xoma-10k_20161231.htm

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

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

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 ☒ No ☐

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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

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. ☒

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):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act of 1934). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant is $64,718,498 as of June 30, 2016.

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2017 Annual General Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

This annual report on Form 10-K includes trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us or others. “XOMA,” the XOMA logo and all other XOMA product and service names are registered or unregistered trademarks of XOMA Corporation or a subsidiary of XOMA Corporation in the United States and in other selected countries. All trademarks, service marks and trade names included or incorporated by reference in this annual report are the property of their respective owners.

Certain statements contained herein related to the anticipated size of clinical trials, the anticipated timing of initiation of clinical trials, the expected availability of clinical trial results, the results of clinical trials, the timing of any application for regulatory approval of our product candidates by the FDA or other regulatory authority, the sufficiency of our cash resources, the estimated costs of clinical trials and the amounts of certain revenues and certain costs in comparison to prior years, or that otherwise relate to future periods, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements, other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “could,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “intend,” “expect,” “predict,” “potential” “should,” “would,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on assumptions that may not prove accurate. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated due to certain risks inherent in the biotechnology industry and for companies engaged in the development of new products in a regulated market. Among other things: our product candidates are still being developed, and we will require substantial funds to continue development which may not be available; we have received negative results from certain of our clinical trials, and we face uncertain results of other clinical trials of our product candidates; if our therapeutic product candidates do not receive regulatory approval, neither our third-party licensees, our contract manufacturers nor we will be able to manufacture and market them; we may not obtain orphan drug exclusivity or we may not receive the full benefit of orphan drug exclusivity even if we obtain such exclusivity; even once approved, a product may be subject to additional testing or significant marketing restrictions, its approval may be withdrawn or it may be voluntarily taken off the market; we may not be successful in commercializing our products, which could also affect our development efforts; we are subject to various state and federal healthcare related laws and regulations that may impact the commercialization of our product candidates and could subject us to significant fines and penalties; and certain of our technologies are in-licensed from third parties, so our capabilities using them are restricted and subject to additional risks. These and other risks, including those related to current economic and financial market conditions, are contained principally in Item 1, Business; Item 1A, Risk Factors; Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations; and other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed in Item 1A, Risk Factors, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and you should not place undue reliance on these statements, which speak only as of the date that they were made. These cautionary statements should be considered in connection with any written or oral forward-looking statements that we may issue in the future. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements after completion of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to reflect later events or circumstances or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

XOMA Corporation (“XOMA”), a Delaware corporation, has an established history of discovering and developing innovative therapeutics derived from its unique platform of antibody technologies. We typically have sought to license these therapeutic assets to our licensees who take on the responsibilities of later stage development, approval and commercialization. In addition, we have licensed our antibody technologies on a non-exclusive basis to other companies who desire to access this platform for their own discovery efforts.

We are evolving our strategy to be focused on developing or acquiring revenue-generating assets and coupling them with a lean corporate infrastructure. Our goal is to create a sustainably profitable business and generate meaningful value for our stockholders. Since our business model is based on the goal of out-licensing to other pharmaceutical companies for them to commercialize and market any resultant products, we expect a significant portion of our future revenue will be based on payments we may receive from our licensees.

We have a portfolio of product candidates, programs, and technologies that are the subject of licenses we have in place with pharmaceutical and biotech companies including Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. (“Novartis”), Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo Nordisk”), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (“Takeda”), Johnson & Johnson, Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc. (“Five Prime”), and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. There are over 20 such programs that are funded by other companies and could produce milestone payments and royalty payments in the future.

Our asset base includes antibodies with unique properties including several that interact at allosteric sites on a specific protein rather than the orthosteric, or active, sites. These compounds are designed to either enhance or diminish the target protein’s activity as desired. We believe allosteric-modulating antibodies may be more selective or offer a safety advantage in certain disease indications when compared to more traditional modes of action.

In February 2017, we achieved initial proof-of-concept (“POC”) with our first-in-class X358 clinical program for patients with hypoglycemia due to congenital hyperinsulinism (“CHI”) and patients with hypoglycemia post bariatric surgery (“PBS”). These two indications are rare conditions with very few therapeutic options. Consistent with the strategy outlined above, it is our intention to maximize the value of X358 for shareholders through a licensing agreement, either now or after continued investment to increase its value to a prospective partner. We believe this approach will expedite potential patient access for those in need of new treatment options in hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia.

We were incorporated in Delaware in 1981 and became a Bermuda-exempted company in December 1998. Effective December 31, 2011, we changed our jurisdiction of incorporation from Bermuda to Delaware and changed our name from XOMA Ltd. to XOMA Corporation. When referring to a time or period before December 31, 1998 or after December 31, 2011, the terms “Company” and “XOMA” refer to XOMA Corporation, a Delaware corporation; when referring to a time or period between December 31, 1998 and December 31, 2011, such terms refer to XOMA Ltd., a Bermuda company.

Our principal executive offices are located at 2910 Seventh Street, Berkeley, California 94710, and we maintain a registered office located at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Our telephone number at our principal executive offices is (510) 204-7200. Our website address is www.xoma.com.

We have traditionally specialized in the discovery and development of innovative antibody-based therapeutics. In 2016, we dedicated our research and development efforts to advancing our portfolio of product candidates that have the potential to treat a variety of endocrine diseases, including advancing the development of X358 in CHI and PBS studies. We have recently refined our business strategy to prioritize out-licensing of our internally developed product candidates while reducing further internal expenditures for research and development.

Our business model is designed to create value for stockholders by assembling a diversified portfolio of biotech and pharmaceutical revenue streams and operating that business with an efficient and low corporate cost structure. Our goal is to become a sustainably profitable company that offers investors an opportunity to participate in the promise of the biotech industry in a diversified, lower-risk business investment than a typical biotech. Our business model is based on the concept of out-licensing product candidates that we have developed internally and partnering with other pharmaceutical companies to leverage their capabilities in the areas of late-stage development, regulatory management and commercialization to ultimately generate revenue for our company. Our revenue currently consists mostly of license fees and milestones from our licensees. In addition to advancing our early-stage proprietary drug candidates, we intend to use an acquisition strategy to add new assets, pipelines, and technologies that we anticipate will generate additional revenue streams in future years.

We have a portfolio of unique monoclonal antibodies and technologies that we intend to license to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to further their clinical development. A summary of these product candidates is provided below:

X358 has successfully completed Phase 1 testing in healthy volunteers, which showed the antibody reduced insulin sensitivity and decreased glucose after exogenous insulin injection and it appeared to be well tolerated, with no serious adverse events observed. The results were presented at the Endocrine Society's Annual Meeting in March 2015.

In October 2015, we initiated a single-dose Phase 2 POC study of X358 in patients with CHI and in April 2016, we initiated a single-dose Phase 2 POC study of X358 in PBS patients experiencing hypoglycemia after meals. In September 2016, we presented the initial data from nine patients who had enrolled in the CHI and PBS studies, together with safety data from 22 healthy volunteers. Shortly thereafter, we submitted a proposal to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) to initiate a multi-dose Phase 2 clinical study of X358 in children two years and older diagnosed with CHI. The MHRA approved the protocol in principal, and the study is in now in review at local ethics committees. We anticipate the site to be ready for first dosing in the UK in the second quarter of 2017. Submissions of this study are underway in Germany, Denmark and Israel as well.

In January 2017, we announced that we have established POC for X358 in CHI and hypoglycemia PBS. The CHI acute studies met their objectives of establishing initial safety and X358 POC in CHI patients aged 12 and up across several dosing levels. We are nearing the launch of a multi-dose study in children with CHI aged two and up that will be conducted in the United Kingdom. The PBS study has completed dosing in the single-dose cohorts and has also met its objectives. In February 2017, we initiated a multi-dose study in PBS.

We believe a therapy that safely and effectively mitigates insulin-induced hypoglycemia has the potential to address a significant unmet therapeutic need for these rare medical conditions associated with hyperinsulinism.

X213 could be developed to treat hyperprolactinemia in prolactinomas, a condition of benign tumors on the pituitary gland that leads to sexual dysfunction, infertility, and osteoporosis. For ten percent of the 140,000 prolactinoma patients in the United States, existing therapies are poorly tolerated or not effective. It also could be developed for anti-psychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia, a side effect seen in patients treated with commonly used antipsychotics, antidepressants, and pain medications. These patients exhibit the same signs and symptoms as prolactinoma, and compliance with anti-psychotic therapies is poor. Currently available therapies to address these side effects can worsen psychosis.

We have conducted preclinical testing for X129. In vitro assays showed X129 decreases the activity of insulin on mammalian cells over-expressing human, rat and minipig insulin receptor (“INSR”) in a dose-dependent manner. Further studies confirmed X129 binds to the INSR and acts as a negative allosteric modulator. In animal studies, potential rescue of insulin or sulphonylurea-induced hypoglycemia was modeled in normal rats. Administration of insulin or glibenclamide (a sulfonylurea) produced abnormally low glucose levels. Intravenous administration of X129 at time points wherein the drug-induced glucose levels were falling below normal levels rapidly stabilized blood glucose levels thereby preventing hypoglycemia. In normal minipigs, intramuscular administration normalized the hypoglycemia induced by Vetsulin (an intermediate acting pig insulin) with the effect lasting for several hours, thereby confirming the activity in mammals. When tested in a nocturnal hypoglycemia model in minipigs, subcutaneous administration of X129 successfully prevented blood glucose drop through the eight-hour duration of the study. The results from the rat studies were presented at the Endocrine Society's Annual Meeting in April 2016. The results from the minipig studies will be presented at the Endocrine Society's Annual Meeting in April 2017. We believe X129 could potentially offer clinicians a therapy that has rapid onset, improved efficacy and optimal duration of therapy to treat patients with acute severe hypoglycemia where currently available therapies are inadequate.

In December 2010, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Les Laboratories Servier (“Servier”) to jointly develop and commercialize gevokizumab in multiple indications. Under the terms of that collaboration agreement, Servier had worldwide rights to gevokizumab for cardiovascular disease and diabetes indications (cardiometabolic field) and rights outside the United States and Japan to all other indications.

On July 22, 2015, we announced the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B study of gevokizumab in patients with Behçet’s disease uveitis did not meet the primary endpoint of time to first acute ocular exacerbation. Due to these results and belief they would be predictive of results in our other EYEGUARD studies of gevokizumab in patients with non-infectious uveitis (“NIU”), in August 2015 we decided to end the EYEGUARD global Phase 3 program prior to its planned completion. Servier and we closed down the EYEGUARD clinical sites and, as anticipated, neither EYEGUARD-A nor EYEGUARD-C produced positive results.

In September 2015, Servier notified us of its intention to terminate the collaboration agreement, and return the worldwide gevokizumab rights to XOMA. The termination of the collaboration agreement became effective on March 25, 2016.

In March 2016, we closed our Phase 3 study of gevokizumab in pyoderma gangrenosum (“PG”). A preliminary review of the data from the study did not show a clear signal of activity in PG.

We have a unique set of antibody discovery, optimization and development technologies available for licensing, including:

Financial and Legal Arrangements of Product Collaborations, Licensing and Other Arrangements

Historically, we have licensed with or provided research and development collaboration services to world-class organizations, including Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Takeda in pursuit of new antibody products, and we expect that we will continue to capitalize on partnered product arrangements as opportunities arise. Below is a list of such license arrangements:

In September 2015, we and Novartis entered into a license agreement (the “License Agreement”) under which we granted Novartis an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license to our anti-TGF-β antibody program. Novartis is solely responsible for the development and commercialization of the antibodies and products containing the antibodies arising from this program.

Under the License Agreement, we received a $37.0 million upfront fee, and are eligible to receive up to a total of $480.0 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones. We also are eligible to receive royalties on sales of licensed products, which are tiered based on sales levels and range from a mid-single digit percentage rate to up to a low double-digit percentage rate. Novartis’ obligation to pay royalties with respect to a particular product and country will continue for the longer of the date of expiration of the last valid patent claim covering the product in that country, or ten years from the date of the first commercial sale of the product in that country.

In September 2015, we and Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. (“NVDI”), further amended our 2008 Amended and Restated Research, Development and Commercialization Agreement, relating to anti-CD40 antibodies. Under this agreement, NVDI is solely responsible for the development and commercialization of the antibodies and products containing the antibodies arising from this program. The parties agreed to reduce the royalty rates that we are eligible to receive on sales of NVDI’s clinical stage anti-CD40 antibodies. These royalties are tiered based on sales levels and now range from a mid-single digit percentage rate to up to a low double-digit percentage rate.

In 2013, we received a $7.0 million milestone relating to one currently active program. Our right to milestone payments expires at such time as no collaboration product or former collaboration product is being developed or commercialized anywhere in the world and no royalty payments on these products are due. Our right to royalty payments expires on the later of the expiration of any licensed patent covering each product or 10 years from the launch of each product.

In connection with the collaboration between XOMA and Novartis AG (then Chiron Corporation), a secured note agreement was executed in May 2005. The note agreement is secured by our interest in the collaboration and was due and payable in full on June 21, 2015. On June 19, 2015, we and NVDI, who assumed the note agreement, agreed to extend the maturity date of our secured note agreement from June 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which was then subsequently extended to September 30, 2020. At December 31, 2016, the outstanding principal balance under this note agreement totaled $14.1 million and was included in our long-term portion of interest bearing obligations in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Under the terms of the arrangement as restructured in November 2008, we will not make any additional borrowings on the Novartis note.

