UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
 
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
Or
o
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 0-9314
 
ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
 
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
 
83-0221517
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
2600 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 176, Dallas, TX
(Address of registrant’s principal executive offices)
 
75207
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (214) 905-5100
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  None
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $0.01 par value
 
Title of Each Class

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o  No x
 
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 the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. 
Yes x  No o

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 (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes o No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K 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. o
 
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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
 
 
 

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o  No x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of June 30, 2010, was approximately $22,200,000.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock as of March 30, 2011 was 19,337,298 shares. Also outstanding at March 30, 2011 there were 2,958.3617 shares of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock convertible into 11,601,405 shares of Common Stock.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
 
Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement relating to our 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated.

 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Page  
Part I
 
   
 
 
 
Item 1.
Business
2
 
 
Item 1A.
Risk Factors
17
 
 
Item 2.
Properties
24
 
 
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
24
 
 
Item 4.
Removed and Reserved
24
 
         
Part II
         
 
Item 5.
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and
   
   
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
26
 
 
Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
   
   
Results of Operations
28
 
 
Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
32
 
 
Item 9.
Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
32
 
 
Item 9A.
Controls and Procedures
32
 
 
Item 9B.
Other Information
34
 
         
Part III
         
 
Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
35
 
 
Item 11.
Executive Compensation
35
 
 
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related 36
   
   
Stockholder Matters
35
 
 
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence
35
 
 
Item 14.
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
35
 
 
Item 15.
Exhibits
36
 
         
 Signatures         39  
 


 
 

 

PART I

ITEM 1.   BUSINESS
 
This Form 10-K (including the information incorporated by reference) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to the uncertainties associated with research and development activities, clinical trials, our ability to raise capital, the timing of and our ability to achieve regulatory approvals, dependence on others to market our licensed products, collaborations, future cash flow, the timing and receipt of licensing and milestone revenues, the future success of our marketed products and products in development, our sales projections, and the sales projections of our licensing partners, our ability to achieve licensing milestones and other risks described below as well as those discussed elsewhere in this 10-K, documents incorporated by reference and other documents and reports that we file periodically with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These statements include, without limitation, statements relating to our ability to continue as a going concern, anticipated product approvals and timing thereof, product opportunities, clinical trials and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) applications, as well as our drug development strategy, our clinical development organization, expectations regarding our rate of technological developments and competition, our plan not to establish an internal marketing organization, our expectations regarding minimizing development risk and developing and introducing technology, the size of our targeted markets, the terms of future licensing arrangements, our ability to secure additional financing for our operations and our expected cash burn rate. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “could,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including the risks outlined under “Risk Factors,” that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels or activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
 
Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We are under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of filing this Form 10-K to conform such statements to actual results.

Business

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together with our subsidiaries, “We”, “Access” or the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation. We are an emerging biopharmaceutical company focused on developing a range of pharmaceutical products primarily based upon our nanopolymer chemistry technologies and other drug delivery technologies. We currently have one approved product, two products at Phase 2 of clinical development and several products in pre-clinical development. Low priority clinical and pre-clinical programs will be dependent on our ability to enter into collaboration arrangements. Certain of our development programs are dependent upon our ability to secure approved funding for such projects.

·  
MuGard™ is our approved product for the management of oral mucositis, a frequent side-effect of cancer therapy for which there is no established treatment. The market for mucositis treatment is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion world-wide. MuGard, a proprietary nanopolymer formulation, has received marketing allowance in the U.S. from the FDA. MuGard has been launched in Germany, Italy, UK, Greece and the Nordic countries by our European commercial partner, SpePharm. We launched MuGard in the United States in September of 2010. We are working with our partners in Korea and China for registration and marketing.

·  
Our lead development candidate for the treatment of cancer is ProLindac™, a nanopolymer DACH-platinum prodrug. We initiated a study of ProLindac combined with Paclitaxel in second line treatment of platinum pretreated advanced ovarian cancer patients in the fourth quarter of 2010. This multi-center study of up to 25 evaluable patients is being conducted in France. We are also currently planning a number of combination trials, looking at combining ProLindac with other cancer agents in solid tumor indications including colorectal and ovarian cancer. The DACH-platinum incorporated in ProLindac is the same active moiety as that in oxaliplatin (Eloxatin; Sanofi-Aventis), which has sales in excess of $2.0 billion.

 
2

 
 
·  
Thiarabine, or 4-thio Ara-C, is a next generation nucleoside analog licensed from Southern Research Institute. Previously named SR9025 and OSI-7836, the compound has been in two Phase 1/2 solid tumor human clinical trials and was shown to have anti-tumor activity. We are working with leukemia and lymphoma specialists at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and have initiated additional Phase 2 clinical trials in adult AML, ALL and other indications.

·  
CobOral™ is our proprietary preclinical nanopolymer oral drug delivery technology based on the natural vitamin B12 oral uptake mechanism. We are currently developing a product for the oral delivery of insulin, and have conducted sponsored development of a product for oral delivery of human growth hormone. We have signed or are in discussion with several companies regarding the sponsored development of CobOral drug delivery formulations of proprietary and non-proprietary actives.

·  
CobaCyte™-mediated cancer targeted delivery is a preclinical technology which makes use of the fact that cell surface receptors for vitamins such as B12 are often overexpressed by cancer cells. This technology uses nanopolymer constructs to deliver more anti-cancer drug to tumors while protecting normal tissues.

Products

We use our drug delivery technologies to develop the following products and product candidates:

Access Drug Portfolio
Compound
 
Originator
 
 
Technology
 
Indication
 
Clinical
Stage (1)
                 
MuGard™
 
Access
 
Mucoadhesive
liquid
 
Mucositis
 
Launched
U.S. and EU
 
ProLindacTM (Polymer
   Platinate, AP5346)  (2)
 
 
Access /
Univ of
London
 
 
Synthetic
polymer
 
Cancer
 
Phase 2
Thiarabine (4-thio Ara-C) (3)
 
Southern
Research
Institute
 
 
Small
molecule
 
Cancer
 
Phase 1/2
Oral Insulin
 
 
Access
 
Cobalamin
 
Diabetes
 
Pre-clinical
CobOral™ Delivery System
 
 
Access
 
Cobalamin
 
Various
 
Pre-clinical
CobaCyte™-Targeted Therapeutics
 
Access
 
Cobalamin
 
Anti-tumor
 
Pre-clinical

(1)           For more information, see “Government Regulation” for description of clinical stages.
(2)           Licensed from the School of Pharmacy, The University of London.
(3)           Licensed from Southern Research Institute of Birmingham, Alabama.

Approved Product

MuGard™
 
Overview of MuGard
Mucositis is a debilitating condition involving extensive ulceration of the oral cavity that affects annually an estimated 400,000 cancer patients in the United States undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment. We believe that any treatment that would accelerate healing and/or diminish the rate of appearance of mucositis would have a significant beneficial impact on the quality of life of these patients and may allow for more aggressive chemotherapy. We believe the potential addressable market for a mucositis product could be over $1 billion world-wide.
 
 
3

 
 
Our MuGard is a viscous hydrogel polymer solution which provides a coating for the oral cavity. MuGard is dispensed in a ready to use form. A multi-site, randomized clinical study was performed in the United States testing MuGard and MuGard containing an anti-inflammatory drug to determine the effect of these products on the prevention and treatment of mucositis. The data from this trial indicated that the patients using MuGard displayed a lower incidence of mucositis than is typically seen in the studied population with no additional benefit from the drug.

The data were retrospectively compared with two historical patient databases to evaluate the potential advantages MuGard may provide in the prevention, treatment and management of mucositis. The patient evaluation was conducted using the oral mucositis assessment scale (OMAS), which qualifies the disease severity on a scale of 0-5. Key highlights of the comparison with the historical patient databases are as follows:
 
•      the average severity of the disease was reduced by approximately 40%;
•      the maximum intensity of the mucositis was approximately 35% lower; and
•      the median peak intensity was approximately 50% lower.
 
These data confirmed the fact that MuGard could represent an important advancement in the management of mucositis.  On December 13, 2006, we announced our receipt of marketing clearance for MuGard from the FDA for the indication of the management of oral wounds including mucositis, aphthous ulcers and traumatic ulcers.

In August 2007 we signed a definitive licensing agreement with SpePharm Holding, B.V. under which SpePharm will market MuGard in Europe. MuGard sales started in Europe in the second quarter of 2009. In January 2008, we signed a definitive licensing agreement with RHEI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under which RHEI will market MuGard in China and other Southeast Asian countries.

On July 29, 2009, we took control of the North American rights to MuGard from a previous partner which had not received required funding to launch the product in the U.S.  In addition, we announced that we are evaluating strategic options for the commercialization of MuGard in North America. Also on July 29, 2009, we announced that Mr. Frank Jacobucci, formerly President & COO of Milestone Biosciences, joined Access as a consultant, and will assist with ongoing reimbursement, manufacturing and commercial launch activities at Access, while discussions with potential licensee and co-promotion partners is ongoing. Subsequent to joining Access as a consultant, Mr. Jacobucci joined Access as a full time employee on December 1, 2009, as Vice President, Sales and Marketing.

On September 11, 2009, we announced the appointment of Accupac, Inc. as our U.S. manufacturer for MuGard.
 
Current Status of MuGard
We launched MuGard in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2010. MuGard has been launched in Germany, Italy, UK, Greece and the Nordic countries by our European commercial partner, SpePharm. We are working with our partners in Korea and China for registration and marketing.

We are currently executing on numerous strategies including the implementation of a dedicated sales force and marketing strategies, sampling programs, reimbursement strategies, the clinical advancement program for MuGard involving some of the foremost thought leaders in the oral mucositis arena as well as the advancement of the other uniquely differentiated products within our pipeline.

Products in Development
 
ProLindac™ (Polymer Platinate, AP5346) DACH Platinum
 
Overview of ProLindac
Chemotherapy, surgery and radiation are the major components in the clinical management of cancer patients. Chemotherapy serves as the primary therapy for some solid tumors and their metastases, and is increasingly used as an adjunct to radiation and surgery to improve their effectiveness. For chemotherapeutic agents to be effective in treating cancer patients, however, the agent must reach the target cells in effective quantities with minimal toxicity in normal tissues.
 
 
4

 
 
The current optimal strategy for chemotherapy involves exposing patients to the most intensive cytotoxic regimens they can tolerate. Clinicians will often use a combination of chemotherapeutic drugs, a dosing schedule and a method of administration designed to increase the probability that cancerous cells will be destroyed while minimizing the harm to healthy cells. Notwithstanding clinicians’ efforts, most current chemotherapeutic drugs have significant shortcomings that limit the efficacy of chemotherapy. For example, certain cancers are inherently unresponsive to chemotherapeutic agents. Alternatively, other cancers may initially respond, but subgroups of cancer cells acquire resistance to the drug during the course of therapy and the resistant cells may survive and cause a relapse. Serious toxicity, including bone marrow suppression, renal toxicity, neuropathy, or irreversible cardiotoxicity, are some of the limitations of current anti-cancer drugs that can prevent their administration in curative doses.
 
Oxaliplatin, a compound of DACH platinum, is a chemotherapeutic which was initially approved in Europe in 1999 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. It is now also being marketed worldwide and has generated sales in excess of $2 billion in 2008. Carboplatin and Cisplatin, two other approved platinum chemotherapy drugs, are not indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin, in combination with 5-flurouracil and folinic acid (known as the FOLFOX regime) is indicated for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Europe and the U.S. The colorectal cancer market is a significant opportunity as there are over 940,000 reported new cases annually worldwide, increasing at a rate of approximately three percent per year, and 500,000 deaths.
 
Currently, platinum compounds are one of the largest selling categories of chemotherapeutic agents, with annual sales in excess of $2.7 billion in 2006. As is the case with all chemotherapeutic drugs, the use of such compounds is associated with serious systemic side effects. The drug development goal therefore is to enhance delivery of the active drug to the tumor and minimize the amount of active drug affecting normal organs in the body.
 
Utilizing a biocompatible water-soluble polymer (HPMA) as a drug carrier, our drug candidate ProLindac, links DACH platinum to a polymer in a manner which permits the selective release of the active drug to the tumor by several mechanisms. The main release mechanism takes advantage of the differential pH in tumor tissue compared to healthy tissue. The polymer also capitalizes on the biological differences in the permeability of blood vessels at tumor sites versus normal tissue. In this way, tumor selective delivery and platinum release is achieved. The ability of ProLindac to inhibit tumor growth has been evaluated in more than ten preclinical models. Compared with the marketed product oxaliplatin, ProLindac was superior, and in several cases markedly superior in most of these models. Preclinical studies of the delivery of platinum to tumors in an animal model have shown that, compared with oxaliplatin at equitoxic doses, ProLindac delivers in excess of 16 times more platinum to the tumor. An analysis of tumor DNA, which is the main target for anti-cancer platinum agents, has shown that ProLindac delivers approximately 14 times more platinum to tumor DNA than oxaliplatin. Results from preclinical efficacy studies conducted in the B16 melanoma and other tumor models have also shown that ProLindac is superior to oxaliplatin in inhibiting the growth of tumors. An extensive preclinical package has been developed supporting the development of ProLindac.
 
In 2005, we completed a Phase 1 multi-center clinical study conducted in Europe, which enrolled 26 patients. The study was reported in a journal publication, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 60(4): 523-533 in 2007. The European trial was designed to identify the maximum tolerated dose, dose limiting toxicities, the pharmacokinetics of the platinum in plasma and the possible anti-tumor activity of ProLindac. The open-label, non-randomized, dose-escalation Phase 1 study was performed at two European centers.
 
Of the 26 patients, 10 were not evaluable for tumor response, principally due to withdrawal from the study prior to completing the required number of cycles. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 2 demonstrated a partial response, 1 experienced a partial response based on a biomarker and 4 experienced stable disease. One of the patients who attained a partial response had a melanoma with lung metastasis; a CT scan revealed a tumor decrease of greater than 50%. The other patient who responded had ovarian cancer; she had a reduction in lymph node metastasis and remission of a liver metastasis. The patient who experienced a partial response based on a biomarker was an ovarian cancer patient for whom Ca125 levels returned to normal. Also of note, a patient with cisplatin resistant cervical cancer showed a short lasting significant reduction in lung metastasis after 3 doses. However, due to toxicity, the patient could not be retreated to determine whether the partial response could be maintained.

 
5

 
 
Enrollment in a Phase 2 clinical trial of ProLindac was completed late in 2008 in ovarian cancer patients who relapsed after first line platinum therapy and second line therapies. The primary aim of the study was to determine the response rate of ProLindac monotherapy in this patient population. The response rates for other platinum compounds in this indication are reported, and were used for comparison. Patients were dosed either once every 2 weeks or once every three weeks. As the Phase 1 study involved weekly dosing, the initial phase of the ovarian cancer monotherapy study involved some dose escalation to determine recommended doses using these dosing regimens.

This 26 patient Phase 2 study explored 3 different dose levels and 2 dosing regimens of ProLindac as a monotherapy treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, to provide data on the monotherapy anticancer activity and safety of ProLindac. Of patients eligible for evaluation according to standard RECIST criteria, clinically-meaningful disease stabilization was achieved in 42% of all patients, and 66% of all patients in the higher dose groups. Sustained and significant reductions in Ca125, the established specific serum marker for ovarian cancer, were also observed in several patients.
 
We reported positive safety and efficacy results from this Phase 2 monotherapy clinical study of ProLindacTM in late-stage, heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients. No patient in any dose group exhibited any signs of acute neurotoxicity, which is a major adverse side-effect of the approved DACH platinum, Eloxatin, and ProLindac was well tolerated overall. The maximum tolerated dose of ProLindac was established as well as the recommended dose levels for future combination studies.

ProLindac was well tolerated in an absolute sense and relative to commercially-available platinum therapies. We saw significant DACH platinum activity and efficacy in patients at the highest dose levels which we believe is very encouraging given that this study involved monotherapy in a heavily pretreated patient population that typically only respond to aggressive drug combinations. The DACH platinum activity level seen benchmarked favorably with published studies of monotherapy oxaliplatin in similar but less heavily pre-treated patient populations.

On August 3, 2009, we announced that we commenced a new clinical study of ProLindac in France. The study examined dose levels and regimens of ProLindac monotherapy in cancer patients, provided additional data to support design of combinations studies, and extended the safety database. Eight ovarian cancer patients were enrolled in the study at the end of 2009 and none experienced any acute adverse events.

Current Status of ProLindac
On January 7, 2010, based on the results of the trial with eight patients we announced the initiation of a study of ProLindac combined with Paclitaxel in second line treatment of platinum pretreated advanced ovarian cancer patients. This study is the first to look at the safety and efficacy of ProLindac in combination with other oncology agents. The efficacy of Diamino Cyclohexane Platinum, the active principle in ProLindac, is evidenced mainly through their synergic association with multiple anticancer agents. The choice of Paclitaxel and ovarian cancer as the potential first NDA strategic choice to be explored is based on the results of the Paclitaxel/Oxaliplatin combination in the same clinical setting. This multi-center study of up to 25 evaluable patients will be conducted in Europe. The efficacy endpoint goal is to achieve a minimum of 63% response rate in the total of 25 evaluable patients the study is planning to accrue on a two-step design. We initiated a study of ProLindac combined with Paclitaxel in second line treatment of platinum pretreated advanced ovarian cancer patients in the fourth quarter of 2010.

We previously submitted an IND application to the FDA, and received clearance from the agency to proceed with a Phase 1 clinical study of ProLindac in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin. The study is designed to evaluate the safety of ProLindac in combination with two standard drugs used to treat colorectal cancer and to establish a safe dose for Phase 2 clinical studies of this combination in colorectal cancer.  We are currently evaluating various options for combination trials to be conducted, in the US or other countries.

 
6

 
 
Thiarabine (4-thio Ara-C)
 
Overview of Thiarabine
Our product candidate Thiarabine (SR-9025 or 4'-thio-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine) is a new generation nucleoside analogue which was invented by Southern Research Institute of Birmingham, Alabama. This compound is within a certain class of anti-cancer drugs generally characterized as cytotoxic agents with proven success in solid tumors and certain blood-borne cancers.

