Emisphere Technologies, Inc.
EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES INC (Form: 10-K, Received: 03/28/2013 16:29:46)
Table of Contents

 

 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-K

(Mark One)

 

     þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

OR

 

     ¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

           For the transition period from                 to

Commission file number 0-17758

 

 

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware   13-3306985

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

4 Becker Farm Road, Suite 103

Roseland, NJ

  07068
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)

(973) 532-8000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock — $.01 par value

Preferred Stock Purchase Rights

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes   ¨         No   þ

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.    Yes   ¨         No   þ

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for at least the past 90 days.    Yes   þ         No   ¨

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     ¨

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

 

Large accelerated filer   ¨   Accelerated filer   ¨   Non-accelerated filer   ¨   Smaller reporting company   þ
  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)                 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes   ¨     No   þ

As of June 30, 2012 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter), the aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant (i.e. excluding shares held by executive officers, directors, and control persons) was $5,910,598 computed at the closing price on that date.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock, $.01 par value, outstanding as of March 1, 2013 was 60,687,478.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

         Page No.  

PART I

     2   

Item 1.

  Business      2   

Item 1A.

  Risk Factors      19   

Item 1B.

  Unresolved Staff Comments      28   

Item 2.

  Properties      28   

Item 3.

  Legal Proceedings      28   

Item 4.

  Reserved      28   

PART II

     28   

Item 5.

  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities      28   

Item 6.

  Selected Financial Data      31   

Item 7.

  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations      32   

Item 7A.

  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk      45   

Item 8.

  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data      46   

Item 9.

  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure      80   

Item 9A.

  Controls and Procedures      80   

Item 9B.   

  Other Information      80   

PART III

     81   

Item 10.

  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance      81   

Item 11.

  Executive Compensation      86   

Item 12.

  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters      97   

Item 13.

  Certain Relationships, Related Transactions and Director Independence      102   

Item 14.

  Principal Accounting Fees and Services      106   

PART IV

     107   

Item 15.

  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules      107   
  Signatures      108   
  Exhibits Index      109   

 

1


Table of Contents

PART I

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements made under the captions “Business” (Item 1) and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (Item 7), the notes to our audited financial statements (Item 8) and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as statements made from time to time by our representatives may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding planned or expected studies and trials of oral formulations that utilize our Eligen ® Technology; the timing of the development and commercialization of our product candidates or potential products that may be developed using our Eligen ® Technology; the potential market size, advantages or therapeutic uses of our potential products; variation in actual savings and operating improvements resulting from restructurings; and the sufficiency of our available capital resources to meet our funding needs. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results or achievements to be materially different from any future results or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include the factors described in Part 1, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and the other factors discussed in connection with any forward-looking statements.

 

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview of Emisphere

Introduction and History

Emisphere Technologies, Inc. (“Emisphere,” “the Company,” “our,” “us,” or “we”) is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on a unique and improved delivery of therapeutic molecules or nutritional supplements using its Eligen ® Technology. These molecules could be currently available or are under development. Such molecules are usually delivered by injection; in many cases, their benefits are limited due to poor bioavailability, slow on-set of action or variable absorption. In those cases, our technology may increase the benefit of the therapy by improving bioavailability or absorption or by decreasing time to onset of action. The Eligen ® Technology can be applied to the oral route of administration as well other delivery pathways, such as buccal, rectal, inhalation, intra-vaginal or transdermal. The Eligen ® Technology can make it possible to deliver certain therapeutic molecules orally without altering their chemical form or biological activity. Eligen ® delivery agents, or “carriers”, facilitate or enable the transport of therapeutic molecules across the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal tract, to reach the tissues of the body where they can exert their intended pharmacological effect. Our development efforts are conducted internally or in collaboration with corporate development partners. Typically, the drugs that we target are at an advanced stage of development, or have already received regulatory approval, and are currently available on the market. Our website is www.emisphere.com. The contents of that website are not incorporated herein by reference. Investor related questions should be directed to info@emisphere.com.

Emisphere was originally founded as Clinical Technologies Associates, Inc. in 1986. We conducted an initial public offering in 1989 and were listed on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “CTAI”. In 1990, we decided to focus on our oral drug delivery technology, now known as the Eligen ® Technology. In 1991, we changed our name to Emisphere Technologies, Inc., and we continued to be listed on NASDAQ under the new ticker symbol “EMIS”. The Company’s securities were suspended from trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market effective at the open of business on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, and NASDAQ delisted the Company’s securities thereafter. The delisting resulted from the Company’s non-compliance with the minimum market value of listed securities requirement for continued listing. Simultaneously, the Company’s securities began trading on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (the “OTCBB”), an electronic quotation service maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, effective with the open of business on Tuesday, June 9, 2009. The Company’s trading symbol remains EMIS, however, it is our understanding that, for certain stock quote publication websites, investors may be required to key EMIS.OB to obtain quotes.

 

2


Table of Contents

The Eligen ® Technology

The Eligen ® Technology is a broadly applicable proprietary oral drug delivery technology based on the use of proprietary synthetic chemical compounds known as EMISPHERE ® delivery agents, or carriers. These delivery agents facilitate and enable the transport of therapeutic macromolecules (such as proteins, peptides, and polysaccharides) and poorly absorbed small molecules across biological membranes. The Eligen ® Technology not only facilitates absorption, but it acts rapidly in the upper sections of the GI where absorption is thought to occur. With the Eligen ® Technology, most of the molecules reach the general circulation in less than an hour post-dose. Rapid absorption can limit enzymatic degradation that typically affects macromolecules or can be advantageous in cases where time to onset of action is important (i.e. analgesics). Another characteristic that distinguishes Eligen ® from the competition is absorption takes place through a transcellular, not paracellular, pathway. This underscores the safety of Eligen ® as the passage of the Eligen ® carrier and the molecule preserve the integrity of the tight junctions within the cell and reduces any likelihood of inflammatory processes and autoimmune gastrointestinal diseases. Furthermore, Eligen ® Technology carriers are rapidly absorbed, distributed, metabolized and eliminated from the body, they do not accumulate in the organs and tissues and they are considered safe at anticipated doses and dosing regimens.

Results from two clinical studies published by F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd illustrate important safety characteristics of Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology. These studies were performed with novel oral ibandronate formulations using Emisphere’s SNAC carrier, an Eligen ® Technology compound. The first study (J Drug Del Technol 2011; 21: 521-5) showed that SNAC needs to be co-formulated with ibandronate and not simply co-dosed in order to increase ibandronate bioavailability. The second study (Arnzelmittelforschung 2011; 61:707-13) demonstrated that co-dosing of a SNAC/ibandronate formulation with metformin, a drug widely used in Type 2 Diabetes patients, did not influence the absorption of metformin. Together, these studies support the hypothesis that Eligen ® Technology facilitates oral absorption only when co-formulated with the intended active ingredient, and that co-dosing with other ingredients should not result in accidental or incidental absorption of unintended ingredients.

Another important safety characteristic of the Eligen ® Technology was recently demonstrated by the results of three clinical safety studies conducted by Novartis International AG with the former osteoporosis and osteoarthritis treatment candidate SMC021. SMC021 used Emisphere’s permeation enhancer 5-CNAC, an Eligen ® Technology compound, in combination with salmon calcitonin (“SCT”). These studies addressed the potential for SMC021 drug interaction with several widely used drugs and found, in each case, no evidence to indicate a safety concern for drug interaction. Scientific posters describing the results of these clinical studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics on March 17 2012. The first study (The effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SMC021 in healthy volunteers. Choi L et al.) concluded that pre-treatment with the proton pump inhibitor, esomeprazole, decreased SCT exposure by approximately 30%, without impacting the pharmacodynamic response to SCT. The second study (Pharmacokinetic interaction assessment between SMC021 and ibuprofen and between SMC021 and acetaminophen. Choi L et al.) concluded that ibuprofen and acetaminophen did not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of SMC021 when used jointly with either of these analgesics. The third study (Pharmacokinetic interaction assessment between SMC021 and rosiglitazone. Choi L et al.) concluded that SMC021 did not inhibit the drug metabolizing enzyme CYP2C8 when SMC021 and rosiglitazone, a type II diabetes drug metabolized by CYP2C8, were administered together at expected clinical doses. Together, these studies support the hypothesis that Eligen ® Technology does not pose a safety risk for drug interaction.

The Eligen ® Technology was extensively reevaluated in 2007 by our scientists, senior management and expert consultants. Based on this analysis, we believe that our technology can enhance overall healthcare, including patient accessibility and compliance, while benefiting the commercial pharmaceutical marketplace and driving company valuation. The application of the Eligen ® Technology is potentially broad and may provide for a number of opportunities across a spectrum of therapeutic modalities.

Implementing the Eligen ® Technology is quite simple. It requires co-mixing a drug or nutritional supplement and an Eligen ® carrier to produce an effective formulation. The carrier does not alter the chemical properties of the drug nor its biological activity. Some therapeutic molecules are better suited for use with the

 

3


Table of Contents

Eligen ® Technology than others. Drugs or nutritional supplements whose bioavailability is limited by poor membrane permeability or chemical or biological degradation, and which have a moderate-to-wide therapeutic index, appear to be the best candidates. Drugs with a narrow therapeutic window or high molecular weight may not be favorable with the technology.

We believe that our Eligen ® Technology makes it possible to safely deliver a therapeutic macromolecule orally or increase the absorption of a poorly absorbed small molecule without altering its chemical composition or compromising the integrity of biological membranes. We believe that the key benefit of our Eligen ® Technology is that it improves the ability of the body to absorb small and large molecules.

Emisphere Today

Since our inception in 1986, substantial efforts and resources have been devoted to understanding the Eligen ® Technology and establishing a product development pipeline that incorporated this technology with selected molecules. Our core business strategy had been to develop oral forms of drugs or nutrients that are not currently available or have poor bioavailability in oral form, by applying the Eligen ® Technology to those drugs or nutrients, and to commercialize the Company’s Oral Eligen ® B12 Product. During September 2012, the Company took two important steps to improve its strategic position: it hired Mr. Alan L. Rubino as President and Chief Executive Officer, and appointed Mr. Timothy G. Rothwell as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Rubino and Mr. Rothwell are seasoned industry executives with major and emerging pharmaceutical company experiences who form the core of a new leadership team that will implement the Company’s strategic goals. After evaluating the Company’s operations and strategy, the leadership team determined the Company should refocus its corporate strategy to reemphasize the commercialization of Oral Eligen ® B12, build new high-value partnerships, evaluate new prescription Medical Foods commercial opportunities, reprioritize the product pipeline, and promote new uses for the Eligen ® Technology. In furtherance of this new strategic direction, spending was redirected and aggressive cost control initiatives were implemented. To accelerate the commercialization of B12 and evaluate new prescription Medical Foods opportunities and other prescription products under development, the Company hired Mr. Carl V. Sailer to head its commercial efforts. Mr. Sailer has extensive experience in pharmaceuticals products marketing and supply chain management. He has a proven track record of launching new and enhancing financial performance of existing pharmaceutical products by implementing progressive marketing and distribution commercial models. These actions support the Company’s decision to reposition Emisphere into a viable commercial-stage entity, anchored by the Eligen ® Oral B12 product. As it transitions to this strategy, the Company remains dedicated to further realizing the full potential and commercial value of its platform Eligen ® Technology. To that end, our new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer have sought to expand opportunities with existing partners and will continue to work to expand and explore new efforts to attract new delivery system, product development, and licensing partnerships. Furthermore, the Company engaged the consulting services of Dr. Carlos de Lecea, M.D., Ph.D., to expand its business development efforts globally. Dr. de Lecea has over 20 years experience in business development including in and out licensing pharmaceuticals products and delivery technologies in global markets. Dr. de Lecea will also work with Mr. Rubino to expand the application of the Eligen ® Technology by taking advantage of its suitability to facilitate oral absorption of emerging peptides and biologics products that are typically only available as injectibles or are currently under development. We believe that these products represent tremendous promise for realizing improvements in healthcare and growth in the industry, and that the Eligen ® Technology is well suited to deliver many of these molecules safely and efficiently.

As a result of our recent steps to refocus and prioritize our commercial opportunities, and promising trends in the industry that should provide new growth opportunities, we believe that Emisphere’s new business strategy will present opportunities for growth and value creation for the Company and its shareholders. We recognize, however, that further development, exploration and commercialization of our technology entails substantial risk and requires significant operational expenses. We continue to refocus our efforts on strategic development initiatives to reduce non-strategic spending aggressively, and seek to obtain the funding necessary to implement our new corporate strategy. There can be no assurances, however, that the Company will be able to secure adequate funding to meet its current obligations and successfully pursue its strategic direction. Furthermore, despite our optimism regarding the Eligen ® Technology, even in the event that the Company is adequately

 

4


Table of Contents

funded, there is no guarantee that any of our products or product candidates will perform as hoped or that such products can be successfully commercialized. For further discussion, see part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors.”

We have limited capital resources and operations to date have been funded with the proceeds from collaborative research agreements, public and private equity and debt financings and income earned on investments. As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes (described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report) issued to MHR Fund Management LLC (together with its affiliates, “MHR”). The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. Pursuant to that certain Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2005, between the Company and MHR (as amended to date, the “Security Agreement”), the MHR Convertible Notes are secured by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, as a result of the payment default described above, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012.

The Company continues to be in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and, as a result of such default, MHR has the ability at any time to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets under the terms of the Security Agreement. To date, MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes or exercised its rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the default while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and Security Agreement. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is also in default under the terms of certain non-interest bearing promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $600,000 issued to MHR on June 8, 2010 (the “2010 MHR Notes”). The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 8, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010 MHR Notes, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the 2010 MHR Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As more specifically described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report, on October 17, 2012, the Company issued a promissory note (the “Bridge Note”) to MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, and MHR Capital Partners (100) LP (collectively, the “Bridge Lender”) in the principal amount of $1,400,000 to be advanced by the Bridge Lender to the Company pursuant to the terms thereof (the “Bridge Loan”). That amount was sufficient to support operations of the Company through approximately December 15, 2012. The Bridge Note is secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets. The Bridge Note is payable on demand. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the Bridge Note, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the repayment of the Bridge Note. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As of December 31, 2012, the aggregate book value of MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, and the Bridge Note including outstanding principal and interest was $33.6 million.

In December 2012, the Company received approximately $1.5 million by participating in the Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. As such, we anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity.

 

5


Table of Contents

Further, we do not have sufficient resources to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, these conditions may increase the cost to raise capital. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue partnering opportunities, we cannot be sure that our plans will be successful. If the Company fails to raise additional capital or obtain substantial cash inflows from existing or new partners prior to April 15, 2013, or if MHR demands payment under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes or the Bridge Note, or exercises its rights under the Security Agreement, the Company could be forced to cease operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 include an explanatory paragraph expressing the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The Company is pursuing several courses of action to address its deficiency in capital resources including discussions with MHR, commercialization of B12, leveraging existing partnerships, and capital markets financings.

Overall Product Pipeline

Emisphere’s product pipeline includes prescription drugs and medical food product candidates in varying stages of development. We have one prescription product in Phase I and a number of pre-clinical (research stage) projects. Some of the pre-clinical projects are partnered, while others are being pursued internally. We continue to assess therapeutic molecules for their potential compatibility with our technology and market need. Our intent is to continue to expand our pipeline with product candidates that demonstrate significant opportunities for growth. Our focus is on molecules that meet the criteria for success based on our increased understanding of our Eligen ® Technology. Depending on the molecule, market potential and interest, we intend to pursue potential product development opportunities through development alliances or internal development.

Vitamin B12

The Company has developed an oral formulation of Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) which can be marketed as a medical food for use by B12 deficient individuals. During the fourth quarter 2010, the Company completed a clinical trial which demonstrated that both oral Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) and injectable B12 (current standard of care) can efficiently and quickly restore normal Vitamin B12 levels in deficient individuals. The manuscript summarizing the results from that clinical trial has been published in the July 2011 edition of the journal Clinical Therapeutics (Volume 33, pages 934 — 945). We also conducted market research to help assess the potential commercial opportunity for our potential Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) product. On August 5, 2011, we received notice from the United States Patent Office that the U.S. patent application directed to the oral Eligen ® B12 formulation (US Patent 8,022,048) was allowed. This new patent provides intellectual property protection for Eligen ® B12 through approximately October 2029. Currently, we are evaluating the results of our clinical trials and market research and exploring alternative development and commercialization options with the purpose of maximizing the commercial and health benefits potential of our Eligen ® B12 asset.

Vitamin B12 is an important nutrient that is poorly absorbed in the oral form. In most healthy people, Vitamin B12 is absorbed in a receptor-mediated pathway in the presence of an intrinsic factor. A large number of people take B12 supplements by the oral route, many in megadoses, and by injection. Currently, it is estimated that at least five million people in the U.S. are taking 40 million injections of Vitamin B12 per year to treat a variety of debilitating medical conditions. Another estimated five million people are consuming more than 600 million tablets of Vitamin B12 orally. The international market is larger than the U.S. market. Many B12 deficient patients suffer from pernicious anemia and neurological disorders and many of them are infirm or elderly. Vitamin B12 deficiency can cause severe and irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. At levels only slightly lower than normal, a variety of symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and poor memory may be experienced.

 

6


Table of Contents

The data from our first pharmacokinetic study of our new Vitamin B12 formulation showed mean Vitamin B12 peak blood levels were more than 10 times higher for the Eligen ® B12 5mg formulation than for the 5mg commercial formulation. The mean time to reach peak concentration (T max ) was reduced by over 90%, to 0.5 hours for the Eligen ® B12 5mg from 6.8 hours for the commercial 5mg product. Improvement in bioavailability was approximately 240%, with absorption time at 30 minutes and a mean bioavailability of 5%. The study was conducted with a single administration of Eligen ® B12. There were no adverse reactions, and Eligen ® B12 was well-tolerated.

In May 2009, the Company was informed by an independent expert panel of scientists that its SNAC carrier had been provisionally designated as GRAS for its intended application in combination with nutrients added to food and dietary supplements. Following a comprehensive evaluation of research and toxicology data, Emisphere’s SNAC was found to be safe at a dosage up to 250 mg per day when used in combination with nutrients to improve their dietary availability. In July 2009, concurrent with the publication of two papers in the July/August issue of the peer reviewed journal, International Journal of Toxicology , which describes the toxicology of its SNAC carrier, SNAC achieved GRAS status for its intended use in combination with nutrients added to food and dietary supplements. The publication of those two papers in the International Journal of Toxicology was the final, necessary step in the process of obtaining GRAS status for its SNAC carrier. Since SNAC achieved GRAS status, it is exempt from pre-market approval for its intended use in combination with nutrients added to food and dietary supplements. This opens the way for the potential commercialization of the Eligen ® Technology with other substances such as vitamins.

We have obtained patents for the carrier we are using in the oral B12 formulation, the oral Eligen ® B12 formulation (as described above), and have filed applications covering the combination of the carrier and many other compounds.

Phase I Programs

Emisphere has one product in Phase I and a number of pre-clinical (research stage) projects. Some of the pre-clinical projects are partnered and others were initiated by the Company.

For the treatment of diabetes, research using the Eligen ® Technology and GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1), a potential treatment for Type 2 diabetes, is being conducted by Novo Nordisk. GLP-1 is a natural hormone involved in controlling blood sugar levels. It stimulates the release of insulin only when blood sugar levels become too high. GLP-1 secretion is often impaired in people with Type 2 diabetes. Emisphere had previously conducted extensive tests on native insulin and native GLP-1which demonstrated that both macromolecules can be effectively delivered using the Eligen ® Technology. With the progress that has been made in the development of second generation proteins, we concluded that a more productive pathway is to move forward with GLP-1 analogs, an oral form of which might be used to treat Type 2 diabetes and related conditions. Our research indicated that the development of oral formulations of Novo Nordisk proprietary GLP-1 receptor agonists may represent an opportunity for Emisphere. Consequently, on June 21, 2008 we entered into an exclusive Development and License Agreement with Novo Nordisk focused on the development of oral formulations of Novo Nordisk’s proprietary GLP-1 receptor agonists (the “GLP-1 License Agreement”). Under the GLP-1 License Agreement, Emisphere could receive more than $87 million in contingent product development and sales milestone payments including a $10 million non-refundable license fee which was received during June 2008. Emisphere would also be entitled to receive royalties in the event Novo Nordisk commercializes products developed under the GLP-1 License Agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Novo Nordisk is responsible for the development and commercialization of the products. Initially, Novo Nordisk is focusing on the development of oral formulations of its proprietary GLP-1 receptor agonists.

During January 2010, we announced that Novo Nordisk had initiated its first Phase I clinical trial with a long-acting oral GLP-1 analog (NN9924). This milestone released a $2 million payment to Emisphere, whose proprietary Eligen ® Technology is used in the formulation of NN9924. There are many challenges in developing an oral formulation of GLP-1, in particular obtaining adequate bioavailability. NN9924 addresses some of these key challenges by utilizing Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology to facilitate absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. The first Phase I Trial investigated the safety, tolerability and bioavailability of NN9924 in healthy volunteers. The trial

 

7


Table of Contents

enrolled 155 individuals and was completed in May 2010. Novo Nordisk also conducted a multiple-dose Phase I trial. This multiple-dose trial investigated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of NN9924 in healthy male subjects. The trial enrolled 96 individuals and was completed in July 2011.

In its annual report for 2012, Novo Nordisk reported that it is continuing to explore oral formulations in Phase 1 studies.

Preclinical Programs

Our other product candidates in development are in earlier or preclinical research phases, and we continue to assess them for their compatibility with our technology and market need. Some of these pre-clinical projects are partnered and others were initiated and by being pursued internally by the Company. Our intent is to seek partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for certain of these products as we continue to expand our pipeline with product candidates that demonstrate significant opportunities for growth. Our focus is on molecules that meet the criteria for success based on our increased understanding of our Eligen ® Technology. Our preclinical programs focus on the development of oral formulations of potentially new treatments for diabetes and products in the areas of cardiovascular, appetite suppression and pain and on the development and potential expansion of nutritional supplement products.

Business Financing

Since our inception in 1986, we have generated significant losses from operations and we anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future.