In December 2015, we entered into a license agreement with Novo Nordisk under which we granted Novo Nordisk an exclusive, world-wide, royalty-bearing license to our XMetA program of allosteric monoclonal antibodies that positively modulate the insulin receptor (the “XMetA Program”), subject to our retained commercialization rights for rare disease indications. Novo Nordisk has an option to add these additional rights to its license upon payment of an option fee.

Novo Nordisk is solely responsible for its expenses for the development and commercialization of antibodies and products containing antibodies arising from the XMetA Program, subject to our retained rights described above. We have transferred certain proprietary know-how and materials relating to the XMetA Program to Novo Nordisk. Under the agreement, we received a $5.0 million, non-creditable, non-refundable, upfront payment. Based on the achievement of pre-specified criteria, we are eligible to receive up to $290.0 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones. We are also eligible to receive royalties on sales of licensed products, which are tiered up to a high-single-digit percentage rate based on sales levels. Novo Nordisk’s obligation to pay development and commercialization milestones will continue for so long as Novo Nordisk is developing or selling products under the agreement, subject to the maximum milestone payment amounts set forth above. Novo Nordisk’s obligation to pay royalties with respect to a particular product and country will continue for the longer of the date of expiration of the last valid patent claim covering the product in that country, or ten years from the date of the first commercial sale of the product in that country.

The agreement contains customary termination rights relating to material breach by either party. Novo Nordisk also has a unilateral right to terminate the agreement in its entirety on ninety (90) days’ notice.

In December 2010, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement (the “Collaboration Agreement”) with Servier to jointly develop and commercialize gevokizumab in multiple indications. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Servier obtained worldwide rights to cardiovascular disease and diabetes indications (cardiometabolic field) and rights outside the United States and Japan to all other indications, including NIU, Behçet’s disease uveitis and other inflammatory and oncology indications. We retained development and commercialization rights in the United States and Japan for all indications other than cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

In December 2010, we also entered into a loan agreement with Servier (the “Servier Loan Agreement”) that provided for an advance of up to €15.0 million. The loan was fully funded in January 2011, with the proceeds converting to approximately $19.5 million at the date of funding. The loan is secured by an interest in XOMA’s intellectual property rights to all gevokizumab indications worldwide, excluding certain rights in the United States and Japan. Interest is calculated at a floating rate based on a Euro Inter-Bank Offered Rate and is subject to a cap. The interest rate is reset semi-annually in January and July of each year. The interest rate for the initial interest period was 3.22% and was reset semi-annually ranging from 1.81% to 3.83%. Interest for the six-month period from mid-July 2016 through mid-January 2017 was reset to 1.81%. Interest is payable semi-annually and in January 2017, we paid $0.1 million in accrued interest to Servier.

On January 9, 2015, Servier and we entered into Amendment No. 2 (“Loan Amendment”) to the Servier Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement was initially entered into on December 30, 2010 and subsequently amended by a Consent, Transfer, Assumption and Amendment Agreement entered into as of August 12, 2013, where the loan was transferred from XOMA Ireland Limited to XOMA (US) LLC. The Loan Amendment extended the maturity date of the loan from January 13, 2016 to three tranches of principal to be repaid as follows: €3.0 million on January 15, 2016, €5.0 million on January 15, 2017, and €7.0 million on January 15, 2018. In addition, the loan becomes immediately due and payable upon certain customary events of default. In January 2016, we paid the principal amount of €3.0 million. At December 31, 2016, the outstanding principal balance under this loan was $12.6 million using the December 31, 2016 Exchange Rate of 1.052. In January 2017, we entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Servier Loan Agreement (“Amendment No. 3”). Amendment No. 3 extended the maturity date of the €5.0 million due on January 15, 2017 to July 15, 2017. The other terms of the loan remained unchanged.

On September 28, 2015, Servier notified us of its intention to terminate the Collaboration Agreement, as amended, and return the gevokizumab rights to us. The termination became effective on March 25, 2016, and did not result in a change to the then maturity date of our loan with Servier.

In November 2006, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Takeda under which we agreed to discover and optimize therapeutic antibodies against multiple targets selected by Takeda.

Under the terms of this agreement, we may receive milestone payments aggregating up to $19.0 million relating to one undisclosed product candidate and low single-digit royalties on future sales of all products subject to this license. Our right to milestone payments expires on the later of the receipt of payment from Takeda of the last amount to be paid under the agreement or the cessation by Takeda of all research and development activities with respect to all program antibodies, collaboration targets or collaboration products. Our right to royalties expires on the later of 13.5 years from the first commercial sale of each royalty-bearing discovery product or the expiration of the last-to-expire licensed patent.

In February 2009, we expanded our existing collaboration to provide Takeda with access to multiple antibody technologies, including a suite of research and development technologies and integrated information and data management systems. We may receive milestones of up to $3.3 million per discovery product candidate and low single-digit royalties on future sales of all antibody products subject to this license. Our right to milestone payments expires on the later of the receipt of payment from Takeda of the last amount to be paid under the agreement or the cessation by Takeda of all research and development activities with respect to all program antibodies, collaboration targets or collaboration products. Our right to royalties expires on the later of 10 years from the first commercial sale of such royalty-bearing discovery product or the expiration of the last-to-expire licensed patent.

We have completed a technology transfer and do not expect to perform any further research and development services under this program. From 2011 through 2016, we received milestone payments totaling $2.3 million relating to one currently active program.

In August 2007, we entered into a license agreement (the “2007 Agreement”) with Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) for non-exclusive, worldwide rights for our patented bacterial cell expression technology for research, development and manufacturing of antibody products. In December 2015, we entered into a settlement and amended license agreement with Pfizer, under which we granted Pfizer fully-paid, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive license rights to our patented bacterial cell expression technology for phage display and other research, development and manufacturing of antibody products for cash payment by Pfizer of $3.8 million in full satisfaction of all obligations to us under the 2007 Agreement between XOMA (then XOMA Ireland Limited) and Pfizer Inc., including all potential milestone, royalty and other fees under the 2007 Agreement. As a result of the settlement with Pfizer, the 2007 Agreement was terminated.

In August 2005, we entered into a license agreement with Wyeth (subsequently acquired by Pfizer) for non-exclusive, worldwide rights for certain of our patented bacterial cell expression technology for vaccine manufacturing. In December 2016, we sold our rights to receive further royalties under this agreement for an upfront payment of $6.5 million and potential future payments of up to $4.0 million.

In October 2006, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement with DYAX, Corp. (“Dyax”) for worldwide, non-exclusive licenses for our patented bacterial cell expression technology in phage display. In consideration for the rights granted to Dyax, we received an upfront fee of $3.5 million. In addition, we would be eligible to receive royalties equal to 0.5% on net sales of any products subject to this license. In December 2016, we sold our rights to receive further royalties under this agreement for a payment of $11.5 million.

On November 4, 2015, we entered into an asset purchase agreement with Nanotherapeutics Inc. (the “Nanotherapeutics Purchase Agreement”), under which Nanotherapeutics agreed to acquire our biodefense business and related assets (including, subject to regulatory approval, certain contracts with the U.S. government), and to assume certain liabilities of XOMA. As part of that transaction, the parties, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, entered into an intellectual property license agreement (the “Nanotherapeutics License Agreement”), under which we agreed to license to Nanotherapeutics certain intellectual property rights related to the purchased assets. Under the Nanotherapeutics License Agreement, we are eligible for up to $4.5 million of cash payments and 23,008 shares of common stock of Nanotherapeutics, based upon Nanotherapeutics achieving certain specified future operational objectives. In addition, we are eligible to receive 15% royalties on net sales of products. In February 2017, we executed an Amendment and Restatement to both the Nanotherapeutics Purchase Agreement and Nanotherapeutics License Agreement primarily to (i) remove the obligation to issue 23,008 shares of common stock of Nanotherapeutics under the Nanotherapeutics Purchase Agreement, and (ii) revise the payment schedule related to the timing of the $4.5 million cash payments due to us under the Nanotherapeutics License Agreement. Of the $4.5 million, $3.0 million is contingent upon Nanotherapeutics achieving certain specified future operating objectives.

On November 5, 2015, we entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Agenus Purchase Agreement”) with Agenus West, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Agenus Inc. (“Agenus”), pursuant to which Agenus agreed to acquire our pilot scale manufacturing facility in Berkeley, California, together with certain related assets, including a license to certain intellectual property related to the purchased assets, and to assume certain liabilities of XOMA, in consideration for the payment to us of up to $5.0 million in cash and the issuance to us of shares of Agenus’s common stock having an aggregate value of up to $1.0 million. The Agenus Purchase Agreement closed on December 31, 2015. At closing, we received cash of $4.7 million, net of the assumed liabilities of $0.3 million. In addition to the cash consideration, we received shares of common stock of Agenus with an aggregate value of $0.5 million, which we subsequently sold in August 2016. The remaining common stock of Agenus will only be received upon our satisfaction of certain operational matters, which we are unlikely to satisfy.

On December 21, 2016, we entered into two Royalty Interest Acquisition Agreements (together, the “Acquisition Agreements”) with HealthCare Royalty Partners II, L.P. (“HCRP”). Under the first Acquisition Agreement, we sold our right to receive milestone payments and royalties on future sales of products subject to a license agreement, dated August 18, 2005, between XOMA and Pfizer for an upfront cash payment of $6.5 million, plus potential additional payments totaling $4.0 million in the event three specified net sales milestones are met by Pfizer in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Under the second Acquisition Agreement, we sold all rights to royalties under an Amended and Restated License Agreement dated October 27, 2006 between XOMA and Dyax for a cash payment of $11.5 million.

In February 2015, we entered into a Loan and Security Agreement with Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc., (the “Hercules Loan Agreement”) under which we borrowed $20.0 million. We used a portion of the proceeds received under the Hercules Loan Agreement to repay the outstanding principal, final payment fee, prepayment fee, and accrued interest of $5.5 million under a loan agreement with General Electric Capital Corporation.

The interest rate under the Hercules Loan Agreement is calculated at a rate equal to the greater of either (i) 9.40% plus the prime rate as reported from time to time in The Wall Street Journal minus 7.25%, and (ii) 9.40%. Payments under the Hercules Loan Agreement were interest only until June 1, 2016, after which we have paid equal monthly payments of principal and interest amortized over a 30-month schedule through the scheduled maturity date of September 1, 2018 (the “Hercules Loan Maturity Date”). The entire principal balance, including a balloon payment of principal, will be due and payable on the Hercules Loan Maturity Date. In addition, a final payment of $1.2 million will be due on the Hercules Loan Maturity Date, or such earlier date specified in the Hercules Loan Agreement. If we prepay the loan prior to the Hercules Loan Maturity Date, we may pay Hercules a prepayment charge equal to 1.00% of the amount prepaid. Our obligations under the Hercules Loan Agreement are secured by a security interest in substantially all of our assets, other than our intellectual property.

The Hercules Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and restrictive covenants, but does not include any financial maintenance covenants, and also includes standard events of default, including payment defaults. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, a default interest rate of an additional 5% may be applied to the outstanding loan balances, and Hercules may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Hercules Loan Agreement. On December 21, 2016, we entered into Amendment No. 1 (the “Hercules Amendment”) to the Hercules Loan Agreement. Under the Hercules Amendment, Hercules agreed to release its security interest on the assets subject to the Acquisition Agreements with HCRP. In turn, in January 2017, we paid $10.0 million of the outstanding principal balance owed to Hercules. The $10.0 million payment was not subject to any prepayment charge. After taking into account the January 2017 payment, the principal balance of the Hercules Loan was $6.9 million.

In connection with the Hercules Loan Agreement, we issued a warrant to Hercules that is exercisable for an aggregate of up to 9,063 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $66.20 per share (the “Hercules Warrant”). The Hercules Warrant may be exercised on a cashless basis and is exercisable for a term beginning on the date of issuance and ending on the earlier to occur of five years from the date of issuance or the consummation of certain acquisitions of XOMA as set forth in the Hercules Warrant. The number of shares for which the Hercules Warrant is exercisable and the associated exercise price are subject to certain proportional adjustments as set forth in the Hercules Warrant.

Our research and development expenses currently include costs of personnel, supplies, facilities and equipment, consultants, third-party costs and other expenses related to preclinical and clinical testing. In 2016, our research and development expenses were $44.2 million, compared with $70.9 million in 2015 and $80.7 million in 2014.

Our research and development activities can be divided into those related to our internal projects and those related to collaborative and contract arrangements, which are reimbursed by our collaborators. In 2016, research and development expenses relating to internal projects were $42.8 million, compared with $50.2 million in 2015 and $51.3 million in 2014. In 2016, research and development expenses related to collaborative and contract arrangements were $1.4 million, compared with $20.7 million in 2015 and $29.4 million in 2014. In December 2016, we initiated a corporate reorganization to eliminate all activities not directly in support of X358 clinical development.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to continuous and substantial technological change. Competition in antibody-based technologies is intense and is expected to increase as new technologies emerge and established biotechnology firms and large chemical and pharmaceutical companies continue to advance in the field. A number of these large pharmaceutical and chemical companies have enhanced their capabilities by entering into arrangements with or acquiring biotechnology companies or entering into business combinations with other large pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies have significantly greater financial resources, larger research and development and marketing staffs, and larger production facilities than ours. Moreover, certain of these companies have extensive experience in undertaking preclinical testing and human clinical trials. These factors may enable other companies to develop products and processes competitive with or superior to ours. In addition, a significant amount of research in biotechnology is being carried out in universities and other non-profit research organizations. These entities are becoming increasingly interested in the commercial value of their work and may become more aggressive in seeking patent protection and licensing arrangements. Furthermore, many companies and universities tend not to announce or disclose important discoveries or development programs until their patent position is secure or, for other reasons, later. As a result, we may not be able to track development of competitive products, particularly at the early stages. There can be no assurance that developments by others will not render our products or technologies obsolete or uncompetitive.