Thiarabine exhibited significant activity, including regressions or cures, in six tested leukemia or lymphoma cell lines. The compound produced better activity than ara-C or a fatty acid-modified ara-C (depot) analog in four of six tested models. Thiarabine also performed as well or better than clofarabine and gemcitabine in each of the models.

Unlike ara-C, Thiarabine was found to be active in a wide variety of solid tumor xenograft models (14 different cell lines), including colorectal, lung, renal, prostate, breast and pancreatic tumors, mainly via intraperitoneal administration (one model was done iv). Thiarabine produced regressions or tumor-free survivors in about half of the models and exhibited better activity than gemcitabine or clofarabine in many models. Thiarabine activity was also better than that of paclitaxel or cisplatin in certain lung models. An increase in regression or cure rate over either compound alone was observed with combinations of Thiarabine and cisplatin in lung tumors, Thiarabine and irinotecan or clofarabine in colorectal tumors, and Thiarabine plus clofarabine in a leukemia model.

Two phase 1 studies were conducted of Thiarabine monotherapy in patients with solid tumors.

In the first phase 1 study, 26 patients with incurable advanced and/or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled. Out of 21 evaluable patients, 9 experienced stable disease (median duration 4.3 months, range 1.8-6.4 months).

Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed at 400-600 mg/m2. Unlike previous observations with gemcitabine and ara-C (where the DLT is myelosupression; leucopenia and thrombocytopenia), there were no grade four toxicities and no hematological toxicities other than reversible lymphopenia. Investigators concluded that the (Grade 3) dose-limiting toxicities were fatigue, rash, fever, seizure and lymphopenia.

A second solid tumor phase 1 trial was carried out to explore other schedules. Of the 27 evaluable patients, 7 patients (including bladder cancer and mesothelioma) achieved disease stabilization (median 3.7 months, range 1.9-5.4). The main toxicity was fatigue, which appeared to be schedule independent.

Current Status of Thiarabine
We believe the results seen for Thiarabine in leukemia and lymphoma preclinical models and the lymphopenia observed in clinical studies provides a strong rationale for further investigation of thiarabine in leukemia and lymphoma patients. We are working with leukemia and lymphoma specialists at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and have initiated additional Phase 2 clinical trials in adult AML, ALL and other indications. We also plan further Thiarabine clinical studies subject to funding or partnering.

Drug Development Strategy
 
We have a rich pipeline of products and product candidates ranging from preclinical development candidates to one approved product. To maximize return on this portfolio, we plan to develop in-house and with collaborators the following products and technologies: MuGard, ProLindac, Thiarabine and CobaCyte/CobOral.

A part of our integrated drug development strategy is to form alliances with centers of excellence in order to obtain alternative lead compounds while minimizing the overall cost of research. We do not spend significant resources on fundamental biological research but rather focus on our chemistry expertise and clinical development. For example, certain of our polymer platinate technology has resulted in part from a research collaboration with The School of Pharmacy, University of London.
 
Our strategy is to focus on our polymer therapeutic program for the treatment of cancer while continuing to develop technologies such as CobOral-mediated oral drug delivery and CobaCyte-mediated tumor targeting which could provide us with a revenue stream in the short term through commercialization or outlicensing to fund our longer-term polymer and oncology drug development programs such as ProLindac and Thiarabine. To reduce financial risk and financing requirements, we are directing our resources to the preclinical and early clinical phases of development. We plan to co-develop with or to outlicense to marketing partners our therapeutic product candidates where the size of the necessary clinical studies and cost associated with the later clinical development phases are significant. By forming strategic alliances with pharmaceutical and/or biotech companies, we believe that our technology can be more rapidly developed and successfully introduced into the marketplace.
 
 
7

 
 
We will continue to evaluate the most cost-effective methods to advance our programs. We plan to contract certain research and development, manufacturing and manufacturing scaleup, certain preclinical testing and product production to research organizations, contract manufacturers and strategic partners as appropriate to achieve cost savings and accelerate our development programs. We also plan to expand our internal core capabilities and infrastructure in the areas of chemistry, formulation, analytical methods development, clinical development, biology and project management to maximize product opportunities in a timely manner.  
 
Process

We generally begin the product development effort by screening and formulating potential product candidates, selecting an optimal active component, developing a formulation, and developing the processes and analytical methods. Pilot stability, toxicity and efficacy testing are conducted prior to advancing the product candidate into formal preclinical development.  Specialized skills are required to produce these product candidates utilizing our technology. We have a limited core internal development capability with significant experience in developing these formulations, but also depend upon the skills and expertise of our contractors.
 
Once the product candidate has been successfully screened in pilot testing, our scientists, together with external consultants, assist in designing and performing the necessary preclinical efficacy, pharmacokinetic and toxicology studies required for IND submission. External investigators and scaleup manufacturing facilities are selected in conjunction with our consultants. The initial Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies are conducted by institutions and investigators supervised and monitored by our employees and contract research organizations. We do not plan to have an extensive clinical development organization as we plan to have the advanced phases of this process conducted by a development partner. We expect to engage a contract research organization to perform Phase 3 clinical studies.
 
We contract with third party contract research organizations to complete our large clinical trials and for data management of all of our clinical trials. Currently, we are preparing for two Phase 2 ProLindac trials to be completed by our licensees in China and Korea. Our licensees are funding these trials. We are also conducting an additional Phase 2 clinical study in France. Our licensees for MuGard are planning additional clinical studies to strengthen marketing claims.
 
With all of our product development candidates, we cannot assure you that the results of the in vitro or animal studies are or will be indicative of the results that will be obtained if and when these product candidates are tested in humans. We cannot assure you that any of these projects will be successfully completed or that regulatory approval of any product will be obtained.
 
We expended approximately $3,349,000 and $2,657,000 on research and development during the years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Scientific Background

We possess a broad range of technologies and intellectual property in the areas of drug delivery and oncology. Our core technologies rely on the use of nanopolymers for use in the management of oral conditions such as mucositis, and in drug delivery. In addition, we have small molecule and monoclonal antibody programs which also embody the principals of drug delivery and drug targeting.

In our drug delivery programs for oncology, we believe the ultimate criteria for effective drug delivery is to control and optimize the localized release of the drug at the target site and rapidly clear the non-targeted fraction. Conventional oncology drug delivery systems such as controlled release, sustained release, transdermal systems and others are designed for delivering active product into the systemic circulation over time with the objective of improving patient compliance and extending tumor exposure to drug. These systems do not address the biologically relevant issues such as site targeting, localized release and clearance of drug. The major factors that impact the achievement of this ultimate drug delivery goal are the physical characteristics of the drug and the delivery system, and the biological characteristics of the disease target sites. The physical characteristics of the drug affect solubility in biological systems, its biodistribution throughout the body, and its interactions with the intended pharmacological target sites and undesired areas of toxicity. The biological characteristics of the diseased area impact the ability of the drug to selectively interact with the intended target site to allow the drug to express the desired pharmacological activity.
 
 
8

 
 
We believe our drug delivery technologies are differentiated from conventional drug delivery systems in that they seek to apply a disease-specific approach to improve the drug delivery process with formulations to significantly enhance the therapeutic efficacy and reduce toxicity of a broad spectrum of products.

Our CobOral drug delivery technology seeks to deliver drugs orally to systemic circulation and CobaCyte to diseased cells. The main use of the CobOral technology will be to deliver drugs orally that otherwise could only be administered by injection because of poor natural oral absorption and/or degradation in the gastrointestinal tract. While other oral drug delivery technologies have been reported, the majority rely on permeation enhancement. Permeation enhancement temporarily increase the gaps between the cells which line the gastrointestinal tract to allow more drug to pass through. But this technique also allows many other materials, many potentially toxic, to enter the body more readily. Additionally, permeation enhancers only permit a small increase in oral uptake. The CobOral technology relies upon a natural receptor-mediated uptake mechanism which can facilitate uptake of larger quantities of drug. Our nanopolymer technology is used to encapsulate the drug, protecting it in the harsh environment of the gastrointestinal tract, and permits slow drug release once transported into systemic circulation.

Core Drug Delivery Technology Platforms and Technologies
 
Our current drug delivery technology platforms for use in cancer chemotherapy are: 
·  
Synthetic Polymer Targeted Drug Delivery Technology;
·  
CobOral™-Mediated Oral Delivery Technology; and
·  
CobaCyte™-Mediated Targeted Delivery Technology.
 
 Each of these platforms is discussed below:
 
Synthetic Polymer Targeted Drug Delivery Technology
 
In collaboration with The School of Pharmacy, University of London, we have developed a synthetic polymer technology, which utilizes a hydroxypropylmethacrylamide (HPMA) polymer with platinum, designed to exploit enhanced permeability and retention effect, or EPR, at tumor sites to selectively accumulate drug and control drug release. This technology is employed in our lead clinical program, ProLindac. Many solid tumors possess vasculature that is hyperpermeable, or leaky, to macromolecules. In addition to this enhanced permeability, tumors usually lack effective lymphatic and/or capillary drainage. Consequently, tumors selectively accumulate circulating macromolecules, including, for example, up to 10% of an intravenous dose in mice. The increased tumor uptake of macromolecules and decreased clearance are the main elements of EPR, and is thought to constitute the mechanism of action of styrene-maleic/anhydride-neocarzinostatin, or SMANCS, a polymer therapeutic which is in regular clinical use in Japan for the treatment of hepatoma. These polymers take advantage of endothelial permeability as the drug carrying polymers are trapped in tumors and then taken up by tumor cells. Linkages between the polymer and drug can be designed to be cleaved extracellularly or intracellularly. Utilizing the principles of prodrugs, the drug is essentially inert while attached to the polymer, but is released inside the tumor mass while polymer/drug not delivered to tumors is cleared from the body via the kidneys. For example, ProLindac is attached to a pH-sensitive linker which releases the platinum cytotoxic agent much faster in the low pH environments found typically outside of hypoxic tumor cells and within specific compartments inside of tumor cells. Data generated in animal studies have shown that the polymer/drug complexes are far less toxic than free drug alone and that greater efficacy can be achieved. Thus, these polymer complexes have demonstrated significant improvement in the therapeutic index of anti-cancer drugs, including, for example, platinum.
 
CobOral™-Mediated Oral Delivery Technology
 
Oral delivery is the preferred method of administration of drugs where either long-term or daily use (or both) is required. However, many therapeutics, including peptide and protein drugs, are poorly absorbed when given orally. With more peptide and protein based biopharmaceuticals entering the market, there is an increasing need to develop an effective oral delivery system for them, as well as for long-standing injected drugs such as insulin.
 
 
9

 
 
The difficulty in administering proteins orally is their susceptibility to degradation by digestive enzymes, their inability to cross the intestinal wall and their rapid excretion by the body. Over the years, many different methodologies for making protein drugs available orally have been attempted. Most of the oral protein delivery technologies involve protecting the protein degradation in the intestine. More recently, strategies have been developed that involve coadministering the protein or peptide with permeation enhancers, which assist in passive transit through the gut wall or by attaching the protein or peptide to a molecule that transports the protein across the gut wall. However, the field of oral drug delivery of proteins and peptides has yet to achieve successful commercialization of a product (although positive results have been achieved in early clinical trials for some products under development).
 
Many pharmaceutically active compounds such as proteins, peptides and cytotoxic agents cannot be administered orally due to their instability in the gastrointestinal tract or their inability to be absorbed and transferred to the bloodstream. A technology that would allow many of these actives to be taken orally would greatly enhance their acceptance and value. Several technologies for the protection of sensitive actives in the gastro-intestinal tract and/or enhancement of gastro-intestinal absorption have been explored and many have failed.
 
Our proprietary technology for oral drug delivery utilizes the body’s natural vitamin B12 (VB12) transport system in the gut. The absorption of VB12 in the intestine occurs by way of a receptor-mediated endocytosis. Initially, VB12 binds to naturally-produced intrinsic factor (IF) in the small intestine, and the VB12-IF complex then binds to the IF receptor on the surface of the intestine. Receptor-mediated endocytosis then allows the transport of VB12 across the gut wall. After binding to another VB12-binding protein, transcobalamin II (TcII), VB12 is transferred to the bloodstream.
 
Our scientists discovered that VB12 will still be transported by this process even when drugs, macromolecules, or nanoparticles are coupled to the VB12. Thus CobOral (VB12 conjugatges of drugs, macromolecules, or nanoparticles) serves as a carrier to transfer these materials from the intestinal lumen to the bloodstream. For drugs and macromolecules that are stable in the gastro-intestinal tract, the drug or macromolecule can be coupled directly (or via a linker) to CobOral. If the capacity of the CobOral transport system is inadequate to provide an effective blood concentration of the active, transport can be amplified by attaching many molecules of the drug to a polymer, to which CobOral is also attached. A further option, especially for drugs and macromolecules that are unstable in the intestine, is to formulate the drug in a nanoparticle which is then coated with CobOral. Once in the bloodstream, the active is released by diffusion and/or erosion of the nanoparticle. Utilization of nanoparticles also serves to ‘amplify’ delivery by transporting many molecules at one time due to the inherently large nanoparticle volume compared with the size of the drug.
 
Our proprietary position in this technology involves the conjugation of CobOral or its analogs to a polymer to which is also attached the drug to be delivered, or attached to a nanoparticle in which the drug is incorporated. Since many molecules of the drug are attached to a single polymer strand, or are incorporated in a single nanoparticle, oral uptake is amplified compared to simpler conjugates involving one molecule of the vitamin with one drug molecule. However, in situations when such a simple conjugate might be preferred, our patents also encompass these vitamin-drug conjugates.

CobaCyte™-Mediated Targeted Delivery Technology
 
Most drugs are effective only when they reach a certain minimum concentration in the region of disease, yet are well distributed throughout the body following delivery to the bloodstream contributing to undesirable side effects. It is therefore advantageous to alter the natural biodistribution of a drug to have it more localized where it is needed. Our CobaCyte-mediated targeted delivery technology utilizes the fact that in many diseases where there is rapid growth and/or cell division, the demand for certain vitamins increases. By coupling the drug to a vitamin analog, the analog serves as a carrier to increase the amount of drug at the disease site relative to its normal distribution.
 
One application of this technology is in tumor targeting. The use of cytotoxic drugs is one of the most common methods for treating a variety of malignancies including solid and non-solid tumors. The drawbacks of chemotherapeutic treatments, which include tumor resistance, cancer relapse and toxicity from severe damage to healthy tissues, has fuelled a scientific quest for novel treatments that are specifically targeted to malignant cells thus reducing damage to collateral tissues.
 
 
10

 
 
The design of targeted therapies involves exploitation of the difference between the structure and function of normal cells compared with malignant cells. Differences include the increased levels of surface receptors on cancer cells, which makes them more sensitive to treatment regimes that target these cell surface receptors and differences in blood supply within and around tumor cells compared with normal cells.
 
Two basic types of targeting approaches are utilized, passive tumor targeting and active tumor targeting.
  
•      passive tumor targeting involves transporting anti-cancer agents through the bloodstream to tumor cells using a “carrier” molecule. Many different carrier molecules, which can take a variety of forms (micelles, nanoparticles, liposomes and polymers), are being investigated as each provides advantages such as specificity and protection of the anti-cancer drug from degradation due to their structure, size (molecular weights) and particular interactions with tumor cells. Our ProLindac program uses a passive tumor targeting technology.

•      active tumor targeting involves attaching an additional fragment to the anticancer drug and the carrier molecule to create a new “targeted” agent that will actively seek a complementary surface receptor to which it binds (preferentially located on the exterior of the tumor cells). The theory is that the targeting of the anti-cancer agent through active binding to the affected cells should allow more of the anti-cancer drug to enter the tumor cell, thus amplifying the response to the treatment and reducing the toxic effect on bystander, normal tissue.
 
Examples of active targeting fragments include antibodies, growth factors and vitamins. Our scientists have specifically focused on using CobaCyte compounds (analogs of vitamin B12), but we have also used and have certain intellectual property protection for the use of  folate and biotin which may more effectively target anti-cancer drugs to certain solid tumors.
 
It has been known for some time that vitamin B12 and folic acid are essential for tumor growth, and as a result, receptors for these vitamins are up-regulated in certain tumors. Vitamin B12 receptor over-expression occurs in breast, lung, leukemic cells, lymphoma cells, bone, thyroid, colon, prostate and brain cancers and some other tumor lines, while folate receptor over-expression occurs in breast, lung, ovarian, endometrial, renal, colon, brain and cancers of myeloid hemotopoietic cells and methotrexate-sensitive tumors.

Other Key Developments

On December 10, 2010, we announced that we entered into definitive agreements for the sale of our common stock at a price of $2.55 per share. We completed the sale of 3,102,000 shares of our common stock at $2.55 per share and warrants to purchase 931,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.06 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $7.9 million. Proceeds, net of cash issuance costs from the sale, were $7.3 million.

On December 8, 2010, we announced that we entered into an agreement with a major global pharmaceutical company to test our oral insulin formulation based on our proprietary vitamin B-12-based CobOral™ Drug Delivery Technology. We will provide CobOral insulin to the pharmaceutical company.

On November 3, 2010, we announced that we have commenced a Phase 2 combination trial for our second generation DACH-platinum cancer drug, ProLindac, in platinum-sensitive ovarian-cancer patients. This trial is an open-label, Phase 2 study of ProLindac given intravenously with paclitaxel. The combination trial will be conducted in up to eight European participating centers.

On November 1, 2010, we announced that we have been awarded $1.5 million in government grants. Under the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, cash grants were awarded to Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Projects that showed significant potential in producing new and cost-saving therapies, support job growth and increase U.S. competitiveness. Grants were awarded through a competitive application process, and seven out of eight of our applications were awarded.

 
11

 
 
On October 27, 2010, we announced that we have entered into a pre-licensing feasibility agreement with a biopharmaceutical company to develop an oral formulation of an undisclosed prostate cancer compound utilizing its proprietary vitamin B-12-based CobOral™ Drug Delivery Technology. We will develop CobOral formulations for testing by the biopharma company. Though the terms of the agreement have not been disclosed, we have indicated that any successful formulation developed will be jointly owned by the parties and subject to a subsequent full licensing agreement.