As of December 31, 2012, our accumulated deficit was approximately $467.8 million. Our loss from operations was $6.8 million, $8.1 million and $11.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Our net loss was $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, and our net income was $15.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 and our net loss was $56.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. Our net cash outlays from operations and capital expenditures were $3.0 million, $9.7 million and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Net cash outlays include receipts of deferred revenue of $0.02 million, $0.06 million, and $7.1 million for 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Our stockholders’ deficit was $66.1 million and $64.5 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

We have limited capital resources and operations to date have been funded with the proceeds from collaborative research agreements, public and private equity and debt financings and income earned on investments. As described above, as of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes (described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report) issued to MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. Pursuant to the Security Agreement, the MHR Convertible Notes are secured by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, as a result of the payment default described above, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012.

The Company continues to be in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and, as a result of such default, MHR has the ability at any time to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets under the terms of the Security Agreement. To date, MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes or exercised its rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the default while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and Security Agreement. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is also in default under the terms of certain non-interest bearing promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $600,000 issued to MHR on June 8, 2010 (the “2010 MHR Notes”). The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 8, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to

 

8


Table of Contents

pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010 MHR Notes, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the 2010 MHR Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As more specifically described above and in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report, on October 17, 2012, the Company issued the Bridge Note to the Bridge Lender in the principal amount of $1,400,000, which Note evidenced the Bridge Loan. That amount was sufficient to support operations through approximately December 15, 2012. The Bridge Note is secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets and is payable on demand.

As of December 31, 2012, the aggregate book value of MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, and the Bridge Note including outstanding principal and interest was $33.6 million.

In December 2012, the Company received $1.5 million by participating in the Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. As such, we anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity.

Further, we do not have sufficient resources to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, these conditions may increase the cost to raise capital. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue partnering opportunities, we cannot be sure that our plans will be successful. If the Company fails to raise additional capital or obtain substantial cash inflows from existing or new partners prior to April 15, 2013, or if MHR demands payment under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes or the Bridge Note, or exercises its rights under the Security Agreement, the Company could be forced to cease operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 include an explanatory paragraph expressing the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The Company is pursuing several courses of action to address its deficiency in capital resources including discussions with MHR, commercialization of B12, leveraging existing partnerships, and capital markets financings.

Even in the event that we are successful in raising additional capital to continue operations, our business will still require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. Further, we will not have sufficient resources to fully develop new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure you that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. For further discussion, see Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors.”

Overview of Drug Delivery Industry

The drug delivery industry develops technologies for the improved administration of therapeutic molecules with the goal of expanding markets for existing products and extending drug franchises. Drug delivery companies also seek to develop products on their own that would be patent-protected by applying proprietary technologies to off-patent pharmaceutical products. Primarily, drug delivery technologies are focused on improving safety, efficacy, ease of patient use and/or patient compliance. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies consider improved drug delivery as a means of gaining competitive advantage over their peers.

Therapeutic macromolecules, of which proteins are the largest sub-class, are prime targets for the drug delivery industry for a number of reasons. Most therapeutic macromolecules must currently be administered by

 

9


Table of Contents

injection (most common) or other device such as an inhaler or nasal spray system. Many of these compounds address large markets for which there is an established medical need. These drugs are widely used, as physicians are familiar with them and accustomed to prescribing them. Therapeutic macromolecules could be significantly enhanced through alternative delivery. These medicines are comprised of proteins and other large or highly charged molecules (carbohydrates, peptides, ribonucleic acids) that, if orally administered using traditional oral delivery methods, would degrade in the stomach or intestine before they are absorbed into the bloodstream. Also, these molecules are typically not absorbed following oral administration due to their poor permeability. Therefore, the vast majority are administered parenterally. However, for many reasons, parenteral administration is undesirable, including patient discomfort, inconvenience and risk of infection. Poor patient acceptance of parenteral therapies can lead to medical complications. In addition, parenteral therapies can often require incremental costs associated with administration in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

Previously published research indicates that patient acceptance of and adherence to a dosing regimen is higher for orally delivered medications than it is for non-orally delivered medications. Our business strategy is partly based upon our belief that the development of an efficient and safe oral delivery system for therapeutic macromolecules represents a significant commercial opportunity. We believe that more patients will take orally delivered drugs more often, spurring market expansion.

Leading Current Approaches to Drug Delivery

Transdermal (via the skin) and “Needleless” Injection

The size of most macromolecules makes penetration into or through the skin inefficient or ineffective. Some peptides and proteins can be transported across the skin barrier into the bloodstream using high-pressure “needleless” injection devices. Needleless devices, which inject proteins through the skin into the body, have been in development for many years. We believe these devices have not been well accepted due to patient discomfort, relatively high cost, and the inconvenience of placing the drugs into the device.

Nasal (via the nose)

The nasal route (through the membranes of the nasal passage) of drug administration has been limited by low and variable bioavailability for proteins and peptides. As a result, penetration enhancers often are used with nasal delivery to increase bioavailability. These enhancers may cause local irritation to the nasal tissue and may result in safety concerns with long-term use. A limited number of peptides delivered nasally have been approved for marketing in the U.S., including MIACALCIN ® , developed by Novartis as an osteoporosis therapy, a therapeutic area we have targeted.

Pulmonary (via the lung)

Pulmonary delivery (through the membranes of the lungs) of drugs is emerging as a delivery route for large molecules. Although local delivery of respiratory drugs to the lungs is common, the systemic delivery (i.e., delivery of the drugs to the peripheral vasculature) of macromolecular drugs is less common because it requires new formulations and delivery technologies to achieve efficient, safe and reproducible dosing. Only one protein using pulmonary delivery has been approved for marketing in the U.S., which is EXUBERA ® , an insulin product developed by Pfizer and Nektar, as a diabetes therapy, a therapeutic area we have targeted. However after market acceptance of EXUBERA ® was demonstrated to be limited, Pfizer withdrew from further commercialization of, and terminated its license with Nektar for, EXUBERA ® .

Intraoral (via the membranes in the mouth)

Intraoral delivery is also emerging as a delivery route for large molecules. Buccal delivery (through the membrane of the cheek) and sublingual delivery (through the membrane under the tongue) are forms of intraoral delivery. Some Vitamin B12 manufacturers sell and distribute sublingual versions of their product.

Oral (via the mouth)

We believe that the oral method of administration is the most patient-friendly option, in that it offers convenience, is a familiar method of administration that enables increased compliance and, for some therapies,

 

10


Table of Contents

may be considered the most physiologically appropriate. We, and other drug delivery and pharmaceutical companies, have developed or are developing technologies for oral delivery of drugs. We believe that our Eligen ® Technology provides an important competitive advantage in the oral route of administration because it does not alter the chemical composition of the therapeutic macromolecules. We have conducted over 140,000 human dosings and have witnessed no serious adverse events that can be attributed to the EMISPHERE ® delivery agents dosed or the mechanism of action of the Eligen ® Technology.

In general, we believe that oral administration will be preferred to other methods of administration. However, such preference may be offset by possible negative attributes of orally administered drugs such as the quantity or frequency of the dosage, the physical size of the capsule or tablet being swallowed or the taste. For example, in our previous Phase III trial with heparin as an oral liquid formulation, patient compliance was hindered by patients’ distaste for the liquid being administered. In addition, patients and the marketplace will more likely respond favorably to improvements in absorption, efficacy, safety, or other attributes of therapeutic molecules. It is possible that greater convenience alone may not lead to success.

Collaborative Agreements

We are a party to certain collaborative agreements with corporate partners to provide development and commercialization services relating to the products under collaboration. These agreements are in the form of research and development collaborations and licensing agreements. Under these agreements, we have granted licenses or the rights to obtain licenses to our oral drug delivery technology. In return, we are entitled to receive certain payments upon the achievement of milestones and royalties on the sales of the products should a product ultimately be commercialized. We also are entitled to be reimbursed for certain research and development costs that we incur.

All of our collaborative agreements are subject to termination by our corporate partners, without significant financial penalty to them. Under the terms of these agreements, upon a termination we are entitled to reacquire all rights in our technology at no cost and are free to re-license the technology to other collaborative partners.

Novo Nordisk A/S

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Agreement

During June 2008, we entered into the GLP-1 License Agreement with Novo Nordisk, pursuant to which Novo Nordisk will develop and commercialize oral formulations of its proprietary GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with Emisphere carriers. Under the GLP-1 License Agreement, Emisphere could receive more than $87 million in contingent product development and sales milestone payments, including a $10 million non-refundable license fee which was received in June 2008. Emisphere would also be entitled to receive royalties in the event Novo Nordisk commercializes products developed under such Agreement. Under the GLP-1 License Agreement, Novo Nordisk is responsible for the development and commercialization of the products. See “Phase I Program” above for a description of the Phase I activity conducted in connection with the GLP-1 License Agreement, and certain payments made to Emisphere as a result threof.

In its annual report for 2012, Novo Nordisk reported that it is continuing to explore oral formulations in phase 1 studies.

Insulins License Agreement

During December 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Novo Nordisk to develop and commercialize oral formulations of Novo Nordisk’s insulins using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology (the “Insulins License Agreement”). The Insulins License Agreement includes $57.5 million in potential product development and sales milestone payments to Emisphere, of which $5 million was paid upon signing, as well as royalties on sales.

This extended partnership with Novo Nordisk has the potential to offer significant new solutions to millions of people with diabetes worldwide and it also serves to further validate our Eligen ® Technology.

 

11


Table of Contents

Novartis Pharma AG

Discontinued Oral Salmon Calcitonin Program for Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis

We have collaborated with Novartis in connection with the development and testing of oral formulations of salmon calcitonin (“sCT”) to treat osteoarthritis and osteoporosis (the “Salmon Calcitonin Program”). We entered into a Research Collaboration and Option Agreement, dated as of December 3, 1997, as amended on October 20, 2000 (the “Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement”) with Novartis to develop an oral form of sCT, which is a hormone that inhibits the bone-tissue resorbing activity of specialized bone cells called osteoclasts, enabling the bone to retain more of its mass and functionality. Pursuant to the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement, the Company granted Novartis the option to acquire from the Company a license to develop and commercialize oral sCT utilizing Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology and the right to commence research collaboration with the Company with respect to a second compound, in exchange for certain option exercise payments. Novartis also agreed to reimburse the Company with respect to certain research and development costs incurred by the Company in connection with the sCT Program. Furthermore, under the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement, the Company is obligated to help to manage this program through a joint “steering committee” with Novartis. The Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement expires upon the expiration of the last to expire of the patents of the Company described therein, subject to certain early termination rights, including termination by either party for material breach of the other party and termination by Novartis in favor of a license executed thereunder.

In February 2000, Novartis agreed to execute its option under the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement to acquire a license to develop and commercialize oral sCT and as a result, Novartis made a $2 million milestone payment to us. In March 2000, we entered into a License Agreement, dated as of March 8, 2000, with Novartis for the development of an oral sCT product for the treatment of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis (the “Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement”). Novartis paid us $2.5 million to obtain the license to our technology for sCT, and to obtain an option to use the Eligen ® Technology for a second compound. In addition, Novartis agreed to pay the Company certain milestone and royalty payments in the event that a calcitonin product was ultimately commercialized and to reimburse the Company for certain research and development costs incurred by the Company in connection with the sCT Program. The Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement expires upon the expiration of the last to expire of the patents of the Company described therein, subject to certain early termination rights, including termination by either party for material breach of the other party, and termination by Novartis on prior notice to us.

In February 2007, Novartis and its development partner Nordic Bioscience notified us of the initiation of a three year Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of osteoporosis (“OP”) with an oral form of salmon calcitonin (referred to as SMC021), a new drug candidate, using the Company’s Eligen ® Technology. The Phase III program was a three year trial with enrollment of over 4,500 patients, and explored the safety and efficacy of salmon calcitonin and Emisphere’s proprietary Eligen ® Technology in the treatment of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women aged 60-80 with osteoporosis. It was conducted in North and South America, Europe and Asia.

In May 2007, Novartis and Nordic Bioscience notified the Company that they were initiating a Phase III clinical study of SMC021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis (“OA”) using the Company’s Eligen ® Technology. A second Phase III study of SMC021 for the treatment of OA, designed to meet FDA requirements for U.S. registration, was initiated by Novartis and Nordic Bioscience in October 2008.

On December 1, 2004, we issued a $10 million convertible note (the “Novartis Note”) to Novartis in connection with a research collaboration option relating to the development of PTH-1-34. The Novartis Note was originally due December 1, 2009, which date was subsequently extended to June 2010. On June 4, 2010, the Company and Novartis entered into a Master Agreement and Amendment (the “Novartis Agreement”). Pursuant to the Novartis Agreement, the Company was released and discharged from its obligations under the Novartis Note in exchange for: (i) the reduction of future royalty and milestone payments up to an aggregate amount of $11.0 million due the Company under the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement and the Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement; (ii) the right for Novartis to evaluate the feasibility of using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology with two new compounds to assess the potential for new product development opportunities; and (iii) other amendments to the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement and Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement. As of the date of the Novartis Agreement, the outstanding principal balance and accrued interest of the Novartis

 

12


Table of Contents

Note was approximately $13.0 million. The Company recognized the full value of the debt released as consideration for the transfer of the rights and other intangibles to Novartis and deferred the related revenue in accordance with applicable accounting guidance for the sale of rights to future revenue until the earnings process has been completed based on achievement of certain milestones or other deliverables.

On December 14, 2011, the Company announced that Novartis had informed the Company that it will not pursue further clinical development of the investigational drug SMC021 (oral calcitonin) as a treatment option in osteoarthritis and for post-menopausal osteoporosis and that it will not seek regulatory submission for SMC021 in either indication. Novartis advised the Company that its decision to stop the clinical program of SMC021 in both indications was based on analysis and evaluation of data from three Phase III clinical trials (two in osteoarthritis and one in osteoporosis) conducted by Nordic Bioscience showed that SMC021 failed to meet key efficacy endpoints in all three trials, despite displaying a favorable safety profile.

The potential aggregate milestones payable to the Company under the Salmon Calcitonin Program originally involved in excess of $14 million. To date, we have received approximately $12.4 million in payments from Novartis under the Salmon Calcitonin Program and in light of Novartis’ decision not to pursue further clinical development or regulatory approval, we do not anticipate further payments. Under the terms of the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement and Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement, we were entitled to receive future royalties based on sales, in the event that an sCT product would be ultimately commercialized by Novartis. In light of Novartis’ decision, we do not anticipate receiving any royalties in the future.

Although Novartis has not informed Emisphere of its intention to terminate the Salmon Calcitonin Option Agreement and the Salmon Calcitonin License Agreement, in the likely event that Novartis determines to terminate these agreements, we will reacquire the rights to our technology licensed to Novartis thereunder.

Oral PTH-1-34 Program

We have collaborated with Novartis in connection with the development and testing of oral formulations of PTH-1-34 (“PTH”) to treat osteoarthritis and osteoporosis (the “PTH Program”). On December 1, 2004, we entered into a Research Collaboration Option and License Agreement with Novartis whereby Novartis obtained an option to license our existing technology to develop oral forms of PTH 1-34 (the “PTH Option Agreement”). On March 7, 2006, Novartis exercised its option to the license. PTH is produced by the parathyroid glands to regulate the amount of calcium and phosphorus in the body. Recombinant PTH, currently approved for the treatment of osteoporosis, is available only by injection. When used therapeutically, it increases bone density and bone strength to help prevent fractures. It is approved to treat osteoporosis, a disease associated with a gradual thinning and weakening of the bones that occurs most frequently in women after menopause. Untreated postmenopausal osteoporosis can lead to chronic back pain, disabling fractures, and lost mobility. During April 2010, we announced that Novartis initiated a second Phase I trial for an oral PTH-1-34 which uses Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology, and was in development for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. On June 17, 2011, the Company announced that Novartis informed Emisphere of the results of its recently completed Proof of Concept study for an oral PTH1-34 using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Novartis informed Emisphere that, although the study confirmed that oral PTH1-34 was both safe and well-tolerated, several clinical endpoints were not met. Based on the data analyzed, Novartis has terminated the study and anticipates no further work on the oral formulation of PTH1-34. The Company has requested additional information from Novartis in order to further analyze and evaluate the results of this trial. Although Novartis has not informed Emisphere of its intention to terminate the PTH Option Agreement in accordance with relevant terms thereunder, Emisphere would reacquire the rights to develop and/or commercialize the product should Novartis so terminate the Agreement.

Previously, Novartis had conducted a Phase I study in postmenopausal women to determine the safety and tolerability of oral PTH-1-34, a combination of human PTH-1-34 and Emisphere’s delivery agent 5-CNAC (“5-CNAC”), for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The study was designed to assess the bioavailability profile of increasing doses of PTH-1-34 combined with different amounts of 5-CNAC administered orally. The results from the single-center, partially-blinded, incomplete cross-over study were presented October 19, 2009 in a poster session at the 73rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology in Philadelphia,

 

13


Table of Contents

PA. The results demonstrated that a single dose of the novel oral parathyroid hormone PTH-1-34, which utilizes Emisphere’s proprietary Eligen ® drug delivery technology and absorption-enhancing carrier molecule 5-CNAC, achieved potentially therapeutically relevant exposure and safety profiles similar to those of the currently available injectable formulation in healthy postmenopausal women.

The potential aggregate sales and development milestones that might have become payable to the Company under the PTH Program originally involved in excess of $25 million. Furthermore, Emisphere would have been entitled to receive future royalties based on sales, in the event that a PTH product would be ultimately commercialized by Novartis. However, in light of Novartis’ decision not to pursue further clinical development; we do not anticipate further payments in connection with the achievement of future sales royalties or sales or development milestones. In the likely event that Novartis determines to terminate the PTH Option Agreement, we will reacquire the rights to our technology licensed to Novartis thereunder.

Terminated Oral Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Program

From 1998 through August 2003, we developed oral rhGH in collaboration with Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”). As of August 2003, Lilly returned to us all rights to the oral rhGH program pursuant to the terms of our license agreement. On September 23, 2004, we announced a new partnership with Novartis to develop our oral rhGH program (the “Oral HGH Program”). We entered into a Research and Collaboration Agreement with Novartis, dated September 22, 2004, whereby Novartis licensed the right to develop a convenient oral human growth hormone product using the Eligen ® Technology (the “Oral HGH Agreement”). Under this agreement, Novartis had an exclusive worldwide license to develop, make, have made, use and sell products developed under this program. On May 1, 2006, we announced that Novartis initiated the development of an oral rhGH product using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology.

On August 3, 2011, the Company received notification from Novartis that Novartis terminated the Oral HGH Agreement. In connection with this termination, Emisphere has reacquired the rights to develop and/or commercialize the product. Emisphere has requested that Novartis provide the data generated from the collaboration that would be necessary for the Company to continue to develop and commercialize an oral human growth hormone product using the Eligen ® Technology. The Company has not incurred any penalties in connection with the termination of the Oral HGH Agreement.

To date, we have received $6 million in non-refundable payments from Novartis under the Oral HGH Program, including the $5 million milestone payment received in 2006. Under the Oral HGH Agreement, Emisphere might have received up to $28 million in additional development milestones that might have become payable to the Company under the Oral HGH Program. Furthermore, Emisphere would have been entitled to receive future royalties based on sales, in the event that an oral rhGH product had been ultimately commercialized by Novartis. However, in light of Novartis’ decision to terminate the Oral HGH Agreement, we do not anticipate further payments in connection with the achievement of future sales royalties or sales or development milestones. In connection with Novartis’ termination of the Oral HGH Agreement, Emisphere reacquired the rights to our technology licensed to Novartis thereunder.

Research and Development Costs

We have devoted substantially all of our efforts and resources to research and development conducted on our own behalf (self-funded) and in collaborations with corporate partners (partnered). Generally, research and development expenditures are allocated to specific research projects. Due to various uncertainties and risks, including those described in Part 1, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” below, relating to the progress of our product candidates through development stages, clinical trials, regulatory approval, commercialization and market acceptance, it is not possible to accurately predict future spending or time to completion by project or project category.

 

14


Table of Contents

The following table summarizes research and development spending to date by project category:

 

     Year Ended December 31,      Cumulative
Spending

2012(1)
 
     2012      2011      2010     
     (In thousands)  

Research(2)

   $ 81       $ 90       $ 50       $ 52,139   

Feasibility projects

           

Self-funded

     679         467         1,642         13,832   

Partnered

     17         39         34         4,314   

Development projects

           

Oral heparin (self-funded)

     1         117         37         99,592   

Oral insulin (self-funded)

     4         1                 21,292   

Partnered

                             12,157   

Other(3)

     1,085         1,237         732         107,009   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total all projects

   $ 1,867       $ 1,951       $ 2,495       $ 310,335   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Cumulative spending from August 1, 1995 through December 31, 2012.

 

(2) Research is classified as resources expended to expand the ability to create new carriers, to ascertain the mechanisms of action of carriers, and to establish computer based modeling capabilities, prototype formulations, animal models, and in vitro testing capabilities.

 

(3) Other includes indirect costs such as rent, utilities, training, standard supplies and management salaries and benefits.

Patents and Other Forms of Intellectual Property

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain patents, maintain trade secret protection, and operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others (please refer to Part I, Item 1A “ Risk Factors ” for further discussion of how our business will suffer if we cannot adequately protect our patent and proprietary rights”). We seek patent protection on various aspects of our proprietary chemical and pharmaceutical delivery technologies, including the delivery agent compounds and the structures which encompass Emisphere’s delivery agents, their method of preparation, the combination of our compounds with a pharmaceutical, and use of our compounds with therapeutic molecules to treat various disease states. We have patents and patent applications in the U.S. and certain foreign countries. As of March 1, 2013, Emisphere had been granted more than 110 U.S. patents and more than 200 foreign patents. Emisphere also has more than 50 pending U.S. patent applications as well as more than 200 counterpart applications pending in foreign countries.

We intend to file additional patent applications when appropriate and to aggressively prosecute, enforce, and defend our patents and other proprietary technology.

We have five trademarks granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. They include EMISPHERE ® , Elaprin ® (oral heparin), the Emisphere logo, Emigent ® and Eligen ® .

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, and continuing innovation in an effort to develop and maintain our competitive position. Patent law relating to the patentability and scope of claims in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields is evolving and our patent rights are subject to this additional uncertainty. Others may independently develop similar product candidates or technologies or, if patents are issued to us, design around any products or processes covered by our patents. We expect to continue, when appropriate, to file product and other patent applications with respect to our inventions. However, we may not file any such applications or, if filed, the patents may not be issued. Patents issued to or licensed by us may be infringed by the products or processes of others.