Without limiting the above, we are aware of the following competitors for our X358 product candidate: Biodel, Inc.; Eiger Biopharmaceuticals; Eli Lilly and Company; Locemia Solutions; S-cubed Limited; Xeris Pharmaceuticals and Zealand Pharma A/S. This list is not intended to be representative of all existing competitors in the market.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, pre-market approval, manufacture, marketing, import, export and distribution of biopharmaceutical products. These agencies and other regulatory agencies regulate research and development activities and the testing, approval, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, advertising and promotion of products and product candidates. Failure to comply with FDA or other regulatory requirements may result in Warning Letters, civil or criminal penalties, suspension or delays in clinical development, recall or seizure of products, partial or total suspension of production or withdrawal of a product from the market. The development and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before we can begin marketing them in the United States. Similar approvals are also required in other countries.

Product development and approval within this regulatory framework is uncertain, can take many years and requires the expenditure of substantial resources. The nature and extent of the governmental review process for our product candidates will vary, depending on the regulatory categorization of particular product candidates and various other factors.

The necessary steps before a new biopharmaceutical product may be sold in the United States ordinarily include:

The results of preclinical tests (which include laboratory evaluation as well as preclinical GLP studies to evaluate toxicity) for a particular product candidate, together with related manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of an IND to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. IND submissions may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development. Further, an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that center and it must monitor the study until completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP regulations and regulations for informed consent and privacy of individually identifiable information.

Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or in some instances, be skipped. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the product into humans, the product is tested to assess safety, metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological actions associated with increasing doses. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to evaluate the efficacy of the potential product for specific, targeted indications, determine dosage tolerance and optimum dosage and further identify possible adverse reactions and safety risks. Phase 3 and pivotal trials are undertaken to evaluate further clinical efficacy and safety often in comparison to standard therapies within a broader patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical sites. Phase 4, or post-marketing, trials may be required as a condition of commercial approval by the FDA and may also be voluntarily initiated by us or our licensees. Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing may not be completed within any specific period of time, if at all, with respect to any of our product candidates. Similarly, suggestions of safety, tolerability or efficacy in earlier-stage trials do not necessarily predict findings of safety and effectiveness in subsequent trials. Clinical trials are subject to central registration and results reporting requirements, such as on www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The results of preclinical studies, pharmaceutical development and clinical trials, together with information on a product’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, are submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA, for approval of the manufacture, marketing and commercial shipment of the biopharmaceutical product. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we or our licensees interpret data. The FDA also may convene an Advisory Committee of external advisors to answer questions regarding the approvability and labeling of an application. The FDA is not obligated to follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. The submission of a BLA is required to be accompanied by a substantial user fee, with few exceptions or waivers. The user fee is administered under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which sets goals for the timeliness of the FDA’s review. A standard review period is twelve months from submission of the application, while priority review is eight months from submission of the application. The testing and approval process is likely to require substantial time, effort and resources, and there can be no assurance that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The FDA may deny review of an application by refusing to file the application or not approve an application by issuance of a complete response letter if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information, or require risk management programs and post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. Approval may occur with significant Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”), which limit the clinical use in the prescribing information, distribution or promotion of a product. Once issued, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Orphan drugs are those intended for use in rare diseases or conditions. As a result of the high cost of development and the low return on investment for rare diseases, certain governments provide regulatory and commercial incentives for the development of drugs for small disease populations. In the United States, the term ‘‘rare disease or condition’’ means any disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Applications for U.S. orphan drug status are evaluated and granted by the Office of Orphan Products Development (“OOPD”) of the FDA and must be requested before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drugs are subject to the standard regulatory process for marketing approval but are exempt from the payment of user fees for licensure, may receive market exclusivity for a period of seven years and some tax benefits, and are eligible for OOPD grants. If a product with orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug or biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity.

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any future products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or market the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Patent and trade secret protection are important to our business and our future will depend in part on our ability to obtain patents, maintain trade secret protection and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. As a result of our ongoing activities, we hold and have filed applications for a number of patents in the United States and internationally to protect our products and important processes. We also have obtained or have the right to obtain licenses to certain patents and applications filed by others. However, the patent position of biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain and consistent policy regarding the breadth of allowed claims has not emerged from the actions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) with respect to biotechnology patents. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that our patents will afford protection against competitors with similar technologies or others will not obtain patents claiming aspects similar to those covered by our patent applications.

We have established a portfolio of patents in the United States, Europe and certain other countries for our insulin receptor antibody programs. European Patent 2 480 254 and Japanese patent 5849050 cover insulin receptor-modulating antibodies having the functional properties of X358. U.S. Patent No. 8,926,976 covering insulin receptor-activating antibodies having the functional properties of the lead antibody in our XMetA program, subsequently licensed to Novo Nordisk. WO2016/141111 relates to methods of treating or preventing post-prandial hypoglycemia after gastric bypass surgery using a negative modulator antibody to the insulin receptor. WO2017/024285 relates to methods of treating or preventing hypoglycemia using a negative modulator antibody fragment that binds to the insulin receptor. Additional patent applications covering our insulin receptor antibody programs are pending in the U.S. and certain other countries.

We have exclusive worldwide rights to a family of patents relating to our prolactin receptor antibody program, X213, following return of the program by Novartis. Issued patents in the family include US Patent No. 7,867,493 and EP 2 059 535.

We have established a portfolio of patents in the United States, Europe and certain other countries for our gevokizumab program. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,531,166 (which expires in 2027) and 7,582,742 cover gevokizumab and other antibodies and antibody fragments with similar binding properties for IL-1 beta, as well as nucleic acids, expression vectors and production cell lines for the manufacture of such antibodies and antibody fragments. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,695,718, 8,101,166, 8,586,036, 8,545,846, 8,377,429 and 9,163,082 relate to methods of treating Type 2 diabetes or Type 2 diabetes-induced diseases or conditions with high affinity antibodies and antibody fragments that bind to IL-1 beta, including gevokizumab. U.S. Patent No. 8,637,029 relates to methods of treating gout with certain doses of IL-1 beta binding antibodies or binding fragments. Additional U.S. Patents relate to methods of treating certain IL-1 related inflammatory diseases, TI DM, certain cancers, certain IL-1 beta related coronary conditions, inflammatory eye disease or uveitis, with gevokizumab or other IL-1 beta antibodies and fragments having similar binding properties. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,551,487 and 9,139,646 relate to methods of treating refractory uveitis with IL-1 beta binding antibodies and binding fragments. Also, patents have been granted by the European Patent Office and certain other countries for gevokizumab, as well as nucleic acids, expression vectors and production cell lines for the manufacture of gevokizumab.

In October 2015, we announced that we had exclusively licensed the global development and commercialization rights to our TGFβ antibody program to Novartis. The licensed intellectual property includes US Patent Nos. 8,569,464 and 9,145,458 covering our lead TGFβ antibodies and methods of use thereof, and WO2016/161410 relating to combination therapy using an inhibitor of TGFb and an inhibitor of PD-1 for treating or preventing recurrence of cancer.

We established a portfolio of patents related to our bacterial expression technology, including claims to methods for expression and secretion of recombinant proteins from bacteria, including immunoglobulin gene products, and improved methods and cells for expression of recombinant protein products. We have granted more than 60 licenses to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to use the Company’s patented and proprietary technologies relating to bacterial expression of recombinant pharmaceutical products. The last-to-expire patent licensed under the majority of these license agreements is Canadian patent 1,341,235, which is expected to expire in May 2018.

If certain patents issued to others are upheld or if certain patent applications filed by others issue and are upheld, we may require certain licenses from others in order to develop and commercialize certain potential products incorporating our technology. There can be no assurance that such licenses, if required, will be available on acceptable terms.

Where appropriate, we also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our technology. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and collaborators. These parties may breach these agreements, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. Our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that we or our consultants or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others, we may have disputes with our collaborators or consultants or other third parties as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

When and if we are able to generate income, a portion of that income may be derived from product sales and other activities outside the United States.

We have determined that we operate in one business segment as we only report operating results on an aggregate basis to the chief operating decision maker of XOMA. Our property and equipment is held in the United States.

Financial information regarding the geographic areas in which we operate and segment information is included in Note 14 to the December 31, 2016, Financial Statements: Concentration of Risk, Segment and Geographic Information.

Five Prime, Servier, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”) accounted for 27 percent, 22 percent, and 19 percent, respectively, of our total revenue in 2016. In 2015, Novartis accounted for 67 percent of our total revenue. NIAID and Servier accounted for 51 percent and 28 percent, respectively, of our total revenue in 2014. At December 31, 2016, NIAID accounted for 85 percent of the accounts receivable balance. At December 31, 2015, Five Prime, NIAID, Servier and Centocor accounted for 39 percent, 25 percent, 18 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of the accounts receivable balance. None of these parties represent a related party to XOMA and the loss of one or more of these customers could have a material effect on our business and financial condition.

As of March 14, 2017, we employed 18 full-time employees at our headquarters in Berkeley, California. In addition, there are seven employees who will terminate employment on either March 31, 2017 or June 30, 2017 in connection with the restructuring activities in December 2016. None of our employees are unionized. Our employees are primarily engaged in clinical operations and in executive, business development, finance and administrative positions.

For information on XOMA’s investment prospects and risks, please contact Pure Communications at (910) 726-1372 or by sending an e-mail message to investorrelations@xoma.com.

The following information can be found on our website at http://www.xoma.com or can be obtained free of charge by contacting our Investor Relations Department:

We intend to satisfy the applicable disclosure requirements regarding amendments to, or waivers from, provisions of our Code of Ethics by posting such information on our website.

The following risk factors and other information included in this annual report should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us also may impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

We have sustained losses in the past, and we expect to sustain losses in the foreseeable future.

We had a net loss of $53.5 million, $20.6 million, and $38.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion.

Our product candidates are still being developed, and we do not know whether we will ever achieve sustained profitability or whether cash flow from future operations will be sufficient to meet our needs.

We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including our non-clinical development activities and clinical trials. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities and debt, and collaboration and licensing arrangements. Our total debt currently exceeds our total cash and cash equivalents. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future expenditures and our ability to generate revenues. We expect to continue to incur substantial expenses as we continue our development and licensing activities for our product candidates. If our product candidates are not successfully developed or commercialized by our licensees, or if revenues are insufficient following marketing approval, we will not achieve profitability and our business may fail. Our ability to achieve profitability is dependent in large part on the success of our ability to license our product candidates, and the success of our licensees’ development programs, both of which are uncertain. Our success is also dependent on our licensees obtaining regulatory approval to market our product candidates which may not materialize or prove to be successful.

Because our product candidates are still being developed, we will require substantial funds to continue; we cannot be certain that funds will be available, and if they are not available, we may be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our product development programs or to take actions that could adversely affect an investment in our common stock and we may not be able to continue operations.

We will need to commit substantial funds to continue development of our product candidates, and we may not be able to obtain sufficient funds on acceptable terms, or at all. Any additional debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to our stockholders or us. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our product candidates, grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us or enter into a collaboration arrangement for a product candidate at an earlier stage of development or for a lesser amount than we might otherwise choose.

Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available on a timely basis, we may:

We finance our operations primarily through our multiple revenue streams resulting from discovery and development collaborations, the licensing of our antibody technologies, debt and through sales of our common stock.

Based on our cash and cash equivalents of $25.7 million at December 31, 2016, plus the $24.9 million in net proceeds received from an equity financing in February 2017, and taking into consideration our anticipated spending levels and scheduled debt payments, without the receipt of funds from new license agreements or milestone payments based on development achievements of our licensees, we will be unable to fund our operations through the next 12 months following the issuance of our consolidated financial statements. Based on our current projections, we expect our current cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund our operations and pay scheduled debt payments beyond February of 2018. Therefore, we determined there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern within one year from the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. Our independent registered public accounting firm has included in its auditor’s report on our consolidated financial statements, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, a “going concern” explanatory paragraph, meaning that we have recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows from operations that raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. We may not be able to obtain sufficient additional funding through monetizing certain of our existing assets, entering into new license agreements, issuing additional equity or debt instruments or any other means, and if we are able to do so, they may not be on satisfactory terms. Consistent with the actions we have taken in the past, we will take steps intended to enable the continued operation of the business which may include out-licensing or sale of assets and reducing other expenditures that are within our control. These reductions in expenditures may have a material adverse impact on our ability to achieve certain of our planned objectives. Progress or setbacks by potentially competing products also may affect our ability to raise new funding on acceptable terms.

If adequate funds are not available, we will be required to delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate one or more of our product development programs and further reduce costs. Even if we are able to source additional funding, we may be forced to significantly reduce our operations if our business prospects do not improve. If we are unable to source additional funding, we may be forced to shut down operations altogether.

Reducing costs is a key element of our current business strategy. On August 21, 2015, in connection with our efforts to lower operating expenses and preserve capital while continuing to focus on our product pipeline, we implemented a workforce reduction, which led to the termination of 52 employees during the second half of 2015. On December 19, 2016, we approved a restructuring of our business based on our decision to focus our efforts on advancing our X358 clinical programs. The restructuring included a reduction-in-force in which we terminated 57 employees.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recorded an aggregate restructuring charge of approximately $4.6 million related to severance, other termination benefits and outplacement services in connection with the workforce reduction implemented in December 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we recorded an aggregate restructuring charge of approximately $2.9 million related to severance, other termination benefits and outplacement services in connection with the workforce reduction implemented in August 2015. In addition, we recognized an additional restructuring charge of $0.8 million in total contract termination costs in the second half of 2015, which primarily include costs in connection with the discontinuation of the EYEGUARD studies.