On October 20, 2010, we announced that we have submitted additional patent applications, covering our Cobalamin-mediated oral drug delivery technology formulations of many global top-100 injectable drugs, as a result of the growing interest surrounding our proprietary oral delivery technology. The patents cover oral formulations of leading injectables, like bevacizumab (Avastin®), trastuzumab (Herceptin®), adalimumab (Humira®), etanercept (Enbrel®), insulin glargine (Lantus®), and many others. In addition, we rebranded our Cobalamin-mediated oral drug delivery technology as CobOral™ delivery technology.

On September 29, 2010, we announced that we have made significant progress with our proprietary Cobalamin-targeted drug-delivery program for siRNA therapies. As a result of the continued advancements made with our Cobalamin program, we rebranded the targeted-drug delivery technology as CobaCyte™; and submitted additional patent applications for its improved CobaCyte formulations, including siRNA compositions.

On September 21, 2010, we announced we signed a supply agreement for MuGard with RHEI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“RHEI”), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on bringing proprietary medicines to the China market. Under the agreement we are required to ensure manufacturing capacity of up to a minimum of $30 million of product in the licensed territories. Coinciding with the signing of the above agreement, we also approved a sub-license agreement between RHEI Pharmaceuticals and Jian An Pharmaceuticals (“Jian An”) Limited in Shenzhen, China in an effort to leverage Jian An’s extensive sales, marketing and regulatory infrastructure for the launch of MuGard in China and Taiwan.

On August 2, 2010, we announced we initiated a Phase 1/2 dose-escalating study of our proprietary, anti-cancer drug, Thiarabine, a nucleoside analogue for patients with hematologic malignancies (cancers of the blood). The primary objective of the study is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in two different dosing schedules with various leukemias and lymphomas and recommended Phase II dose. The program is being led by Hagop Kantarjian, M.D., Chair of the Department of Leukemia at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.

On July 20, 2010, we announced we had signed an exclusive specialty distribution agreement with BioScrip, Inc. for MuGard. The agreement aligns us with comprehensive access to BioScrip’s nationwide distribution platform and the ability to leverage their extensive physician relationships, 110 BioScrip specialty pharmacies, mail distribution capability and diversified payor network.

On July 15, 2010, we announced that we had entered into a pre-licensing feasibility agreement with a leading biotechnology company to develop an oral formulation of its currently-marketed, proprietary injectable drugs. We will utilize our proprietary CobOral Drug Delivery Technology to develop oral formulation of the drug for pre-clinical testing.

On April 13, 2010, we announced that we had completed our first commercial scale production run of MuGard in North America at Accupac, Inc. manufacturing facilities.

On March 30, 2010, we announced that we signed a collaborative development agreement with bioRASI, LLC to facilitate clinical development for our CobOral based oral insulin and CobaCyte based products.

On March 25, 2010, we announced that our Korean partner JCOM co., Ltd. received approval from the Korean Food and Drug Administration of its Registration Dossier for MuGard.

 
12

 
 
On March 11, 2010, we announced that we had received reports of significant bioavailability of orally delivered insulin in two independently-conducted animal studies with our CobOral™ Drug Delivery Technology.

On January 22, 2010, we announced the sale of approximately 2.10 million shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase approximately 1.04 million shares of our common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $6.3 million. We sold these shares and warrants as a combined unit for $3.00 per unit (each unit consisting of one share and a warrant to purchase 0.5 shares of common stock). The exercise price of the warrants is $3.00 per share. Proceeds, net of cash issuance costs from the sale, were $5.8 million.

On January 7, 2010, we announced that we completed enrollment and evaluation of the last additional cohort of patients in the ongoing clinical study of ProLindac as a monotherapy in ovarian cancer patients who received at least two prior platinum based treatment regimens. The additional cohort of 8 patients received the ProLindac batch made by an improved scalable process, which will be used on a larger scale for future clinical and commercial supplies. None of the 8 patients experienced any acute significant adverse events, while treatment had the same beneficial pharmacodynamic effect seen in the first 26 patients treated with the former ProLindac production batch; clinically relevant sustained biomarker decrease (responses by Rustin's criteria) and disease stabilization were seen in several patients. The overall results of our Phase 1/2 exploratory single agent ProLindac study have helped define multiple safe dosing regimens, while the level of patient cohort accrued in the study antitumor activity was as expected in this very heavily pretreated patient cohort.

We were incorporated in Wyoming in 1974 as Chemex Corporation, and in 1983 we changed our name to Chemex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We changed our state of incorporation from Wyoming to Delaware on June 30, 1989. In 1996 we merged with Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a private Texas corporation, and changed our name to Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our principal executive office is located at 2600 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 176, Dallas, Texas 75207; our telephone number is (214) 905-5100.

Patents

We believe that the value of technology both to us and to our potential corporate partners is established and enhanced by our broad intellectual property positions. Consequently, we have already been issued and seek to obtain additional U.S. and foreign patent protection for products under development and for new discoveries. Patent applications are filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and, when appropriate, with the Paris Convention's Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Countries (most major countries in Western Europe and the Far East) for our inventions and prospective products.

Two U.S. patents have issued and two European patent applications are under review for our mucoadhesive liquid technology. Our patent applications cover a range of products utilizing our mucoadhesive liquid technology for the management of the various phases of mucositis.

Three U.S. patents and two European patents were issued and two U.S. patent and two European patent applications are pending for polymer platinum compounds. The two patents and patent applications are the result in part of our collaboration with The School of Pharmacy, University of London, from which the technology has been licensed and include a synthetic polymer, hydroxypropylmethacrylamide incorporating platinates, that can be used to exploit enhanced permeability and retention in tumors and control drug release. The patents and patent applications include a pharmaceutical composition for use in tumor treatment comprising a polymer-platinum compound through linkages that are designed to be cleaved under selected conditions to yield a platinum which is selectively released at a tumor site. The patents and patent applications also include methods for improving the pharmaceutical properties of platinum compounds.

Thiarabine is subject to two process patents that expire in 2018, one use patent that expires in 2019, as well as patent applications that provide additional protection to the manufacturing process and use.
 
We have two patented CobaCyte/CobOral-mediated targeted therapeutic technologies:

-  
the use of vitamin B12 to target the transcobalamin II receptor which is upregulated in numerous diseases including cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, certain neurological and autoimmune disorders with two U.S. patents and four U.S. and four European patent applications; and
 
 
13

 
 
-  
oral delivery of a wide variety of molecules which cannot otherwise be orally administered, utilizing the active transport mechanism which transports vitamin B12 into the systemic circulation with six U.S. patents and two European patents and two U.S. and one European patent application.

We also have intellectual property in connection with the use of another B vitamin, folic acid, for targeting of polymer therapeutics. Enhanced tumor delivery is achieved by targeting folate receptors, which are upregulated in certain tumor types. We have two U.S. and two European patent applications related to folate polymer therapeutics.

Our patents for the following technologies expire in the years and during the date ranges indicated below:
·  
Mucoadhesive technology in 2030,
·  
ProLindac™ in 2021,
·  
Thiarabine in 2018, and
·  
CobaCyte/CobOral mediated technology between 2011 and 2030.

In addition to issued patents, we have a number of pending patent applications. If issued, the patents underlying these applications could extend the patent life of our technologies beyond the dates listed above.

We have a strategy of maintaining an ongoing line of patent continuation applications for each major category of patentable carrier and delivery technology. By this approach, we are extending the intellectual property protection of our basic targeting technology and initial agents to cover additional specific carriers and agents, some of which are anticipated to carry the priority dates of the original applications.

Government Regulation

We are subject to extensive regulation by the federal government, principally by the FDA, and, to a lesser extent, by other federal and state agencies as well as comparable agencies in foreign countries where registration of products will be pursued. Although a number of our formulations incorporate extensively tested drug substances, because the resulting formulations make claims of enhanced efficacy and/or improved side effect profiles, they are expected to be classified as new drugs by the FDA.

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other federal, state and foreign statutes and regulations govern the testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, shipping and record keeping of our products. The FDA has the authority to approve or not approve new drug applications and inspect research, clinical and manufacturing records and facilities.

Among the requirements for drug approval and testing is that the prospective manufacturer's facilities and methods conform to the FDA's Code of Good Manufacturing Practices regulations, which establishes the minimum requirements for methods to be used in, and the facilities or controls to be used during, the production process. Such facilities are subject to ongoing FDA inspection to insure compliance.

The steps required before a pharmaceutical product may be produced and marketed in the U.S. include preclinical tests, the filing of an IND with the FDA, which must become effective pursuant to FDA regulations before human clinical trials may commence, numerous phases of clinical testing and the FDA approval of a New Drug Application (NDA) prior to commercial sale.

Preclinical tests are conducted in the laboratory, usually involving animals, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the potential product. The results of preclinical tests are submitted as part of the IND application and are fully reviewed by the FDA prior to granting the sponsor permission to commence clinical trials in humans. All trials are conducted under International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), good clinical practice guidelines. All investigator sites and sponsor facilities are subject to FDA inspection to insure compliance. Clinical trials typically involve a three-phase process. Phase 1 the initial clinical evaluations, consists of administering the drug and testing for safety and tolerated dosages and in some indications such as cancer and HIV, as preliminary evidence of efficacy in humans. Phase 2 involves a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication and to determine optimal dosage and dose interval and to identify possible adverse side effects and risks in a larger patient group. When a product is found safe, an initial efficacy is established in Phase 2, it is then evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 3 trials consist of expanded multi-location testing for efficacy and safety to evaluate the overall benefit to risk index of the investigational drug in relationship to the disease treated. The results of preclinical and human clinical testing are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA for approval to commence commercial sales.

 
14

 
 
The process of forming the requisite testing, data collection, analysis and compilation of an IND and an NDA is labor intensive and costly and may take a protracted time period. In some cases, tests may have to be redone or new tests instituted to comply with FDA requests. Review by the FDA may also take considerable time and there is no guarantee that an NDA will be approved. Therefore, we cannot estimate with any certainty the length of the approval cycle.

We are also governed by other federal, state and local laws of general applicability, such as laws regulating working conditions, employment practices, as well as environmental protection.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is characterized by intense competition, rapid product development and technological change. Competition is intense among manufacturers of prescription pharmaceuticals and other product areas where we may develop and market products in the future. Most of our potential competitors are large, well established pharmaceutical, chemical or healthcare companies with considerably greater financial, marketing, sales and technical resources than are available to us. Additionally, many of our potential competitors have research and development capabilities that may allow such competitors to develop new or improved products that may compete with our product lines. Our potential products could be rendered obsolete or made uneconomical by the development of new products to treat the conditions to be addressed by our developments, technological advances affecting the cost of production, or marketing or pricing actions by one or more of our potential competitors. Our business, financial condition and results of operation could be materially adversely affected by any one or more of such developments. We cannot assure you that we will be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors or that competition will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are also conducting research activities and seeking patent protection and may commercialize products on their own or with the assistance of major health care companies in areas where we are developing product candidates. We are aware of certain development projects for products to treat or prevent certain diseases targeted by us, the existence of these potential products or other products or treatments of which we are not aware, or products or treatments that may be developed in the future, may adversely affect the marketability of products developed by us.

In the area of advanced drug delivery, which is the focus of our early stage research and development activities, a number of companies are developing or evaluating enhanced drug delivery systems. We expect that technological developments will occur at a rapid rate and that competition is likely to intensify as various alternative delivery system technologies achieve similar if not identical advantages.

Even if our products are fully developed and receive required regulatory approval, of which there can be no assurance, we believe that our products can only compete successfully if marketed by a company having expertise and a strong presence in the therapeutic area. Consequently, we do not currently plan to establish an internal marketing organization. By forming strategic alliances with major and regional pharmaceutical companies, management believes that our development risks should be minimized and that the technology potentially could be more rapidly developed and successfully introduced into the marketplace.

Amgen Inc., ARCA biopharma, Inc., EUSA Pharma, NephRx, and Synedgen are developing products to treat mucositis that may compete with our mucoadhesive liquid technology.
 
The following products may compete with polymer platinate:
•           Cisplatin, marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the originator of the drug, and several generic manufacturers;
•           Carboplatin, marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb in the US; and several generic manufacturers, and
•           Oxaliplatin, marketed by exclusively Sanofi-Aventis and several generic manufacturers.

 
15

 
 
The following companies are working on therapies and formulations that may be competitive with our polymer platinate:
•           Regulon is developing liposomal platinum formulations;
•           Poniard Pharmaceuticals is developing both i.v. and oral platinum formulations;
•           Nanocarrier and Debio are developing micellar nanoparticle platinum formulations; and
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Cell Therapeutics, Daiichi, SynDevRx, and Enzon are developing alternate drugs in combination with polymers and other drug delivery systems.

Thiarabine’s competitors are Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer Healthcare, Cyclacel, Ltd., SciClone Pharmaceuticals and Genzyme.

Companies working on therapies and formulations that may be competitive with our vitamin mediated drug delivery system are Bristol-Myers Squibb, Centocor (acquired by Johnson & Johnson), Endocyte, GlaxoSmithKline, Imclone and Xoma which are developing targeted monoclonal antibody therapy.

BioDelivery Sciences International, Biocon Limited, Biodel, Inc. Biovail Corporation, Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Depomed Inc., Emisphere Technologies, Inc., Eurand, Flamel Technologies, Merrion Pharmaceuticals, OraMed and Xenoport are developing products which compete with our oral drug delivery system.

Many of these competitors have greater financial and other resources, including larger research and development, marketing and manufacturing organizations. As a result, our competitors may successfully develop technologies and drugs that are more effective or less costly than any that we are developing or which would render our technology and future products obsolete and noncompetitive.

In addition, some of our competitors have greater experience than we do in conducting preclinical and clinical trials and obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approvals for drug candidates more rapidly than we do. Companies that complete clinical trials, obtain required regulatory agency approvals and commence commercial sale of their drugs before their competitors may achieve a significant competitive advantage. Drugs resulting from our research and development efforts or from our joint efforts with collaborative partners therefore may not be commercially competitive with our competitors' existing products or products under development.

Suppliers

Some materials used by us are specialized. We obtain materials from several suppliers based in different countries around the world. If materials are unavailable from one supplier we generally have alternate suppliers available.

Employees

As of March 30, 2011, we had thirteen full-time employees, four of whom have advanced scientific degrees. We have never experienced employment-related work stoppages and consider that we maintain good relations with our personnel. In addition, to complement our internal expertise, we have contracts with scientific consultants, contract research organizations and university research laboratories that specialize in various aspects of drug development including clinical development, regulatory affairs, toxicology, process scale-up and preclinical testing.

Web Availability

We make available free of charge through our website, www.accesspharma.com, our annual reports on Form 10-K and other reports that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as certain of our corporate governance policies, including the charters for the Board of Directors’ audit, compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees and our code of ethics, corporate governance guidelines and whistleblower policy. We will also provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of any of the foregoing materials. Any such request must be made in writing to us at: Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2600 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 176, Dallas, TX 75207 attn: Investor Relations.


 
16

 


ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS

Risks relating to our business and industry

Without obtaining adequate capital funding, we may not be able to continue as a going concern.

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, contained a fourth explanatory paragraph to reflect its significant doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as a result of our history of losses and our liquidity position. If we are unable to obtain adequate capital funding in the future, we may not be able to continue as a going concern, which would have an adverse effect on our business and operations, and investors’ investment in us may decline.

We have experienced a history of losses, we expect to incur future losses and we may be unable to obtain necessary additional capital to fund operations in the future.

We have recorded minimal revenue to date and have incurred an accumulated deficit of approximately $251.1 million through December 31, 2010. Net losses allocable to common stockholders for the years ended 2010 and 2009 were $9.3 million and $19.2 million, respectively. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in research and development activities related to our efforts to develop clinical drug candidates and from the associated administrative costs. We expect to incur additional operating losses over the next several years. We also expect cumulative losses to increase if we expand research and development efforts and preclinical and clinical trials. Our net cash burn rate for the year ended December 31, 2010 was approximately $567,000 per month. We project our net cash burn rate from operations for the next twelve months to be approximately $550,000 per month. Capital expenditures are forecasted to be minor for the next twelve months.

We require substantial capital for our development programs and operating expenses, to pursue regulatory clearances and to prosecute and defend our intellectual property rights. We believe that our existing capital resources, interest income, product sales, royalties and revenue from possible licensing agreements and collaborative agreements will be sufficient to fund our currently expected operating expenses and capital requirements into the first quarter of 2012. We are a party to a $5.5 million promissory note due on September 13, 2011. While our plan is to extend the due date of this note, if we are unable to do so we may not have sufficient capital to continue our operations. We will need to raise substantial additional capital to support our ongoing operations.

If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, further dilution to existing stockholders will result and future investors may be granted rights superior to those of existing stockholders. If adequate funds are not available to us through additional equity offerings, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs or to obtain funds by entering into arrangements with collaborative partners or others that require us to issue additional equity securities or to relinquish rights to certain technologies or drug candidates that we would not otherwise issue or relinquish in order to continue independent operations.

We do not have significant operating revenue and may never attain profitability.
 
To date, we have funded our operations primarily through private sales of common stock, preferred stock and convertible notes. Contract research payments and licensing fees from corporate alliances and mergers have also provided funding for our operations. Our ability to achieve significant revenue or profitability depends upon our ability to successfully market MuGard in North America or to complete the development of drug candidates, to develop and obtain patent protection and regulatory approvals for our drug candidates and to manufacture and commercialize the resulting drugs. We are not expecting any significant revenues in the short-term from our products or product candidates. Furthermore, we may not be able to ever successfully identify, develop, commercialize, patent, manufacture, obtain required regulatory approvals and market any additional products. Moreover, even if we do identify, develop, commercialize, patent, manufacture, and obtain required regulatory approvals to market additional products, we may not generate revenues or royalties from commercial sales of these products for a significant number of years, if at all. Therefore, our proposed operations are subject to all the risks inherent in the establishment of a new business enterprise. In the next few years, our revenues may be limited to minimal product sales and royalties, any amounts that we receive under strategic partnerships and research or drug development collaborations that we may establish and, as a result, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability in the future or to achieve significant revenues in order to fund our operations.