 

15


Table of Contents

Defense and enforcement of our intellectual property rights can be expensive and time consuming, even if the outcome is favorable to us. It is possible that the patents issued to or licensed to us will be successfully challenged, that a court may find that we are infringing validly issued patents of third parties, or that we may have to alter or discontinue the development of our products or pay licensing fees to take into account patent rights of third parties.

Manufacturing

The primary raw materials used in making the delivery agents for our product candidates are readily available in large quantities from multiple sources. In the past we manufactured delivery agents internally using our own facilities on a small scale for research purposes and for early stage clinical supplies. We believe that our manufacturing capabilities complied with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”).

Currently, EMISPHERE ® delivery agents are manufactured by third parties in accordance with GMP regulations. We have identified other commercial manufacturers meeting the FDA’s GMP regulations that have the capability of producing EMISPHERE ® delivery agents and we do not rely on any particular manufacturer to supply us with needed quantities.

During April 2009, we announced a strategic alliance with AAIPharma, Inc. intended to expand the application of Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology and AAIPharma’s drug development services. AAIPharma is a global provider of pharmaceutical product development services that enhance the therapeutic performance of its clients’ drugs. AAIPharma works with many pharmaceutical and biotech companies and currently provides drug product formulation development services to Emisphere. This relationship expands our access to new therapeutic candidates for the Eligen ® Technology, which potentially could lead to new products and to new alliance agreements as well.

Competition

Our success depends in part upon maintaining a competitive position in the development of product candidates and technologies in an evolving field in which developments are expected to continue at a rapid pace. We compete with other drug delivery, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, individual scientists and non-profit organizations engaged in the development of alternative drug delivery technologies or new drug research and testing, and with entities developing new drugs that may be orally active. Our product candidates compete against alternative therapies or alternative delivery systems for each of the medical conditions our product candidates address, independent of the means of delivery. Many of our competitors have substantially greater research and development capabilities, experience, marketing, financial and managerial resources than we have. In many cases we rely on our development partners to develop and market our product candidates.

Oral Diabetes Competition — Type 2 Diabetes

In diabetes, there are a number of unmet needs which amplify the need for further product development in the area. There are three main areas of drug therapy, oral anti-diabetes, insulin, and injectable in which companies are attempting to develop innovative products for the treatment of patients.

There are four leading classes for new product development in the area of diabetes. All four seek to take advantage of the potential to improve upon currently available products:

1.   GLP-1 Agonists

2.   Pulmonary Insulin

3.   DPP-IV Inhibitors

4.   PPAR modulators.

The objective of our collaboration with Novo Nordisk is to develop an orally available GLP-1 agonist for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes and potentially obesity. A product with the benefits of glucose control, promotion of weight loss, low risk of hypoglycemia, and other benefits is expected to significantly improve therapeutic options and can be expected to perform as well as or better than the existing competition.

 

16


Table of Contents

Oral Vitamin B12 Competition

Emisphere’s potential competition in the Vitamin B12 market will depend on the direction the company takes in the development and commercialization of the product. In the event that Emisphere pursues the nutritional supplements market, competition would include a number of companies selling generic Vitamin B12 in a variety of dosage strengths and methods of delivery (e.g., oral, transdermal, nasal, sublingual) many of which have substantial distribution and marketing capabilities that exceed and will likely continue to exceed our own. In addition, our competition is likely to include many sellers, distributors, and others who are in the business of marketing, selling, and promoting multiple vitamins, vitamin-mineral, and specialized vitamin combinations. Many of these competitors are engaged in low cost, high volume operations that could provide substantial market barriers or other obstacles for a higher cost, potentially superior product that has no prior market history.

If Emisphere pursues the Vitamin B12 medical food market, the Company would need to successfully demonstrate to physicians, nurse-practitioners and payors that an oral dose would be safe, efficacious, readily accessible and improve compliance. These factors will likely require the Company to engage in a substantial educational and promotional product launch and a marketing outreach initiative, the time, cost, and outcome of which are uncertain.

Competition Summary

Although we believe that our oral formulations, if successful, will likely compete with well established injectable versions of the same drugs, we believe that we will enjoy a competitive advantage because physicians and patients prefer orally delivered forms of products over injectable forms. Oral forms of products enable improved compliance, and for many programs, the oral form of products enable improved therapeutic regimens.

Government Regulation

Our operations and product candidates under development are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, other governmental authorities in the U.S. and governmental authorities in other countries.

The duration of the governmental approval process for marketing new pharmaceutical substances, from the commencement of pre-clinical testing to receipt of governmental approval for marketing a new product, varies with the nature of the product and with the country in which such approval is sought. The approval process for new chemical entities could take eight to ten years or more. The process for reformulations of existing drugs is typically shorter, although a combination of an existing drug with a currently unapproved carrier could require extensive testing. In either case, the procedures required to obtain governmental approval to market new drug products will be costly and time-consuming to us, requiring rigorous testing of the new drug product. Even after such time and effort, regulatory approval may not be obtained for our products.

The steps required before we can market or ship a new human pharmaceutical product commercially in the U.S. include pre-clinical testing, the filing of an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”), the conduct of clinical trials and the filing with the FDA of either a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for drugs or a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) for biologics.

In order to conduct the clinical investigations necessary to obtain regulatory approval of marketing of new drugs in the U.S., we must file an IND with the FDA to permit the shipment and use of the drug for investigational purposes. The IND sets forth, in part, the results of pre-clinical (laboratory and animal) toxicology testing and the applicant’s initial Phase I plans for clinical (human) testing. Unless notified that testing may not begin, the clinical testing may commence 30 days after filing an IND.

Under FDA regulations, the clinical testing program required for marketing approval of a new drug typically involves three clinical phases. In Phase I, safety studies are generally conducted on normal, healthy human volunteers to determine the maximum dosages and side effects associated with increasing doses of the substance being tested. Phase II studies are conducted on small groups of patients afflicted with a specific disease to gain preliminary evidence of efficacy, including the range of effective doses, and to determine common short-term side effects and risks associated with the substance being tested. Phase III involves large-scale trials conducted

 

17


Table of Contents

on disease-afflicted patients to provide statistically significant evidence of efficacy and safety and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Frequent reports are required in each phase and if unwarranted hazards to patients are found, the FDA may request modification or discontinuance of clinical testing until further studies have been conducted. Phase IV testing is sometimes conducted, either to meet FDA requirements for additional information as a condition of approval. Our drug product candidates are and will be subjected to each step of this lengthy process from conception to market and many of those candidates are still in the early phases of testing.

Once clinical testing has been completed pursuant to an IND, the applicant files an NDA or BLA with the FDA seeking approval for marketing the drug product. The FDA reviews the NDA or BLA to determine whether the drug is safe, effective, and adequately labeled, and whether the applicant can demonstrate proper and consistent manufacture of the drug. The time required for initial FDA action on an NDA or BLA is set on the basis of user fee goals; for most NDA or BLAs the action date is 10 months from receipt of the NDA or BLA at the FDA. The initial FDA action at the end of the review period may be approval or a request for additional information that will be needed for approval depending on the characteristics of the drug and whether the FDA has concerns with the evidence submitted. Once our product candidates reach this stage, we will be subjected to these additional costs of time and money.

The FDA has different regulations and processes governing and regulating food products, including vitamin supplements and nutraceuticals. These products are variously referred to as “dietary supplements”, “food additives”, “dietary ingredients”, “medical foods”, and, most broadly, “food”. These foods products do not require the IND, NDA or BLA process outlined above.

The facilities of each company involved in the commercial manufacturing, processing, testing, control and labeling of pharmaceutical products must be registered with and approved by the FDA. Continued registration requires compliance with GMP regulations and the FDA conducts periodic establishment inspections to confirm continued compliance with its regulations. We are subject to various federal, state and local laws, regulations and recommendations relating to such matters as laboratory and manufacturing practices and the use, handling and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used in connection with our research and development work.

While we do not currently manufacture any commercial products ourselves, if we did, we would bear additional cost of FDA compliance.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, we had 12 employees, 6 of whom are engaged in scientific research and technical functions and 6 of whom are performing accounting, information technology, engineering, facilities maintenance, legal and regulatory and administrative functions. Of the 6 scientific employees, 3 hold Ph.D. and/or D.V.M. degrees. We believe our relations with our employees are good.

Available Information

Emisphere files annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including Emisphere, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that Emisphere files with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

We also make available free of charge on or through our internet website (www.emisphere.com) our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Section 16 filings, and, if applicable, amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or Section 16 of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we or the reporting person electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Our internet website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into the Annual Report or this Form 10-K.

 

18


Table of Contents

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which is posted on our website at http://ir.emisphere.com/documentdisplay.cfm?DocumentID=4947.

 

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

From time to time, information provided by us, statements made by our employees or information included in our filings with the SEC (including this Report) may contain statements that are not historical facts, so-called “forward-looking statements,” which involve risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In some cases you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “should,” “could,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “plans,” “predict,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue,” “believe” or the negative of these terms or other similar words. These statements discuss future expectations, contain projections of results of operations or of financial condition or state other forward-looking information. When considering forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other cautionary statements in this Report.

Our actual future results may differ significantly from those stated in any forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to, the factors discussed below. Each of these factors, and others, are discussed from time to time in our filings with the SEC.

Risks Related to the Company

We have limited capital resources and we are in default on our obligations to MHR.

We have limited capital resources and operations to date have been funded with the proceeds from collaborative research agreements, public and private equity and debt financings and income earned on investments. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. As such, we anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity. Further, we have significant commitments and obligations. As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes (described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report) issued to MHR Fund Management LLC (together with its affiliates, “MHR”). The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. Pursuant to that certain Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2005, between the Company and MHR (as amended to date, the “Security Agreement”), the MHR Convertible Notes are secured by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, as a result of the payment default described above, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012.

The Company continues to be in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and, as a result of such default, MHR has the ability at any time to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets under the terms of the Security Agreement. To date, MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes or exercised its rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the default while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and Security Agreement. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these discussions.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is also in default under the terms of certain non-interest bearing promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $600,000 issued to MHR on June 8, 2010 (the “2010 MHR Notes”). The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 8, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010

 

19


Table of Contents

MHR Notes, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the 2010 MHR Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

If MHR demands payment under the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, or the Bridge Note described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 to this Report, we will not have sufficient resources to make the required payments. In addition, our default under the 2010 MHR Convertible Notes and the 2010 MHR Notes enables MHR to foreclose on all or substantially all of our assets.

We do not have sufficient resources to meet our obligations under the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, or the Bridge Note described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 to this Report, or to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, these conditions may increase the cost to raise capital. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue partnering opportunities, we cannot be sure that our plans will be successful. If the Company fails to raise additional capital or obtain substantial cash inflows from existing or new partners prior to April 15, 2013, or if MHR demands payment under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes or the Bridge Note, or exercises its rights under the Security Agreement, the Company could be forced to cease operations. Any of the foregoing events would have a material adverse effect on our business and on the value of our stockholders’ investments in our common stock. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 include an explanatory paragraph expressing the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have a history of operating losses and we may never achieve profitability.

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $1.5 million in cash and cash equivalents, approximately $34.7 million in working capital deficiency, a stockholders’ deficit of approximately $66.1 million and an accumulated deficit of approximately $467.8 million. Our operating loss for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 was approximately $6.8 million. Since our inception in 1986, we have generated significant losses from operations. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity. While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue product partnering opportunities to address our capital deficiencies, we cannot be sure how much we will need to spend in order to develop, market, and manufacture new products and technologies in the future. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts on research and development, including amounts spent on conducting clinical trials for our product candidates. Further, we will not have sufficient resources to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing or to secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure you that financing will be available when needed, or on favorable terms or at all. The current economic environment combined with a number of other factors pose additional challenges to the Company in securing adequate financing under acceptable terms. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

Additionally, these conditions may increase the costs to raise capital. Our failure to raise capital when needed would adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations, and could force us to reduce or discontinue operations.

 

20


Table of Contents

Our business will suffer if we fail or are delayed in commercializing an improved oral form of Vitamin B12.

We expended substantial resources on the development of an oral dosage form of Vitamin B12 which can be marketed as a medical food for use by B12 deficient individuals. We completed a clinical trial which demonstrated that both oral Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) and injectable B12 (current standard of care) can efficiently and quickly restore normal Vitamin B12 levels in deficient individuals. During November 2009, the Company launched its first commercially available product, oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg), which had been specifically developed to help improve Vitamin B12 absorption and bioavailability with a patented formulation. During the third quarter 2010, we terminated our distributor agreement for the marketing, distribution and sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100mcg) with Quality Vitamins and Supplements, Inc. to allow us to focus on the development of a higher dose, oral formulation of Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) to be offered for B12 deficient patients. Our inability or delay in commercializing the B12 product candidate could have a significant material adverse effect on our business.

To commercialize this higher dose product candidate, we will be required to develop a market introduction plan, and possibly obtain financing to support our commercialization efforts, among other things. We cannot assure you that we will succeed in these efforts as these involve activities (or portions of activities) that we have not previously completed. In addition, if we succeed in these activities, Vitamin B12 is available at reasonably low prices both in injections and tablet forms (as well as other forms) through a variety of distributors, sellers, and other sources. We have no current commercial capabilities. Therefore, we would be entering a highly competitive market with an untested, newly-established commercial capability. This outline of risks involved in the commercialization of our B12 product candidate is not exhaustive, but illustrative. For example, it does not include additional competitive, intellectual property, commercial, product liability, and commercial risks involved in a launch of the B12 product candidate outside the U.S. or certain of such risks in the U.S.

We are highly dependent upon collaborative partners to develop and commercialize compounds using our delivery agents.

A key part of our strategy is to form collaborations with pharmaceutical companies that will assist us in developing, testing, obtaining government approval for and commercializing oral forms of therapeutic macromolecules using the Eligen ® Technology. We currently have collaborative agreements for candidates in clinical development with Novartis and Novo Nordisk, although Novartis has indicated that it has ceased work on all of the programs it had entered into with us.

We negotiate specific ownership rights with respect to the intellectual property developed as a result of the collaboration with each partner. While ownership rights vary from program to program, in general we retain ownership rights to developments relating to our carrier and the collaborator retains rights related to the drug product developed.

Despite our existing agreements, we cannot make any assurances that:

 

  Ÿ  

we will be able to enter into additional collaborative arrangements to develop products utilizing our drug delivery technology;

 

  Ÿ  

any existing or future collaborative arrangements will be sustainable or successful;

 

  Ÿ  

the product candidates in collaborative arrangements will be further developed by partners in a timely fashion;

 

  Ÿ  

any collaborative partner will not infringe upon our intellectual property position in violation of the terms of the collaboration contract; or

 

  Ÿ  

milestones in collaborative agreements will be met and milestone payments will be received.

If we are unable to obtain development assistance and funds from other pharmaceutical companies to fund a portion of our product development costs and to commercialize our product candidates, we may be unable to issue equity to allow us to raise sufficient capital to fund clinical development of our product candidates. Lack of funding would cause us to delay, curtail, or stop clinical development of one or more of our projects. The determination of the specific project to curtail would depend upon the relative future economic value to us of each program.

 

21


Table of Contents

Our collaborative partners control the clinical development of the drug candidates and may terminate their efforts at will.

Novo Nordisk controls the clinical development of oral GLP-1 analogs. Novartis and Novo Nordisk control the decision-making for the design and timing of their clinical studies.

Moreover, the agreements with Novartis and Novo Nordisk provide that they may terminate their programs at will for any reason and without any financial penalty or requirement to fund any further clinical studies. Novartis has discontinued all active clinical programs with us, and it is likely that it will terminate all remaining collaboration and license agreements with us in connection with those programs. We cannot make any assurance that Novartis or Novo Nordisk will continue to advance the clinical development of the drug candidates subject to collaboration.

Our collaborative partners are free to develop competing products.

Aside from provisions preventing the unauthorized use of our intellectual property by our collaborative partners, there is nothing in our collaborative agreements that prevent our partners from developing competing products. If one of our partners were to develop a competing product, our collaboration could be substantially jeopardized.

Our product candidates are in various stages of development, and we cannot be certain that any will be suitable for commercial purposes.

To be profitable, we must successfully research, develop, obtain regulatory approval for, manufacture, introduce, market, and distribute our products under development, or secure a partner to provide financial and other assistance with these steps. The time necessary to achieve these goals for any individual pharmaceutical product is long and can be uncertain. Before we or a potential partner can sell any of the pharmaceutical products currently under development, pre-clinical (animal) studies and clinical (human) trials must demonstrate that the product is safe and effective for human use for each targeted indication. We have never successfully commercialized a drug or a nonprescription candidate and we cannot be certain that we or our current or future partners will be able to begin, or continue, planned clinical trials for our product candidates, or if we are able, that the product candidates will prove to be safe and will produce their intended effects.

Even if our products are safe and effective, the size of the solid dosage form, taste, and frequency of dosage may impede their acceptance by patients.

A number of companies in the drug delivery, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after showing promising results in earlier studies or trials. Only a small number of research and development programs ultimately result in commercially successful drugs. Favorable results in any pre-clinical study or early clinical trial do not imply that favorable results will ultimately be obtained in future clinical trials. We cannot make any assurance that results of limited animal and human studies are indicative of results that would be achieved in future animal studies or human clinical studies, all or some of which will be required in order to have our product candidates obtain regulatory approval. Similarly, we cannot assure you that any of our product candidates will be approved by the FDA. Even if clinical trials or other studies demonstrate safety and effectiveness of any of our product candidates for a specific disease or condition and the necessary regulatory approvals are obtained, the commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon their acceptance by patients, the medical community, and third-party payers and on our partners’ ability to successfully manufacture and commercialize our product candidates.

Our future business success depends heavily upon regulatory approvals, which can be difficult and expensive to obtain.

Our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials of our prescription drug and biologic product candidates, as well as the manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to extensive, costly and rigorous regulation by governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries. The process of obtaining required approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities often takes many years, is expensive, and can vary

 

22


Table of Contents

significantly based on the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates. We cannot assure you that we, either independently or in collaboration with others, will meet the applicable regulatory criteria in order to receive the required approvals for manufacturing and marketing. Delays in obtaining U.S. or foreign approvals for our self-developed projects could result in substantial additional costs to us, and, therefore, could adversely affect our ability to compete with other companies. Additionally, delays in obtaining regulatory approvals encountered by others with whom we collaborate also could adversely affect our business and prospects. Even if regulatory approval of a product is obtained, the approval may place limitations on the intended uses of the product, and may restrict the way in which we or our partner may market the product.

The regulatory approval process for our prescription drug product candidates presents several risks to us:

 

  Ÿ  

In general, pre-clinical tests and clinical trials can take many years, and require the expenditure of substantial resources. The data obtained from these tests and trials can be susceptible to varying interpretation that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval

 

  Ÿ  

Delays or rejections may be encountered during any stage of the regulatory process based upon the failure of the clinical or other data to demonstrate compliance with, or upon the failure of the product to meet, a regulatory agency’s requirements for safety, efficacy, and quality or, in the case of a product seeking an orphan drug indication, because another designee received approval first

 

  Ÿ  

Requirements for approval may become more stringent due to changes in regulatory agency policy or the adoption of new regulations or guidelines

 

  Ÿ  

New guidelines can have an effect on the regulatory decisions made in previous years

 

  Ÿ  

The scope of any regulatory approval, when obtained, may significantly limit the indicated uses for which a product may be marketed and may impose significant limitations in the nature of warnings, precautions, and contraindications that could materially affect the profitability of the drug

 

  Ÿ  

Approved drugs, as well as their manufacturers, are subject to continuing and ongoing review, and discovery of problems with these products or the failure to adhere to manufacturing or quality control requirements may result in restrictions on their manufacture, sale or use or in their withdrawal from the market

 

  Ÿ  

Regulatory authorities and agencies may promulgate additional regulations restricting the sale of our existing and proposed products

 

  Ÿ  

Once a product receives marketing approval, the FDA may not permit us to market that product for broader or different applications, or may not grant us clearance with respect to separate product applications that represent extensions of our basic technology. In addition, the FDA may withdraw or modify existing clearances in a significant manner or promulgate additional regulations restricting the sale of our present or proposed products

Additionally, we face the risk that our competitors may gain FDA approval for a product before we do. Having a competitor reach the market before we do would impede the future commercial success for our competing product because we believe that the FDA uses heightened standards of approval for products once approval has been granted to a competing product in a particular product area. We believe that this standard generally limits new approvals to only those products that meet or exceed the standards set by the previously approved product.

The regulatory approval process for nonprescription product candidates will likely vary by the nature of therapeutic molecule being delivered.

In particular, the European Medical Agency (“EMA”) announced in January 2011 that its committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has begun to review available data relevant to the potential for increased risk of prostate cancer progression and other types of malignancies in patients taking calcitonin-containing medicines for the prevention of acute bone loss. The announcement indicated that the decision to review followed review of two clinical trials which suggested an increased frequency of malignancies. The EMA indicated it intended to assess the data obtained in the balance of risks and benefits of calcitonin-containing medicines.

 

23


Table of Contents

Our collaboration partner Novartis has indicated to us that it has responded to the EMA’s request for information. Novartis notified us that it has informed the FDA of the EMA request, and has provided the FDA with relevant data regarding calcitonin at its request. Subsequent to these actions, Novartis announced that it is discontinuing the oral salmon calcitonin program.

On July 20, 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use issued a press release in which it recommended that calcitonin-containing medicines should only be used for short-term treatment, because of evidence that long-term use of these medicines is associated with an increased risk of cancer.

Our business will suffer if we cannot adequately protect our patent and proprietary rights.

Although we have patents for some of our product candidates and have applied for additional patents, there can be no assurance that patents applied for will be granted, that patents granted to or acquired by us now or in the future will be valid and enforceable and provide us with meaningful protection from competition, or that we will possess the financial resources necessary to enforce any of our patents. Also, we cannot be certain that any products that we (or a licensee) develop will not infringe upon any patent or other intellectual property right of a third party.

We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. We maintain a policy of requiring employees, scientific advisors, consultants, and collaborators to execute confidentiality and invention assignment agreements upon commencement of a relationship with us. We cannot assure you that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of such information.

