Politics & Policy

Red Tape Stymies a Fight Against Liver Disease

Galectin executive chairman James C. Czirr
Federal regulations impede a small drug company’s ability to do good work.

Non-alcoholic fatty-liver disease afflicts some 9 to 15 million Americans. Left unchecked, it can devolve into fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and liver failure. Galectin Therapeutics — a young, NASDAQ-traded company — is fighting this ailment with GR-MD-02, a new drug with encouraging Phase I clinical-trial results.

But Galectin’s progress comes amid frequent migraines, thanks to federal regulations. Galectin executive chairman James C. Czirr blames “all three of the bad boys” — Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and the USA Patriot Act’s financial-control provisions.

Czirr counts eight people in Galectin’s suburban-Atlanta headquarters. They share one corporate checkbook. Regardless, Sarbanes-Oxley’s section 404 demands that Galectin produce “an internal control report . . . for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting.” Galectin, thus, must develop a manual to trace how each bill enters its office, undergoes review, and then gets paid.

#ad#“Really?” Czirr asks in bewilderment. “We have to spend $50,000 to show how an invoice gets from Beth’s desk to Jack’s, and then Jack writes a check?”

But wait. It gets worse.

“The government wants the processing of invoices and payments to be checked by multiple employees,” Czirr says. “We would have to hire more people to create this kind of redundancy. . . . Then we have to hire an outside auditor to come in randomly and test these ‘internal controls.’”

Auditors already swarm Galectin like biblical locusts. “Every quarter, four auditors come into our office,” Czirr says. After sidetracking Galectin’s staff with document requests in advance, these auditors “spend three to four days there each quarter, looking at financials.” These 48 to 64 annual man-days are like an employee’s dedicating ten to 13 work weeks inspecting papers rather than injecting patients with potential cures.

Leaping through flaming hoops bears a high clinical cost, too.

“We did a test last year that shows that Galectin’s drug can be used to treat lung diseases,” Czirr says. “That test cost about $100,000. We could have done that test a year earlier, if we didn’t chew up scarce funds on things like this.” For 2013, Galectin’s audits and reviews of financial statements chewed up $141,000. This year’s internal-control audits could consume an additional $120,000.

Also, uninvited attorneys can collect money for acting like backseat drivers. Without being asked, one outside lawyer told Galectin about some jot or tittle that it might have followed when Czirr purchased company stock. This attorney then billed Galectin $1,500 for his unsolicited legal advice. This is like telling a stranger that his suit and tie clash — then invoicing him for “fashion consulting.”

Dr. Peter Traber, Galectin’s chief medical officer, finds this red tape distracting. “I am busy doing medical research,” Traber says in frustration. “I have to stop what I am doing, take care of these things, sit through conference calls, and so on.”

These new rules have not changed the old standard: Fraudulent statements are illegal. That basic principle still applies, only now with forms and procedures encrusting it like barnacles on a yacht.

Page two of Galectin’s introductory presentation pours ice water over any perceived guarantee that it ever will succeed. Rather than promise potions that yield vaults of cash, Galectin devotes 542 words to tell investors how their money might get soaked.

“Our clinical trials may not begin or produce positive results in a timely fashion, if at all,” Galectin’s prospectus discloses. “Estimates regarding the potential benefits of our drugs and the potential market for any of our drugs may be inaccurate,” it continues. “We may not be successful in achieving revenues from any such drugs. . . . Our ongoing discussions with other companies may not lead to partnering opportunities.”

This disclaimer — up front and in black and white — should be warning enough that investors should proceed with caution. Washington should free Galectin and other companies simply to state such caveats as clearly as those terrifying side-effects warnings that accompany drug ads. In turn, let investors withhold or unleash their capital according to their risk tolerance. Companies like Galectin then could manage Bunsen burners and business plans rather than wrestle with lawyers and bureaucrats.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

Deroy Murdock — Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.

Most Popular


Understanding the Mind of Modern Atheists

‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Anthony DeStefano uses this Bible quote toward the end of his new book Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God, pointing to the resiliency and truth of Christianity. “You can hide it, ... Read More
Economy & Business

How the Constitution Limits State Taxes

Must a company have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect taxes? The Supreme Court is considering that question, which has grown more important as online sales have taken off. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has submitted an excellent brief arguing that the answer is yes, at ... Read More

Off the Shelf: Suicide of the West

Editor’s Note: Every week, Michael Brendan Dougherty writes an “Off the Shelf” column sharing casual observations on the books he's reading and the passing scene. Before social media, Jonah Goldberg would respond to obstreperous emails from a much younger version of me with a characteristically light ... Read More

The Scholarship/Activism Balance — A Rejoinder

The Martin Center recently published an article by sociology professor Fabio Rojas, in which he argued that professors should maintain the right balance between their teaching and scholarship on the one hand, and activism on the other. In today's article, the Center's Jay Schalin pushes back somewhat. Schalin ... Read More