%). The following table provides an analysis of Shire’s royalty income:
| | 3 months to | | 3 months to | | |
| | September 30, | | September 30, | | |
| | 2005 | | 2004 | | change |
| | $’000 | | $’000 | | % |
| |
| |
| |
|
3TC | | 39,599 | | 37,871 | | +5 |
ZEFFIX | | 7,731 | | 7,034 | | +10 |
Others | | 12,856 | | 11,294 | | +14 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Total | | 60,186 | | 56,199 | | +7 |
| |
| |
| |
|
46
3TC
Royalties from sales of 3TC for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $39.6 million, an increase of 5% compared to the three months to September 30, 2004 ($37.9 million). This was due to the continued growth in the nucleoside analogue market for HIV and the positive impact of foreign exchange movements.
Shire receives royalties from GSK on worldwide 3TC sales. GSK’s worldwide sales of 3TC for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $301 million (2004: $291 million).
ZEFFIX
Royalties from sales of ZEFFIX for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $7.7 million, an increase of 10% compared to the three months to September 30, 2004 ($7.0 million), due to strong growth in the Japanese market.
Shire receives royalties from GSK on worldwide ZEFFIX sales. GSK’s worldwide sales of ZEFFIX for the three months to September 30, 2005 were $67 million (2004: $61 million).
Other
Other royalties are primarily in respect of REMINYL and REMINYL XL (now marketed as RAZADYNE and RAZADYNE ER in the US), a product marketed worldwide by Janssen, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland where Shire acquired the exclusive marketing rights from May 2004.
On April 11, 2005, Ortho-McNeil Neurologics Inc. (Janssen’s US affiliate company) announced that REMINYL would be marketed in the US under the new product name of RAZADYNE. Ortho-McNeil Neurologics Inc. worked closely with the FDA on a name change following dispensing errors in the US, between REMINYL and the Type 2 diabetes mellitus drug known as AMARYL. REMINYL continues to be marketed outside the US under its original name. Shire is only aware of one similar dispensing error outside the US.
Sales of the REMINYL/RAZADYNE range, for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderately severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, are growing well in the Alzheimer’s market.
Shire and Janssen’s affiliate, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, are in ongoing discussions with the European regulatory authorities in relation to their assessment of the data for REMINYL from investigational studies in mild cognitive impairment. Labeling changes have now been agreed.
Shire has submitted its response to the preliminary Appraisal Consultation Document issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales (NICE). This preliminary appraisal recommends that all existing approved products for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales are no longer reimbursable by the National Health Service when used by new patients. NICE’s final recommendation was expected to be published in June 2005. However, on July 18, 2005 NICE announced that it had delayed its decision and asked the pharmaceutical companies that market drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from the treatments.
Cost of product sales
For the three months to September 30, 2005 the cost of product sales amounted to 19% of product sales (2004: 14%). The decrease in gross margin is primarily driven by the addition of REPLAGAL to Shire’s product portfolio following the acquisition of TKT. REPLAGAL’s cost of product sales relates entirely to acquired inventories and is therefore based on the fair value of that acquired inventory. In accordance with US GAAP acquired finished goods have been valued at 97% of the expected sales price of REPLAGAL and so virtually no margin will be reflected for REPLAGAL sales until acquired finished goods have been sold (anticipated Q3 2006). For the three months to September 30, 2005 the REPLAGAL cost of product sales includes a $17.2 million adjustment in respect of the acquired inventory, of which $15.1 million related to sales of acquired finished goods and $2.1 million was a write off of damaged work in progress. The fair value adjustment decreased gross margin by 5%.
Research and development (R&D)
R&D expenditure increased from $57.8 million in the three months to September 30, 2004 to $74.3 million in the three months to September 30, 2005. Expressed as a percentage of total revenues, R&D expenditure was 20% for the three months to September 30, 2005 (2004: 17%). The increase in R&D expenditure is primarily the result of adding two significant projects following the acquisition of TKT. Such projects represented 3% of R&D expenditure as a percentage of revenues. Shire’s pipeline is now well advanced with seven projects in late stage development or registration.
47
Selling, general and administrative
Total SG&A costs increased from $119.6 million in the three months to September 30, 2004 to $171.3 million in the three months to September 30, 2005, an increase of 43%. As a percentage of product sales, SG&A expenses were 55% (2004: 42%).
3 months to September 30, | | 2005 | | 2004 | | Change |
| | $M | | $M | | % |
| |
| |
| |
|
Sales costs | | 45.8 | | 35.8 | | +28 |
Marketing costs | | 58.7 | | 43.1 | | +36 |
Other SG&A costs | | 50.4 | | 25.8 | | +95 |
| |
| |
| |
|
| | 154.9 | | 104.8 | | +48 |
Depreciation and amortization1 | | 16.4 | | 14.8 | | +11 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Total SG&A costs | | 171.3 | | 119.6 | | +43 |
| |
| |
| |
|
1. Excludes depreciation from manufacturing plants of $1.0 million (2004: $0.7 million) which is included in cost of product sales.
Sales, marketing and other SG&A costs increased from $104.8 million in the three months to September 30, 2004 to $154.9 million in the three months to September 30, 2005 an increase of 48%. As a percentage of product sales, these expenses were 50% (2004: 37%).
This increase was expected with additional costs in the three months to September 30, 2005 attributable to four product launches during 2005, incremental costs in 2005 associated with the FOSRENOL and EQUETRO sales forces, $7.0 million of SG&A costs associated with TKT and $4.5 million relating to the set up of the new listed holding company for the Shire group.
The depreciation charge for the three months to September 30, 2005 was $4.6 million (2004: $5.3 million). Amortization charges, including the amortization on acquired products, were $11.8 million for the three months to September 30, 2005 (2004: $9.5 million).
Reorganization costs
During the three months to September 30, 2005 Shire incurred costs of $6.5 million (2004: $10.1 million) following the closure of the Newport, Kentucky site in July 2005. Following this closure, the site consolidation is now complete and no further reorganization costs are expected to be incurred. During the three months to September 30, 2004 the reorganization costs related to employee severance ($2.6 million), relocation ($3.6 million) and other costs associated with the reorganization ($3.9 million).
Integration costs
For the three months to September 30, 2005, the Company incurred $3.5 million of costs associated with the integration of the TKT business into the Group. This primarily related to retention payments for key staff.
In-process R&D
During the three months to September 30, 2005, as required under US GAAP (business combination accounting), Shire wrote off the portion of the TKT purchase price allocated to in-process R&D of $673.0 million. This amount represents the fair value of those intangible assets acquired as part of the TKT acquisition which have not been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. See note 2 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for further information.
48
Interest income and expense
For the three months to September 30, 2005 the Company received interest income of $6.9 million (2004: $5.7 million). This increase in interest income is due to higher interest rates on our US cash deposits partially offset by the interest foregone by Shire on the net payments of $1.1 billion made to date in respect of the acquisition of TKT.
For the three months to September 30, 2005 the Company incurred interest expense of $3.5 million. This expense includes a $2.5 million provision in respect of interest, which may arise as a result of the court appraisal process on amounts due to shareholders who have requested appraisal of the acquisition consideration payable for their shares.
The charge in Q3 2004 of $8.0 million included the write-off of deferred issuance costs capitalized at the time of Shire’s convertible loan notes issue in 2001. These costs were being amortized over the life of the notes but were written off following the redemption of $370.1 million of loan notes in Q3 2004.