Part of our strategy involves collaborative arrangements with other pharmaceutical companies for the development of new formulations of drugs developed by others and, ultimately, the receipt of royalties on sales of the new formulations of those drugs. These drugs are generally the property of the pharmaceutical companies and may be the subject of patents or patent applications and other rights of protection owned by the pharmaceutical companies. To the extent those patents or other forms of rights expire, become invalid or otherwise ineffective, or to the extent those drugs are covered by patents or other forms of protection owned by third parties, sales of those drugs by the collaborating pharmaceutical company may be restricted, limited, enjoined, or may cease. Accordingly, the potential for royalty revenues to us may be adversely affected.

We may be at risk of having to obtain a license from third parties making proprietary improvements to our technology.

There is a possibility that third parties may make improvements or innovations to our technology in a more expeditious manner than we do. Although we are not aware of any such circumstance related to our product portfolio, should such circumstances arise, we may need to obtain a license from such third party to obtain the benefit of the improvement or innovation. Royalties payable under such a license would reduce our share of total revenue. Such a license may not be available to us at all or on commercially reasonable terms. Although we currently do not know of any circumstances related to our product portfolio which would lead us to believe that a third party has developed any improvements or innovation with respect to our technology, we cannot assure you that such circumstances will not arise in the future. We cannot reasonably determine the cost to us of the effect of being unable to obtain any such license.

We are dependent on third parties to manufacture and test our products.

Currently, we have no manufacturing facilities for production of our carriers or any therapeutic compounds under consideration as products. We have no facilities for clinical testing. The success of our self-developed programs is dependent upon securing manufacturing capabilities and contracting with clinical service and other service providers.

The availability of manufacturers is limited by both the capacity of such manufacturers and their regulatory compliance. Among the conditions for FDA approval is the requirement that the prospective manufacturer’s quality control and manufacturing procedures continually conform with the FDA’s current GMP (GMP are

 

24


Table of Contents

regulations established by the FDA that govern the manufacture, processing, packing, storage and testing of drugs intended for human use). In complying with GMP, manufacturers must devote extensive time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control and quality assurance to maintain full technical compliance. Manufacturing facilities and company records are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA to ensure compliance. If a manufacturing facility is not in substantial compliance with these requirements, regulatory enforcement action may be taken by the FDA, which may include seeking an injunction against shipment of products from the facility and recall of products previously shipped from the facility. Such actions could severely delay our ability to obtain product from that particular source.

The success of our clinical trials and our partnerships is dependent on the proposed or current partner’s capacity and ability to adequately manufacture drug products to meet the proposed demand of each respective market. Any significant delay in obtaining a supply source (which could result from, for example, an FDA determination that such manufacturer does not comply with current GMP) could harm our potential for success. Additionally, if a current manufacturer were to lose its ability to meet our supply demands during a clinical trial, the trial may be delayed or may even need to be abandoned.

We may face product liability claims related to participation in clinical trials or future products.

We have product liability insurance with a policy limit of $5.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. The testing, manufacture, and marketing of products for humans utilizing our drug delivery technology may expose us to potential product liability and other claims. These may be claims directly by consumers or by pharmaceutical companies or others selling our future products. We seek to structure development programs with pharmaceutical companies that would complete the development, manufacturing and marketing of the finished product in a manner that would protect us from such liability, but the indemnity undertakings for product liability claims that we secure from the pharmaceutical companies may prove to be insufficient.

We face rapid technological change and intense competition.

Our success depends, in part, upon maintaining a competitive position in the development of products and technologies in an evolving field in which developments are expected to continue at a rapid pace. We compete with other drug delivery, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, individual scientists, and non-profit organizations engaged in the development of alternative drug delivery technologies or new drug research and testing, as well as with entities developing new drugs that may be orally active. Many of these competitors have greater research and development capabilities, experience, and marketing, financial, and managerial resources than we have, and, therefore, represent significant competition.

Our products, when developed and marketed, may compete with existing parenteral or other versions of the same drug, some of which are well established in the marketplace and manufactured by formidable competitors, as well as other existing drugs. For example, our salmon calcitonin product candidate, if developed and marketed, would compete with a wide array of existing osteoporosis therapies, including a nasal dosage form of salmon calcitonin, estrogen replacement therapy, selective estrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates, and other compounds in development.

Our competitors may succeed in developing competing technologies or obtaining government approval for products before we do. Developments by others may render our product candidates, or the therapeutic macromolecules used in combination with our product candidates, noncompetitive or obsolete. At least one competitor has notified the FDA that it is developing a competing formulation of salmon calcitonin. If our products are marketed, we cannot assure you that they will be preferred to existing drugs or that they will be preferred to or available before other products in development.

If a competitor announces a successful clinical study involving a product that may be competitive with one of our product candidates or an approval by a regulatory agency of the marketing of a competitive product, such announcement may have a material adverse effect on our operations or future prospects resulting from reduced sales of future products that we may wish to bring to market or from an adverse impact on the price of our common stock or our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

 

25


Table of Contents

We are dependent on our key personnel and if we cannot recruit and retain leaders in our research, development, manufacturing, and commercial organizations, our business will be harmed.

We are dependent on our executive officers. The loss of one or more members of our executive officers or key employees could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, given their specific knowledge related to our proprietary technology and personal relationships with our pharmaceutical company partners. If we are not able to retain our executive officers, our business may suffer. We do not maintain “key-man” life insurance policies for any of our executive officers.

There is intense competition in the biotechnology industry for qualified scientists and managerial personnel in the development, manufacture, and commercialization of drugs. We may not be able to continue to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for developing our business. Additionally, because of the knowledge and experience of our scientific personnel and their specific knowledge with respect to our drug carriers the continued development of our product candidates could be adversely affected by the loss of any significant number of such personnel.

Provisions of our corporate charter documents, Delaware law, and our stockholder rights plan may dissuade potential acquirers, prevent the replacement or removal of our current management and may thereby affect the price of our common stock.

Our Board of Directors has the authority to issue up to 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock and to determine the rights, preferences and privileges of those shares without any further vote or action by our stockholders. Of these 2,000,000 shares, the Board of Directors has the authority to designate that number of shares of Series A Junior Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock (“A Preferred Stock”) as is required under our stockholders rights plan described below. Those shares of preferred stock not designated as A Preferred Stock remain available for future issuance. Rights of holders of common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of the holders of any preferred stock that may be issued in the future.

We also have a stockholders rights plan, commonly referred to as a “poison pill,” in which A Preferred Stock purchase rights (the “Rights”) have been granted at the rate of one one-hundredth of a share of A Preferred Stock at an exercise price of $80 for each share of our common stock. The Rights are not exercisable or transferable apart from the common stock, until the earlier of (i) ten days following a public announcement that a person or group of affiliated or associated persons have acquired beneficial ownership of 20% or more of our outstanding common stock or (ii) ten business days (or such later date, as defined) following the commencement of, or announcement of an intention to make a tender offer or exchange offer, the consummation of which would result in the beneficial ownership by a person, or group, of 20% or more of our outstanding common stock. If we enter into consolidation, merger, or other business combination, as defined in the stockholders rights plan, each Right would entitle the holder upon exercise to receive, in lieu of shares of A Preferred Stock, a number of shares of common stock of the acquiring company having a value of two times the exercise price of the Right, as defined in the stockholders rights plan. By potentially diluting the ownership of the acquiring company, our rights plan may dissuade prospective acquirers of our company. MHR is specifically excluded from the provisions of the plan.

The holders of A Preferred Stock would be entitled to a preferential cumulative quarterly dividend of the greater of $1.00 per share or 100 times the per-share dividend declared on our stock and are also entitled to a liquidation preference, thereby hindering an acquirer’s ability to freely pay dividends or to liquidate the company following an acquisition. Each A Preferred Stock share will have 100 votes and will vote together with the common shares, effectively preventing an acquirer from removing existing management. The Rights contain anti-dilutive provisions and are redeemable at our option, subject to certain defined restrictions for $.01 per Right. The Rights expire on April 7, 2016.

Provisions of our corporate charter documents, Delaware law and financing agreements may prevent the replacement or removal of our current management and members of our Board of Directors and may thereby affect the price of our common stock.

In connection with the MHR financing transaction in 2005, and after approval by our Board of Directors, Dr. Mark H. Rachesky was appointed to the Board of Directors by MHR (the “MHR Nominee”) and Dr. Michael

 

26


Table of Contents

Weiser was appointed to the Board of Directors by both the majority of our Board of Directors and MHR (the “Mutual Director”), as contemplated by our bylaws and certificate of incorporation. Our certificate of incorporation provides that the MHR Nominee and the Mutual Director may be removed only by the affirmative vote of at least 85% of the shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at an election of directors. Our certificate of incorporation also provides that the MHR Nominee may be replaced only by an individual designated by MHR unless the MHR Nominee has been removed for cause, in which case the MHR Nominee may be replaced only by an individual approved by both a majority of our Board of Directors and MHR. Furthermore, certain amendments to the bylaws and the certificate of incorporation provide that the rights granted to MHR by these amendments may not be amended or repealed without the unanimous vote or unanimous written consent of the Board of Directors or the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 85% of the shares of Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the election of directors. The amendments to the bylaws and the certificate of incorporation will remain in effect as long as MHR holds at least 2% of the shares of fully diluted Common Stock. The amendments to the bylaws and the certificate of incorporation will have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to gain control of our Board of Directors.

Additional provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting common stock. These include provisions that classify our Board of Directors, limit the ability of stockholders to take action by written consent, call special meetings, remove a director for cause, amend the bylaws or approve a merger with another company. We are subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law which prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a “business combination” with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. For purposes of Section 203, a “business combination” includes a merger, asset sale or other transaction resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder, and an “interested stockholder” is a person who, either alone or together with affiliates and associates, owns (or within the past three years, did own) 15% or more of the corporation’s voting stock.

Our stock price has been and may continue to be volatile.

The trading price for our common stock has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile. The market prices for securities of drug delivery, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have historically been highly volatile.

Factors that could adversely affect our stock price include:

 

  Ÿ  

fluctuations in our operating results;

 

  Ÿ  

announcements of partnerships or technological collaborations and announcements of the results or further actions in respect of any partnerships or collaborations, including termination of same;

 

  Ÿ  

innovations or new products by us or our competitors;

 

  Ÿ  

governmental regulation;

 

  Ÿ  

developments in patent or other proprietary rights;

 

  Ÿ  

public concern as to the safety of drugs developed by us or others;

 

  Ÿ  

the results of pre-clinical testing and clinical studies or trials by us, our partners or our competitors;

 

  Ÿ  

litigation;

 

  Ÿ  

general stock market and economic conditions;

 

  Ÿ  

number of shares available for trading (float); and

 

  Ÿ  

inclusion in or dropping from stock indexes.

As of December 31, 2012, our 52-week high and low closing market price for our common stock was $0.43 and $0.05, respectively.

 

27


Table of Contents

Future sales of common stock or warrants, or the prospect of future sales, may depress our stock price.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of common stock or warrants, or the perception that sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Additionally, as of December 31, 2012, there were outstanding options to purchase up to 1,111,606 shares of our common stock that are currently exercisable, and additional outstanding options to purchase up to 3,496,447 shares of common stock that are exercisable over the next several years. As of December 31, 2012, the MHR Convertible Notes were convertible into 8,353,518 shares of our common stock. As of December 31, 2012, there were outstanding warrants to purchase 17,443,728 shares of our stock. The holders of these options have an opportunity to profit from a rise in the market price of our common stock with a resulting dilution in the interests of the other shareholders. The existence of these options may adversely affect the terms on which we may be able to obtain additional financing. The weighted average exercise price of issued and outstanding options is $1.07 and the weighted average exercise price of warrants is $1.16, which compares to the $0.16 market price at closing on December 31, 2012. Additionally, there may be additional shares available on the market if we are required to file additional re-sale registration statements on Form S-1, including if MHR exercises its registration rights under its Registration Rights Agreement with the Company dated September 26, 2005.

 

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

 

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We leased approximately 15,000 square feet of office space at 240 Cedar Knolls Road, Suite 200, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey for use as our corporate office. The lease for our corporate office expired on January 31, 2013.

In November 2012, we entered into a sub-lease agreement with New American Therapeutics, Inc. to lease approximately 4,100 square feet of office space at 4 Becker Farm Road, Suite 103, Roseland, New Jersey for use as our corporate office beginning February 1, 2013. The sub lease for this corporate office is set to expire on June 30, 2014.

In December 2012, we entered into a lease agreement with 4 Becker SPE LLC to initially lease approximately 2,000 square feet adjacent to the sub-lease office space beginning in December 2012. Upon expiration of the above referenced sub-lease on June 30, 2014, that approximately 4,100 square feet will become “additional premises” included in this lease agreement. This lease for our corporate office is set to expire on June 30, 2017.

 

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

None.

 

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

 

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

The Company’s securities began trading on the OTCQB, an electronic quotation service maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, effective with the open of business on Tuesday, June 9, 2009. The Company’s trading symbol has remained EMIS, however, it is our understanding that, for certain stock quote publication websites, investors may be required to key EMIS.QB to obtain quotes.

 

28


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the range of high and low intra-day sale prices as reported by the OTCQB, electronic quotation service for each period indicated:

 

     High      Low  

2011

     

First quarter

     2.48         1.23   

Second quarter

     1.80         0.85   

Third quarter

     1.99         0.75   

Fourth quarter

     1.99         0.14   

2012

     

First quarter

     0.44         0.17   

Second quarter

     0.39         0.16   

Third quarter

     0.38         0.05   

Fourth quarter

     0.28         0.14   

2013

     

First quarter (through March 1, 2013)

     0.18         0.13   

As of March 1, 2013 there were 213 stockholders of record, including record owners holding shares on behalf of an indeterminate number of beneficial owners, and 60,687,478 shares of common stock outstanding. The closing price of our common stock on March 1, 2013 was $0.16.

We have never paid cash dividends and do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain earnings, if any, to finance the growth of our business.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2012 about the common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options granted to employees, consultants or members of our board of directors under all of our existing equity compensation plans, including the 2000 Stock Option Plan, the 2002 Broad Based Plan, the 2007 Stock Award and Incentive Plan, (collectively the “Plans”), the Stock Incentive Plan for Outside Directors, and the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan:

 

Plan Category

   (a)
Number of
Securities to be
Issued Upon
Exercise of
Outstanding
Options
     (b)
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
of Outstanding
Options
     (c)
Number of  Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under
Equity Compensation Plans
(Excluding Securities
Reflected in Column (a))
 

Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders

        

The Plans

     4,103,410       $ 1.02         339,718   

Stock Incentive Plan for Outside Directors

     42,000         5.93           

Equity Compensation Plans not approved by Security Holders(1)

     5,000         4.12           
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

     4,150,410       $ 1.07         339,718   

 

(1) Our Board of Directors has granted options which are currently outstanding for a former consultant. The Board of Directors determines the number and terms of each grant (option exercise price, vesting and expiration date). This grant was made on July 14, 2003.

 

29


Table of Contents

Comparative Stock Performance Graph

The graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return through December 31, 2012 on Emisphere’s common stock with the cumulative total stockholder return of the NASDAQ Composite Index, the NASDAQ Pharmaceutical Index, the RDG MicroCap Pharmaceutical Index, the Dow Jones U.S. Pharmaceuticals Total Stock Market Index, and SIC Code: 2834 — Pharmaceutical Preparations, assuming an investment of $100 on December 31, 2006 in the Company’s common stock, and in the stocks comprising each index (with all dividends reinvested).

 

LOGO

 

30


Table of Contents
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008 have been derived from the financial statements of Emisphere and notes thereto, which have been audited by our independent registered public accounting firm. We recognize expense for our share-based compensation in accordance with FASB ASC 718, “Compensation-Stock Compensation,” which requires that the costs resulting from all stock based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements at their fair values. Results from prior periods have not been restated.

 

    Year Ended December 31,  
    2012     2011     2010     2009     2008  
    (in thousands, except per share data)  

Revenue

  $      $      $ 100      $ 92      $ 251   

Cost of goods sold

                  22        15          

Costs and expenses

         

Research and development expenses

    1,867        1,951        2,495        4,046        12,785   

General and administrative expenses

    4,935        5,310        7,963        10,068        9,176   

Other costs and expenses

    19        277        835        (422     779   

Impairment of intangible asset

           598                        

Restructuring charge

                  50        (356     3,831   

(Income) expense from lawsuit, net

                  278        1,293          
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total costs and expenses

    6,821        8,136        11,621        14,629        26,571   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating loss

    (6,821     (8,136     (11,543     (14,552     (26,320

Sale of patent

                  500        500        1,500   

Other Income

    45                               

Research and development tax credit

           137        252                 

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

    8,110        28,696        (23,651     (2,473     2,220   

Interest expense

    (6,236     (5,646     (3,595     (659     (2,956

Loss on extinguishment of debt

                  (17,014              

Financing fees

                  (1,858              

Income (loss) before income tax benefit

   
(4,902

    15,051        (56,909     (16,821     (24,388

Income tax benefit

    2,974                               

Net income (loss)

    (1,928     15,051        (56,909     (16,821     (24,388

Net income (loss) per share — basic

    (0.03     0.27        (1.23     (0.49     (0.80

Net income (loss) per share — diluted

    (0.03     0.25        (1.23     (0.49     (0.80

 

     December 31,  
     2012     2011     2010     2009     2008  
     (In thousands)  

Balance Sheet Data:

          

Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments

   $ 1,484      $ 3,069      $ 5,326      $ 3,566      $ 7,469   

Working capital (deficit)

     (34,745     (33,221     (20,568     (20,441     (7,954

Total assets

     2,176        4,221        7,276        5,587        10,176   

Derivative instruments

     2,089        10,199        34,106        10,780        267   

Long-term liabilities and deferrals

     31,614        31,597        51,966        11,669        31,531   

Accumulated deficit

     (467,820     (465,892     (480,943     (424,034     (433,688

Stockholders’ deficit

     (66,066     (64,527     (82,520     (35,227     (37,028

 

31


Table of Contents
ITEM  7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations (MD&A) is provided to supplement the accompanying financial statements and notes incorporated herein to help provide an understanding of our financial condition, changes in our financial condition and results of operations. To supplement its audited financial statements presented in accordance with US GAAP, the company is providing a comparison of operating results describing net income and operating expenses which removed certain non-cash and one-time or nonrecurring charges and receipts. The Company believes that this presentation of net income and operating expense provides useful information to both management and investors concerning the approximate impact of the items above. The Company also believes that considering the effect of these items allows management and investors to better compare the Company’s financial performance from period to period and to better compare the Company’s financial performance with that of its competitors. The presentation of this additional information is not meant to be considered in isolation of, or as a substitute for, results prepared in accordance with US GAAP.

CAUTION CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The following discussion and analysis contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. When used in this Report, the words, “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “expect” and similar expressions as they relate to us are included to identify forward-looking statements. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of factors, including those set forth under Item 1A.“Risk Factors” (above) and elsewhere in this Report. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the “Selected Financial Data” and the Financial Statements and notes thereto included in this Report.

Overview

During 2012, the Company faced formidable challenges, yet continued to focus on efforts to apply the Eligen ® Technology and realize its value by developing profitable commercial applications. On September 13, 2012, the Company took two important steps to improve its strategic position: it hired Mr. Alan L. Rubino as President and Chief Executive Officer, and appointed Mr. Timothy G. Rothwell as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Rubino is a seasoned industry executive with major and emerging pharmaceutical company experience. Mr. Rubino and Mr. Rothwell form the core of a new leadership team that will focus on commercializing the Company’s Eligen ® Oral B12 product. These appointments support the Company’s decision to pursue a new course to reposition Emisphere into a viable commercial-stage entity, anchored by the Eligen ® Oral B12 product. As it transitions to this strategy, the Company remains dedicated to further realizing the full potential and commercial value of its platform Eligen ® Technology. To that end, it will continue to work closely with existing partners and will also expand its efforts to attract new delivery system and product development/licensing partnerships. We believe that Emisphere’s new business strategy will present opportunities for growth and value creation for the Company and its shareholders. We recognize, however, that further development, exploration and commercialization of its technology entails substantial risk and significant additional operational expenses. We continue to refocus our efforts on strategic development initiatives and cost control and continue to aggressively seek to reduce non-strategic spending and to obtain the funding necessary to implement our new corporate strategy. There can be no assurances, however, that the Company will be able to secure adequate funding to meet its current obligations and successfully pursue its strategic direction. Furthermore, despite our optimism regarding the Eligen Technology, even in the event that the Company is adequately funded, there is no guarantee that any of our products or product candidates will perform as hoped or that such products can be successfully commercialized. For further discussion, see part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors.”

The application of the Eligen ® Technology is potentially broad and may provide for a number of opportunities across a spectrum of therapeutic modalities or nutritional supplements. During 2012 we continued to develop our product pipeline utilizing the Eligen ® Technology with prescription product candidates and prioritized our development efforts based on overall potential returns on investment, likelihood of success, and

 

32


Table of Contents

market and medical needs. Our goal is to implement our Eligen ® Technology to enhance overall healthcare, including patient accessibility and compliance, while benefiting the commercial pharmaceutical and healthcare marketplace and driving company valuation.

To accelerate commercialization of the Eligen ® Technology, Emisphere focused on a two-pronged strategy during 2012. First, we concentrated on prescription molecules obtained through partnerships with other pharmaceutical companies for molecules where oral absorption is difficult yet substantially beneficial if proven. We are working to generate new interest in the Eligen ® Technology with potential partners and attempting to expand our current collaborative relationships to take advantage of the critical knowledge that others have gained by working with our technology. Second, we continue to pursue commercialization of product candidates developed internally. We believe that these internal candidates need to be developed with reasonable investment in an acceptable time period and with a reasonable risk-benefit profile.

To support our internal development programs, the Company implemented its new commercialization strategy for the Eligen ® Technology. Using extensive safety data available for its Sodium N-[8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl) Amino] Caprylate (“SNAC”) carrier, the Company obtained GRAS (“Generally Recognized as Safe”) status for its SNAC carrier, and then applied the Eligen ® Technology with B12, another GRAS substance where bioavailability and absorption is difficult and improving such absorption would yield substantial benefit and value. Given sufficient time and resources, the Company intends to apply this strategy to develop other products. Examples of other GRAS substances that may be developed into additional commercial products using this strategy would include vitamins such as other B Vitamins, minerals such as iron, and other supplements such as the polyphenols and catechins, among others. A higher dose (1000 mcg) formulation of Eligen ® B12, for use by patients who are Vitamin B12 deficient, is under development.

