Bat­tered by le­gal ex­pens­es, opi­oid drug­mak­er In­sys files for bank­rupt­cy days af­ter $225M deal to set­tle gov­ern­ment probes

To no­body’s sur­prise, con­tro­ver­sial opi­oid drug­mak­er In­sys is fil­ing for bank­rupt­cy.

John Kapoor In­sys

Last week, the com­pa­ny $IN­SY agreed to pay $225 mil­lion to set­tle the US gov­ern­ment’s sep­a­rate crim­i­nal and civ­il in­ves­ti­ga­tions re­lat­ed to its fen­tanyl spray Sub­sys, about a month af­ter its founder and for­mer se­nior ex­ec­u­tive team were found guilty by a fed­er­al ju­ry of rack­e­teer­ing. Founder John Kapoor and his four com­pa­tri­ots’ an­tics in­clud­ed brib­ing doc­tors to pre­scribe the po­tent, ad­dic­tive painkiller and dup­ing in­sur­ers in­to pay­ing for the dead­ly opi­oid drug.

The US De­part­ment of Jus­tice set­tle­ment com­pound­ed the stress on a fi­nan­cial­ly strained In­sys. Last month, the com­pa­ny in­di­cat­ed it was fac­ing a liq­uid­i­ty cri­sis trig­gered by the litany of law­suits it was sub­ject to, and in April, In­sys’ au­di­tor raised doubts on the drug­mak­er’s abil­i­ty to con­tin­ue as a go­ing con­cern.

“Af­ter con­duct­ing a thor­ough re­view of avail­able strate­gic al­ter­na­tives, we de­ter­mined that a court-su­per­vised sale process is the best course of ac­tion to max­i­mize the val­ue of our as­sets and ad­dress our lega­cy le­gal chal­lenges…” In­sys CEO An­drew Long said in a state­ment on Mon­day. The com­pa­ny’s shares $IN­SY sank about 46% in­to pen­ny stock ter­ri­to­ry at 71 cents in ear­ly morn­ing trad­ing.

The chap­ter 11 fil­ing will al­low for the pletho­ra of lit­i­ga­tion against In­sys to be pre­sent­ed be­fore a soli­tary judge who will de­ter­mine what each plain­tiff will re­ceive.

The firm will con­tin­ue to sell Sub­sys, while it looks for buy­ers for the spray and its oth­er as­sets. If In­sys is un­able to woo a Sub­sys suit­or in 90 days, the com­pa­ny will be com­pelled to stop mar­ket­ing it, ac­cord­ing to a June 5 agree­ment with the HHS. Sub­sys ac­count­ed for a bulk of $82 mil­lion in 2018 In­sys sales (to­tal loss for that year was about $124 mil­lion), down from $141 mil­lion in 2017 and a far cry from $242 mil­lion in 2016.

Af­ter re­view­ing In­sys’ court doc­u­ments, Er­ic Sny­der of NYC-based law firm Wilk Aus­lan­der found that the In­sys has 92 patents and 62 patent ap­pli­ca­tions pend­ing, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to val­ue the com­pa­ny’s as­sets. “They say that they are seek­ing to con­duct an auc­tion sale of all of their as­sets on an ex­pe­dit­ed ba­sis, but they have yet to file a mo­tion seek­ing this au­thor­i­ty,” he said in an emailed state­ment.

“This case is very un­usu­al, be­cause they (In­sys) do not have a se­cured cred­i­tor/lender.  So, they are self-fund­ing the bank­rupt­cy. This is very ex­pen­sive and that is prob­a­bly the rea­son they mov­ing for an im­me­di­ate auc­tion, even though they have no “stalk­ing horse” (par­ties in con­tract) bid­ders,” added Sny­der, who serves as chair­man of his firm’s bank­rupt­cy de­part­ment.

In­sys is hard­ly the on­ly opi­oid drug mak­er in fi­nan­cial trou­ble. Pur­due Phar­ma — the mak­er of one of the most wide­ly abused pre­scrip­tion opi­oid painkiller Oxy­con­tin — is re­port­ed­ly con­sid­er­ing bank­rupt­cy. Mean­while, oth­er drug man­u­fac­tur­ers, dis­trib­u­tors and phar­ma­cies are al­so fac­ing hun­dreds of civ­il law­suits for their role in prop­a­gat­ing the opi­oid cri­sis.