Other income/(expense), net
For the three months to September 30, 2005 other income totaled $3.2 million (2004: expense of $4.9 million). During the three months to September 30, 2005 other income was primarily attributable to the income generated from the sale of certain portfolio investments. During the three months to September 30, 2004 other expense was primarily attributable to the write down of certain portfolio investments.
Taxation
In respect of the three month period to September 30, 2005, the tax charge was calculated using the expected effective rate for the period of 28% and was adjusted for the effect of the non-deductible write-off of in-process R&D, resulting in an effective tax rate for the quarter of -3% (2004: 28%).
At September 30, 2005 net deferred tax assets of $85.4 million were recognized (December 31, 2004: $78.1 million).
Equity in earnings of equity method investees
Losses of $0.6 million were recorded for the three months to September 30, 2005 (2004 earnings of: $1.1 million) being the earnings of $1.2 million from the 50% share of the antiviral commercialization partnership with GSK in Canada (2004: $1.1 million), offset by the share of losses in the GeneChem and EGS Healthcare Funds of $1.8 million (2004: $nil).
Discontinued operations
During the three months to September 30, 2005 $1.0 million of the pipeline loan to IDB was repaid. The pipeline loan had been fully provided for in 2004 at the time of the sale of the vaccines business to IDB. This part repayment of the pipeline loan was in compliance with the terms of the loan agreement requiring IDB to make such payment in the event IDB sold and leased back any property acquired from Shire as part of the sale of the vaccines business.
49
Results of operations for the nine months to September 30, 2005 and 2004
Overview
On July 27, 2005, Shire completed the acquisition of TKT. This acquisition added the HGT business to Shire. The results for the three months to September 30, 2005 include the results of TKT from the date of acquisition.
Total revenues
The following table provides an analysis of the Company’s total revenues by source:
| | 9 months to | | 9 months to | | |
| | September 30, | | September 30, | | |
| | 2005 | | 2004 | | change |
| | $’000 | | $’000 | | % |
| |
| |
| |
|
Product sales | | 930,149 | | 803,597 | | +16 |
Royalties | | 181,073 | | 170,001 | | +7 |
Licensing and development | | 11,169 | | 10,217 | | +9 |
Other | | 11,975 | | 5,654 | | +112 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Total | | 1,134,366 | | 989,469 | | +15 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Product sales
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, product sales increased 16% to $930.1 million (2004: $803.6 million) and represented 82% of total revenues (2004: 81%). The following table provides an analysis of the Company’s key product sales:
| | 9 months to | | 9 months to | | Product | | US |
| | September 30, | | September 30, | | sales | | prescription |
| | 2005 | | 2004 | | growth | | growth |
| | $’000 | | $’000 | | % | | % |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
CNS | | | | | | | | |
ADDERALL XR | | 516,823 | | 422,997 | | +22 | | +14 |
ADDERALL | | 31,033 | | 22,411 | | +38 | | n/a |
CARBATROL | | 54,823 | | 38,873 | | +41 | | -5 |
| | | | | | | | |
GI | | | | | | | | |
PENTASA | | 93,777 | | 86,705 | | +8 | | +7 |
COLAZIDE | | 6,520 | | 5,944 | | +10 | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
GP | | | | | | | | |
AGRYLIN AND XAGRID | | | | | | | | |
North America (US & Canada) | | 41,950 | | 96,840 | | -57 | | -35 |
RoW | | 36,428 | | 25,155 | | +45 | | n/a |
FOSRENOL | | 24,484 | | - | | n/a | | n/a |
CALCICHEW | | 28,353 | | 27,525 | | +3 | | n/a |
SOLARAZE | | 8,776 | | 6,214 | | +41 | | n/a |
REMINYL/RAZADYNEREMINYL XL | | 9,384 | | 7,983 | | +17 | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
HGT | | | | | | | | |
REPLAGAL | | 15,956 | | - | | n/a | | n/a |
| | | | | | | | |
OTHERS | | 61,842 | | 62,950 | | n/a | | n/a |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | 930,149 | | 803,597 | | +16 | | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
50
The following discussion includes references to prescription and market share data for the Company’s key products. The source of this data is IMS Health, September 2005. IMS Health is a leading global provider of business intelligence for the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.
ADDERALL XR
US prescriptions for ADDERALL XR for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were up 14%. ADDERALL XR enhanced its leading market position with a 1% increase in US market share, in a market that grew 6% overall compared to the same period in 2004.
ADDERALL XR had a 25% share of the total US ADHD market in September 2005 and strengthened its position as the leading brand in the US ADHD market.
Product sales growth was higher than prescription growth for the nine months to September 30, 2005, due mainly to the impact of price increases in December 2004 and August 2005 and lower sales deductions.
ADDERALL XR’s pediatric marketing exclusivity in the US under the Hatch-Waxman regulations expired on April 11, 2005.
FDA approval of the adolescent indication for ADDERALL XR was received during July.
On August 24, 2005, Shire announced that Health Canada would reinstate the marketing authorization of ADDERALL XR in Canada effective August 26, 2005. This reinstatement follows the acceptance by Health Canada of the recommendations from the New Drug Committee (NDC), which was appointed by Health Canada at Shire’s request to review the suspension in Canada of ADDERALL XR. The NDC, comprised of three highly qualified, independent experts in the fields of pediatric cardiology, pediatric development and behavioral problems, and pharmacoepidemiology, examined the scientific evidence made available to them by both Shire and Health Canada. The NDC recommended that Health Canada reinstate ADDERALL XR.
During October 2005, Shire filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA requesting that the FDA require more rigorous bioequivalence testing or additional clinical testing for generic or follow-on drug products that reference ADDERALL XR, before they can be approved. Shire believes that these requested criteria will ensure that generic formulations of ADDERALL XR or follow-on drug products will be clinically effective and safe. The FDA has six months to respond to Shire’s petition, however it does not preclude the FDA from granting approval or tentative approval to generic or follow-on product referencing ADDERALL XR during that time.
Shire continues to defend its Intellectual Property. In October 2005, Shire announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Barr and Impax with respect to US patent No. 6,913,768 (‘768). Shire believes that both Barr’s and Impax’s generic ADDERALL XR products infringe the ‘768 patent claims. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York. The earlier filed cases against Barr and Impax involving the ‘819 and ‘300 patents are scheduled to go to trial in January 2006 and February 23, 2006 respectively. There will be no 30 month stay associated with the filing of the ‘768 patent case. The ‘768 patent is directed to pharmaceutical compositions comprising a once-a-day sustained release formulation of at least one amphetamine salt for the treatment of ADHD. Impax has filed for summary judgment in respect to non-infringement of the ‘819 and ‘300 patents in the district court of Delaware. The Court has not yet ruled on Impax’s motion. The schedule in the Barr case provided that summary judgement motions were to be filed and fully briefed by October 14, 2005. Neither Shire nor Barr filed summary judgement motions. Trial in the Barr case is scheduled for January 2006.
For further information about the litigation proceedings relating to the Company‘s ADDERALL XR patents see ITEM 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q: Legal Proceedings. Any decrease in the sales of ADDERALL XR could significantly reduce revenues and earnings.
CARBATROL
US prescriptions for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were down 5%, compared to the same period in 2004. This was due primarily to supply constraints and a 4% decrease in the total US extended release carbamazepine prescription market. The supply constraints have now been resolved.
Product sales for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were up 41%, compared to the same period in 2004. The difference between sales growth and the lower level of prescriptions is due to a December 2004 price increase and lower sales deductions in comparison to the high levels in the same period in 2004.
CARBATROL had a 43% share of the total US extended release carbamazepine prescription market in September 2005 (September 2004: 45%).