Funding required to continue developing our product pipeline may be partially paid by income-generating license arrangements whose value tends to increase as product candidates move from pre-clinical into clinical development. It is our intention that investments that may be required to fund our research and development will be approached incrementally in order to minimize disruption or dilution.

The Company also continues to focus on improving operational efficiency. Annual operating costs were reduced by approximately 80% from 2008 levels. Annual cash expenditures continued to be reduced during 2012, and the resulting cash burn rate to support continuing operations is less than $6 million per year. Additionally, we expect to accelerate the commercialization of the Eligen ® Technology in a cost effective way and to gain operational efficiencies by tapping into advanced scientific processes offered by independent contractors.

Emisphere’s product pipeline includes prescription drugs and medical food product candidates in varying stages of development. We have one prescription product in Phase I and a number of pre-clinical (research stage) projects. Some of the pre-clinical projects are partnered, while others were initiated by Emisphere. We continue to assess therapeutic molecules for their potential compatibility with our technology and market need. Our intent is to continue to expand our pipeline with product candidates that demonstrate significant opportunities for growth. Our focus is on molecules that meet the criteria for success based on our increased understanding of our Eligen ® Technology. Depending on the molecule, market potential and interest, we intend to pursue potential product development opportunities through development alliances or internal development.

As previously described, the Company has developed and is focused on commercializing an oral formulation of Eligen ® B12 (1000 mcg) which can be marketed as a medical food for use by B12-deficient individuals. For the treatment of type 2 diabetes, research using the Eligen ® Technology and GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1), a potential treatment for Type 2 diabetes, is being conducted by Novo Nordisk.

We have collaborated with Novartis in connection with the development and testing of oral formulations of salmon calcitonin to treat osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, the development and testing of oral formulations of PTH-1-34 to treat osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, and the development of an oral rhGH product using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology. Although all three of these development programs have either been terminated or discontinued by Novartis, Novartis still has the right to evaluate the feasibility of using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology with two new compounds to assess the potential for new product development opportunities.

 

33


Table of Contents

Novartis is considering its options accordingly. If Novartis chooses to develop oral formulations of these new compounds using the Eligen ® Technology, the parties will negotiate additional agreements. In that case, Emisphere could be entitled to receive development milestone and royalty payments in connection with the development and commercialization of these potentially new products.

Our other product candidates in development are in earlier or preclinical research phases, and we continue to assess them for their compatibility with our technology and market need. Our intent is to seek partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for certain of these products as we continue to expand our pipeline with product candidates that demonstrate significant opportunities for growth. Our focus is on molecules that meet the criteria for success based on our increased understanding of our Eligen ® Technology and prescription Medical Foods. Our preclinical programs focus on the development of oral formulations of potentially new treatments for diabetes and products in the areas of cardiovascular, appetite suppression and pain and on the development and potential expansion of nutritional supplement products.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since our inception in 1986, we have generated significant losses from operations and we anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future.

As of December 31, 2012, our working capital deficit was $34.7 million, our accumulated deficit was approximately $467.8 million and our stockholders deficit was $66.1 million. Our operating loss was $6.8 million, $8.1 million and $11.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Our net loss was $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, our net income was $15.1 million, for the year ended December 31, 2011, and our net loss was $56.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. Our net cash outlays from operations and capital expenditures were $3.0 million, $9.7 million and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Net cash inflows include receipts of deferred revenue of $0.02 million, $0.1 million, and $7.1 million for the years ended 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. On December 31, 2012 we had approximately $1.5 million cash.

We have limited capital resources and operations to date have been funded with the proceeds from collaborative research agreements, public and private equity and debt financings and income earned on investments. As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes (described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report) issued to MHR Fund Management LLC (together with its affiliates, “MHR”). The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. Pursuant to that certain Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2005, between the Company and MHR (as amended to date, the “Security Agreement”), the MHR Convertible Notes are secured by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, as a result of the payment default described above, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012.

The Company continues to be in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and, as a result of such default, MHR has the ability at any time to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets under the terms of the Security Agreement. To date, MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes or exercised its rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the default while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and Security Agreement. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is also in default under the terms of certain non-interest bearing promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $600,000 issued to MHR on June 8, 2010 (the “2010 MHR Notes”). The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 8, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010

 

34


Table of Contents

MHR Notes, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the 2010 MHR Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

As more specifically described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report, on October 17, 2012, the Company issued a promissory note (the “Bridge Note”) to MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, and MHR Capital Partners (100) LP (collectively, the “Bridge Lender”) in the principal amount of $1,400,000 to be advanced by the Bridge Lender to the Company pursuant to the terms thereof (the “Bridge Loan”). That amount was sufficient to support operations through approximately December 15, 2012. The Bridge Note is secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets, and is payable on demand. The Bridge Loan has not been paid as of March 25, 2013, and MHR has not demanded payment.

As of December 31, 2012, the aggregate book value of MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, and the Bridge Note including outstanding principal and interest was $33.6 million.

In December 2012, the Company received $1.5 million by participating in the Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. As such, we anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity.

Further, we do not have sufficient resources to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, these conditions may increase the cost to raise capital. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue partnering opportunities, we cannot be sure that our plans will be successful. If the Company fails to raise additional capital or obtain substantial cash inflows from existing or new partners prior to April 15, 2013, or if MHR demands payment under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes or the Bridge Note, or exercises its rights under the Security Agreement, the Company could be forced to cease operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 include an explanatory paragraph expressing the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The Company is pursuing several courses of action to address its deficiency in capital resources including discussions with MHR, commercialization of B12, leveraging existing partnerships, and capital markets financings.

Even if we are successful in raising additional capital to meet our obligations and otherwise continue operations, our business will still require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. For further discussion, see Part II, Item 1A “ Risk Factors ”.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, our cash liquidity (consisting of $1.5 million cash at December 31, 2012) decreased as follows:

Cash and Cash Equivalents:

 

     (In thousands)  

At December 31, 2011

   $ 3,069   

At December 31, 2012

     1,484   
  

 

 

 

Decrease in cash and cash equivalents

   $ (1,585
  

 

 

 

 

35


Table of Contents

The decrease in cash and cash equivalents is comprised of the following components for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011:

 

     2012     2011  
     (In thousands)  

Proceeds, net, from issuance of equity securities

   $      $ 7,500   

Proceeds from notes payable

     1,400          

Proceeds from collaboration, technology business tax certificate transfer program and other projects

     3,100        400   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Sources of cash and cash equivalents

     4,500        7,900   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Uses of cash and cash equivalents

     6,100        10,200   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

(Decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   $ (1,600   $ (2,300
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

During the year ended December 31, 2012, our working capital deficiency increased by $1.5 million as follows:

 

     December 31,        
     2012     2011     Change  
     (In thousands)        

Current assets

   $ 1,900      $ 3,900      $ (2,000

Current liabilities

     36,600        37,100        500   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Working capital (deficiency)

   $ (34,700   $ (33,200   $ (1,500
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The decrease in current assets is driven primarily by the decrease in cash and cash equivalents. The increase in current liabilities is driven primarily by the accrued interest on MHR Convertible Notes, and the MHR Note Payable net of a reduction in derivative liabilities.

Primary Sources of Cash

During 2012, we received approximately $3.0 million from the sale of NJ State Net Operating Losses from prior periods through the 2011 and 2012 Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. Additional funding of $1.4 million was provided by MHR pursuant to the Bridge Note.

During 2011, we received net proceeds of $7.2 million through the issuance of common stock and associated derivative instruments from an equity financing completed by the Company in July 2011 (the “July 2011 Financing”).

During 2010, we received net proceeds of $6.7 million through the issuance of common stock and associated derivative instruments in connection with an equity financing completed in August 2010 (the “August 2010 Financing”). We also received $5.0 million as an upfront payment from Novo Nordisk in connection with the development and license agreement to develop and commercialize oral formulations of Novo Nordisk’s insulins using the Company’s proprietary delivery agents pursuant to the Insulins License Agreement, and we received a $2.0 million milestone payment from Novo Nordisk for their initiation of a Phase I clinical trial in connection with the GLP-1 License Agreement. Also during 2010, we received a $0.5 million installment payment for sale of certain Emisphere patents and patent application relating to diketopiparazine technology to MannKind Corporation and $0.5 million from MHR from the issuance of a note payable.

 

36


Table of Contents

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2011

 

     Year Ended
December 31,
       
     (In thousands)        
     2012     2011     Change  

Revenue

   $      $      $   

Operating expenses

   $ 6,821      $ 8,136      $ (1,315

Operating loss

   $ (6,821   $ (8,136   $ 1,315   

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   $ 8,110      $ 28,696      $ (20,586

Interest expense

   $ (6,236   $ (5,646   $ (590

Other non-operating income

   $ 45      $ 137      $ (92

Income tax benefit

   $ 2,974      $      $ 2,974   

Net loss (income)

   $ (1,928   $ 15,051      $ (16,979

Our principal operating costs include the following items as a percentage of total expense:

 

     Year Ended  
     December 31, 2012     December 31, 2011  

Human resource costs, including benefits

     38     34

Professional fees for legal, intellectual property, accounting and consulting

     40     39

Clinical and laboratory costs

     8     3

Occupancy costs

     5     4

Depreciation and amortization

     0     4

Other

     9     16

Operating expenses, decreased by $1.3 million (16%) as a result of the following items:

 

     (In thousands)  

Decrease in human resource costs

   $ (200

Decrease in professional and consulting fees

     (400

Increase in clinical and laboratory costs

     300   

Reduction in depreciation and amortization

     (300

All other

     (700
  

 

 

 

Net decrease

   $ (1,300
  

 

 

 

Human resource costs decreased approximately $0.2 million due primarily to reductions in headcount.

Professional and consulting fees decreased approximately $0.4 million due to a decrease of approximately $0.3 million in legal fees, a $0.1 million reduction in accounting fees and a $0.2 decrease in recruitment fees incurred in 2011 offset by a $0.2 million increase in consulting fees related to Eligen ® B-12.

Clinical costs and lab fees increased approximately $0.3 million due to a charge for the reduction of a prepaid asset offset by reduction in analytical testing performed in 2012.

Occupancy costs were substantially unchanged in 2012 compared to 2011.

Depreciation and amortization expense decreased approximately $0.3 million as a result of the impairment of an intangible asset in December 2011.

All other operating costs decreased $0.7 million primarily due to events in 2011 which included a $0.6 million charge for the impairment of an intangible asset, and a net reduction of $0.1 million in other operating costs in 2012.

 

37


Table of Contents

As a result of the factors above, Emisphere’s operating expenses were $6.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, which represents a decrease of $1.3 million or 16% compared to operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Other non-operating income decreased by approximately $21.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 in comparison to the same period last year due primarily to a $20.6 million decrease in the change in the value of derivative instruments, a $0.1 million decrease in investment and other income, a $0.6 million increase in interest expense due primarily to the additional accrued interest on the MHR Convertible Notes following the default described above. The change in the fair value of derivative instruments for 2012 and 2011 is the result of a decrease in stock price from $0.22 on December 31, 2011 to $0.16 on December 31, 2012. Future gains and losses recognized in the Company’s operating results from changes in value of the derivative instrument liability are based in part on the fair value of the Company’s common stock which is outside the control of the Company. These potential future gains and losses could be material.

We recognized an approximate $3.0 million state income tax benefit as a result of proceeds from the sale of $36 million of New Jersey net operating losses through the Technology Business Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority.

As a result of the above factors, we reported a net loss of $1.9 million, which was $17.0 million (113%) lower than the net income of $15.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Year Ended December 31, 2011 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2010

 

     Year Ended
December 31,
       
     (In thousands)        
     2011     2010     Change  

Revenue

   $      $ 100      $ (100

Operating expenses

   $ 8,136      $ 11,643      $ (3,507

Operating loss

   $ (8,136   $ (11,543   $ 3,407   

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   $ 28,696      $ (23,651   $ (52,347

Interest expense

   $ (5,646   $ (3,595   $ (2,051

Loss on extinguishment of debt

   $      $ (17,014   $ 17,014   

Financing fees

   $      $ (1,858   $ 1,858   

Other non-operating income (expenses)

   $ 137      $ 752      $ (615

Net income (loss)

   $ 15,051      $ (56,909   $ 71,960   

Revenue decreased $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to December 31, 2010 due primarily to the termination of the Life Extension Foundation contract for the sale of Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg), in 2010.

Our principal operating costs include the following items as a percentage of total expense:

 

     Year Ended  
     December 31, 2011     December 31, 2010  

Human resource costs, including benefits

     34     36

Professional fees for legal, intellectual property, accounting and consulting

     39     38

Occupancy for our laboratory and operating space

     4     3

Clinical costs

     3     7

Depreciation and amortization

     4     3

Other

     16     13

 

38


Table of Contents

Operating expenses decreased by $3.5 million (30%) as a result of the following items:

 

     (In thousands)  

Decrease in human resource costs

   $ (1,500

Decrease in professional and consulting fees

     (1,200

Decrease in clinical costs and laboratory fees

     (500

Decrease in all other

     (300
  

 

 

 

Net decrease

   $ (3,500
  

 

 

 

Human resource costs decreased approximately $1.5 million due primarily to a $1.0 million reduction in headcount and $0.5 million in non-cash compensation resulting from headcount reductions.

Professional and consulting fees decreased approximately $1.2 million due to a decrease of approximately $1.0 million in legal fees, a $0.4 million reduction in consulting fees, primarily attributable to the Eligen ® B-12 program and research and development, offset by a $0.2 million increase in recruitment fees.

Clinical costs and lab fees decreased approximately $0.5 million due to the completion of our B-12 clinical trial in 2010.

Occupancy costs were unchanged in 2011 compared to 2010.

Depreciation and amortization expense were unchanged in 2011 compared to 2010.

All other operating costs decreased $0.3 million primarily due to events in 2010 which included a $0.5 million fee to terminate our Distributor Agreement for the marketing, distribution and sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100mcg) with Quality Vitamins and Supplements, Inc. during the third quarter 2010, by the incremental accrual of $0.3 million expense in connection with the final ruling of the arbitrator awarding legal fees to Dr. Goldberg resolved in 2010 and an approximate $0.1 million decrease in various other operating costs, offset by a $0.6 million charge for the impairment of intangible asset.

As a result of the factors above, Emisphere’s operating expenses were $8.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, which represents a decrease of $3.5 million or 30% compared to operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Other non-operating expense decreased by approximately $68.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 in comparison to the same period last year due primarily to a $52.3 million decrease in the change in the value of derivative instruments, a $16.8 million decrease in interest expense due primarily to the extinguishment of debt of $17.0 million and financing fees of $1.9 million associated with warrants and promissory notes issued to MHR in connection with the Novartis Agreement and the letter agreement entered into with MHR in connection therewith (the “MHR Letter Agreement”) in 2010, a $0.6 million decrease in other income primarily from $0.5 million proceeds from the final installment on a sale of patent in 2009. Expense from the change in the fair value of derivative instruments for 2011 and 2010 is the result of a decrease in stock price from $2.41 on December 31, 2010 to $0.22 on December 31, 2011 and from the increase in stock price from $1.06 on December 31, 2009 to $2.41 on December 31, 2010, the addition of 6,020,612 warrants in connection with the July 2011 Financing, and 795,000 warrants to MHR for consent to the July 2011 offering. The change in value of derivative instruments and increases in value of the underlying shares of the Company’s common stock increases the liability which is recognized as a corresponding loss in the Company’s operating statement, while decreases in the value of the Company’s common stock decrease the value of the liability with a corresponding gain recognized in the Company’s operating statement. Future gains and losses recognized in the Company’s operating results from changes in value of the derivative instrument liability are based in part on the fair value of the Company’s common stock which is outside the control of the Company. These potential future gains and losses could be material.

As a result of the above factors, we reported a net income of $15.1 million, which was $72.0 million (126%) higher than the net loss of $56.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

39


Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Estimates and New Accounting Pronouncements

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts and related disclosures in the financial statements. Management considers an accounting estimate to be critical if:

 

  Ÿ  

It requires assumptions to be made that were uncertain at the time the estimate was made, and

 

  Ÿ  

Changes in the estimate or different estimates that could have been selected could have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

Share-Based Payments — We recognize expense for our share-based compensation in accordance with FASB ASC 718, “Compensation-stock Compensation” , which establishes standards for share-based transactions in which an entity receives employee’s services for (a) equity instruments of the entity, such as stock options, or (b) liabilities that are based on the fair value of the entity’s equity instruments or that may be settled by the issuance of such equity instruments. FASB ASC 718 requires that companies expense the fair value of stock options and similar awards, as measured on the awards’ grant date. FASB ASC 718 applies to all awards granted after the date of adoption, and to awards modified, repurchased or cancelled after that date.

We estimate the value of stock option awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton (“Black-Scholes”) option-pricing model. The determination of the fair value of share-based payment awards on the date of grant is affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables include our expected stock price volatility over the term of the awards, expected term, risk-free interest rate, expected dividends and expected forfeiture rates.

If factors change and we employ different assumptions in the application of FASB ASC 718 in future periods, the compensation expense that we record under FASB ASC 718 may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the current period. There is a high degree of subjectivity involved when using option pricing models to estimate share-based compensation under FASB ASC 718. Consequently, there is a risk that our estimates of the fair values of our share-based compensation awards on the grant dates may bear little resemblance to the actual values realized upon the exercise, expiration, early termination or forfeiture of those share-based payments in the future. Employee stock options may expire worthless or otherwise result in zero intrinsic value as compared to the fair values originally estimated on the grant date and reported in our financial statements. Alternatively, value may be realized from these instruments that are significantly in excess of the fair values originally estimated on the grant date and reported in our financial statements. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we do not believe that reasonable changes in the projections would have had a material effect on share-based compensation expense.

Revenue Recognition — Revenue includes amounts earned from sales of our oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) product, collaborative agreements and feasibility studies. Revenue earned from the sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) was recognized when the product was shipped, when all revenue recognition criteria were met in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104 , “Revenue Recognition” (codified under ASC 605 “Revenue Recognition”). Our Distributor Agreement for the marketing, distribution and sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) with Quality Vitamins and Supplements, Inc. was terminated during the third quarter, 2010. Revenue from feasibility studies, which are typically short term in nature, is recognized upon delivery of the study, provided that all other revenue recognition criteria are met. Revenue from collaboration agreements are recognized using the proportional performance method provided that we can reasonably estimate the level of effort required to complete our performance obligations under an arrangement and such performance obligations are provided on a best effort basis and based on “expected payments.” Under the proportional performance method, periodic revenue related to nonrefundable cash payments is recognized as the percentage of actual effort expended to date as of that period to the total effort expected for all of our performance obligations under the arrangement. Actual effort is generally determined based upon actual hours incurred and include research and development (“R&D”) activities performed by us and time spent for joint steering committee (“JSC”) activities. Total expected effort is generally based upon the total R&D and JSC hours incorporated into the project plan that is agreed to by both parties to the collaboration. Significant management judgments and estimates are required in determining the

 

40


Table of Contents

level of effort required under an arrangement and the period over which we expect to complete the related performance obligations. Estimates of the total expected effort included in each project plan are based on historical experience of similar efforts and expectations based on the knowledge of scientists for both the Company and its collaboration partners. The Company periodically reviews and updates the project plan for each collaborative agreement. The most recent reviews took place in January 2013. In the event that a change in estimate occurs, the change will be accounted for using the cumulative catch-up method which provides for an adjustment to revenue in the current period. Estimates of our level of effort may change in the future, resulting in a material change in the amount of revenue recognized in future periods.

Generally under collaboration arrangements, nonrefundable payments received during the period of performance may include time- or performance-based milestones. The proportion of actual performance to total expected performance is applied to the “expected payments” in determining periodic revenue. However, revenue is limited to the sum of (1) the amount of nonrefundable cash payments received and (2) the payments that are contractually due but have not yet been paid.

With regard to revenue recognition from collaboration agreements, the Company previously interpreted expected payments to equate to total payments subject to each collaboration agreement. On a prospective basis, the Company has revised its application of expected payments to equate to a “best estimate” of payments. Under this application, expected payments typically include (i) payments already received and (ii) those milestone payments not yet received but that the Company believes are “more likely than not” of receiving. Our support for the assertion that the next milestone is likely to be met is based on the (a) project status updates discussed at JSC meetings; (b) clinical trial/development results of prior phases; (c) progress of current clinical trial/development phases; (d) directional input of collaboration partners and (e) knowledge and experience of the Company’s scientific staff. After considering the above factors, the Company believes those payments included in “expected payments” are more likely than not of being received. While this interpretation differs from that used previously by the Company, it does not result in any change to previously recognized revenues in either timing or amount for periods through December 31, 2012.

With regard to revenue recognition in connection with the Insulins License Agreement and the GLP-1 License Agreements with Novo Nordisk, such agreements include multiple deliverables including license grants, several versions of the Company’s Eligen ® Technology (or carriers), support services and manufacturing. Emisphere’s management reviewed the relevant terms of the Novo Nordisk agreements and determined such deliverables should be accounted for as a single unit of accounting in accordance with FASB ASC 605-25, “Multiple-Element Arrangements” since the delivered license and Eligen ® Technology do not have stand-alone value and Emisphere does not have objective evidence of fair value of the undelivered Eligen ® Technology or the manufacturing value of all the undelivered items. Such conclusion will be reevaluated as each item in the arrangement is delivered. Consequently, any payments received from Novo Nordisk pursuant to such agreements, including the initial $10 million upfront payment and any payments received for support services in connection with the GLP-1 License Agreement and the $5 million upfront payment from the Insulins License Agreement will be deferred and included in Deferred Revenue within our balance sheet. Management cannot currently estimate when all of such deliverables will be delivered nor can they estimate when, if ever, Emisphere will have objective evidence of the fair value for all of the undelivered items, therefore all payments from Novo Nordisk are expected to be deferred for the foreseeable future.

As of December 31, 2012 total deferred revenue from the GLP-1 License agreement was $13.6 million, comprised of the $12.0 million non-refundable license fee and $1.6 million in support services; and total deferred revenue from the Insulins License Agreement was $5 million.