If we experience excessive unanticipated inefficiencies or incremental costs in connection with restructuring activities, such as unanticipated inefficiencies caused by reducing headcount, we may be unable to meaningfully realize cost savings and we may incur expenses in excess of what we anticipate. Either of these outcomes could prevent us from meeting our strategic objectives and could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Current and Future Product Candidates

We may not be successful in entering into out-license agreements for our product candidates, which may adversely affect our liquidity and business.

We intend to pursue a strategy to out-license some of our product candidates in order to provide for potential payments, funding and/or royalties on future product sales. The out-license agreements may also be structured to share in the proceeds received by a licensee as a result of further development or commercialization of the product candidates. We may not be successful in entering into out-licensing agreements with favorable terms as a result of factors, many of which are outside of our control. These factors include:

If we are unable to enter into out-licensing agreements for our product candidates and realize license, milestone and royalty fees when anticipated, it may adversely affect our liquidity and we may be forced to curtail or delay development of our product candidates, which in turn may harm our business.

If our therapeutic product candidates do not receive regulatory approval, our licensees will be unable to market them.

Our product candidates cannot be manufactured and marketed in the United States or any other countries without required regulatory approvals. The U.S. government and governments of other countries extensively regulate many aspects of our product candidates, including:

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates pharmaceutical products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act. At the present time, we believe all of our product candidates will be regulated by the FDA as biologics.

Initiation of clinical trials requires approval by health authorities. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA and International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices and the European Clinical Trials Directive, as applicable, under protocols that detail the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Other national, foreign and local regulations also may apply. The developer of the drug must provide information relating to the characterization and controls of the product before administration to the patients participating in the clinical trials. This requires developing approved assays of the product to test before administration to the patient and during the conduct of the trial. In addition, developers of pharmaceutical products must provide periodic data regarding clinical trials to the FDA and other health authorities, and these health authorities may issue a clinical hold upon a trial if they do not believe, or cannot confirm, that the trial can be conducted without unreasonable risk to the trial participants.

Based on regulatory restrictions, X358 clinical testing is currently limited to studies in adults in the U.S, and patients 12 and over in continental Europe. We submitted a proposal to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) to initiate a multi-dose Phase 2 clinical study of X358 in children two years and older diagnosed with CHI. The MHRA approved the protocol in principal, and the study is in now in review at local ethics committees. We anticipate the site to be ready for first dosing in the UK in the second quarter of 2017. We cannot assure you that our proposed protocols for such testing will be approved, or that U.S. and foreign health authorities will not issue a clinical hold with respect to these or any of our other clinical trials in the future.

The results of the preclinical studies and clinical testing, together with chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, are submitted to the FDA and other health authorities in the form of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for a drug, and in the form of a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) for a biological product, requesting approval to commence commercial sales. In responding to an NDA or BLA, the FDA or foreign health authorities may grant marketing approvals, request additional information or further research, or deny the application if they determine the application does not satisfy regulatory approval criteria. Regulatory approval of an NDA, BLA, or supplement is never guaranteed. The approval process can take several years, is extremely expensive and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the products involved, as well as the target indications. FDA regulations and policies permit applicants to request accelerated approval or priority review pathways for products intended to treat certain serious or life-threatening illnesses in certain circumstances. If granted by the FDA, these pathways can provide a shortened timeline to commercialize the product, although the shortened timeline is often accompanied by additional post-market requirements. Although we may pursue the FDA’s accelerated approval or priority review programs, we cannot guarantee the FDA will permit us to utilize these pathways or the FDA’s review of our application will not be delayed. Moreover, even if the FDA agrees to an accelerated approval or priority review of any of our applications, we ultimately may not be able to obtain approval of our application in a timely fashion or at all.

The FDA and foreign health authorities have substantial discretion in the drug and biologics approval processes. Despite the time and expense incurred, failure can occur at any stage, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon clinical trials or to repeat or perform additional preclinical, clinical or manufacturing-related studies.

Changes in the regulatory approval policy during the development period, changes in, or the enactment of additional regulations or statutes, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. State regulations may also affect our proposed products.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies have substantial discretion in both the product approval process and manufacturing facility approval process, and as a result of this discretion and uncertainties about outcomes of testing, we cannot predict at what point, or whether, the FDA or other regulatory agencies will be satisfied with our or our licensees’ submissions or whether the FDA or other regulatory agencies will raise questions that may be material and delay or preclude product approval or manufacturing facility approval. In light of this discretion and the complexities of the scientific, medical and regulatory environment, our interpretation or understanding of the FDA’s or other regulatory agencies’ requirements, guidelines or expectations may prove incorrect, which also could delay further or increase the cost of the approval process. As we accumulate additional clinical data, we and our licensees will submit it to the FDA and other regulatory agencies, as appropriate, and such data may have a material impact on the approval process.

We have received negative results from certain of our clinical trials, and we face uncertain results of other clinical trials of our product candidates.

Drug development has inherent risk, and we are required to demonstrate through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are effective, with a favorable benefit-risk profile for use in their target profiles before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial use. It is possible we or our licensees may never receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the resulting product may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community.

In March 2014, we reported that despite early positive results in our gevokizumab proof-of-concept study in patients with erosive osteoarthritis of the hand (“EOA”) and elevated C-reactive protein, the top-line data at Day 168 in that study, as well as data at Day 84 in patients with EOA and non-elevated CRP, were not positive. In July 2015, we announced that Servier’s EYEGUARD-B Phase 3 study of gevokizumab in patients with Behçet’s disease uveitis did not meet its primary endpoint. In addition, neither EYEGUARD-A nor EYEGUARD-C produced positive results. In March 2016, we decided to close our Phase 3 studies of gevokizumab in pyoderma gangrenosum (“PG”). A preliminary review of the available data did not show a clear signal of activity in PG.

Our product candidates require significant additional research and development, extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials and regulatory approval prior to any commercial sales. This process is lengthy and expensive, often taking a number of years. As clinical results frequently are susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly. As a result, it is uncertain whether:

The timing of the commencement, continuation and completion of clinical trials may be subject to significant delays relating to various causes, including failure to complete preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials in a timely manner, engaging contract research organizations and other service providers, scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions, changes in key personnel at clinical institutions, difficulties in identifying and enrolling patients who meet trial eligibility criteria and shortages of available drug supply. In addition, if we license our product candidates to others to fund and conduct clinical trials, we may have limited control over how quickly and efficiently such licensees advance those trials. Patient enrollment is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the concentration of patients in specialist centers, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the existence of competing clinical trials and the availability of alternative or new treatments. Regardless of the initial size or relative complexity of a clinical trial, the costs of such trial may be higher than expected due to increases in duration or size of the trial, changes in the protocol under which the trial is being conducted, additional or special requirements of one or more of the healthcare centers where the trial is being conducted, or changes in the regulatory requirements applicable to the trial or in the standards or guidelines for approval of the product candidate being tested or for other unforeseen reasons.

In addition, we and our licensees conduct clinical trials in foreign countries, which may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased drug shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of foreign clinical research organizations, and may expose us to risks associated with foreign currency transactions to make contract payments denominated in the foreign currency where the trial is being conducted.

All of our product candidates are prone to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. Preclinical studies may not yield results that satisfactorily support the filing of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) (or a foreign equivalent) with respect to our product candidates. Even if these applications would be or have been filed with respect to our product candidates, the results of preclinical studies do not necessarily predict the results of clinical trials. Similarly, early stage clinical trials may not predict the results of later-stage clinical trials, including the safety and efficacy profiles of any particular product candidates. For example, the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B trial of gevokizumab failed to achieve success on its primary endpoint measures.

In addition, there can be no assurance the design of our or our licensees’ clinical trials will be focused on appropriate indications, patient populations, dosing regimens or other variables that will result in obtaining the desired efficacy data to support regulatory approval to commercialize the drug. Moreover, FDA officials or foreign regulatory agency officials may question the integrity of our data or otherwise subject our or our licensees’ clinical trials to additional scrutiny when the clinical trials are conducted by principal investigators who serve, or previously served, as scientific advisors or consultants to us and receive cash compensation in connection with such services. Preclinical and clinical data can also be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, FDA officials or officials from foreign regulatory authorities could interpret the data differently than we or our collaboration or development partners do, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

Administering any of our product candidates may produce undesirable side effects, also known as adverse effects. Toxicities and adverse effects that we have observed in preclinical studies for some compounds in a particular research and development program may occur in preclinical studies or clinical trials of other compounds from the same program. Such toxicities or adverse effects could delay or prevent the filing of an IND (or a foreign equivalent) with respect to such product candidates or cause us to cease clinical trials with respect to any drug candidate. In clinical trials, administering any of our product candidates to humans may produce adverse effects. These adverse effects could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials of our products and product candidates and could result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The FDA, other regulatory authorities, our development partners or we may suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time. Even if one or more of our product candidates were approved for sale, the occurrence of even a limited number of toxicities or adverse effects when used in large populations may cause the FDA or other regulatory authorities to impose restrictions on, or stop, the further marketing of such drugs. Indications of potential adverse effects or toxicities that may occur in clinical trials and that we believe are not significant during the course of such clinical trials may actually turn out later to constitute serious adverse effects or toxicities when a drug has been used in large populations or for extended periods of time. Any failure or significant delay in completing preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates, or in receiving and maintaining regulatory approval for the sale of any drugs resulting from our product candidates, may severely harm our reputation and business.

Products and technologies of other companies may render some or all of our product candidates noncompetitive or obsolete.

Developments by others may render our product candidates or technologies obsolete or uncompetitive. Technologies developed and utilized by the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are changing continuously and substantially. Competition in antibody-based technologies is intense and is expected to increase in the future as a number of established biotechnology firms and large chemical and pharmaceutical companies advance in these fields. Many of these competitors may be able to develop products and processes competitive with or superior to our own for many reasons, including that they may have:

These factors may enable others to develop products and processes competitive with or superior to our own or those of our licensees. In addition, a significant amount of research in biotechnology is being carried out in universities and other non-profit research organizations. These entities are becoming increasingly interested in the commercial value of their work and may become more aggressive in seeking patent protection and licensing arrangements. Furthermore, many companies and universities tend not to announce or disclose important discoveries or development programs until their patent position is secure or, for other reasons, later. As a result, we may not be able to track development of competitive products, particularly at the early stages.

Positive or negative developments in connection with a potentially competing product may have an adverse impact on our ability to raise additional funding on acceptable terms. For example, if another product is perceived to have a competitive advantage, or another product’s failure is perceived to increase the likelihood that our product will fail, then investors may choose not to invest in us on terms we would accept or at all.

The examples below pertain to competitive events in the market, but are not intended to be representative of all existing competitive events.

We are developing X358, a fully human negative allosteric modulating insulin receptor antibody, as a novel treatment for non-drug-induced, endogenous hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (low blood glucose caused by excessive insulin produced by the body) disorders including CHI and hypoglycemia post gastric bypass. Certain other companies are developing products based on improved versions of glucagon, a hormone naturally secreted by the pancreas that counteracts the effects of insulin by raising blood glucose levels.

Our product candidates are monoclonal antibodies and are differentiated due to our expertise in the allosteric modulation of cellular receptors. Our product candidates currently are delivered by intravenous administration. We are developing subcutaneous versions to allow for at-home administration or administration in a physician’s office, thereby reducing the potential that our targeted patient populations increase the demand on over-burdened infusion centers. However, physicians and patients may prefer daily oral dosing of potential competitor products to a longer-acting monoclonal antibody, which will impact the commercial value of X358.

We or our licensees may be unable to price our products effectively or obtain adequate reimbursement for sales of our products, which would prevent our products from becoming profitable.

If we or our third-party licensees succeed in bringing our product candidates to the market, they may not be considered cost effective, and reimbursement to the patient may not be available or may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive basis. In both the United States and elsewhere, sales of medical products and treatments are dependent, in part, on the availability of reimbursement to the patient from third-party payors, such as government and private insurance plans. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services. Our business is affected by the efforts of government and third-party payors to contain or reduce the cost of healthcare through various means. In the United States, there have been and will continue to be a number of federal and state proposals to implement government controls on pricing.

In addition, the emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and will continue to increase the pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. We cannot predict whether any legislative or regulatory proposals will be adopted or the effect these proposals or managed care efforts may have on our business.

We do not know whether there will be, or will continue to be, a viable market for the products in which we have an ownership or royalty interest.

Even if products in which we have an interest receive approval in the future, they may not be accepted in the marketplace. In addition, we or our licensees may experience difficulties in launching new products, many of which are novel and based on technologies that are unfamiliar to the healthcare community. We have no assurance healthcare providers and patients will accept such products, if developed. Similarly, physicians may not accept a product if they believe other products to be more effective or more cost effective or are more comfortable prescribing other products.

Furthermore, government agencies, as well as private organizations involved in healthcare, from time to time publish guidelines or recommendations to healthcare providers and patients. Such guidelines or recommendations can be very influential and may adversely affect product usage directly (for example, by recommending a decreased dosage of a product in conjunction with a concomitant therapy) or indirectly (for example, by recommending a competitive product over our product). Consequently, we do not know if physicians or patients will adopt or use our products for their approved indications.

Even approved and marketed products are subject to risks relating to changes in the market for such products. Introduction or increased availability of generic or biosimilar versions of products can alter the market acceptance of branded products. In addition, unforeseen safety issues may arise at any time, regardless of the length of time a product has been on the market.

