Coherus to Raise $150 Million as Pegfilgrastim Litigation Continues

August 24, 2017
The Center for Biosimilars Staff

Coherus BioSciences has announced that it plans to raise up to $150 million in a 2-tranche private placement deal with Temasek.

Coherus BioSciences has announced that it plans to raise up to $150 million in a 2-tranche private placement deal with Temasek.

The first tranche of $75 million consists of 6,556,116 shares of common stock, issued at an offering price of $11.44 per share. The Singapore-based investment company plans to issue the second tranche after the FDA grants approval to CHS-1701, Coherus’ pegfilgrastim biosimilar (referenced on Amgen’s Neulasta).

Coherus says that it will use the funding for the development and eventual launch of CHS-1701. It will also dedicate some of the money to developing and registering CHS-1420 (an adalimumab biosimilar referenced on Humira) and to developing CHS-3351 (a ranibizumab biosimilar referenced on Lucentis).

“We are very pleased to have the support of a significant investor of Temasek’s stature and reputation as we continue to progress CHS-1701 and the rest of our pipeline,” Coherus CEO Denny Lanfear said. “We are gratified to have Temasek as a shareholder as we advance our efforts to bring biosimilar competition to the market, delivering cost savings for the healthcare system and increasing access to essential biologics for patients.”

The investment windfall is welcome news for the biosimilar developer, which restructured its business and terminated 30% of its workforce in July after the FDA issued a complete response letter for CHS-1701 in June. Despite the fact that it is not yet clear when Coherus will be able to resubmit a new application for the drug, the biosimilar has been the subject of costly Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigation since 2016.

In July, Coherus sought a stay of discovery in the case, saying that it needed to preserve its limited resources. Amgen’s answering brief argued that Coherus should be well aware of the costs that come with resolving patent disputes through litigation, and that “Whatever may have led to Coherus’s alleged financial hardship…it does not justify delaying discovery of information relevant to prepare this case for trial.”

Coherus, in its own reply brief filed last week, invoked both the BPCIA and its own need to preserve its financial resources, saying that “The BPICA does not require wasting money on discovery pending dispositive motions.”

Related Content:

News | Business