“(T)here is lit­tle doubt that Pur­due, the mak­er of Oxy­con­tin, will be next. The po­ten­tial li­a­bil­i­ty and the stig­ma of its as­so­ci­a­tion with the drug over­comes any val­ue of the as­sets,” Sny­der said.

In­sys’ Sub­sys — which is made of fen­tanyl, the man-made opi­oid 50 times more po­tent than hero­in and 100 times more po­tent than mor­phine — was ap­proved in 2012 by the FDA for break­through can­cer pain. Pros­e­cu­tors charged the for­mer In­sys ex­ec­u­tives with in­flat­ing Sub­sys sales by brib­ing doc­tors to pre­scribe the drug to pa­tients with­out can­cer — in an elab­o­rate scheme that in­clud­ed win­ing and din­ing physi­cians, pay­ing them to speak at “ed­u­ca­tion­al events” — there­by fu­el­ing the rag­ing opi­oid cri­sis that kills 130 Amer­i­cans every day. Ju­rors at the tri­al were giv­en a front-row seat to the video en­gi­neered to train the com­pa­ny’s sales reps, in which two im­pec­ca­bly suit­ed men — os­ten­si­bly In­sys em­ploy­ees — rapped about com­pa­ny busi­ness strat­e­gy: “I love titra­tions. Yeah, that’s not a prob­lem. I got new pa­tients, and I got a lot of ‘em…If you want to be great, lis­ten to my voice. You can be great — but it’s your choice.”

Founder John Kapoor — and four mem­bers of the for­mer se­nior ex­ec­u­tive team — face up to 20 years in prison and will be sen­tenced in Sep­tem­ber.

Bat­tered by scan­dal, In­sys in re­cent years sharp­ened its fo­cus on cannabis-de­rived drug de­vel­op­ment, but even in that are­na its track record is trou­bling. In 2016, the Ari­zona-based com­pa­ny re­port­ed­ly do­nat­ed $500,000 to a cam­paign against the le­gal­iza­tion of cannabis in the state, out­rag­ing mar­i­jua­na ac­tivists who ac­cused the com­pa­ny of try­ing to sti­fle com­pe­ti­tion. That skep­ti­cism was war­rant­ed when the fol­low­ing March In­sys’ cannabi­noid oral so­lu­tion Syn­dros was resched­uled by the DEA — at the fed­er­al lev­el cannabis is strict­ly con­trolled in the same sched­ule LSD and hero­in is, and any de­rived prod­uct must be rel­e­gat­ed to low­er cat­e­go­ry be­fore it can be sold — and thus primed for launch.

Im­age: In­sys (Glass­door)

Covid-19 roundup: Eu­rope pur­chas­es 80M dos­es of Mod­er­na's vac­cine; CO­V­AXX se­cures $2.8B in emerg­ing mar­ket pre-or­ders

With the announcement of its vaccine efficacy data last week, Moderna is starting to line up customers for its Covid-19 mRNA jabs.

The Massachusetts-based biotech announced Wednesday it has agreed to sell an initial round of 80 million doses to the European Commission, with the option to double the amount to 160 million. Once the member states rubber stamp the approval, the deal will be finalized.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pascal Soriot (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: As­traZeneca, Ox­ford on the de­fen­sive as skep­tics dis­miss 70% av­er­age ef­fi­ca­cy for Covid-19 vac­cine

On the third straight Monday that the world wakes up to positive vaccine news, AstraZeneca and Oxford are declaring a new Phase III milestone in the fight against the pandemic. Not everyone is convinced they will play a big part, though.

With an average efficacy of 70%, the headline number struck analysts as less impressive than the 95% and 94.5% protection that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have boasted in the past two weeks, respectively. But the British partners say they have several other bright spots going for their candidate. One of the two dosing regimens tested in Phase III showed a better profile, bringing efficacy up to 90%; the adenovirus vector-based vaccine requires minimal refrigeration, which may mean easier distribution; and AstraZeneca has pledged to sell it at a fraction of the price that the other two vaccine developers are charging.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jason Kelly, Ginkgo Bioworks CEO (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Af­ter Ko­dak de­ba­cle, US lends $1.1B to a syn­thet­ic bi­ol­o­gy com­pa­ny and their big Covid-19, mR­NA plans

In mid-August, as Kodak’s $765 million government-backed push into drug manufacturing slowly fell apart in national headlines, Ginkgo Bioworks CEO Jason Kelly got a message from his company’s government liaison: HHS wanted to know if they, too, might want a loan.