With regard to revenue recognition in connection with Novartis’ discontinued oral salmon calcitonin program for osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, discontinued oral PTH-1-34 program for osteoporosis, and terminated oral recombinant human growth hormone program: all such agreements include(d) multiple deliverables including license grants, several versions of the Company’s Eligen ® Technology (or carriers) and support services. Emisphere’s management reviewed the relevant terms of each development license agreement with Novartis and determined such deliverables should be accounted for as a single unit of accounting in accordance with FASB ASC 605-25, “Multiple-Element Arrangements” since the delivered license and Eligen ® Technology do not have stand-alone value and Emisphere does not have objective evidence of fair value of the

 

41


Table of Contents

undelivered Eligen ® Technology. Such conclusion will be reevaluated as each item in the arrangement is delivered or the status of each agreement changes. Consequently, any payments received from Novartis pursuant to such agreements have been deferred and included in Deferred Revenue within our balance sheet.

During 2011, Novartis terminated its oral human growth hormone program and informed the Company of its intention not to continue development of its oral calcitonin and oral PTH programs involving Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology. However, Novartis did not terminate its development license agreements in calcitonin or PTH. At such time that Novartis terminates its oral calcitonin and oral PTH agreements, or does not demonstrate reasonable commercial effort to continue developing oral calcitonin or oral PTH products, then the Company will recognize revenue in connection with past receipts of payments from Novartis derived from those agreements which are currently included in Deferred Revenue within our balance sheet. Management will pay close attention to Novartis actions and reevaluate circumstances that influence this determination in future.

As of December 31, 2012 total deferred revenue from all Novartis development license programs was approximately $13.0 million, comprised of the principal value ($10 million) plus interest ($3.0 million) we recorded on June 4, 2010, upon executing the Novartis Agreement, pursuant to which the Company was released and discharged from its obligations under the Novartis Note described in Note 8 to the Financial Statements included herein.

Purchased Technology  — Purchased technology represents the value assigned to patents and the rights to use, sell or license certain technology in conjunction with our proprietary carrier technology. These assets underlie our research and development projects related to various research and development projects. In December 2011, the Company reviewed its purchased technology in light of industry trends and advances in reformulating and stabilizing active pharmaceutical ingredients through the development of fractions and analogs, and determined that its technology is no longer applicable in the development of a potential future oral formulation of heparin. As a result the net book value of the purchased technology was not deemed recoverable and the Company realized an impairment charge of $0.6 million.

Warrants and Conversion Feature of MHR Convertible Note  — Warrants issued in connection with various equity financings and embedded conversion feature of the MHR Convertible Notes described above have been classified as liabilities due to certain provisions that may require cash settlement in certain circumstances. At each balance sheet date, we adjust the warrants to reflect their current fair value. We estimate the fair value of these instruments using the Black-Scholes model which takes into account a variety of factors, including historical stock price volatility, risk-free interest rates, remaining term and the closing price of our common stock. Changes in the assumptions used to estimate the fair value of these derivative instruments could result in a material change in the fair value of the instruments. The fair value of the embedded conversion feature of the MHR Convertible Notes and warrants that have exercise price reset features are estimated using an adjusted Black-Scholes model to account for possibilities that could occur due to various circumstances that could arise in connection with the contractual terms of said instruments. The Company weights each Black-Scholes model calculation based on its estimation of the likelihood of the occurrence of each circumstance and adjusts relevant Black-Scholes model input to calculate the value of the derivative at the reporting date. We believe the assumptions used to estimate the fair values of the warrants are reasonable. For a more complete discussion on the volatility in market value of derivative instruments, see Part I, Item 7A “ Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

Equipment and Leasehold Improvements  — Equipment and leasehold improvements are stated at cost. Depreciation and amortization are provided for on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of the asset. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the life of the lease or of the improvements, whichever is shorter. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs that do not materially extend the useful lives of the respective assets are charged to expense as incurred. The cost and accumulated depreciation or amortization of assets retired or sold are removed from the respective accounts and any gain or loss is recognized in operations.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets  — We review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events and circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset might not be recoverable. An impairment loss, measured as the amount by which the carrying value exceeds the fair value, is triggered if the carrying amount exceeds estimated undiscounted future cash flows. Actual results could differ significantly from these estimates,

 

42


Table of Contents

which would result in additional impairment losses or losses on disposal of the assets. In December 2011, the Company reviewed its purchased technology in light of industry trends and advances in reformulating and stabilizing active pharmaceutical ingredients through the development of fractions and analogs, and determined that its technology is no longer applicable in the development of a potential future oral formulation of heparin. As a result the net book value of the purchased technology was not deemed recoverable and the Company realized an impairment charge of $0.6 million.

Clinical Trial Accrual Methodology  — Clinical trial expenses represent obligations resulting from our contracts with various research organizations in connection with conducting clinical trials for our product candidates. We account for those expenses on an accrual basis according to the progress of the trial as measured by patient enrollment and the timing of the various aspects of the trial. Accruals are recorded in accordance with the following methodology: (i) the costs for period expenses, such as investigator meetings and initial start-up costs, are expensed as incurred based on management’s estimates, which are impacted by any change in the number of sites, number of patients and patient start dates; (ii) direct service costs, which are primarily on-going monitoring costs, are recognized on a straight-line basis over the life of the contract; and (iii) principal investigator expenses that are directly associated with recruitment are recognized based on actual patient recruitment. All changes to the contract amounts due to change orders are analyzed and recognized in accordance with the above methodology. Change orders are triggered by changes in the scope, time to completion and the number of sites. During the course of a trial, we adjust our rate of clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2012-02, “ Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment” (“ASU 2012-02”). ASU 2012-02 gives entities an option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicate that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible asset impaired. If based on its qualitative assessment, an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset is less than its carrying amount, quantitative impairment testing is required. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, quantitative impairment testing is not required. ASU 2012-02 is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2012-02 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “ Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities ” (“ASU 2011-11”) . ASU 2011-11 enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position. Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared on the basis of U.S. GAAP and financial statements prepared on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. ASU 2011-11 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In September 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-08 (“ASU 2011-08”), which updates the guidance in ASC Topic 350, Intangibles – Goodwill & Other . The amendments in ASU 2011-08 permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than the carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in ASC Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than fifty percent. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. The amendments in ASU 2011-08 include examples of events and circumstances that an entity should consider in evaluating whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. However, the examples are not intended to be all-inclusive and an entity may identify other relevant events and circumstances to consider in making the determination. The examples in this ASU 2011-08 supersede the previous examples under ASC

 

43


Table of Contents

Topic 350 of events and circumstances an entity should consider in determining whether it should test for impairment between annual tests, and also supersede the examples of events and circumstances that an entity having a reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount should consider in determining whether to perform the second step of the impairment test. Under the amendments in ASU 2011-08, an entity is no longer permitted to carry forward its detailed calculation of a reporting unit’s fair value from a prior year as previously permitted under ASC Topic 350. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2011-08 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2011-04 (“ASU 2011-04”), which updated the guidance in ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement. The amendments in ASU 2011-04 generally represent clarifications of Topic 820, but also include some instances where a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or disclosing information about fair value measurements has changed. ASU 2011-04 results in common principles and requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. The amendments in ASU 2011-04 are to be applied prospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Management does not believe there would have been a material effect on the accompanying financial statements had any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards been adopted in the current period.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2012, we had no material off-balance sheet arrangements.

In the ordinary course of business, we enter into agreements with third parties that include indemnification provisions which, in our judgment, are normal and customary for companies in our industry sector. These agreements are typically with business partners, clinical sites, and suppliers. Pursuant to these agreements, we generally agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified parties with respect to our product candidates, use of such product candidates, or other actions taken or omitted by us. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited. We have not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. As a result, the estimated fair value of liabilities relating to these provisions is minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these provisions as of December 31, 2012.

In the normal course of business, we may be confronted with issues or events that may result in a contingent liability. These generally relate to lawsuits, claims, environmental actions or the actions of various regulatory agencies. We consult with counsel and other appropriate experts to assess the claim. If, in our opinion, we have incurred a probable loss as set forth by accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., an estimate is made of the loss and the appropriate accounting entries are reflected in our financial statements.

Contractual Arrangements

Significant contractual obligations as of December 31, 2012 are as follows:

 

            Amount Due in  

Type of Obligation

   Total      Less than
1  Year
     1 to 3
Years
     3 to 5
Years
     More than
5  Years
 
     (In thousands)  

Notes Payable(1)(2)

   $ 33,607       $ 33,607       $       $       $   

Derivative liabilities(3)

     2,089         2,089                           

Operating lease obligations

     610         135         252         223           
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 36,306       $ 35,831       $ 252       $ 223       $   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) Amounts include both principal and related interest payments.

 

44


Table of Contents
(2) The Company is currently in default on $31.6 million under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and the $0.6 million 2010 MHR Notes, both of which are payable on demand. Additionally, the $1.4 million Bridge Note is payable on demand. Please see Note 8 to the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report for more information about the Company’s debt obligations.

 

(3) We have issued warrants to purchase shares of our common stock which contain provisions requiring us to make a cash payment to the holders of the warrant for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such warrants have been exercised. As a result, these warrants have been recorded at their fair value and are classified as current liabilities. The value and timing of the actual cash payments, if any, related to these derivative instruments could differ materially from the amounts and periods shown.

ITEM 7A.     QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Fair Value of Warrants and Derivative Liabilities.     At December 31, 2012, the value of derivative instruments was $2.1 million. We estimate the fair values of these instruments using the Black-Scholes model which takes into account a variety of factors, including historical stock price volatility, risk-free interest rates, remaining term and the closing price of our common stock. Furthermore, the Company computes the fair value of these instruments using multiple Black-Scholes model calculations to account for the various circumstances that could arise in connection with the contractual terms of said instruments. The Company weights each Black-Scholes model calculation based on its estimation of the likelihood of the occurrence of each circumstance and adjusts relevant Black-Scholes model input to calculate the value of the derivative at the reporting date. We are required to revalue this liability each quarter. We believe that the assumption that has the greatest impact on the determination of fair value is the closing price of our common stock. The following table illustrates the potential effect on the fair value of derivative instruments from changes in the assumptions made:

 

     Increase/(Decrease)  
     (In thousands)  

25% increase in stock price

   $ 555   

50% increase in stock price

     1,124   

5% increase in assumed volatility

     70   

25% decrease in stock price

     (537

50% decrease in stock price

     (1,047

5% decrease in assumed volatility

     (73

 

45


Table of Contents

ITEM 8.     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Index

 

     Page  

Emisphere Technologies, Inc.

  

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

     47   

Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011

     48   

Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

     49   

Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

     50   

Statements of Stockholders’ Deficit for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

     51   

Notes to the Financial Statements

     52   

 

46


Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Emisphere Technologies, Inc

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Emisphere Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Emisphere Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Emisphere Technologies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated March 28, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of Emisphere Technologies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a significant working capital deficiency, has limited cash availability and is in default under certain promissory notes. This raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ McGladrey LLP

New York, NY

March 28, 2013

 

47


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

BALANCE SHEETS

 

     December 31,  
     2012     2011  
    

(In thousands,

except share data)

 
ASSETS   

Current assets:

    

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 1,484      $ 3,069   

Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $0 in 2012 and $31 in 2011.

     1        22   

Inventories

     249        258   

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

     149        581   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current assets

     1,883        3,930   

Equipment and leasehold improvements, net

     12        44   

Restricted cash

     247        247   

Other assets

     34          
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

   $ 2,176      $ 4,221   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT   

Current liabilities:

    

Notes payable, related party, including accrued interest and net of related discount in 2011

   $ 33,607      $ 26,016   

Accounts payable and accrued expenses

     923        894   

Derivative instruments:

    

Related party

     1,491        9,371   

Others

     598        828   

Other current liabilities

     9        42   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

     36,628        37,151   

Deferred revenue

     31,614        31,593   

Deferred lease liability and other liabilities

     0        4   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities

     68,242        68,748   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Commitments and contingencies

              

Stockholders’ deficit:

    

Preferred stock, $.01 par value; authorized 2,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding-none

              

Common stock, $.01 par value; authorized 200,000,000 shares; issued 60,977,210 shares (60,687,478 outstanding) in 2012 and 2011

     610        610   

Additional paid-in capital

     405,096        404,707   

Accumulated deficit

     (467,820     (465,892

Common stock held in treasury, at cost; 289,732 shares

     (3,952     (3,952
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ deficit

     (66,066     (64,527
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit

   $ 2,176      $ 4,221   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

(See accompanying Notes to the Financials)

 

48


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

 

     Year Ended December 31,  
     2012     2011     2010  
     (In thousands, except share and per share data)  

Revenue

   $      $      $ 100   

Cost of goods sold

                   22   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gross profit

                   78   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Costs and expenses:

      

Research and development

     1,867        1,951        2,495   

General and administrative

     4,935        5,310        7,963   

Gain on disposal of fixed assets

     (10            (1

Restructuring charge

                   50   

Depreciation and amortization

     29        277        294   

Impairment of intangible asset

            598          

Contract termination expense

                   542   

Expense from settlement of lawsuit

                   278   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total costs and expenses

     6,821        8,136        11,621   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating loss

     (6,821     (8,136     (11,543
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other non-operating income (expense):

      

Sale of patent

                   500   

Investment and other income

     45        137        252   

Change in fair value of derivative instruments:

      

Related party

     7,880        21,957        (15,988

Others

     230        6,739        (7,663

Interest expense:

      

Related party

     (6,236     (5,631     (3,201

Others

            (15     (394

Loss on extinguishment of debt

                   (17,014

Financing fees

                   (1,858
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other non-operating income (expense)

     1,919        23,187        (45,366
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) before income tax benefit

     (4,902     15,051        (56,909

Income tax benefit

     2,974                 
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

   $ (1,928   $ 15,051      $ (56,909
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss) per share, basic

   $ (0.03   $ 0.27      $ (1.23
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss) per share, diluted

   $ (0.03   $ 0.25      $ (1.23
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average shares outstanding, basic

     60,687,478        56,292,511        46,206,803   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average shares outstanding, diluted

     60,687,478        59,281,325        46,206,803   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

(See accompanying Notes to the Financials)

 

49


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

 

    Year Ended December 31,  
    2012     2011     2010  
    (In thousands)  

Cash flows from operating activities:

     

Net income (loss)

  $ (1,928   $ 15,051      $ (56,909
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash used in operating activities:

     

Depreciation and amortization

    29        277        294   

Non-cash interest expense:

     

Related party

    6,236        5,631        22,073   

Others

                  394   

Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments:

     

Related party

    (7,880     (21,957     15,988   

Others

    (230     (6,739     7,663   

Non-cash compensation

    344        315        799   

Gain on disposal of fixed assets

    (10            (1

Impairment of purchased technology

           598          

Provision for bad debts

    31        31          

Changes in assets and liabilities excluding non-cash charges:

     

(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable

    (10     (39     145   

(Increase) decrease in inventories

    9        2        (24

(Increase) decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets

    432        (85     (344

(Increase) in security deposits

    (34              

Increase (decrease) in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other

    29        (2,488     (1,554

(Decrease) in other current liabilities

    (33              

Increase in deferred revenue

    21        58        7,072   

Decrease in deferred lease and other liabilities

    (4     (42     (35

Decrease in restructuring charge

           (300     (450
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total adjustments

    (1,070     (24,738     52,020   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash used in operating activities

    (2,998     (9,687     (4,889
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash flows from investing activities:

     

Decrease (increase) in restricted cash

           13        (1

Proceeds from sale of fixed assets

    13               1   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by investing activities

    13        13          
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash flows from financing activities:

     

Proceeds from notes payable

    1,400               500   

Payments on notes payable

                  (525

Proceeds from exercise of stock options and warrants

           242          

Net proceeds from issuance of common stock and warrants

           7,175        6,674   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by financing activities

    1,400        7,417        6,649   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

    (1,585     (2,257     1,760   

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year

    3,069        5,326        3,566   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, end of year

  $ 1,484      $ 3,069      $ 5,326   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

     

Interest paid

  $      $ 16      $ 6   

Non-cash investing and financing activities:

     

Issuance of liability warrants in connection with common stock offering

  $      $ 5,138      $ 4,920   

Reclassification of liability warrants to equity

  $      $ 349      $   

Exchange of debt as deferred revenue (Note 8)

  $      $      $ 13,000   

Common stock issued to settle accrued directors’ compensation

  $      $      $ 10   

(See accompanying Notes to the Financials)

 

50


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT

For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

 

     Common Stock      Additional
Paid-in
Capital
    Accumulated
Deficit
    Common Stock
Held in Treasury
Shares Amount
    Total  
     Shares      Amount           
     (In thousands except share data)  

Balance, December 31, 2009

     42,360,133       $ 424       $ 392,335      $ (424,034     289,732       $ (3,952   $ (35,227
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net Loss

             (56,909          (56,909

Issuance of common stock to directors

     13,674            10               10   

Reclassification of derivative liability due to exercise of warrants

           7,053               7,053   

Exercise of warrants

     2,809,971         28         (28              

Equity proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of share issuance expenses

     6,995,056         70         1,684               1,754   

Stock based compensation for employees

           723               723   

Stock based compensation for directors

           76               76   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2010

     52,178,834       $ 522       $ 401,853      $ (480,943     289,732       $ (3,952   $ (82,520
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net Income

             15,051             15,051   

Reclassification of derivative liability due to exercise of warrants

           349               349   

Exercise of warrants

     187,500         2         234               236   

Equity proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of share issuance expenses

     8,600,876         86         1,950               2,036   

Exercise of options

     10,000                 6               6   

Stock based compensation for employees

           188               188   

Stock based compensation for directors

           127               127   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2011

     60,977,210       $ 610       $ 404,707      $ (465,892     289,732       $ (3,952   $ (64,527
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net Loss

             (1,928          (1,928

Capital contributed from imputed interest

           45               45   

Stock based compensation for employees

           176               176   

Stock based compensation for directors

           168               168   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2012

     60,977,210       $ 610       $ 405,096      $ (467,820     289,732       $ (3,952   $ (66,066
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

(See accompanying Notes to the Financials)

 

51


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.    Nature of Operations, Risks and Uncertainties and Liquidity

Nature of Operations.     Emisphere Technologies, Inc. (“Emisphere”, “our”, “us”, the “company” or “we”) is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on a unique and improved delivery of therapeutic molecules and pharmaceutical compounds using its Eligen ® Technology. These molecules and compounds are currently available or are under development.

Our core business strategy is to pursue the commercialization of Oral Eligen ® B12, build new high-value partnerships and continue to expand upon existing partnerships, evaluate new prescription Medical Foods commercial opportunities, reprioritize the product pipeline, and promote new uses for the Eligen ® Technology.

Risks and Uncertainties.     We have no prescription products currently approved for sale by the U.S. FDA. There can be no assurance that our research and development will be successfully completed, that any products developed will obtain necessary government regulatory approval or that any approved products will be commercially viable. In addition, we operate in an environment of rapid change in technology and are dependent upon the continued services of our current employees, consultants and subcontractors.

Liquidity.     As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $1.5 million in cash, approximately $34.7 million in working capital deficiency, a stockholders’ deficit of approximately $66.1 million and an accumulated deficit of approximately $467.8 million. Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $1.9 million and our operating loss for the year ended December 31, 2012 was approximately $6.8 million. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that in order to continue as a going concern, our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured.

Since our inception in 1986, we have generated significant losses from operations. We have limited capital resources and operations to date have been funded with the proceeds from collaborative research agreements, public and private equity and debt financings and income earned on investments. As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes (described in Note 8 to these Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report) issued to MHR Fund Management LLC (together with its affiliates, “MHR”). The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. Pursuant to that certain Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2005, between the Company and MHR (as amended to date, the “Security Agreement”), the MHR Convertible Notes are secured by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, as a result of the payment default described above, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012.

The Company continues to be in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and, as a result of such default, MHR has the ability at any time to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets under the terms of the Security Agreement. To date, MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes or exercised its rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the default while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes and Security Agreement. No assurances can be given as to the outcome of such discussions.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is also in default under the terms of certain non-interest bearing promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $600,000 issued to MHR on June 8, 2010 (the “2010 MHR Notes”). The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 8, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010 MHR Notes, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the 2010 MHR Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

 

52


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

As more specifically described in Note 8 to these Financial Statements, on October 17, 2012, the Company issued a promissory note (the “Bridge Note”) to MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, and MHR Capital Partners (100) LP (collectively, the “Bridge Lender”) in the principal amount of $1,400,000 to be advanced by the Bridge Lender to the Company pursuant to the terms thereof (the “Bridge Loan”). That amount was sufficient to support operations through approximately December 15, 2012. The Bridge Note is secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets, is payable on demand.

As of December 31, 2012, the aggregate book value of MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes, and the Bridge Note including outstanding principal and interest was $33.6 million.

In December 2012, the Company received $1.5 million by participating in the Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. That amount is sufficient to support the Company’s continuing operations for approximately three months. We anticipate that we will continue to generate significant losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and that our business will require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. As such, we anticipate that our existing capital resources will enable us to continue operations through approximately April 15, 2013, or earlier if unforeseen events or circumstances arise that negatively affect our liquidity.

Further, we do not have sufficient resources to develop fully any new products or technologies unless we are able to raise substantial additional financing on acceptable terms or secure funds from new or existing partners. We cannot assure that financing will be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, these conditions may increase the cost to raise capital. If additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities would result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

While our plan is to raise capital and/or to pursue partnering opportunities, we cannot be sure that our plans will be successful. If the Company fails to raise additional capital or obtain substantial cash inflows from existing or new partners prior to April 15, 2013, or if MHR demands payment under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the 2010 MHR Notes or the Bridge Note, or exercises its rights under the Security Agreement, the Company could be forced to cease operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 include an explanatory paragraph expressing the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The Company is pursuing several courses of action to address its deficiency in capital resources including discussions with MHR, commercialization of B12, leveraging existing partnerships, and capital markets financings.

Even if we are successful in raising additional capital to meet our obligations and otherwise continue operations, our business will still require substantial additional investment that we have not yet secured. For further discussion, see Part II, Item 1A “ Risk Factors ”.

2.    Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Use of Estimates.     The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. involves the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses and performance period for revenue recognition. Actual results may differ substantially from these estimates. Significant estimates include the fair value and recoverability of the carrying value of purchased technology, recognition of on-going clinical trial costs, estimated costs to complete research collaboration projects, accrued expenses, the variables and method used to calculate stock-based compensation, derivative instruments and deferred taxes.

Concentration of Credit Risk.     Financial instruments, which potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk, consist of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments. We invest excess funds in accordance with a

 

53


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

policy objective seeking to preserve both liquidity and safety of principal. We generally invest our excess funds in obligations of the U.S. government and its agencies, bank deposits, money market funds, and investment grade debt securities issued by corporations and financial institutions. We hold no collateral for these financial instruments.

Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments.     We consider all highly liquid, interest-bearing instruments with original maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents may include demand deposits held in banks and interest bearing money market funds. Our investment policy requires that commercial paper be rated A-1, P-1 or better by either Standard and Poor’s Corporation or Moody’s Investor Services or another nationally recognized agency and that securities of issuers with a long-term credit rating must be rated at least “A” (or equivalent). As of December 31, 2012, we held no investments.

Inventory.     Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market determined by the first in, first out method.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets.     In accordance with FASB ASC 360-10-35, we review our long-lived assets, including purchased technology, for impairment whenever events and circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset might not be recoverable. An impairment loss, measured as the amount by which the carrying value exceeds the fair value, is recognized if the carrying amount exceeds estimated undiscounted future cash flows.

Equipment and Leasehold Improvements.     Equipment and leasehold improvements are stated at cost. Depreciation and amortization are provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of the asset. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the term of the lease or useful life of the improvements, whichever is shorter. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs that do not materially extend the useful lives of the respective assets are charged to expense as incurred. The cost and accumulated depreciation or amortization of assets retired or sold are removed from the respective accounts and any gain or loss is recognized in operations.

Purchased Technology.     Purchased technology represents the value assigned to patents and the right to use, sell or license certain technology in conjunction with our proprietary carrier technology that were acquired from Ebbisham Ltd. These assets are utilized in various research and development projects. Such purchased technology was being amortized on a straight line basis over 15 years, until 2014, which represents the average life of the patents acquired. In December 2011, the Company reviewed its purchased technology in light industry trends and advances in reformulating and stabilizing active pharmaceutical ingredients through the development of fractions and analogs, and determined that its technology is no longer applicable in the development of a potential future oral formulation of heparin. As a result the net book value of the purchased technology was not deemed recoverable and the Company realized an impairment charge of $0.6 million.

Deferred Lease Liability.     Our leases provide for rental holidays and escalations of the minimum rent during the lease term, as well as additional rent based upon increases in real estate taxes and common maintenance charges. We record rent expense from leases with rental holidays and escalations using the straight-line method, thereby prorating the total rental commitment over the term of the lease. Under this method, the deferred lease liability represents the difference between the minimum cash rental payments and the rent expense computed on a straight-line basis.

Revenue Recognition.     We recognize revenue in accordance with FASB ASC 605-10-S99, Revenue Recognition. Revenue includes amounts earned from sales of our oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) product, collaborative agreements and feasibility studies. Revenue earned from the sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) was recognized when the product was shipped, when all revenue recognition criteria were met in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104 , “Revenue Recognition” (codified under ASC 605 “Revenue Recognition”). Our distributor agreement for the marketing, distribution and sale of oral Eligen ® B12 (100 mcg) with Quality Vitamins and Supplements, Inc. was terminated during the third quarter, 2010. Revenue earned from collaborative agreements and feasibility studies is comprised of reimbursed research and development costs, as well as upfront and research and development milestone payments. Deferred revenue represents payments received which are related to future performance. Revenue from feasibility studies, which are typically short term

 

54


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

in nature, is recognized upon delivery of the study, provided that all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

Revenue from collaboration agreements are recognized using the proportional performance method provided that we can reasonably estimate the level of effort required to complete our performance obligations under an arrangement and such performance obligations are provided on a best effort basis and based on “expected payments.” Under the proportional performance method, periodic revenue related to nonrefundable cash payments is recognized as the percentage of actual effort expended to date as of that period to the total effort expected for all of our performance obligations under the arrangement. Actual effort is generally determined based upon actual hours incurred and include research and development (“R&D”) activities performed by us and time spent for Joint Steering Committee (“JSC”) activities. Total expected effort is generally based upon the total R&D and JSC hours incorporated into the project plan that is agreed to by both parties to the collaboration. Significant management judgments and estimates are required in determining the level of effort required under an arrangement and the period over which we expect to complete the related performance obligations. Estimates of the total expected effort included in each project plan are based on historical experience of similar efforts and expectations based on the knowledge of scientists for both the Company and its collaboration partners. The Company periodically reviews and updates the project plan for each collaborative agreement. The most recent reviews took place in January 2013. In the event that a change in estimate occurs, the change will be accounted for using the cumulative catch-up method which provides for an adjustment to revenue in the current period. Estimates of our level of effort may change in the future, resulting in a material change in the amount of revenue recognized in future periods.

Generally under collaboration arrangements, nonrefundable payments received during the period of performance may include time- or performance-based milestones. The proportion of actual performance to total expected performance is applied to the “expected payments” in determining periodic revenue. However, revenue is limited to the sum of (i) the amount of nonrefundable cash payments received and (ii) the payments that are contractually due but have not yet been paid.

With regard to revenue recognition in connection with development and license agreements that include multiple deliverables, Emisphere’s management reviews the relevant terms of the agreements and determines whether such deliverables should be accounted for as a single unit of accounting in accordance with FASB ASC 605-25, Multiple-Element Arrangements . If it is determined that a delivered license and Eligen ® Technology do not have stand-alone value and Emisphere does not have objective evidence of fair value of the undelivered Eligen ® Technology or the manufacturing value of all the undelivered items, then such deliverables are accounted for as a single unit of accounting and any payments received pursuant to such agreement, including any upfront or development milestone payments and any payments received for support services, will be deferred and included in deferred revenue within our balance sheet until such time as management can estimate when all of such deliverables will be delivered, if ever. Management reviews and reevaluates such conclusions as each item in the arrangement is delivered and circumstances of the development arrangement change. See Note 13 for more information about the Company’s accounting for revenue from specific development and license agreements.

Research and Development and Clinical Trial Expenses.     Research and development expenses include costs directly attributable to the conduct of research and development programs, including the cost of salaries, payroll taxes, employee benefits, materials, supplies, maintenance of research equipment, costs related to research collaboration and licensing agreements, the cost of services provided by outside contractors, including services related to our clinical trials, clinical trial expenses, the full cost of manufacturing drug for use in research, pre-clinical development, and clinical trials. All costs associated with research and development are expensed as incurred.

Clinical research expenses represent obligations resulting from our contracts with various research organizations in connection with conducting clinical trials for our product candidates. We account for those expenses on an accrual basis according to the progress of the trial as measured by patient enrollment and the

 

55


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

timing of the various aspects of the trial. Accruals are recorded in accordance with the following methodology: (i) the costs for period expenses, such as investigator meetings and initial start-up costs, are expensed as incurred based on management’s estimates, which are impacted by any change in the number of sites, number of patients and patient start dates; (ii) direct service costs, which are primarily ongoing monitoring costs, are recognized on a straight-line basis over the life of the contract; and (iii) principal investigator expenses that are directly associated with recruitment are recognized based on actual patient recruitment. All changes to the contract amounts due to change orders are analyzed and recognized in accordance with the above methodology. Change orders are triggered by changes in the scope, time to completion and the number of sites. During the course of a trial, we adjust our rate of clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates.

Income Taxes.     Deferred tax liabilities and assets are recognized for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements or tax returns. These liabilities and assets are determined based on differences between the financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is recognized to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. In assessing the likelihood of realization, management considered estimates of future taxable income.

Stock-Based Employee Compensation.     We recognize expense for our share-based compensation based on the fair value of the awards at the time they are granted. We estimate the value of stock option awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes model. The determination of the fair value of share-based payment awards on the date of grant is affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables include our expected stock price volatility over the term of the awards, expected term, risk-free interest rate, expected dividends and expected forfeiture rates. The forfeiture rate is estimated using historical option cancellation information, adjusted for anticipated changes in expected exercise and employment termination behavior. Our outstanding awards do not contain market or performance conditions therefore we have elected to recognize share-based employee compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments.     The carrying amounts for cash, cash equivalents, accounts payable, and accrued expenses approximate fair value because of their short-term nature. At December 31, 2012, the carrying value and accrued interest of the MHR Convertible Notes, 2010 MHR Notes, and Bridge Notes was $33.6 million, which reflects its original cost plus accrued interest. See Note 8 for further discussion of the notes payable.

Derivative Instruments.     Derivative instruments consist of common stock warrants, and certain instruments embedded in certain notes payable and related agreements. These financial instruments are recorded in the balance sheets at fair value as liabilities. Changes in fair value are recognized in earnings in the period of change.

Exit activities.     We have adopted FASB ASC 420-10-05, Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations . This Standard addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities. This Standard requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. This Standard also establishes that fair value is the objective for initial measurement of the liability. This Standard specifies that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity is incurred when the definition of a liability is met, and that fair value is the measurement at the exit, disposal or cease use date.

Fair Value Measurements.     The authoritative guidance for fair value measurements defines fair value as the price that would be received if an asset were to be sold or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Market participants are buyers and sellers in the principal market that are (i) independent, (ii) knowledgeable, (iii) able to transact, and (iv) willing to transact. The guidance describes a fair value hierarchy based on the levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value which are the following:

 

  Ÿ  

Level 1 — Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities

 

56


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

  Ÿ  

Level 2 — Inputs other than Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities

 

  Ÿ  

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the value of the assets or liabilities

Future Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Standards

New Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2012-02, “ Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment” (“ASU 2012-02”). ASU 2012-02 gives entities an option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicate that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible asset impaired. If based on its qualitative assessment an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset is less than its carrying amount, quantitative impairment testing is required. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, quantitative impairment testing is not required. ASU 2012-02 is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2012-02 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2011-11, “ Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities ” (“ASU 2011-11”) . ASU 2011-11 enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position. Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared on the basis of U.S. GAAP and financial statements prepared on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. ASU 2011-11 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In September 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-08 (“ASU 2011-08”), which updates the guidance in ASC Topic 350, Intangibles – Goodwill & Other . The amendments in ASU 2011-08 permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than the carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in ASC Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than fifty percent. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. The amendments in ASU 2011-08 include examples of events and circumstances that an entity should consider in evaluating whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. However, the examples are not intended to be all-inclusive and an entity may identify other relevant events and circumstances to consider in making the determination. The examples in this ASU 2011-08 supersede the previous examples under ASC Topic 350 of events and circumstances an entity should consider in determining whether it should test for impairment between annual tests, and also supersede the examples of events and circumstances that an entity having a reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount should consider in determining whether to perform the second step of the impairment test. Under the amendments in ASU 2011-08, an entity is no longer permitted to carry forward its detailed calculation of a reporting unit’s fair value from a prior year as previously permitted under ASC Topic 350. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2011-08 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

 

57


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2011-04 (“ASU 2011-04”), which updated the guidance in ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement. The amendments in ASU 2011-04 generally represent clarifications of Topic 820, but also include some instances where a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or disclosing information about fair value measurements has changed. ASU 2011-04 results in common principles and requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. The amendments in ASU 2011-04 are to be applied prospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Management does not believe there would have been a material effect on the accompanying financial statements had any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards been adopted in the current period.

3.    Inventory

Inventory consists of the following:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

Work in process

   $ 249       $ 258   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

4.    Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets

Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of the following:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

Prepaid corporate insurance

   $ 84       $ 36   

Deposit on inventory

             420   

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

     65         125   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 149       $ 581   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

5.    Fixed Assets

Equipment and leasehold improvements, net, consists of the following:

 

    

December 31,

        
    

Useful Lives In Years

   2012      2011  
          (In thousands)  

Equipment

   3-7    $ 1,306       $ 1,370   

Leasehold improvements

   Term of lease      61         61   
     

 

 

    

 

 

 
        1,367         1,431   

Less, accumulated depreciation and amortization

        1,355         1,387   
     

 

 

    

 

 

 
      $ 12       $ 44   
     

 

 

    

 

 

 

Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, was $29 thousand, $38 thousand and $56 thousand, respectively.

 

58


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

6.    Purchased Technology

The carrying value of the purchased technology is comprised as follows:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

Gross carrying amount

   $       $ 4,533   

Less, accumulated amortization

             3,695   

Less, impairment

             598   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net book value

   $       $   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Annual amortization of purchased technology was $0 for 2012 and $0.2 million for 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The purchased technology is comprised of patents for one of the Company’s carriers underlying unfractionated heparin (“UFH”) in a liquid form, UFH in a solid form and solid low molecular weight heparin. The patents expire June 30, 2014. In December 2011, the Company’s management reviewed the purchased technology in light of industry trends and advances in reformulating and stabilizing active pharmaceutical ingredients through the development of fractions and analogs, and determined that its technology is no longer applicable in the development of a potential future oral formulation of heparin. As such, the Company recognized an impairment of $0.6 million which represented the net book value at that time.

7.    Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

Accounts payable and accrued expenses consist of the following:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

Accounts payable

   $ 380       $ 318   

Accrued legal, professional fees and other

     522         513   

Accrued vacation

     21         24   

Clinical trial expenses and contract research

             39   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 923       $ 894   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

8.    Notes Payable and Restructuring of Debt

Notes payable consist of the following:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

MHR Convertible Note

   $ 31,576       $ 25,441   

2012 MHR Bridge Loan

     1,431           

2010 MHR Promissory Notes

     600         575   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 33,607       $ 26,016   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

MHR Convertible Notes.     On September 26, 2005, we received net proceeds of approximately $12.9 million under a $15 million secured loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) executed with MHR. Under the Loan Agreement, MHR requested, and on May 16, 2006, we effected, the exchange of the loan from MHR

 

59


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

for senior secured convertible notes (the “MHR Convertible Notes”) with substantially the same terms as the Loan Agreement, except that the MHR Convertible Notes are convertible, at the sole discretion of MHR, into shares of our common stock at a price per share of $3.78. As of December 31, 2012, the MHR Convertible Notes were convertible into 8,353,518 shares of our common stock. The MHR Convertible Notes were due on September 26, 2012, and are collateralized by a first priority lien in favor of MHR on substantially all of our assets. Interest is payable in the form of additional MHR Convertible Notes rather than in cash. As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay MHR approximately $30.5 million in principal and interest due and payable on September 26, 2012 under the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes. As a result of the Company’s failure to pay all amounts due and payable under the MHR Convertible Notes as of September 26, 2012, MHR has the ability under the terms of our Security Agreement with MHR to foreclose on substantially all of the Company’s assets. On October 4, 2012, the Company received notice from MHR that, pursuant to the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, the default interest rate of 13% per annum will apply with respect to the MHR Convertible Notes, effective as of September 27, 2012. MHR has not demanded payment under the MHR Convertible Notes nor exercised its other rights under the Security Agreement as a result of the default, and has continued discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the MHR Convertible Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the Security Agreement. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions.

Total issuance costs associated with the Loan Agreement were $2.1 million, of which $1.9 million were allocated to the MHR Convertible Notes, and $0.2 million were allocated to the related derivative instruments. Of the $1.9 million allocated to the MHR Convertible Notes, $1.4 million represents reimbursement of MHR’s legal fees and $0.5 million represents our legal and other transaction costs. The $1.4 million paid on behalf of the lender has been recorded as a reduction of the face value of the note, while the $0.5 million of our costs has been recorded as deferred financing costs.

In connection with the MHR Convertible Notes financing, the Company agreed to appoint a representative of MHR (“MHR Nominee”) and another person (the “Mutual Director”) to its Board of Directors. Further, the Company agreed to amend, and in January 2006 did amend, its certificate of incorporation to provide for continuity of the MHR Nominee and the Mutual Nominee on the Board, as described therein, so long as MHR holds at least 2% of the outstanding common stock of the Company.

Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Codification Topic 815-40-15-5, Evaluating Whether an Instrument Involving a Contingency is Considered Indexed to an Entity’s Own Stock (“FASB ASC 815-40-15-5”). Under FASB ASC 815-40-15-5, the conversion feature embedded in the MHR Convertible Notes have been bifurcated from the host contract and accounted for separately as a derivative. The bifurcation of the embedded derivative increased the amount of debt discount thereby reducing the book value of the MHR Convertible Notes and increasing prospectively the amount of interest expense to be recognized over the life of the MHR Convertible Notes using the effective yield method. As consideration for its consent and limitation of rights in connection with the Novartis Agreement (as defined below), the Company granted MHR warrants to purchase 865,000 shares of its common stock (the “June 2010 MHR Warrants”) under the MHR Letter Agreement (as defined below). The Company estimated the fair value of the June 2010 MHR Warrants on the date of grant using Black-Scholes models to be $1.9 million. The Company determined that the resulting modification of the MHR Convertible Notes was substantial in accordance with ASC 470-50, “Modifications and Extinguishments” . As such the modification of the MHR Convertible Notes was accounted for as an extinguishment and restructuring of the debt, and the warrants issued to MHR were expensed as a financing fee. The fair value of the MHR Convertible Notes, as of June 4, 2010 was estimated by calculating the present value of future cash flows discounted at a market rate of return for comparable debt instruments to be $17.2 million. The Company recognized a loss on extinguishment of debt in the amount of $17.0 million which represented the difference between the net carrying amount of the MHR Convertible Notes and their fair value as of the date of the Novartis Agreement and the MHR Letter Agreement.

 

60


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The book value of the MHR Convertible Notes is comprised of the following:

 

     December 31,  
     2012      2011  
     (In thousands)  

Face value of the note (including accrued interest)

   $ 31,576       $ 28,153   

Discount (related to the warrant purchase option and embedded conversion feature)

             (2,712
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 31,576       $ 25,441   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

Novartis Note.     On June 4, 2010, the Company and Novartis entered into a Master Agreement and Amendment (the “Novartis Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company was released and discharged from its obligations under that certain convertible note to Novartis (the “Novartis Note”) in exchange for (i) the reduction of future royalty and milestone payments up to an aggregate amount of $11.0 million due the Company under the Research Collaboration and Option Agreement, dated as of December 3, 1997, as amended on October 20, 2000 (the “Research Collaboration and Option Agreement”), and the License Agreement, dated as of March 8, 2000, for the development of an oral salmon calcitonin product for the treatment of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis (the “Oral Salmon Calcitonin Agreement”); (ii) the right for Novartis to evaluate the feasibility of using Emisphere’s Eligen ® Technology with two new compounds to assess the potential for new product development opportunities; and (iii) other amendments to the Research Collaboration and Option Agreement and License Agreement. As of the date of the Novartis Agreement, the outstanding principal balance and accrued interest of the Novartis Note was approximately $13.0 million. The Company recognized the full value of the debt released as consideration for the transfer of the rights and other intangibles to Novartis and deferred the related revenue in accordance with applicable accounting guidance for the sale of rights to future revenue until the earnings process has been completed based on achievement of certain milestones or other deliverables.

2010 MHR Promissory Notes.     In connection with the Novartis Agreement, the Company and MHR entered into a letter agreement (the “MHR Letter Agreement”), and MHR, the Company and Novartis entered into a non-disturbance agreement (the “Non-Disturbance Agreement”), which was a condition to Novartis’ execution of the Novartis Agreement. Pursuant to the MHR Letter Agreement, MHR agreed to limit certain rights and courses of action that it would have available to it as a secured party under the Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement and Pledge and Security Agreement (“Security Agreement”) between MHR and the Company. MHR also consented to the Novartis Agreement, which consent was required under the Security Agreement, and MHR also agreed to enter into a comparable agreement at some point in the future in connection with another potential Company transaction (the “Future Transaction Agreement”). The MHR Letter Agreement also provided for the Company to reimburse MHR for its legal fees incurred in connection with the Non-Disturbance Agreement for up to $500,000 and up to $100,000 in legal expenses incurred by MHR in connection the Future Transaction Agreement. The reimbursements were to be paid in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes issued on the effective date of the MHR Letter Agreement. As such, the Company issued to MHR non-interest promissory notes for $500,000 and $100,000 on June 8, 2010 (collectively, the “2010 MHR Notes”). The Company received documentation that MHR expended more than the $500,000 of legal fees in connection with the Non-Disturbance Agreement and $100,000 of legal fees in connection with the Future Transaction Agreement, and, consequently, recorded the issuance of the $500,000 and $100,000 2010 MHR Notes and a corresponding charge to financing expenses. The 2010 MHR Notes were originally due and payable on June 4, 2012, but this maturity date was extended to September 26, 2012 by agreement with MHR. The Company imputed interest at the time of issuance at its incremental borrowing rate of 10%, and discounted the face amounts of the $500,000 and $100,000 promissory notes by $21,000 and $4,000, respectively.

As of September 27, 2012, the Company is in default under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. The default is the result of the Company’s failure to pay to MHR $600,000 in principal due and payable on September 26,

 

61


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

2012 under the terms of the 2010 MHR Notes. As with the MHR Convertible Notes discussed above, MHR has not demanded payment under the 2010 MHR Notes and has indicated to the Company that it is prepared to continue discussions with the Company regarding proposals relating to the 2010 MHR Notes and the Company’s default thereunder while reserving all of its rights under the terms of the 2010 MHR Promissory Notes. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such discussions. The Company has imputed interest on the 2010 MHR Notes from June 9, 2012 through December 31, 2012 at a rate of 13% per annum. Imputed interest in the amount $45,000 has been recorded as contributed capital.

2012 Bridge Loan .    On October 17, 2012, the Company issued a promissory note (the “Bridge Note”) to MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, and MHR Capital Partners (100) LP (collectively, the “Bridge Lender”) in the principal amount of $1,400,000 to be advanced by the Bridge Lender to the Company pursuant to the terms thereof (the “Bridge Loan”). The Bridge Note provides for an interest rate of 13% per annum. Pursuant to the terms of the Bridge Note, the entire principal amount advanced by the Bridge Lender pursuant to the Bridge Note, plus all accrued interest thereon, is payable on demand. The obligations under the Bridge Note are secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets pursuant to the terms of the Security Agreement, as further described below.

Also on October 17, 2012, in connection with the issuance of the Bridge Note, Emisphere and MHR entered into that certain Amendment to Pledge and Security Agreement (the “Amendment”). The Amendment amends the Security Agreement to, among other things, include the Bridge Loan as an obligation secured by the terms of the Security Agreement and to include the Bridge Lender as a beneficiary of the terms of the Security Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Novartis Agreement described above, the Amendment expressly excludes certain intellectual property licensed to Novartis from the collateral securing the Bridge Loan. In accordance with the terms of the MHR Convertible Notes, MHR also provided a written consent to allow for the issuance of the Bridge Note and related obligations provided under the Amendment.