Patent litigation proceedings with Nostrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nostrum) relating to CARBATROL are in progress. On July 18, 2005, the United States Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey denied Nostrum’s motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the lawsuit between Shire and Nostrum will continue to move
51
toward trial. No trial date has been set by the Court. For further information see ITEM 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q: Legal Proceedings.
PENTASA
US prescriptions for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were up 7%, compared to the same period in 2004. The increase was due to the success of the co-promotional agreement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the impact of the 500mg dosage form launched in the third quarter of 2004, in conjunction with a 2% increase in the total US oral mesalamine prescription market.
Product sales for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were up 8%, compared to the same period in 2004. The difference between sales growth and prescription growth is due to the impact of the September 2004 price increase. PENTASA had an 18% share of the total US oral mesalamine prescription market in September 2005 (September 2004: 17%).
AGRYLIN and XAGRID
AGRYLIN/XAGRID sales worldwide for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $78.4 million, down 36% compared to the same period in 2004 (2004: $122.0 million).
As expected North American sales were down 57% due to the impact of generic versions of AGRYLIN being approved in the US market in April 2005.
Rest of the World sales (all sales outside North America) were up 45%, primarily due to the successful launch of XAGRID in the UK, Germany and France in the first quarter of 2005. In accordance with current orphan drug legislation in the EU, XAGRID will have up to 10 years of marketing exclusivity in the EU.
FOSRENOL
US prescriptions for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were 97,000. FOSRENOL was launched in the US in January 2005.
Product sales for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $24.5 million.
FOSRENOL had an 8% share of the total US phosphate binding market in September 2005.
Shire continues its discussions relating to FOSRENOL with regulatory authorities across Europe and other regions. Launches are anticipated to begin in Europe shortly, subject to obtaining national approvals and concluding pricing and reimbursement negotiations.
REPLAGAL
REPLAGAL was acquired by Shire as part of the TKT acquisition, which completed on July 27, 2005. Product sales for the period since acquisition were $16.0 million. The majority of REPLAGAL sales are in Europe.
52
Royalties
Royalty revenue increased 7% to $181.1 million for the nine months to September 30, 2005 (2004: $170.0 million) and represented 16% of total revenues (2004: 17%). The following table provides an analysis of Shire’s royalty income:
| 9 months to | | 9 months to | | |
| September 30, | | September 30, | | |
| 2005 | | 2004 | | Change |
| $’000 | | $’000 | | % |
|
| |
| |
|
3TC | 119,467 | | 115,673 | | +3 |
ZEFFIX | 21,969 | | 20,174 | | +9 |
Others | 39,637 | | 34,154 | | +16 |
|
| |
| |
|
Total | 181,073 | | 170,001 | | +7 |
|
| |
| |
|
3TCRoyalties from 3TC for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $119.5 million, an increase of 3% compared to the nine months to September 30, 2004 ($115.7 million). This was due to the continued growth in the nucleoside analogue market for HIV and the positive impact of foreign exchange movements.
Shire receives royalties from GSK on worldwide sales of 3TC. GSK’s worldwide sales of 3TC for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $907 million, an increase of 3% compared to the nine months to September 30, 2004 ($879 million).
ZEFFIX
Royalties from ZEFFIX for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $22.0 million, an increase of 9% compared to the nine months to September 30, 2004 ($20.2 million). This was due to strong growth in the Japanese market and the positive impact of foreign exchange movements.
Shire receives ZEFFIX royalties from GSK on worldwide sales. GSK’s worldwide sales of ZEFFIX for the nine months to September 30, 2005 were $191 million, an increase of 8% compared to the nine months to September 30, 2004 (2004: $177 million).
Other
Other royalties are primarily in respect of REMINYL and REMINYL XL (now marketed as RAZADYNE and RAZADYNE ER in the US), a product marketed worldwide by Janssen, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland where Shire acquired the exclusive marketing rights from May 2004.
On April 11, 2005, Ortho-McNeil Neurologics Inc. (Janssen’s US affiliate company) announced that REMINYL would be marketed in the US under the new product name of RAZADYNE. Ortho-McNeil Neurologics Inc. worked closely with the FDA on a name change following dispensing errors in the US, between REMINYL and the Type 2 diabetes mellitus drug known as AMARYL. REMINYL continues to be marketed outside the US under its original name. Shire is only aware of one similar dispensing error outside the US.
Sales of the REMINYL/RAZADYNE range, for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderately severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, are growing well in the Alzheimer’s market.
Shire and Janssen’s affiliate, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, are in ongoing discussions with the European regulatory authorities in relation to their assessment of the data for REMINYL from investigational studies in mild cognitive impairment. Labeling changes have now been agreed.
Shire has submitted its response to the preliminary Appraisal Consultation Document issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales (NICE). This preliminary appraisal recommends that all existing approved products for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales are no longer reimbursable by the National Health Service when used by new patients. NICE’s final recommendation was expected to be published in June 2005. However, on July 18, 2005 NICE announced that it had delayed its decision and asked
53
the pharmaceutical companies that market drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from the treatments.Cost of product sales
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, the cost of product sales amounted to 15% of product sales (2004: 12%). The decrease in gross margin is primarily driven by the addition of REPLAGAL to Shire’s product portfolio following the acquisition of TKT. REPLAGAL’s cost of product sales relates entirely to acquired inventories and is therefore based on the fair value of that acquired inventory. In accordance with US GAAP, acquired finished goods have been valued at 97% of the expected sales price of REPLAGAL and so virtually no margin will be reflected for REPLAGAL sales until acquired finished goods have been sold (anticipated Q3 2006). For the nine months to September 30, 2005 the REPLAGAL cost of product sales includes a $17.2 million adjustment in respect of the acquired inventory, of which $15.1 million related to sales of acquired finished goods and $2.1 million was a write off of damaged work in progress. The fair value adjustment decreased gross margin by 2%.
Research and development (R&D)
R&D expenditure increased from $143.8 million in the nine months to September 30, 2004 to $251.3 million in the nine months to September 30, 2005. Expressed as a percentage of total revenues, R&D expenditure was 22% for the nine months to September 30, 2005 (2004: 15%). This increase was primarily due to:
| • | an initial payment to New River of $50 million in respect on NRP104, which has been expensed in accordancewith the Company’s accounting policy. |
| | |
| • | the addition of two significant projects following the acquisition of TKT. |
The New River payment and the TKT projects, represented 6% of R&D expenditure expressed as a percentage of revenues.
Shire’s pipeline is now well advanced with seven projects in late stage development or registration.
Selling, general and administrative
Total SG&A costs increased from $370.7 million in the nine months to September 30, 2004 to $516.1 million in the nine months to September 30, 2005, an increase of 39%. As a percentage of product sales, SG&A expenses were 55% (2004: 46%).
9 months to September 30, | 2005 | | 2004 | | Change |
| $M | | $M | | % |
|
| |
| |
|
Sales costs | 136.6 | | 109.2 | | +25 |
Marketing costs | 189.5 | | 138.1 | | +37 |
Other SG&A costs | 139.9 | | 82.9 | | +69 |
|
| |
| |
|
Total SG&A costs | 466.0 | | 330.2 | | +41 |
Depreciation and amortization1 | 50.1 | | 40.5 | | +24 |
|
| |
| |
|
Total SG&A costs | 516.1 | | 370.7 | | +39 |
|
| |
| |
|
1. Excludes depreciation from manufacturing plants of $2.7 million (2004: $2.0 million) which is included in cost of product sales. | | | | | |
Sales, marketing and other SG&A costs in the nine months to September 30, 2005 increased 41% to $466.0 million (2004: $330.2 million).
