(UPDATED: See below.)

bioheart-logo.gifI’m not usually one to gloat — oh, who are we kidding? The news today that Bioheart, an oddball “adult” stem-cell company based in Sunrise, Fla., has slashed its IPO price range — essentially halving the company’s value — and fired its underwriters may not be exactly what I predicted when I hazed the company back in July– but it’ll certainly do for now.

For Bioheart — which, I just realized, is backed by the noted biotech investor Dan Marino (yes, that Dan Marino) — today’s admission is basically the equivalent of seeing a Hail Mary pass in the last seven seconds intercepted and run back for a touchdown. It may or may not kill the IPO dead — I suspect it will — but it’s definitely a huge vote of no-confidence in a company that looked pretty shaky to begin with. (The company’s latest SEC filing is here.)

Bioheart’s main claim to fame is MyoCell, a stem-cell treatment intended to reverse the damage that oxygen starvation causes in heart muscle during a heart attack. The company harvests precursors to muscle cells called myoblasts from a patient’s thigh, cultures them for 21 days and then injects them into scar tissue in the heart. This is not too different from other attempts to use various types of stem cells to repair the heart, although none of them have actually ever been proven to work.

For MyoCell, the picture is even murkier. None of Bioheart’s data so far seems to suggest the treatment does what it is supposed to do, and the company can’t even offer a plausible theory as to why it should work. (A 40 patient trial called Seismic is expected to yield some fresh results by the first quarter of next year.) Worse, the existing data suggests that MyoCell might actually be contributing to declines in heart efficiency, multiple organ failure and irregular heartbeats. On top of all that, Bioheart’s primary patent on MyoCell is set to expire the year after next, giving the company exactly no commercial protection should it ever bring MyoCell to market.

So the only surprise in today’s meltdown is that Bioheart apparently expects to carry on with its IPO, which was initially scheduled to hit the market last week. Odds seem good to me that the company will still pull the offering — it’s kind of hard to recover from a screwup like the one the company has effectively just admitted, and the smell of desperation in the new IPO terms is almost palpable. But who knows — maybe they can still find some investors, somewhere, who believe in stem cells so much that they’ll be willing to set aside their better judgment and pony up.

Bioheart now plans to offer 4.2 million shares at a price of $6 to $8 apiece. Counting the overallotment, that could yield the company a maximum take of $38.3 million, which is fairly pathetic by recent standards. Pricing at $8 would value the company at $140 million, or almost exactly half of the $270 million market cap Bioheart might have fetched before the cataclysm. (The company previously planned to sell as many as 4.1 million shares at $14 to $16 apiece, for a maximum take of $65.8 million.)

According to VentureWire (subscription required), Bioheart has raised $51 million from investors that include Ascent/Meredith Asset Management, Getz Medical, Guidant, Tyco Ventures, Getz Bros., St. Jude Medical, Advent-Morro-Guayacan Private Equity Fund, Astri Group, Dan Marino Investments, Minnesota Bio-Med Partners, New World Angels, Presidential Capital Partners and individuals.

UPDATE: On Feb. 19, 2008, Bioheart finally made it across the goal line in what is arguably one of the worst IPOs ever — it netted the company only $1.5 million, of which $600,000 came directly from Bioheart founder Henry Leonhardt. See our coverage here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Trackback URL

10 Trackbacks

  1. VentureBeat » Dan Marino’s hail mary pass: Bioheart said:

    [...] Bioheart, an oddball “adult” stem-cell company based in Sunrise, Fla., has slashed its IPO price range — essentially halving the company’s expected market value. David Hamilton, over at VentureBeat Life Sciences, says: “I told you so: Eat your Bioheart out.” [...]

  2. VentureBeat » Life sciences briefing: Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007 said:

    [...] fared badly, with shares now down 16 percent. Next up is Bioheart, which we’ve covered here and here, and whose star-crossed IPO is still scheduled for this [...]