 
17

 
 
We may not successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

Our drug candidates are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of pharmaceutical products based on new technologies, and our failure to develop safe commercially viable drugs would severely limit our ability to become profitable or to achieve significant revenues. We may be unable to successfully commercialize our drug candidates because:

·  
some or all of our drug candidates may be found to be unsafe or ineffective or otherwise fail to meet applicable regulatory standards or receive necessary regulatory clearances;
·  
our drug candidates, if safe and effective, may be too difficult to develop into commercially viable drugs;
·  
it may be difficult to manufacture or market our drug candidates on a large scale;
·  
proprietary rights of third parties may preclude us from marketing our drug candidates; and
·  
third parties may market superior or equivalent drugs.

The success of our research and development activities, upon which we primarily focus, is uncertain.

Our primary focus is on our research and development activities and the commercialization of compounds covered by proprietary biopharmaceutical patents and patent applications. Research and development activities, by their nature, preclude definitive statements as to the time required and costs involved in reaching certain objectives. Actual research and development costs, therefore, could significantly exceed budgeted amounts and estimated time frames may require significant extension. Cost overruns, unanticipated regulatory delays or demands, unexpected adverse side effects or insufficient therapeutic efficacy will prevent or substantially slow our research and development effort and our business could ultimately suffer. We anticipate that we will remain principally engaged in research and development activities for an indeterminate, but substantial, period of time.

We may be unable to successfully develop, market, or commercialize our products or our product candidates without establishing new relationships and maintaining current relationships.

Our strategy for the research, development and commercialization of our potential pharmaceutical products may require us to enter into various arrangements with corporate and academic collaborators, licensors, licensees and others, in addition to our existing relationships with other parties. Specifically, we may seek to joint venture, sublicense or enter other marketing arrangements with parties that have an established marketing capability or we may choose to pursue the commercialization of such products on our own. We may, however, be unable to establish such additional collaborative arrangements, license agreements, or marketing agreements as we may deem necessary to develop, commercialize and market our potential pharmaceutical products on acceptable terms. Furthermore, if we maintain and establish arrangements or relationships with third parties, our business may depend upon the successful performance by these third parties of their responsibilities under those arrangements and relationships.

Our ability to successfully commercialize, and market our product candidates could be limited if a number of these existing relationships are terminated.

Furthermore, our strategy with respect to our polymer platinate program is to enter into a licensing agreement with a pharmaceutical company pursuant to which the further costs of developing a product would be shared with our licensing partners. Although we have had discussions with potential licensing partners with respect to our polymer platinate program, to date we have not entered into any licensing arrangement. We may be unable to execute our licensing strategy for polymer platinate.

We may be unable to successfully manufacture our products and our product candidates in clinical quantities or for commercial purposes without the assistance of contract manufacturers, which may be difficult for us to obtain and maintain.

 
18

 
 
We have limited experience in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in clinical quantities or for commercial purposes and we may not be able to manufacture any new pharmaceutical products that we may develop. As a result, we have established, and in the future intend to establish arrangements with contract manufacturers to supply sufficient quantities of products to conduct clinical trials and for the manufacture, packaging, labeling and distribution of finished pharmaceutical products if any of our potential products are approved for commercialization. If we are unable to contract for a sufficient supply of our potential pharmaceutical products on acceptable terms, our preclinical and human clinical testing schedule may be delayed, resulting in the delay of our clinical programs and submission of product candidates for regulatory approval, which could cause our business to suffer. Our business could suffer if there are delays or difficulties in establishing relationships with manufacturers to produce, package, label and distribute our finished pharmaceutical or other medical products, if any, market introduction and subsequent sales of such products. Moreover, contract manufacturers that we may use must adhere to current Good Manufacturing Practices, as required by the FDA. In this regard, the FDA will not issue a pre-market approval or product and establishment licenses, where applicable, to a manufacturing facility for the products until the manufacturing facility passes a pre-approval plant inspection. If we are unable to obtain or retain third party manufacturing on commercially acceptable terms, we may not be able to commercialize our products as planned. Our potential dependence upon third parties for the manufacture of our products may adversely affect our ability to generate profits or acceptable profit margins and our ability to develop and deliver such products on a timely and competitive basis.
 
 
ProLindac™ is manufactured by third parties for our Phase 2 clinical trials. Manufacturing is ongoing for the current clinical trials. Certain manufacturing steps are conducted by the Company to enable significant cost savings to be realized.

We are subject to extensive governmental regulation which increases our cost of doing business and may affect our ability to commercialize any new products that we may develop.

The FDA and comparable agencies in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the introduction of pharmaceutical products through lengthy and detailed laboratory, preclinical and clinical testing procedures and other costly and time-consuming procedures to establish safety and efficacy. All of our drugs and drug candidates require receipt and maintenance of governmental approvals for commercialization. Preclinical and clinical trials and manufacturing of our drug candidates will be subject to the rigorous testing and approval processes of the FDA and corresponding foreign regulatory authorities. Satisfaction of these requirements typically takes a significant number of years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product.

Due to the time consuming and uncertain nature of the drug candidate development process and the governmental approval process described above, we cannot assure you when we, independently or with our collaborative partners, might submit a NDA, for FDA or other regulatory review. Further, our ability to commence and/or complete  development projects will be subject to our ability to raise enough funds to pay for the development costs of these projects.

Government regulation also affects the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Government regulations may delay marketing of our potential drugs for a considerable or indefinite period of time, impose costly procedural requirements upon our activities and furnish a competitive advantage to larger companies or companies more experienced in regulatory affairs. Delays in obtaining governmental regulatory approval could adversely affect our marketing as well as our ability to generate significant revenues from commercial sales. Our drug candidates may not receive FDA or other regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all. Moreover, if regulatory approval of a drug candidate is granted, such approval may impose limitations on the indicated use for which such drug may be marketed. Even if we obtain initial regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, our drugs and our manufacturing facilities would be subject to continual review and periodic inspection, and later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the marketing or manufacture of such drug, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. The FDA and other regulatory authorities stringently apply regulatory standards and failure to comply with regulatory standards can, among other things, result in fines, denial or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls or seizures, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

The uncertainty associated with preclinical and clinical testing may affect our ability to successfully commercialize new products.

 
19

 
 
Before we can obtain regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our potential drugs, the drug candidates will be subject to extensive preclinical and clinical trials to demonstrate their safety and efficacy in humans.  Preclinical or clinical trials of future drug candidates may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy to the extent necessary to obtain regulatory approvals. In this regard, for example, adverse side effects can occur during the clinical testing of a new drug on humans which may delay ultimate FDA approval or even lead it to terminate our efforts to develop the drug for commercial use. Companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after demonstrating promising results in earlier trials. In particular, polymer platinate has taken longer to progress through clinical trials than originally planned.  The failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a drug candidate under development could delay or prevent regulatory approval of the drug candidate. A delay or failure to receive regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates could prevent us from successfully commercializing such candidates and we could incur substantial additional expenses in our attempt to further develop such candidates and obtain future regulatory approval.

We may incur substantial product liability expenses due to the use or misuse of our products for which we may be unable to obtain insurance coverage.

Our business exposes us to potential liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These risks will expand with respect to our drug candidates, if any, that receive regulatory approval for commercial sale and we may face substantial liability for damages in the event of adverse side effects or product defects identified with any of our products that are used in clinical tests or marketed to the public. We generally procure product liability insurance for drug candidates that are undergoing human clinical trials. Product liability insurance for the biotechnology industry is generally expensive, if available at all, and as a result, we may be unable to obtain insurance coverage at acceptable costs or in a sufficient amount in the future, if at all. We may be unable to satisfy any claims for which we may be held liable as a result of the use or misuse of products which we developed, manufactured or sold and any such product liability claim could adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition.

We may incur significant liabilities if we fail to comply with stringent environmental regulations or if we did not comply with these regulations in the past.

Our research and development processes involve the controlled use of hazardous materials. We are subject to a variety of federal, state and local governmental laws and regulations related to the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of such material and certain waste products. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources.

Intense competition may limit our ability to successfully develop and market commercial products.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors in the United States and elsewhere are numerous and include, among others, major multinational pharmaceutical and chemical companies, specialized biotechnology firms and universities and other research institutions.

Many of our competitors have and employ greater financial and other resources, including larger research and development, marketing and manufacturing organizations. As a result, our competitors may successfully develop technologies and drugs that are more effective or less costly than any that we are developing or which would render our technology and future products obsolete and noncompetitive.

In addition, some of our competitors have greater experience than we do in conducting preclinical and clinical trials and obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approvals for drug candidates more rapidly than we can. Companies that complete clinical trials, obtain required regulatory agency approvals and commence commercial sale of their drugs before their competitors may achieve a significant competitive advantage. Drugs resulting from our research and development efforts or from our joint efforts with collaborative partners therefore may not be commercially competitive with our competitors' existing products or products under development.

We depend on licenses from third parties and the maintenance of our licenses are necessary for our success.

As a result of our acquisition of MacroChem Corporation and Somanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., we obtained rights to some product candidates through license agreements with various third party licensors. The main third party licensor is for the License Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2007, by and between Virium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a predecessor in interest to Access) and Southern Research Institute.

 
20

 
 
We are dependent upon these licenses for our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates. These licenses may be terminated or converted to non-exclusive licenses by the licensor if we breach the terms of the license. We cannot guarantee you that the licenses will not be terminated or converted in the future.

Our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our drug candidates will substantially depend upon the availability of reimbursement funds for the costs of the resulting drugs and related treatments.

The successful commercialization of, and the interest of potential collaborative partners to invest in the development of our drug candidates, may depend substantially upon reimbursement of the costs of the resulting drugs and related treatments at acceptable levels from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations, including health maintenance organizations, or HMOs. Limited reimbursement for the cost of any drugs that we develop may reduce the demand for, or price of such drugs, which would hamper our ability to obtain collaborative partners to commercialize our drugs, or to obtain a sufficient financial return on our own manufacturing and commercialization of any future drugs.

The market may not accept any pharmaceutical products that we develop.

The drugs that we are attempting to develop may compete with a number of well-established drugs manufactured and marketed by major pharmaceutical companies. The degree of market acceptance of any drugs developed by us will depend on a number of factors, including the establishment and demonstration of the clinical efficacy and safety of our drug candidates, the potential advantage of our drug candidates over existing therapies and the reimbursement policies of government and third-party payers. Physicians, patients or the medical community in general may not accept or use any drugs that we may develop independently or with our collaborative partners and if they do not, our business could suffer.

Trends toward managed health care and downward price pressures on medical products and services may limit our ability to profitably sell any drugs that we may develop.

Lower prices for pharmaceutical products may result from:

·  
third-party payers' increasing challenges to the prices charged for medical products and services;

·  
the trend toward managed health care in the U.S. and the concurrent growth of HMOs and similar organizations that can control or significantly influence the purchase of healthcare services and products; and

·  
legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce government insurance programs.

The cost containment measures that healthcare providers are instituting, including practice protocols and guidelines and clinical pathways, and the effect of any healthcare reform, could limit our ability to profitably sell any drugs that we may successfully develop. Moreover, any future legislation or regulation, if any, relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement, may cause our business to suffer.

We may not be successful in protecting our intellectual property and proprietary rights.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain U.S. and foreign patent protection for our drug candidates and processes, preserve our trade secrets and operate our business without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Legal standards relating to the validity of patents covering pharmaceutical and biotechnological inventions and the scope of claims made under such patents are still developing and there is no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents. The patent position of a biotechnology firm is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. We cannot assure you that any existing or future patents issued to, or licensed by, us will not subsequently be challenged, infringed upon, invalidated or circumvented by others. We cannot assure you that any patents will be issued from any of the patent applications owned by, or licensed to, us. Furthermore, any rights that we may have under issued patents may not provide us with significant protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially viable.

 
21

 
 
Patents may have been granted to third parties or may be granted covering products or processes that are necessary or useful to the development of our drug candidates. If our drug candidates or processes are found to infringe upon the patents or otherwise impermissibly utilize the intellectual property of others, our development, manufacture and sale of such drug candidates could be severely restricted or prohibited. In such event, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties to utilize the patents or proprietary rights of others. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain such licenses on acceptable terms, if at all. If we become involved in litigation regarding our intellectual property rights or the intellectual property rights of others, the potential cost of such litigation, regardless of the strength of our legal position, and the potential damages that we could be required to pay could be substantial.

Our business could suffer if we lose the services of, or fail to attract, key personnel.

We are highly dependent upon the efforts of our senior management and scientific team, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey B. Davis. The loss of the services of one or more of these individuals could delay or prevent the achievement of our research, development, marketing, or product commercialization objectives. While we have employment agreements with Jeffrey B. Davis, David P. Nowotnik, PhD our Senior Vice President Research and Development and Frank A. Jacobucci, our Vice President Sales and Marketing, their employment may be terminated by them or us at any time. We do not have employment contracts with our other key personnel. We do not maintain any "key-man" insurance policies on any of our key employees and we do not intend to obtain such insurance. In addition, due to the specialized scientific nature of our business, we are highly dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific and technical personnel. In view of the stage of our development and our research and development programs, we have restricted our hiring to research scientists and a small administrative staff and we have made only limited investments in manufacturing, production, sales or regulatory compliance resources. There is intense competition among major pharmaceutical and chemical companies, specialized biotechnology firms and universities and other research institutions for qualified personnel in the areas of our activities, however, and we may be unsuccessful in attracting and retaining these personnel.

We may be required to pay liquidated damages to certain investors if we do not maintain an effective registration statement relating to common stock issuable upon conversion of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, upon exercise of certain warrants or the issuance of certain dividends.

Pursuant to issuing Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants, we entered into an Investor Rights Agreement with the purchasers of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock.  The Investor Rights Agreement requires, among other things, that we maintain an effective registration statement for common stock issuable upon conversion of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock or upon exercise of certain warrants.  We have failed to maintain such an effective registration statement and, as a result, we may be required to pay liquidated damages to certain holders of such Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants for the period of time in which an effective registration statement was not in place.

Provisions of our charter documents could discourage an acquisition of our company that would benefit our stockholders and may have the effect of entrenching, and making it difficult to remove, management.

Provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws and Stockholders Rights Plan may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if a change in control would benefit our stockholders. In particular, shares of our preferred stock may be issued in the future without further stockholder approval and upon such terms and conditions, and having such rights, privileges and preferences, as our Board of Directors may determine, including, for example, rights to convert into our common stock. The rights of the holders of our common stock will be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any of our preferred stock that may be issued in the future. The issuance of our preferred stock, while providing desirable flexibility in connection with possible acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us. This could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and discourage these investors from acquiring a majority of our common stock. Further, the existence of these corporate governance provisions could have the effect of entrenching management and making it more difficult to change our management.

 
22

 
 
Substantial sales of our common stock could lower our stock price.

The market price for our common stock could drop as a result of sales of a large number of our presently outstanding shares or shares we may issue or be obligated to issue in the future. Substantially all of the shares of our common stock that were outstanding as of March 30, 2011, are unrestricted and freely tradable or tradable pursuant to a resale registration statement or under Rule 144 of the Securities Act or are covered by a registration rights agreement.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports, our operating results could be harmed. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

While we continue to evaluate and improve our internal controls, we cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations.

Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on our stock price.

Risks related to our common stock

We have an unsecured convertible note outstanding in the principle amount of $5,500,000 which is due on September 13, 2011 and which we may be unable to repay at maturity.

We have a convertible note outstanding to a high net worth individual in the principle amount of $5.5 million which is due and payable by us on September 13, 2011. This convertible note accrues interest at the rate of 7.7% paid annually. We may not have the funds to repay the holder of the convertible note at maturity or to continue to pay the interest on the convertible note in the ordinary course which would result in our defaulting under the note. If this occurs, the holder of the note would have rights senior to those of our common stockholders.

We have issued and outstanding shares of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock with rights and preferences superior to those of its common stock.

The issued and outstanding shares of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock grants the holders of such preferred stock anti-dilution, dividend and liquidations rights that are superior to those held by the holders of our common stock. Should we issue, or be deemed to issue, certain additional shares of common stock for a price below $2.55 per share, the conversion price of the Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock shall be lowered to the lowest issue price below $2.55 per share which will have the effect of immediately diluting the holders of our common stock.

If we issue certain shares of our common stock or common stock equivalents at a price below $2.55 per share, the exercise price of certain of our outstanding warrants will be automatically lowered to the common stock issue price.

Certain of our warrants contain a price protection mechanisms in which the exercise price of these the warrants will automatically be lowered in the event we issue certain shares of our common stock for a price less than $2.55 per share. 

An investment in our common stock may be less attractive because it is not traded on a recognized public market.

Our common stock has traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, or OTCBB since June 5, 2006. The OTCBB and Pink Sheets are viewed by most investors as a less desirable, and less liquid, marketplace. As a result, an investor may find it more difficult to purchase, dispose of or obtain accurate quotations as to the value of our common stock.

 
23

 
 
Our common stock is subject to Rules 15g-1 through 15g-9 under the Exchange Act, which imposes certain sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell our common stock to persons other than established customers and "accredited investors" (as defined in Rule 501(c) of the Securities Act). For transactions covered by this rule, a broker-dealer must make a special suitability determination for the purchaser and have received the purchaser's written consent to the transaction prior to the sale. This rule adversely affects the ability of broker-dealers to sell our common stock and purchasers of our common stock to sell their shares of our common stock.

Additionally, our common stock is subject to SEC regulations applicable to "penny stock." Penny stock includes any non-NASDAQ equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions.  The regulations require that prior to any non-exempt buy/sell transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule proscribed by the SEC relating to the penny stock market must be delivered by a broker-dealer to the purchaser of such penny stock.  This disclosure must include the amount of commissions payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative and current price quotations for our common stock.  The regulations also require that monthly statements be sent to holders of penny stock that disclose recent price information for the penny stock and information of the limited market for penny stocks.  These requirements adversely affect the market liquidity of our common stock.

Ownership of our shares is concentrated in the hands of a few investors which could limit the ability of our other stockholders to influence the direction of the company.