This increase was expected with additional costs in the nine months to September 30, 2005 attributable to four product launches during 2005, incremental costs in 2005 associated with the FOSRENOL and EQUETRO sales forces, $7.0 million of SG&A costs associated with TKT and $4.5 million relating to the set up of the new listed holding company for the Shire group.
The depreciation charge for the nine months to September 30, 2005 was $20.2 million (2004: $11.8 million), which includes a write-down of property, plant and equipment of $6.6 million. Amortization charges were $29.9 million for the nine months to September 30, 2005 (2004: $28.7 million).
54
Intangible asset impairment
The intangible asset impairment charge for the nine months to September 30, 2005 was $3.0 million (2004: 5.5 million). The impairment charge arose as a result of the economic value and strategic worth of the product concerned being less than its carrying value.
Reorganization costs
During the nine months to September 30, 2005, Shire incurred costs of $9.3 million (2004: $32.0 million) following the closure of the Newport, Kentucky site in July 2005 and final employee severance costs. Following this closure, the site consolidation is now complete and no further reorganization costs are expected to be incurred.
During the nine months to September 30, 2004, Shire incurred costs related to employee severance ($12.5 million), relocation costs ($11.5 million) and other costs associated with the reorganization ($8.0 million).
Integration costs
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, the Company incurred $3.5 million of costs associated with the integration of the TKT business into the Group (2004: nil). This primarily related to retention payments for key staff.
In-process R&D
During the nine months to September 30, 2005, as required by FIN 4, Shire wrote off the portion of the TKT purchase price allocated to in-process R&D of $673.0 million. This amount represents the fair value of those intangible assets acquired as part of the TKT acquisition which have not been approved, by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. See note 2 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for further information.
Interest income and expense
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, Shire received interest income of $27.9 million (2004: $14.1 million). This increase in interest income is due to higher interest rates on the Company’s US cash deposits partially offset by the interest foregone by Shire on the net payments of $1.1 billion made to date in respect of the acquisition of TKT.
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, Shire had interest expense of $4.7 million, of which $1.0 million related to costs of a bridging loan to finance the TKT transaction, and $2.5 million in respect of a provision for interest, which may arise as a result of the court appraisal process on amounts due to shareholders who have requested appraisal of the acquisition consideration payable for their shares.
For the nine months to September 30, 2004, Shire had interest expense of $12.3 million. This expense related to Shire’s convertible loan notes issued in 2001. In addition to the interest payable on the loan notes of $4.3 million, there was an $8.0 million write-off of deferred issuance costs capitalized at the time of the convertible loan notes issue. These costs were being amortized over the life of the notes but were written-off following the redemption of $370.1 million of loan notes in the third quarter of 2004.
Other income, net
For the nine months to September 30, 2005, other income totaled $3.9 million (2004: $4.4 million). During the nine months to September 30, 2005 and September 30, 2004, other income was primarily attributable to income from the sale of certain portfolio investments.
Taxation
In respect of the nine month period to September 30, 2005, the tax charge was calculated using the expected effective rate for the period of 25% and was adjusted for the effect of the non-deductible write-off of in-process R&D, resulting in an effective tax rate for the period of -14% (2004: 28%).
At September 30, 2005, net deferred tax assets of $85.4 million were recognized (December 31, 2004; $78.1 million).
55
Equity in earnings/(losses) of equity method investeesEarnings of $0.2 million were recorded for the nine months to September 30, 2005 (2004: $3.4 million), being earnings of $3.9 million, representing a 50% share of earnings from the antiviral commercialization partnership with GSK in Canada (2004: $3.4 million), offset by the share of losses in the GeneChem and EGS Healthcare Funds of $3.7 million (2004: $nil).
Discontinued operations
During the nine months to September 30, 2005, gains on disposition of discontinued operations totalled $4.2 million. In July, 2005, $1.0 million of the pipeline loan to IDB was repaid. The pipeline loan had been fully provided for in 2004 at the time of the sale of the vaccines business to IDB. This part repayment of the pipeline loan was in compliance with the terms of the loan agreement requiring IDB to make such payment in the event IDB sold and leased back any property acquired from Shire as part of the sale of the vaccines business. In addition, a $3.1 million adjustment, arising from the finalization of the working capital agreement with IDB recorded in 2004 as part of the sale of the vaccines business to IDB, was released.
Liquidity and capital resources
General
The Company’s funding requirements depend on a number of factors, including its development programs; corporate, business and product acquisitions; the level of resources required for the expansion of marketing capabilities as the product base expands; increases in accounts receivable and inventory which may arise as sales levels increase; competitive and technological developments; the timing and cost of obtaining required regulatory approvals for new products; the timing of tax payments and the continuing cash generated from sales of Shire’s key products.
An important part of Shire’s business strategy is to protect its products and technologies through the use of patents, proprietary technologies and trademarks, to the extent available. The Company intends to defend its intellectual property, and as a result may need cash for funding litigation expenses incurred.
The Company ordinarily finances its activities through cash generated from operating activities, private and public offerings of equity and debt securities and the proceeds of asset or investment disposals.
In connection with the acquisition of TKT, Shire entered into a Multicurrency Revolving Facilities Agreement (the “Facilities Agreement”) with ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Barclays Bank plc, Citigroup Global Markets Limited, HSBC Bank plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (the “Lenders”) on June 15, 2005. The Facilities Agreement includes two credit facilities: (i) a multicurrency three year revolving loan facility in an aggregate amount of $500 million (“Facility A”) and (ii) a 364 day revolving loan facility in an aggregate amount of $300 million (“Facility B” and together with Facility A, the “Facilities”). See note 14 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q.
Shire anticipates that its operating cash flow together with available cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments and the above mentioned debt facility will be sufficient to meet its anticipated future operating expenses, the cost of acquiring TKT, capital expenditures and debt service and lease obligations as they become due over the next twelve months.
If the Company decides to seek to acquire other businesses, it expects to fund these acquisitions from existing cash resources, the debt facility discussed above and possibly through new borrowings and the issue of new equity if necessary.
Sources and uses of cash
The following table provides an analysis of the Company’s gross and net cash funds, including restricted cash, as at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004:
56
| September 30, | | | December 31, | |
| 2005 | | | 2004 | |
| $’000 | | | $’000 | |
|
| | |
| |
Cash and cash equivalents | 549,820 | | | 1,111,477 | |
Restricted cash | 30,085 | | | 21,627 | |
Short term investments | 22,380 | | | 324,411 | |
|
| | |
| |
Gross cash funds, including restricted cash | 602,285 | | | 1,457,515 | |
Total debt | (116 | ) | | (116 | ) |
|
| | |
| |
Net cash funds, including restricted cash | 602,169 | | | 1,457,399 | |
|
| | |
| |
Cash flow activity
Net cash provided by operating activities for the nine months to September 30, 2005 was $220.9 million compared to $283.5 million for the nine months to September 30, 2004. The reduction in cash generation is primarily due to the $50 million upfront payment to New River and the timing of working capital payments.
