Enzon Pharmaceuticals Value Stock - Dividend - Research Selection

Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company,” “we” or “us”) receives royalty revenues from existing licensing arrangements with other companies primarily related to sales of four marketed drug products, namely, PegIntron ®, Sylatron ®, Macugen ® and CIMZIA ®. The primary source of our royalty revenues is sales of PegIntron, which is marketed by Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”). We currently have no clinical operations and limited corporate operations. We have no intention of resuming any clinical development activities or acquiring new sources of royalty revenues. Royalty revenues from sales of PegIntron accounted for approximately 64% and 80% of our total royalty revenues for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We were previously dedicated to the research and development of innovative therapeutics for patients with high unmet medical needs. Beginning in December 2012, our Board of Directors, with outside consultants, began a review of the possible sale or disposition of one or more corporate assets or a sale of the Company. At that time, we suspended substantially all clinical development activities with a goal of conserving capital and maximizing value returned to our stockholders. By April 2013, the review did not result in a definitive offer to acquire us or all or substantially all of our assets. At the same time, we announced that our Board of Directors intended to distribute excess cash, expected to arise from ongoing royalty revenues, in the form of periodic dividends to stockholders. Subsequently, the following significant events occurred: We received a letter dated April 13, 2015, from counsel for Sigma Tau Pharma Ltd regarding the agreement dated November 9, 2009 (the “Agreement”) between us and Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defiante Farmaceutica, S.A. and Sigma-Tau Finanzaria, S.P.A. (collectively “Sigma-Tau”). In its letter, Sigma-Tau alleged that it was entitled to offset $826,128 (the “Claim”) in rebate payments earned in the fourth quarter of 2014 and paid in the first quarter of 2015 that would otherwise have been due us as royalty payments under the Agreement. Sigma-Tau claimed that the offset represented the amount by which the net rebate exceeded the reserve for such payments on the balance sheet and was allowed pursuant to the Indemnity provisions of the Agreement. By letter dated April 28, 2015, we replied that the offset was not allowed under the Agreement, and that in any event, it was time-barred. Sigma-Tau did not assert that there was any liability beyond an offset against royalties that were otherwise due. Effective June 25, 2015, Sigma-Tau and we agreed to settle the Claim for $526,128. Sigma-Tau retained an amount equal to $826,128 that would, but for the Claim, be due and owing to us under the Agreement in the second quarter of 2015, but under the terms of the settlement agreed to pay to us $300,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). We agreed that upon receipt of such amount, we would not have a claim for $826,128 in royalties earned for the fourth quarter of 2014, provided that we maintain our right, upon written request to Sigma-Tau and through an independent accounting firm, to inspect the relevant records of Sigma-Tau at any time within the three-year period following the close of each calendar year for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of all payments or charges used to calculate royalties payable under the Agreement for such calendar year and to make a claim as a result of such inspection. We recorded the $300,000 as royalty revenue during the second quarter of 2015 and received such Settlement Amount on July 13, 2015. In June 2015, we delivered notice to Nektar Therapeutics, Inc. (“Nektar”) asserting a breach of our Cross-License and Option Agreement with Nektar for Nektar’s failure to pay a post-patent expiration immunity fee that we believe became payable under such agreement with respect to certain of our patents that would be infringed by Nektar’s products (or those of Nektar’s licensees). To date, Nektar has disputed our claim to an immunity fee. On August 14, 2015, we filed a summons and complaint against Nektar in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for breach of contract. On October 23, 2015, Nektar filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 2, 2016, the Court granted Nektar’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company appealed this dismissal and on October 25, 2016 the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On November 28, 2016, Nektar served an amended answer and counterclaim alleging that the patents at issue are unenforceable. While we believe that an immunity fee is currently due and payable by Nektar and we intend to continue to pursue this claim, the outcome of such dispute is uncertain and there can be no assurance that we will be able to collect, in full or in part, the immunity fee or any future payments related thereto from Nektar. As such, no amounts have been recorded as of December 31, 2016. On February 4, 2016, we entered into (i) an agreement (the “Surrender and Release Agreement”) with Kingsbridge 2005, LLC (the “Landlord”) and Axcellerate Pharma, LLC (the “Subtenant”) and (ii) a letter agreement with the Landlord (the “Letter Agreement”). Pursuant to the Surrender and Release Agreement, (i) the Company’s lease agreement with the Landlord, dated as of April 1, 1995, as amended (the “Prime Lease”), terminated effective as of February 4, 2016 (the “Termination Date”) and (ii) the Company’s amended and restated sublease agreement with the Subtenant, dated as of November 13, 2013 (the “Sublease”) became a direct lease between the Landlord and the Subtenant effective as of the Termination Date. Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, from and after the Termination Date, the Landlord has agreed to perform all of the Company’s obligations under the Sublease, the Landlord has waived all claims against the Company in connection with the Prime Lease, the Sublease or the premises at 20 Kingsbridge Road, Piscataway, New Jersey (the “Premises”) and the Landlord has released us from all liability in connection with the Prime Lease and the Sublease and, in exchange therefor, on the Termination Date, we paid $4.25 million to the Landlord’s mortgage lender and approximately $204,000 to the Landlord (together, the “Release Payments”). Commencing on March 1, 2016, we changed the location of our principal executive offices to 20 Commerce Drive, Suite 135, Cranford, New Jersey, 07016. We entered into an office service agreement with Regus Management Group, LLC (“Regus”) for use of office space at this location effective March 1, 2016. The term of the agreement was to continue until February 28, 2017. Under the agreement, in exchange for our right to use the office space at this location, the Company was required to pay Regus an initial service retainer of $2,418 and thereafter paid Regus a monthly fee of $1,209. This agreement was renewed for another year to February 28, 2018 at a monthly fee of $1,229. We wound down our remaining research and development activities during 2013 and we have no intention of resuming any clinical development activities or acquiring new sources of royalty revenues.