  3. VentureBeat » Life sciences briefing: Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007 said:

    [...] fared badly, with shares now down 16 percent. Next up is Bioheart, which we’ve covered here and here, and whose star-crossed IPO is still scheduled for this [...]

  4. VentureBeat » IPO roundup: Bioheart, Merrion Pharma in limbo; Reliant vs. Reliant road shows; upcoming offerings said:

    [...] The week of Oct. 22 has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the scheduled — and already battered — IPO of Bioheart, the Florida company that hopes to treat damaged hearts with [...]

  5. VentureBeat » IPO roundup: Bioheart, Merrion Pharma in limbo; Reliant vs. Reliant road shows; upcoming offerings said:

    [...] The week of Oct. 22 has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the scheduled — and already battered — IPO of Bioheart, the Florida company that hopes to treat damaged hearts with [...]

  6. VentureBeat » Life sciences briefing: Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007 said:

    [...] terms, and hasn’t yet managed to get its offering off the ground. (See our recent coverage here and here.) Like EnteroMedics, Bioheart is pushing ahead with a risky, largely unproven technology [...]

  7. VentureBeat » EnteroMedics and its risky obesity device, the latest victims of the IPO haircut said:

    [...] terms, and hasn’t yet managed to get its offering off the ground. (See our recent coverage here and here.) Like EnteroMedics, Bioheart is pushing ahead with a risky, largely unproven technology [...]

  8. VentureBeat » Life sciences briefing: Thursday, Jan. 17, 2007 said:

    [...] woes started last October, when it abruptly slashed its offering price and fired its underwriters. The company’s IPO has lingered on life support ever since. We gave readers some good reasons [...]

  9. Three yards and a cloud of dust: Bioheart makes it across the IPO goal line, but with little to show for its struggles » VentureBeat said:

    [...] on MyoCell expires next year, and you still have what looks like a looming disaster. (I took a second whack at the company in October when its offering seemed to be on the brink of [...]

  10. Three yards and a cloud of dust: Bioheart makes it across the IPO goal line, but with little to show for its struggles » VentureBeat said:

    [...] on MyoCell expires next year, and you still have what looks like a looming disaster. (I took a second whack at the company in October when its offering seemed to be on the brink of [...]

3 Comments

  1. Peggy Farley said:

    It is Ascent Medical Technology Fund I and II that invested in Bioheart, not Ascent/Meredith. Also, I consider your article poor journalism–very yellow journalism.

  2. David P. Hamilton said:

    Peggy: Thanks for the clarification, although as the item noted, that list of investors came from VentureWire. If a correction is necessary, you might want to notify them as well. I would only add that when investment firms choose to structure themselves in complex and hard-to-decipher ways — witness, for instance, how the Ascent Group decribes itself here — that it’s very easy for journalists and others to misunderstand them.

    Of course, I couldn’t help also noticing that a Peggy Farley is named as a co-founder of both Ascent Medical Technology funds (see her bio here). She is also listed in Bioheart’s S-1 as the beneficial owner of 494,410 Bioheart shares, whose maximum value just plummeted to $4.0 million from $7.9 million.

    Would you happen to be that same Ms. Farley? If so, I certainly can’t blame you for not liking the item, although I think our readers would benefit if you could disclose your personal financial interest when commenting. (FYI, I own no individual-company shares whatsoever; my investments are limited to broad-based mutual funds, none of which invest in specific commercial sectors such as the life sciences.)

    In any event, if you have other specific issues to raise about the item, I’m more than happy to address them, either here or by e-mail.

  3. Mr. Gunn said:

    Interestingly, I just saw two new articles in Pubmed on Adult Stem Cells and cardiac fibrosis. Personally, I think the rush to clinical trials in this area before much of the basic science has been worked out has been a mistake. How many clinical trials do we need to have that show a barely-significant increase in ejection fraction or diastolic volume before people start ignoring them?

    (Disclosure of my own: I work in a lab that does research on adult stem cells, but I have no financial interest beyond my paycheck and I haven’t been involved with the heart stuff.)

Add a Comment