The government’s decision to lend Kodak three quarters of a billion dollars raised eyebrows because Kodak had never made drugs before. But Ginkgo, while not a manufacturing company, had spent the last decade refining new ways to produce materials inside cells and building automated facilities across Boston.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 94,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA hands Liq­uidia and Re­vance a CRL and de­fer­ral, re­spec­tive­ly, as Covid-19 cre­ates in­spec­tion chal­lenge

Two biotechs said they got turned away by the FDA on Wednesday, in part due to pandemic-related travel restrictions.

North Carolina-based Liquidia Technologies was handed a CRL for its lead pulmonary arterial hypertension drug, citing the need for more CMC data and on-site pre-approval inspections, which the FDA hasn’t been able to conduct due to travel restrictions. The agency also deferred its decision on Revance Therapeutics’ BLA for its frown line treatment, because it needs to inspect the company’s northern California manufacturing facility. The action, Revance emphasized, was not a CRL.

News brief­ing: FDA re­quests new tri­al for Reata's Friedre­ich's atax­ia pro­gram; J&J's Trem­fya picks up ex­pand­ed la­bel in Eu­rope

Three months after Reata Pharmaceuticals suggested its Friedreich’s ataxia program omaveloxolone could be delayed, the company revealed that is indeed going to be the case.

Reata $RETA shares took a nosedive Wednesday after the biotech revealed that the FDA said supplemental data for its pivotal trial did not strengthen the case for approval. As a result, the drug is likely to need another study before the FDA takes up the case.

Jef­frey Hat­field takes over from Diego Mi­ralles as CEO of Vi­vid­ion; Drag­on­fly scores a new ex­ec with COO Alex Lu­gov­skoy

→ San Diego protein degradation startup Vividion Therapeutics has made a change at the top with Jeffrey Hatfield taking the helm as CEO, replacing Diego Miralles six months after Roche forked over $135 million to collaborate with Vividion on their small molecule degraders. Hatfield is chairman of the board at miRagen Therapeutics and previously held the CEO job at Zafgen and Vitae Pharmaceuticals. He also had a series of leadership roles at Bristol Myers Squibb from 1996-2004, including SVP, immunology and virology divisions.

Chi­na opens the door for biotech in­vestors in Hong Kong to buy Shang­hai stocks, and vice ver­sa

When Shanghai’s STAR board began opening its doors to biotech, it was considered not just a rival to Nasdaq but also the stock exchange in Hong Kong. Those perceptions may take an amicable turn as China expands a mutual access program with the city.

The changes mean investors in mainland China will be able to own Hong Kong biotech chapter stocks, while those in Hong Kong — a much more internationally connected group — would have access to those listed on STAR. In effect, it turns the Shanghai market into a globally accessible exchange overnight while also broadening a key source of revenue for HKEX.

Bax­ter con­tin­ues on-shoring push with $50M In­di­ana ex­pan­sion

It’s been a banner year for the once humdrum business of manufacturing drugs, particularly vaccines. Billions have been spent ramping up facilities for Covid-19 jabs, while individual CDMOs have expanded their facilities, apparently anticipating demand or responding to a government-led push to onshore drug manufacturing.

Now Baxter Biopharma Solutions, the CDMO wing of the many-armed healthcare giant Baxter, is getting in on the game. On Tuesday, they announced plans to spend $50 million to expand their flagship, 600,000 square-foot facility in Bloomington, IN.

Eu­ro­pean Union aims to es­tab­lish patent workaround in case of emer­gen­cies while try­ing to strength­en its own IP

The European Union is looking at ways to bypass patent protections and make it easier to make generic drugs in cases of emergency such as the Covid-19 pandemic, a new document says.

Normally, under WTO regulations, the practice known as “compulsory licensing” is allowed in exceptional circumstances and could be applied as a waiver to bypass patent holders. Wednesday’s document was published as part of the EU’s plan to shore up the intellectual property rights of its member states.