Net cash used in investing activities was $789.3 million in the nine months to September 30, 2005. Decreases in short-term investments of $351.2 million along with proceeds of $60.0 million from the redemption by IDB of its subscription receipts and the receipt from IDB of additional proceeds from the sale of the vaccines business of $32.2 million, offset cash paid on the purchase of TKT (net of cash and cash equivalents) of $1,099.7 million, loans made to IDB of $43.2 million, capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment of $57.6 million and intangible assets of $20.1 million. Capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment included $22.8 million leasehold building improvements, $9.8 million on computer equipment and $3.1 million on furniture and fittings for the new Shire US headquarters at Wayne, Pennsylvania, $6.2 million on software purchases at the Basingstoke Head Office, $9.7 million of factory construction work and $2.4 million of plant equipment for Shire US Manufacturing Inc. in the US. Capital expenditure on intangible assets included the final payment of the acquisition of the exclusive commercialization rights to REMINYL in the UK and Republic of Ireland.
Net cash provided by investing activities was $30.8 million in the nine months to September 30, 2004. Decreases in short-term investments and restricted cash of $36.6 million, along with proceeds of $38.5 million from the sale of long-term assets and an initial $30 million received from IDB for the sale of the vaccines business, were offset by loans made to IDB of $23.8 million, capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment of $24.8 million and intangible assets of $12.4 million. Capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment included $8.9 million on the manufacturing facility in Owing Mills and $8.4 million on computer software. Capital expenditure on intangible assets included the initial payment for the acquisition for the exclusive commercialization rights to REMINYL in the UK and Republic of Ireland.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $13.9 million for the nine months to September 30, 2005. This was primarily due to inflows of $30.4 million from the exercise of employee stock options being offset by the dividend payment of $19.1 million in respect of the six months to December 31, 2004. Net cash used in financing activities was $362.1 million for the nine months to September 30, 2004 primarily due to the redemption of the 2% convertible loan notes of $370.1 million, offset by proceeds from the exercise of employee stock options of $7.5 million.
The total cash consideration for the acquisition of TKT is expected to be approximately $1.6 billion, subject to change as may be required by the appraisal rights process (see below). As at September 30, 2005 shareholders owning approximately 24.4 million TKT shares had accepted the offer and $903 million had been paid to them, $83.4 million was paid in connection with TKT stock options and $170.1 million in connection with convertible notes, outstanding at the date of acquisition. Following the exercise of appraisal rights by shareholders owning the 11.7 million shares, the remaining $433 million will be paid subject to the appraisal process outlined in Item 1 of Part II of this Form 10-Q.
As a result of the acquisition of TKT, cash balances have been significantly reduced and interest receivable will decrease accordingly.
Obligations and commitments
Contractual obligations
At September 30, 2005 the Company’s contractual obligations had altered from those disclosed in the Table of Contractual Obligations in the Company’s 2004 Form 10-K and Form 10-Q for the three months to June 30, 2005 as follows:
57
Interests in companies and partnerships
The Company has undertaken to subscribe for interests in companies and partnerships for amounts totaling $24.5 million (December 31, 2004: $22.2 million) of which $8.3 million is committed to be paid in 2005 and a further $3.2 million could be payable in 2005, depending on the timing of capital calls.Manufacturing facilities
The Company has committed to the expansion and modification of its two manufacturing facilities at Owings Mills, Maryland and Cambridge, Massachusetts to facilitate the production and packaging of additional strategic products. The Company has committed to spend a further $2.0 million by the end of 2005 and $1.6 million in 2006, and has an additional commitment of $1.9 million for the design and construction of a technology center at Owings Mills, which is expected to be incurred in 2005.
Wayne, Pennsylvania fit out
The Company is in the process of fitting out its new US headquarters at Wayne, Pennsylvania. At September 30, 2005 the Company had an outstanding commitment of $1.5 million, which is expected to be incurred in 2005.
Basingstoke, UK expansion
The Company is in the process of expanding its UK headquarters at Basingstoke, UK. As at September 30, 2005, the Company had an outstanding commitment of $4.9 million, which is expected to be incurred throughout 2005 and into 2006.
IDBAs part of the sale of the vaccines business on September 9, 2004, Shire entered into an agreement to provide IDB with a loan facility of up to $100 million, which can be drawn down over the four years following completion. As at September 30, 2005 IDB had drawn down the full $100 million under the facility.
OtherThe Company has assumed that other long-term liabilities, which comprise primarily insurance provisions ($11.4 million), SERP liabilities ($4.3 million) and long-term bonuses ($3.2 million), are due before 2008.
In addition to contractual obligations referred to above the Company has certain milestones and other commitments. The most significant are as follows:
NRP104
In connection with the Company’s collaboration with New River to commercialize NRP104, the Company has an obligation to make certain payments on the achievement of the following milestones: $50 million upon the FDA’s acceptance of filing of the NDA; up to $300 million following the first commercial sale of the product, depending on the characteristics of the approved product labelling; $100 million as a sales bonus on achieving a significant sales target; and $5 million following the first commercial sale in certain specified EU markets. An upfront payment of $50 million was expensed as an R&D cost during the first quarter of 2005. Regulatory submission is currently expected in the last quarter of 2005.
DAYTRANA (MTS)
In connection with the Company’s purchase of DAYTRANA (MTS) in 2003, Shire has an obligation to make certain payments on the achievement of the following milestones: $50 million upon regulatory approval of the product, which will be capitalized and amortized over its useful economic life; and up to $75 million, linked to future sales performance. Regulatory approval is currently expected in the last quarter of 2005.
FOSRENOL patent rights
In connection with the Company’s purchase of the global patents for FOSRENOL, Shire now owns the FOSRENOL patents in the US and throughout the world (excluding Europe and Japan) and has agreed to pay AnorMED Inc. $6 million when FOSRENOL is approved in certain European countries for the assignment of the European patents and $6 million upon receipt of regulatory approval in Japan for the Japanese patents.
Other R&D commitments
As at September 30, 2005, the Company had commitments of $14.5 million on achievement of specified milestones of which $1.4 million is committed to be paid in 2005 and $8.1 million is expected to be paid in 2006.
Clinical testing
As at September 30, 2005, the Company had committed to pay approximately $13.0 million to contract vendors for administering and executing clinical trials. The timing of payments is not reasonably certain as payments are dependent
58
upon actual services performed by the organizations as determined by patient enrollment levels and related activities. However, the Company expects to pay for these commitments throughout 2005 and into 2006 as ongoing trials are completed.Contract manufacturing
As at September 30, 2005, the Company had committed to pay approximately $16.8 million in respect of contract manufacturing over the next 12 months.
TKT acquisition
Appraisal rights
In connection with the acquisition, as at September 30, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.7 million shares of TKT common stock had submitted written demands for appraisal of their shares and, as a result, elected not to accept the $37 per share merger consideration. On October 10, 2005, at the request of one of the petitioners to tender 365,000 shares at the merger price of $37 per share, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s demand. On October 12, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted this motion, and the petitioner tendered the shares at the merger consideration of $37 per share. Therefore, as at October 28, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.3 million shares of TKT common stock maintain their written demands for appraisal of their shares and have elected not to accept the $37 per share merger consideration. To the extent that these demands were validly asserted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Delaware law and these holders perfect their rights thereunder, such holders will be entitled to receive the fair value of their shares as determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The determination of fair value of the TKT shares will be made excluding any element of value arising from the transaction, such as cost savings or business synergies. The Delaware Court of Chancery may ascribe a valuation to the shares that is greater than, less than or equal to $37 per share and may award interest on the amount determined in the appraisal process.