The testing, marketing and sales of medical products entails an inherent risk of allegations of product liability. In the past, we were party to product liability claims filed against Genentech Inc. and, even though Genentech agreed to indemnify us in connection with these matters and these matters have been settled, there can be no assurance other product liability lawsuits will not result in liability to us or that our insurance or contractual arrangements will provide us with adequate protection against such liabilities. In the event of one or more large, unforeseen awards of damages against us, our product liability insurance may not provide adequate coverage. A significant product liability claim for which we were not covered by insurance or indemnified by a third party would have to be paid from cash or other assets, which could have an adverse effect on our business and the value of our common stock. To the extent we have sufficient insurance coverage, such a claim would result in higher subsequent insurance rates. In addition, product liability claims can have various other ramifications, including loss of future sales opportunities, increased costs associated with replacing products, a negative impact on our goodwill and reputation, and divert our management’s attention from our business, each of which could also adversely affect our business and operating results.

If we and our partners are unable to protect our intellectual property, in particular our patent protection for our principal products, product candidates and processes, and prevent the use of the covered subject matter by third parties, our ability to compete in the market will be harmed, and we may not realize our profit potential.

We rely on patent protection, as well as a combination of copyright, trade secret, and trademark laws to protect our proprietary technology and prevent others from duplicating our products or product candidates. However, these means may afford only limited protection and may not:

Because of the length of time and the expense associated with bringing new products to the marketplace, we and our collaboration and development partners hold and are in the process of applying for a number of patents in the United States and abroad to protect our product candidates and important processes and also have obtained or have the right to obtain exclusive licenses to certain patents and applications filed by others. However, the mere issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its validity or its enforceability.

The U.S. Federal Courts, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office or equivalent national courts or patent offices elsewhere may invalidate our patents or find them unenforceable. The America Invents Act introduced post-grant review procedures subjecting U.S. patents to post-grant review procedures similar to European oppositions. U.S. patents owned or licensed by us may therefore be subject to post-grant review procedures, as well as other forms of review and re-examination. A decision in such proceedings adverse to our interests could result in the loss of valuable patent rights, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights effectively or to the same extent as the laws of the United States.

If our intellectual property rights are not protected adequately, our licensees may not be able to commercialize our technologies, products, or services, and our competitors could commercialize our technologies, which could result in a decrease in our sales and market share that would harm our business and operating results. Specifically, the patent position of biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. The legal standards governing the validity of biotechnology patents are in transition, and current defenses as to issued biotechnology patents may not be adequate in the future. Accordingly, there is uncertainty as to:

If certain patents issued to others are upheld or if certain patent applications filed by others issue and are upheld, we may require licenses from others to develop and commercialize certain potential products incorporating our technology or we may become involved in litigation to determine the proprietary rights of others. These licenses, if required, may not be available on acceptable terms, and any such litigation may be costly and may have other adverse effects on our business, such as inhibiting our ability to compete in the marketplace and absorbing significant management time.

Due to the uncertainties regarding biotechnology patents, we also have relied and will continue to rely upon trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advancement to develop and maintain our competitive position. All of our employees have signed confidentiality agreements under which they have agreed not to use or disclose any of our proprietary information. Research and development contracts and relationships between us and our scientific consultants and potential customers provide access to aspects of our know-how that are protected generally under confidentiality agreements. These confidentiality agreements may be breached or may not be enforced by a court. To the extent proprietary information is divulged to competitors or to the public generally, such disclosure may affect our ability to develop or commercialize our products adversely by giving others a competitive advantage or by undermining our patent position.

Litigation regarding intellectual property can be costly and expose us to risks of counterclaims against us.

We may be required to engage in litigation or other proceedings to protect our intellectual property. The cost to us of this litigation, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Such litigation also could divert management’s attention and resources. If this litigation is resolved against us, our patents may be declared invalid, and we could be held liable for significant damages.

In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are infringing other parties’ patents. If such claims are resolved against us, we or our licensees may be enjoined from developing, manufacturing, selling or importing products, processes or services unless we obtain a license from the other party. Such license may not be available on reasonable terms, thus preventing us from using these products, processes or services and adversely affecting our revenue.

We may not obtain orphan drug exclusivity, or we may not receive the full benefit of orphan drug exclusivity even if we obtain such exclusivity.

The FDA has awarded orphan drug status for X358 for the treatment of CHI. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the first company to receive FDA approval for a drug for the designated orphan drug indication will obtain seven years of marketing exclusivity, during which time the FDA may not approve another company’s application for the same drug for the same orphan indication unless the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In June 2016, the EMA granted Orphan Drug Designation to X358 for the treatment of CHI.

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for certain product candidates for certain indications and even if we obtain orphan drug designation for our future product candidates or for other indications, due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we or our licensees may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates for any particular orphan indication, or we or our licensees may not obtain approval for an indication for which we have obtained orphan drug designation. Further, even if we or our licensees obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not protect the product effectively from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same indication. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process

Even after FDA approval, a product may be subject to additional testing or significant marketing restrictions, its approval may be withdrawn or it may be removed voluntarily from the market.

Even if we or our licensees receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, we or our licensees will be subject to ongoing regulatory oversight and review by the FDA and other regulatory entities. The FDA, the EMA, or another regulatory agency may impose, as a condition of the approval, ongoing requirements for post-approval studies or post-approval obligations, including additional research and development and clinical trials, and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agency subsequently may withdraw approval based on these additional trials.

Even for approved products, the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agency may impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses, conditions for use, labeling, advertising, promotion, marketing and production of such product. In addition, the labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and record-keeping for our products are subject to extensive regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, marketing approval of a product may be withdrawn by the FDA, the EMA or another regulatory agency or such a product may be withdrawn voluntarily by us based, for example, on subsequently arising safety concerns. The FDA, EMA and other agencies also may impose various civil or criminal sanctions for failure to comply with regulatory requirements, including withdrawal of product approval.

Healthcare reform measures and other statutory or regulatory changes could adversely affect our business.

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions have enacted or are considering a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our or our licensees’ ability to sell our products, if approved, profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

An expansion in the government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may cause general downward pressure on the prices of prescription drug products, lower reimbursements for providers, reduced product utilization and adversely affect our business and results of operations. Moreover, certain politicians have announced plans to regulate the prices of pharmaceutical products. We cannot know what form any such legislation may take or the market’s perception of how such legislation would affect us. Any reduction in reimbursement from government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our current product candidates and those for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future.

We and our licensees are subject to various state and federal healthcare-related laws and regulations that may impact the commercialization of our product candidates or could subject us to significant fines and penalties.

Our operations may be directly or indirectly subject to various state and federal healthcare laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act and state and federal privacy and security laws. These laws may impact, among other things, the commercial operations for any of our product candidates that may be approved for commercial sale.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing or arranging for a good or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated. The Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and prohibits many arrangements and practices that are lawful in businesses outside of the healthcare industry. Penalties for violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute include criminal penalties and civil sanctions such as fines, penalties, imprisonment and possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits persons from knowingly filing, or causing to be filed, a false claim to, or the knowing use of false statements to obtain payment from the federal government. Suits filed under the False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” actions, can be brought by any individual on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as “whistleblowers,” may share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. The filing of qui tam actions has caused a number of pharmaceutical, medical device and other healthcare companies to have to defend a False Claims Act action. When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties for each separate false claim. Various states also have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims Act.

The Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors. The statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act, and its implementing regulations, also impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. We take our obligation to maintain our compliance with these various laws and regulations seriously.

Many states also have adopted laws similar to each of the federal laws described above, some of which apply to healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, some states have laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources, and to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws, it is possible that some of our or our licensees’ business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

If we or our licensees are found to be in violation of any of the laws and regulations described above or other applicable state and federal healthcare laws, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government healthcare reimbursement programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

As we or our licensees do more business internationally, we will be subject to additional political, economic and regulatory uncertainties.

We or our licensees may not be able to operate successfully in any foreign market. We believe that because the pharmaceutical industry is global in nature, international activities will be a significant part of future business activities and when and if we or our licensees are able to generate income, a substantial portion of that income will be derived from product sales and other activities outside the United States. Foreign regulatory agencies often establish standards different from those in the United States, and an inability to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis could put us at a competitive disadvantage or make it uneconomical to proceed with a product or product candidate’s development. International sales may be limited or disrupted by:

We and our licensees rely on third parties to provide services in connection with our product candidate development and manufacturing programs. The inadequate performance by or loss of any of these service providers could affect our product candidate development.

Third parties provide services in connection with preclinical and clinical development programs, including in vitro and in vivo studies, assay and reagent development, immunohistochemistry, toxicology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trial support, manufacturing and other outsourced activities. If these service providers do not adequately perform the services for which we or our licensees have contracted, or cease to continue operations, and we are not able to find a replacement provider quickly or we lose information or items associated with our product candidates, our development programs may be delayed.

Agreements with other third parties, many of which are significant to our business, expose us to numerous risks.

Our financial resources and our marketing experience and expertise are limited. Consequently, our ability to develop products successfully depends, to a large extent, upon securing the financial resources and marketing capabilities of third parties. For example, we have licensed our bacterial cell expression technology, a set of enabling technologies used to discover and screen, as well as develop and manufacture, recombinant antibodies and other proteins for commercial purposes, to over 60 companies.

Because our licensees, suppliers and contractors are independent third parties, they may be subject to different risks than we are and have significant discretion in, and different criteria for, determining the efforts and resources they will apply related to their agreements with us. If these licensees, suppliers and contractors do not successfully perform the functions for which they are responsible, we may not have the capabilities, resources or rights to do so on our own.

We do not know whether we or our licensees will successfully develop and market any of the products that are or may become the subject of any of our licensing arrangements. In addition, third-party arrangements such as ours also increase uncertainties in the related decision-making processes and resulting progress under the arrangements, as we and our licensees may reach different conclusions, or support different paths forward, based on the same information, particularly when large amounts of technical data are involved.

Under our contract with NIAID, a part of the National Institute of Health (“NIH”), we invoiced using NIH provisional rates, and these are subject to future audits at the discretion of NIAID’s contracting office. These audits can result in an adjustment to revenue previously reported, which potentially could be significant.

Although we continue to evaluate additional strategic alliances and potential partnerships, we do not know whether or when any such alliances or partnerships will be entered into.

Failure of our product candidates to meet current Good Manufacturing Practices standards may subject us to delays in regulatory approval and penalties for noncompliance.

In December of 2015, we completed the sale of our manufacturing facility to Agenus and we are now completely reliant on third parties to produce material for preclinical work, clinical trials, and commercial product. Our licensees may similarly rely on third party manufacturers.

These contract manufacturers are required to produce clinical product candidates under current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) to meet acceptable standards for use in clinical trials and for commercial sale, as applicable. If such standards change, the ability of contract manufacturers to produce our product candidates on the schedule required for our clinical trials or to meet commercial requirements may be affected. In addition, contract manufacturers may not perform their obligations under their agreements with us or our licensees, may discontinue their business before the time required by us to successfully produce clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates.

Contract manufacturers are subject to pre-approval inspections and periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign authorities to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other applicable government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over a third-party manufacturer’s compliance with these regulations and standards. Any difficulties or delays in contractors’ manufacturing and supply of our product candidates or any failure of our contractors to maintain compliance with the applicable regulations and standards could increase costs, cause us to reduce revenue, make us or our licensees postpone or cancel clinical trials, prevent or delay regulatory approval by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign authorities, prevent the import and/or export of our product candidates, or cause any of our product candidates that may be approved for commercial sale to be recalled or withdrawn.

Certain of our technologies are in-licensed from third parties, so our and our licensees’ capabilities using them are restricted and subject to additional risks.

We license technologies from third parties. These technologies include phage display technologies licensed to us in connection with our bacterial cell expression technology licensing program and antibody products. However, our and our licensees’ use of these technologies is limited by certain contractual provisions in the licenses relating to them, and although we have obtained numerous licenses, intellectual property rights in the area of phage display are particularly complex. If the owners of the patent rights underlying the technologies that we license do not properly maintain or enforce those patents, our competitive position and business prospects could be harmed. They may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies that are infringing these patents, or they may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. If we are unable to maintain our licenses, patents or other intellectual property, we could lose important protections that are material to continuing our operations and for future prospects. Our licensors also may seek to terminate our license, which could cause us and our licensees to lose the right to use the licensed intellectual property and adversely affect our ability to commercialize our technologies, products or services.

Because many of the companies with which we do business also are in the biotechnology sector, the volatility of that sector can affect us indirectly as well as directly.

The same factors that affect us directly also can adversely affect us indirectly by affecting the ability of our partners and others with whom we do business to meet their obligations to us and reduce our ability to realize the value of the consideration provided to us by these other companies.

For example, in connection with our dispositions, we have in the past and may in the future agree to accept equity securities of the licensee in payment of fees. The future value of these or any other shares we receive is subject both to market risks affecting our ability to realize the value of these shares and more generally to the business and other risks to which the issuer of these shares may be subject.

Our share price may be volatile, and there may not be an active trading market for our common stock.

There can be no assurance the market price of our common stock will not decline below its present market price or there will be an active trading market for our common stock. The market prices of biotechnology companies have been and are likely to continue to be highly volatile. Fluctuations in our operating results and general market conditions for biotechnology stocks could have a significant impact on the volatility of our common stock price. We have experienced significant volatility in the price of our common stock. From January 1, 2016, through March 14, 2017, the share price of our common stock has ranged from a high of $27.20 to a low of $3.96. Factors contributing to such volatility include:

If we fail to meet continued listing standards of NASDAQ, our common stock may be delisted, which could have a material adverse effect on the liquidity of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently traded on the Nasdaq Global Market. The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) has requirements that a company must meet in order to remain listed on NASDAQ.