As calculated by SEC rules of beneficial ownership, SCO Capital Partners LLC and affiliates, Larry N. Feinberg (Oracle Partners LP, Oracle Institutional Partners LP and Oracle Investment Management Inc.), and Lake End Capital LLC each beneficially owned approximately 45.1%, 8.5% and 5.9%, respectively, of our common stock on an as converted basis as of March 30, 2011. Accordingly, they collectively may have the ability to significantly influence or determine the election of all of our directors or the outcome of most corporate actions requiring stockholder approval. They may exercise this ability in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of our other stockholders.

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

We maintain one facility of approximately 9,000 square feet for administrative offices and laboratories in Dallas, Texas. We have a lease agreement for the facility, which terminates in December 2011. Adjacent space may be available for expansion which we believe would accommodate growth for the foreseeable future.

We believe that our existing properties are suitable for the conduct of our business and adequate to meet our present needs.

ITEM 3.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not currently subject to any material pending legal proceedings.

ITEM 4.  REMOVED AND RESERVED

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

Mr. Jeffrey B. Davis, 47 has been our Chief Executive Officer since December 26, 2007. Previously, Mr. Davis was Chairman of the Board, member of the Executive Committee and a Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board. Mr. Davis currently serves as President of SCO Financial Group LLC. Previously, Mr. Davis served in senior management at a publicly traded healthcare technology company. Prior to that, Mr. Davis was an investment banker with various Deutsche Bank banking organizations, both in the U.S. and Europe. Mr. Davis also served in senior marketing and product management positions at AT&T Bell Laboratories, where he was also a member of the technical staff, and at Philips Medical Systems North America.  Mr. Davis is currently on the board of Uluru, Inc.  

 
24

 
 
David P. Nowotnik, Ph.D., 62, has been Senior Vice President Research and Development since January 2003 and was Vice President Research and Development from 1998. From 1994 until 1998, Dr. Nowotnik had been with Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the position of Senior Director, Product Development and was responsible for a team of scientists developing polymeric controlled-release drug delivery systems. From 1988 to 1994 he was with Bristol-Myers Squibb researching and developing technetium radiopharmaceuticals and MRI contrast agents. From 1977 to 1988 he was with Amersham International leading the project which resulted in the discovery and development of Ceretec.
 
Mr. Frank A. Jacobucci, 49, has been our Vice President Sales and Marketing since December 2009. Mr. Jacobucci was President and COO of Milestone Biosciences, LLC from 2007 to 2009. He was Vice President Sales/Marketing of Claims Resolution Center Oncology Services in 2007, Area Sales Manager-Eastern Seaboard of Precision Therapeutics, Inc. from 2006-2007 and Sales Trainer/Field Sales Advisor/Senior Sales Executive of MGI Pharma from 2003 to 2006. Mr. Jacobucci has had manager positions with increasing responsibilities from 1990 to 2003 with various other pharmaceutical and other companies. He holds a B.S. degree from University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Mr. Phillip S. Wise, 52, has been our Vice President Business Development since June 1, 2006. Mr. Wise was Vice President of Commercial and Business Development for Enhance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ardent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2000 until 2006. Prior to that time he was with Glaxo Wellcome, from 1990 to 2000 in various capacities.

Mr. Stephen B. Thompson, 57, has been Vice President since 2000 and our Chief Financial Officer since 1996. From 1990 to 1996, he was Controller and Administration Manager of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a private Texas corporation. Previously, from 1989 to 1990, Mr. Thompson was Controller of Robert E. Woolley, Inc. a hotel real estate company where he was responsible for accounting, finances and investor relations. From 1985 to 1989, he was Controller of OKC Limited Partnership, an oil and gas company where he was responsible for accounting, finances and SEC reporting. Between 1975 and 1985 he held various accounting and finance positions with Santa Fe International Corporation.

 
25

 

PART II

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

Price Range of Common Stock and Dividend Policy

Our common stock has traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, or OTCBB, under the trading symbol ACCP since June 5, 2006. From February 1, 2006 until June 5, 2006, we traded on the “Pink Sheets” under the trading symbol AKCA. From March 30, 2000 until January 31, 2006, we traded on the American Stock Exchange, or AMEX, under the trading symbol AKC.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low closing prices as reported by OTCBB for our common stock for fiscal years 2010 and 2009. The OTCBB quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not represent actual transactions.

   
Common Stock
   
High
 
Low
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
       
First quarter
 
$             3.29
 
$             2.44
Second quarter
 
2.80
 
1.96
Third quarter
 
2.20
 
1.80
Fourth quarter
 
3.29
 
2.15
         
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009
       
First quarter
 
$             1.85
 
$             0.77
Second quarter
 
2.25
 
1.25
Third quarter
 
4.70
 
1.84
Fourth quarter
 
                 3.50
 
                  2.80
 
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends, if any, in the future is within the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our earnings, capital requirements and financial condition and other relevant facts. We currently intend to retain all future earnings, if any, to finance the development and growth of our business.

We are required, however, to pay dividends on our preferred stock at the rate of 6% per year. These dividends under certain circumstances may be paid in shares of our common stock.

The number of record holders of our common stock at March 30, 2011 was approximately 6,800. On March 30, 2011, the closing price for the common stock as quoted on the OTCBB was $2.24. There were 19,337,298 shares of common stock outstanding at March 30, 2011.

 
26

 

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2010 about shares of common stock outstanding and available for issuance under our existing equity compensation plans.
 
           
Number of securities
           
remaining available
           
for future issuance
   
Number of securities to
 
Weighted-average
 
      under equity
   
be issued upon exercise
 
   exercise price of
 
compensation plans
   
of outstanding options
 
outstanding options
 
(excluding securities
Plan Category
   
  warrants and rights
 
warrants and rights
 
reflected in column (a))
   
(a)
 
(b)
 
(c)
             
Equity compensation plans
           
  approved by security
           
  holders:
           
    2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 
1,748,733
 
$2.13
 
2,482,642
    1995 Stock Awards Plan
 
59,500
 
16.80
 
-
    2001 Restricted Stock Plan
 
-
 
-
 
52,818
             
Equity compensation plans
           
  not approved by security
           
  holders:
           
    2007 Special Stock Option Plan
 
              -
   
          -
   
450,000
Total
   
1,808,233
   
$2.61
   
2,985,460

The 2007 Special Stock Option Plan

The 2007 Special Stock Option Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Board in January 2007. The Plan is not intended to be an incentive stock option plan within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code). The Plan allows for the issuance of options to acquire up to 450,000 shares of our common stock of which 100,000 have been issued. The purpose of the Plan is to encourage ownership of common stock by employees, consultants, advisors and directors and to provide additional incentive for them to promote the success of our business. The Plan provides for the grant of non-qualified stock options to employees (including officers, directors, advisors and consultants). The Plan will expire in January 2017, unless earlier terminated by the Board. The options in the Plan granted to date expired March 12, 2010.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None




 
27

 

ITEM 7.
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
 
  RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included in this Form 10-K.

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together with our subsidiaries, “We”, “Access” or the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation. We are an emerging biopharmaceutical company focused on developing a range of pharmaceutical products primarily based upon our nanopolymer chemistry technologies and other drug delivery technologies. We currently have one approved product, two products in Phase 2 of clinical development and three products in pre-clinical development.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009

Our licensing revenue for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $347,000 as compared to $315,000 for the same period of 2009, an increase of $32,000. We recognize licensing revenue over the period of the performance obligation under our licensing agreements.

Sponsored research and development revenues were $58,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010 with no revenues for the same period of 2009. The revenues in 2010 are for research collaborations on our CobOral and CobaCyte projects.

We recorded royalty revenue for MuGard of $76,000 for the year ended December 31,  2010 and $37,000 for the same period of 2009, an increase of $39,000. Royalties for MuGard were first recorded in the third quarter of 2009.

Total research and development spending for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $3,349,000, as compared to $2,657,000 for the same period in 2009, an increase of $692,000. The increase in expenses was primarily due to:

·  
increased salary and related costs due to existing employees paid at full salary for the full year of 2010 while employees were paid at a reduced salary for seven months of 2009 plus the addition of a new employee ($499,000);
·  
increased stock compensation expense due to additional option grants for research and development employees ($297,000);
·  
increased clinical development with the planned starts in trials for MuGard, ProLindac and Thiarabine ($242,000); and
·  
other net increases in research spending ($1,000);
·  
offset by decreased development costs ($235,000); and
·  
offset by decreased scientific consulting expenses ($112,000).

Product costs, for the launch of MuGard in the United States, were $140,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. MuGard was launched in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Total general and administrative expenses were $4,511,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, a decrease of $2,601,000 compared to the same period in 2009 of $7,112,000. The decrease in expenses was due primarily to the following:

·  
lower general business consulting expenses due to reduction in use of outside consultants ($1,921,000);
·  
lower potential liquidated damages under an investor rights agreement with certain investors ($182,000);
·  
lower stock compensation expense due to fewer option grants for general and administrative employees ($92,000);
·  
lower patent and license fees ($222,000);
·  
lower costs from MacroChem ($180,000); and
·  
other net decreases in other general and administrative expenses ($4,000).

 
28

 
 
Depreciation and amortization was $238,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to $259,000 for the same period of 2009, a decrease of $21,000. This decrease was primarily due to assets becoming fully depreciated.

Total operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010, were $8,238,000 as compared to total operating expenses of $10,028,000 for same period in 2009, a decrease of $1,790,000 for the reasons listed above.

Interest and miscellaneous income was $2,046,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to $29,000 for the same period in 2009, an increase of $2,017,000. Miscellaneous income is $2,013,000 higher in 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009 due to $1,479,000 in grants from the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Grants from the United States and due to $534,000 in negotiated payables, write-off of other accounts payable and cash received for other one-time items. Interest income is $4,000 higher in 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009.

Interest and other expense was $607,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to $539,000 in the same period of 2009, an increase of $68,000. The increase in interest and other expense was due to the interest that was accrued on the previous unpaid portion of the long-term notes and dividends.

We recorded a derivative gain related to warrants classified as liabilities of $4,621,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to a derivative loss of $7,154,000 for the same period of 2009. A derivative for warrants was first recorded in the fourth quarter of 2009 when the fair value of the warrants, that were issued with our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, were reclassified from equity to a liability per the requirements of new accounting guidance as a result of the repricing feature.

We recorded a derivative loss for the liability related to preferred stock of $5,840,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010. The derivative was recorded per the requirements of accounting guidance due to the possibility of repricing our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock if we sold our common stock at a price below the original conversion price.

Preferred stock dividends of $1,791,000 were accrued for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $1,886,000 for the same period of 2009, a decrease of $95,000. The decrease is due to some preferred shareholders converting their ownership to common stock. Dividends are paid semi-annually in either cash or common stock.

Net loss allocable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2010, was $9,328,000, or a $0.60 basic and diluted loss per common share, compared with a loss of $19,226,000, or a $1.63 basic and diluted loss per common share for the same period in 2009, a decreased loss of $9,898,000.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have funded our operations primarily through private sales of common stock, preferred stock, convertible notes and through licensing agreements. Our principal source of liquidity is cash and cash equivalents. Royalty revenues provided limited funding for operations during the year ended December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, our cash and cash equivalents were $7,033,000 and our net cash burn rate for the year ended December 31, 2010, was approximately $567,000 per month, which included non-recurring manufacturing expenses. As of December 31, 2010, our working capital deficit was $6,136,000. Our working capital deficit at December 31, 2010 represented a decrease of $1,813,000 as compared to our working capital deficit as of December 31, 2009 of $7,949,000. The decrease in the working capital deficit at December 31, 2010 reflects the reclassification of long-term debt of $5,500,000 to current liabilities and the twelve months operating costs offset by net receipts from our January and December 2010 offerings of $13,101,000. As of December 31, 2010, we had one convertible note outstanding in the principal amount of $5.5 million which is due September 13, 2011.

As of March 30, 2011, we did not have enough capital to achieve our long-term goals. If we raise additional funds by selling equity securities, the relative equity ownership of our existing investors will be diluted and the new investors could obtain terms more favorable than previous investors. A failure to obtain necessary additional capital in the future could jeopardize our operations and our ability to continue as a going concern.

 
29

 
 
We have incurred negative cash flows from operations since inception, and have expended, and expect to continue to expend in the future, substantial funds to complete our planned product development efforts. Since inception, our expenses have significantly exceeded revenues, resulting in an accumulated deficit as of December 31, 2010 of $251,135,000. We expect that our capital resources will be adequate to fund our current level of operations into the first quarter of 2012. We are a party to a $5.5 million promissory note due on September 13, 2011. While our plan is to extend the due date of this note, if we are unable to do so we may not have sufficient capital to continue our operations. However, our ability to fund operations over this time could change significantly depending upon changes to future operational funding obligations or capital expenditures. As a result, we are required to seek additional financing sources within the next twelve months. We cannot assure you that we will ever be able to generate significant product revenue or achieve or sustain profitability.

Since our inception, we have devoted our resources primarily to fund our research and development programs. We have been unprofitable since inception and to date have received limited revenues from the sale of products. We cannot assure you that we will be able to generate sufficient product revenues to attain profitability on a sustained basis or at all. We expect to incur losses for the next several years as we continue to invest in product research and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials and regulatory compliance.

We plan to expend substantial funds to conduct research and development programs, preclinical studies and clinical trials of potential products, including research and development with respect to our acquired and developed technology. Our future capital requirements and adequacy of available funds will depend on many factors, including:
·  
the successful development and commercialization of ProLindac™, MuGard™ and our other product candidates;
·  
the ability to convert, repay or restructure our outstanding convertible note and debentures;
·  
the ability to establish and maintain collaborative arrangements with corporate partners for the research, development and commercialization of products;
·  
continued scientific progress in our research and development programs;
·  
the magnitude, scope and results of preclinical testing and clinical trials;
·  
the costs involved in filing, prosecuting and enforcing patent claims;
·  
the costs involved in conducting clinical trials;
·  
competing technological developments;
·  
the cost of manufacturing and scale-up;
·  
the ability to establish and maintain effective commercialization arrangements and activities; and
·  
successful regulatory filings.

We have devoted substantially all of our efforts and resources to research and development conducted on our own behalf. The following table summarizes research and development spending by project category (in thousands), which spending includes, but is not limited to, payroll and personnel expense, lab supplies, preclinical expense, development cost, clinical trial expense, outside manufacturing expense and consulting expense:

(in thousands)
 
 
Twelve Months ended
 December 31,
   
Inception To
 Date (1)
 
Project
 
2010
   
2009
       
Polymer Platinate
 (ProLindac™)
  $ 2,697     $ 2,507     $ 30,823  
Mucoadhesive Liquid
  Technology (MLT)
     329       107       1,947  
Others (2)
    323        43       5,760  
Total
  $ 3,349     $ 2,657     $ 38,530  
                         

(1)  
Cumulative spending from inception of the Company or project through December 31, 2010.
(2)  
Includes:  CobOral, CobaCyte, Thiarabine and other projects.

 
30

 
 
Due to uncertainties and certain of the risk factors described above, including those relating to our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates, our ability to obtain necessary additional capital to fund operations in the future, our ability to successfully manufacture our products and our product candidates in clinical quantities or for commercial purposes, government regulation to which we are subject, the uncertainty associated with preclinical and clinical testing, intense competition that we face, market acceptance of our products and protection of our intellectual property, it is not possible to reliably predict future spending or time to completion by project or product category or the period in which material net cash inflows from significant projects are expected to commence.  If we are unable to timely complete a particular project, our research and development efforts could be delayed or reduced, our business could suffer depending on the significance of the project and we might need to raise additional capital to fund operations, as discussed in the risk factors above, including without limitation those relating to the uncertainty of the success of our research and development activities and our ability to obtain necessary additional capital to fund operations in the future.  As discussed in such risk factors, delays in our research and development efforts and any inability to raise additional funds could cause us to eliminate one or more of our research and development programs.

We plan to continue our policy of investing any available funds in certificates of deposit, money market funds, government securities and investment-grade interest-bearing securities. We do not invest in derivative financial instruments.

We do not believe inflation or changing prices have had a material impact on our revenue or operating income.

Climate Change

We do not believe there is anything unique to our business which would result in climate change regulations having a disproportional affect on us as compared to U.S. industry overall.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The preparation of our consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reported period. In applying our accounting principles, we must often make individual estimates and assumptions regarding expected outcomes or uncertainties. As you might expect, the actual results or outcomes are often different than the estimated or assumed amounts. These differences are usually minor and are included in our consolidated financial statements as soon as they are known. Our estimates, judgments and assumptions are continually evaluated based on available information and experience. Because of the use of estimates inherent in the financial reporting process, actual results could differ from those estimates.

Asset Impairment

Our intangible assets at December 31, 2010 consisted primarily of patents acquired in acquisitions and licenses which were recorded at fair value on the acquisition date. We perform an impairment test when indications of impairment exist. At December 31, 2010 and for the year then ended, management believes no impairment of our intangible assets exists.

Revenues

Our revenues are generated from licensing, research and development agreements and royalties. We recognize revenue in accordance with SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104 (SAB 104), Revenue Recognition. License revenue is recognized over the remaining life of the underlying patent. Research and development revenues are recognized as services are performed. Royalties are recognized in the period of sales.

Stock Based Compensation Expense

We account for stock based compensation expense in accordance with FASB ASC 718, Stock Based Compensation. We have several stock-based compensation plans under which incentive and non-incentive qualified stock options and restricted shares may be granted to employees, directors and consultants. We measure the cost of the employee/director/consultant services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant date fair value of the award.

 
31

 
 
Stock-based compensation expense recognized for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 was approximately $1,015,000 and $811,000, respectively.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU 2010-17 (ASU 2010-17), “Revenue Recognition-Milestone Method (Topic 605): Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition.” The amendments in this Update are effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Early adoption is permitted. If a vendor elects early adoption and the period of adoption is not the beginning of the entity’s fiscal year, the entity should apply the amendments retrospectively from the beginning of the year of adoption. We will adopt this standard effective January 1, 2011. We do not expect the provisions of ASU 2010-17 to have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of us.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-27, Fees Paid to the Federal Government by Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. ASU 2010-27 specifies that the liability for our portion of the annual fee on the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry should be estimated and recorded in full upon the first qualifying sale with a corresponding deferred cost that is amortized to expense using a straight-line method of allocation unless another method better allocates the fee over the calendar year that it is payable. ASU 2010-27 is effective for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010, when the fee initially becomes effective. ASU 2010-27 will not impact our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows until the period in which we begin sales of our pharmaceutical products.

Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

None

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Financial statements required by this Item are incorporated in this Form 10-K on pages F-1 through F-23. Reference is made to Item 15 of this Form -10-K.

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
        FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the Chief Executive Officer (our principal executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer (our principal financial officer), we have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report.
 
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
 
We conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our “disclosure controls and procedures” (Disclosure Controls) as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K. The controls evaluation was conducted under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Disclosure Controls are controls and procedures designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act, such as this Form 10-K, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) rules and forms. Disclosure Controls are also designed to reasonably assure that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
 
 
32

 
 
The evaluation of our Disclosure Controls included a review of the controls’ objectives and design, our implementation of the controls and the effect of the controls on the information generated for use in this Form 10-K. During the course of our evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting, we advised the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors that we had identified a material weakness as defined under standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the Company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weakness we identified is discussed in “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” below. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that as a result of the material weakness, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Disclosure Controls were not effective.
 
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
 
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act. Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations, a system of internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate due to change in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
 
Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal accounting officer, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting using the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control—Integrated Framework.
 
Based on our evaluation, our management concluded that there is a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. The material weakness identified did not result in the restatement of any previously reported financial statements or any related financial disclosure, nor does management believe that it had any effect on the accuracy of the Company’s financial statements for the current reporting period. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the Company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
 
The material weakness relates to the monitoring and review of work performed by our Chief Financial Officer in the preparation of audit and financial statements, footnotes and financial data provided to the Company’s registered public accounting firm in connection with the annual audit. All of our financial reporting is carried out by our Chief Financial Officer. This lack of accounting staff results in a lack of segregation of duties and accounting technical expertise necessary for an effective system of internal control.
 
In order to mitigate this material weakness to the fullest extent possible, all financial reports are reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Chairman of the Audit Committee for reasonableness. All unexpected results are investigated. At any time, if it appears that any control can be implemented to continue to mitigate such weaknesses, it is immediately implemented. As soon as our finances allow, we will hire sufficient accounting staff and implement appropriate procedures for monitoring and review of work performed by our Chief Financial Officer.
 
Because of the material weakness described above, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2010, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective based on the criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
 
This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the SEC that permit smaller reporting companies like us to provide only management’s report in this annual report.
 
 
33

 
 
This report shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
 
Changes In Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2010 that have materially affected, or are reasonable likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION

None.


 
34

 

PART III

ITEM 10.  DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Directors and Reports of Beneficial Ownership.  The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from the information to be contained in our 2011 Proxy Statement to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the solicitation of proxies for our Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 26, 2011 (the Proxy Statement). The information under the heading “Executive Officers of the Registrant” in Part I of this Form 10-K is also incorporated by reference.

Code of Ethics.  We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the Code) that applies to all of our employees (including executive officers) and directors. The Code is available on our website at www.accesspharma.com under the heading “Investor Information”. We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement regarding any waiver of a provision of the Code applicable to any executive officer or director, by posting such information on such website.  We shall provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of the Code. Any such request must be made in writing to Access, c/o Investor Relations, 2600 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 176, Dallas, TX  75207.

Our corporate governance guidelines and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors are available on our website at www.accesspharma.com under the heading “Investor Information”. Access shall provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of any of the foregoing materials. Any such request must be made in writing to Access, c/o Investor Relations, 2600 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 176, Dallas, TX  75207.

ITEM 11.  EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The information required by this item will be contained in the Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 12.  SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
    AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The information required by this item will be contained in the Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 13.  CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR
     INDEPENDENCE

The information required by this item will be contained in the Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 14.  PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The information required by this item will be contained in the Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

 
35

 

ITEM 15.  EXHIBITS

  
 
 
 
  Page
 
a.  Financial Statements.  The following financial statements are submitted as part of this report:
 
   
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
F-1
   
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2010 and 2009
F-2
   
Consolidated Statements of Operations for 2010 and 2009
F-3
   
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Deficit for 2010 and 2009
F-4
   
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for 2010 and 2009
F-5
   
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-6

b. Exhibits

2.1
Amended and Restated Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization between the Registrant and Chemex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated as of October 31, 1995 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit A of  our Registration Statement on Form S-4 dated December 20, 1995, Commission File No. 33-64031)
2.2
Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among the Registrant, Somanta Acquisition Corporation, Somanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Somanta Incorporated and Somanta Limited, dated April 19, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to our Form 8-K dated April 18, 2007)
2.3
Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among the Registrant, MACM Acquisition Corporation and MacroChem Corporation, dated July 9, 2008 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.3 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008)
3.1
Certificate of Incorporation (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) of our Form 8-K dated July 12, 1989, Commission File Number 9-9134)
3.2
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation filed August 13, 1992 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 of our Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 1995)
3.3
Certificate of Merger filed January 25, 1996 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit E of our Registration Statement on Form S-4 dated December 20, 1995, Commission File No. 33-64031)
3.4
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation filed January 25, 1996 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit E of our Registration Statement on Form S-4 dated December 20, 1995, Commission File No. 33-64031)
3.5
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation filed July 18, 1996 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996)
3.6
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation filed June 18, 1998. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.8 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1998)
3.7
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation filed July 31, 2000 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.8 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001)
3.8
Certificate of Designations of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock filed November 7, 2001 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1.H of our Registration Statement on Form S-8 dated December 14, 2001, Commission File No. 333-75136)
3.9
Amended and Restated Bylaws (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1996)
3.10
Certificate of Designation, Rights and Preferences of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock filed November 9, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.10 to our Form SB-2 filed on December 10, 2007.
3.11
Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designations, Rights and Preferences of Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock filed June 11, 2008 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.11 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008)
10.1*
1995 Stock Option Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit F of our Registration Statement on Form S-4 dated December 20, 1995, Commission File No. 33-64031)
 
 
36

 
 
10.2*
Amendment to 1995 Stock Option Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001)
10.3
Lease Agreement between Pollock Realty Corporation and the Registrant dated July 25, 1996 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996)
10.4
Platinate HPMA Copolymer Royalty Agreement between The School of Pharmacy, University of London and the Registrant dated November 19, 1996 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996)
10.5*
401(k) Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999)
10.6
Form of Convertible Note (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 25 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000)
10.7
Rights Agreement dated as of October 31, 2001 between the Registrant and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Rights Agent (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of our Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 7, 2001)
10.8
Amendment to Rights Agreement dated as of February 16, 2006 between the Registrant and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Rights Agent (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.33 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006)
10.9
Amendment to Rights Agreement dated as of November 9, 2007 between the Registrant and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company as Rights Agent
10.10*
2001 Restricted Stock Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 of our Proxy Statement filed on April 16, 2001)
10.11*
2005 Equity Incentive Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 of our Proxy Statement filed on April 18, 2005)
10.12
Asset Sale Agreement dated as of October 12, 2005, between the Registrant and Uluru, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 of our 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005)
10.13
Amendment to Asset Sale Agreement dated as of December 8, 2006, between the Registrant and Uluru, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.16 of our Form 10-KSB filed on April 2, 2007)
10.14
License Agreement dated as of October 12, 2005, between the Registrant and Uluru, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 of our 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005)
10.15
Form of Warrant dated February 16, 2006, issued by the Registrant to certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.31 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006)
10.16
Form of Warrant dated October 24, 2006, issued by the Registrant to certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 of our Form 10-KSB filed on April 2, 2007)
10.17
Form of Warrant December 6, 2006, issued by the Registrant to certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 of our Form 10-KSB filed on April 2, 2007)
10.18*
2007 Special Stock Option Plan and Agreement dated January 4, 2007, by and between the Registrant and Stephen R. Seiler, President and Chief Executive Officer (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 of our Form 10-QSB filed on May 15, 2007)
10.19
Note Purchase Agreement dated April 26, 2007, between the Registrant and Somanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.42 of our Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2007)
10.20
Preferred Stock and Warrant Purchase Agreement, dated November 7, 2007, between the Registrant and certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.21
Investor Rights Agreement dated November 10, 2007, between the Registrant and certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.22
Form of Warrant Agreement dated November 10, 2007, between the Registrant and certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.23
Board Designation Agreement dated November 15, 2007, between the Registrant and SCO Capital Partners LLC (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.24
Amendment and Restated Purchase Agreement, dated February 4, 2008 between the Registrant and certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.25
Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement, dated February 4, 2008, between the Registrant and certain Purchasers (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.28 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.26*
Employment Agreement dated January 4, 2008, between the Registrant and Jeffrey B. Davis (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.29 of our Form S-1 filed on March 11, 2008)
10.27
Form of Securities Purchase Agreement (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.29 of our Form S-1 filed on January 15, 2010)
 
 
37

 
 
10.28
Form of Warrant (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.30 of our Form S-1 filed on January 15, 2010)
10.29*
Employment Agreement of David P. Nowotnik, PhD (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.31 of our Form 8-K February 8, 2010)
10.30
Form of Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of December 10, 2010 by and among us and the Purchasers named therein (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of our Form 8-K filed on December 14, 2010)
10.31
Form of Common Stock Warrant issued by us (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of our Form 8-K filed on December 14, 2010)
21
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
23.1        Consent of Whitley Penn LLP
31.1
Chief Executive Officer Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.2
Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32
Chief Executive Officer Certification and Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


*  
Management contract or compensatory plan required to be filed as an Exhibit to this Form pursuant to Item 15c of the report.




 
38

 

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis
   
Jeffrey B. Davis
   
Chief Executive Officer
   
Principal Executive Officer
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Stephen B. Thompson
   
Stephen B. Thompson
   
Vice President, Chief Financial
   
 Officer and Treasurer
   
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
     


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Company and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
 
 
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis
   
Jeffrey B. Davis, Director
   
Chief Executive Officer
   
Principal Executive Officer
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Stephen B. Thompson
   
Stephen B. Thompson
   
Vice President, Chief Financial
   
 Officer and Treasurer
   
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Mark J. Ahn
   
Mark J. Ahn, Director
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Mark J. Alvino
   
Mark J. Alvino, Director
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Esteban Cvitkovic
   
Esteban Cvitkovic, Director
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Stephen B. Howell
   
Stephen B. Howell, Director
     
Date March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Steven H. Rouhandeh
   
Steven H. Rouhandeh, Chairman of
   
the Board
 


 
39

 


 
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 
 
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated 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. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting.  An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, 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 consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

As described in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 07-5, Determining Whether an Instrument (or Embedded Feature) Is Indexed to an Entity’s Own Stock (Accounting Standards Codification Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging) effective as of January 1, 2009.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has had recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows from operating activities and has an accumulated deficit. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 2. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. These consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


/s/ WHITLEY PENN LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 31, 2011




F-1


 
 

 

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries

 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 
                         ASSETS
 
December 31, 2010
 
 
December 31, 2009 
 
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents   
   Receivables
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
         
 
$          7,033,000
1,018,000
70,000
 
 
$             607,000
               36,000
               42,000
 
                 Total current assets
8,121,000
 
685,000
 
Property and equipment, net
 
32,000
 
 
50,000
 
Patents, net
 
574,000
 
 
787,000
 
Other assets
 
44,000
 
 
61,000
            Total assets
$          8,771,000
 
$          1,583,000
        
   LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' DEFICIT
 
     
Current liabilities
  Accounts payable
  Accrued expenses
  Dividends payable
  Accrued interest payable
  Convertible debt, current portion
  Current portion of deferred revenue
 
$          2,984,000
857,000
4,443,000
126,000
5,500,000
347,000
 
 
$          4,094,000
857,000
2,773,000
563,000
-
347,000
         Total current liabilities
14,257,000
 
8,634,000
 
Derivative liability-warrants
 
5,087,000
 
 
9,708,000
Derivative liability-preferred stock
Long-term deferred revenue
Long-term convertible debt
5,840,000
4,382,000
-
 
-
4,730,000
5,500,000
 Total liabilities
29,566,000
 
28,572,000
 
Commitments and contingencies
 
     
Stockholders' deficit
  Convertible preferred stock - $.01 par value; authorized 2,000,000 shares;
     2,978.3617 issued at December 31, 2010; 2,992.3617 issued at
     December 31, 2009
  Common stock - $.01 par value; authorized 100,000,000 shares;
     issued 19,115,010 at December 31, 2010; issued 13,171,545
      at December 31, 2009
  Additional paid-in capital
  Notes receivable from stockholders
  Treasury stock, at cost – 163 shares
  Accumulated deficit
 
 
 
-
 
 
191,000
230,153,000
-
(4,000)
(251,135,000)
 
 
 
 
-
 
 
132,000
215,735,000
(1,045,000)
(4,000)
(241,807,000)
                Total stockholders' deficit
(20,795,000)
 
(26,989,000)
            Total liabilities and stockholders' deficit
$          8,771,000
 
$          1,583,000

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated statements.


F-2


 
 

 

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS




   
December 31,
 
   
2010
   
2009
 
             
Revenues
           
License revenues
  $ 347,000     $ 315,000  
Sponsored research and development
    58,000       -  
Royalties
    76,000       37,000  
Total revenues
    481,000       352,000  
                 
Expenses
               
Research and development
    3,349,000       2,657,000  
Product costs
    140,000       -  
General and administrative
    4,511,000       7,112,000  
Depreciation and amortization
    238,000       259,000  
Total expenses
    8,238,000       10,028,000  
                 
Loss from operations
    (7,757,000 )     (9,676,000 )
                 
Interest and miscellaneous income
    2,046,000       29,000  
Interest and other expense
    (607,000 )     (539,000 )
Gain (loss) on change in fair value of derivative-warrants
    4,621,000       (7,154,000 )
Loss on change in fair value of derivative-preferred stock
    (5,840,000 )     -  
      220,000       (7,664,000 )
Net loss
    (7,537,000 )     (17,340,000 )
                 
Less preferred stock dividends
    (1,791,000 )     (1,886,000 )
Net loss allocable to common stockholders
  $ (9,328,000 )   $ (19,226,000 )
                 
                 
Basic and diluted loss per common share
               
    Net loss allocable to common stockholders
  $ (0.60 )   $ (1.63 )
                 
Weighted average basic and diluted common shares
    outstanding
    15,633,110       11,818,530  
                 



The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated statements.



F-3



 
 

 

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' DEFICIT

 
Common Stock
Preferred Stock
 
Additional
paid-in
capital
Notes receivable from stockholders
 
 
Treasury stock
 
 
Accumulated deficit
 
Shares
Amount
Shares
Amount
 
Balance, December 31, 2008
9,467,000
$95,000
3,242.8617
$              -
 $225,753,000
$(1,045,000)
$(4,000)
$(235,985,000)
Cumulative effect of a
  change in accounting
  principle (See Note 9)
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
(15,957,000)
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
13,404,000
Restricted common stock
   issued for services
 
687,000
 
8,000
 
-
 
-
 
2,199,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Warrants issued for
   services
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
796,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
   for cash exercise
   of options
 
 
250,000
 
 
2,000
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
177,000
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
Common stock issued
   for cashless warrant
   exercises
 
 
33,000
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
Preferred stock converted
   into common stock
 
836,000
 
9,000
 
(250.5000)
 
-
 
(9,000)
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
   for preferred dividends
 
915,000
 
9,000
 
-
 
-
 
918,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Stock option
   compensation expense
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
811,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued to
  MacroChem noteholders
  for notes and accrued
  interest
 
 
 
859,000
 
 
 
8,000
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
851,000
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
Common stock issued to
  former MacroChem
  executives
 
 
125,000
 
 
1,000
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
196,000
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
Preferred dividends
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1,886,000)
Net loss
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(17,340,000)
Balance, December 31, 2009
13,172,000
        132,000
2,992.3617
                -
           215,735,000
    (1,045,000)
      (4,000)
      (241,807,000)
                 
Restricted common stock
  issued for services
 
427,000
 
4,000
 
-
 
-
 
847,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Warrants issued for
  services
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
74,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
  for cash exercise
  of options
Common stock issued
  for cashless warrant
  exercises
Preferred stock converted
  into common stock
 
 
153,000
 
 
42,000
 
47,000
 
 
2,000
 
 
-
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
(14.0000)
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
-
 
 
191,000
 
 
-
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
  for preferred dividends
 
127,000
 
1,000
 
-
 
-
 
287,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Stock option
  compensation expense
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
1,015,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
  $3.00 share, net of costs
 
2,083,000
 
21,000
 
-
 
-
 
5,827,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Common stock issued
  $2.55 share, net of costs
 
3,102,000
 
31,000
 
-
 
-
 
7,222,000
 
-
 
-
 
-
Cancellation of
  notes receivable
 
(38,000)
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
(1,045,000)
 
1,045,000
 
-
 
-
Preferred dividends
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1,791,000)
Net loss
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(7,537,000)
                 
Balance, December 31,2010
19,115,000
$191,000
2,978.3617
$                -
 $        230,153,000
$                     -
$         (4,000)
$      251,135,000)
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated statements.