Total consideration, including amounts payable in respect of stock options and convertible securities, is approximately $1.6 billion at the consideration price of $37 per share. This could change if Shire is required to pay a different amount of consideration in respect of approximately 11.3 million shares for which holders have exercised appraisal rights. The consideration paid by Shire to TKT shareholders who did not exercise appraisal rights was funded from Shire’s existing cash resources. For every $1 increase/decrease in the merger consideration applicable to those TKT shareholders who have asserted appraisal rights, the total estimated purchase price would increase/decrease by approximately $11.3 million.
ITEM 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
There have been no material changes in the Group’s interest rate or market risk of investments exposure since December 31, 2004. The acquisition of TKT has increased the Group’s exposure to foreign exchange market risk due to an increase in the amount of non US Dollar net assets and earnings. This is being managed in line with the Company’s existing treasury policies. Item 7A of the Group’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 contains a detailed discussion of the Group’s market risk exposure in relation to interest rate market risk and foreign exchange market risk.
ITEM 4. Controls and Procedures
As of September 30, 2005, the Company, under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, had performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. The Company’s management necessarily applied its judgment in assessing the costs and benefits of such controls and procedures, which by their nature can provide only reasonable assurance regarding management’s control objectives. Based on this evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective at the reasonable level of assurance for gathering, analyzing and disclosing the information the Company is required to disclose in the reports it files under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
59
During the period covered by this quarterly report, the Company concluded the acquisition of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. or TKT. Significant material weaknesses in TKT’s internal control over financial reporting were identified with respect to its sales and marketing subsidiary, TKT Europe A.B. (formerly TKT Europe-5S A.B.), or TKT Europe, as at December 31, 2004 as described in TKT’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2004. These material weaknesses at TKT Europe included both entity-control weaknesses, and weaknesses in process, transaction and application controls as defined in the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission inInternal Control-Integrated Framework. As a result of these material weaknesses in TKT Europe’s internal control over financial reporting, TKT’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as at December 31, 2004, TKT’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective. An initial review of these material weaknesses has been undertaken and the Company is progressing remediation activities. Testing of the internal control over financial reporting at TKT Europe is currently scheduled for the final quarter of 2005 in connection with Management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting.Although Shire is continuing to assess the impact of the acquisition and integration of TKT on the internal control over financial reporting of the enlarged group, Management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified at TKT Europe are likely to be material to the Shire group as a whole.
60
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGSThere are various legal proceedings brought by and against Shire that are discussed in Shire’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year to December 31, 2004. Material updates to the proceedings discussed in Shire’s Annual Report on Form 10-K are described below. On July 27, 2005, Shire completed its acquisition of TKT. In addition to the disclosures in Shire’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year to December 31, 2004 (as updated in Shire’s subsequent filings with the SEC), there are various legal proceedings brought by and against TKT which are described below. There is no assurance that the enlarged Group will be successful in any of these proceedings and if it is not, there may be a material impact on the enlarged Group’s results and financial position.
ADDERALL XR
(i) Barr Laboratories, Inc.
Shire’s extended release "once daily" version of ADDERALL, ADDERALL XR is covered by US patent No. 6,322,819 (the ‘819 Patent) and US patent No. 6,605,300 (the ‘300 Patent). In January 2003 the Company was notified that Barr had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market its generic versions of the 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg and 30mg strengths of ADDERALL XR (Barr’s ANDA products) prior to the expiration date of the Company’s ‘819 Patent, and alleging that the ‘819 Patent is not infringed by Barr's ANDA products. In August 2003 Shire was notified that Barr also was seeking permission to market its ANDA products prior to the expiration date of the ‘300 Patent and alleging that the ‘300 Patent is invalid. Shire Laboratories Inc (Shire Laboratories) filed suit against Barr for infringement of the ‘819 Patent in February 2003 and for infringement of the ‘300 Patent in September 2003. The schedules for the lawsuits against Barr with respect to the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents were consolidated in December 2003 and a trial date is scheduled for January 2006. The Company is seeking a ruling that Barr’s ANDA and ANDA products infringe the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents and its ANDA should not be approved before the expiration date of the patents. The Company is also seeking injunctions to prevent Barr from commercializing its ANDA products before the expiration of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents, damages in the event that Barr should engage in such commercialization, and its attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 27, 2004 Barr filed an amended Answer, Affirmative Defense and Counterclaim in which Barr added the following counterclaims: invalidity of the ‘819 patent, non-infringement of the ‘300 Patent and unenforceability of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents due to inequitable conduct. Shire has asserted affirmative defenses, alleging, among other things, that Barr has waived its right to assert the counterclaims set forth in its September 27, 2004 amended answers. Under the Court’s schedule summary judgment motions were to be filed and fully briefed by October 14, 2005. Neither Shire nor Barr filed summary judgment motions. Trial in this action is scheduled for January 2006.
On October 19, 2005 Shire brought another lawsuit against Barr in the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of recently issued U.S. Patent No. 6,913,768 (the ‘768 patent). The Company is seeking injunctions to prevent Barr from infringing the ‘768 patent, damages in the event that Barr should commercialize its ANDA products, attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ii) Impax Laboratories, Inc.
In November 2003, Shire was notified that Impax had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market its generic version of the 30mg strength of ADDERALL XR (Impax’s ANDA product) prior to the expiration date of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. In December 2003, Shire Laboratories filed suit against Impax for infringement of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. The Company is seeking a ruling that Impax’s ANDA product infringes the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents and that its ANDA should not be approved before the expiration date of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. The Company is also seeking injunctions to prevent Impax from commercializing its ANDA product before the expiration of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents, damages in the event that Impax should engage in such commercialization, and its attorneys’ fees and costs. Impax’s affirmative defenses include non-infringement and invalidity of both the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents.
In December 2004, Shire received an additional notification from Impax advising of the filing of an amendment to its ANDA for a generic version of the 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg and 25mg strengths of ADDERALL XR in addition to the 30mg strength, the subject of Impax’s initial ANDA. In January 2005, Shire Laboratories filed suit against Impax for infringement of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. The Company is seeking a ruling that Impax’s amended ANDA infringes the ‘819 and ‘300 patents and should not be approved before the expiration dates of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. The Company is also seeking an injunction to prevent Impax from commercializing its amended ANDA products before the expiration of the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents, damages in the event that Impax should engage in such commercialization, as well as its attorneys’ fees and costs. Impax’s affirmative defenses include non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of both the ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. Impax is also requesting that costs be assessed against the Company.
61
The Delaware District Court had set an October 11, 2005 trial date for the first Impax case. Following a scheduling conference with the same Court in the second case, a consolidated February 23, 2006 trial date has now been set for both cases. Impax has also filed for summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the ‘819 and ‘300 patents. The Delaware District Court has not yet ruled on Impax’s motion.As part of the October 19, 2005 lawsuit against Barr, Shire also brought suit in the Southern District of New York against Impax for infringing the ‘768 patent. The Company is seeking injunctions to prevent Impax from infringing the ‘768 patent, damages in the event that Impax should commercialize its ANDA products, attorneys’ fees and costs.
(iii) Colony Pharmaceuticals Inc.
In December 2004, Shire was notified that Colony had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market its generic versions of the 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg and 30mg strengths of ADDERALL XR prior to the expiration date of the Company’s ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. Shire has chosen not to sue Colony.
(iv) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
In February 2005, Shire was notified that Teva had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market its generic versions of the 10mg and 30mg strengths of ADDERALL XR prior to the expiration date of the Company’s ‘819 and ‘300 Patents. In June 2005, Shire was notified that Teva had amended its ANDA to seek permission to market additional strengths of 5mg, 15mg and 20mg of ADDERALL XR prior to the expiration of the '819 and '300 Patents. Shire has chosen not to sue Teva.