9.    Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments consist of the following:

 

     December 31,
2012
     December 31,
2011
 
     (in thousands)  

MHR Convertible Note

   $ 230       $ 7,367   

August 2007 Warrants

             12   

August 2009 Warrants

     372         540   

June 2010 MHR Warrants

     79         351   

August 2010 Warrants

     535         735   

August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants

     103         142   

July 2011 Warrants

     680         929   

July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants

     90         123   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 2,089       $ 10,199   
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

The fair value of the warrants that have exercise price reset features is estimated using an adjusted Black-Scholes model. The Company computes valuations each quarter, using Black-Scholes model calculations for such warrants to account for the various possibilities that could occur due to various circumstances that could arise in connection with the contractual terms of said instruments. The Company weights each Black-Scholes model calculation based on its estimation of the likelihood of the occurrence of each circumstance and adjusts relevant Black-Scholes model input to calculate the value of the derivative at the reporting date.

 

62


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Embedded Conversion Feature of MHR Convertible Notes.     The MHR Convertible Notes contain a provision whereby the conversion price is adjustable upon the occurrence of certain events, including the issuance by Emisphere of common stock or common stock equivalents at a price which is lower than the current conversion price of the MHR Convertible Notes and lower than the current market price. However, the adjustment provision does not become effective until after the Company raises $10 million through the issuance of common stock or common stock equivalents at a price which is lower than the current conversion price of the convertible note and lower than the current market price during any consecutive 24 month period. Under FASB ASC 815-40-15-5, the embedded conversion feature is not considered indexed to the Company’s own stock and, therefore, does not meet the scope exception in FASB ASC 815-10-15 and thus needs to be accounted for as a derivative liability. The fair value of the embedded conversion feature is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using Black-Scholes models. The assumptions used in computing the fair value as of December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, conversion prices of $3.78 and $0.16, expected volatility of 189.86% over the expected remaining term of three months and a risk-free rate of 0.05%. The fair value of the embedded conversion feature decreased $7.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and decreased $3.8 million and for the year ended December 31, 2011, and increased $6.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, which amounts have been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The embedded conversion feature will be adjusted to estimated fair value for each future period the MHR Convertible Notes remain outstanding. See Note 8 for a further discussion of the MHR Convertible Notes.

August 2007 Warrants.     In connection with an equity financing in August 2007 (the “August 2007 Financing”), Emisphere sold warrants to purchase up to 400,000 shares of common stock (the “August 2007 Warrants”). Of these 400,000 warrants, 91,073 were sold to MHR. Each of the August 2007 Warrants were issued with an exercise price of $3.948 and expired on August 21, 2012. The August 2007 Warrants provide for certain anti-dilution protection as provided therein. Under the terms of the August 2007 Warrants, we have an obligation to make a cash payment to the holders of the August 2007 Warrants for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the August 2007 Warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such August 2007 Warrants have been exercised. Accordingly, the 2007 Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The fair value of the August 2007 Warrants decreased $0.01 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, and decreased $0.5 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which has been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The August 2007 Warrants expired on August 21, 2012.

August 2009 Warrants.     In connection with an equity financing in August 2009 (the “August 2009 Financing”), Emisphere sold warrants to purchase 6.4 million shares of common stock to MHR (3.7 million) and other unrelated investors (2.7 million) (the “August 2009 Warrants”). The August 2009 Warrants were issued with an exercise price of $0.70 and expire on August 21, 2014. Under the terms of the August 2009 Warrants, we have an obligation to make a cash payment to the holders of the August 2009 Warrants for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the August 2009 Warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such August 2009 Warrants have been exercised. Accordingly, the August 2009 Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The fair value of the August 2009 Warrants is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using the Black-Scholes model. The assumptions used in computing the fair value as of December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, expected volatility of 200.52% over the remaining term of one year and eight months and a risk-free rate of 0.25%. The fair value of the August 2009 Warrants decreased $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, decreased $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 and increased $4.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. These fluctuations have been recognized in the accompanying statement of operations. The warrants will be adjusted to estimated fair value for each future period they remain outstanding. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the unrelated investors exercised their warrants to purchase up to 2,685,714 million shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.70, using the “cashless exercise” provision. The Company issued an aggregate of 1,966,937 shares to such holders in accordance with

 

63


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

the terms of the cashless exercise provision. The Company calculated the fair value of the 2,685,714 exercised warrants on their respective exercise dates using the Black-Scholes model. The weighted average assumptions used in computing the fair values were a closing stock price of $1.91, expected volatility of 101.99% over the remaining contractual life of four years, three months and a risk-free rate of 1.46%. The fair value of the 2.7 million exercised warrants increased by $2.2 million from January 1, 2010 through the date of exercise which has been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The fair value of the derivative liabilities at the exercise dates of $4.3 million was reclassified to additional paid-in-capital. After these cashless exercises, warrants to purchase up to 3,729,323 shares of common stock, in the aggregate, remain outstanding.

June 2010 MHR Warrants .    As consideration for its consent and limitation of rights in connection with the Novartis Agreement, the Company granted MHR warrants to purchase 865,000 shares of its common stock under the MHR Letter Agreement. The June 2010 MHR Warrants are exercisable at $2.90 per share and will expire on August 21, 2014. The June 2010 MHR Warrants provide for certain anti-dilution protection as provided therein. We have an obligation to make a cash payment to the holders of the warrants for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the June 2010 MHR Warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such June 2010 MHR Warrants have been exercised. Accordingly, the June 2010 MHR Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. Their fair value is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using the Black-Scholes model. The assumptions used in computing the fair value of the June 2010 MHR Warrants at December 31, 2012 are closing stock prices of $0.16, exercise prices of $0.16, $2.90, expected volatility of 200.52% over the remaining one year and eight months, and a risk-free rate of 0.25%. The fair value of the June 2010 MHR Warrants decreased $0.3 for the year ended December 31, 2012, and $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively and decreased $0.4 million from the commitment date of June 21, 2010 through December 31, 2010. These fluctuations have been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The June 2010 MHR Warrants will be adjusted to estimated fair value for each future period they remain outstanding.

August 2010 Warrants.     In connection with the August 2010 Financing, Emisphere sold warrants to purchase 5.2 million shares of common stock to MHR (2.6 million) and other unrelated investors (2.6 million) (the “August 2010 Warrants”). The August 2010 Warrants were issued with an exercise price of $1.26 and expire on August 26, 2015. Under the terms of the August 2010 Warrants, we have an obligation to make a cash payment to the holders of the August 2010 Warrants for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the August 2010 Warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such August 2010 Warrants have been exercised. Accordingly, the August 2010 Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The fair value of the warrants is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using the Black-Scholes model. On January 12, 2011, one of the unrelated investors notified the Company of its intention to exercise 0.2 million warrants. The Company received proceeds of $0.2 million from the exercise of these warrants. The Company calculated the fair value of the 0.2 million exercised warrants on January 12, 2011 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The assumptions used in computing the fair value as of January 12, 2011 are a closing stock price of $2.25, expected volatility of 107.30% over the remaining contractual life of four years and seven months and a risk-free rate of 1.99%. The fair value of the 0.2 million exercised warrants decreased by approximately $28,000 for the period from January 1, 2011 through January 12, 2011 which has been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The assumptions used in computing the fair value of the remaining August 2010 Warrants as of December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, exercise price of $1.26, expected volatility of 180.35% over the remaining term of two years and eight months, and a risk-free rate of 0.36%. The fair value of the August 2010 Warrants decreased $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $9.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively and increased $6.4 million from the commitment date of August 26, 2010 through December 31, 2010. These fluctuations have been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The August 2010 Warrants will be adjusted to estimated fair value for each future period they remain outstanding.

 

64


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants .    In connection with the August 2010 Financing, the Company entered into a waiver agreement with MHR, pursuant to which MHR waived certain anti-dilution adjustment rights under the MHR Convertible Notes and certain warrants issued by the Company to MHR that would otherwise have been triggered by the August 2010 Financing. As consideration for such waiver, the Company issued to MHR warrants to purchase 975,000 shares of its common stock (the “August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants”). The August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants are in the same form of warrant as the August 2010 Warrants issued to MHR described above. Accordingly, the August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The fair value of the August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using Black-Scholes models. The assumptions used in computing the fair value of the August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants at December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, exercise price of $1.26, expected volatility of 180.35% over the term of two years and eight months, and a risk free rate of 0.36%. The fair value of the August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants decreased by $0.04 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, and increased by $1.2 million from the commitment date through December 31, 2010, which has been recognized in the accompanying statements of operations. The August 2010 MHR Waiver Warrants will be adjusted to estimated fair value for each future period they remain outstanding.

July 2011 Warrants .    In connection with the July 2011 Financing, Emisphere sold warrants to purchase 6.02 million shares of common stock to MHR (3.01 million) and other unrelated investors (3.01 million) (the “July 2011 Warrants”). The July 2011 Warrants were issued with an exercise price of $1.09 and expire on July 6, 2016. Under the terms of the July 2011 Warrants, we have an obligation to make a cash payment to the holders of the July 2011 Warrants for any gain that could have been realized if the holders exercise the July 2011 Warrants and we subsequently fail to deliver a certificate representing the shares to be issued upon such exercise by the third trading day after such July 2011 Warrants have been exercised. Accordingly, the July 2011 Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The Company estimated the fair value of the warrants of the date of grant using Black-Scholes models to be $4.5 million. The fair value of the warrants is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using the Black-Scholes model. The assumptions used in computing the fair value of the July 2011 Warrants as of December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, exercise price of $1.09, expected volatility of 162.16% over the remaining term of three years and seven months, and a risk-free rate of 0.36 %. The fair value of the July 2011 Warrants decreased $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $3.6 million from the commitment date of July 6, 2011 through December 31, 2011, which has been recorded in the statements of operations.

July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants .    In connection with the July 2011 Financing, the Company entered into a waiver agreement with MHR, pursuant to which MHR waived certain anti-dilution adjustment rights under the MHR Convertible Notes and certain warrants issued by the Company to MHR that would otherwise have been triggered by the July 2011 Financing. As consideration for such waiver, the Company issued to MHR warrants to purchase 795,000 shares of its common stock (the “July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants”). The July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants are in the same form of warrant as the July 2011 Warrants issued to MHR described above. Accordingly, the July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants have been accounted for as a liability. The fair value of the July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants is estimated, at the end of each quarterly reporting period, using Black-Scholes models. The Company estimated the fair value of the warrants on the date of grant using Black-Scholes models to be $0.6 million. The assumptions used in computing the fair value of the July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants at December 31, 2012 are a closing stock price of $0.16, exercise price of $1.09, expected volatility of 162.16% over the term of three years and seven months, and a risk free rate of 0.36%. The fair value of the July 2011 MHR Waiver Warrants decreased by $0.03 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $0.5 million from the commitment date of July 6, 2011 through December 31, 2011 which has been recorded in the statements of operations.

 

65


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

10.    Income Taxes

The components of our income tax expense in 2012 and 2011 are as follows:

 

     2012     2011  

Current Tax Expense (Benefit)

    

Federal

   $      $   

State

   $ (2,974   $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
   $ (2,974   $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Deferred Tax Expense (Benefit)

    

Federal

   $      $   

State

   $      $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
   $      $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Tax Expense (Benefit)

   $ (2,974   $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

We recognized an approximate $3.0 million income tax benefit as a result of proceeds from the sale of $36 million of New Jersey net operating losses through the Technology Business Certificate Transfer Program, sponsored by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority.

As of December 31, 2012, we have available unused federal net operating loss (NOL) carry-forwards of $349.8 million, of which $1.1 million and $15.6 million will expire in 2012 and 2013, respectively, with the remainder expiring in various years from 2019 to 2032. We have New York State NOL carry-forwards of $290.5 million, which will expire in 2013 through 2032. We have New Jersey NOL carry-forwards of $26.4 million, which will expire in 2014 through 2019. As of December 31, 2012, we have research and development tax credit carry-forwards of $11 million of which $0.5 million and $0.7 million will expire in various years from 2019 to 2032.

The effective rate differs from the statutory rate of 34% for 2012, 2011 and 2010 primarily due to the following:

 

     2012     2011     2010  

Statutory Rate on pre-tax book loss

     -34.00     -34.00     -34.00

Stock option issuance

     1.22     -0.36     0.19

Disallowed interest

     12.05     -3.45     9.96

Derivatives

     -56.26     64.49     14.13

Expired net operating losses and credits

     61.64     -13.35     1.53

State Tax benefit of Sale of NJ NOL

     -60.67     0.00     0.00

True-ups and adjustments

     5.29     0.81     0.01

Change in federal valuation allowance

     10.06     -14.14     8.18
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
     -60.67     0.00     0.00
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

66


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The tax effect of temporary differences, net operating loss carry-forwards, and research and experimental tax credit carry-forwards as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 is as follows:

 

     December 31,  
     2012     2011  
     (in thousands)  

Deferred tax assets and valuation allowance:

    

Current deferred tax asset:

    

Accrued liabilities

   $ 59      $ 48   

Valuation allowance

     (59     (48
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net current deferred tax asset

   $      $   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Non-current deferred tax assets:

    

Fixed and intangible assets

   $ 392      $ 522   

Net operation loss carry-forwards

     120,497        121,547   

AMT credit carry-forwards

     74        74   

Capital loss and charitable carry-forwards

     2,749        2,749   

Research and experimental tax credits

     10,986        11,468   

Stock compensation

     360        1,007   

Deferred revenue

     12,627        12,618   

Interest

     6,686        4,889   

Valuation allowance

     (154,371     (154,874
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net non-current deferred tax asset

   $ 0      $ 0   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Future ownership changes may limit the future utilization of these net operating loss and research and development tax credit carry-forwards as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. We performed an analysis and determined that the Net operating losses and research and development expenses are not limited under Section 382. The net deferred tax asset has been fully offset by a valuation allowance due to our history of taxable losses and uncertainty regarding our ability to generate sufficient taxable income in the future to utilize these deferred tax assets.

We apply the provisions of ASC 740-10-25. ASC 740-10-25 which provides recognition criteria and a related measurement model for uncertain tax positions taken or expected to be taken in income tax returns. ASC 740-10-25 requires that a position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return be recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not that the position would be sustained upon examination by tax authorities. Tax positions that meet the more likely than not threshold are then measured using a probability weighted approach recognizing the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. The Company had no tax positions relating to open income tax returns that were considered to be uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recorded a liability for unrecognized tax benefits upon adoption of ASC 740-10-25. There continues to be no liability related to unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2012.

The Company’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 Federal, New York and New Jersey tax returns remain subject to examination by the respective taxing authorities. In addition, net operating losses and research tax credits arising from prior years are also subject to examination at the time that they are utilized in future years. Neither the Company’s federal or state tax returns are currently under examination.

 

67


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

11.    Stockholders’ Deficit

Our certificate of incorporation provides for the issuance of 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock with the rights, preferences, qualifications, and terms to be determined by our Board of Directors. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, there were no shares of preferred stock outstanding.

We have a stockholder rights plan in which Preferred Stock Purchase Rights (the “Rights”) have been granted at the rate of one one-hundredth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred Stock”) at an exercise price of $80 for each share of our common stock. The Rights expire on April 7, 2016.

The Rights are not exercisable, or transferable apart from the common stock, until the earlier of (i) ten days following a public announcement that a person or group of affiliated or associated persons have acquired beneficial ownership of 20% or more of our outstanding common stock or (ii) ten business days (or such later date, as defined) following the commencement of, or announcement of an intention to make a tender offer or exchange offer, the consummation of which would result in the beneficial ownership by a person, or group, of 20% or more of our outstanding common stock. MHR is specifically excluded from the provisions of the plan.

Furthermore, if we enter into consolidation, merger, or other business combinations, as defined, each Right would entitle the holder upon exercise to receive, in lieu of shares of A Preferred Stock, a number of shares of common stock of the acquiring company having a value of two times the exercise price of the Right, as defined. The Rights contain anti-dilutive provisions and are redeemable at our option, subject to certain defined restrictions for $.01 per Right.

As a result of the Rights dividend, the Board of Directors designated 200,000 shares of preferred stock as Series A Preferred Stock and on June 5, 2012, the Company filed a Certificate of Increase of Series A Preferred Stock, increasing the number of shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock from 200,000 to 1,000,000. Holders of Series A Preferred Stock will be entitled to a preferential cumulative quarterly dividend of the greater of $1.00 per share or 100 times the per share dividend declared on our common stock. Shares of Series A Preferred Stock have a liquidation preference, as defined, and each share will have 100 votes and will vote together with the common shares.

On June 5, 2012, the Company filed with the Secretary of the State of Delaware a Certificate of Amendment (the “Certificate of Amendment”) to its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, increasing the number of authorized shares of common stock from 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 shares and increasing the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 shares.

12.    Stock-Based Compensation Plans

Total compensation expense recorded during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 for share-based payment awards was $0.3 million, $0.3 million and $0.8 million, respectively, of which $0.1 million, $0.06 million and $0.1 million is recorded in research and development and $0.2 million, $0.2 million and $0.7 million is recorded in general and administrative expenses in the statement of operations. At December 31, 2012, total unrecognized estimated compensation expense related to non-vested stock options granted prior to that date was approximately $0.3 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.0 years. No tax benefit was realized due to a continued pattern of operating losses. We have a policy of issuing new shares to satisfy share option exercises. No options were exercised during the year ended December 31, 2012 and ten thousand options were exercised during the year ended December 31, 2011. Cash received from options exercised totaled $6 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2011.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company granted 2,736,750 options which included 2,000,000 to Alan Rubino, 45,000 options to Michael Garone, 30,000 options to Gary Riley, 215,000 options to Timothy Rothwell, 90,000 options each to Timothy McInerney and Jacob Plotsker and 40,000 options each to Dr. Mark Rachesky, Dr. Michael Weiser, and John Harkey.

 

68


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Using the Black-Scholes model, we have estimated our stock price volatility using the historical volatility in the market price of our common stock for the expected term of the option. The risk-free interest rate is based on the yield curve of U.S. Treasury STRIP securities for the expected term of the option. We have never paid cash dividends and do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we assumed a 0% dividend yield. The forfeiture rate is estimated using historical option cancellation information, adjusted for anticipated changes in expected exercise and employment termination behavior. Forfeiture rates and the expected term of options are estimated separately for groups of employees that have similar historical exercise behavior. The ranges presented below are the result of certain groups of employees displaying different behavior.

The following weighted-average assumptions were used for grants made under the stock option plans for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010:

 

     2012  
     Directors     Executives     Employees  

Expected volatility

     120.0-125.6     121.9-131.1     121.9

Expected term

     6.8 years        6.8 years        6.8 years   

Risk-free interest rate

     1.04-1.38     0.99-1.07     0.99

Dividend yield

     0     0     0

Annual forfeiture rate

     14.5     14.5     14.5

 

     2011  
     Directors     Executives     Employees  

Expected volatility

     83.7     82.7     82.7

Expected term

     6.8 years        6.8 years        6.8 years   

Risk-free interest rate

     1.34     2.10     2.10

Dividend yield

     0     0     0

Annual forfeiture rate

     14.5     14.5     14.5

 

     2010  
     Directors     Executives     Employees  

Expected volatility

     95.5     85.7     85.7

Expected term

     6.8 years        6.8 years        6.8 years   

Risk-free interest rate

     2.17     3.14     3.20

Dividend yield

     0     0     0

Annual forfeiture rate

     14.5     14.5     14.5

Stock Option Plans.     On April 20, 2007, the stockholders approved the 2007 Stock Award and Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”). The 2007 Plan provides for grants of options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, deferred stock, bonus stock and awards in lieu of obligations, dividend equivalents, other stock based awards and performance awards to executive officers and other employees of the Company, and non-employee directors, consultants and others who provide substantial service to us. The 2007 Plan provides for the issuance of 3,275,334 shares as follows: 2,500,000 new shares, 374,264 shares remaining and transferred from the Company’s 2000 Stock Option Plan (the “2000 Plan”) (which was then replaced by the 2007 Plan) and 401,070 shares remaining and transferred from the Company’s Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors (the “Directors Stock Plan”). In addition, shares cancelled, expired, forfeited, settled in cash, settled by delivery of fewer shares than the number underlying the award, or otherwise terminated under the 2000 Plan will become available for issuance under the 2007 Plan, once registered. As of December 31, 2012 189,878 shares remain available for issuance under the 2007 Plan. Generally, the options vest at the rate of 20% per year and expire within a five-to-ten-year period, as determined by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and as defined by the Plans.

 

69


Table of Contents

EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The Company’s other active Stock Option Plan is the 2002 Broad Based Plan (the “2002 Plan”). Under the 2002 Plan, a maximum of 160,000 shares are authorized for issuance to employees in the form of either incentive stock options (“ISOs”), as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, or non-qualified stock options, which do not qualify as ISOs. As of December 31, 2012, 160,000 shares remain available for issuance under the 2002 Plan.

The Company also has grants outstanding under its expired and terminated 2000 Stock Option Plan (the “2000 Plan”). Under our 2000 Plan a maximum of 1,945,236 shares of our common stock were available for issuance. The 2000 Plan was available to employees, directors and consultants. The 2000 Plan provides for the grant of either ISOs, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, or non-qualified stock options, which do not qualify as ISOs. Generally, the options vest at the rate of 20% per year and expire within a five- to ten-year period, as determined by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and as defined by the Plans.

Transactions involving stock options awarded under the Plans described above during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 are summarized as follows:

 

     Number of
Shares
    Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
     Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term in Years
     Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
 
                         (In thousands)  

Outstanding at December 31, 2009

     2,734,736      $ 6.29         6.8      

Granted

     662,750      $ 1.41         

Expired

     (183,500   $ 37.99         

Forfeited

     (48,120   $ 1.31         
  

 

 

         

Outstanding at December 31, 2010

     3,165,866      $ 3.51         6.9       $ 46   

Granted

     309,000      $ 1.24         

Exercised

     (10,000   $ 0.62         

Expired

     (110,266   $ 13,92         

Forfeited

     (185,970   $ 1.82         
  

 

 

         

Outstanding at December 31, 2011

     3,168,630      $ 3.03         3.4       $ 18   

Granted

     2,736,750      $ 0.43         

Expired

     (1,709,020   $ 3.67         

Forfeited

     (45,950   $ 1.30         
  

 

 

         

Outstanding at December 31, 2012

     4,150,410      $ 1.07         8.4       $ 1,076