We have in the past temporarily fallen out of compliance with NASDAQ listing standards and there can be no assurance that we will continue to meet NASDAQ listing requirements in the future. For example, on March 15, 2016, NASDAQ notified us that we were out of compliance with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5450(a)(1), requiring maintenance of a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), if during the 180 calendar days following the date of the notification, or prior to September 12, 2016, the closing bid price of our common stock was at or above $1.00 for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, the Listing Qualifications Staff of NASDAQ (the “Staff”) would provide us with written confirmation of compliance. We did not achieve compliance with the minimum bid price requirement, and on September 13, 2016, we received notice from the Staff that our securities were subject to delisting, based upon non-compliance with the minimum bid price requirement set forth in NASDAQ listing rules. On October 14, 2016, we effected a reverse split of shares of our common stock, and as a result regained compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements as of November 1, 2016. If future events cause our common stock to be delisted, the liquidity of our common stock would be adversely affected and the market price of our common stock could decrease.

We may issue additional equity securities and thereby materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, including under our At Market Issuance Sales Agreement (“ATM”) with Cowen and Company, LLC, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.

We are authorized to issue, without stockholder approval, 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock, of which 5,003 were issued and outstanding as of March 14 2017, which give other stockholders dividend, conversion, and liquidation rights, among other rights, which may be superior to the rights of holders of our common stock. In addition, we are authorized to issue, generally without stockholder approval, up to 277,333,332 shares of common stock, of which 7,544,076 were issued and outstanding as of March 14, 2017. If we issue additional equity securities, the price of our common stock may be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, funding from collaboration partners and others has in the past and may in the future involve issuance by us of our common stock. We cannot be certain how the purchase price of such shares, the relevant market price or premium, if any, will be determined or when such determinations will be made.

Any issuance by us of equity securities, whether through an underwritten public offering, an at the market offering, a private placement, in connection with a collaboration or otherwise could result in dilution in the value of our issued and outstanding shares, and a decrease in the trading price of our common stock.

We may sell additional equity or debt securities to fund our operations, which may result in dilution to our stockholders and impose restrictions on our business.

In order to raise additional funds to support our operations, we may sell additional equity or debt securities, including under our ATM with Cowen and Company, LLC, which would result in dilution to our stockholders and may impose restrictive covenants that would adversely impact our business. The sale of additional equity or convertible debt securities could result in the issuance of additional shares of our capital stock and dilution to all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could also result in certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we are unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected and we may not be able to meet our debt service obligations.

Our organizational documents contain provisions that may prevent transactions that could be beneficial to our stockholders and may insulate our management from removal.

In addition, we are subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), that may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding common stock, from merging or combining with us.

These provisions of our organizational documents and the DGCL, alone or in combination with each other, may discourage transactions involving actual or potential changes of control, including transactions that otherwise could involve payment of a premium over prevailing market prices to holders of common stock, could limit the ability of stockholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in their best interests, and could make it considerably more difficult for a potential acquirer to replace management.

As a public company in the United States, we are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have determined our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting are effective. We can provide no assurance that we will, at all times, in the future be able to report that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective.

Companies that file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including us, are subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Section 404 requires management to establish and maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting, and annual reports on Form 10-K filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), must contain a report from management assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Ensuring we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. Failure on our part to have effective internal financial and accounting controls would cause our financial reporting to be unreliable, could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition, and could cause the trading price of our common stock to fall.

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, which may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

As a public company, we incur significant accounting, legal and other expenses, including costs associated with our public company reporting requirements. We also anticipate that we will continue to incur costs associated with corporate governance requirements, including requirements and rules under SOX and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank") among other rules and regulations implemented by the SEC, as well as listing requirements of NASDAQ. Furthermore, these laws and regulations could make it difficult or costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these requirements could also make it difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board Committees or as executive officers.

New laws and regulations as well as changes to existing laws and regulations affecting public companies, including the provisions of SOX and Dodd-Frank and rules adopted by the SEC and NASDAQ, would likely result in increased costs to us as we respond to their requirements. We continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws and regulations, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expense.

We are subject to foreign currency exchange rate risks because substantially all of our revenues and operating expenses are paid in U.S. Dollars, but we incur certain expenses, as well as interest and principal obligations with respect to our loan from Servier, in Euros. To the extent the U.S. Dollar declines in value against the Euro, the effective cost of servicing our Euro-denominated debt will be higher. Changes in the exchange rate result in foreign currency gains or losses. There can be no assurance foreign currency fluctuations will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carry-forwards and other tax attributes will be substantially limited by Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, generally limits the ability of a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” to utilize its net operating loss carry-forwards (“NOLs”) and certain other tax attributes against any taxable income in taxable periods after the ownership change. The amount of taxable income in each taxable year after the ownership change that may be offset by pre-change NOLs and certain other pre-change tax attributes is generally equal to the product of (a) the fair market value of the corporation’s outstanding shares (or, in the case of a foreign corporation, the fair market value of items treated as connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States) immediately prior to the ownership change and (b) the long-term tax exempt rate (i.e., a rate of interest established by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) that fluctuates from month to month). In general, an “ownership change” occurs whenever the percentage of the shares of a corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by “5-percent shareholders” (within the meaning of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code) increases by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of the shares of such corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by such “5-percent shareholders” at any time over the preceding three years.

Based on an analysis under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (which subjects the amount of pre-change NOLs and certain other pre-change tax attributes that can be utilized to an annual limitation), we experienced ownership changes in 2009 and 2012, which substantially limit the future use of our pre-change NOLs and certain other pre-change tax attributes per year. As of December 31, 2016, we have excluded the NOLs and research and development credits that will expire as a result of the annual limitations. To the extent that we do not utilize our carry-forwards within the applicable statutory carry-forward periods, either because of Section 382 limitations or the lack of sufficient taxable income, the carry-forwards will also expire unused. On February 16, 2017, we completed an equity financing for net proceeds of $24.9 million which may have potentially triggered an additional ownership change under Section 382. We will be analyzing the effects of the February 2017 financing; if such a change under Section 382 is deemed to have occurred, the use of our NOLs and tax attributes per year will be further limited.

The loss of key personnel, including our Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer, could delay or prevent achieving our objectives.

Our product development and business efforts could be affected adversely by the loss of one or more key members of our staff, particularly our executive officers: James R. Neal, our Chief Executive Officer and Thomas Burns, our Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer. We currently do not have key person insurance on any of our employees.

Because we are a relatively small biopharmaceutical company with limited resources, we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel.

Our success in developing marketable products and achieving a competitive position will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific and management personnel, particularly in areas requiring specific technical, scientific or medical expertise. After a series of restructuring activities and asset sales during 2016, we had 18 full-time employees as of March 14, 2017. In addition, there are seven employees who will terminate employment on either March 31, 2017 or June 30, 2017 in connection with the restructuring activities in December 2016. We may require additional experienced executive, accounting, research and development, legal, administrative and other personnel from time to time in the future. There is intense competition for the services of these personnel, especially in California. Moreover, we expect that the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where our headquarters are located, may impair our ability to attract and retain employees in the future. If we do not succeed in attracting new personnel and retaining and motivating existing personnel, our operations may suffer and we may be unable to implement our current initiatives or grow effectively.

Calamities, power shortages or power interruptions at our Berkeley headquarters could disrupt our business and adversely affect our operations.

Our principal operations are located in Northern California, including our corporate headquarters in Berkeley, California. This location is in an area of seismic activity near active earthquake faults. Any earthquake, terrorist attack, fire, power shortage or other calamity affecting our facilities may disrupt our business and could have material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future licensees, suppliers, contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from cyber−attacks, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We could experience failures in our information systems and computer servers, which could be the result of a cyber−attack and could result in an interruption of our normal business operations and require substantial expenditure of financial and administrative resources to remedy. System failures, accidents or security breaches can cause interruptions in our operations and can result in a material disruption of our development programs and other business operations. The loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Similarly, we rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the development of any of our product candidates could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Data breaches and cyber-attacks could compromise our intellectual property or other sensitive information and cause significant damage to our business and reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we maintain sensitive data on our networks, including our intellectual property and proprietary or confidential business information relating to our business and that of our customers and business partners. The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our business and reputation. We believe companies have been increasingly subject to a wide variety of security incidents, cyber-attacks and other attempts to gain unauthorized access. These threats can come from a variety of sources, all ranging in sophistication from an individual hacker to a state-sponsored attack. Cyber threats may be generic, or they may be custom-crafted against our information systems. Cyber-attacks have become more prevalent and much harder to detect and defend against. Our network and storage applications may be subject to unauthorized access by hackers or breached due to operator error, malfeasance or other system disruptions. It is often difficult to anticipate or immediately detect such incidents and the damage caused by such incidents. These data breaches and any unauthorized access or disclosure of our information or intellectual property could compromise our intellectual property and expose sensitive business information. A data security breach could also lead to public exposure of personal information of our clinical trial patients, customers and others. Cyber-attacks could cause us to incur significant remediation costs, result in product development delays, disrupt key business operations and divert attention of management and key information technology resources. These incidents could also subject us to liability, expose us to significant expense and cause significant harm to our reputation and business.

We and certain of our officers and directors have been named as defendants in shareholder lawsuits. These lawsuits, and potential similar or related lawsuits, could result in substantial damages, divert management’s time and attention from our business, and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Securities-related class action and shareholder derivative litigation has often been brought against companies, including many biotechnology companies, which experience volatility in the market price of their securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies often experience significant stock price volatility in connection with their product development programs.

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding our EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a defendant. On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on October 21, 2016. The judge in the case has advised that he will rule on the motion based on those pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling. Based on a review of the allegations, management believes that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, we do not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. We cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

On October 1, 2015, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, purportedly asserting claims on behalf of us against certain of our officers and the members of our Board of Directors, captioned Silva v. Scannon, et al. (Case No. RG15787990). The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to our EYEGUARD-B study. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. This action is currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On November 16, and November 25, 2015, two derivative lawsuits were filed purportedly on our behalf in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Fieser v. Van Ness, et al. (Case No. 4:15-CV-05236-HSG) and Csoka v. Varian, et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-05429-SI), against certain of our officers and the members of our Board of Directors. The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of law based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the our EYEGUARD-B study. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. Both actions are currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. These and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits are uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits and we may not prevail. In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with these lawsuits. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits, as they are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. We have not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these actions could result in the payment of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations and financial position.

Monitoring, initiating and defending against legal actions, including the currently pending litigation, are time-consuming for our management, are likely to be expensive and may detract from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us from certain activities, or otherwise affect our legal or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business. In addition, the inherent uncertainty of the currently pending litigation and any future litigation could lead to increased volatility in our stock price and a decrease in the value of an investment in our common stock.

Our corporate headquarters and research laboratories are located in Berkeley and Emeryville, California. We currently lease two buildings that house our office space and research and development laboratories. Our building leases expire in the period from 2021 to 2023, and total minimum lease payments due from January 2017 until expiration of the leases is $21.4 million. We have the option to renew our lease agreements for up to two successive five-year periods.

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425-HSG) against us, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a defendant. On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on October 21, 2016. The judge in the case has advised that he will rule on the motion based on those pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling. Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On October 1, 2015, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, purportedly asserting claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our officers and the members of our board of directors, captioned Silva v. Scannon, et al. (Case No. RG15787990). The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. This action is currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On November 16, and November 25, 2015, two derivative lawsuits were filed purportedly on our behalf in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Fieser v. Van Ness, et al. (Case No. 4:15-CV-05236-HSG) and Csoka v. Varian, et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-05429-SI), against certain of our officers and the members of our board of directors. The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of law based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. Both actions are currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Management believes the allegations have no merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.

Our common stock trades on The Nasdaq Global Market tier of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “XOMA.” All references to numbers of common shares and per-share information in this Annual Report have been adjusted retroactively to reflect the Company’s 1-for-20 reverse stock split effective October 17, 2016. The following table sets forth the quarterly range of high and low reported sale prices of our common stock on NASDAQ for the periods indicated:

	Price Range
	High		Low
2016
First Quarter	$	27.20	$	13.80
Second Quarter	$	19.00	$	8.80
Third Quarter	$	14.00	$	8.80
Fourth Quarter	$	9.60	$	4.16

2015
First Quarter	$	86.60	$	64.40
Second Quarter	$	88.20	$	58.40
Third Quarter	$	98.60	$	13.80
Fourth Quarter	$	40.60	$	18.00

On March 14, 2017, there were 216 stockholders of record of our common stock, one of which was Cede & Co., a nominee for Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). All of the shares of our common stock held by brokerage firms, banks and other financial institutions as nominees for beneficial owners are deposited into participant accounts at DTC and are therefore considered to be held of record by Cede & Co. as one stockholder.

We have not paid dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain any earnings for use in the operations of our business. We, therefore, do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. In addition, our loan agreement with Hercules generally restricts the declaration and payment of cash dividends.

Except as previously reported in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), during the year ended December 31, 2016, there were no unregistered sales of equity securities by us during the year ended December 31, 2016.

The following graph compares the five-year cumulative total stockholder return for XOMA’s common stock with the comparable cumulative return of certain indices. The graph assumes $100 invested on the same date in each of the indices. Returns of the company are not indicative of future performance.

This Section is not “soliciting material,” is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference in any filing of XOMA Corporation under the Securities Act, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any such filing.