None of Barr, Impax, Colony or Teva may launch their generic versions of ADDERALL XR before they receive final FDA approval of their respective ANDAs. In respect of Barr’s and Impax’s ANDAs, the lawsuits triggered stays of final FDA approval of up to 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of, respectively, Barr’s and Impax’s notice letters. Even if Barr and/or Impax receive tentative FDA approval of their ANDAs, neither of them can lawfully launch their generic versions of ADDERALL XR before the earlier of the expiration of the respective stays (Barr - February 2006; Impax - May 2006 in the case of the 30mg strength and June 2007 in the case of the 5mg, 10mg,15mg, 20mg and 25mg strengths) or a district court decision in its favor. In the event that the Company does not prevail in the Barr suit, Barr could be in a position to market its ANDA products upon FDA final approval of its ANDA. In the event the Company does not prevail in the Impax suit, Impax could be in a position to market its ANDA product upon FDA final approval of its ANDA and upon expiry of any exclusivity that Barr may hold. The FDA may grant 180 days of generic market exclusivity to the “first to file”.
Neither Colony nor Teva may market their ANDA products until FDA final approval of their ANDAs and upon the expiration of the first to file’s exclusivity rights.
The Hatch-Waxman exclusivity period for ADDERALL XR expired on April 11, 2005.
CARBATROL
In August 2003 the Company was notified that Nostrum had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market its generic version of the 300mg strength of CARBATROL (Nostrum’s ANDA product) prior to the expiration date of the Company’s US patents for CARBATROL, US patent No. 5,912,013 (the ‘013 Patent) and US patent No. 5,326,570 (the ‘570 Patent). The notification alleges that the ‘013 and ‘570 Patents are not infringed by Nostrum’s ANDA product. On September 18, 2003 Shire Laboratories filed suit against Nostrum in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of these two patents by Nostrum’s ANDA and ANDA product. The Company was seeking a ruling that Nostrum’s ANDA infringes the ‘013 and ‘570 Patents and should not be approved before the expiration date of the ‘013 and ‘570 Patents. The Company was also seeking an injunction to prevent Nostrum from commercializing its ANDA product before the expiration of the ‘013 and ‘570 Patents, damages in the event that Nostrum should engage in such commercialization, as well as its attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 23, 2004 the Company amended the complaint to delete the allegations with respect to the ‘013 Patent while maintaining the suit with respect to the ‘570 Patent. By way of counterclaims Nostrum is seeking a declaration that the ‘570 and ‘013 Patents are not infringed by Nostrum’s ANDA product. Nostrum also was seeking actual and punitive damages for alleged abuse of process by Shire. On July 12, 2004 the Court dismissed Nostrum’s abuse of process counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 10, 2004 Nostrum filed a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration of non-infringement of the ‘570 Patent. Shire’s opposition to this motion was filed on January 14, 2005. Summary judgment arguments were presented to the Court on July 15, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court denied Nostrum's motion for summary judgment. Expert discovery will now continue and is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2005. No trial date has been set.
Nostrum may not launch a generic version of CARBATROL before it receives final approval of its ANDA from the FDA. The lawsuit triggered a stay of FDA approval of up to 30 months from Shire’s receipt of Nostrum’s notice letter. Even if Nostrum receives tentative approval from the FDA for its ANDA, it cannot lawfully launch its generic version before the earlier of the expiration of the stay (February 2006) or a district court decision in its favor. In the event that the Company
62
does not prevail, then Nostrum could be in a position to market its 300mg extended-release carbamazepine product upon FDA final approval of its ANDA.TKT
On July 27, 2005, the Company completed its acquisition of TKT. In addition to the above, there are various legal proceedings brought by and against TKT which are described below.
GA-GCB
In January 2005, Genzyme filed suit against TKT in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, Israel, claiming that TKT's Phase 1/2 clinical trial in Israel evaluating GA-GCB for the treatment of Gaucher disease infringes one or more claims of Israeli Patent No. 100,715. In addition, Genzyme filed a motion for preliminary injunction, including a request for an ex parte hearing and relief on the merits, to immediately seize and destroy all GA-GCB being used to treat patients and to prevent TKT from submitting data generated from the clinical trial to regulatory agencies. In March 2005 the District Court refused to grant Genzyme's motion for a preliminary injunction. No trial date has been set.
DYNEPO
In April 1997, Amgen commenced a patent infringement action against TKT and Sanofi-Aventis in the United States District Court of Massachusetts. In January 2001, the United States District Court of Massachusetts concluded that DYNEPO infringed eight of the 18 claims of five patents that Amgen had asserted. Amgen did not seek and was not awarded monetary damages. This decision was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In January 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the United States District Court of Massachusetts, remanded the action to the United States District Court of Massachusetts for further proceedings and instructed the United States District Court of Massachusetts to reconsider the validity of Amgen's patents in the light of potentially invalidating prior art.
In October 2004, the United States District Court of Massachusetts issued a decision on the remanded issues, finding that certain claims related to four patents held by Amgen are infringed by TKT and Sanofi-Aventis. In December 2004, TKT and Sanofi-Aventis filed a notice of appeal of the decision of the United States District Court of Massachusetts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TKT and Sanofi-Aventis filed an appeal brief in April 2005.
If TKT and Sanofi-Aventis are not successful in the DYNEPO litigation at the appellate level, TKT and Sanofi-Aventis would be precluded from making, using and selling DYNEPO in the United States until the expiration of the relevant patents. TKT is required to reimburse Sanofi-Aventis, which controls the litigation and is paying the litigation expenses, for 50% of the expenses incurred in connection with the litigation from and after March 26, 2004. Sanofi-Aventis is entitled to deduct up to 50% of any royalties that Sanofi-Aventis may otherwise owe to TKT with respect to the sale of DYNEPO until Sanofi-Aventis has recouped the full amount of TKT's share of the litigation expenses. TKT has the right to control any other litigation that might arise outside of the United States and is responsible for all litigation expenses incurred in connection with such litigation from and after March 26, 2004.
Gene Activation
In 1996, Applied Research Systems Holding N.V., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Serono S.A. (Serono) and Cell Genesys became involved in a patent interference involving Serono's US Patent No. 5272071 (the "071 patent"), which purportedly covers certain methods of gene activation. In June 2004, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) held that both Serono and Cell Genesys were entitled to certain claims in their respective patent and patent application, and Serono and Cell Genesys each appealed the decision of the interference to the US District Court of Massachusetts and the US District Court of the District of Columbia, respectively. TKT was not a party to this interference.
In August 2004, Serono served TKT with an amended complaint in the appeal of the PTO decision that was filed in the US District Court of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges that TKT infringes Serono's '071 patent. In August 2005, the US District Court of Massachusetts severed and stayed the infringement action pending resolution of the interference claim at the District Court level.
Appraisal Rights
In connection with Shire’s merger with TKT, as at September 30, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.7 million shares of TKT common stock submitted written demands for appraisal of their shares and, as a result, elected not to accept the
63
$37 per share merger consideration. On October 10, 2005, at the request of one of the petitioners to tender 365,000 shares at the merger price of $37 per share, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s demand. On October 12, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted this motion, and the petitioner tendered the shares at the merger consideration of $37 per share. Therefore, as at October 28, 2005, the holders of approximately 11.3 million shares of TKT common stock maintain their written demands for appraisal of their shares and have elected not to accept the $37 merger consideration. To the extent that the remaining demands were validly asserted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Delaware law and these holders perfect their rights thereunder, such holders will be entitled to receive the fair value of their shares as determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The determination of fair value of the TKT shares will be made excluding any element of value arising from the transaction, such as cost savings or business synergies. The Delaware Court of Chancery may ascribe a valuation to the shares that is greater than, less than or equal to $37 per share and may award interest on the amount determined in the appraisal process.Total consideration, including amounts payable in respect of stock options and convertible securities, is approximately $1.6 billion at the merger price of $37 per share. This could change if Shire is required to pay a different amount of consideration in respect of the approximately 11.3 million shares for which holders have exercised appraisal rights. Until such time as the appraisal process is complete the Company is unable to determine the extent of its liability.