F-4



 
 

 

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 
     Year ended December 31,  
             
   
2010
   
2009
 
             
Cash flows from operating activities:
           
Net loss
  $ (7,537,000 )   $ (17,340,000 )
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used
               
in operating activities:
               
Loss (gain) on change in fair value of derivative-warrants
    (4,621,000 )     7,154,000  
Loss on change in fair value of derivative-preferred stock
    5,840,000       -  
Gain on negotiated payables
    (509,000 )     -  
Depreciation and amortization
    238,000       259,000  
Stock option compensation expense
    1,015,000       811,000  
Stock and warrants issued for services
    925,000       3,200,000  
Change in operating assets and liabilities:
               
Receivables
    (982,000 )     111,000  
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
    (28,000 )     133,000  
Other assets
    17,000       17,000  
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
    (601,000 )     369,000  
Dividends payable
    168,000       (82,000 )
Accrued interest payable
    (437,000     452,000  
Deferred revenue
    (348,000 )     2,668,000  
Net cash used in operating activities
    (6,860,000 )     (2,248,000 )
                 
Cash flows from investing activities:
               
Capital expenditures
    (7,000 )     (2,000 )
Proceeds from sale of asset
    -       1,000  
Net cash used in investing activities
    (7,000 )     (1,000 )
                 
Cash flows from financing activities:
               
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
    192,000       179,000  
Proceeds from common stock issuances, net of costs
    13,101,000       -  
Net cash provided by financing activities
    13,293,000       179,000  
                 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
    6,426,000       (2,070,000 )
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
    607,000       2,677,000  
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
  $ 7,033,000     $ 607,000  
                 
Supplemental cash flow information:
               
Cash paid for interest
  $ 874,000     $ 1,000  
                 
Supplemental disclosure of noncash transactions
               
Shares issued for payables, notes payable and accrued interest
    -       859,000  
Shares issued for dividends on preferred stock
    288,000       927,000  
Warrants issued for placement agent fees
    274,000       -  
Preferred stock dividends in dividends payable
    1,791,000       1,886,000  


The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated statements.


F-5


 
 

 

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Two years ended December 31, 2010


  NOTE 1 - NATURE OF OPERATIONS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
 
  Nature of Operations
Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”, “we”, “our”, or “Access”) is an emerging pharmaceutical company engaged in the development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and supportive care of cancer patients. This development work is based primarily on the adaptation of existing therapeutic agents using the Company’s proprietary drug delivery technology. Our efforts have been principally devoted to research and development, resulting in significant losses since inception on February 24, 1988.
 
A summary of the significant accounting policies applied in the preparation of the accompanying consolidated financial statements follows.
 
Principles of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the financial statements of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
 
  Use of Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reported period. Our significant estimates include primarily those required in the valuation of impairment analysis of intangible assets, fair value of financial instruments, revenue recognition, allowances for doubtful accounts, stock-based compensation and valuation of derivative liabilites and equity instruments, valuation allowances for deferred tax assets and tax accruals. Although we believe that adequate accruals have been made for unsettled issues, additional gains or losses could occur in future years from resolutions of outstanding matters. Actual results could differ materially from original estimates.
 
Segments
The Company operates in a single segment.
 
Cash and Cash Equivalents
We consider all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had no such investments. We maintain deposits primarily in two financial institutions, which may at times exceed amounts covered by insurance provided by the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).  We have not experienced any losses related to amounts in excess of FDIC limits. 
 
Property and Equipment
Property and equipment are recorded at cost. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives ranging from three to seven years. Expenditures for major renewals and betterments that extend the useful lives are capitalized. Expenditures for normal maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred. The cost of assets sold or abandoned and the related accumulated depreciation are eliminated from the accounts and any gains or losses are recognized in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations of the respective period.
 
 
F-6

 
 
Research and Development Expenses
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expenses include, but are not limited to, payroll and personnel expense, lab supplies, preclinical, development cost, clinical trial expense, outside manufacturing and consulting. The cost of materials and equipment or facilities that are acquired for research and development activities and that have alternative future uses are capitalized when acquired.
 
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying value of cash, cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and accruals approximate fair value due to the short maturity of these items. The carrying value of the convertible short and long-term debt is at book value, which approximates the fair value as the interest rate is at market value.
 
We consider the conversion options and warrants related to our Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock to be derivatives, and we record the fair value of the derivative liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. Changes in the fair value of the derivative liabilities are included in gain or loss on change in fair value of derivative in the consolidated statements of operations.
 
Income Taxes
Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.  The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is provided for deferred tax assets to the extent their realization is in doubt.
 
We account for uncertain income tax positions in accordance with FASB ASC 740, Income Taxes. Interest costs and penalties related to income taxes are classified as interest expense and general and administrative costs, respectively, in our consolidated financial statements. For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, we did not recognize any interest or penalty expense related to income taxes. It is determined not to be reasonably likely for the amounts of unrecognized tax benefits to significantly increase or decrease within the next 12 months. We are currently subject to a three year statute of limitations by major tax jurisdictions. We and our subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction.
 
Loss Per Share
We have presented basic loss per share, computed on the basis of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the year, and diluted loss per share, computed on the basis of the weighted average number of common shares and all dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the year. Potential common shares result from stock options, vesting of restricted stock grants, convertible notes, preferred stock and warrants. However, for all years presented, all outstanding stock options, restricted stock grants, convertible notes and warrants are anti-dilutive due to the losses for the years. Anti-dilutive common stock equivalents of 25,784,976 and 21,658,171 were excluded from the loss per share computation for 2010 and 2009, respectively.
 
Patents
We expense internal patent and application costs as incurred because, even though we believe the patents and underlying processes have continuing value, the amount of future benefits to be derived therefrom are uncertain. Purchased patents are capitalized and amortized over the life of the patent.
 
 
Intangible assets consist of the following (in thousands):

 
F-7

 
 
 
December 31, 2010
 
December 31, 2009
 
Gross
carrying
value
 
 
Accumulated
amortization
 
Gross
carrying
value
 
 
Accumulated
amortization
Amortizable intangible assets - Patents
 
 
$      2,624
 
 
 
$        2,050
 
 
 
$      2,624
 
 
 
$             1,837

Amortization expense related to intangible assets totaled $213,000 and $212000 for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The aggregate estimated amortization expense for intangible assets remaining as of December 31, 2010 is as follows (in thousands):
 
 
 2011   $ 212  
 2012     82  
 2013     44  
 2014     44  
 2015     44  
 Thereafter     148  
 Total   $  574  
 
Revenues
Our revenues are generated from licensing, research and development agreements and royalties. We recognize revenue in accordance with SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104 (SAB 104), Revenue Recognition. License revenue is recognized over the remaining life of the underlying patent. Research and development revenues are recognized as services are performed. Royalties are recognized in the period of sales.

Other Income
In 2010 we were awarded $1,479,000 in grants from the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Grants from the United States government. As these are non-recurring in nature, we recorded them in Other Income. We received payment of $541,000 in 2010 and recorded the remaining $938,000 in receivables at December 31, 2010.

Stock-Based Compensation
We account for stock based compensation expense in accordance with FASB ASC 718, Stock Based Compensation. We have several stock-based compensation plans under which incentive and non-incentive qualified stock options and restricted shares may be granted to employees, directors and consultants. We measure the cost of the employee/director/consultant services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant date fair value of the award. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to value our options.

During 2010 and 2009, 640,000 stock options and 565,000 stock options, respectively, were granted under the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. Assumptions for 2010 and 2009 are:

   
2010
 
2009
Expected volatility assumption was based upon a combination of historical stock price volatility measured on a weekly basis and is considered a reasonable indicator of expected volatility.
 
 
 
123%
 
 
115%
Risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon U.S. Treasury bond interest rates appropriate for the term of the our employee stock options.
 
 
 
2.32%
 
 
2.37%
Dividend yield assumption is based on our history and expectation of dividend payments.
 
 
 
None
 
 
None
Estimated expected term (average of number years) is based on the simplified method as prescribed by SAB 107/110 as we do not have sufficient information to calculate an expected term.
 
 
5.7 years
 
 
5.5 years

 
F-8

 
 
At December 31, 2010, the balance of unearned stock-based compensation to be expensed in future periods related to unvested share-based awards, as adjusted for expected forfeitures, is approximately $1,031,000. The weighted-average period over which the unearned stock-based compensation is expected to be recognized is approximately two years. We anticipate that we will grant additional share-based awards to employees in the future, which will increase our stock-based compensation expense by the additional unearned compensation resulting from these grants.
 
The following table summarizes stock-based compensation for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 which was allocated as follows (in thousands):

   
Year ended
December 31, 2010
   
Year ended
December 31, 2009
 
Research and development
  $ 678     $ 381  
General and administrative
    337       430  
    Stock-based compensation expense included in operating expense
    1,015       811  
                 
Total stock-based compensation expense
    1,015       811  
Tax benefit
    -       -  
    Stock-based compensation expense, net of tax
  $ 1,015     $ 811  

Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In April 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU 2010-17 (ASU 2010-17), “Revenue Recognition-Milestone Method (Topic 605): Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition.” The amendments in this Update are effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Early adoption is permitted. If a vendor elects early adoption and the period of adoption is not the beginning of the entity’s fiscal year, the entity should apply the amendments retrospectively from the beginning of the year of adoption. We will adopt this standard effective January 1, 2011. We do not expect the provisions of ASU 2010-17 to have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of us.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-27, Fees Paid to the Federal Government by Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. ASU 2010-27 specifies that the liability for our portion of the annual fee on the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry should be estimated and recorded in full upon the first qualifying sale with a corresponding deferred cost that is amortized to expense using a straight-line method of allocation unless another method better allocates the fee over the calendar year that it is payable. ASU 2010-27 is effective for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010, when the fee initially becomes effective. ASU 2010-27 will not impact our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows until the period in which we begin sales of our pharmaceutical products.

NOTE 2 – LIQUIDITY

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we are a going concern. We incurred a net loss in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

Management believes that our current cash and expected license fees should fund our expected burn rate into the first quarter of 2012. We are a party to a $5.5 million promissory note due on September 13, 2011. While our plan is to extend the due date of this note, if we are unable to do so we may not have sufficient capital to continue our operations. We will require additional funds to continue operations. These funds are expected to come from the future sales of equity and/or license agreements.

 
F-9

 
 
NOTE 3 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
 
In the event SCO Capital Partners LLC (SCO) and its affiliates were to convert all of their shares of Series A Preferred Stock and exercise all of their warrants, they would own approximately 45.1% of the voting securities of Access. During 2010 and 2009, SCO and affiliates incurred $300,000 each year in investor relations fees.

In connection with the sale and issuance of Series A Preferred Stock and warrants, we entered into a Director Designation Agreement whereby we agreed to continue SCO’s right to designate two individuals to serve on the Board of Directors of Access.

Dr. Esteban Cvitkovic, a Director, has served as a consultant and Senior Director, Oncology Clinical Research & Development, since August 2007. Dr. Cvitkovic receives payments for consulting expenses, office expenses and reimbursement of direct expenses. Dr. Cvitkovic also has received the following warrants and options for his consulting. In May 2009, Dr. Cvitkovic received options to purchase 75,000 shares of our Common Stock at $1.38 with all options currently vested and can be exercised until January 4, 2012. In January 2008, Dr. Cvitkovic received warrants to purchase 200,000 shares of our Common Stock at $3.15 per share that can be exercised until January 4, 2012. All of the warrants are currently vested. Dr. Cvitkovic’s payments for consulting services and expense reimbursements are as follows:
 
 
                      Fair Value  
    Consulting     Office     Expense     of exercisable  
 Year   Fees     Expenses     Reimbursement     Warrants  
 2010   $ 132,000     $ -     $ -     $ -  
 2009   $ 132,000     $ 18,000     $ 10,000     $ 86,000  
                                 
 
 
Mark J. Ahn, Ph.D., a Director, received payments for consulting services and reimbursement of direct expenses for scientific consulting in 2010. Dr. Ahn’s payments for consulting services and expense reimbursements are as follows:
 
 
                Fair Value  
    Consulting     Expense     of Restricted  
 Year     Fees     Reimbursement     Stock  
 2010   $ 5,000     $ 4,000     $ 23,000  
 
 
See Note 10 for a discussion of our Restricted Stock Purchase Program.

NOTE 4 - PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
 
 
Property and equipment consists of the following:    December 31,  
      2010     2009  
 Laboratory equipment      $ 788,000     $ 786,000  
 Laboratory and building improvements        58,000       58,000  
 Furniture and equipment         56,000       567,000  
        902,000       1,411,000  
 Less accumulated depreciation and amortization        870,000       1,361,000  
 Property and equipment, net     $   32,000     $  50,000  
 
Depreciation and amortization on property and equipment was $25,000 and $47,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

NOTE 5 – 401(k) PLAN

We have a tax-qualified employee savings and retirement plan (the 401(k) Plan) covering all our employees. Pursuant to the 401(k) Plan, employees may elect to reduce their current compensation by up to the statutorily prescribed annual limit ($16,500 in 2010 and $15,500 in 2009) and to have the amount of such reduction contributed to the 401(k) Plan. We had a 401(k) matching program whereby we contributed for each dollar a participant contributes a like amount, with a maximum contribution of 4% of a participant’s earnings in the first five months of 2009 and $0 for the remainder of 2009 and 2010. The Company suspended matching on June 1, 2009 and through the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. The 401(k) Plan is intended to qualify under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code so that contributions by employees or by us to the 401(k) Plan, and income earned on 401(k) Plan contributions, are not taxable to employees until withdrawn from the 401(k) Plan, and so that contributions by us, if any, will be deductible by us when made. At the direction of each participant, we invest the assets of the 401(k) Plan in any of 82 investment options. Company contributions under the 401(k) Plan were approximately $0 in 2010 and $16,000 in 2009.

 
F-10

 
 
NOTE 6 – DEBT

$5,500,000 due on September 13, 2011. The unsecured convertible note bears interest at 7.7% per annum with $423,500 of interest due annually on September 13th. This note has a fixed conversion price of $27.50 per share of common stock and may be converted by the note holder or us under certain circumstances as defined in the note. If the notes are not converted we will have to repay the notes on the due date.

NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases
At December 31, 2010, we had commitments under non-cancelable operating leases for office and research and development facilities until December 31, 2011 totaling $77,000. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $110,000 and $111,000, respectively. We also have one non-cancelable operating lease – for a copier with future obligations totaling approximately $10,000 ending in 2011.

Legal
We are not currently subject to any material pending legal proceedings.

NOTE 8 - FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

The carrying value of cash, cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and accruals approximate fair value due to the short maturity of these items. The carrying value of the convertible long-term debt is at book value which approximates the fair value as the interest rate is at market value.

Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted fair value measurement guidance issued by the FASB related to financial assets and liabilities which define fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. This guidance establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy requires entities to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:
 
·  
Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
·  
Level 2 – Observable inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1, such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data.
·  
Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets and liabilities. This includes certain pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies and similar valuation techniques that use significant unobservable inputs.

The guidance requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.

 
F-11

 
 
We have segregated all financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis (at least annually) into the most appropriate level within the fair value hierarchy based on the inputs used to determine the fair value at the measurement date in the table below.

Financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 are summarized below:
 
(in thousands)
                             
 
 
Description
 
As of
December 31,
2010
   
 
Level 1
   
 
Level 2
   
 
Level 3
   
Total Gains
(Losses)
 
Liabilities:
  Derivative liability-
                             
    warrants
  $ 5,087     $ -     $ 5,087     $ -     $ 4,621  
    preferred stock
  $ 5,840     $ -     $ -     $ 5,840     $ (5,840 )

(in thousands)
                             
 
 
Description
 
As of
December 31,
2009
   
 
Level 1
   
Level 2
   
 
Level 3
   
Total Gains
(Losses)
 
Liabilities:
  Derivative liability-
                             
    warrants
  $ 9,708     $ -     $ 9,708     $ -     $ (7,154 )
    preferred stock
  $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -  

In order to calculate the Level 3 Derivative liability - preferred stock, we used the Monte Carlo simulation to estimate future stock prices. The use of valuation techniques requires the Company to make various key assumptions for inputs into the model, including assumptions about expected future volatility of the price of the Company's stock. In estimating the fair value at December 31, 2010, we based our selected volatility on the one-year historic volatility of the Company's stock as we believe this is most representative of the expected volatility in the near future for the Company.

NOTE 9 – PREFERRED STOCK

On November 7, 2007, and February 4, 2008, we entered into securities purchase agreements (the Purchase Agreements) with accredited investors to sell shares of a newly created series of our preferred stock, designated “Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock”, par value $0.01 per share, for an issue price of $10,000 per share, (the Series A Preferred Stock) and agreed to issue warrants to purchase shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.50 per share. The shares of Series A Preferred Stock were convertible into common stock at the initial conversion price of $3.00 per share. The exercise and conversion price have changed, see below.

As a condition to closing, we entered into an Investor Rights Agreement with each of the investors purchasing shares of Series A Preferred Stock, and our Board of Directors approved with respect to the shareholder rights plan any action necessary under our shareholder rights plan to accommodate the issuance of the Series A Preferred Stock and warrants without triggering the applicability of the shareholder rights plan.
 
In connection with the sale and issuance of Series A Preferred Stock and warrants, we entered into a Director Designation Agreement whereby we agreed to continue SCO’s right to designate two individuals to serve on the Board of Directors of Access.

The issued and outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock grants the holders of such preferred stock anti-dilution, dividend and liquidations rights that are superior to those held by the holders of our common stock. Under these terms, should Access issue additional shares of common stock, in certain circumstances, for a price below $3.00 per share, the conversion price of the Series A Preferred Stock will be lowered to the lowest subsequent issue price below $3.00 per share until the shares are converted or redeemed. This will have the effect of diluting the holders of our common stock. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, should Access issue additional shares of common stock, in certain circumstances, for a price below $3.50 per share, the exercise price of the warrants will be lowered to the lowest subsequent issue price below $3.50 per share until the warrants are exercised or expire. Additionally, as discussed below, if we are unable to maintain an effective registration statement related to the Series A Preferred Stock, we would be required to pay liquidating damages.

 
F-12

 
 
On December 14, 2010, we issued common stock in a registered direct offering at $2.55 per share. Per the terms of the agreement with the outstanding Series A Preferred Stock holders their stock is now converted into shares of common stock at $2.55 per share. The Series A Preferred Stock at December 31, 2010 was converted into 11,679,836 shares of common stock, an increase of 1,751,970 shares of common stock.

In addition, warrants to acquire 4,149,464 shares of common stock that were granted to the holders of Series A Preferred Stock were re-priced from $3.50 to $3.00 due to the offering on January 26, 2010 and re-priced from $3.00 to $2.55 due to the offering on December 14, 2010.