As of December 31,	XOMA		Nasdaq Composite Index		Arca Biotechnology Index
2011	$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
2012	$	208.70	$	115.91	$	141.74
2013	$	585.22	$	160.32	$	213.52
2014	$	312.17	$	181.80	$	315.10
2015	$	115.65	$	192.21	$	349.45
2016	$	18.35	$	206.63	$	281.74

The following table contains our selected financial information including consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet data for the years 2012 through 2016. The consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial information should be read in conjunction with Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data and Item 7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in this Annual Report. The data set forth below is not necessarily indicative of the results of future operations. All references to number of common shares and per-share information have been adjusted retroactively to reflect XOMA’s 1-for-20 reverse stock split that was effected on October 17, 2016.

	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
				(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Consolidated Statement of Operations Data
Total revenues	$	5,564		$	55,447		$	18,866		$	35,451		$	33,782
Research and development		44,234			70,852			80,748			74,851			68,467
Selling, general and administrative		18,322			20,620			19,866			18,477			16,865
Restructuring costs		4,566			3,699			84			328			5,074
Loss from operations		(61,558	)		(39,724	)		(81,832	)		(58,205	)		(56,624	)
Other income (expense), net ⁽¹⁾		8,028			19,118			43,531			(65,867	)		(14,515	)
Loss before taxes		(53,530	)		(20,606	)		(38,301	)		(124,072	)		(71,139	)
Income tax benefit		—			—			—			14			74
Net loss	$	(53,530	)	$	(20,606	)	$	(38,301	)	$	(124,058	)	$	(71,065	)
Basic net loss per share of common stock	$	(8.89	)	$	(3.50	)	$	(7.13	)	$	(28.54	)	$	(21.99	)
Diluted net loss per share of common stock	$	(8.89	)	$	(3.50	)	$	(13.49	)	$	(28.54	)	$	(21.99	)
Shares used in computing basic net loss per share of common stock		6,021			5,890			5,372			4,347			3,231
Shares used in computing diluted net loss per share of common stock		6,021			5,890			5,767			4,347			3,231

	December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
				(In thousands)
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data
Cash and cash equivalents	$	25,742		$	65,767		$	78,445		$	101,659		$	45,345
Marketable securities	$	—		$	496		$	—		$	19,990		$	39,987
Current assets	$	27,160		$	72,219		$	83,613		$	127,060		$	95,837
Working capital (deficiency)	$	(5,346	)	$	48,924		$	47,367		$	97,415		$	72,004
Total assets	$	28,677		$	74,880		$	89,402		$	134,782		$	105,676
Current liabilities	$	32,506		$	23,295		$	36,246		$	29,645		$	23,833
Long-term liabilities ⁽²⁾	$	25,381		$	53,894		$	50,057		$	109,124		$	60,376
Accumulated deficit	$	(1,193,613	)	$	(1,140,083	)	$	(1,119,477	)	$	(1,081,176	)	$	(957,118	)
Total stockholders' (deficit) equity	$	(47,210	)	$	(2,309	)	$	3,099		$	(3,987	)	$	21,467

XOMA Corporation, (“XOMA”), a Delaware corporation, has a long history of discovering and developing innovative therapeutics derived from its unique platform of antibody technologies. We have typically sought to license these therapeutic assets to our licensees who take on the responsibilities of later stage development, approval and commercialization. In addition, we have licensed our antibody technologies on a non-exclusive basis to other companies who desire to access this platform for their own discovery efforts.

In 2016, we dedicated our research and development efforts to advancing our portfolio of product candidates that have the potential to treat a variety of endocrine diseases, including advancing the development of X358 for the treatment of congenital hyperinsulinism (“CHI”) and hypoglycemia in hyperinsulinemic patients post-bariatric surgery (“PBS”). We are evolving our strategy to be focused on developing or acquiring revenue generating assets and coupling them with a lean corporate infrastructure. Our goal is to create a sustainably profitable business and generate meaningful value for our stockholders. Since our business model is based on the goal of out-licensing to other pharmaceutical companies for them to commercialize and market any resultant products, we expect a significant portion of our future revenue will be based on payments we may receive from our licensees.

In addition, effective December 21, 2016, John Varian retired from his position as Chief Executive Officer and was replaced in that position by Jim Neal. Mr. Varian is entitled to a severance payment and payments for benefits and outplacement services pursuant to the terms of his retention benefit agreement.

The accompanying discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements and the related disclosures, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the reported amounts in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, assumptions and judgments described below that have the greatest potential impact on our consolidated financial statements, including those related to revenue recognition, research and development activities warrant liabilities and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Accounting assumptions and estimates are inherently uncertain and actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, we believe the following policies to be the most critical to an understanding of our financial condition and results of operations because they require us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain.

Revenue from non-refundable license, technology access or other payments under license and collaborative agreements where we have a continuing obligation to perform is recognized as revenue over the estimated period of the continuing performance obligation. We estimate the performance period at the inception of the arrangement and re-evaluate it each reporting period. Management makes its best estimate of the period over which it expects to fulfill the performance obligations, which may include clinical development activities. Given the uncertainties of research and development collaborations, significant judgment is required to determine the duration of the performance period. This re-evaluation may shorten or lengthen the period over which the remaining revenue is recognized. Changes to these estimates are recorded on a prospective basis.

Our license and collaboration agreements with certain third parties also provide for contingent payments to be paid to us based solely upon the performance of the partner. For such contingent payments, we recognize the payments as revenue upon completion of the milestone event, once confirmation is received from the third party, provided that collection is reasonably assured and the other revenue recognition criteria have been satisfied.

Contract revenue for research and development involves providing research and development services to collaborative partners or others. Cost reimbursement revenue under collaborative agreements is recognized as the related research and development costs are incurred, as provided for under the terms of these agreements. Revenue for certain contracts is accounted for by a proportional performance, or output-based, method where performance is based on estimated progress toward elements defined in the contract. The amount of contract revenue and related costs recognized in each accounting period are based on estimates of the proportional performance during the period. Adjustments to estimates based on actual performance are recognized on a prospective basis and do not result in reversal of revenue should the estimate to complete be extended.

In addition, revenue related to certain research and development contracts is billed based on actual hours incurred by XOMA related to the contract, multiplied by full-time equivalent (“FTE”) rates plus a mark-up. The FTE rates are developed based on our best estimates of labor, materials and overhead costs. For certain contracts, such as our government contracts, the FTE rates are agreed upon at the beginning of the contract and are subject to review or audit by the contracting party at any time. Under our contracts with NIAID, a part of the National Institute of Health (“NIH”), we bill using NIH provisional rates and thus are subject to future audits at the discretion of NIAID’s contracting office. These audits can result in adjustments to previously reported revenue.

In 2011, the NIH conducted an audit of our actual data under two contracts for the period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009, and developed final billing rates for this period. As a result, we retroactively applied these NIH rates to the invoices from this period, which resulted in an increase in revenue of $3.1 million from the NIH, excluding $0.9 million billed to the NIH in 2010 as a result of a comparison of 2009 calculated costs incurred and costs billed to the government under provisional rates. Final rates were settled for one contract resulting in the recognition of revenue of $2.0 million in 2012. In 2014, upon completion of a NIAID review of hours and external expenses for the period spanning from 2008 to 2013, we agreed to exclude certain hours and external expense resulting in a $1.8 million adjustment, which reduced deferred revenue and accounts receivable. The remaining deferred revenue in connection with the 2011 NIH rate audit will be recognized upon negotiation with and approval by NIH.

Upfront fees associated with contract revenue are recorded as license and collaborative fees and are recognized ratably over the expected benefit period under the arrangement. Given the uncertainties of research and development collaborations, significant judgment is required to determine the duration of the arrangement.

In December 2016, we sold our rights to receive milestone payments and royalties on future sales of products under our license agreement with Pfizer and our right to receive royalties on future sales of products under our license agreement with Dyax Corp. to HCRP. In the circumstance where we have sold our rights to future milestones and royalties under a license agreement and also maintain limited continuing involvement in the arrangement (but not significant continuing involvement in the generation of the cash flows that are due to the purchaser), we defer recognition of the proceeds we receive for the milestone or royalty stream and recognize such deferred revenues as contract and other revenue over the life of the underlying license agreement. We recognize this revenue under the "units-of-revenue" method. Under this method, amortization for a reporting period is calculated by computing a ratio of the proceeds received from the purchaser to the total payments expected to be made to the purchaser over the term of the agreement, and then applying that ratio to the period’s cash payment.

Estimating the total payments expected to be received by the purchaser over the term of such arrangements requires management to use subjective estimates and assumptions. Changes to our estimate of the payments expected to be made to the purchaser over the term of such arrangements could have a material effect on the amount of revenues we recognize in any particular period.

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Research and development expenses consist of direct costs such as salaries and related personnel costs, and material and supply costs, and research-related allocated overhead costs, such as facilities costs. In addition, research and development expenses include costs related to clinical trials. From time to time, research and development expenses may include up-front fees and milestones paid to collaborative partners for the purchase of rights to in-process research and development. Such amounts are expensed as incurred.

Our accrual for clinical trials is based on estimates of the services received and efforts expended under contracts with clinical trial centers and clinical research organizations. Payments under the contracts depend on factors such as the achievement of certain events, successful enrollment of patients, and completion of portions of the clinical trial or similar conditions. We may terminate these contracts upon written notice and we are generally only liable for actual effort expended by the organizations to the date of termination, although in certain instances we may be further responsible for termination fees and penalties. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on the facts and circumstances known to us at that time. Expenses resulting from clinical trials are recorded when incurred based, in part, on estimates as to the status of the various trials. There have been no material adjustments to our prior period accrued estimates for clinical trial activities through December 31, 2016.

Biopharmaceutical development includes a series of steps, including in vitro and in vivo preclinical testing, and Phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical studies in humans. Each of these steps is typically more expensive than the previous step, but actual timing and the cost to us depends on the product being tested, the nature of the potential disease indication and the terms of any collaborative or development arrangements with other companies or entities. After successful conclusion of all of these steps, regulatory filings for approval to market the products must be completed, including approval of manufacturing processes and facilities for the product.

Stock-based compensation expense for stock options and other stock awards is estimated at the grant date based on the award’s fair value-based measurement and is recognized on a straight-line basis over the award’s vesting period, assuming appropriate forfeiture rates. The valuation of stock-based compensation awards is determined at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model (the “Black-Scholes Model”). This model requires highly complex and subjective inputs, such as the expected term of the option, expected volatility, and risk-free interest rate. Further, the forfeiture rate also impacts the amount of aggregate compensation. These inputs are subjective and generally require significant analysis and judgment to develop. Our current estimate of volatility is based on the historical volatility of our stock price. To the extent volatility in our stock price increases in the future, our estimates of the fair value of options granted in the future could increase, thereby increasing stock-based compensation cost recognized in future periods. To establish an estimate of expected term, we consider the vesting period and contractual period of the award and our historical experience of stock option exercises, post-vesting cancellations and volatility. To establish an estimate of forfeiture rate, we consider our historical experience of option forfeitures and terminations. The risk-free rate is based on the yield available on United States Treasury zero-coupon issues. We review our valuation assumptions quarterly and, as a result, we likely will change our valuation assumptions used to value stock-based awards granted in future periods. Stock-based compensation expense is recognized ratably over the requisite service period. In the future, as additional empirical evidence regarding these input estimates becomes available, we may change or refine our approach of deriving these input estimates. These changes could impact our fair value-based measurement of stock options granted in the future. Changes in the fair value-based measurement of stock awards could materially impact our operating results.

We have issued warrants to purchase shares of our common stock in connection with financing activities. We account for some of these warrants as a liability at estimated fair value and others as equity at estimated fair value. The estimated fair value of the outstanding warrants is estimated using the Black-Scholes Model. The Black-Scholes Model requires inputs, such as the expected term of the warrants, expected volatility and risk-free interest rate. These inputs are subjective and require significant analysis and judgment to develop. For the estimate of the expected term, we use the full remaining contractual term of the warrant. We determine the expected volatility based on the historical stock price volatility of XOMA’s underlying stock. The assumptions associated with contingent warrant liabilities are reviewed each reporting period and changes in the estimated fair value of these contingent warrant liabilities are recognized as gain or loss in the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line in the consolidated statement of comprehensive loss.

Total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, were as follows (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,						2015-2016			2014-2015
	2016		2015		2014		Change			Change
License and collaborative fees	$	3,296	$	49,064	$	5,683	$	(45,768	)	$	43,381
Contract and other	$	2,268		6,383		13,183	$	(4,115	)		(6,800	)
Total revenues	$	5,564	$	55,447	$	18,866	$	(49,883	)	$	36,581

License and collaborative fees include fees and milestone payments related to the out-licensing of our product candidates and technologies. The primary components of license and collaboration fees in 2016 were $2.0 million in upfront and milestone payments relating to various out-licensing arrangements, $0.7 million in annual maintenance fees related to various out-licensing arrangements and $0.6 million in revenue recognized related to the collaboration agreement with Servier, which was terminated in March 2016. The $2.0 million of upfront and milestone payments included a $1.5 million fee for a phage display library license delivered during the first quarter of 2016.

The primary components of license and collaboration fees in 2015 were $46.3 million in upfront and milestone payments relating to various out-licensing arrangements, $1.6 million in annual maintenance fees relating to various out-licensing arrangements and $1.2 million in revenue recognized related to the loan agreement with Servier. The $46.3 million included $37.0 million upfront payment from Novartis, $5.0 million upfront payment from Novo Nordisk and $3.8 million payment from Pfizer.