Purported Class Action Shareholder Suit
In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class action lawsuits against TKT and Richard Selden, TKT's former Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period.
In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiffs' selections of lead plaintiffs' counsel. In April 2003, various plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff Applicants to Consolidate Actions, to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel, Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel. In April 2003, the Court endorsed the Proposed Order, thereby consolidating the various matters under one matter: In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ.
In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against TKT; Dr Selden; Daniel Geffken, TKT's former Chief Financial Officer; Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter, members of TKT's board of directors; William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members of TKT's board of directors; and SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann & Company, underwriters of TKT's common stock in prior public offerings.
The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of REPLAGAL during that period. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against Dr. Selden and TKT under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims based on TKT's public offerings of June 29, 2001, December 18, 2001 and December 26, 2001 against each of the defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Dr. Selden under Section 15 of the Securities Act; and against SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities, Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Company under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2003, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing of the motion occurred in December 2003. In May 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part TKT's motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit. In the Memorandum, the Court found several allegations against TKT arose out of forward-looking statements protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The Court dismissed those statements as falling within the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions. The Court also dismissed claims based on the public offerings of June 29, 2001 and December 18, 2001 because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims. The Court allowed all other allegations to remain.
64
In June 2004, TKT submitted an unopposed motion seeking clarification from the Court that the Memorandum dismissed claims based on the first two offerings as to all defendants. The Court granted the motion. In July 2004, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims based on the third offering because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims.The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking permission to notify certain TKT investors of the dismissal of the claims based on the offerings, and to inform those investors of their opportunity to intervene in the lawsuit. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in July 2004. A hearing on this motion was held in September 2004. The Court denied this motion. TKT filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in July 2004. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification in July 2004. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in March 2005, and the plaintiffs filed a reply in April 2005. A hearing on class certification was held in April 2005. Following that hearing, TKT filed a supplemental brief in opposition to the motion for class certification and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of the motion. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.
On September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case Pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(G), in which they appeared to seek reassignment of a matter filed on September 1, 2005, entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Richard B. Selden, Civil Action No. 05-11805-NMG (D. Mass.) (the SEC Action), to the Court considering this matter. On September 15, 2005, the defendants filed a response to the notice, opposing reassignment of the SEC Action. On October 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the defendants' response.
Shareholder Derivative Suit
In April 2003, South Shore Gastrointerology UA 6/6/1980 FBO Harold Jacob, and Nancy R. Jacob Ttee filed a Shareholder Derivative Complaint against Dr. Selden; against the following members of TKT's board of directors: Jonathan S. Leff, Walter Gilbert, Wayne P. Yetter, Rodman W. Moorhead, III; against the following former members of TKT's board of directors: James E. Thomas and William Miller; and against TKT as nominal defendant, in Middlesex Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 03-1669. On May 29, 2003, the parties moved to transfer venue to the Business Litigation Session in Suffolk Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The parties' motion was allowed, and in June 2003 the matter was accepted into the Business Litigation Session as Civil Action No. 03-02630-BLS.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to TKT and its shareholders by disseminating materially false and misleading statements to the market and causing or allowing TKT to conduct its business in an unsafe, imprudent and unlawful manner. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, and to assert a claim for contribution and indemnification on behalf of TKT for any liability TKT incurs as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct. The complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In August 2003, the plaintiff filed its Verified Amended Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Derivative Complaint"). The Amended Derivative Complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to TKT and its stockholders by causing TKT to issue materially false and misleading statements to the public, by signing TKT's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2000 and 2001 and by signing a registration statement. The Amended Derivative Complaint also alleges that defendant Dr. Selden sold TKT's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2003, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Derivative Complaint. A hearing of the motion was held in January 2004. In May 2004, the Court granted TKT's motion to dismiss. In June 2004, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the dismissal of the Amended Derivative Complaint to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.There have been no further developments with respect to this action.
SEC Investigation
In May 2003, TKT received a copy of a formal order of investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The order of investigation relates to TKT's disclosures and public filings with regard to REPLAGAL and the status of the approval process of the FDA for REPLAGAL, as well as transactions in TKT's securities.
In July 2004, TKT and Dr. Selden, its former Chief Executive Officer, received "Wells" notices from the staff of the SEC, in connection with the SEC investigation. The Wells notices state that the SEC staff has preliminarily determined to recommend that the Commission bring a civil action for possible violations of the federal securities laws. In September2005, the Commission filed a suit against Dr. Selden and is seeking an injunction disgorgement, civil penalties and an order barring Dr. Selden from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Also in September 2005, the SEC staff informed the Company that it is no longer recommending any enforcement action against TKT.
65
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
None.
ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
None.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
An Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders was held on July 27, 2005.
The meeting considered an ordinary resolution to approve the transaction whereby a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc will merge with and into Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. and pursuant to which Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc will become the owner of record of all the outstanding capital stock of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (the “Acquisition”) upon the terms and conditions of the Acquisition summarised in the Circular to Shareholders of the Company dated 27th June, 2005, with any amendments, modifications, variations or revisions thereto which are not of a material nature and that the directors of the Company (or any duly authorised committee thereof) be authorized to do all such things and execute all such agreements and make such arrangements as may seem to them necessary, expedient or appropriate to give effect to the Acquisition.
The resolution was approved on a show of hands at the meeting. Had the resolution been put to a poll, the proxy votes that would have been voted at the meeting are described below:
For | Against | Abstentions | |
383,713,047 | 747,228 | 73,178 | |
ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
66
ITEM 6.EXHIBITS
(a) | Exhibits |
| |
2.1 | Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. and Sparta Acquisition Corporation, dated as of April 21, 2005.(1) |
| |
3.1 | Articles of Association of Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc as amended by special resolution on October 28, 2005. |
| |
10.1 | Multicurrency Revolving Facilities Agreement by and among Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Barclays Bank plc., Citicorp USA, Inc., HSBC Bank plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, dated as of June 15, 2005.(2) |
| |
10.2 | Exclusive License Agreement between Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., dated as of April 21, 2005.(3) |
| |
31.1 | Certification of Matthew Emmens pursuant to Rule 13a – 14 under The Exchange Act. |
| |
31.2 | Certification of Angus Russell pursuant to Rule 13a – 14 under The Exchange Act. |
| |
32.1 | Certification of Matthew Emmens and Angus Russell pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002. |
(1) Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.02 to Shire’s Form 8-K filed on April 25, 2005.
(2) Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 to Shire’s Form 10-Q filed on August 5, 2005.
(3) Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.03 to Shire’s Form 8-K filed on April 25, 2005.
67
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Company has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| | SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS GROUP PLC |
| | (Registrant) |
Date: | | |
November 9, 2005 | | /s/ Matthew Emmens |
| By: | Matthew Emmens |
| | Chief Executive Officer |
Date: | | |
November 9, 2005 | | /s/ Angus Russell |
| By: | Angus Russell |
| | Chief Financial Officer |
68