November 7, 2007 Preferred Stock
On November 7, 2007, we entered into the Purchase Agreements with accredited investors whereby we agreed to sell 954.0001 shares of a newly created series of our Series A Preferred Stock and agreed to issue warrants to purchase 1,589,999 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.50 per share, for an aggregate purchase price for the Series A Preferred Stock and Warrants of $9,540,001. The shares of Series A Preferred Stock are convertible into common stock at the initial conversion price of $3.00 per share. Due to the offering on December 14, 2010, the conversion price changed to $2.55 per share.

As a condition to closing, SCO Capital Partners LLC and affiliates, along with the other holders of an aggregate of $6,000,000 Secured Convertible Notes, also exchanged their notes and accrued interest for an additional 1,836.0512 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and were issued warrants to purchase 1,122,031 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.50 per share, and Oracle Partners LP and affiliates, along with the other holders of an aggregate of $4,015,000 Convertible Notes also exchanged their notes and accrued interest for 437.3104 shares of the Series A Preferred Stock and were issued warrants to purchase 728,850 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.50 per share. In connection with the exchange of the notes, all security interests and liens relating thereto were terminated.

The conversion of debt into equity resulted in a loss on extinguishment of debt of $11,628,000. This represented the difference between the fair value of the equity interest granted, based on recent sales of identical equity instruments, and the carrying amount of the debt and interest settled.

In connection with the preferred stock offering, we issued warrants for placement agent fees, to purchase a total of 209,000 shares of common stock. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire six years from date of issue. The fair value of the warrants was $2.59 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 3.84%, expected volatility 110% and a term of 6 years.

February 4, 2008 Preferred Stock
On February 4, 2008, we entered into Purchase Agreements with accredited investors whereby we agreed to sell 272.50 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock and agreed to issue warrants to purchase 454,167 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.50 per share, for an aggregate purchase price for the Series A Preferred Stock and Warrants of $2,725,000. Proceeds, net of cash issuance costs from the sale were $2,444,000. The shares of Series A Preferred Stock are convertible into common stock at the initial conversion price of $3.00 per share. Due to the offering on December 14, 2010 the conversion price changed to $2.55 per share.

In connection with the preferred stock offering, we issued warrants for placement agent fees to purchase a total of 45,417 shares of common stock. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire six years from the date of issue.  The fair value of the warrants was $2.29 per share on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 2.75%, expected volatility 110% and an expected term of 6 years.

 
F-13

 
 
Change In Accounting Principle
Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted the provisions of FASB ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging” (FASB ASC 815) (previously EITF 07-5, “Determining Whether an Instrument (or an Embeded Feature) is Indexed to an Entity’s Own Stock”). As a result of adopting FASB ASC 815, warrants to purchase 3,895,047 of our common stock previously treated as equity pursuant to the derivative treatment exemption were no longer afforded equity treatment. These warrants have an exercise price of $3.50 and expire on November 10, 2013 and February 24, 2014. Effective January 1, 2009, we reclassified the fair value of these common stock warrants, from equity to liability status, as if these warrants were treated as a derivative liability since origination.

We determined that the anti-dilution provision built into the preferred shares and warrants issued should be considered for derivative accounting. FASB ASC 815 requires freestanding contracts that are settled in a company’s own stock to be designated as an equity instrument, assets or liability. Under the provisions of FASB ASC 815, a contract designated as an asset or liability must be initially recorded and carried at fair value until the contract meets the requirements for classification as equity, until the contract is exercised or until the contract expires. We determined that the anti-dilution provision associated with the November 2007 and February 2008 preferred shares and warrants no longer met the criteria for equity accounting through the revised criteria in FASB ASC 815. FASB ASC 815 provides for transition guidance whereby a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle should be recognized as an adjustment to retained earnings and other impacted balance sheet items as of January 1, 2009. The cumulative-effect adjustment is the difference between the amounts recognized prior to adoption and amounts recognized at adoption assuming this guidance had been applied from the issuance date of the preferred stock and warrants.

Accordingly, at January 1, 2009, we determined that the warrants and the preferred stock conversion feature should be accounted for as derivative liabilities. The preferred stock conversion feature was determined to have no fair market value at both issuance dates as well as each reporting period until the third quarter of 2010 since management asserts that the likelihood of issuing any new equity at a price that would trigger the anti-dilution effect to be nil. During the third quarter of 2010 we were actively raising capital. With our stock price below $3.00 a share it was possible that we would sell shares below $3.00 per share. Since this would require an adjustment to our convertible preferred stock we recorded a derivative liability and expense at September 30, 2010. The derivative liability and expense was revalued at December 31, 2010 and is $5,840,000. We will continue to reevaluate the derivative liability in future reporting periods and adjust the derivative liability as necessary. The warrants were valued at issuance and each reporting period since using the Black-Scholes model. Both of these derivatives will continue to be marked to market in accordance with FASB ASC 815.
 
On January 1, 2009 we reclassified the fair value of the warrants from equity to liability as if these warrants were treated as a derivative liability since their issue date.  Additionally, we reclassified $15,957,000 of previously recorded beneficial conversion features recorded under the previous accounting that related to the preferred stock and warrants. The impact of adoption was a decrease in Additional paid-in capital of $15,957,000, a decrease in accumulated deficit of $13,404,000 and an increase in derivative liability of $2,553,000.

The resulting accounting led to derivative warrant liability of $2,553,000 as of January 1, 2009 and $9,708,000 as of December 31, 2009. We recorded derivative expense of $7,154,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009 and $4,621,000 gain for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The fair value of the derivative warrant liability was calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The assumptions that were used to calculate fair value were as follows.

   
January 1, 2009
 
December 31, 2009
Risk-free interest rate
    1.55 %     2.69 %
Expected volatility
    116.31 %     117.43 %
Expected life (in years)
    4.88       3.88  
Dividend yield
    0.00 %     0.00 %
 
 
F-14

 
 
As noted above, we were required to adopt this guidance effective January 1, 2009, however we did not apply this guidance to its 2009 Form 10-Q’s as required and instead recorded the adoption impact and current year activity in the fourth quarter. The impact, if recorded in the appropriate quarterly period would have been an increase in expense and derivative liability of $2,104,000, $2,036,000 and $1,929,000 for the three months ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2009, respectively. Additionally, our Form 10-Q’s for 2009 do not reflect the cumulative impact of the change in accounting principle which resulted in a decrease in additional paid-in capital of $15,957,000, a decrease in accumulated deficit of $13,404,000 and an increase in derivative liability of $2,553,000 on January 1, 2009.

Liquidated Damages
Pursuant to the terms of an Investor Rights Agreement with the Purchasers of Series A Preferred Stock, we are required to maintain an effective registration statement. The Securities and Exchange Commission declared the registration statement effective November 13, 2008 relating to a portion of such securities, and as a result, we accrued $857,000 in potential liquidated damages as of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009. Potential liquidated damages are capped at 10% of each holder’s investment. However, pursuant to the terms of the Investor Rights Agreement, we may not be required to pay such liquidated damages if such shares are saleable without restriction pursuant to Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933.
 
Preferred Stock Dividends
Preferred stock dividends of $4,443,000 were accrued at December 31, 2010, plus interest. Dividends are payable semi-annually in either cash or common stock.

NOTE 10 – STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Restricted Stock Purchase Program
On October 12, 2000, the Board of Directors authorized a Restricted Stock Purchase Program. Under the program, the Company’s executive officers and corporate secretary were given the opportunity to purchase shares of common stock in an individually designated amount per participant determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. A total of 38,000 shares were purchased under the program by four eligible participants at $27.50 per share, the fair market value of the common stock on October 12, 2000, for an aggregate consideration of $1,045,000. The purchase price was paid through the participants’ delivery of a 50%-recourse promissory note payable to the Company for three executive officer participants and a full-recourse promissory note payable to the Company for one participant. Each note bears interest at 5.87% compounded semi-annually and has a maximum term of ten years. The notes were secured by a pledge of the purchased shares to the Company. The Company originally recorded the notes receivable from participants in this program of $1,045,000 as a reduction of equity in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Interest on the notes was neither being collected nor accrued. The stock granted under the program was fully vested. The Board of Directors cancelled this program effective October 12, 2010. The stock and receivables were cancelled on October 12, 2010.

 
F-15

 
 
Warrants
There were warrants to purchase a total of 12,060,907 shares of common stock outstanding at December 31, 2010. All warrants were exercisable at December 31, 2010 except for warrants to acquire 188,000 shares of common stock. The warrants had various exercise prices and terms as follows:
 
 
Warrants
 
  Exercise
 
Expiration
        Summary of Warrants
Outstanding  
 
     Price    
 
 Date
2010 December registered direct offering (a)
930,664
$
3.06
 
12/14/15
2010 January registered direct offering (b)
1,041,432
 
3.00
 
1/26/15
2010 January placement agent warrants (b)
125,109
 
3.75
 
1/26/15
2010 investor relations advisor (c)
169,000
 
2.16
 
10/1/13
2010 investor relations advisor (d)
55,000
 
2.63
 
10/14/13
2009 investor relations advisor (e)
30,000
 
3.45
 
9/15/12
2009 business consultant (f)
150,000
 
2.07
 
7/23/14
2009 investor relations advisor (g)
50,000
 
6.00
 
8/27/12
2008 preferred stock offering (h)
499,584
 
2.55
 
2/24/14
2008 Somanta accounts payable (i)
246,753
 
3.50
 
1/4/14
2008 warrants assumed on acquisition (j)
191,668
 
18.55-23.19
 
1/31/12
2008 investor relations advisor (k)
50,000
 
3.15
 
1/3/13
2008 investor relations advisor (l)
40,000
 
3.00
 
9/1/13
2008 scientific consultant (m)
200,000
 
3.15
 
1/4/12
2007 preferred stock offering (n)
3,649,880
 
2.55
 
11/10/13
2006 convertible note (o)
3,818,180
 
1.32
 
2/16/12
2006 convertible note (o)
386,364
 
1.32
 
10/24/12
2006 convertible note (o)
377,273
 
1.32
 
12/6/12
2006 investor relations advisor (p)
50,000
 
2.70
 
12/27/11
Total
 12,060,907
       
 

a)  
In connection with a registered direct offering on December 14, 2010, warrants to purchase 930,664 shares of common stock at $3.06 per share were issued. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire five years from the date of issue.

b)  
In connection with a registered direct offering on January 26, 2010, warrants to purchase 1,041,432 shares of common stock at $3.00 per share were issued. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire five years from the date of issue.

In addition, we issued warrants for placement agent fees to purchase 125,109 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.75 per share. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire five years from the date of issue. The fair value of the warrants was $2.19 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 2.38%, expected volatility 119% and a term of 5 years.

c)  
During 2010, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 194,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.16 per share at any time until October 1, 2013, for investor relations consulting services rendered in 2010 and 2011. The expense recorded for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $55,000. Our common stock did not reach a target price by February 28, 2011 and according to the agreement 25,000 warrants expired.
 
d)  
During 2010, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 55,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.63 per share at any time until October 14, 2013, for investor relations consulting services rendered in 2010. The warrants did not vest and expired January 31, 2011. No expense was recorded.

 
F-16

 
 
e)  
During 2009, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 30,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.45 per share at any time until September 15, 2012, for investor relations consulting services rendered from October 2009 through March 2010. As of December 31, 2010 all 30,000 warrants were exercisable. The expense recorded for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $19,000 and $24,000, respectively.

f)  
During 2009, a business consultant received warrants to purchase 150,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.07 per share at any time until July 23, 2014, for business consulting services rendered in 2009. 60,000 of the warrants were exercisable on December 31, 2009. The remaining 90,000 warrants expired July 23, 2010 because our stock did not reach specified trading prices. The expense recorded for the years ended December 31, 2009 was $238,000.

g)  
During 2009, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per share at any time until August 27, 2012, for investor relations consulting services rendered in 2009. All 50,000 of the warrants were exercisable at December 31, 2009. The fair value of the warrants was $2.04 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 1.58%, expected volatility 119% and a term of 3 years. The expense recorded for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $102,000.

h)  
In connection with the preferred stock offering in February 2008, warrants to purchase a total of 499,584 shares of common stock were issued. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire six years from date of issue. The fair value of the warrants was $2.29 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 2.75%, expected volatility 110% and a term of 6 years. The exercise price of $3.50 was decreased to $3.00 after the January 2010 placement and to $2.55 after the December 2010 placement.

i)  
In connection with our acquisition of Somanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Somanta) we exchanged for $1,576,000 due to Somanta vendors, for 538,508 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 246,753 shares of common stock at $3.50. The warrants expire January 4, 2014.

j)  
We assumed two warrants in the Somanta acquisition:
-Warrant#1 – 31,943 shares of our common stock at $18.55 per share and expires January 31, 2012.
-Warrant #2 – 159,725 shares of our common stock at $23.19 per share and expires January 31, 2012.

k)  
During 2008, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.15 per share at any time until January 3, 2013, for investor relations consulting services rendered in 2008. 25,000 of the warrants were exercisable on July 3, 2008 and 25,000 of the warrants were exercisable January 3, 2009.
 
l)  
During 2008, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 40,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share at any time until September 1, 2013, for investor relations consulting services. All of the warrants are exercisable. The fair value of the warrants was $2.61 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 2.37%, expected volatility 132% and a term of 5 years.

m)  
During 2008, a director who is also a scientific advisor received warrants to purchase 200,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.15 per share at any time until January 4, 2012, for scientific consulting services rendered in 2008. The warrants vest over two years in 50,000 share blocks with vesting on July 4, 2008, January 4, 2009, July 4, 2009 and January 4, 2010.

 
F-17

 
 
n)  
In connection with the preferred stock offering in November 2007, warrants to purchase a total of 3,649,880 shares of common stock were issued. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire six years from date of issue. The fair value of the warrants was $2.50 per share on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected dividend yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 3.84%, expected volatility 114% and a term of 6 years. The exercise price of $3.50 was decreased to $3.00 after the January 2010 placement and to $2.55 after the December 2010 placement.

o)  
In connection with the convertible note offerings in 2006, warrants to purchase a total of 4,581,817 shares of common stock at $1.32 per share were issued. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire six years from date of issue.

p)  
During 2006, an investor relations advisor received warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.70 per share at any time from December 27, 2006 until December 27, 2011, for investor relations consulting services rendered in 2007. All of the warrants are exercisable.

  2001 Restricted Stock Plan
We have a restricted stock plan, the 2001 Restricted Stock Plan, as amended, under which 80,000 shares of our authorized but unissued common stock were reserved for issuance to certain employees, directors, consultants and advisors. The restricted stock granted under the plan generally vests, 25% two years after the grant date with additional 25% vesting every anniversary date. All stock is vested after five years. At December 31, 2010 there were 27,182 shares issued and 52,818 shares available for grant under the 2001 Restricted Stock Plan. All the issued shares are vested.

2010 Registered Direct Offerings – New Common Stock and Warrants
On January 26, 2010, we completed the sale of 2,083,000 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 1,041,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $6.3 million. Proceeds, net of cash issuance costs from the sale, were $5.8 million.

In connection with the sale we issued warrants for placement agent fees to purchase a total of 125,109 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.75 per share. All of the warrants are exercisable immediately and expire five years from the date of issue. The fair value of the warrants was $2.19 per share on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions: expected yield 0.0%, risk-free interest rate 2.38%, expected volatility 119% and an expected term of 5 years.

On December 14, 2010, we completed the sale of 3,102,000 shares of our common stock at $2.55 per share and warrants to purchase 931,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.06 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $7.9 million. Proceeds, net of cash issuance costs from the sale, were $7.3 million.
 
NOTE 11 - STOCK OPTION PLANS

 
We account for stock based compensation expense in accordance with FASB ASC 718, Stock Based Compensation. We have several stock-based compensation plans under which incentive and non-incentive qualified stock options and restricted shares may be granted to employees, directors and consultants. We measure the cost of the employee/director/consultant services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant date fair value of the award.

Our various stock-based employee compensation plans described below:

 
F-18

 
 
2005 Equity Incentive Plan

We have a stock awards plan, (the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan), under which 5,000,000 shares of our authorized but unissued common stock were reserved for issuance to employees, consultants, or to non-employee members of the Board or to any board of directors (or similar governing authority) of any affiliate of the Company. The 2005 Equity Incentive Plan replaced the previously approved stock option plan (the 1995 Stock Awards Plan).

For the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, the fair value of options was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions used for grants in fiscal 2010: dividend yield of 0%; volatility of 123%; risk-free interest rate of 2.32%; and expected lives of 5.7 years. The weighted average fair value of options granted was $2.57 per share during 2010. The assumptions for grants in fiscal 2009 were: dividend yield of 0%; volatility of 115%; risk-free interest rate of 2.37%; and expected lives of 5.5 years.

 Summarized information for the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan is as follows:
 
         
Weighted-
 
         
average
 
         
exercise
 
   
Options
   
price
 
Outstanding options at January 1, 2009
    1,136,820       1.90  
Granted, fair value of $ 1.31 per share
    565,000       1.38  
Exercised
    (249,916 )     0.73  
Expired
    (16,667 )     3.00  
Outstanding options at December 31, 2009
    1,435,237       1.99  
                 
Granted, fair value of $ 2.23 per share
    640,000       2.57  
Exercised
    (153,051 )     1.26  
Expired
    (173,453 )     3.51  
Outstanding options at December 31, 2010
    1,748,733       2.13  
                 
Exercisable at December 31, 2010
    1,249,580       1.88  

The intrinsic value of options under this plan related to the outstanding and exercisable options were $1,063,000 and $1,059,000 at December 31, 2010, respectively. The intrinsic value of options under this plan related to the outstanding and exercisable options were $2,112,000 and $2,050,000, respectively at December 31, 2009.

The total intrinsic value of options exercised during 2010 was $187,000 and during 2009 was $642,000.

Further information regarding options outstanding under the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan at December 31, 2010 is summarized below:
 
   
Number of
 
Weighted average
 
Number of
 
Weighted average
   
options
 
Remaining
 
Exercise
 
options
 
Remaining
 
Exercise
Range of exercise prices
 
outstanding
 
 life in years
 
price
 
exercisable
 
 life in years
 
price
                         
                         
                         
                         
$0.63 - 0.85
 
387,500
  5.6    
$0.64
 
387,500
  5.6