The primary components of license and collaboration fees in 2014 were $3.0 million in milestone payments relating to various out-licensing arrangements, $1.9 million in revenue recognized related to the loan agreement with Servier and $0.8 million in upfront fees and annual maintenance fees relating to various out-licensing arrangements.

Contract and other revenues include agreements where we have provided contracted research and development services to our contract and collaboration partners, including Servier and NIAID. Contract and other revenues also include royalties. The following table shows the activity in contract and other revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,						2015-2016			2014-2015
	2016		2015		2014		Change			Change
NIAID	$	1,082	$	5,084	$	9,565	$	(4,002	)	$	(4,481	)
Servier		586		1,178		3,523		(592	)		(2,345	)
Royalties and other		600		121		95		479			26
Total contract and other revenues	$	2,268	$	6,383	$	13,183	$	(4,115	)	$	(6,800	)

The 2016 decrease in contract and other revenues, as compared with 2015 was primarily due to the novation of our NIAID contract to Nanotherapeutics in March 2016, discontinuation of the gevokizumab studies under our collaboration agreement with Servier in the third quarter of 2015 and the termination of the collaboration agreement with Servier in March 2016.

The 2015 decrease in contract and other revenues, as compared with 2014, was primarily due to reduced activity under our existing NIAID contracts and decreased reimbursements from Servier under our collaboration agreement due to the discontinuation of the gevokizumab studies under our collaboration agreement with Servier in the third quarter of 2015.

The generation of future revenues related to license, milestone, and contract revenues is dependent on our ability to attract new licensees to our antibody technologies and the achievement of milestones or product sales by our existing licensees.

Research and development expenses were $44.2 million in 2016, compared with $70.9 million in 2015 and $80.7 million in 2014. The decrease of $26.7 million in 2016, as compared with 2015, was primarily due to a decrease of $13.7 million in salaries and related expenses, a decrease of $6.8 million in clinical trial costs, a decrease of $2.2 million in consulting services due to the termination of the EYEGUARD global Phase 3 program in the third quarter of 2015 and gevokizumab in pyoderma gangrenosum (“PG”) global Phase 3 program in the first quarter of 2016, and a decrease of $0.8 million in depreciation and facility expenses due to the sale of our manufacturing facility to Agenus in December 2015. The decrease of $9.8 million in 2015, as compared with 2014, was primarily due to a decrease of $3.1 million in salaries and related expenses, a decrease of $3.5 million in internal and external manufacturing costs, a decrease of $1.9 million in clinical trial costs related to spending on our erosive osteoarthritis of the hand studies in 2014, and a decrease of $1.1 million in research and development materials costs.

Salaries and related personnel costs are a significant component of research and development expenses. We recorded $15.0 million in research and development salaries and employee-related expenses in 2016, compared with $28.7 million in 2015 and $31.8 million in 2014. Included in these expenses for 2016 were $11.2 million for salaries and benefits, $1.0 million for bonus expense and $2.8 million for stock-based compensation, which is a non-cash expense. The decrease of $13.7 million in 2016, as compared with 2015, was primarily due to a decrease of $10.6 million in salaries and benefits costs due to fewer employees resulting from our 2015 restructuring activities, a decrease of $0.9 million in bonus expense and a decrease of $2.2 million in stock-based compensation.

We recorded $28.7 million in research and development salaries and employee-related expenses in 2015, compared with $31.8 million in 2014. Included in these expenses for 2015 were $21.8 million for salaries and benefits, $1.9 million for bonus expense and $5.0 million for stock-based compensation, which is a non-cash expense. The decrease of $3.1 million in 2015, as compared with 2014, was primarily due to a decrease of $2.6 million in salaries and benefits and a decrease of $0.5 million in stock-based compensation. The decrease in stock-based compensation in 2015, included $0.8 million related to the reversal of expense for forfeitures of stock awards related to our restructuring activities in the second half of 2015.

Our research and development activities can be divided into earlier-stage programs and later-stage programs. Earlier-stage programs include molecular biology, process development, pilot-scale production and preclinical testing. Later-stage programs include clinical testing, regulatory affairs and manufacturing clinical supplies. The costs associated with these programs are summarized below (in thousands):

Our research and development activities also can be divided into those related to our internal projects and those projects related to collaborative and contract arrangements. The costs related to internal projects versus collaborative and contract arrangements are summarized (in thousands):

In 2016, X358, for which we incurred the largest amount of expense, accounted for between 50% and 60% of our total research and development expenses. The gevokizumab program and our endocrine research-stage programs each accounted for between 10% and 20% of our total research and development expenses. Each of our remaining development programs accounted for less than 10% of our total research and development.

In 2015, the gevokizumab program, for which we incurred the largest amount of expense, accounted for more than 40% but less than 50% of our total research and development expenses. A second development program, XMet, accounted for more than 30% but less than 40% of our total research and development expenses. All remaining development programs accounted for less than 10% of our total research and development.

In 2014, the gevokizumab program, for which we incurred the largest amount of expense, accounted for more than 40% but less than 50% of our total research and development expenses. A second development program, XMet, accounted for more than 10% but less than 20% of our total research and development expenses and a third development program, NIAID, accounted for more than 10% but less than 20% of our total research and development expenses.

We expect our research and development spending in 2017 will be reduced as compared with 2016 levels due to our 2016 restructuring activities and further research and development reductions planned for 2017.

Selling, general and administrative expenses include salaries and related personnel costs, facilities cost and professional fees. In 2016, selling, general and administrative expenses were $18.3 million compared with $20.6 million in 2015 and $19.9 million in 2014. The decrease of $2.3 million in 2016 as compared with 2015 was primarily due to a $2.4 million decrease in salaries and related personnel costs due to fewer employees resulting from our 2015 restructuring activities, of which $0.5 million was a decrease in stock-based compensation, which is a non-cash expense.

The increase of $0.7 million in 2015 as compared with 2014 was primarily due to a $1.5 million increase in consulting services, primarily related to our out-licensing activities and a $1.0 million increase in legal fees, partially offset by a $0.5 million decrease in stock-based compensation, which is a non-cash expense and a $2.0 million decrease in salaries and related personnel costs. The decrease in stock-based compensation for the year ended December 31, 2015 included $0.7 million related to the reversal of expense for forfeitures of stock awards related to our restructuring activities in the second half of 2015.

We expect selling, general and administrative expenses in 2017 to be reduced as compared to 2016 levels due to our 2016 restructuring activities.

On December 21, 2016, we announced a restructuring of our business based on our decision to focus our efforts on clinical development, with an initial focus on the X358 clinical programs. The restructuring included a reduction-in-force in which we terminated 57 employees, which was implemented in December 2016. Subsequent to the December 2016 restructuring action, we have revised our strategy to prioritize out-licensing activities. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recorded a charge of $3.8 million related to severance, other termination benefits and outplacement services. In addition, we recognized an additional restructuring charge of $0.6 million in stock-based compensation resulting from the acceleration of vesting of stock awards granted to a former executive under his retention benefit agreement. In connection with this restructuring, we recorded an asset impairment charge of $0.2 million for leasehold improvements that have no future use. There were no impairment charges recognized during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

On July 22, 2015, we announced the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B study of gevokizumab in patients with Behçet’s disease uveitis, run by Servier, did not meet the primary endpoint of time to first acute ocular exacerbation. In August 2015, we announced our intention to end the EYEGUARD global Phase 3 program. On August 21, 2015, in connection with our efforts to lower operating expenses and preserve capital while continuing to focus on our endocrine product pipeline, we implemented a restructuring plan that included a workforce reduction resulting in the termination of 52 employees during the second half of 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recorded a credit of $32,000 and a charge of $2.9 million, respectively, related to severance, other termination benefits and outplacement services. In addition, we recognized additional restructuring charges of $29,000 and $0.8 million in contract termination costs in the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which primarily include costs in connection with the discontinuation of the EYEGUARD studies.

In 2014, we recorded restructuring charges of $0.1 million for facility costs related to restructuring activities initiated in 2012.

Amortization of debt issuance costs and discounts are included in interest expense. Interest expense is shown below for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,						2015-2016			2014-2015
	2016		2015		2014		Change			Change
Hercules loan	$	2,628	$	2,223	$	—	$	405		$	2,223
Servier loan		892		1,083		2,330		(191	)		(1,247	)
GECC term loan		—		548		1,638		(548	)		(1,090	)
Novartis note		405		329		312		76			17
Other		21		11		23		10			(12	)
Total interest expense	$	3,946	$	4,194	$	4,303	$	(248	)	$	(109	)

Interest expense related to the Servier loan and General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”) term loan decreased by $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively in 2016, compared with 2015. The decrease was due to the payment of €3.0 million in principal under the Servier loan in January 2016 and the extinguishment of the GECC term loan in February 2015. This decrease was partially offset by an increase of $0.4 million in interest expense due under our term loan with Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc. (“Hercules”) that was entered into in February 2015.

Interest expense related to the Servier loan and GECC term loan decreased by $1.2 million and $1.1 million, respectively, in 2015, compared with 2014. The decrease was due to the $1.9 million balance of imputed interest remaining at the time the Servier loan was amended in January 2015 now being amortized over the extended term of the loan and the extinguishment of the GECC term loan in February 2015. This decrease was partially offset by an increase of $2.2 million in interest expense due under our $20.0 million term loan with Hercules in February 2015. A portion of the proceeds from the Hercules Term Loan was used to repay our outstanding loan with GECC and we recorded a loss of $0.4 million upon the extinguishment of the GECC term loan.

We expect interest expense during 2017 to decrease as compared with 2016 due to the decrease in the principal balances of the Hercules and Servier loans.

The following table shows the activity in other income, net for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,								2015-2016			2014-2015
	2016			2015		2014			Change			Change
Other income, net
Gain on sale of business	$	—			3,505	$	—		$	(3,505	)	$	3,505
Unrealized foreign exchange gain		489			1,870		2,447			(1,381	)		(577	)
Sublease income		398			—		—			398			—
Loss on impairment of investment		(171	)		—		—			(171	)		—
Other		794			125		(386	)		669			511
Total other income, net	$	1,510		$	5,500	$	2,061		$	(3,990	)	$	3,439

Unrealized foreign exchange gains for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 are primarily related to the re-measurement of the Servier loan. The sublease income in 2016 is related to the sublease arrangements executed with Agenus in December 2015 and Nanotherapeutics in March 2016. In 2016, we recognized an other-than-temporary impairment of $0.2 million related to a non-marketable cost method investment that we determined was impaired. Other income in 2016 primarily consist of $0.4 million generated from our transition service agreements with Agenus and Nanotherapeutics. The gain on sale of business for the year ended December 31, 2015 is related to the $3.5 million gain recognized from the sale of our pilot scale manufacturing facility, including certain equipment, to Agenus in 2015. We believe that the assets related to the manufacturing facility and certain other assets sold to Agenus include all key inputs and processes necessary to generate output from a market participant’s perspective. Accordingly, we have determined that such assets qualify as a business.

We have issued warrants that contain provisions that are contingent on the occurrence of a change in control, which could conditionally obligate us to repurchase the warrants for cash in an amount equal to their estimated fair value using the Black-Scholes Model on the date of such change in control. Due to these provisions, we account for the warrants issued as a liability at estimated fair value. In addition, the estimated liability related to the warrants is revalued at each reporting period until the earlier of the exercise of the warrants, at which time the liability will be reclassified to stockholders’ equity at its then estimated fair value, or expiration of the warrants.

We revalued the March 2012 warrants at December 31, 2016 using the Black-Scholes Model and recorded a $7.5 million reduction in the estimated fair value as a gain on the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line of our consolidated statement of comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease in the estimated fair value of the warrants is primarily due to the decrease in the market price of our common stock at December 31, 2016 as compared to December 31, 2015. We revalued the warrants at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and recorded a $15.6 million and a $39.5 million reduction in the estimated fair value in 2015 and 2014, respectively, as gains on the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line of our consolidated statements of comprehensive loss for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

The December 2014 warrants expired in December 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we revalued the December 2014 warrants using the Black-Scholes Model and recorded a $3.0 million reduction in the estimated fair value as a gain on the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line of our consolidated statement of comprehensive loss. The decrease in the estimated fair value of the warrants is primarily due to the decrease in the market price of our common stock during 2016 as compared to December 31, 2015. We revalued the warrants at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and recorded a $2.2 million and a $5.1 million reduction in the estimated fair value in 2015 and 2014, respectively, as gains on the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line of our consolidated statements of comprehensive loss for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

The activity during the year ended December 31, 2014 also included the change in estimated fair value for the February 2010 warrants that expired in February 2015. We revalued the warrants at December 31, 2014 using the Black-Scholes Model and recorded a $1.0 million reduction in the estimated fair value as a gain on the revaluation of contingent warrant liabilities line of our consolidated statement of comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2014.

The following table summarizes our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, our working capital and our cash flow activities for each of the periods presented (in thousands):

	December 31,
	2016			2015		Change
Cash and cash equivalents	$	25,742		$	65,767	$	(40,025	)
Marketable securities	$	—		$	496	$	(496	)
Working (deficit) capital	$	(5,346	)	$	48,924	$	(54,270	)

Delaware		52-2154066
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

2910 Seventh Street, Berkeley, California 94710		(510) 204-7200
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)		(Telephone number)

PART I

Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	13
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	31
Item 2.	Properties	31
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	31
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	31

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	32
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	34
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	35
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	47
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	48
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	48
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	49
Item 9B.	Other Information	49

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance	51
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	51
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	51
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	51
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	51

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	52
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	52
SIGNATURES		53
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS		F-1
INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Large Accelerated Filer	☐	Accelerated Filer	☒

Non-Accelerated Filer	☐	Smaller reporting company	☐